Was West Virginia Secession Legal?

[jimrtex]

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.

I don't know why the Brazilian King Pedro II recognized the Confederacy.  I don't even think that VP Stephens recognized all of actions of Davis government as legitimate.  If the Canadian legislature elected 2 senators, and the Congress sat them, then they would be as legitimate as those elected by the legislature of Virginia.  Did the French recognize Maximillan?



Canada is not a State,

[Vasall des Midas]

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.

I don't know why the Brazilian King Pedro II recognized the Confederacy.  

The fact that slavery was still legal in Brazil may have played a role.

[frenger]

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.

I don't know why the Brazilian King Pedro II recognized the Confederacy.  

The fact that slavery was still legal in Brazil may have played a role.

Despite slavery being illegal in brasil had nothing to do with it, since the Emperor Pedro II was against slavery himnself, and so was most of the political elite, who was opposed by the landowners lobby.

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

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.

I don't know why the Brazilian King Pedro II recognized the Confederacy.  

The fact that slavery was still legal in Brazil may have played a role.

Despite slavery being illegal in brasil had nothing to do with it, since the Emperor Pedro II was against slavery himnself, and so was most of the political elite, who was opposed by the landowners lobby.

Thousands of ex-Confederates moved to Brazil after the war and started up their own towns. The descendents to this day are still called "Confederatos" by the native Brazilians.

[J. J.]

This is an interesting question, which, IMO, depends on if states had (or have) the right to secede.  I think I can give two arguments with one conclusion.

1.  It was a legal right of a state to secede.  When VA took the action, it placed itself outside of control by the US Consititution.  The Legislature couldn't appoint electors for president of the US, for example.  The US Constitution didn't apply in toto, including the Art. IV, Sec. 3.  It is no more illegal or unconstitutional that having Victoria on the throne of England.  The US Constitution would no more be applicable in VA that it would be in England.

2.  It was NOT a legal right of a state to secede.  The VA legislature, and generally, the people of VA, were taking an unconstitutional act.  The only people that were acting consitutionally were the people in Wheeling; they were effectively the de jure government of the state as a whole.  Acting as the government of the whole state, they permitted the splitting off of WV.

Under either constitutional theory, WV was legitimately formed under the US Constitution.  It was either a territory of another nation affiliating with the US, or it was a state within the US, under the Constitution, permitting some of its territory to be incorporated as a new state.  There was precendent at the time for both possibilities, TX and ME, respectively.

Now, I tend, with historical hindsight (and being a northerner) with #2, but #1 yields the same result.

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

This is an interesting question, which, IMO, depends on if states had (or have) the right to secede.  I think I can give two arguments with one conclusion.

1.  It was a legal right of a state to secede.  When VA took the action, it placed itself outside of control by the US Consititution.  The Legislature couldn't appoint electors for president of the US, for example.  The US Constitution didn't apply in toto, including the Art. IV, Sec. 3.  It is no more illegal or unconstitutional that having Victoria on the throne of England.  The US Constitution would no more be applicable in VA that it would be in England.

2.  It was NOT a legal right of a state to secede.  The VA legislature, and generally, the people of VA, were taking an unconstitutional act.  The only people that were acting consitutionally were the people in Wheeling; they were effectively the de jure government of the state as a whole.  Acting as the government of the whole state, they permitted the splitting off of WV.

Under either constitutional theory, WV was legitimately formed under the US Constitution.  It was either a territory of another nation affiliating with the US, or it was a state within the US, under the Constitution, permitting some of its territory to be incorporated as a new state.  There was precendent at the time for both possibilities, TX and ME, respectively.

Now, I tend, with historical hindsight (and being a northerner) with #2, but #1 yields the same result.

Show me any proof, that did not come out of a Lincoln administration, that secession is illegal. No one can and no one has yet to do it.

[jimrtex]

Show me any proof, that did not come out of a Lincoln administration, that secession is illegal. No one can and no one has yet to do it.

Who said it was illegal?  It was simply the case that Virginia and the other southern States did not secede.  If Virginia had seceded, its legislature could not have elected Senators which were seated by the Senate, nor could the legislature granted the people of the northwestern part of the state the right to form WV.  If Tennessee had seceded, Andrew Johnson could have been elected Vice President.

[J. J.]

Show me any proof, that did not come out of a Lincoln administration, that secession is illegal. No one can and no one has yet to do it.

Question is NOT gemane to this thread.  The determination is if the setting up of WV was constitutional.  If the Constitution did not or does not permit secession of a state, WV was set up in accord to the Constitution.   If the Constitution did or does permit secession of a state, WV was set up in accord to the Constitution.

Is secession constitutional now, or was it constitutional then, is a different question.  Whether is was or wasn't, WV was still set up constitutionally.

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

Show me any proof, that did not come out of a Lincoln administration, that secession is illegal. No one can and no one has yet to do it.

Who said it was illegal?  It was simply the case that Virginia and the other southern States did not secede.  If Virginia had seceded, its legislature could not have elected Senators which were seated by the Senate, nor could the legislature granted the people of the northwestern part of the state the right to form WV.  If Tennessee had seceded, Andrew Johnson could have been elected Vice President.

I think we are going to just have to agree to disagree on this subject.