Of course secession is revolt. The putative confederate government
seize property owned by the United States (post offices, forts, etc.);
stole postage stamps from the U.S. (they often circulated as money at
the time); they resisted the lawful authority of the United States
government, and prevented the U.S. govt. from carrying out its
constitutionally mandated obligations and tasks (such as delivering the
mail, collecting duties on imported goods; regulating ports, staffing
coast on the coast, etc.)
I am not sure what you mean by "coaltion of state" -- the U.S. created a
"perpetual union" and there was no "escape clause" not option to drop
out. It was a revolution; and firing on Fort Sumter was simply a
militaray manifestation of this. I find it interesting that you cite
Jackson for your theory, since Jackson threatened to send troops to
South Carolina when that state merely decided to nullify a single
federal law. Imagine what Jackson would have done to S.C. if the state
had seized United States property or actually fired on United States
troops. Given his notorious quick temper, I suspect the result would
have been a full scale invasion of the state.
If you accept Jefferson's theories set out in the Dec. of Ind., then
secession would be "legitimate" if the South had been denied its voice
in Congress, or taxed without representation.
Paul Finkelman
[log in to unmask] wrote:
> Sorry did not mean not to sign my name to my emails! Just was sending em
> off.
>
> Succession is not revolt. Succession turned to open revolt due to the Sumter
> situation i do nt deny, but the coalition of states was the basis for the
> Union (read jefferson, Madison, Jackson etc.). Not explictly laying it out
> does not say it was not inherent in setting up a nation - especially one
> that was set-up and utterly afraid of central govt - especially with the
> death of the Federalist Party.
>
> Legitimate theory on succession? Who was it legitimate to? The losers....it
> was only illegitimate with the victors. I say only radicals wanted
> succession - much like in New England in the early 1800s - how can you say
> they did not want to succeed? They had a convention - the southern
> firebrands were simply able to get more momentum and actually do it.....
>
> Tom McMahon
>
>
>>Absolutely I can deny it. The Founders, including Jefferson, based the
>>right
>>to revolt on the idea that they did not have representation in the British
>>government; they were taxed without represention. No one can claim the
>>South was
>>not represented in the government; most presidents until 1860 were
>>slaveowners;
>>more than half the Supreme Court were southerners (assuming you count the
>>slave
>>state of Maryland in the South); the South had great power in Congress.
>>If you
>>read the Declaration of Independence or any theory of Revolution or
>>government
>>(Locke for example) you would find that there is a theory of when it is
>>legitimate to revolt
>
>
>
> To subscribe, change options, or unsubscribe, please see the instructions
> at http://listlva.lib.va.us/archives/va-hist.html
>
--
Paul Finkelman
Chapman Distinguished Professor
University of Tulsa College of Law
3120 East 4th Place
Tulsa, Oklahoma 74104-2499
918-631-3706 (office)
918-631-2194 (fax)
[log in to unmask]
To subscribe, change options, or unsubscribe, please see the instructions
at http://listlva.lib.va.us/archives/va-hist.html
|
