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.
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.
"People in convention" is a joke. There was no law in VA or any other state that gives the right to a handful of rebels to "call" a convention to speak for the duly elected government of the state. I cannot believe you are being serious. This is amazing. Surely you jest!!
Quote:
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.
Regards,
Cash
Once again, you are confusing the US government with the US Constitution.
Amazing!! Article 4 Section 4 only ****s your position further. It is a direct indictment of those seeking to overthrow the duly elected republican government of Virginia. It is a stern rebuke to those that aided the domestic attacks on that duly elected government by a small group that took upon themselves the role of dictatorship, with the sad support of the US government that swore a sacred oath to protect that State's government.
The Richmond government was only interested in upholding the Constitution which the US government was determined to ignore in order to further the interests of one section at the expense of another.
The violation of sacred oaths to uphold the Constitution took place north of Virginia.
The illegal establishment of WV was a mockery of all the Constitution and the original Union stood for.
"People in convention" is a joke.
--------------
Like those secession conventions?
There was no law in VA or any other state that gives the right to a handful of rebels to "call" a convention to speak for the duly elected government of the state.
--------------
The People have the right to assemble. You might want to read the U.S. Constitution one of these days. You might find it illuminating.
Once again, you are confusing the US government with the US Constitution.
------------
You're telling falsehoods about me again. I would appreciate it if you would stop doing so. I have never confused the U.S. Government with the U.S. Constitution, and your continued claim that I am, when I have told you clearly I am not, is dishonest.
Amazing!! Article 4 Section 4 only ****s your position further. It is a direct indictment of those seeking to overthrow the duly elected republican government of Virginia.
----------------
You don't seem to be able to grasp the fact that by Article VI, Clause 3 there was no duly elected republican government of Virginia in existence except for the Restored government. You keep ignoring that inconvenient little fact because it completely blows away your position. Because they were no longer loyal to the U.S. Constitution they were ineligible to hold office.
The Richmond government was only interested in upholding the Constitution
-----------------
That is so wrong I wonder if you have ever read anything but LoSer [league of the south] propaganda about this point in history. They were not upholding the U.S. Constitution by claiming it no longer applied to them. They were showing disloyalty to the U.S. Constitution by claiming it no longer applied to them. They were showing disloyalty to the U.S. Constitution by claiming U.S. laws passed in pursuance of the Constitution no longer applied to them. They were showing disloyalty to the U.S. Constitution by joining an illegal, immoral, dishonorable armed rebellion against the United States, a rebellion begun for the purpose of keeping other human beings in a state of bondage.
which the US government was determined to ignore in order to further the interests of one section at the expense of another.
---------------
This is a pure falsehood, but I don't blame you for it. You were taken in by some confederate liars.
Those people had the right to assemble. But they had no right to call themselves the Va. legislature.
After seceeding, did Va. amend its state constitution? If not, or if the change retained its form of gov't, it remained a republican form of gov't, did it not? Were those Va. legislators impeached; i.e., duly tried and convicted of disloyalty? Of course, once seceeded, no loyalty to the US was necessary for an independent sovereign nation. Seems to me like cherry-picking was the rule of the day; we'll take their land but not their legislature.
You're focus on the reason Va. seceeded is irrelevant. They had the constitutional right to secede, and there's nothing in the Constitution that requires any reason acceptable to you or anyone else for the exercise of that right.
Seems to me that Hal has been taken in by the Constitution. Your willingness to ignore or twist its terms tells me that you haven't.
You don't seem to be able to grasp the fact that by Article VI, Clause 3 there was no duly elected republican government of Virginia in existence except for the Restored government. You keep ignoring that inconvenient little fact because it completely blows away your position. Because they were no longer loyal to the U.S. Constitution they were ineligible to hold office.Cash
You are right. I cannot grasp something so far from reality.
There is no right given the federal government to meddle in any State's government except to guarantee that they have a republican form of government.
You seem to be unable to grasp that little inconvenient point.
The duly elected legislature of VA was elected according the Constitution of that State. The little convention called by aspiring dictators propped up by an outside military force had no standing whatsoever.
Cash, the facts are stacked against your argument. Debating skills cannot overcome them.
