The federal court, forget the date, ruled that WV owed Virginia x amount million dollars. I think it took until 1924 to pay it off.
You could argue that the government formed in western Virginia was the legal government of the entire state since the original government was engaged in an unlawful rebellion. That would allow them to form a new state.
No it wouldnt. The only arguement that would be "Constitutional" would be that The Government formed in that part of Virginia represented the entire State due to rebellion. That still leaves you with finding documentation that A) the West Virginian Government made this claim B) That they passed legislation splitting the State C) That doing such allowed the Government of "Virginia" to cease to exsist and instead assume Governship of the New State.
Even though the people of the State were in rebellion the Constitution is clear that ONLY the people ( through their elected representitives) can agree to split a State. The US Congress does NOT have the power to do it by Fiat.
I think the federal case that made WV pay out the a$$ to Virginia included Virginia's recognition of WV statehood. Prior to the war there was a proposal to create a new state to be called "Vandallia" out of approximately the same area as WV. I forget all the details.
Posts: 53
Joined: 11/25/2006 From: Wherever Uncle Sam sends me Status: offline
quote:
ORIGINAL: Twotribes
As to maryland it was not "Constitutional" to secede but more to the point, as I recall the State voted and voted to remain IN the Union.
Correct, but only after half of the state government was "imprisoned."
The counties that broke away were eventually considered the legitimate government of Virginia (eventhough they didn't represent even half of the state). What of the Virginia government in "exile" in Alexandria?
There is an article out there by a Minnesota law professor but I can't get access to the whole article... just the abstract.
Abstract: When the Commonwealth of Virginia announced it was seceding from the Union, the northwestern corner of Virginia formed a rump government-in-exile, declared itself the lawful government of Virginia, and gave "Virginia's" consent to the creation of a new State of West Virginia consisting of essentially the same northwestern corner of old Virginia. Congress and the Lincoln administration recognized the northwestern rump as the legitimate government of Virginia, and voted to admit West Virginia as a State.
Could they do that? This article takes on the odd but amazingly complicated (and occasionally interesting) constitutional question of whether West Virginia is legitimately a State of the Union or is instead an illegal, breakaway province of Virginia. While scarcely a burning legal issue in the twenty-first century, the question of West Virginia's constitutionality turns out to be more than of just quaint historical interest, but also to say a great deal about textualism and formalism as legitimate modes of constitutional interpretation today.
As to maryland it was not "Constitutional" to secede but more to the point, as I recall the State voted and voted to remain IN the Union.
Correct, but only after half of the state government was "imprisoned."
The counties that broke away were eventually considered the legitimate government of Virginia (eventhough they didn't represent even half of the state). What of the Virginia government in "exile" in Alexandria?
There is an article out there by a Minnesota law professor but I can't get access to the whole article... just the abstract.
Abstract: When the Commonwealth of Virginia announced it was seceding from the Union, the northwestern corner of Virginia formed a rump government-in-exile, declared itself the lawful government of Virginia, and gave "Virginia's" consent to the creation of a new State of West Virginia consisting of essentially the same northwestern corner of old Virginia. Congress and the Lincoln administration recognized the northwestern rump as the legitimate government of Virginia, and voted to admit West Virginia as a State.
Could they do that? This article takes on the odd but amazingly complicated (and occasionally interesting) constitutional question of whether West Virginia is legitimately a State of the Union or is instead an illegal, breakaway province of Virginia. While scarcely a burning legal issue in the twenty-first century, the question of West Virginia's constitutionality turns out to be more than of just quaint historical interest, but also to say a great deal about textualism and formalism as legitimate modes of constitutional interpretation today.
As long as I do do not have to pay your taxes then consider myself surrendered. My wife is from VA and I often tell here that we kicked them out of the Great State of WV.
Posts: 9349
Joined: 1/1/2003 From: Kansas City, MO Status: offline
quote:
ORIGINAL: Twotribes It was clearly ( in my opinion) Unconstitutional.
But not unprecidented. Tennessee was once considered part of North Carolina, and Virginia had claims on Kentucky and Ohio. The Constitution of the United States can be an amazingly flexible document when the circumstances warrent (and sometimes when they don't). If you can get the Supreme Court to go along with it, almost anything can become "constitutional".
ORIGINAL: Mike Scholl If you can get the Supreme Court to go along with it, almost anything can become "constitutional".
Mr.Scholl, that is brilliant and sadly oh-so true.
