Civil War History - Secession and PoliticsWas it Slavery, or was it States Rights? Perhaps it was the election of Lincoln? What were the real reasons for Southern Secession and what were the political issues in this time of war? Find your answers here in the Secession and Politics Disussion.
Finally, the last state chronologically was Rhode Island, whose ratification reads:
[begin quote]
Ratification of the Constitution, by the Convention of the State of Rhode-Island and Providence Plantations
We the Delegates of the People of the State of Rhode-Island, and Providence Plantations, duly elected and met in Convention, having maturely considered the Constitution for the United States of America, agreed to on the seventeenth day of September, in the year one thousand seven hundred and eighty seven, by the Convention then assembled at Philadelphia, in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania (a Copy whereof precedes these presents) and having also seriously and deliberately considered the present situation of this State, do declare and make known
In That there are certain natural rights, of which men when they form a social compact, cannot deprive or divest their posterity, among which are the enjoyment of Life and Liberty, with the means of acquiring, possessing and protecting Property, and pursuing and obtaining happiness and safety.
2d That all power is naturally vested in, and consequently derived from the People; that magistrates therefore are their trustees and agents, and at all times amenable to them.
3d That the powers of government may be reassumed by the people, whensoever it shall become necessary to their happiness:- That the rights of the States respectively, to nominate and appoint all State Officers, and every other power, jurisdiction and right, which is not by the said constitution clearly delegated to the Congress of the United States or to the departments of government thereof, remain to the people of the several states, or their respective State Governments to whom they may have granted the same; and that those clauses in the said constitution which declare that Congress shall not have or exercise certain powers, do not imply, that Congress is entitled to any powers not given by the said constitution, but such clauses are to be construed as exceptions to certain specified powers, or as inserted merely for greater caution.
4th That religion, or the duty which we owe to our Creator, and the manner of discharging it, can be directed only by reason and conviction, and not by force or violence, and therefore all men, have an equal, natural and unalienable right to the free exercise of religion, according to the dictates of conscience, and that no particular religious sect or society ought to be favoured, or established by law in preference to others.
5th That the legislative, executive and judiciary powers of government, should be separate and distinct, and that the members of the two first may be restrained from oppression, by feeling and participating the publick burthens, they should at fixed periods be reduced to a private station, return into the mass of the people, and the vacancies be supplied by certain and regular elections, in which all, or any part of the former members, to be eligible or ineligible, as the rules of the constitution of government and the laws shall direct.
6th That elections of representatives in legislature ought to be free and frequent, and all men having sufficient evidence of permanent common interest with, and attachment to the community ought to have the right of suffrage, and no aid, charge tax or fee can be set, rated or levied upon the people, without their own consent or that of their representatives so elected, nor can they be bound by any law, to which they have not in like manner assented for the publick good.
7th That all power of suspending laws or the execution of laws, by any authority without the consent of the representatives of the people in the legislature, is injurious to their rights, and ought not to be exercised.
8th That in all capital and criminal prosecutions, a man hath a right to demand the cause and nature of his accusation, to be confronted with the accusers and witnesses, to call for evidence and be allowed counsel in his favour, and to a fair and speedy trial by an impartial jury of his vicinage, without whose unanimous consent he cannot be found guilty; (except in the government of the land and naval forces) nor can he be compelled to give evidence against himself.
9th That no freeman ought to be taken, imprisoned or disseised of his freehold, liberties, privileges, or franchises, or outlawed, or exiled, or in any manner destroyed or deprived of his life, liberty or property but by the trial by jury, or by the law of the land.
10th That every freeman restrained of his liberty, is intitled to a remedy, to enquire into the lawfulness thereof, and to remove the same if unlawful, and that such remedy ought not to be denied or delayed.
11th That in controversies respecting property, and in suits between man and man the antient trial by jury, as bath been exercised by us and our ancestors, from the time whereof the memory of man is not to the contrary, is one of the greatest securities to the rights of the people, and ought to remain sacred and inviolate.