WV was established in a wholly and blatantly unconsitutional manner.
The argument that the federal government had somehow acquired the delegated authority to "recognize" what group they wished as the legitimate legislature of a State is preposterous and an affront to all the principles the republic was founded on.
It was the constitutional right of Va. to secede from the Union, because it had the sovereign power to do so preserved by the Constitution. W.Va., on the other hand, was a collection of counties, a collection of political subdivisions, of Va. that had no sovereignty of their own. Sovereigns may secede unless they've delegated that power away. The states had not delegated their sovereign power to secede. Political subdivisions, counties in this example, are not sovereign but exist by the grace of a sovereign state or nation. They have only those powers granted them by the sovereign. As an example, the Colonies were political subdivisions of the King. They had no right to secede, therefore they had to rebel to achieve independence. Counties cannot secede because they have no independent source of sovereignty. Again for example, Ohio could redraw any or all of its county lines at will, because any county in Ohio exists only by the grace of the state gov't. Under the Constitution, states are sovereign. Va. is sovereign, and its counties could not be constitutionally altered by anyone but Va.
I hope you see that secession by a sovereign state, and that of a political subdivision, are 2 different things. They are not 2 sides of the same coin, but different coins altogether. One need not, therefore, pick a side and stick to it.
Did the Virginia Constitution expressly forbid secession of counties? Counties are but a smaller version of states as political entities giving voice to the people therein. They are equally as soverign as the state itself in representing their people. If the state may secede from the country, a county may secede from the state.
The choking point in this argument is that Virginia was no longer a state in the Union and was therefore soverign and the US had no business sticking its oars into soverign waters. That's a point I don't buy. Virginia was a part of the Union in rebellion against that Union. However, as this is a sticking point, it serves no useful purpose to reopen that argument. If you'd prefer, I'll accept that the counties rebelled against the state.
Those people had the right to assemble. But they had no right to call themselves the Va. legislature.
--------------------------
In fact, they did. According to the Constitution, the Richmond government was no longer qualified to hold office, and a convention of the Loyal People of Virginia filled the vacancies.
After seceeding, did Va. amend its state constitution?
------------------
Yes.
If not, or if the change retained its form of gov't, it remained a republican form of gov't, did it not? Were those Va. legislators impeached; i.e., duly tried and convicted of disloyalty? Of course, once seceeded, no loyalty to the US was necessary for an independent sovereign nation.
------------------
Do you understand that the US Constitution requires state legislatures and state officials to be loyal to the Constitution? And do you understand that since they seceded they were no longer loyal to the US Constitution?
Therefore, they were no longer qualified to hold office by the terms of the Constitution.
The People of Virginia stepped in and, using their sovereign power, filled the vacancies.
Seems to me like cherry-picking was the rule of the day; we'll take their land but not their legislature.
----------------------------
As the Richmond Legislature was no longer constitutionally qualified to hold office, there was no legal legislature in Richmond.
You're focus on the reason Va. seceeded is irrelevant. They had the constitutional right to secede, and there's nothing in the Constitution that requires any reason acceptable to you or anyone else for the exercise of that right.
--------------------------
And you're still wrong.
Seems to me that Hal has been taken in by the Constitution.
-------------------------
The Constitution clearly argues against his position.
There is no right given the federal government to meddle in any State's government except to guarantee that they have a republican form of government.
---------------------------
And in so doing, when two bodies compete to be the legitimate government of a state, the Federal Government, by the Constitution, has the power to determine which of those two bodies is the legitimate government of that state.
The government in Richmond was constitutionally unqualified to hold office. Therefore, the only legitimate government in the state was the Restored Government.
The duly elected legislature of VA was elected according the Constitution of that State.
---------------------
The Richmond legislature was no longer qualified to hold office according to the Constitution of the United States, which is supreme law of the land.
The argument that the federal government had somehow acquired the delegated authority to "recognize" what group they wished as the legitimate legislature of a State is preposterous and an affront to all the principles the republic was founded on.
-----------------------
The US Supreme Court says you're completely wrong.
CivilWarTalk.com -
A free and friendly Civil War community. 
Linear Mode