You press in some activist judges and you get "constitutional" laws alright. Taking your family farm to build a wal-mart for some fat-cats, legal disposal of unborn humans, and stacking of yet more federal gun laws. Nothing says 'Constitution' more than sending Gammy to some over-priced condo that she never intended to buy.
btw, love the discussions y'all have here. Quite a collection of thinkers.
mo reb
_____________________________
**Those who rob Peter to pay Paul can always count on the support of Paul **A government big enough to give you everything you want is a government big enough to take from you everything you have-Gerald Ford
ORIGINAL: Twotribes It was clearly ( in my opinion) Unconstitutional.
But not unprecidented. Tennessee was once considered part of North Carolina, and Virginia had claims on Kentucky and Ohio. The Constitution of the United States can be an amazingly flexible document when the circumstances warrent (and sometimes when they don't). If you can get the Supreme Court to go along with it, almost anything can become "constitutional".
Well except those States AGREED to release the territory. Which IS what the Constitution requires.
As to maryland it was not "Constitutional" to secede but more to the point, as I recall the State voted and voted to remain IN the Union.
Correct, but only after half of the state government was "imprisoned."
The counties that broke away were eventually considered the legitimate government of Virginia (eventhough they didn't represent even half of the state). What of the Virginia government in "exile" in Alexandria?
There is an article out there by a Minnesota law professor but I can't get access to the whole article... just the abstract.
Abstract: When the Commonwealth of Virginia announced it was seceding from the Union, the northwestern corner of Virginia formed a rump government-in-exile, declared itself the lawful government of Virginia, and gave "Virginia's" consent to the creation of a new State of West Virginia consisting of essentially the same northwestern corner of old Virginia. Congress and the Lincoln administration recognized the northwestern rump as the legitimate government of Virginia, and voted to admit West Virginia as a State.
Could they do that? This article takes on the odd but amazingly complicated (and occasionally interesting) constitutional question of whether West Virginia is legitimately a State of the Union or is instead an illegal, breakaway province of Virginia. While scarcely a burning legal issue in the twenty-first century, the question of West Virginia's constitutionality turns out to be more than of just quaint historical interest, but also to say a great deal about textualism and formalism as legitimate modes of constitutional interpretation today.
First, here's a great article that is well footnoted about the question of West Virginia Statehood. It is remarkably frank and balanced despite the fact that it is on the West Virginia Division of Culture (no, really) and History's official website.
Second, I'm not a lawyer ("but I did stay at a Holiday Inn Express last night") but it seems to me that the question of whether or not West Virginia's statehood is constitutional boils down to whether or not the "Restored Government of Virginia" was the legitimate government of the Commonwealth of Virginia. Clearly it did not represent the entire population of Virginia - but the Virginia legislature had voted to secede from the Union - a action which the Federal government denied they had the right to do. It seems that the Union chose to accept it as legitimate and thus accept the plebiscite to separate the western counties of Virginia from the commonwealth - though not without a good deal of debate among the Union senators and in Lincoln's cabinet. Even Lincoln was quoted as saying "I believe the admission of West Virginia into the union is expedient."
I find something rather amusing about the whole debate. The article linked above quotes Jefferson Davis' memoirs where he describes the "organization of the state of West Virginia and its separation from the state of Virginia were acts of secession". So the leader of the CSA bemoans the right of counties to secede from a state while supporting the right of states to secede from the Union. But to make it even more amusing is that by essentially recognizing the right of the western counties of Virginia to secede from the rest of the state did the United States not then also recognize the right of the states to secede from the Union?
Kanawha Valley pronunciation conflict above reminds me of Missouri pronunciation conflict. Here we have residents who say it's Missour"i", and other residents who say it's Missour"ah"... Rather amusing, since the Indians probably had there own inflection, which would be the real "correct" pronunciation.
We talkin about the state of Mizzurah here?
quote:
ORIGINAL: DrewGator
I find something rather amusing about the whole debate. The article linked above quotes Jefferson Davis' memoirs where he describes the "organization of the state of West Virginia and its separation from the state of Virginia were acts of secession". So the leader of the CSA bemoans the right of counties to secede from a state while supporting the right of states to secede from the Union. But to make it even more amusing is that by essentially recognizing the right of the western counties of Virginia to secede from the rest of the state did the United States not then also recognize the right of the states to secede from the Union?
In the end, as always, might made right.
< Message edited by Mus -- 7/20/2007 11:18:11 PM >
Printable Version
All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [American Civil War] >> Forge of Freedom: The American Civil War 1861-1865 >> RE: East Ohio River 
RE: East Ohio River - 
New Messages
No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages
Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages
Locked w/o New Messages
Post New Thread