I'm sure that you're right. That divided opinion probably goes right back to those who originally adopted the constitution. Sam Treynor -----Original Message----- From: Discussion of research and writing about Virginia history [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Ed Truslow Sent: Thursday, June 26, 2008 2:10 PM To: [log in to unmask] Subject: Re: [VA-HIST] Richmond and VA slave Traders, plus Africa Sam, I believe that there was an honest belief by Southern states, shared by many in the North, that secession was a constitutional right for whatever reason a state chose to exercise it. The words "perpetual union" were not enshrined in the constitution. Certainly there was and still is a divided opinion on the legality of secession. Those who believe that secession was a legal act, are perforce ill treated by those who mock the use of the term "War of Northern Aggression". Ed Truslow Williamsburg >From: Sam Treynor <[log in to unmask]> >Date: 2008/06/26 Thu AM 11:15:43 CDT >To: [log in to unmask] >Subject: Re: [VA-HIST] Richmond and VA slave Traders, plus Africa >Military occupation may be the normal fate of conquered countries, but that >does not make it "legal and appropriate", especially if the occupying forces >are the perpetrators of a war of aggression. This would apply, for example, >to the Roman occupation of Britain, or the British occupation of India. >Whether it applies to the Southern Reconstruction depends on whether the >South had a right to secede. > >The debate over whether there was a constitutional right to secede has a >long history and appears to me to be inconclusive. But we might want to >consider whether there is a moral right to secede. The right of the people >of a particular geographical territory to exercise self-determination is >frequently asserted (Bosnia and Kosovo) and seems to be a reasonable >corollary to the idea of democratic government. > >Sam Treynor > >-----Original Message----- >From: Discussion of research and writing about Virginia history >[mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of [log in to unmask] >Sent: Wednesday, June 25, 2008 11:47 PM >To: [log in to unmask] >Subject: Re: [VA-HIST] Richmond and VA slave Traders, plus Africa > >I have always found this controversy to be somewhat ironic. > >Suppose we agree that Lincoln was correct, and that secession was an illegal >and unconstitutional act. If that is the case, then Lincoln's approach to >reconstruction was correct, and Southern grievances over the military >occupation of the South have some legitimacy. But it also means that the >official title for the war, the "War of the Rebellion," is constitutionally >descriptive and accurate. > >On the other hand, we might imagine that secession was legal, and that as a >consequence, the South in fact left the Union. If that is the case, >however, then the Northern victory in the war was decisive, and the military >occupation of the South was legal and appropriate. The South was a conquered >country, and suffered the normal fate of conquered countries--occupation, >and reconstruction. > >So it seems to me that logically and consistently, you can either term the >civil war as "the war of Northern aggression," and accept the legitimacy of >the military occupation and reconstruction that followed Southern defeat, or >you can decry reconstruction, but accept that the South was in illegal >rebellion against the lawful government of the Union. But it does seem hard >to me to hold both beliefs at the same time. > >All best, >Kevin >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 > >Internal Virus Database is out-of-date. >Checked by AVG. >Version: 7.5.524 / Virus Database: 270.2.0/1497 - Release Date: 6/11/2008 >8:32 AM > > >Internal Virus Database is out-of-date. >Checked by AVG. >Version: 7.5.524 / Virus Database: 270.2.0/1497 - Release Date: 6/11/2008 >8:32 AM > > >______________________________________ >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 Internal Virus Database is out-of-date. Checked by AVG. Version: 7.5.524 / Virus Database: 270.2.0/1497 - Release Date: 6/11/2008 8:32 AM Internal Virus Database is out-of-date. Checked by AVG. Version: 7.5.524 / Virus Database: 270.2.0/1497 - Release Date: 6/11/2008 8:32 AM ______________________________________ To subscribe, change options, or unsubscribe please see the instructions at http://listlva.lib.va.us/archives/va-hist.html