Civil War History - General DiscussionFor Discussions on Civil War Era Personalities, Politics, Issues, Campaigns, Battles, and more. Serious Civil War Discussions Only Please! All other posts will be deleted.
No, I define the Constitution as the fundamental law of the land. As the Richmond government was in rebellion, they had declared the Constitution of the United States no longer applied to them. As such, they were no longer loyal to it. Rather, they pledged their loyalty to the confederate constitution.
So, are you saying that since VA was "in rebellion" then the Constitution no longer applied to the US government in any act pertaining to Virginia?
Quote:
As RE Lee so succintly put it,
"The South has contended only for the supremacy of the constitution, and the just administration of the laws made in pursuance to it." (letter to Lord Acton, Dec. 15, 1866)
-------------------
General Lee was being less than honest. If they were contending only for the supremacy of the Constitution, they would not have declared it no longer applied to them.
Regards,
Cash
Once again, you are distorting the picture by equating "US government" with "US Constitution."
Lee and the Southern seceders declared that it was the US federal government that no longer applied to them, precisely because that government no longer upheld the US Constitution as the supreme law of land.
The enemies of the Constitution were north of Lee's native State. That was his point.
Lincoln and his northern government proved Lee correct, over and over again. WV was just one of the most flagrant instances of trashing the Constitution.
So, are you saying that since VA was "in rebellion" then the Constitution no longer applied to the US government in any act pertaining to Virginia?
----------------------
Precisely the opposite. As the Richmond government was in rebellion, they were no longer qualified to hold office according to the Constitution. The Restored Government was recognized as the legitimate government of Virginia and gave its consent to the partitioning of the state in accordance with the Constitution.
Once again, you are distorting the picture by equating "US government" with "US Constitution."
---------------------
Absolutely false.
Lee and the Southern seceders declared that it was the US federal government that no longer applied to them, precisely because that government no longer upheld the US Constitution as the supreme law of land.
----------------------
Wrong. They were claiming the US Constitution and US Laws no longer applied to them. Lee's postwar less-than-honest statement contradicts starkly with his prewar statement that "Secession is nothing but revolution. The framers of our Constitution never exhausted so much labor, wisdom and forbearance in its formation, and surrounded it with so many guards and securities, if it was intended to be broken by every member of the Confederacy at will. It was intended for 'perpetual union' so expressed in the preamble, and for the establishment of a government, not a compact, which can only be dissolved by revolution, or the consent of all the people in convention assembled. It is idle to talk of secession. Anarchy would have been established, and not a government by Washington, Hamilton, Jefferson, Madison, and the other patriots of the Revolution." [R. E. Lee to Custis Lee, 23 Jan 1861]
The establishment of West Virginia as a state was done in accordance with the Constitution.
The Restored Government was recognized as the legitimate government of Virginia and gave its consent to the partitioning of the state in accordance with the Constitution.
Who had authority to "recognize" a VA legislature other than that legislature elected by the people of VA? It was not recognized by the only ones that matter -- the people of Virginia that elected them.
Once again, it sounds to me like you are suggesting a dictatorship. What would you call such a government of "recognized" few usurping the legislative authority of a government of the duly elected?
Quote:
The establishment of West Virginia as a state was done in accordance with the Constitution.
Regards,
Cash
As you demonstrate above, you can come up with no Constitutional justification for the creation of WV. You can only say that someone outside of those with whom the right resided "recognized" a VA legislature other than the one elected by the people of VA.
There is nothing in the Constitution that took away the right of Virginians to elect their own legislature.
The formation of WV was a disgrace and one more example of Lincoln's contempt for the Constitution.
You view the illegal rebellion of those who had sworn to uphold the Constitution to have some say in the matter?
Unionblue
__________________ "The American people and the Government at Washington may refuse to recognize it for a time but the inexorable logic of events will force it upon them in the end; that the war now being waged in this land is a war for and against slavery." Frederick Douglass
"Loyalty to our ancestors does not include loyalty to their mistakes." George Santayana
Who had authority to "recognize" a VA legislature other than that legislature elected by the people of VA?
