Was the creation of West Virginia unconstitutional

[??????????]

This is what I don't understand about you, States.  The war is over buddy.  I know that there were lots of unconstitutional things going on and secession was, in fact, constitutional, but in the end, we are all better off because Lincoln did preserve the Union.

Even if the seceded states had rejoined in a year, the sectional crisis would have continued and the there would have been a Civil War anyway in 10 or 20 or 30 years.

I know the war is over. I'm not standing in the streets shooting Yankees. Debating the politics of the war is valid because many of these issues have not been settled. I do NOT believe we are better off because of what Lincoln did. Lincoln did NOT preserve the union of the founders. He twisted it and molded it into what he "believed" the union should be. He was wrong and history should call him on it.

I would say that Lincoln's vision of what the Union should be was perfectly in line with the vision of Adams and Madison.  Jefferson doesn't count because he talked one game and played another.  He pretended to oppose the Federalist platform, but when he became President, he essentially adopted it.  So, show me how Lincoln's veiws differed with those of Adams.

I agree that Lincoln had a lot in common with Adams. Locking up dissenters without a trial by jury. God forbid you openly opposed the policies of Lincoln if you lived in the north.

God forbid we lock away the terrorists who threaten us today.  Stories of people being locked away in areas that weren't controled by the military were greatly over-exagerated and mostly justified.

 



Terrorism is completely different then the dissenters locked up back then.

[12th Doctor]

This is what I don't understand about you, States.  The war is over buddy.  I know that there were lots of unconstitutional things going on and secession was, in fact, constitutional, but in the end, we are all better off because Lincoln did preserve the Union.

Even if the seceded states had rejoined in a year, the sectional crisis would have continued and the there would have been a Civil War anyway in 10 or 20 or 30 years.

I know the war is over. I'm not standing in the streets shooting Yankees. Debating the politics of the war is valid because many of these issues have not been settled. I do NOT believe we are better off because of what Lincoln did. Lincoln did NOT preserve the union of the founders. He twisted it and molded it into what he "believed" the union should be. He was wrong and history should call him on it.

I would say that Lincoln's vision of what the Union should be was perfectly in line with the vision of Adams and Madison.  Jefferson doesn't count because he talked one game and played another.  He pretended to oppose the Federalist platform, but when he became President, he essentially adopted it.  So, show me how Lincoln's veiws differed with those of Adams.

I agree that Lincoln had a lot in common with Adams. Locking up dissenters without a trial by jury. God forbid you openly opposed the policies of Lincoln if you lived in the north.

God forbid we lock away the terrorists who threaten us today.  Stories of people being locked away in areas that weren't controled by the military were greatly over-exagerated and mostly justified.

 



Terrorism is completely different then the dissenters locked up back then.

How so?  Many of them had were involved in plots to blow up railroads and burn down cities.

[??????????]

This is what I don't understand about you, States.  The war is over buddy.  I know that there were lots of unconstitutional things going on and secession was, in fact, constitutional, but in the end, we are all better off because Lincoln did preserve the Union.

Even if the seceded states had rejoined in a year, the sectional crisis would have continued and the there would have been a Civil War anyway in 10 or 20 or 30 years.

I know the war is over. I'm not standing in the streets shooting Yankees. Debating the politics of the war is valid because many of these issues have not been settled. I do NOT believe we are better off because of what Lincoln did. Lincoln did NOT preserve the union of the founders. He twisted it and molded it into what he "believed" the union should be. He was wrong and history should call him on it.

I would say that Lincoln's vision of what the Union should be was perfectly in line with the vision of Adams and Madison.  Jefferson doesn't count because he talked one game and played another.  He pretended to oppose the Federalist platform, but when he became President, he essentially adopted it.  So, show me how Lincoln's veiws differed with those of Adams.

I agree that Lincoln had a lot in common with Adams. Locking up dissenters without a trial by jury. God forbid you openly opposed the policies of Lincoln if you lived in the north.

