john@cisden.UUCP (John Woolley) (12/03/85)
>From: scott@hou2g.UUCP (The Brennan Monster) > The reason he [Lincoln] gave for fighting the > South was not slavery, but that the Constitution did NOT give the states > the power to secede. It never seemed to bother him that in the process > of rectifying things he ran roughshod over the very Constitution he > claimed he was upholding. There are a few good arguments for thinking that Lincoln was wrong about the Constitution's allowing states to secede. To wit: 1) There is a general priciple in law that what is not forbidden is permitted. The Constitution does not forbid States to secede. Therefore they must be permitted to. 2) The Constitution (in Amendment X) specifically provides that all powers not granted to the Feds are reserved to the States or the People. Including, presumably, abrogation of the Constitution itself. 3) The Constitution provides that no State may be formed from parts of another State without the second State's permission. But West Virginia was so established, from territory belonging to Virginia, without Virginia's permission. The legality of West Virginia's existence has never (I think) been challenged. The only possible conclusion is that, at the time of the establishment of West Virginia, Virginia was not a State under the Constitution. Which is what Virginia was saying at the time. I could go on. You're right about Lincoln trashing the Constitution. > People expect perfect presidents. The problem is we haven't had ANY! Not so! There's Washington and Adams (the first one, of course), perfect in every way. And Coolidge and McKinley almost as perfect. Boy, I've shot holes in my unblemished liberal record, huh? :-) -- Peace and Good!, (Fr.) John Woolley "Quid enim sunt servi Dei nisi quidem joculatores ejus, qui corda hominum erigere debent et movere ad laetitiam spiritualem?" -- S. Franciscus