12th That every freeman ought to obtain right and justice, freely and without sale, completely and without denial, promptly and without delay, and that all establishments or regulations contravening these rights, are oppressive and unjust.
13th That excessive bail ought not to be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel or unusual punishments inflicted.
14th That every person has a right to be secure from all unreasonable searches and seisures of his person, his papers or his property, and therefore that all warrants to search suspected places or seise any person, his papers or his property, without information upon oath, or affirmation, of sufficient cause, are grievous and oppressive, and that all general warrants for such in which the place or person suspected, are not particularly designated,) are dangerous, and ought not to be granted.
15th That the people have a right peaceably to assemble together, to consult for their common good, or to instruct their representatives; and that every person has a right to petition or apply to the legislature for redress of grievances.
16th That the people have a right to freedom of speech and of writing, and publishing their sentiments, that freedom of the press is one of the greatest bulwarks of liberty, and ought not to be violated.
17th That the people have a right to keep and bear arms, that a well regulated militia, including the body of the people capable of bearing arms, is the proper, natural and safe defence of a free state; that the militia shall not be subject to martial law except in time of war, rebellion or insurrection; that standing armies in time of peace, are dangerous to liberty, and ought not to be kept up, except in cases of necessity; and that at all times the military should be under strict subordination to the civil power; that in time of peace no soldier ought to be quartered in any house, without the consent of the owner, and in time of war, only by the civil magistrate, in such manner as the law directs.
18th That any person religiously scrupulous of bearing arms, ought to be exempted, upon payment of an equivalent, to employ another to bear arms in his stead.
Under these impressions, and declaring, that the rights aforesaid cannot be abridged or violated, and that the explanations aforesaid, are consistent with the said constitution, and in confidence that the amendments hereafter mentioned, will receive an early and mature consideration, and conformably to the fifth article of said constitution, speedily become a part thereof; We the said delegates, in the name, and in the behalf of the People, of the State of Rhode-Island and Providence-Plantations, do by these Presents, assent to, and ratify the said Constitution. In full confidence nevertheless, that until the amendments hereafter proposed and undermentioned shall be agreed to and ratified, pursuant to the aforesaid fifth article, the militia of this State will not be continued in service out of this State for a longer term than six weeks, without the consent of the legislature thereof; That the Congress will not make or alter any regulation in this State, respecting the times, places and manner of holding elections for senators or representatives, unless the legislature of this state shall neglect, or refuse to make laws or regulations for the purpose, or from any cir****tance be incapable of making the same; and that n those cases, such power will only be exercised, until the legislature of this State shall make provision in the Premises, that the Congress will not lay direct taxes within this State, but when the monies arising from the Impost, Tonnage and Excise shall be insufficient for the publick exigencies, nor until the Congress shall have first made a requisition upon this State to *****s, levy and pay the amount of such requisition, made agreeable to the census fixed in the said constitution, in such way and manner, as the legislature of this State shall judge best, and that the Congress will not lay any capitation or poll tax.
Done in Convention, at Newport in the County of Newport, in the State of Rhode-Island and Providence-Plantations, the twenty ninth day of May, in the Year of our Lord one thousand seven hundred and ninety, and in the fourteenth year of the Independence of the United States of America.
By order of the Convention,
DANIEL OWEN President
Attest, DANIEL UPDIKE Secty
[end quote]
Again, the operative phrase for this discussion is "That the powers of government may be reassumed by the people, whensoever it shall become necessary to their happiness." Once again, it doesn't talk about the people of Rhode Island, but rather a generalized "people," as in the People as a whole.
I should also point out that New York and Rhode Island, who were certainly aware of their own ratifications, opposed the secession of the confederate states. Had they meant to reserve a right to secede, they would not have opposed the confederate secession. New York, in fact, passed the following resolutions:
[begin quote]
Concurrent Resolutions tendering aid to the President of the United States in support of the Constitution and the Union
STATE OF, NEW YORK.
