David, You are right about the ratification pre-condition. I must have been napping while writing. What I meant to say was that states' reservations re: the Union were essentially nonexistent during Reconstruction and afterwords. I don't remember why Mississippi got away with not ratifying the 13th Amendment though your thought on it makes perfect sense. Thanks for the correction. best, Harold ----- Original Message ----- From: "David Kiracofe" <[log in to unmask]> To: <[log in to unmask]> Sent: Tuesday, February 27, 2007 10:27 AM Subject: Re: Secession and the Constitution > Harold, > I thought ratification of the 13th, 14th and, after 1870, 15th > amendments were conditions for re-admission. Am I mis-remembering? > It suddenly flits through my memory that Mississippi's legislature only > ratified the 13th amendment in the 1990s (evidently the post-civil war > era legislature had declined to do so on the gorunds that it was already > in force as part of the Constitution so a ratification vote from them > was "unnecessary"). > > I am in agreement with your statement that "the fantasy of certain > states' reservations from the Union is just that." Amen. > > David > > David Kiracofe > History > Tidewater Community College > Chesapeake Campus > 1428 Cedar Road > Chesapeake, Virginia 23322 > 757-822-5136 >>>> Debra Jackson/Harold Forsythe <[log in to unmask]> 02/27/07 9:59 > AM >>> > 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. > > 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