ROFLMAO!
During the Whiskey Rebellion, Hamilton accompanied Washington and clearly stated Governor MIfflin had the option of complying with Washington's Proclamation or leaving the Union
A proclamation was issued by the President, commanding the insurgents to disperse, while quotas of militia were called for from Pennsylvania, Virginia, Maryland, and New Jersey. These Governor Mifflin, of Pennsylvania, who seemed to be in sympathy with the insurgents, hesitated to call out. He was, however, forced either to do so, or to break with the central government, and the militia volunteered in greater numbers than were wanted, even members of the "Society of Friends" joining the force.
Alexander Hamilton
The Constiuonal provision declaring the FACT the federal government MUST have the permission of the State in order to enter it can be found in Article 4 section 4
The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government, and shall protect each of them against Invasion; and on Application of the Legislature, or of the Executive (when the Legislature cannot be convened) against domestic Violence.
And on Application of the Legislature, or of the Executive means the STATE governments, not the federal one.
It may not be amiss further to observe, that every pretext for intermeddling with the domestic concerns of any state, under colour of protecting it against domestic violence is taken away, by that part of the provision which renders an application from the legislative, or executive authority of the state endangered, necessary to be made to the federal government, before it's interference can be at all proper.
St. George Tucker, Blackstone's Commentaries (Annotated), 1803
////////////
At the same time it is properly provided, in order that such interference may not wantonly or arbitrarily take place; that it shall only be on the request of the state authorities: otherwise the self-government of the state might be encroached upon at the pleasure of the Union, and a small state might fear or feel the effects of a combination of larger states against it under colour of constitutional authority;
William Rawle, A View of the Constitution of the United States, 1825
////////////
……. (snip) The right of interposition must depend upon the special circumstances of the case. It is not susceptible of precise limitations, and is extremely delicate in the application. It must be submitted to the guidance of eminent discretion, and controlled by the principles of justice and sound policy. It would clearly be a violation of the law of nations to invite subjects to revolt who were under actual obedience, however just their complaints; or to endeavor to produce discontents, violence, and rebellion in neighboring states, and, under color of a generous assistance, to consummate projects of ambition and dominion.
James Kent , Commentaries on American Law, 1826
////////////
§ 1819. It may not be amiss further to observe, (in the language of another commentator,) that every pretext for intermeddling with the domestic concerns of any state, under colour of protecting it against domestic violence, is taken away by that part of the provision, which renders an application from the legislative, or executive authority of the state endangered, necessary to be made to the federal government, before it's interference can be at all proper.
Joseph Story, Commentaries on the Constitution, 1833
----------------------------------
You Lost Causers don't know your history.
ROFLMAO! I wouldn't expect anyone who thinks the original Constitutional intent of the Founders is a 'lost cause' to have anything other than the government's 'educational' view of *history*.
If ignorance is bliss, you must be ecstatic.
The original founders intent was perpetual slavery? LOL
The Union was saved, slavery was eliminated, our system of government was the same after as before (until Wilson and FDR), good for us.
States have power? Who’da guessed.
And yet Washington let Mifflin know that either he (Mifflin) would attend to the insurrectionists or else Washington would. And, as you will recall, he didn’t stop at the state border waiting for an answer.
So you're saying that that implies that Mifflin could take his state outside the union? That's debatable. It's also possible that not complying would have made Mifflin a rebel and an outlaw.
That's why Washington and Hamilton also called up the militia in neighboring states. See Paul Johnson's version.
The sense of Hamilton's passage doesn't confirm your interpretation. The federal government is charged with ensuring that federal laws are enforced -- and not just when a state governor allows it to do so.
Worshiping the man that destroyed the Republic ...
If the Republic was destroyed, secession had a lot to do with it. It was recognized at the time that secession was a major break with what came before. What was left of the country was going to be very different from what it was, whatever Lincoln did or didn't do.
Or maybe it was later 20th century developments that killed the Old Republic: Wilson, the Roosevelts, LBJ. It seems perverse to put all the blame on Lincoln, particularly since the federal government wasn't that much larger or more powerful than it had been and wasn't anything like it is today.
Shouldn't you also note that the "Old Republic" didn't give you -- and a lot of other people -- voting rights? I'm all for the Founders and their work, but isn't it the case that changes do come, and not all of them are bad?
What America tried to do is to reconcile a republican structure and republican checks and balances with a democratic expansion of the electorate. Maybe it won't work, but we ought to recognize the effort.