"...no new State shall be formed or erected within the Jurisdiction of any other State..."

[unionblue]

To all,

There was some interest expressed by the forming of West Va. during the war. Thought I would bring this thread up front as it were.

Unionblue

[Alabaman]

Neil:
I feel that West Virginia should not only have the right to leave their own state, but to do so with my blessings if they so choose. If they chose to not partake in Southern Company and its ideals, or, just plain disagreed with the South's determination setforth, let them be free!

So, what is the REAL difference between West Virginia being withdrawn from Virginia proper in 1863, and the Cotton States desiring the same determination in 1861, and being labelled traitors and rebels by Honest Abe?

Please, dear Neil, no more of McPherson's agenda and anemic rhetoric being quoted. Right off the top of your head, Neil, please elaborate why the two were different?

Are we to label West Virginian's double-barrelled traitors and re-constituted rebels? ;-)
I've read the threads and haven't yet been split-up like one of Abe's rails yet.

Yours,
Rob Adams

[larry_cockerham]

West Virginia was too far across the ridge(s) in most places to make the hike to Richmond for the meetin's. That's why they formed their state. Tennessee did the same thing pulling away from North Caroina in 1796. Natural growth.

[unionblue]

Alabaman,

Right off the top of my head? Why, just because, Rob.

Seriously? I will admit to you that during the Congressional debates on admitting West Virginia as a state Lincoln and even a few Radical Republicans had trouble with the idea.

But the big difference to me is that the loyal part of the state wanted to remain loyal and was therefore considered to be representative of the state of Virginia to the Federal government and to the Union. The rest of Virginia and the South were conducting a rebellion, not some sort of mystical, quasi-legal act, dressed up in the bright shinning clothing called the 'Theory of Secession'.

Cash has listed the procedures and the Constitution in other threads on this subject and he has convinced me the spirit of the law and that document were followed and that the formation of West Virginia followed the law and procedure. It has never been challenged in court, the Supreme one or otherwise, in spite of all the well documented presentations here over how 'illegal' the whole operation was.

But in my own opinion, why the big fuss over the secession of a part of a state, when those who espouse secession say that it is right? And if secession was OK on the part of the Southern leadership of the time, why the big effort to subdue the western part of Virginia by sending Confederate troops there?

Why? Because they didn't buy it, Rob, not really, unless secession worked in their favor. It's sort of like the South could 'talk the talk' about states rights and secession, but they couldn't 'walk the walk'. So much for states rights and the wishes of the people, the grand democratic experiment, and the wishes and 'rights' of the minority. The very thing the North is accused of, of coercing the South back into the Union, the South was trying to do with a section within its own influence. This was a simply a land grab and the South had gotten eleven states, but then lost one portion of the territory they were trying to take, due to the will of the people they said they respected.

That's about it, off the top of my head.

Sincerely,
Unionblue

[Alabaman]

Neil,
You have a good old sense of humor or you would have chomped on me for picking on you. You know, of course I didn't intend to be a meany. I feel comfortable ribbing a good natured & a fine debator! I took your advice early-on & began reading more about this "civil war' 'stuff.' You got me hooked, Neil. Thats a compliment! ;-)

Thanks immensely for your thoughts. I'll mull-over your ideas within the 'sawdust' of my mind and reply soon. The Constitutional portion takes much longer for me to absorb than all the others. A grand effort by me, will transpire shortly in the attempt to grasp the legal reasons listed.

Hey Larry,
If the W. V. ridges are anything like my home county hills, I don't blame the folks for not attending the Richmond meetings. :-)

Both You Gents Take Care,
Rob Adams

[unionblue]

Alabaman,

If you never agree with anything else I post, I thank you for the thought that I have encouraged you reading more about the Civil War and to research to your own conclusions.

Good luck to you Rob, you have started a most excellent journey.

