Sam,

I believe that there was an honest belief by Southern states, shared by many in the North, that secession was a constitutional right for whatever reason a state chose to exercise it.  The words "perpetual union" were not enshrined in the constitution.  Certainly there was and still is a divided opinion on the legality of secession.

Those who believe that secession was a legal act, are perforce ill treated by those who mock the use of the term "War of Northern Aggression".

Ed Truslow
Williamsburg

>From: Sam Treynor <[log in to unmask]>
>Date: 2008/06/26 Thu AM 11:15:43 CDT
>To: [log in to unmask]
>Subject: Re: [VA-HIST] Richmond and VA slave Traders, plus Africa

>Military occupation may be the normal fate of conquered countries, but that
>does not make it "legal and appropriate", especially if the occupying forces
>are the perpetrators of a war of aggression.  This would apply, for example,
>to the Roman occupation of Britain, or the British occupation of India.
>Whether it applies to the Southern Reconstruction depends on whether the
>South had a right to secede.
>
>The debate over whether there was a constitutional right to secede has a
>long history and appears to me to be inconclusive.  But we might want to
>consider whether there is a moral right to secede.  The right of the people
>of a particular geographical territory to exercise self-determination is
>frequently asserted (Bosnia and Kosovo) and seems to be a reasonable
>corollary to the idea of democratic government.
>
>Sam Treynor
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Discussion of research and writing about Virginia history
>[mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of [log in to unmask]
>Sent: Wednesday, June 25, 2008 11:47 PM
>To: [log in to unmask]
>Subject: Re: [VA-HIST] Richmond and VA slave Traders, plus Africa
>
>I have always found this controversy to be somewhat ironic.
>
>Suppose we agree that Lincoln was correct, and that secession was an illegal
>and unconstitutional act.  If that is the case, then Lincoln's approach to
>reconstruction was correct, and Southern grievances over the military
>occupation of the South have some legitimacy.  But it also means that the
>official title for the war, the "War of the Rebellion," is constitutionally
>descriptive and accurate.
>
>On the other hand, we might imagine that secession was legal, and that as a
>consequence, the South in fact left the Union.  If that is the case,
>however, then the Northern victory in the war was decisive, and the military
>occupation of the South was legal and appropriate. The South was a conquered
>country, and suffered the normal fate of conquered countries--occupation,
>and reconstruction.
>
>So it seems to me that logically and consistently, you can either term the
>civil war as "the war of Northern aggression," and accept the legitimacy of
>the military occupation and reconstruction that followed Southern defeat, or
>you can decry reconstruction, but accept that the South was in illegal
>rebellion against the lawful government of the Union.  But it does seem hard
>to me to hold both beliefs at the same time.
>
>All best,
>Kevin
>Kevin R. Hardwick, Ph.D.
>Department of History
>James Madison University
>
>______________________________________
>To subscribe, change options, or unsubscribe please see the instructions at
>http://listlva.lib.va.us/archives/va-hist.html
>
>Internal Virus Database is out-of-date.
>Checked by AVG.
>Version: 7.5.524 / Virus Database: 270.2.0/1497 - Release Date: 6/11/2008
>8:32 AM
>
>
>Internal Virus Database is out-of-date.
>Checked by AVG.
>Version: 7.5.524 / Virus Database: 270.2.0/1497 - Release Date: 6/11/2008
>8:32 AM
>
>
>______________________________________
>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