In Assembly, Jan. 11, 1861.
Whereas, Treason, as defined by the Constitution of the United States, exists in one or more of the States of this Confederacy, and
Whereas, the insurgent State of South Carolina after seizing the Post Office, Custom House, Moneys and Fortifications of the Federal Government, has, by firing into a vessel ordered by the Government to convey troops and provisions to Fort Sumter, virtually declared war; and whereas, the forts and property of the United States Government in Georgia, Alabama and Louisiana, have been unlawfully seized with hostile intentions; and whereas, further, Senators in Congress avow and maintain their treasonable acts; therefore
Resolved, (If the Senate concur,) That the Legislature of New York, profoundly impressed with the value of the Union, and determined to preserve it unimpaired, hail with joy the recent firm, dignified and patriotic Special Message of the President of the United States, and that we tender to him, through the Chief Magistrate of our own State, whatever aid in men and money he may require to enable him to enforce the laws and upheld the authority of the Federal Government. And that in defence of "the more perfect Union," which has conferred prosperity and happiness upon the American people, renewing the pledge given and redeemed by our Fathers, we are ready to devote "our fortunes, our lives, and our sacred honor" in upholding, the Union and the Constitution.
Resolved, (If the Senate concur,) That the Union-loving Representatives and Citizens of Delaware, Maryland, Virginia, North Carolina, Kentucky, Missouri and Tennessee, who labor with devoted courage and patriotism to withhold their States from the vortex of Secession, are entitled to the gratitude and admiration of the whole people.
Resolved, (If the Senate concur,) That the Governor be respectfully requested to forward, forthwith, copies of the foregoing resolutions to the President of the Nation, and the Governors of all the States of the Union.
The preceding Preamble and Resolutions were duly passed.
By order. H.A. RISLEY, Clerk.
In Senate, January 11, 1861. The preceding Preamble and Resolutions were duly passed.
By order. JAMES TERWILLIGER, Clerk.
[end quote]
My point is that the issue was given an open, honest, and fair hearing. All sides agreed that the states were surrendering their sovereignty by ratifying the Constitution. I have plenty more statements showing that understanding.
For example, Pelatiah Webster, writing as "A Citizen of Philadelphia," wrote, "This government must have a supreme power, superior and able to controul each and all of its parts. 'Tis essential to all governments, that such a power be somewhere existing in it; and if the place where the proposed Constitution has fixed it, does not suit Brutus and his friends, I will give him leave to stow it away in any other place that is better: but I will not consent to have it annihilated; neither will I agree to have it cramped and pinched for room, so as to lessen its energy; for that will destroy both its nature and use.
"The supreme power of government ought to be full, definite, established, and acknowledged. Powers of government too limited, or uncertain and disputed, have ever proved, like Pandora's box, a most fruitful source of quarrels, animosities, wars, devastation, and ruin, in all shapes and degrees, in all communities, states, and kingdoms on earth." [Pelatiah Webster, "The Weakness of Brutus Exposed," "A Citizen of Philadelphia," 8 November 1787]
As all sides were open in their agreement that the states would no longer be sovereign, then they went into the ratification with their eyes open. They ratified in conventions with delegates who were elected by the People of the states to be their representatives and fully empowered to act on their behalf.
Secession was not any kind of noble experiment in democracy, rather it was admitted to be nothing but unlawful rebellion and a fanatical ploy to retain slavery.
In my own opinion, of course.
