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.
Let's begin with this statement: "You have to understand Lincoln's approach to issues. Very often, he would concede an opponent's point, even if he didn't agree it was right, and then show how the opponent still was wrong. In this case, he conceded the opposing view that it was a secession, even though he didn't believe it was, and he showed how it was still the right thing to do."
I confess to being totally confused by the above statements. Are you suggesting that despite President Lincoln's belief that West Virginia was not 'seceding', he adopted the viewpoint that 'it was' and then went about showing that it was still the right thing to do?
In attempting to understand Lincoln's approach to issues, it's difficult to keep up with a man who says the complete opposite to what he actually means. :-)
Dawna
"Assume a virtue, if you have it not." ~Shakespeare~
Let's begin with this statement: "You have to understand Lincoln's approach to issues. Very often, he would concede an opponent's point, even if he didn't agree it was right, and then show how the opponent still was wrong. In this case, he conceded the opposing view that it was a secession, even though he didn't believe it was, and he showed how it was still the right thing to do."
I confess to being totally confused by the above statements. Are you suggesting that despite President Lincoln's belief that West Virginia was not 'seceding', he adopted the viewpoint that 'it was' and then went about showing that it was still the right thing to do?
In attempting to understand Lincoln's approach to issues, it's difficult to keep up with a man who says the complete opposite to what he actually means. :-)
Dawna
-------------------------------------
That's exactly what he was doing. It is a standard technique of his that he developed as a lawyer trying cases. He would concede his opponents' points and then show how the opponents still were wrong. Note that he doesn't actually say it was a secession. He says "IF" it is a secession, then at least it's a secession toward the Constitution, rather than away from it.
There was no "rampant vote tampering," nor was there any "inaccuracy of election results." Federal troops were in the area to ensure the elections would not be disrupted. That the People of West Virginia were overwhelmingly Unionist cannot be disputed with any historical accuracy, so there would be no need for any tampering with the vote.
My initial question for you Cash is how could any election result possibly be guaranteed in the volatile atmosphere that existed in Western Virginia at the time of the Civil War?
You can always find a minority of people to disagree, but the fact is that the majority of the Senate and the U.S. House of Representatives thought it was constitutional and the right thing to do. You are ignoring that fact.
I really don't think I am ignoring "that fact" and you know how much I loathe to disagree with you. But...I'm sure you are aware by now of my constant struggle with President Lincoln's brilliant rhetoric, and now I discover that with The President's given ability to 'coin a phrase,' even that doesn't serve my case as it may not be exactly what The President meant...I'm so confused :-) I can only be thankful that I wasn't a 'correspondent' at the time of the Lincoln administration.
But Lincoln eventually decided it was legal, otherwise he would not have signed the legislation or issued the proclamation. It's good to be President.
Cash, would it be far fetched to state that support for Lincoln in Western Virginia was equivalent to support from the Capitalists in the region, and if so, wouldn't that therefore support free labour over slave labour? And how do you account for the Baltimore and Ohio railroads, since Preston, Ritchie, Marion and Wood counties were not quite that supportive of the Republican administration?
You know how enamoured I am with "Northern Industrialists" and for this reason I am asking you to consider that it was these very men who were the 'power' behind the separation of West Virginia. Northerners had invested enormous amounts of money into Western Virginia industry, and they weren't about to lose their 'tidy profits' to something as mundane as 'secession.'
Freshly squeezed papaya juice on Neil's veranda?
Dawna
Jack Omohundro : You know what you're up against, American friend? The Ocean of Fire is not just a race. It's full of obstacles you can't even imagine. And if the elements don't kill you, your fellow riders will. Frank T. Hopkins : Sounds an awful lot like South Dakota. "Hildalgo~
Lincoln was a master of double-speak. He cunningly used terms interchangeably in an effort to alter the term's meaning in a way to support his politics.
For example, his quote about WV's secession being secesion "for the constitution" was amazing. Though the illegal formation of the state was strictly and plainly against specific prohibitions in the Constitution, Lincoln said it was "for" the Constitution, since it was "for" his idea of Union. In other words, Lincoln's Union = Constitution.
One thing should be made clear -- the people of the counties which were illegally created into WV were not "overwhelmingly Unionist."
The Virginia secession vote tally shows that at least 18 of those counties were pro-secession, with 20 being pro-Union. And two of these 18 secesh counties were pro-secesh by an almost 15 to 1 margin.
There was no "rampant vote tampering," nor was there any "inaccuracy of election results." Federal troops were in the area to ensure the elections would not be disrupted. That the People of West Virginia were overwhelmingly Unionist cannot be disputed with any historical accuracy, so there would be no need for any tampering with the vote.
My initial question for you Cash is how could any election result possibly be guaranteed in the volatile atmosphere that existed in Western Virginia at the time of the Civil War?
----------------------------
It wasn't so volatile as you are assuming.
You can always find a minority of people to disagree, but the fact is that the majority of the Senate and the U.S. House of Representatives thought it was constitutional and the right thing to do. You are ignoring that fact.
I really don't think I am ignoring "that fact" and you know how much I loathe to disagree with you.
-------------------
But you never quoted anyone in favor of the proposal. You only quoted from the minority who thought it might be unconstitutional. That sure looks like ignoring to me.
But...I'm sure you are aware by now of my constant struggle with President Lincoln's brilliant rhetoric, and now I discover that with The President's given ability to 'coin a phrase,' even that doesn't serve my case as it may not be exactly what The President meant...I'm so confused :-) I can only be thankful that I wasn't a 'correspondent' at the time of the Lincoln administration.
