VA-HIST Archives

Discussion of research and writing about Virginia history

VA-HIST@LISTLVA.LIB.VA.US

Options: Use Forum View

Use Monospaced Font
Show Text Part by Default
Show All Mail Headers

Message: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Topic: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Author: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]

Print Reply
Subject:
From:
Reply To:
Discussion of research and writing about Virginia history <[log in to unmask]>
Date:
Mon, 30 Jun 2008 19:32:48 -0400
Content-Type:
text/plain
Parts/Attachments:
text/plain (67 lines)
Just a small matter of clarification.

I do not think I have offered an opinion of the legality of secession one way or the other.  I find Kenneth Stampp's conclusions in his article persuasive--and what he shows is that the matter was thoroughly ambiguous, as a matter of constitutional law and interpretation.  As Stampp writes, "In truth, the wording of the Constitution gives neither the believers in the right of secession nor the advocates of a perpetual union a case so decisive that all reasonable persons  are bound to accept it." (Kenneth M. Stampp, "The Concept of Perpetual Union," Journal of American History, 65:1 (June, 1978), p. 12)  I am as yet unpersuaded that the matter is as cleanly determined as Professor Gutzman has suggested here--although that said, I do not have his book with me at the moment, and I will be rereading his arguments with a fresh eye as soon as I get the chance to do so.

I remain thus, for the moment, agnostic on the issue of the legality and constitutionality of secession.  

What I have offered consistently to our list for discussion is the proposition that IF secession was legal, THEN the understanding of the constitutional situation offered by congressional Republicans in 1866 is correct.  The dilemma that presents itself to me, and that I have been offering for our consideration is this:  you can condemn the North for waging war against the South in 1861, or you can condemn the North for congressional Reconstruction--but not both at the same time.  This is a more complex claim than what we have debated thus far.  I may be wrong about this, so I look forward to being instructed by more learned colleagues, jurists, and fellow citizens.

All best,
Kevin

---- Original message ----
>Date: Mon, 30 Jun 2008 09:55:29 -0400
>From: "Tarter, Brent (LVA)" <[log in to unmask]>  
>Subject: Ratification of the Constitution  
>To: [log in to unmask]
>
>I believe that Kevin Hardwick has overlooked an interesting and
>pertinent fact about ratification of the Constitution.
>
>When the Virginia Convention voted to ratify the Constitution in June
>1788, the instrument of ratification began with this language:
>
>"WE the Delegates of the people of Virginia, duly elected in pursuance
>of a recommendation from the General Assembly, and now met in
>Convention, having fully and freely investigated and discussed the
>proceedings of the Federal Convention, and being prepared as well as the
>most mature deliberation hath enabled us, to decide thereon, DO, in the
>name and in behalf of the people of Virginia, declare and make known
>that the powers granted under hte Constitution, being derived from the
>people of the United States may be resumed by them whensoever the same
>shall be perverted to their injury or oppression, and that every power
>not granted thereby remains with them and at their will. . . ."
>
>The Ordinance of Secession that the Virginia Convention of 1861 proposed
>in April 1861 and that a majority of the people who voted in the
>referendum ratified in May specifically cited that clause in the
>Virginia instrument of ratification.
>
>There is a clause in the Virginia Declaration of Rights of 1776 that
>since 1830 has been part of the Virginia Constitution that reserves to
>the people the right of revolution.
>
>Does or did that make secession legal? It certainly did in the eyes of
>the people who approved of it in 1861. Did the outcome of the war in
>1865 effectively render secession impossible, illegal, or
>unconstitutional? If you revolt and win, it's revolution; if you revolt
>and lose, it's treason because the winners get to set the terms.
>
>Brent Tarter
>The Library of Virginia
>[log in to unmask]
>
>Please visit the Library of Virginia's Web site at
>http://www.lva.virginia.gov
>
>______________________________________
>To subscribe, change options, or unsubscribe please see the instructions at
>http://listlva.lib.va.us/archives/va-hist.html
Kevin R. Hardwick, Ph.D.
Department of History
James Madison University

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

ATOM RSS1 RSS2


LISTLVA.LIB.VA.US