What do you mean by "duress?" -- being defeated militarily? compelled
to surrender? ordered to repudiate slavery? By that standard, all of
the readmissions to the union on the conditions of accepting the 13th
and 14th amendments were under duress. I assume the Texans _wanted_ to
end the reconstruction, and so came to terms. They didn't have to.
DJK
David Kiracofe
History
Tidewater Community College
Chesapeake Campus
1428 Cedar Road
Chesapeake, Virginia 23322
757-822-5136
>>> John Philip Adams <[log in to unmask]> 02/26/07 9:35 AM >>>
Yes, but we were under duress when we agreed to this codicil. Therefore,
it
was an illegal action, civil statutes, and we as Texans cannot be held
to
that contract or at least this clause of that agreement.
John Philip Adams
Baytown, Texas 77520
-----Original Message-----
From: Discussion of research and writing about Virginia history
[mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Sam Treynor
Sent: Monday, February 26, 2007 8:22 AM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: Secession and the Constitution
I believe Texas forfeited its claim to a right of secession when it was
readmitted to the Union.
Sam Treynor,
Kingwood, Texas
-----Original Message-----
From: Clara Callahan [mailto:[log in to unmask]]
Sent: Friday, February 23, 2007 8:01 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: [VA-HIST] 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
--
No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.5.446 / Virus Database: 268.18.3/700 - Release Date:
2/24/2007
8:14 PM
--
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.5.446 / Virus Database: 268.18.4/702 - Release Date:
2/25/2007
3:16 PM
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
|
