Secession was taught as a legal move even at West Point and elsewhere via
Rawls. Other writings, including Lincoln, avowed secession as a legal
option. The question was finally settled by 1. the war itself, and 2. a
case brought by Texas after the war in which the Supr. Court ruled that
secession was illegal.
Virginia did not wish to seceed; R.E. Lee even voiced his opinion that it
was the wrong thing to do. Only after Lincoln called for troops to invade
the South, did the high South vote to withdraw, and even then, there were
wishes that the situation could be settled peacefully, as witness by the
Southern delegation that went to Washington, but were refused to be seen.
Yes, negoations could have helped, if the North would have sat down at the
table and talked.
I'm sorry to see PC and accepted 'victors' writings being accepted as
fact. Many leaders of the South would not have sided with the
Confederacy, including R.E. Lee, if secession had not been legal, and they
said so. Virginia reserved the right to withdraw from the union in it's
approving document of the constitution, and was accepted by the union as
such. Action on one's reserved rights in an legal document accepted by
all concerned, can hardly be called illegal.
With the balance of Free-State and Slave-State representation in congress
being 141-90 in 1850 (3 northern states alone had over 50 seats in
Congress), and worse even as time went on, the South had about as much of
a chance of moving on amendments, laws, etc, as I do in getting young
again. Normal legislation was held up by Northern congressmen, huge
tariffs and other laws highly favorable to the North and harmful to the
South passed over the protests of the smaller Southern delegation; almost
every law passed had the imprint of northern big business on it, solely
for their benefit. The list is endless.
M. Westbrook
--- paul finkelman <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> Secession was never legal. Pure and simple. The South had a right to
> offer to
> negotiate; to amend the constitution, etc. South chose war instead.
> Firing
> on a US fort is not legal.
>
> I find this whole focus on Lincoln fascinating, since Jefferson Davis
> had a
> much worse record on Civil Liberties, as did every one of the seceding
> states. The slave states suppressed free speech for years, decades,
> when
> there was no war or invasion going on. And theConfederacy did likewise.
>
> Then of course, there is denial of civil liberties to about 4,000,000
> southerners. Denying them any rights to liberty or freedom of
> expression.
>
> Pual Finkelman
>
> Maitland Westbrook wrote:
>
> > I guess no less a 'rebellion' than in 1776, except that the South was
> > ready, able and willing to pay the US for everything.
> >
> > We can, in our PC haze, forget that seccession was in fact legal (even
> > reserved in Virginia's ratifaction of the Constitution, once an option
> of
> > the NE, without a problem from other states) and paint it with the
> brush
> > of the victors words. Even Lincoln said that the people who found one
> form
> > of government repressive, had the right to leave it for a better one,
> > which the South did peacefully, until provoked by Mr. Lincoln's
> > individual, illegal acts.
> >
> > M. Westbrook
> >
> > --- paul finkelman <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> > > I have no idea what one would call the situation, except a
> rebellion.
> > > There
> > > had been: the creation of a new and utterly illegal government to
> rule
> > > over
> > > 11 states, the firing on Ft. Sumter; the seizing of United States
> > > property in
> > > 11 states; the declaration that the United States law was no longer
> > > valid in
> > > 11 states, the open attempt to get Ky, Mo., and Md. to join in the
> 11
> > > states
> > > that were in rebellion.
> > >
> > > If this was not an rebellion, what was it?
> > >
> > > Maitland Westbrook wrote:
> > >
> > > > Paul,
> > > >
> > > > Your forget one important fact: this was not a rebellion or
> invasion.
> > > The
> > > > South left the union, adn DID NOT want to change the government or
> > > > overthrow the government, which is what a rebellion is. Define to
> me
> > > how
> > > > the south was in 'rebellion' when they did not 1. wish to
> overthrow
> > > the
> > > > Washington government; 2. did not wish to change that government
> and
> > > 3.
> > > > did not march north towards Washington to take over the
> government.
> > > >
> > > > The South did not wish to fight the north, but did so when they
> [the
> > > > Washington government they didn't want to overthrow] attempted to
> > > resupply
> > > > Sumter and then called for 75,000 men to invade the South.
> > > >
> > > > Seems simple to me, and Websters.
> > > >
> > > > M. Westbrook
> > > >
> > > > --- [log in to unmask] wrote:
> > > > > In a message dated 3/8/2003 7:25:35 PM Eastern Standard Time,
> > > > > [log in to unmask] writes:
> > > > >
> > > > > > Lincoln had the power under the Constitution to act in the
> > > emergency;
> > > > > thus
> > > > > > he
> > > > > > had the power to suspect HC where it was necessary to suspend
> it,
> > > and
> > > > > under
> > > > > > the
> > > > > > circumstances the Constitution allows -- rebellion or actual
> > > invasion
> > > > > and
> > > > > > necessary for the public safety
> > > > >
> > > > > Where in the Constitution is this contained? Citation please.
> This
> > > > > sounds
> > > > > like one of those "everybody knows" arguments. Where is the
> > > language
> > > > > upon
> > > > > which you rely? Please cite the "emergency power" clause
> > > authorizing
> > > > > the
> > > > > President to suspend habeas corpus?
> > > > >
> > > > > Merryman was a duly elected member of the Maryland Legislature.
> He
> > > > > actually
> > > > > had more political experience than Lincoln, who had next to
> none.
> > > > >
> > > > > JDS
> > > > >
> > > > > To subscribe, change options, or unsubscribe, please see the
> > > > > instructions
> > > > > at http://listlva.lib.va.us/archives/va-hist.html
> > > >
> > > > __________________________________________________
> > > > Do you Yahoo!?
> > > > Yahoo! Tax Center - forms, calculators, tips, more
> > > > http://taxes.yahoo.com/
> > > >
> > > > To subscribe, change options, or unsubscribe, please see the
> > > instructions
> > > > at http://listlva.lib.va.us/archives/va-hist.html
> > >
> > > --
> > > 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]
> > >
> > > To subscribe, change options, or unsubscribe, please see the
> > > instructions
> > > at http://listlva.lib.va.us/archives/va-hist.html
> >
> > __________________________________________________
> > Do you Yahoo!?
> > Yahoo! Tax Center - forms, calculators, tips, more
> > http://taxes.yahoo.com/
> >
> > To subscribe, change options, or unsubscribe, please see the
> instructions
> > at http://listlva.lib.va.us/archives/va-hist.html
>
> --
> 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]
>
> To subscribe, change options, or unsubscribe, please see the
> instructions
> at http://listlva.lib.va.us/archives/va-hist.html
__________________________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Tax Center - forms, calculators, tips, more
http://taxes.yahoo.com/
To subscribe, change options, or unsubscribe, please see the instructions
at http://listlva.lib.va.us/archives/va-hist.html
|
