"They" have said that since we 'lost' we had our right to secede
invalidated. Yankee Reconstructionist to the best of my knowledge never
pressed this law through. This is one of those implied things. RIGHT. Either
we originally could secede outright, per our contract of 1845 with Tyler, or
we can divide into 5 states. If we secede, we could become the sixth largest
economy in the world. I would also hope we could acquire the resources of
the Yankees, i.e. Ft. Hood, White sands, Carswell AFB, Randolph, Kelly,
Alice Naval Air Station, Ellington, and all of the reserve Units in the
state. There are several other bases as well of a lot of places that have
been shut down, by the congress in DC.
BTW, since this is a Virginia list, did anyone ever complain you all were
not paid adequate compensation for the land as well that is DC in Virginia,
as the Lee's not being paid, under eminent domain, for their Arlington
Plantation?
I have always said that the $10,000,000 we received was not enough and based
upon FIDC contract negotiations after 1986 we needed three appraisals, the
contract form was not an approved US government approved form, and we did
not have an adequate bid procedure to determine adequate value. WE would be
glad to talk, but you have to take Rick Perry and several of the other
politicians that are obviously Yankee carpetbagger progeny.
John Philip Adams
Texas
[log in to unmask]
-----Original Message-----
From: Discussion of research and writing about Virginia history
[mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Clara Callahan
Sent: Friday, February 23, 2007 8:01 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: Secession and the Constitution
Doesn't Texas maintain her right to secede in her constitution? Where's the
Texan in this group?
David Kiracofe <[log in to unmask]> wrote: I remember reading this essay some
time ago and agree with Kevin that
the question of perpetual union was not a settled one in 1861. Looking
at everything from the Dopctinres of 1798 to the New England Federalists
in the 1805-1814 period to the Nullifiers in 1832 and the Massachusetts
"personal liberty laws" in the 1850s makes it clear that Lincoln's
notion that the states were truly subsumed into one whole was not a
universally held one. I always thought it was a telling choice on the
part of the founders to depart from the assertion made in the Articles
of Confederation which aimed at a "perpetual union" -- the founders were
content to aspire merely to a "more perfect union." Lincoln's
assertion strikes me as one of his great pieces of political innovation
on a par with the new formulations in the Gettysburg Address. Of course
in the end, Lincoln and his armies settled the matter of secession with
military victory (and then there was a legal decision in, I think ,1867
that finally removed the legal possibility of secession.)
The essay is "The Concept of a Perpetual Union," by Kenneth M.
Stampp, published in The Journal of American History, Vol. 65,
No. 1. (Jun., 1978), pp. 5-33. It is available readily via
JSTOR, or in any good academic library.
David Kiracofe
History
Tidewater Community College
Chesapeake Campus
1428 Cedar Road
Chesapeake, Virginia 23322
757-822-5136
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
|
