I'm a little late to this secession issue; however, I am of the opinion that for the times (1861), secession was 
out of the question: whether it was being advanced by peaceful means or not.

As I understand Virginia's actions, her Assembly voted and put the issue to the general public, which, in turn, 
affirmed the course of secession. Which on its own with no other actions in play would have or should have 
compelled civil action only (in a more perfect Union). However; whatever one believes of Lincoln's response, the 
several illegal actions (seizing Federal arms, threatening Federal movements, and impeding Federal movements) by 
Virginia's militias and other Commonwealth authorities certainly gave him title to take police actions to protect 
Federal rights and property and certainly enhanced "his" argument that the secession was "illegal".

Today, at least one state is proceeding on that "secessionist road". While it is unlikely that the process will 
reach the point of being presented to the electorate for affirmation and even more unlikely that should it, that it 
would be approved, it is intriguing to speculate how our "nation" would respond to a peaceful "petition" by a duly 
constituted government entity to break from our Union; and, how the currently constituted U. S. Supreme Court would 
rule. Its even more "fun" to speculate on how a more "liberal" Court would rule based on the projected 2008 
Presidential outcome.

In all, I maintain that "secession" was decided "de facto" but has never be defined "de jure" as "hinted" by the 
initial Constitutional Amendments.

The unknown for me is the power of the Ninth and Tenth as I am ignorant of case law being decided or cited 
particularly on those particular Amendments.

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