Sorry - the second quote is from Lincoln's address to Congress on July 4,
1861.
-----Original Message-----
From: Sam Treynor [mailto:[log in to unmask]]
Sent: Tuesday, April 10, 2007 9:20 AM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: [VA-HIST] End of the War of Northern Aggression
Would the secession of the Southern States have been legal and just if their
political power and representation had been less than some acceptable amount
and if they had suffered "abuses"? If so, was Lincoln wrong when he said,
in his first inaugural address on March 4, 1861, "I hold that, in
contemplation of universal law, and of the Constitution, the union of these
States is perpetual....It follows....that no State, upon its own mere
motion, can lawfully get out of the Union" and likewise, in the same
address, the view that "any State of the Union may....withdraw from the
Union without the consent of the Union or any other State"....is an
"ingenious sophism"?
Sam Treynor
----- Original Message -----
From: "Paul Finkelman" <[log in to unmask]>
To: <[log in to unmask]>
Sent: Tuesday, April 10, 2007 12:11 AM
Subject: Re: End of the War of Northern Aggression
> Ther are three major differences between the 1775 and 1861.
>
> 1: The people who revolted in 1775 were totally disfranchised; they had
> no political power; no representation in the Brit. gov. They had no
> rights, no constitutional protections, and no one from the American
> colonies served in the Brit. gov. In the US southerners had dominiated
> the national gov. since 1789. The Confed. Pres. had been in various
> cabinets and in the Senate. No American had served in any British gov.
> Five of 9 Supreme Court Justices were southerners; No Americans served
> on any English court. Remember, the slogan of the revolution was "no
> taxation without representation." The American had no representation.
> Hard to argue that the South was not very well represented in the
> American Gov.
>
> 2: Jefferson justified revolution on the grounds that people had to be
> represented in the gov. (which southerners were in 1861) and that
> revolution was only justified after a "long train of abuses." Tell us
> what were the "long train of abuses" that the South suffered?
>
> 3: The Americans of 1775 had no mechanism to protect their rights
> because they had no political power; the Southeners had vast poltiical
> power, including a perpetual veto (to this day) of any constitutional
> amendment. The Southerners chose to reject the political process which
> had served them well. Ironically, had the South not seceded it is
> unlikely that slavery would have ended until the late 20th century, if
> then.
>
>
> Paul Finkelman
> President William McKinley Distinguished Professor of Law
> and Public Policy
> Albany Law School
> 80 New Scotland Avenue
> Albany, New York 12208-3494
>
> 518-445-3386
> [log in to unmask]
>>>> [log in to unmask] 04/09/07 11:22 PM >>>
> As best I can remember, prior to the war of northern aggression, a bunch
> of
> ragtags turned against their mother country (England) and fought for
> their
> freedom. The southerners did no different.
>
>
>
> ************************************** See what's free at
> http://www.aol.com.
--
No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.5.446 / Virus Database: 269.0.0/754 - Release Date: 4/9/2007
10:59 PM
--
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.5.446 / Virus Database: 269.0.0/754 - Release Date: 4/9/2007
10:59 PM
--
No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.5.446 / Virus Database: 269.0.0/754 - Release Date: 4/9/2007
10:59 PM
--
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.5.446 / Virus Database: 269.0.0/754 - Release Date: 4/9/2007
10:59 PM
|
