Was West Virginia Secession Legal?

[Dr. Cynic]

He may have never acknowledged it, but we all know that they did. The people of WVA wanted to stay in the Union, and so they acknowledged thst by becoming WVA.

Also, what does it matter now?

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

He may have never acknowledged it, but we all know that they did. The people of WVA wanted to stay in the Union, and so they acknowledged thst by becoming WVA.

Also, what does it matter now?

No, Lincoln never acknowledged the existence of the Confederacy.

[Dr. Cynic]

I never said he did. I said everyone else knew they suceeded. And, as I say again, What does it matter now? Why would you wanna get rid of one of the stars on the US Flag?

[Vasall des Midas]

He may have never acknowledged it, but we all know that they did. The people of WVA wanted to stay in the Union, and so they acknowledged thst by becoming WVA.

Also, what does it matter now?

No, Lincoln never acknowledged the existence of the Confederacy.

the legality of its existence, you mean.
If he hadn't acknowledged its existence, he could have just sat around in the White House and pretended nothing was wrong. Kinda like Buchanan did, really.

[Dr. Cynic]

Buchanan is one reason why Pennsylvania should elect another President. We need to redeem ourselves from his failure.

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

Buchanan is one reason why Pennsylvania should elect another President. We need to redeem ourselves from his failure.

Buchanan was not a failure.

[jimrtex]

But Lincoln said the Southern states never left the union. Meaning that the laws of the constitution still applied to them. Of course you would deny that secession is legal Lewis because it's to easy to look over New Englands threats to secede, Daniel Webster preaching the right of secesssion and West Point teaching the right of state secession up until 1861.

And indeed they didn't.  The Virginia legislature sent senators to Congress who served throughout the war.   Or one of them did.  The other resigned, after the part of Virginia that he lived in became the state of West Virginia, and then was appointed senator from West Virginia.  Andrew Johnson was a senator from Tennessee, before he became governor, and then was elected Vice President in 1864.  If Tennessee were not in the United States it would have been illegal to elect him.

But if your theory that Virginia had the right to secede is correct, then the people in the western part of the state had the right to form a new state and petition for admission to the Union, just like the people of Vermont did in 1790.  So at best your argument is that the West Virginians did not follow the technically correct procedure.  But the President, Congress, and Supreme Court all disagreed.

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

But Lincoln said the Southern states never left the union. Meaning that the laws of the constitution still applied to them. Of course you would deny that secession is legal Lewis because it's to easy to look over New Englands threats to secede, Daniel Webster preaching the right of secesssion and West Point teaching the right of state secession up until 1861.

And indeed they didn't.  The Virginia legislature sent senators to Congress who served throughout the war.   Or one of them did.  The other resigned, after the part of Virginia that he lived in became the state of West Virginia, and then was appointed senator from West Virginia.  Andrew Johnson was a senator from Tennessee, before he became governor, and then was elected Vice President in 1864.  If Tennessee were not in the United States it would have been illegal to elect him.

But if your theory that Virginia had the right to secede is correct, then the people in the western part of the state had the right to form a new state and petition for admission to the Union, just like the people of Vermont did in 1790.  So at best your argument is that the West Virginians did not follow the technically correct procedure.  But the President, Congress, and Supreme Court all disagreed.

Well Lincoln never recognized the legal secession of the south and considered VA still a part of the union. The creation of WVA would then violate the constitution. If Lincoln and the government recognized the the CSA as a legit government then the creation of WVA was legal. But it doesn't matter because Lincoln was a war criminal who violated the constitution so much he should have been impeached. He was the worst disease ever given to America and Booth did the best service for Americans.

[Vasall des Midas]

Buchanan is one reason why Pennsylvania should elect another President. We need to redeem ourselves from his failure.

Buchanan is the reason you will never be given another chance. Far too dangerous.

[jimrtex]

Well Lincoln never recognized the legal secession of the south and considered VA still a part of the union.

And more importantly neither did Congress.  What you seem not to understand is that they did not recognize the actions of the cabal in Richmond.

Under the Constitution as it existed at that time, Senators were elected by the state legislature.  Also under the Constitution, the Senate has the authority to judge the election of its members.  The legislature meeting in Wheeling elected two senators.  The Senate of the US seated the two members.  Therefore, they must have been qualified; their election valid; and the body that elected them the legislature of Virginia.

The creation of WVA would then violate the constitution.

The legislature of Virginia (the one recognized by Congress), gave permission for the people of the western part of the state to form a new state.  They held a convention, wrote a constitution, and sought admittance to the Union.  Congress after determining that the legislature of the state of Virginia had given permission admitted West Virginia to the Union.

