Monday, April 21, 2008


Ulysses S. Grant--from his 1885 autobiography, Personal Memoirs--addressing the right to withdraw from the union (Chapter 16):
The problem changed on the ratification of the Constitution by all the colonies; it changed still more when amendments were added; and if the right of any one State to withdraw continued to exist at all after the ratification of the Constitution, it certainly ceased on the formation of new States, at least so far as the new States themselves were concerned. It was never possessed at all by Florida or the States west of the Mississippi, all of which were purchased by the treasury of the entire nation. Texas and the territory brought into the Union in consequence of annexation, were purchased with both blood and treasure; and Texas, with a domain greater than that of any European state except Russia, was permitted to retain as state property all the public lands within its borders. It would have been ingratitude and injustice of the most flagrant sort for this State to withdraw from the Union after all that had been spent and done to introduce her; yet, if separation had actually occurred, Texas must necessarily have gone with the South, both on account of her institutions and her geographical position. Secession was illogical as well as impracticable; it was revolution.


XLiberal said...

Decades ago I read an article in National Review that compared the South Carolinians who took over Fort Sumter to the Weathermen.

Carl said...

I recall the same article, which I think is Harry Jaffa's "Weathermen and Fort Sumter," published in 1970, and--as far as I know--not available online.