The creation of West Virginia

Joined
Sep 19, 2017
Messages
629
Location
Blue Ridge Mountains, Jefferson County WV
All five. Vermont seceded from New York and functioned as an independent state without NY permission.
If you consider Pierpont the true government in Virginia. But at this point this political-legal stuff is making me dizzy. Had Pierpont been home that night in September 1863 when Mosby came to visit him we would really have had something to talk about
 

(Membership has it privileges! To remove this ad: Register NOW!)

jgoodguy

Brev. Brig. Gen'l
Retired Moderator
Joined
Aug 17, 2011
Messages
35,688
Location
Birmingham, Alabama
If you consider Pierpont the true government in Virginia. But at this point this political-legal stuff is making me dizzy. Had Pierpont been home that night in September 1863 when Mosby came to visit him we would really have had something to talk about
True, but that might have been the night John got caught giving us something else to talk about. What ifs are only limited by imagination. In any case, the tangible evidence is that the only true US government in VA was Pierpoint. Looking to the wisdom of Chase in Texas v White.

2. In the Constitution, the term "State" most frequently expresses the combined idea, just noticed, of people, territory, and government. A State, in the ordinary sense of the Constitution, is a political community of free citizens, occupying a territory of defined boundaries and organized under a government sanctioned and limited by a written constitution, and established by the consent of the governed.
3. But the term is also used to express the idea of a people or political community, as distinguished from the government. In this sense, it is used in the clause which provides that the United States shall guarantee to every State in the Union a republican form of government, and shall protect each of them against invasion.
War creates all sorts of ingenuity including the legal sort. One thing the Union had the CSA did not was capable lawyers. Everything was nice and 'legal' and pretty solidly legal in fact, although prewar it would have been thought impossible. For example, prewar property in slaves was thought to be Constitutionally protected and impossible to get around, then old Ben Butler said slaves are contraband, from that the Emancipation Proclamation and as a prize of war, the 13th amendment. Or in secession, it was people that seceded, not States even though those people were in charge of the States. Untangling that is much more interesting than dull old battles.
 
Joined
Apr 2, 2018
Messages
51
Location
Clarington, OH
After reading all of the posts on this thread, here is my simplified take.

When a state seceded from the United States the US Constitution no longer applied to the state, rather the constitution of the Confederacy applied. The creation of West Virginia by the northwest politicians of western Virginia and Congress was an act against the Confederacy. The Confederacy being the same as a foreign power at war with the United States. Admitting the state of West Virginia into the United States was a casualty of war for the Confederacy, they had no legal recourse in Congress or the Supreme Court since they no longer had standing in the United States. As things stood in 1863, Virginia and the Confederacy had one recourse concerning West Virginia, take it back by force.
 
Joined
Oct 11, 2016
Messages
319
.... As things stood in 1863, Virginia and the Confederacy had one recourse concerning West Virginia, take it back by force.
Which, to some, probably sounds brutal but the fact is - as has been true forever - that when you resort to war as a remedy, you have to also accept the consequences, one of which is that the rules change.
 
Last edited:

jgoodguy

Brev. Brig. Gen'l
Retired Moderator
Joined
Aug 17, 2011
Messages
35,688
Location
Birmingham, Alabama
Which, to some, probably sounds brutal but the fact is - as has been true forever - that when you resort to war as a remedy, you have to also accept the consequences, one of which is that the rules change.
May I suggest that the rules do not change, but the winner gets to interpret those rules.
 

Jimklag

Lt. Colonel
Silver Patron
Joined
Mar 3, 2017
Messages
9,912
Location
Chicagoland
Yet another thread is devolving into an argument about the legality/constitutionality of secession. The thread is titled "The creation of West Virginia." Please limit your posts to that subject. The host and moderators have issued multiple warnings. Future transgressions will lead to locking the thread and thread-bans.

Posted as moderator
 

CSA Today

Brev. Brig. Gen'l
Joined
Dec 3, 2011
Messages
19,009
Location
Laurinburg NC
If Secession was legal has you and others claim then Secession would of been achieved through the courts not on the battlefield. There is almost no similarly between the American Revolutionary War and the ACW. We do have at least one thread that explores that issue.
Leftyhunter
Because they secured the blessing of the recognized government of Virginia and the Congress, thus satisfying the Constitution. The rebel government in Richmond had no say in the matter.
I reckon a hostile takeover would be an apt description.
 

thomas aagaard

1st Lieutenant
Joined
Nov 19, 2013
Messages
3,551
Location
Denmark
When a state seceded from the United States the US Constitution no longer applied to the state, rather the constitution of the Confederacy applied. The creation of West Virginia by the northwest politicians of western Virginia and Congress was an act against the Confederacy. The Confederacy being the same as a foreign power at war with the United States. Admitting the state of West Virginia into the United States was a casualty of war for the Confederacy, they had no legal recourse in Congress or the Supreme Court since they no longer had standing in the United States. As things stood in 1863, Virginia and the Confederacy had one recourse concerning West Virginia, take it back by force.
From the point of view of the federal government Virginia did not leave the union. The federal government was not at war with the CSA. The CSA was never recognized as a sovereign state by anyone. So your whole analysis is way way off.

The people running the Virginian state government rebelled, so a new state government was set up, one made up of people who where not criminals. And it gave its consent to the creation of a new state. (as required by the Constitution)
 
Joined
Sep 19, 2017
Messages
629
Location
Blue Ridge Mountains, Jefferson County WV
True, but that might have been the night John got caught giving us something else to talk about. What ifs are only limited by imagination. In any case, the tangible evidence is that the only true US government in VA was Pierpoint. Looking to the wisdom of Chase in Texas v White.

