Paul Finkelman's theory would have more weight if the Federalists had not
expressly told their fellow Virginians during the ratification process
that they could withdraw from the Union if it came to that. (Federalists
in Rhode Island and New York made similar assurances.)
Paul's definition of "constitution" is of more recent vintage than the one
in use in the Virginia ratification process. Again, see chapter 3 of my
book.
Jefferson had no role in the ratification process, so who cares what he
thought about it? We might as well ask what Paul thinks about it --
except that he's less famous than Jefferson.
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!
Paul Finkelman <[log in to unmask]>
Sent by: Discussion of research and writing about Virginia history
<[log in to unmask]>
06/30/2008 10:15 AM
Please respond to
Discussion of research and writing about Virginia history
<[log in to unmask]>
To
[log in to unmask]
cc
Subject
Re: [VA-HIST] Ratification of the Constitution
There is an alternative theory that is not based on who wins the war.
1: It is never possible to unilaterally break a contract or agreement.
This is especially true with a Constitution. If Va. wanted out Va. need
to get a Constitutional Amendment or at least an act of Congress to end
the relationship. If one party wants out of a marriage there is an
obligation to go get a divorce; not simply take whatever property he/she
can grab and walk out the door and say Ihave divorced you by my own fiat.
2: Jefferson sets out a theory of when a Revolution is justified. One
aspect of that is when people have no representation. Clearly that was
not the case in 1861 for Va. or any other would-be Confederate state. They
had representatives in Congress, people from those states sat in the
Courts, were in the military as officers; were government employees. They
could vote in national elections. More Virginians had been president than
people from any other state. Thus, it is had to imagine what "long train
of abuses" had been imposed on Virginia or any other southern state.
Certainly, it cannot be that revolution was justified because in the past
decade a dozen or so fugitive slaves had been rescued by northern mobs? As
recently as Oct. 1859 the U.S. government had in fact sent troops to Va.
to suppress a rebellion at Harpers Ferry. Had the US Gov. EVER violated
its obligations to protect the rights of Virginians or had it done so
itself?
3: To put it another way, Brent, can you come up with a few examples of
how the rights of the people of Va. had been "perverted to their injury
or oppression" by the United States government?
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]
>>> "Tarter, Brent (LVA)" <[log in to unmask]> 06/30/08 9:55 AM
>>>
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
______________________________________
To subscribe, change options, or unsubscribe please see the instructions at
http://listlva.lib.va.us/archives/va-hist.html
|