God forbid we lock away the terrorists who threaten us today.  Stories of people being locked away in areas that weren't controled by the military were greatly over-exagerated and mostly justified.

 



Terrorism is completely different then the dissenters locked up back then.

How so?  Many of them had were involved in plots to blow up railroads and burn down cities.

Blowing up railroads is a legitamite target IMHO. Burning cities? Well thats questionable. As we already know that both sides used that tactic. Also, I'd like to point you to camps such as Elmira and Rock Island. Why didn't Lincoln shut those hellholes down?

[12th Doctor]

This is what I don't understand about you, States.  The war is over buddy.  I know that there were lots of unconstitutional things going on and secession was, in fact, constitutional, but in the end, we are all better off because Lincoln did preserve the Union.

Even if the seceded states had rejoined in a year, the sectional crisis would have continued and the there would have been a Civil War anyway in 10 or 20 or 30 years.

I know the war is over. I'm not standing in the streets shooting Yankees. Debating the politics of the war is valid because many of these issues have not been settled. I do NOT believe we are better off because of what Lincoln did. Lincoln did NOT preserve the union of the founders. He twisted it and molded it into what he "believed" the union should be. He was wrong and history should call him on it.

I would say that Lincoln's vision of what the Union should be was perfectly in line with the vision of Adams and Madison.  Jefferson doesn't count because he talked one game and played another.  He pretended to oppose the Federalist platform, but when he became President, he essentially adopted it.  So, show me how Lincoln's veiws differed with those of Adams.

I agree that Lincoln had a lot in common with Adams. Locking up dissenters without a trial by jury. God forbid you openly opposed the policies of Lincoln if you lived in the north.

God forbid we lock away the terrorists who threaten us today.  Stories of people being locked away in areas that weren't controled by the military were greatly over-exagerated and mostly justified.

 



Terrorism is completely different then the dissenters locked up back then.

How so?  Many of them had were involved in plots to blow up railroads and burn down cities.

Blowing up railroads is a legitamite target IMHO. Burning cities? Well thats questionable. As we already know that both sides used that tactic. Also, I'd like to point you to camps such as Elmira and Rock Island. Why didn't Lincoln shut those hellholes down?

He probably didn't know about the conditions there.  They didn't have 24/7 cable news and Amnesty International, you know?  Blowing up railroads and killing civilains is legit?  Remember, back in those days, they didn't have people monitoring the tracks all the time and if something did occure, they couldn't phone the conductor.  A lot of innocent civilians died that way.  Regardless of whether that is legit or not, the Federals were certainly within thier right to arrest those people.

[The Duke]

Blowing up railroads is a legitamite target IMHO.

The Madrid bombers certainly thought so.

[??????????]

Blowing up railroads is a legitamite target IMHO.

The Madrid bombers certainly thought so.

Not in modern times fellar.

[opebo]

In a way I wish WV did not exsist, but then if it were part of VA it might swing that fine state leftward.  Or at least it might have in the past.

[12th Doctor]

In a way I wish WV did not exsist, but then if it were part of VA it might swing that fine state leftward.  Or at least it might have in the past.

Not nessesarily.  Remaining a part of Virginia would have equalled more economic develpoment for the region.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

One of the reasons West Virginians were in favor of  separation was the lack of economic development they were getting because the tidewater planters concentrated all of the state's internal improvements in the tidewater.  The area would have gotten less economic development had it stayed in Virginia, not more.

[12th Doctor]

One of the reasons West Virginians were in favor of  separation was the lack of economic development they were getting because the tidewater planters concentrated all of the state's internal improvements in the tidewater.  The area would have gotten less economic development had it stayed in Virginia, not more.

Not true.  What you say is accurate until the Civil War, but the discovery of Coal in the region would have sparked growth.  Also, the Hatfeild McCoy feud (which did a lot to kill the growth of railroads in that area) was started in large part by the state of West Virginia not honoring it's contracts.

