No, that's an opinion, a interpretation. St. George Tucker wasn't the only interpreter of the Constitution and his reading wasn't the only one.
If federal law prevailed in those areas delegated to the federal government, it doesn't make much sense to say that the states were "sovereign" in the sense that independent nations are -- all the more so since admitting new states (and presumably de-admitting existing states or territories) was left up to the federal government.
There is absolutely NO logical reason an ambassador from the Union could not have been sent to the Confederate government to discuss compensation. It was never about the money, it was about the POWER..... nothing more.
It was about respect and dignity. If you can't see where that enters in, that's your problem.
St George Tucker was the FIRST interpreter of Constitutional Law. His View of the Constitution was an annotated version of Blackstone's Commentaries on the Laws of England. He was appointed to the Virginia Supreme Court by President James Madison, and excerpts from his View of the Constitution was admitted as legal defense to the US Supreme Court in recent [and successful] RKBA case District of Columbia vs. Heller.
So I DO believe I'll be taking his word over yours.
-----
It was about respect and dignity. If you can't see where that enters in, that's your problem.
No, It was about the Constitution....you know, the Rule of Law, not the rule of Men.
If you can't see where that enters in, that's your problem.
“You cannot reason someone out of something he has not been reasoned into” - Jonathan Swift