Sorry did not mean not to sign my name to my emails!   Just was sending em
off.

Succession is not revolt.  Succession turned to open revolt due to the Sumter
situation i do nt deny, but the coalition of states was the basis for the
Union (read jefferson, Madison, Jackson etc.).   Not explictly laying it out
does not say it was not inherent in setting up a nation  - especially one
that was set-up and utterly afraid of central govt - especially with the
death of the Federalist Party.

Legitimate theory on succession?  Who was it legitimate to?  The losers....it
was only illegitimate with the victors.   I say only radicals wanted
succession - much like in New England in the early 1800s - how can you say
they did not want to succeed?  They had a convention - the southern
firebrands were simply able to get more momentum and actually do it.....

Tom McMahon

> Absolutely I can deny it.  The Founders, including Jefferson, based the
> right
> to revolt on the idea that they did not have representation in the British
> government; they were taxed without represention.  No one can claim the
> South was
> not represented in the government; most presidents until 1860 were
> slaveowners;
> more than half the Supreme Court were southerners (assuming you count the
> slave
> state of Maryland in the South);  the South had great power in Congress.
> If you
> read the Declaration of Independence or any theory of Revolution or
> government
> (Locke for example) you would find that there is a theory of when it is
> legitimate to revolt


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