Member Review Secession On Trial

[Rebforever]

Legal historian Cynthia Nicoletti's new book says failing to try and execute Confederate President Jefferson Davis for treason left questions about secession's legality. Secession On Trial, by Cynthia Nicoletti

Review,

Media Contact
Eric Williamson
Associate Director of Communications and Senior Writer

"Official acts by the Union preceding and during the war, such as allowing for prisoner swaps and observing other rights of foreign governments under the law of nations, might have been used to bolster the argument for secession's legitimacy."

https://www.law.virginia.edu/news/201710/was-secession-legal

 

[jgoodguy]

Legal historian Cynthia Nicoletti's new book says failing to try and execute Confederate President Jefferson Davis for treason left questions about secession's legality. Secession On Trial, by Cynthia Nicoletti

Review,

Media Contact
Eric Williamson
Associate Director of Communications and Senior Writer

"Official acts by the Union preceding and during the war, such as allowing for prisoner swaps and observing other rights of foreign governments under the law of nations, might have been used to bolster the argument for secession's legitimacy."

https://www.law.virginia.edu/news/201710/was-secession-legal

Good for 15 minutes of fame.

 

[CSAPatriot]

Legal historian Cynthia Nicoletti's new book says failing to try and execute Confederate President Jefferson Davis for treason left questions about secession's legality. Secession On Trial, by Cynthia Nicoletti

Review,

Media Contact
Eric Williamson
Associate Director of Communications and Senior Writer

"Official acts by the Union preceding and during the war, such as allowing for prisoner swaps and observing other rights of foreign governments under the law of nations, might have been used to bolster the argument for secession's legitimacy."

https://www.law.virginia.edu/news/201710/was-secession-legal

Below is an excerpt from a review of the book in the Virginia Law Review:


"Nevertheless, these problems pale in comparison to the problems with the reasoning in Texas v. White. The opinion, handed down by the Supreme Court in 1868, does not contain much in the way of reasoning to support its resounding pronouncement of "an indestructible Union, composed of indestructible States."[13] It relies on the Articles of Confederation to support the premise that the Union originally was declared to be "permanent"[14] and then was made "more perfect" by the Preamble to the Constitution.[15] The opinion simply ignores the fact that the Constitution took effect contrary to the terms of the Articles, which required unanimity among the states for any amendment,[16] because the Constitution required approval of only nine of the original thirteen states to supersede the Articles.[17] The Court's own reasoning calls attention to the fact that the Union in the Articles was not permanent at all, but expired with the ratification of the Constitution. This solecism might have been forgiven in a political speech, as it was when Lincoln made virtually the same argument in his First Inaugural Address.[18] But it deeply mars any judicial opinion attempting to restate the fundamental principles of constitutional law."

An absolutely devastating analysis and refutation of the corrupt Texas v White decision. And the book, despite the fact that it was written by a PC limousine-liberal who made sure to take the obligatory cheap-shots against Southerners, does the same and is actually quite good. Excellent post to call attention to this very worthy book.

 

[RobertP]

Good for 15 minutes of fame.

I don't think she's looking for her 15 minutes, do you? I'd buy a ticket to watch her take on one of our Texas v White fanboys.