Was the creation of West Virginia unconstitutional
       |           

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
March 29, 2024, 06:37:03 AM
News: Election Simulator 2.0 Released. Senate/Gubernatorial maps, proportional electoral votes, and more - Read more

  Talk Elections
  General Politics
  Political Debate (Moderator: Torie)
  Was the creation of West Virginia unconstitutional
« previous next »
Pages: [1] 2
Author Topic: Was the creation of West Virginia unconstitutional  (Read 14769 times)
they don't love you like i love you
BRTD
Atlas Prophet
*****
Posts: 112,714
Ukraine


Political Matrix
E: -6.50, S: -6.67

P P
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« on: June 27, 2004, 11:21:47 PM »

start the debate here.
Logged
??????????
StatesRights
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 31,126
Political Matrix
E: 7.61, S: 0.00

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #1 on: June 27, 2004, 11:24:07 PM »

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.
Logged
True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)
Ernest
Moderators
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 42,157
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #2 on: June 27, 2004, 11:59:32 PM »

No.  A state can be created out of another state with the permission of that state.  Lincoln and the Congress recognized a rump legislature of Virginian Unionists meeting in Wheeling who were mostly from northwestern Virginia and refused to participate in secession (seeing that as an unconstitutional act) as a restored Virginia state govenment in 1861.  That government then proceeded to propose the partition of "Kanawha" from Virginia.  The West Virginians certainly took advantage of the Civil War to break away from the tidewater aristocrats, but the legal i's were dotted and thepolitical t's were crossed.
Logged
The Duke
JohnD.Ford
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 9,270


Political Matrix
E: 0.13, S: -1.23

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #3 on: June 28, 2004, 03:40:46 AM »

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.
Logged
??????????
StatesRights
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 31,126
Political Matrix
E: 7.61, S: 0.00

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #4 on: June 28, 2004, 10:12:58 AM »

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.

Bingo.
Logged
True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)
Ernest
Moderators
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 42,157
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #5 on: June 28, 2004, 10:20:40 AM »

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.
Logged
??????????
StatesRights
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 31,126
Political Matrix
E: 7.61, S: 0.00

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #6 on: June 28, 2004, 10:32:18 AM »

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.
Logged
True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)
Ernest
Moderators
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 42,157
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #7 on: June 28, 2004, 10:55:40 AM »

I take it then, that you are not a strict constructionist.  After all, the constitution contains no provision for a state to secede from the Union.
Logged
??????????
StatesRights
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 31,126
Political Matrix
E: 7.61, S: 0.00

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #8 on: June 28, 2004, 11:00:16 AM »

I take it then, that you are not a strict constructionist.  After all, the constitution contains no provision for a state to secede from the Union.

The Union is not binding. No state is required to stay in the Union.
Logged
PBrunsel
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 9,537


WWW Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #9 on: June 28, 2004, 12:03:27 PM »

It was legal because session is Constitutional.
Logged
??????????
StatesRights
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 31,126
Political Matrix
E: 7.61, S: 0.00

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #10 on: June 28, 2004, 12:09:15 PM »

It was legal because session is Constitutional.

No, a state can not be created out of the part of another state. If you are going by the standard "The south really did secede" line then WVA may have a legitimate stand. But if you stand by Lincolns' belief that, "The South never seceded". Then of course it would be unconstitutional.
Logged
PBrunsel
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 9,537


WWW Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #11 on: June 28, 2004, 12:12:39 PM »

It was legal because session is Constitutional.

No, a state can not be created out of the part of another state. If you are going by the standard "The south really did secede" line then WVA may have a legitimate stand. But if you stand by Lincolns' belief that, "The South never seceded". Then of course it would be unconstitutional.

