Hindsight is always easiest!  I think that the leaders in 1861 were practical men within their scope, but you're right that they weren't particularly far-sighted where it counted: that the US government would have the capacity to smash rebellion (apart form calculatiopns of the political will to do so) seems to have been absent from their calculations.

David Kiracofe

David Kiracofe
History
Tidewater Community College
Chesapeake Campus
1428 Cedar Road
Chesapeake, Virginia 23322
757-822-5136
>>> Walter Waddell <[log in to unmask]> 06/19/07 2:51 PM >>>
Short answers:

Am I suggesting the supremacy of the federal government is likely to change? 
Yes; but for and in favor of demographics. Which way? Greater supremancy, 
but not along the lines of statehood as we now enjoy. Regional, very 
regional - probably even "intra-nationally".

Of course they do. It was a "what if" statement to illustrate an available 
course of action. I apologize for using the twenty-twenty vision of 
hindsight; but they were far from "practical men" upon reflection of the 
devastation upon Virginia as a result of their decisions.


----- Original Message ----- 
From: "David Kiracofe" <[log in to unmask]>
To: <[log in to unmask]>
Sent: Tuesday, June 19, 2007 2:04 PM
Subject: Re: New Subject Va Almost Got It Right 06191726Z07


Mr. Waddell:  I concede your point about the right of petition--that is a 
fundamental civil liberty and we should all be glad of it.  I'm not sure I 
understand your statement about "finding one's way back sever centuries 
hence."  The possibilities of time travel aside, are you suggesting that the 
way that we understand the supremacy of the federal government is likely to 
change?  As a result of what factors--a backlash agains the aggrandizement 
of federal executive power that has been going on since the days of FDR and 
seems to be heading off the chart under GWB?
Let me stop there -- this is Va-HIST list, not a VA-FUTURE list and address 
the point you made in another courriel about Virginia in 1861:

"It would have done Virginia no good but this how it should have gone: 
Virginia Assembly votes to secede. Virginia votes to secede. Virginia does 
not declare for the Confederacy. Virginia declares for complete independence 
and non alignment with any and all. Virginia asks a U. S. Federal Court to 
stay Lincoln's request to provide a troops against the Confederacy. Upon 
being denied, Virginia puts its troops into readiness but does not deploy 
them to Federal authority pending an appeal. Yeah, right! And the rest is 
history."

Your order of things as laid out here seems to me to exist too far outslde 
of the events as they unfolded.  The contingencies of human action -- the 
February convention that was more pro-union; the April body that was 
pro-secession; the influence of the new Confederacy; the fears over the 
Pawnee and then over Lincoln's response to Sumter -- really didn't 
facilitate such a deliberate process as you outline.  People make decisions 
based on all kinds of motives, resources, impulses, etc that are often so 
entangled that they often can't see them straight themselves.  I doubt the 
Virginian politicians of 1861 -- who were practical men -- regarded such a 
middle way of independence and non-alignment as anything but a fantastical.

David Kiracofe



David Kiracofe
History
Tidewater Community College
Chesapeake Campus
1428 Cedar Road
Chesapeake, Virginia 23322
757-822-5136
>>> Walter Waddell <[log in to unmask]> 06/19/07 1:28 PM >>>
I don't mean to imply that a request for secession would win. The process of
asking to secede is legally viable under X and XI Amendments -- you, the
state, can peacefully petition our government for anything. Practically,
secession is "dead" for our times. Don't count on that should you find a way
back several centuries hence.


-- 
No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.5.472 / Virus Database: 269.9.1/854 - Release Date: 6/19/2007 
1:12 PM