No, Texas could have remained under military rule for as long as Congress
preferred.
All over the South, former CSA civilian and military leaders agreed that a
return to the Union on more or less equal footing with the northern states
was the best option. Those who did not, either went into seclusion or in
some instances migrated to Mexico, Europe, or Brazil.
All state admissions are and always were subject to Congressional scrutiny
and conditions. Texas's readmission to the Union was unconditional. There
is, I think, in law and more importantly, practically, no alternative to the
USA as it is now constituted.
The fantasy of certain states' reservations from the Union is just that.
Harold S. Forsythe
----- Original Message -----
From: "David Kiracofe" <[log in to unmask]>
To: <[log in to unmask]>
Sent: Monday, February 26, 2007 12:31 PM
Subject: Re: Secession and the Constitution
> 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
To subscribe, change options, or unsubscribe, please see the instructions
at http://listlva.lib.va.us/archives/va-hist.html
|
