Tom--

So far as Virginia history is concerned, I think perhaps we have strayed
off topic.  Since Virginians were so powerfully present during the
Founding, however, I hope Brent Tarter, our valiant moderator, and the
readers of this list will indulge the digression.

We should note that your comment below represents a peculiar view of
Constitutional history and Constitutional interpretation.  I use the word
"peculiar" not to mean "strange" or "eccentric," but rather in its less
standard usage as "particular" or "special."  Your understanding of
secession, as you describe it below, implies an understanding of the
Constitution that only a minority of people at any time in American history
after 1791, including 1860, have seriously endorsed.

For the doctrine you describe below to be accurate, the understanding of
the United States as a Federal Union must be wrong.  The vision of the
Constitution advocated by the Virginia delegation to the Constitutional
Convention (the Virginia Plan) in 1787; or that described by Madison (as
well of course as non-Virginians Jay and Hamilton) in the Federalist
Papers, or that endorsed by Virginia Federalists like George Washington and
John Marshal; or that adovacted by Thomas Jefferson, James Madison, and
James Monroe and their followers after 1800, must be incorrect.
Interposition, as proposed by various thinkers from 1798 on, does not of
necessity deny the sovereignty of the Federal government.  But right of a
state to secede, at least based on the grounds you describe below, was
invalidated by the Federal Constitution.

If Sovereignty inheres in the Federal union, and thus the Federal
government is something more than simply a compact between the states, then
the right of a state to secede unilatarelly is contravened.  As the
moderate Federalists who prevailed at Hartford in 1814 well understood,
there is no right of unilateral secession.  After 1788, the United States
must be understood as a singular, not a plural, entity.  There is a
difference between a Confederation and a Consolidated government--that is
what the debate between Federalist and Anti-Federalists was all about.
When the Anti-Federalists lost and the state ratifying conventions ratified
the Constitution, the states ceased to exercise unilateral sovereignty.  To
the extent that they retained their sovereignty, they exercised it within
the confines of a superior Federal sovereign authority.

The standard text on Constitutional history is Herman Belz et. al., THE
AMERICAN CONSTITUTION:  ITS ORIGINS AND DEVELOPMENT, which I think is now
in its 8th edition.  The discussion of the various secessionist movements
there is balanced and thorough, and a good starting point for understanding
the issues involved.  No thoughtful and informed person can accuse this
team of authors of wifty liberal revisionism.  Do a google search--the
results are enlightening.

Warm regards,
Kevin

--On Tuesday, February 25, 2003 9:03 AM +0000 [log in to unmask] wrote:

> the Southern's state's succession - a right that
> should have been ensured as the Articles of Confederation and
> Constitution were built on the right of States to leave the Union if they
> choose

--
Kevin R. Hardwick, Ph.D.
Assistant Professor
Department of History, MSC 2001
James Madison University
Harrisonburg VA 22807
Phone:  540/568-6306
Email:  [log in to unmask]

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