If Lincoln and the government recognized the the CSA as a legit government then the creation of WVA was legal.

If this had happened, then the creation of West Virginia would also have been legal.

Imagine if there are two highways.  If you highway takes you to a particular destination, it does not mean that the other highway does not.

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

How could the legislatures represent people of another nation? The Southern states were no longer a part of the United states and their is no proven law to show secession as illegal.

[jimrtex]

How could the legislatures represent people of another nation? The Southern states were no longer a part of the United states and their is no proven law to show secession as illegal.

They were elected by the people of Virginia.

Imagine that there are a bunch of Mennonites who don't recognize the government, that doesn't mean the government doesn't exist.

And since the Southern states didn't secede, it doesn't matter if it would be legal.

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

How could the legislatures represent people of another nation? The Southern states were no longer a part of the United states and their is no proven law to show secession as illegal.

They were elected by the people of Virginia.

Imagine that there are a bunch of Mennonites who don't recognize the government, that doesn't mean the government doesn't exist.

And since the Southern states didn't secede, it doesn't matter if it would be legal.

The Southern states did secede. Their actions were upheld by legal books of the period, Daniel Webster, the actions of New England, and even Abraham Lincoln prior to his election. I don't understand how you can say they never seceded.

[Vasall des Midas]

How could the legislatures represent people of another nation? The Southern states were no longer a part of the United states and their is no proven law to show secession as illegal.

They were elected by the people of Virginia.

Imagine that there are a bunch of Mennonites who don't recognize the government, that doesn't mean the government doesn't exist.

And since the Southern states didn't secede, it doesn't matter if it would be legal.

The Southern states did secede. Their actions were upheld by legal books of the period, Daniel Webster, the actions of New England, and even Abraham Lincoln prior to his election. I don't understand how you can say they never seceded.

Because that is legally (not factually) the case. Period.

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

How could the legislatures represent people of another nation? The Southern states were no longer a part of the United states and their is no proven law to show secession as illegal.

They were elected by the people of Virginia.

Imagine that there are a bunch of Mennonites who don't recognize the government, that doesn't mean the government doesn't exist.

And since the Southern states didn't secede, it doesn't matter if it would be legal.

The Southern states did secede. Their actions were upheld by legal books of the period, Daniel Webster, the actions of New England, and even Abraham Lincoln prior to his election. I don't understand how you can say they never seceded.

Because that is legally (not factually) the case. Period.

Brainwashing has done wonders for modern students of history.

[Vasall des Midas]

How could the legislatures represent people of another nation? The Southern states were no longer a part of the United states and their is no proven law to show secession as illegal.

They were elected by the people of Virginia.

Imagine that there are a bunch of Mennonites who don't recognize the government, that doesn't mean the government doesn't exist.

And since the Southern states didn't secede, it doesn't matter if it would be legal.

The Southern states did secede. Their actions were upheld by legal books of the period, Daniel Webster, the actions of New England, and even Abraham Lincoln prior to his election. I don't understand how you can say they never seceded.

Because that is legally (not factually) the case. Period.

Brainwashing has done wonders for modern students of history.

No...I think you got me wrong. This is not a historical argument, but purely a legal one. Now law is one sick subtype of logic. And legally, because there's several court decision saying that, and lots of valid US Law referring to that, there's no denying no legal secession happened...again, nothing to do with fact...

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

If no legal secession ever occured then why did all the Southern states have to be readmitted and why did southern soldiers/politicians have to be repatriated?

[Vasall des Midas]

If no legal secession ever occured then why did all the Southern states have to be readmitted and why did southern soldiers/politicians have to be repatriated?

I'm pretty certain you know at least as well as I do that the term "readmitted", though often used in history books and I guess even during that era, was not used as a legal term, because of (see everything above). States were reinstituted into their full constitutional rights.
As to your second point, I have no clue what that means...

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

If no legal secession ever occured then why did all the Southern states have to be readmitted and why did southern soldiers/politicians have to be repatriated?

I'm pretty certain you know at least as well as I do that the term "readmitted", though often used in history books and I guess even during that era, was not used as a legal term, because of (see everything above). States were reinstituted into their full constitutional rights.
As to your second point, I have no clue what that means...

All southern soldiers and politicians had to take oaths of allegiance to regain US citizenship.

[Vasall des Midas]

If no legal secession ever occured then why did all the Southern states have to be readmitted and why did southern soldiers/politicians have to be repatriated?

