It was effective. Did the CSA ever adjudicate the matter? Just wondering what court called it unconstitutional.The outlaw Govt of VA, was the one that didn't represent the people of VA, & stole 50 counties unconstitutionally, & formed West Virginia, with the consent of Honest Abe.
It doesn't sound like new statehood was very democratically decided to me if it received majority support in only two counties
It is a stretch to say Western Virginians used the democratic process. The outcome is not the question as much as the process to get to the destination of independent statehood. It were that simple, other states with split allegiances could have easily done the same thing then or even today.This is not that complicated. Western Virginians democratically decided to defend themselves from the Confederacy by electing to form a new state with the Federal Union. There's no question at all that's what happened.
No need to do that.
You asked the question , or blew your own horn.
Read about deTocqueville if you want to know his thoughts
yes they did. And slavery, which both sections had in common at one time and which both profited from, also produced differences.
@OpnCoronet DeTocqueville pointed out differences in the white populations. How they became different , whether because of slavery, geography, or what ever is irrelevant to your question on whether a European would notice.
He noticed that southerners were more prone to hedonistic pleasures, leaving the work to lower classes.
@OpnCoronet Your rudeness is noted but I do not understand it.
It is a stretch to say Western Virginians used the democratic process.
To understand the difference between a democratic republic and an all-out democracy, we have always been the prior.
Yet if the popular vote is the only thing you will accept, then note when Virginians statewide voted on the question of secession from the Union in 1861, 40,000 of 44,000 voting western Virginians voted against leaving the Union. It just was.
It's true that not nearly as many western Virginians voted for the next step; to become a new state in the Federal Union, so if it makes you feel better, focus on that vote and not the 1861 vote.
Sounds to me as if the 1861 election was the democratically decided one, not the later one where the proponents of separation from Virginia and new statehood only managed to win majority support in two counties but yet, still got their way.
The first issue is the fact that you american use the word "state" for what is actually just administrative divisions of the state called USA.
And the words have historically been used in different ways compared to how it is used in an international legal undestnading.
In an international understanding Virginia or California are not states.
Main or even California can't send ambassadors to France or be a member of the UN.
Why we in danish call them "delstater" = partstates.
And the United Nations, despite the name, have member states. (UK, Russia, US, Denmark)
State = legal stuff like being recognized as such, being able to send ambassadors, being able to sign treaties, and today membership of the UN. (the UK is one state, so is Iraq and Belgium. But all 3 are made up of more than one nation.)
Nation = culture, language and similar.
(The Kurds is one nation., but they don't have their own state and live in more then one state.)
Look at the early 19th century Germany. Clearly a German nation existed, but there have always been more than one German state.
Before 1871 where a lot of Germans states. Then with the German empire you had one German state but a lot of Germans still lived outside that state. Many in Austria-Hungary.
For the 2nd half of the 20th century there where 3 Germans states.
(East and west Germany and Austria)
Country = poorly defined word that is pretty useless.
The USA is one (sovereign) state
The csa was never a de jury (sovereign) state
But did exist as some form of attempt at a de facto state for a limited period of time since it did a lot of the things that are normally limited to states
Like governing a territory, having an army and navy.
It can be debated if the US ever was one nation,(and not more) with very good reasons for a no,
But To me it make sense to say that there where a northern (white) nation, a southern white and a southern black nation.
(with the option of making even more divisions)
And the obvious (modern) political question is how many nations the US is made up of today...
Al in all it is a lot easier to talk about if the CSA existed as a (sovereign) state.. than if it was a nation, because culture is such a hard thing to count and measure.
All one has to do is, take off the bias goggles. Regardless of all other issues/causes/etc. 50 Counties were stolen from Virginia. It doesn't take a law degree to see the shady tactics employed. I'm sure ol Honest Abe is still smiling over that one (even he knew it was shady)....To be shocked would require something more substantial than a jelly sound bite like "shady shenanigans." That's nowhere close to being a legal, let alone precise, definition in any way.
We'd need, in detail, how the people of western Virginia had no "right" to defend themselves against the Confederacy in the most effective way available to them. We'd accept nothing less than the advisement of a practicing constitutional lawyer for the naming of the specific laws of the United States that were broken in accepting West Virginia into the Union. Not the mere preferences or precedents, but the actual laws.
The caveat is that unless you're going to prove that murder, treason, or wife-beating were involved we're just not going to buy it.
Even if we did, we'd have to follow up with a discussion on how Texas came into the Confederacy, how that was "completely different."
All one has to do is, take off the bias goggles. Regardless of all other issues/causes/etc. 50 Counties were stolen from Virginia. It doesn't take a law degree to see the shady tactics employed. I'm sure ol Honest Abe is still smiling over that one (even he knew it was shady)....
I think the OP’s premise is faulty. Most of the loyalists here understand the disconnect (is that a proper word?) between the motives of the rebels and the Americans, that what the rebels were fighting for wasn’t what the Americans were fighting against: that the rebels were fighting to protect slavery but the Americans were fighting to suppress rebellion, not to destroy slavery.
I find the motive of fighting to preserve the United States noble enough and consider the destruction of slavery a useful and righteous consequence of preserving the nation. But preserving the nation was ample motive.