---------------------
You have to read him carefully and take into account every word. Such as, when he says, IF this be secession, then at least it is secession toward the Constitution, he's not saying it is secession. That IF is very important.
But Lincoln eventually decided it was legal, otherwise he would not have signed the legislation or issued the proclamation. It's good to be President.
Cash, would it be far fetched to state that support for Lincoln in Western Virginia was equivalent to support from the Capitalists in the region, and if so, wouldn't that therefore support free labour over slave labour?
-----------------------------
What capitalists? This was farm area.
And how do you account for the Baltimore and Ohio railroads, since Preston, Ritchie, Marion and Wood counties were not quite that supportive of the Republican administration?
------------------------------
They were all Unionist in sympathies. Preston voted 2,256-63 against secession, for example.
You know how enamoured I am with "Northern Industrialists" and for this reason I am asking you to consider that it was these very men who were the 'power' behind the separation of West Virginia. Northerners had invested enormous amounts of money into Western Virginia industry, and they weren't about to lose their 'tidy profits' to something as mundane as 'secession.'
--------------------------------
The 1860 Census is very illuminating. The area was overwhelmingly agricultural with very few manufacturing interests. I'm sorry, Dawna, but your theory simply doesn't hold up.
The one factor that appears to be most reliable in determining degree of unionism is the proportion of slavery in an area, not industry.
Freshly squeezed papaya juice on Neil's veranda?
--------------------
Sounds wonderful!
Lincoln was a master of double-speak. He cunningly used terms interchangeably in an effort to alter the term's meaning in a way to support his politics.
----------------
He was a politician. He shaded his wording based on who he was talking to, but the more one reads of his words, the more one sees the consistent principles involved.
For example, his quote about WV's secession being secesion "for the constitution" was amazing. Though the illegal formation of the state was strictly and plainly against specific prohibitions in the Constitution, Lincoln said it was "for" the Constitution, since it was "for" his idea of Union. In other words, Lincoln's Union = Constitution.
-------------------
Sorry, but this is simply wrong.
There was nothing illegal about the formation of West Virginia.
And I have to say I find it laughable to see those who think the seceded states were no longer a part of the United States whining about the Constitution. The formation of West Virginia was constitutional whether one believes secession was or not.
If secession was legal, then Virginia was not a part of the United States and West Virginia was simply conquered territory which could be added to the United States in any way Congress wished.
If secession was illegal, which it was, then the Richmond government was constitutionally unqualified to hold office, and thus the restored government, recognized by both Congress and the President as the rightful government of Virginia, was truly the only legitimate government of Virginia, and gave its consent to the formation of West Virginia.
If secession was illegal, which it was, then the Richmond government was constitutionally unqualified to hold office, and thus the restored government, recognized by both Congress and the President as the rightful government of Virginia, was truly the only legitimate government of Virginia, and gave its consent to the formation of West Virginia.
Regards,
Cash
Unless you can show that the Constitution gave such power to the federal government, then you are suggesting that the federal government usurped yet another power not given to it -- the power to veto and overturn the duly elected government of a State. You are also saying that it no longer matters what the people of the individual States want -- you are saying that it is not the people of a State, but the federal government that holds the final power of appointing representatives to govern each State. You are suggesting that a dictatorship is preferable to self-government. How repugnant.
Lincoln trashed the Constitution whenever it suited his purposes, and held it up as the reason for his actions whenever he thought that suited his purposes. In the case of West Virginia, he trashed it.
What I find particularly disturbing is that when it comes down to the nut-cracking, so many Americans do not actually believe in government by consent of the governed or the republican principles our union was founded on.
Unless you can show that the Constitution gave such power to the federal government, then you are suggesting that the federal government usurped yet another power not given to it -- the power to veto and overturn the duly elected government of a State.
-----------------------------------
Absolutely. Article IV, Section 4 says the United States shall guarantee to every State in the Union a Republican Form of Government. Additionally, Article VI, Clause 3 says that the Senators and Representatives and the Members of the State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial officers of the States shall be bound to support the US Constitution. As the Richmond government was in rebellion, they were not supporting the US Constitution and were thus unqualified to hold office. Because the United States has the duty to guarantee a Republican Form of Government, they have the power to overturn a government that is not qualified by the Constitution to hold office. In the event there are two governments competing to be the legitimate government of a state, the Federal Government determines which is the legitimate government. See the US Supreme Court case of Luther v. Borden.
You are suggesting that a dictatorship is preferable to self-government.
---------------
That is an absolute lie and is offensive. I have neither said nor suggested any such thing. The Constitution is not a dictatorship, and everything I have said is in accordance with the Constitution. I'll thank you not to tell falsehoods about my posts.
Lincoln trashed the Constitution whenever it suited his purposes,
-----------------
This statement is not supported by the historical facts.
As the Richmond government was in rebellion, they were not supporting the US Constitution and were thus unqualified to hold office.
You are confusing withdrawing from a union, which they did, with rebelling against the Constitution, which they did not.
----------------
Hal: You are suggesting that a dictatorship is preferable to self-government.
---------------
Quote:
That is an absolute lie and is offensive. I have neither said nor suggested any such thing. The Constitution is not a dictatorship, and everything I have said is in accordance with the Constitution. I'll thank you not to tell falsehoods about my posts.
Cash, it appears I hit a sensitive spot. But no offense was intended. I am merely pointing out that the emporer has no clothes on.
Have you not said that the duly elected government of Virginia had no right to govern the state, but that a small group "recognized" by people outside of the state did? That sounds exactly like a dictatorship to me.
CivilWarTalk.com -
A free and friendly Civil War community. 
West Virginia 
Linear Mode
