These messages on the general topic of secession have been posted to
Va-Hist since mid-day on Friday.
 

From Jeff Southmayd:

"...Mr. Southmayd is a lawyer--he treats matters of constitutional
interpretation in the fashion that lawyers do.  But he is not a
historian, and does not think like an historian....

Basically true.  Lawyers are forced to labor outside the cloistered
world of academia and accordingly have to grow up and deal with the real
world."

However, writing a brief on Constitutional law requires some ability to
deal with history as well as legal precedent.  Perhaps historians should
be required to try it some time.

By the way, I did get my BA in American History from a small, liberal
arts men's college in southwest Virginia once presided over by REL that
no longer exits....although there is a coeducational institution
masquerading as the same institution.

Maybe if I added "Distinguished" to my name it would add legitimacy to
my positions on history?

 

From Jeff Southmayd:

The right to secede was not guaranteed to Texas when it joined the
Union....it didn't need to be because everyone knew that states had the
right to withdraw peacefully.

Texas was given, and still has, the right to divide into 4 more states.
Could you see what would happen it they tried to do so in today's
political environment as a Red State?

 

From Jeff Southmayd:

Well if Virginians were "skulking" around their native state keeping an
eye on GS'ers from the Union, they deserved to be invaded and 600,000
Americans killed over the course of several years.

When the Constitution was ratified, and the US formed, the states did
not deed over their public lands to the Federal government.  It remained
state land.  The states could, and did, allow the Federal government to
use some of their land, but obviously had the right to reclaim it,
particularly if they left the Union.  Simple and obvious.

For example, Article IV, Section 3 Clause 3 of the Constitution provides
that a new state cannot be made out of part of an existing state without
the consent of the state's legislature.  This shows the clear intent of
the founders that upon entering the US each state retained control over
all of its property and the Federal government gained control over none
without the approval of the state.

By the way, Lincoln wasn't concerned about carving out West Virginia
from Virginia in conformity Article IV, Section 3, Clause 3...he just
took it and made it a state without anyone's consent but his own and the
Union Congress....generally conceded to be one of the most outrageous
violations of a plain and straightforward provision in the Constitution.

 

From Kevin Hardwick:

As a native Texan, I have of course heard this notion articulated on
more than one occasion.  I'd love to hear more about--although this is
really not the right forum.  That said, the Court's ruling in Texas v.
White would seem to be an insurmountable obstacle to any effort by Texas
to secede for a second time.

 

From Sam Treynor:

When Texas was readmitted to the Union after the Civil War there was no
provision for it to secede.

Sam Treynor

Porter, Texas

 

 

______________________________________
To subscribe, change options, or unsubscribe please see the instructions at
http://listlva.lib.va.us/archives/va-hist.html