Tom-- So far as Virginia history is concerned, I think perhaps we have strayed off topic. Since Virginians were so powerfully present during the Founding, however, I hope Brent Tarter, our valiant moderator, and the readers of this list will indulge the digression. We should note that your comment below represents a peculiar view of Constitutional history and Constitutional interpretation. I use the word "peculiar" not to mean "strange" or "eccentric," but rather in its less standard usage as "particular" or "special." Your understanding of secession, as you describe it below, implies an understanding of the Constitution that only a minority of people at any time in American history after 1791, including 1860, have seriously endorsed. For the doctrine you describe below to be accurate, the understanding of the United States as a Federal Union must be wrong. The vision of the Constitution advocated by the Virginia delegation to the Constitutional Convention (the Virginia Plan) in 1787; or that described by Madison (as well of course as non-Virginians Jay and Hamilton) in the Federalist Papers, or that endorsed by Virginia Federalists like George Washington and John Marshal; or that adovacted by Thomas Jefferson, James Madison, and James Monroe and their followers after 1800, must be incorrect. Interposition, as proposed by various thinkers from 1798 on, does not of necessity deny the sovereignty of the Federal government. But right of a state to secede, at least based on the grounds you describe below, was invalidated by the Federal Constitution. If Sovereignty inheres in the Federal union, and thus the Federal government is something more than simply a compact between the states, then the right of a state to secede unilatarelly is contravened. As the moderate Federalists who prevailed at Hartford in 1814 well understood, there is no right of unilateral secession. After 1788, the United States must be understood as a singular, not a plural, entity. There is a difference between a Confederation and a Consolidated government--that is what the debate between Federalist and Anti-Federalists was all about. When the Anti-Federalists lost and the state ratifying conventions ratified the Constitution, the states ceased to exercise unilateral sovereignty. To the extent that they retained their sovereignty, they exercised it within the confines of a superior Federal sovereign authority. The standard text on Constitutional history is Herman Belz et. al., THE AMERICAN CONSTITUTION: ITS ORIGINS AND DEVELOPMENT, which I think is now in its 8th edition. The discussion of the various secessionist movements there is balanced and thorough, and a good starting point for understanding the issues involved. No thoughtful and informed person can accuse this team of authors of wifty liberal revisionism. Do a google search--the results are enlightening. Warm regards, Kevin --On Tuesday, February 25, 2003 9:03 AM +0000 [log in to unmask] wrote: > the Southern's state's succession - a right that > should have been ensured as the Articles of Confederation and > Constitution were built on the right of States to leave the Union if they > choose -- Kevin R. Hardwick, Ph.D. Assistant Professor Department of History, MSC 2001 James Madison University Harrisonburg VA 22807 Phone: 540/568-6306 Email: [log in to unmask] To subscribe, change options, or unsubscribe, please see the instructions at http://listlva.lib.va.us/archives/va-hist.html