Sincerely,
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
Thank you for the link to "Southerners Against Secession" - I found it both informative and extremely interesting. From President Lincoln's First Inaugural Address in 1861 (from Southerners Against Secession): "If the minority will not acquiesce, the majority must, or the government must cease. If secession were allowed, then "why may not any portion of a new confederacy, a year or two hence, arbitrarily secede again, precisely as portions of the present Union now claim to secede from it." "Plainly, the central idea of secession is the essence of anarchy. A majority ... [held in constitutional restraint and changing frequently its composition] is the only true sovereign of a free people." Separation of the United States into numerous political entities would only increase chances for war and international disputes. Of course, if the people thought their government burdensome, "they can exercise their constitutional right of amending it, or their revolutionary right to dismember, or overthrow it." While politically arguing against secession, wasn't President Lincoln at the same time acknowledging the state's right to secede?
From President Lincoln's January 12, 1848 speech, while in Congress: "Any people anywhere, being inclined and having the power, have the right to rise up and shake off the existing government, and form a new one that suits them better. This is a most valuable, a most sacred right--a right which we hope and believe is to liberate the world. Nor is this right confined to cases in which the whole people of an existing government may choose to exercise it. Any portion of such people, that can, may revolutionize, and make their own of so much of the territory as they inhabit." I'm curious to know how this speech can be reconciled to President Lincoln's stance on secession ten years later?
In Northern editorials on secession, Howard Perkins surveyed about 1,000 Northern newspapers and found that the majority of them agreed basically with what Bangor Daily Union wrote on November 13, 1860: "The Union depends for its continuance on the free consent and will of the sovereign people of each state, and when that consent and will is withdrawn on either part, their Union is gone." A state that is coerced to remain in the Union becomes a "subject province" and can never be "a co-equal member of the American Union."
New York tribune editor Horace Greeley wrote on December 17, 1860, that if tyranny and despotism justified the Revolution of 1776, then"we do not see why it would not justify the secession of Five Millions of Southrons from the Federal Union in 1861.Mr. Greeley continued on February 5, 1861 with, "The Great Principle embodied by Jefferson in the Declaration is . . . that governments derive their just power from the consent of the governed." Therefore, if the Southern states want to secede, "they have a clear right to do so."
I know that I keep dredging up West Virginia, but I have yet to find a legal explanation as to the creation of this state other than it "seceded" from Virginia. And since I don't believe that secession was an unlawful rebellion, I'm inclined to think that it was President Lincoln who began a revolution by "overthrowing one government and replacing it with another." If the South "withdrew" from the Union, than it was the North who provided the open, armed resistance to an intended peaceful secession.
A few musings on a cold Sunday night.
Dawna
"All life is an experiment. The more experiments you make the better."
Whether secession is a good idea is a different question than whether it was constitutional. There were many opinions (and there still is) on the propriety of secession. Nevertheless, the Constitution neither prohibits it or grants to the fed the right to legislate on it. Thus, it is constitutional.
From President Lincoln's January 12, 1848 speech, while in Congress: "Any people anywhere, being inclined and having the power, have the right to rise up and shake off the existing government, and form a new one that suits them better. This is a most valuable, a most sacred right--a right which we hope and believe is to liberate the world. Nor is this right confined to cases in which the whole people of an existing government may choose to exercise it. Any portion of such people, that can, may revolutionize, and make their own of so much of the territory as they inhabit." I'm curious to know how this speech can be reconciled to President Lincoln's stance on secession ten years later?
---------------------------------
Two very separate and distinct things. In 1848, Lincoln was talking about the natural right of revolution that all people possess. This is an extraconstitutional and extralegal right. In 1861 he was replying to those who claimed there was a legal, constitutional right to secede.
In Northern editorials on secession, Howard Perkins surveyed about 1,000 Northern newspapers and found that the majority of them agreed basically with what Bangor Daily Union wrote on November 13, 1860:
-------------------------
No, he did no such thing. I have _Northern Editorials on Secession,_ and Perkins only gives the editorials as written, not any "findings" on them, and the majority of the editorials are against secession.
New York tribune editor Horace Greeley wrote on December 17, 1860, that if tyranny and despotism justified the Revolution of 1776, then"we do not see why it would not justify the secession of Five Millions of Southrons from the Federal Union in 1861.
