But Davis saw federal power extending over the states. If that is a limit, so be it. Didn't you know that? He held the same ideas that Lincoln did.
"The Confederate Constitution, he [Davis] pointed out to [Governor] Brown, gave Congress the power "to raise and support armies" and to "provide for the common defense." It also contained another clause (likewise copied from the U.S. Constitution) empowering Congress to make all laws "necessary and proper for carrying into execution the foregoing powers." Brown had denied the constitutionality of conscription because the Constitution did not specifically authorize it. This was good Jeffersonian doctrine, sanctified by generations of southern strict constructionists. But in Hamiltonian language, Davis insisted that the "necessary and proper" clause legitimized conscription. No one could doubt the necessity "when our very existance is threatened by armies vastly superior in numbers." Therefore "the true and only test is to enquire whether the law is intended and calculated to carry out the object...if the answer be in the affirmative, the law is constitutional."
--Battle Cry of Freedom, James McPherson P.433
Oviously, if the central government may coerce the states in the issue of conscription, the states are not completely sovereign.
Walt
You really are having trouble with this, aren't you? The States are sovereign, except in those specific and limited areas in which they delegate a portion of their sovereignty to the central government (e.g. the power to declare war, coin money, etc.). The US and CS Constitutions both state that Congress shall have the power to raise and support Armies. Ratifying this document gives the central government control over that specific and limited function. It is NOT a complete and universal surrender of all sovereignty, which is what the IX and X Amendments are about.
Respectfully,
D J White