[minionofmidas]

It is true that a state can be created out of another as long as there is consent, but Virginia didn't give anything that could be mistaken for legitimate consent.  This would be like if George Bush signed a treaty with exiles from Libya and then pretended that the thing was binding law and that the Libyan government had to do what he said.

NATO did something rather like that on Kosovo...

[minionofmidas]

The exact boundaries of West Virginia are largely dictated by railroads.
Northern WV could not be reached by railroad from the Tidewater without crossing through Maryland. (The Eastern Panhandle, which was not dominated by Unconditional Unionists, was added to the state so that not a yard of Baltimore & Ohio track remained in Virginia).
The Kanawha Valley did not yet have any railroads, thanks to underfunding of a begun railroad project by the Virginia State Legislature. In Eastern WV, the border is where the railroad ended in 1860 - outside White Sulphur Springs. The major traffic connection for this area, therefore, was still the river, which is of course a tributary of the Ohio.
Southwestern Virginia meanwhile, just as Appalachian and non-pro-Slavery in its outlook, was economically tied to slavery interests due to the Norfolk and Western (it had a different name then, I've forgotten what, but it was completed in the '50s.) This connected the Virginia tidewater with the Gulf Plains via Danville, Norton, Bristol, Kingsport, Knoxville, Chattanooga. The area's elected representatives were overwhelmingly "Conditional Unionists" who went over to the South after Fort Sumter.
The one major exemption, then, is the area that is now the Southernmost part of WV. This region should "logically" be part of Virginia, not WV.
PS: Even the State's Western Boundary is flawed. The line between Virginia and Kentucky was supposed to follow the main (Levisa) fork of the Big Sandy River. Yet when the boundary commissions's surveyors travelled the area, the Tug Fork was in flood and looked like it was the main fork. As a result, Kentucky gained an area that  now includes one county whole and parts of four more.

[minionofmidas]

As I understand it, the boundaries of West Virginia follow the boundaries of the three Congressional districts of the Representatives elected in 1860 who didn't resign their seats when Richmond seceded.

It's possible that the Southern Boundary follows that, but not the Northeastern one.

[© tweed]

Yes

[Nym90]

I'd say no, as Virginia wasn't a part of the Union. If a state secedes from the Union, then a part of that state should have the right to secede from the state, and remain Union.

I realize our official position was that the South hadn't seceded, but that's about as good as our official positions that the Eastern Bloc nations weren't communist, or that Taiwan is a part of China.

[??????????]

I'd say no, as Virginia wasn't a part of the Union. If a state secedes from the Union, then a part of that state should have the right to secede from the state, and remain Union.

I realize our official position was that the South hadn't seceded, but that's about as good as our official positions that the Eastern Bloc nations weren't communist, or that Taiwan is a part of China.

Lincoln said the official governments position was that the south did NOT secede.

[Nym90]

Yes, that's what I said. Reread my post.

[Bandit3 the Worker]

I can't believe this is even a serious topic of debate.

Nobody in 141 years has suggested such silliness without being laughed at.

[??????????]

I can't believe this is even a serious topic of debate.

Nobody in 141 years has suggested such silliness without being laughed at.

Didn't Gore really win Kentucky? If you want to talk about silliness.

[ijohn57s]

The rump legislature was composed of legitimately elected Virginia state legislators (i.e. elected in 1860) If you assume that secession is unconstitutional, as Lincoln did, then the actions of the rump legislature while irregular, were certainly constitutional.

But secession was legal. As taught by West Point to its students. As preached by Daniel Webster when New England threatened to secede. As the founding fathers agreed with.

In fact, the colonies seceded from England and the original 13 states seceded from thegovernment under the Articles of Confederation.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

The 13 colonies did not secede, they revolted, their separation from Britain came not from the right of law but the right of revolution.  The slave states had certainly not exhausted the possibilities of separation by law when they engaged in revolution by attacking Fort Sumter.

[ijohn57s]

Yes. The constitution specifically says that no state can be created out of another state. Lincoln never acknowledged any southern state as having left the union. So either A) He was a flip flopper or B) Just followed along his pattern of constitution violations.