I respond to TMcM's posting below.   (It would be polite to sign your name to
your e-mails)

    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. Part of that is based on a lack of participation in the
government.

    You note that Americans fought in the French and Indian war, but you might
recall they did not do so as British soldiers, because the British government did
not give them that right.  Washington sough a British commission and was denied
one.

    Colonial Americans were subjects of the King, and that is partially why they
revolted.  To put it another way, it is perhaps always legitimate to revolt when
you are denied representation in the government.  It is never legitimate to
revolt against a democratic government as long as the government is functioning,
the means are in place for political change, free speech and freedom of the press
are available, and you are not being singled out for oppression.

    Tell me, what "long train of abuses" had the South suffered at the hands of
the national goverment that merited attempting to destroy the nation, take all
property in the South built and paid for by the whole nation, and then fire on a
ship of the U.S. as it tried to bring food to starving soldiers who were in a
fort built to protect the very city at that attacked it?

    Thus, there was no, I repeat no, moral or political justification for
secession.  The South had won every presidential election since 1828; now
suddenly the South lost one and so it wanted to take the football and go home;
but of course the "football" was owned by the entire nation, not just the deep
South.

    I suggest the Southerners were traitors because many had sworn allegience to
the US, been educated by the United States, and had served in the United States
Army.  I don't think there is another word in the English language for people who
take off the uniform of their country and then put on a new uniform and attack
their country.

--
Paul Finkelman
Chapman Distinguished Professor of Law
University of Tulsa College of Law
3120 East 4th Place
Tulsa, OK  74104-3189

phone 918-631-3706
Fax   918-631-2194
e-mail:   [log in to unmask]



[log in to unmask] wrote:

> Paul - isnt what Lincoln did exactly what King George was attempting to do in
> 1775 - 1783?   Can you deny our Founding Fathers actions are not much more
> akin to those of the South?   I believe many a "patriot" in the Revolutionary
> War had fought for The King ht in the French and Indian War, no?
> Interesting you paint the actions of the Southerns akin to Benedict Arnold
> and Lincolns actions are like George Washingtons - right, just and
> heroic.Samuel Adaws would certainly be upset to see the US come to Civil War,
> but certainly he would roll in his grave hearing how you charaterize the
> southerners and their right to suceed.   Ahh, it is true so very tru that to
> the victory goes the history
>
> What of the United States Federal Government's treatment of Native Americans
> from 1800 - 1900?   Not a very nice way to treat folks in killing them and
> driving them from their homelands.......Slavery awful, but equally awful was
> the Feds treatment and Indian "solutions."
>
> The greatest flaw of the Founding Fathers (a bunch of rebellious idealists
> and greedy merchants) wa in the end to not eliminate slavery when they had
> the opportunity.  They, especially Adams, Jefferson, Madison and even
> Franklin fully recognized it and admitted their own failures to deal with it.
>  In their late years Adams and Jefferson foresaw the coming war....
>
> In a message dated 2/26/2003 5:03:20 PM Eastern Standard Time,
> [log in to unmask] writes:
>
> > Lincoln used military power because he was putting down a rebellion by a
> > group
> > of traitors, led in large part by people who had once worn the military
> > uniforms of their country, but had now joined the army of a putative
> > country
> > and made war on their former comrades and country.
>
> 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