2. In the Constitution, the term "State" most frequently expresses the combined idea, just noticed, of people, territory, and government. A State, in the ordinary sense of the Constitution, is a political community of free citizens, occupying a territory of defined boundaries and organized under a government sanctioned and limited by a written constitution, and established by the consent of the governed.
3. But the term is also used to express the idea of a people or political community, as distinguished from the government. In this sense, it is used in the clause which provides that the United States shall guarantee to every State in the Union a republican form of government, and shall protect each of them against invasion.
War creates all sorts of ingenuity including the legal sort. One thing the Union had the CSA did not was capable lawyers. Everything was nice and 'legal' and pretty solidly legal in fact, although prewar it would have been thought impossible. For example, prewar property in slaves was thought to be Constitutionally protected and impossible to get around, then old Ben Butler said slaves are contraband, from that the Emancipation Proclamation and as a prize of war, the 13th amendment. Or in secession, it was people that seceded, not States even though those people were in charge of the States. Untangling that is much more interesting than dull old battles.
Pardon my tardy reply but things happen. Thanks for your reply. I have learned a great deal on this forum and that was a main reason I got on CWT.
 
Joined
Sep 19, 2017
Messages
629
Location
Blue Ridge Mountains, Jefferson County WV
The answer is so obvious.
Virginia attempted to seceded from US, north-western Virginia did not attempt to secede from the US
This depends on what you consider North Western Virginia? The N-W part of Virginia, or present day N-W part of West Virginia? The south and eastern counties form very close to 1/2 of present day West Virginia. In the forming of West Va they were included although they voted for secession.
 
Last edited:
Joined
Sep 19, 2017
Messages
629
Location
Blue Ridge Mountains, Jefferson County WV
And West Virginia had the consent of the recognized government of Virginia. The rebel government, having left the protection of the constitution by virtue of their rebellion, rightly had no say in the matter.
Sir, pardon my tardy reply. It seems as West Va was gaining statehood (June 20th 1863) the rebel government was saying a lot. A few days before this Ewell soundly beat Milroy at Winchester, confederate troops were moving north through parts soon to be West VA and crossing the Potomac. Stuart was moving to get between the Union army and Washington. But as we all know in a short time this will change at Gettysburg.
 
Last edited:
Joined
Oct 22, 2012
Messages
7,754
Are opinions the same as "massive disregard"?
Opinions notwithstanding, the steps necessary to create a new state are spelled out in the Constitution.

They are clear and measurable.

That they were not adhered to in the creation of West Virginia should be obvious to a toddler. But we are not dealing with toddlers here.
 

jgoodguy

Brev. Brig. Gen'l
Retired Moderator
Joined
Aug 17, 2011
Messages
35,688
Location
Birmingham, Alabama
Opinions notwithstanding, the steps necessary to create a new state are spelled out in the Constitution.

They are clear and measurable.

That they were not adhered to in the creation of West Virginia should be obvious to a toddler. But we are not dealing with toddlers here.
Indeed and therefore as adults we realize that our particular opintions about the Constitution are just our opinions. It is SCOTUS that decides what is constiutional and SCOTUS decided that West Virginia was a State under the Constitution.
 
Joined
Aug 20, 2018
Messages
435
Location
Pittsburgh
Opinions notwithstanding, the steps necessary to create a new state are spelled out in the Constitution.

They are clear and measurable.

That they were not adhered to in the creation of West Virginia should be obvious to a toddler. But we are not dealing with toddlers here.
What part of the constitution wasn’t adhered to? It seems they were very careful to follow the letter of the law.
 
Joined
Oct 11, 2016
Messages
319
What part of the constitution wasn’t adhered to? It seems they were very careful to follow the letter of the law.
Furthermore, to refuse West Virginia citizens the right to break off and form a new state would be to deny them their "constitutional rights"

The framers of the constitution clearly intended for citizens to have the ability to form new states from sections of existing states. It's a black-and-white constitutional right.

So to argue that the government in Richmond, which had repudiated any fealty to the US Constitution, had in fact MORE constitutional rights than loyal citizens of West Virginia who made every effort to follow the process described in said constitution is specious at best.

West Viginia had a constitutionally guaranteed right to separate from Virginia. It is a fact.

And if the process they employed is not up to some people's legal standards, then perhaps someone would explain what alternate process was available to them as a means of exercising that right.
 
Last edited:

jgoodguy

Brev. Brig. Gen'l
Retired Moderator
Joined
Aug 17, 2011
Messages
35,688
Location
Birmingham, Alabama
Furthermore, to refuse West Virginia citizens the right to break off and form a new state would be to deny them their "constitutional rights"

The framers of the constitution clearly intended for citizens to have the ability to form new states from sections of existing states. It's a black-and-white constitutional right.

So to argue that the government in Richmond, which had repudiated any fealty to the US Constitution, had in fact MORE constitutional rights than loyal citizens of West Virginia who made every effort to follow the process described in said constitution is specious at best.

West Viginia had a constitutionally guaranteed right to separate from Virginia. It is a fact.

And if the process they employed is not up to some people's legal standards, then perhaps someone would explain what alternate process was available to them as a means of exercising that right.
Interesting viewpoint.
 



(Membership has it privileges! To remove this ad: Register NOW!)
Top