Paul Finkelman's theory would have more weight if the Federalists had not expressly told their fellow Virginians during the ratification process that they could withdraw from the Union if it came to that. (Federalists in Rhode Island and New York made similar assurances.) Paul's definition of "constitution" is of more recent vintage than the one in use in the Virginia ratification process. Again, see chapter 3 of my book. Jefferson had no role in the ratification process, so who cares what he thought about it? We might as well ask what Paul thinks about it -- except that he's less famous than Jefferson. Kevin Gutzman Kevin R. C. Gutzman, J.D., Ph.D. Associate Professor of History Western Connecticut State University See _Who Killed the Constitution? The Fate of American Liberty from World War I to George W. Bush_ on Amazon.com! Paul Finkelman <[log in to unmask]> Sent by: Discussion of research and writing about Virginia history <[log in to unmask]> 06/30/2008 10:15 AM Please respond to Discussion of research and writing about Virginia history <[log in to unmask]> To [log in to unmask] cc Subject Re: [VA-HIST] Ratification of the Constitution There is an alternative theory that is not based on who wins the war. 1: It is never possible to unilaterally break a contract or agreement. This is especially true with a Constitution. If Va. wanted out Va. need to get a Constitutional Amendment or at least an act of Congress to end the relationship. If one party wants out of a marriage there is an obligation to go get a divorce; not simply take whatever property he/she can grab and walk out the door and say Ihave divorced you by my own fiat. 2: Jefferson sets out a theory of when a Revolution is justified. One aspect of that is when people have no representation. Clearly that was not the case in 1861 for Va. or any other would-be Confederate state. They had representatives in Congress, people from those states sat in the Courts, were in the military as officers; were government employees. They could vote in national elections. More Virginians had been president than people from any other state. Thus, it is had to imagine what "long train of abuses" had been imposed on Virginia or any other southern state. Certainly, it cannot be that revolution was justified because in the past decade a dozen or so fugitive slaves had been rescued by northern mobs? As recently as Oct. 1859 the U.S. government had in fact sent troops to Va. to suppress a rebellion at Harpers Ferry. Had the US Gov. EVER violated its obligations to protect the rights of Virginians or had it done so itself? 3: To put it another way, Brent, can you come up with a few examples of how the rights of the people of Va. had been "perverted to their injury or oppression" by the United States government? Paul Finkelman President William McKinley Distinguished Professor of Law and Public Policy Albany Law School 80 New Scotland Avenue Albany, New York 12208-3494 518-445-3386 [log in to unmask] >>> "Tarter, Brent (LVA)" <[log in to unmask]> 06/30/08 9:55 AM >>> I believe that Kevin Hardwick has overlooked an interesting and pertinent fact about ratification of the Constitution. When the Virginia Convention voted to ratify the Constitution in June 1788, the instrument of ratification began with this language: "WE the Delegates of the people of Virginia, duly elected in pursuance of a recommendation from the General Assembly, and now met in Convention, having fully and freely investigated and discussed the proceedings of the Federal Convention, and being prepared as well as the most mature deliberation hath enabled us, to decide thereon, DO, in the name and in behalf of the people of Virginia, declare and make known that the powers granted under hte Constitution, being derived from the people of the United States may be resumed by them whensoever the same shall be perverted to their injury or oppression, and that every power not granted thereby remains with them and at their will. . . ." The Ordinance of Secession that the Virginia Convention of 1861 proposed in April 1861 and that a majority of the people who voted in the referendum ratified in May specifically cited that clause in the Virginia instrument of ratification. There is a clause in the Virginia Declaration of Rights of 1776 that since 1830 has been part of the Virginia Constitution that reserves to the people the right of revolution. Does or did that make secession legal? It certainly did in the eyes of the people who approved of it in 1861. Did the outcome of the war in 1865 effectively render secession impossible, illegal, or unconstitutional? If you revolt and win, it's revolution; if you revolt and lose, it's treason because the winners get to set the terms. Brent Tarter The Library of Virginia [log in to unmask] Please visit the Library of Virginia's Web site at http://www.lva.virginia.gov ______________________________________ 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