-------------------------
Except that there was no tyranny or despotism in 1861. Additionally, Greeley ran alternatively hot and cold on secession. Sometimes he wrote in favor of it, sometimes he was opposed to it. Sometimes he was writing "ON TO RICHMOND!" and sometimes he saw no way for the Union to win. Greeley simply cannot be taken seriously.
I know that I keep dredging up West Virginia, but I have yet to find a legal explanation as to the creation of this state other than it "seceded" from Virginia.
------------------------
It did not secede. The State of West Virginia was formed from the State of Virginia in accordance with the Constitution with the consent of the loyal government of Virginia.
The Constitution prohibits any state from declaring the US Constitution and US Laws passed in pursuance of the Constitution are no longer the supreme law within that state's boundaries. So, unless you can show me an ordinance of secession which would still result in the US Constitution and US Laws passed in pursuance of the Constitution being supreme law within the seceding state, the Constitution does prohibit secession, making it unconstitutional.
You state that: "The Constitution prohibits any state from declaring the US Constitution and US Laws passed in pursuance of the Constitution are no longer the supreme law within that state's boundaries."
That is not true. Rather, tha supremacy clause states that "This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance therof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every state shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding."
Therefore, constitutional supremacy, by its own terms (treaties aside), applies only to "This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made pursuant thereto..." I'm sure you agree that a valid U.S. law must be made pursuant to the Constitution. Otherwise it is of no force or effect; i.e., it is unconstitutional. Secession is ignored in the Constitution. Thus, the supremacy clause does not apply to a state execising its sovereign right to secede. OTOH, for the fed to legislate in an area over which it has no authority pursuant to the Constitution, is of no force and effect; unless the fed happens to have a bigger army. That may be the law of nature, but its not the law of the Constitution or pursuant thereto.
You state that: "The Constitution prohibits any state from declaring the US Constitution and US Laws passed in pursuance of the Constitution are no longer the supreme law within that state's boundaries."
That is not true.
-------------------------
It is true. Anything in the constitution or laws of any state that is contrary to the Constitution and US Laws passed in pursuance of the Constitution is, by the Supremacy Clause, legally null.
For example, South Carolina cannot say the Judiciary Act no longer applies to them. That is a violation of the Supremacy Clause. Secession is really no more than a state declaring the Constitution and the entire body of US Laws no longer apply to it. Louisiana cannot claim that the Federal Law declaring her a state in the Union is no longer operative. Any ordinance of secession she p***** is contrary to that law being supreme, and therefore by the Supremacy Clause it is unconstitutional. Any ordinance of secession Mississippi p***** is contrary to the Federal Law that says Mississippi is a state in the Union, so any ordinance of secession is, by the Supremacy Clause, unconstitutional and legally null.
Please bear with this lengthy article on the creation of West Virginia from Virginia's Archives and History, Volume 30, No. 3. Unfortunately, I'm having difficulties getting my italics and bolding to work today, so I apologize that I can't make this easier to read:
"The admission of West Virginia in the midst of a war was an unusual event in the history of our nation. The cir****tances of its admission leaves doubt as to whether the granting of statehood to West Virginia had a basis in law.
A relatively unknown political entity played a key role between June 17, 1861, and October 24, 1861, in the creation of West Virginia. We must look to the history of that government to determine the legality of West Virginia statehood. The restored Union-oriented government of Virginia lived briefly and with little notoriety during the War Between the States. Its fragile existence, however, was crucial in the dismemberment of Virginia and the admission of West Virginia to the Union.
The original State of Virginia was a state zealously sought by both the Federal Government and the emerging Confederacy prior to the outbreak of hostilities at Fort Sumter, South Carolina.
Under the impact of events at Fort Sumter, however, and President Lincoln's request for 75,000 troops, Virginia cast its lot with the Confederacy.