Sincerely,
Unionblue

[MobileBoy]

Evening Gentlemen,
The situation we're discussing on this thread is one of the many reasons I have a hard time justifying the war from a Northern perspective.I can understand why some poeple view that the secession of the Southern states from the Union were unconstitutional.I can't understand how Yankee lovers utter the Constitution as reason for coercion and then approve when it is disregarded for Union interest as Lincoln did time and time again.There is clearly an obvious double standard at play for which there is no excuse.To use the Constitution as an excuse for the bloodletting that was the Civil War and to think of Lincoln as anything but a vile man doesn't follow a way rational thinking.The one thing I can't understand about the war is the free ride some give Lincoln for all of his constitutional trangressions.Then to use the Constitution to justify democracy by the bayonet just really puzzles me.
I like McPherson fellas.Sure he is obviously biased against the South,but he's still one heck of a writer and an excellent historian.I have a lot of respect for him, but I don't take his word as gospel and I do see his personal views shining through.
Have a good one everybody,
Ashley

[unionblue]

MobileBoy,

I understand from your above post that you are a bit upset at what you say was a double standard. How about some specifics to the charges so we, of the Northern view, can specifically answer those concerns?

Unionblue

[MobileBoy]

Evening Neil,
The double standard I'm referring to how many of the Northern view use the Constitution to legitimize coercion .I interpret the Constitution as it is written.As such I hold that secession (sorry my Southern brethren )was unconstitutional.So I understand that Northern position.However,take West Virginia.It was clearly under the Constitution illegal for it to be removed from Virgina.So for the North to have approved of it then or support it now directly contradicts the idea that the Constitution factored into this war.Then take the many acts of Lincoln.While I have no doubt that some poeple have exagerrated his acts there can be little doubt that he committed a plethora of unconstitutional acts.We all know he imprisoned Maryland legislators.I have a problem with this on two counts.First we are a democracy and not communist Russia and you're supposed to not have the government interfere with the democratic process. Secondly what Constitutional right did the President have under the Constitution to seize them?If Maryland had legally joined the Confederacy then I would have no issue with Lincoln arresting those who voted for secession.But arresting poeple because they disagree with your viewoint isn't democratic or allowable according to the Constitution.The suspension of habeus corpus is also not reminiscient of a democratic society and it is actually incompatible with it.And it happened time and time again.And what about Lincoln shutting down Northern newspapers.I don't believe he closed down 300 as some Southerners have claimed ,but I believe he did do it.Again how can anyone using the Constitution to support coercion not condemn this.I really don't understand.As far as Lincoln interfering at the voting booths that's not hard to see at all with the soldiers present and considering his other deeds.In short by using unconstitutional acts to comat the unconstitutional acts of the Southern states what relevancy does the Constitution have in any discussion regarding the Civil War.It doesn't hold any relevance unless the Constitution was faithfully applied by both sides which it clearly wasn't.Then you're left with the North invading the South simply for the material benefit of the North.How is that stance morally better than the South's stance.The South it can be said acted like brats and didn't want to play anymore when it wouldn't get its way.The North it can be said held knives to the point of Southerners and said by God you will play by our rules or die.While neither comes across in a shining light, the North from a morality viewpoint looks much worse to me.The South fought for self-determination as did all of America's colonies in the Revolutionary war.It's hard for me to take the Northern view of the war when the Constitution was only used sparingly, when it benefited Northern interest.I used to take the Northern side believe it or not until I realized the Constitution was disregarded whenever it didn't suit Northern interest.With that aside and emancipation of slaves not an issue in the beginning, my sentiments changed to the Confederate cause.They wanted a government to better meet their needs.Is that such a bad thing?The North wanted to force poeple to be in their government because it suited their needs.The south wanted to be independent.So did are founding fathers.I cannot conceive of any argument that would not make the North look worse in my eyes than the South.The North had no intention or goal to uphold the principles this country was founded on.No they only had self-interest in mind.Their self-interest guided their actions and not adherance to the Constitution.
Regards,
Ashley

[unionblue]

MobileBoy,

Good post above with some excellent questions, observations and opinions. You are definately one board member who is making us 'Northern' types work for our opinions!

I would like to take some time to gather some research on the above and I invite others to participate here on this thread with their own views on Ashley's questions and concerns.

Be back at you in a bit, Ashley.

Sincerely,
Unionblue