One little quibble with Brent Tarter:  it isn't rebellion or treason to 
act pursuant to the established constitution.  Thus, if what Virginia did 
in 1861 was consistent with its obligations under the Constitution, it 
wasn't rebellion, any more than for the USA to withdraw from the UN or the 
NATO would be treason or rebellion.

The leading Virginia Federalists of 1788 repeatedly told their compatriots 
in the ratification convention that they could secede from the Union.  See 
chapter three of my _Virginia's American Revolution:  From Dominion to 
Republic, 1776-1840_ (Lanham, Maryland:  Lexington Books, 2007) on this 
topic.

Kevin Gutzman


Kevin R. C. Gutzman, J.D., Ph.D.
Associate Professor of History
Western Connecticut State University

See _Who Killed the Constitution?  The Fate of American Liberty from World 
War I to George W. Bush_ on Amazon.com!




"Tarter, Brent (LVA)" <[log in to unmask]> 
Sent by: Discussion of research and writing about Virginia history 
<[log in to unmask]>
06/30/2008 09:55 AM
Please respond to
Discussion of research and writing about Virginia history 
<[log in to unmask]>


To
[log in to unmask]
cc

Subject
[VA-HIST] Ratification of the Constitution






I believe that Kevin Hardwick has overlooked an interesting and
pertinent fact about ratification of the Constitution.

When the Virginia Convention voted to ratify the Constitution in June
1788, the instrument of ratification began with this language:

"WE the Delegates of the people of Virginia, duly elected in pursuance
of a recommendation from the General Assembly, and now met in
Convention, having fully and freely investigated and discussed the
proceedings of the Federal Convention, and being prepared as well as the
most mature deliberation hath enabled us, to decide thereon, DO, in the
name and in behalf of the people of Virginia, declare and make known
that the powers granted under hte Constitution, being derived from the
people of the United States may be resumed by them whensoever the same
shall be perverted to their injury or oppression, and that every power
not granted thereby remains with them and at their will. . . ."

The Ordinance of Secession that the Virginia Convention of 1861 proposed
in April 1861 and that a majority of the people who voted in the
referendum ratified in May specifically cited that clause in the
Virginia instrument of ratification.

There is a clause in the Virginia Declaration of Rights of 1776 that
since 1830 has been part of the Virginia Constitution that reserves to
the people the right of revolution.

Does or did that make secession legal? It certainly did in the eyes of
the people who approved of it in 1861. Did the outcome of the war in
1865 effectively render secession impossible, illegal, or
unconstitutional? If you revolt and win, it's revolution; if you revolt
and lose, it's treason because the winners get to set the terms.

Brent Tarter
The Library of Virginia
[log in to unmask]

Please visit the Library of Virginia's Web site at
http://www.lva.virginia.gov

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


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