Excellent point StatesRights!
Logged
??????????
StatesRights
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 31,126
Political Matrix
E: 7.61, S: 0.00

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #12 on: June 28, 2004, 12:14:55 PM »

Lincoln = John Kerry of the 19th Century. lol
Logged
12th Doctor
supersoulty
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 20,584
Ukraine


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #13 on: June 28, 2004, 02:02:45 PM »

Yes, but who cares?
Logged
Schmitz in 1972
Liberty
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 1,317
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #14 on: June 28, 2004, 02:12:22 PM »

How about Andrew Johnson, I sometimes wonder if he was a Constitutional Vice-President/President.  He was elected from Tennessee which was not a part of the United States at the time (If you want proof that Tennessee et al. weren't part of the United States than just consider that all states needed to be readmitted to the union after the war; The Confederate States really were a separate nation for the four years).
Logged
??????????
StatesRights
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 31,126
Political Matrix
E: 7.61, S: 0.00

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #15 on: June 28, 2004, 02:18:59 PM »

How about Andrew Johnson, I sometimes wonder if he was a Constitutional Vice-President/President.  He was elected from Tennessee which was not a part of the United States at the time (If you want proof that Tennessee et al. weren't part of the United States than just consider that all states needed to be readmitted to the union after the war; The Confederate States really were a separate nation for the four years).

Why did the states need re-admission if the governments stance was they never left in the first place?
Logged
True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)
Ernest
Moderators
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 42,157
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #16 on: June 28, 2004, 03:26:06 PM »

Actually, Tennessee was the only one of the eleven Confederate states that was not subjected to Reconstruction by Congress.  In any case, the Republican theory was that while the states had never seceded, the state governments had committed the equivalent of political suicide by engaging in unlawful rebellion, so until a lawful state government had been "reconstructed" the state had no representation.
Logged
??????????
StatesRights
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 31,126
Political Matrix
E: 7.61, S: 0.00

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #17 on: June 28, 2004, 03:29:53 PM »

Actually, Tennessee was the only one of the eleven Confederate states that was not subjected to Reconstruction by Congress.  In any case, the Republican theory was that while the states had never seceded, the state governments had committed the equivalent of political suicide by engaging in unlawful rebellion, so until a lawful state government had been "reconstructed" the state had no representation.

It should be "unlawful".
Logged
12th Doctor
supersoulty
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 20,584
Ukraine


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #18 on: June 28, 2004, 08:27:58 PM »

Actually, Tennessee was the only one of the eleven Confederate states that was not subjected to Reconstruction by Congress.  

This is true.  Most of the state ahd already been in Union hands for so long that they were able to forgo Reconstruction.
Logged
12th Doctor
supersoulty
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 20,584
Ukraine


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #19 on: June 28, 2004, 08:30:25 PM »
« Edited: June 28, 2004, 08:31:41 PM by Vice-President Elect Supersoulty »

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.
Logged
??????????
StatesRights
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 31,126
Political Matrix
E: 7.61, S: 0.00

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #20 on: June 28, 2004, 08:31:21 PM »

Actually, Tennessee was the only one of the eleven Confederate states that was not subjected to Reconstruction by Congress.  

This is true.  Most of the state ahd already been in Union hands for so long that they were able to forgo Reconstruction.

Interesting side note. The eastern counties of WVA did not want to break off. They were "convinced" into joining the rest of WVA at the threat of losing their heart (aka the railroad).
Logged
??????????
StatesRights
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 31,126
Political Matrix
E: 7.61, S: 0.00

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #21 on: June 28, 2004, 08:33:51 PM »

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.
Logged
12th Doctor
supersoulty
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 20,584
Ukraine


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #22 on: June 28, 2004, 08:37:00 PM »

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.
Logged
??????????
StatesRights
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 31,126
Political Matrix
E: 7.61, S: 0.00

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #23 on: June 28, 2004, 08:42:58 PM »

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.
Logged
12th Doctor
supersoulty
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 20,584
Ukraine


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #24 on: June 28, 2004, 08:51:44 PM »

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.
Logged
Pages: [1] 2  
« previous next »
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

Terms of Service - DMCA Agent and Policy - Privacy Policy and Cookies

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines

Page created in 0.046 seconds with 12 queries.