During the debate prior to the vote on secession, Waitman T. Willey, who became a United States Senator from the Restored Government of Virginia and later United States Senator from West Virginia enunciated the position of those delegates from the mountainous western counties of Virginia.
I am for Virginia, as she is and was; as our forefathers created her, one and indivisible . . . . But if we are to be dragged into secession or dissension; become a mere appendage of a southern confederacy . . . . our oppression may become intolerable, and I for one will be ready to accept the only alternative.
Once the convention voted to leave the Union many delegates from the northwest counties left. Out of the 47 delegates from the territory that ultimately formed West Virginia, 32 voted against secession. The pro-Union delegates returned to their homes and then assembled in Clarksburg on April 23. The hastily formed gathering recommended that each dissident county have five representatives meet in Wheeling on May 13.
On May 13, 1861, the first Wheeling Convention convened in Washington Hall for the purpose of reorganizing the government of Virginia and remaining in the Union. Delegates from 25 counties were represented but no one individual led the convention.
A Committee of State and Federal Relations chaired by Francis H. Pierpont, who later became Governor of the re-organized Virginia government, was established. Under his leadership the committee submitted a report to the rebellious northwest counties.
1. Policy of state authorities was unwise and utterly subversive and destructive of our interests and efforts should be made to defeat the ordinance of secession in the special referendum.
2. If people of the state should ratify secession, a special election should be held in the northwest counties to choose delegates to meet at a second Wheeling Convention.
3. People of northwest counties might appeal to Virginia to let them leave peacefully.
Shortly thereafter, on May 23, 1861, the Secession Ordinance was ratified overwhelmingly by the people of Virginia. Only 20,373 Virginians voted to stay with the Union, while 125,950 cast votes to join the Confederacy.
The dissident group of Virginians met again in Wheeling on June 11, 1861 and selected Arthur Boreman as chairman. He later became West Virginia's first governor. Delegates to the second Wheeling Convention signed a declaration of rights on June 17 calling all state offices of Virginia vacant, and all actions by the General Assembly in Richmond to be null and void. Its acts of attempting to force "the people of Virginia to separate from and wage war against the government of the United States and against citizens of neighboring states, were therefore declared to be without authority.
This same convention, on June 20, called for the government of Virginia to be restored to the people and elected Francis Pierpont as the new governor until such time as a new election could be held. In order to have a "restored legislature," all loyal individuals who had been elected the previous May were declared to be "The Legislature of the State."
The second Wheeling Convention assumed power, in an arbitrary fashion, by calling the existing government in Virginia illegal. The government of Virginia, in the eyes of the second Wheeling Convention, had been restored to the Union even though Virginia as a state had overwhelmingly voted for secession.
The connection between the Union-oriented Virginia government and the emergence of West Virginia becomes very clear when one considers the fact that four of the five restored Virginia representatives in Congress later served in West Virginia's first Congressional delegation.
On October 24, 1861 the inhabitants of the Restored State of Virginia approved statehood for those living in the counties that were to become West Virginia. Loyal Virginians approved West Virginia statehood by a vote of 18,408 to 781.
In order to give West Virginia statehood a legal ediface (sic), the consent of the Restored Government was of paramount importance. Article 4, section 3 of the Federal Constitution provides that "no new state shall be formed or erected within the jurisdiction of any other state; nor any state be formed by the junction of two or more states, or parts of states, without the consent of the legislature of the states concerned, as well as of the congress."
Actual statehood did not occur until June 20, 1863 but the creation of West Virginia was just about assured three and one-half months after the formal birth of a loyal Virginia government.
Most of the individuals consenting to the creation of West Virginia would later live in and be actively involved in its affairs. The overwhelming majority of individuals voting for the separation lived in that area that was to be torn from the "Old Dominion."
The dubious constitutional authorization for West Virginia came up often during the debate leading to statehood. Senator Powell of Kentucky questioned whether the Restored Legislature of Virginia represented the will of loyal Virginia.