I'm pretty certain you know at least as well as I do that the term "readmitted", though often used in history books and I guess even during that era, was not used as a legal term, because of (see everything above). States were reinstituted into their full constitutional rights.
As to your second point, I have no clue what that means...

All southern soldiers and politicians had to take oaths of allegiance to regain US citizenship.

Thanks.
Well, nobody denied the rebellion took place. What is being flatout denied -in the face of factual evidence, of course- is that any states legally left the union.
And in the cases of extremely divided states such as Virginia or Tennessee, or Kentucky (also claimed by the Confederacy) for that matter, I guess you could indeed argue on whether or no the [/i]states had left...but that's a bottomless discussion topic...

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

If no legal secession ever occured then why did all the Southern states have to be readmitted and why did southern soldiers/politicians have to be repatriated?

I'm pretty certain you know at least as well as I do that the term "readmitted", though often used in history books and I guess even during that era, was not used as a legal term, because of (see everything above). States were reinstituted into their full constitutional rights.
As to your second point, I have no clue what that means...

All southern soldiers and politicians had to take oaths of allegiance to regain US citizenship.

Thanks.
Well, nobody denied the rebellion took place. What is being flatout denied -in the face of factual evidence, of course- is that any states legally left the union.
And in the cases of extremely divided states such as Virginia or Tennessee, or Kentucky (also claimed by the Confederacy) for that matter, I guess you could indeed argue on whether or no the [/i]states had left...but that's a bottomless discussion topic...

Then what would constitute a legal secession in your opinion? States are not and were not intended to be bound to the federal government. We are a union of the willing.

[Vasall des Midas]

Indeed an open question...and thankfully not one I need to have a definite opinion on as I'm no American
If the secessions of the Deep South states (Upper South is somewhat different) were void on grounds of insufficient voter support or anything like that, then the threshold would indeed be incredibly high, ie the theoretical right to secede would be totally meaningless.
If they were void because there was no just cause and such a just cause is necessary, then I'd agree there was indeed no just cause in this case, but add that you'd need some sort of authority to judge that in future disputes.
Or I could argue that the states have no such right. Nowhere in the constitution is such a right mentioned. Such a right is mentioned in the Canadian and Austrian constitutions, and is elsewhere in the world deemed to be nonexistent.
Problem is, that isn't really enough to make a case. Most other countries weren't formed by a union of previously existing states. Most other constitutions date from a later period.
So, pass on this one.

[jimrtex]

The Southern states did secede. Their actions were upheld by legal books of the period, Daniel Webster, the actions of New England, and even Abraham Lincoln prior to his election. I don't understand how you can say they never seceded.

Hou could Andrew Johnson of Tennessee been elected if Tennessee was not a state of the Union.  It is a legal requirement under the US Constitution.  How could the Senate seat the senators from Virginia, unless the legislature of Virginia meeting in Wheeling, Virginia had elected them?  How could the US Supreme Court have ruled the way it did in Virginia v. West Virginia in 1870 if Virginia had seceded?  Just because some fancy pants Boston lawyer writes something in a book, doesn't make it the law, just a theory.

Whether it is legal for a state to secede is a moot point.  It is obvious that it did not happen in 1861.

[jimrtex]

If no legal secession ever occured then why did all the Southern states have to be readmitted and why did southern soldiers/politicians have to be repatriated?

After the insurrection had been suppressed and its leaders imprisoned, there was an opportunity for the re-establishment of civil political institutions.  Once Congress was satisfied that these institutions had been re-stablished, they were recognized as legitimate.

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

The Southern states did secede. Their actions were upheld by legal books of the period, Daniel Webster, the actions of New England, and even Abraham Lincoln prior to his election. I don't understand how you can say they never seceded.

Hou could Andrew Johnson of Tennessee been elected if Tennessee was not a state of the Union.  It is a legal requirement under the US Constitution.  How could the Senate seat the senators from Virginia, unless the legislature of Virginia meeting in Wheeling, Virginia had elected them?  How could the US Supreme Court have ruled the way it did in Virginia v. West Virginia in 1870 if Virginia had seceded?  Just because some fancy pants Boston lawyer writes something in a book, doesn't make it the law, just a theory.

Whether it is legal for a state to secede is a moot point.  It is obvious that it did not happen in 1861.

If it was not a legal government then why did the government of Brazil recognize the Confederacy as a legitimate government? Those senators and etc have about as much legitimacy as electing senators from Canada. Britian and France pretty much recognized the CSA but never did it formally.