---------------------------
See the US Supreme Court decision in the case of Luther v. Borden, decided in 1849.
Once again, it sounds to me like you are suggesting a dictatorship.
-----------------------------
Wrong. I'm suggesting governance according to the US Constitution. The Richmond government was no longer constitutionally qualified to hold office according to Article VI of the Constitution itself. One of these days you should familiarize yourself with the definition of a dictatorship, since you consistently misapply it.
What would you call such a government of "recognized" few usurping the legislative authority of a government of the duly elected?
-----------------------------
What would you call a body of men who were not constitutionally qualified to hold office purporting to call themselves a legislature?
As you demonstrate above, you can come up with no Constitutional justification for the creation of WV.
------------------
That's a false statement. I showed very clearly how the creation of West Virginia was in complete accordance with the Constitution. Telling falsehoods about it doesn't strengthen your case one whit.
The Constitution requires consent from the state to be partitioned. That consent was given by the only legislature constitutionally qualified to hold office in the State of Virginia.
You view the illegal rebellion of those who had sworn to uphold the Constitution to have some say in the matter?
Unionblue
I am not sure what you are asking.
The only people with the authority to choose the legislature of Virginia were the people of Virginia. Period.
There is no authority given to the federal government to "recognize" any state legislature other than the one elected by the people of said state. Pure and simple.
The Constitution requires consent from the state to be partitioned. That consent was given by the only legislature constitutionally qualified to hold office in the State of Virginia.
Regards,
Cash
The Constitution requires the consent of the legislature of the state to be partitioned.
No one other than the people of VA can elect that legislature. A dictatorship of a few wannabes from the western part of the state, with the blessing of a corrupt president and US congress makes a mockery of all things the union supposedly stood for.
Unless you can show in the Constitution where someone other than the people of VA can choose their state legislature for them, then you have no valid argument.
Article VI does not even address the matter. However, it does dam* those that voted to ignore the Constitution and accept WV into union.
No wonder the Southerners wanted out of such a corrupt Union. The law of the land meant nothing to those they wanted to part company with.
But not all the US congressmen were in Lincoln's tyrannical hip pocket.
Quote:
I hold that there is, legally and constitutionally no such state in existence as the state of West Virginia and consequently no senators from such a state. My object is simply to raise a question to be put upon the record, and to have my name as a Senator recorded against the recognition of West Virginia as a state of the United States. I do not believe that the Old Dominion, like a polypus, can be separated into different segments, and each segment become a living constitutional organism in this node. The present state of West Virginia as it has been organized, and as it is seeking representation on the floor of the Senate, is a flagrant violation of the Constitution. -- Senator Davis of Kentucky
Quote:
We may admit West Virginia as a new state, not by virtue of any provision of the constitution, but under an absolute power which the laws of war give us. I shall vote for this bill upon that theory, for I will not stultify myself by supposing that we have any warrant in the constitution for this processing --Representative Thaddeus Stevens of Pennsylvania .
No one other than the people of VA can elect that legislature.
-------------------
The People in Convention chose the loyal legislature, and it was duly recognized as the legitimate government of the state by the U.S. Congress and by the President.
Article VI does not even address the matter.
--------------------
Article VI, Clause 3 is very clear. "[T]he Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution." Since the Richmond government was in rebellion, they were no longer supporting the U.S. Constitution, which meant they were no longer qualified to hold office. In the event a state is without a qualified, government, the United States, by Article IV Section 4, has the authority to determine who their government is.
Cash, since the numbers you posted differ so much from these, I would be very interested in seeing where you got them.
------------
Edward Steers, Jr., "Montani Semper Liberi, The Making of West Virginia," North and South Magazine, Volume 3, Number 2, January, 2000, page 26. He cites Richard Orr Curry, A House Divided.
CivilWarTalk.com -
A free and friendly Civil War community. 
Linear Mode
