With respect, can you provide specifics?  Which states "joined the union in the first place with express provision that they could 'opt out'?"

To my knowledge, this is simply not the case for any of the original thirteen states.  I doubt very much that it was true of Virginia--neither Sutton nor AE Howard makes mention of it, for example, and it is the kind of thing that would show up in the secondary literature on Virginia constitutions.  I am open to being corrected on this matter, but I'd like something more substantive than mere assertion.

As to the legality of military occupation of a conquered nation, that is a long established matter in political theory and international law.  It may not have been especially nice, but it was entirely legal, both by the operative legal theory of the day, and likewise by that prevalent today.

Given the policies adopted by southern states in the aftermath of the civil war, under Presidential Reconstruction--I am thinking here in particular of the "Black codes"--military occupation of the South was also appropriate and moral.  I find it hard to imagine that anyone on this list would wish to argue for the moral legitimacy of the black codes, although I may be wrong about that as well.  

The black codes were legitimate state laws, but only under the theory that secession was unconstitutional and illegal.  If we suppose that the Southern states were conquered by the North, then it is hard to argue that the black codes did not provide ample moral and political justification for military occupation.

So I am yet to be persuaded that it is possible consistently to hold that secession was legal and, at the same time, argue that congressional reconstruction was illegitimate and immoral.  You can argue one, or the other, but not both.

All best,
Kevin

---- Original message ----
>Date: Thu, 26 Jun 2008 16:31:53 -0400
>From: Craig Kilby <[log in to unmask]>  
>Subject: Re: Richmond and VA slave Traders, plus Africa  
>To: [log in to unmask]
>
>All,
>
>Secession was an acknowledged consitutional right of the states, and  
>many had joined the union in the first place with express provision  
>that they could "opt out".  Even Daniel Webster, Senator from  
>Massachussetts, spoke in support of the right of secession in 1851.   
>William Seward, however, seems to have summed up the changing  
>attitudes in the North with his quote, "There is a higher law than  
>the constitution."
>
>This is, however, all now moot.
>
>Craig K
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