Out of the 160 counties that comprise the state of Virginia, less than one-fourth have assumed to act for the entire state, even within the boundaries of the new state more than half of the voters have declined to take part in the election. No Senator could pretend to claim that even a 3d part of the people of Virginia ever had anything to do with rendering their assent to the making of this state within the territorial limits of the ancient commonwealth.
Representative Joseph Segar of Virginia was alone in his delegation opposing West Virginia statehood. He maintained in a House debate that "there is no evidence that the majority of people within the counties which were to compose the new state had ever given its assent to its formation." He called the statehood bill a punitive measure chastening Virginia.
In the same theme Representative James Blaine of Maine argued that "essentially the government of West Virginia was giving permission to the formation of a new state of West Virginia."
Representative Thaddeus Stevens of Pennsylvania expressed an opinion held by many:
"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."
Even after West Virginia was admitted to the Union, Senator Davis of Kentucky objected to seating its Senators in the upper house:
"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."
To the present day Virginia does not recognize the Restored Government of Virginia in its list of state administrations, or the validity of the secession by West Virginia.
Virginia had lost a third of its area when in entire violation of the Federal Constitution, its western part had been torn away, organized and admitted to the union as the state of West Virginia.
Jefferson Davis in his memoirs wrote, with considerable bitterness, on the creation of West Virginia:
"When the state convention at Richmond passed an ordinance of secession, which was subsequently ratified by a 60,000 majority, it was as valid an act for the people of Virginia as was ever passed by a representative body. The legally expressed decision of the majority was the true voice of the state. When, therefore, disorderly persons in the northwest counties assembled and declared the ordinance of secession "to be null and void," they rose up against the authority of the state. . . . The subsequent organization of the state of West Virginia and its separation from the state of Virginia were acts of secession. Thus we have, in their movements, insurrection, revolution and secession. . . . To admit a state under such a government is entirely unauthorized, revolutionary, subversive of the constitution and destructive of the Union of States."
President Lincoln had doubts about the legality of admitting West Virginia to the Union:
"We can scarcely dispense with the aid of West Virginia in this struggle, much less can we afford to have her against us, in Congress and in the field. Her brave and good men regard her admission into the union as a matter of life and death. They have been true to the union under many severe trials. The division of a state is dreaded as a precedent but a measure expedient by a war is no precedent for times of peace.
It is said that the admission of West Virginia is secession, and tolerated only because it is our secession. Well, if we call it by that name, there is still difference enough between secession against the constitution and secession in favor of the constitution. I believe the admission of West Virginia into the union is expedient."
The Restored Government of Virginia existed for a brief time as a weak impotent political entity. This fragile government did make it possible, however, for West Virginia to eventually enter the Union with a modicum of constitutionality. The people of West Virginia had utilized a national crises to acquire statehood.
The legality of West Virginia's creation and admission was obviously in doubt. Perhaps granting statehood to West Virginia was illegal, but its existence today attests to the durability of that very disputed decision."
It would seem that President Lincoln did consider the creation of West Virginina as an act of "secession," only tolerated because it was "for the Union." What I am especially curious about is how any election result could be guaranteed in the volatile atmosphere that existed in Western Virginia during the CW?
Cash, you said: "Two very separate and distinct things. In 1848, Lincoln was talking about the natural right of revolution that all people possess. This is an extraconstitutional and extralegal right. In 1861 he was replying to those who claimed there was a legal, constitutional right to secede." You've lost me here...are you suggesting that the natural right to revolution didn't exist in 1861, and that perhaps there were "rights" in the Constitution that weren't blatantly obvious?
As for Mr. Greeley running hot and cold with his views on secession, I would suggest that he was not the only man to change his opinions, depending upon the rustling of the wind. And I suppose we will have to disagree that the destruction of the Consitution was not an act of tyranny.
CivilWarTalk.com -
A free and friendly Civil War community. 
Linear Mode
