Again, you omit stuff and get stuff completely backward.
Do you know the difference between 1) "tried before" (or "brought before") the Supreme Court and 2) the Supreme Court "not ruling" on the issue of constitutionality? Clearly you do not.
You originally wrote:
"4) The wiki article you cited also substantiates the above and states this matter was never tried before the Supreme Court as you earlier and fallaciously claimed it did."
I responded that it is WAS tried before the Supreme Court - Virginia v. West Virginia (1871) - and that West Virginia won and then I gave you the citation from Wiki.
The Supreme Court did not have to decide the ultimate constitutional issue because, according to another Wiki article, the Supreme Court
"held that where a governor has discretion in the conduct of the election, the legislature is bound by his action and cannot undo the results based on fraud. The case implicitly ratified the secession of the state of West Virginia from the state of Virginia, and explicitly ratified that the counties of Berkeley and Jefferson were part of West Virginia."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virginia_v._West_Virginia
So the constitutionality was at least implicitly ratified even though the actual holding was that the VA legislature could not undo results of the election based on fraud, because the governor had discretion in how to conduct the election and the legislature was bound by his discretion.
But hey! Pay no attention to the Supreme Court decision. What do they know? They're just a bunch of lawyers. You've got some Confederate historian who has documented the unconstitutionality of it.
No doubt you will know come back with more misquoted and misconstrued BS.
But try addressing this if you can. You are trying every verbal trick imaginable to avoid admittingthe shameful, undeniable truth: your ancestors were a bunch of slavery supportingbigots that were about to be outvoted on slavery so they tried to break up the US in order to maintain their so called "right" to steal the life of another human being.
That's all the Confederacy was ever about. Al that nostalgic twaddleabout chivalry and honor is bullshit designed to avoid thinking about your great, great, great grandfather whipping a black man and selling his children to another white man.
Originally Posted by ExNYer
Buy the books yourself, you cheap-ass bastard! I read McPherson's book years ago, and it's in my library. GOOGLE James G. Randall and his Constitutional Problems Under Lincoln and read about his findings on your own.
An FYI, "never brought before the Supreme Court" is synonymous with "never tried before the Supreme Court"; thus, it was not ruled on, and that is stated in your wiki article. The quotes posted are from the article you are citing and the congressmen in question were northern born, and, btw, so were the first three governors from West Virginia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of..._West_Virginia) -- of course you'd call that a "coincidence".
You claimed the process by which West Virginia became a state was ruled "constitutional" by the Supreme Court. That has been proven false.
You equated the creation of a state from a territory with the creation of a state from an existing state. That has been proven false,
Lincoln administration's Attorney General Edward Bates recorded his criticisms of the formation of West Virginia: "It was conceived, as a fraudulent party trick, by a few unprincipled Radicals, and the prurient ambition of a few meritless aspirants urged it, with indecent haste, into premature birth (lest their only chance for personal distinction should be lost forever).
Representative Thaddeus Stevens (PA-R) made it clear that he was not deluded by the idea that the State was being admitted in pursuance of the Constitution. The argument of constitutionality he considered a "forced argument to justify a premeditated act." James G. Randall,
Constitutional Problems under Abraham Lincoln, p. 455.
http://www.archive.org/stream/consti...randa_djvu.txt
THE PARTITION OF VIRGINIA 458
Gideon Welles, Post Master Blair, and Attorney General Bates. Welles could not close his eyes to the fact that the organization claiming to be the State of Virginia was nothing more than a provisional government, and that it was “composed almost entirely of . . . loyal citizens . . . beyond the mountains.” While admitting that a temporary recognition of this government might be proper, yet, he said,
“When . . . this loyal fragment goes farther, and . . . proceeds ... to erect a new State within the jurisdiction of the State of Virginia, the question arises whether this proceeding is regular, right, and, in honest faith, conformable to . . . the Constitution.” Turning to his diary, we find the question answered in the following words:
“The requirements of the Constitution are not complied with, as they in good faith should be, by Virginia, by the proposed new State, nor by the United States.”
Blair characterized the argument that Virginia had given her consent as “confessedly merely technical.”
“It is well known,” he said, “that the elections by which the movement [for separation] has been made did not take place in more than a third of the counties of the State.” He considered the dismemberment highly irregular and “unjust to the loyal people in the greater part of the State, who [were] held in subjection by rebel armies” and whose consent was not obtained.
Special importance attaches to the opinion of Edward Bates because it was the official opinion of the Attorney General and because its analysis of the legal points involved was much more elaborate than that of any other Cabinet minister. Bates contended that States must exist before they can be admitted into the Union. Congress, he said, has no power to make States, for a free American State can be made only by its own people. The duty of the United States toward the faithful element in Virginia, as he saw it, was to restore Virginia to the Union as she was before the insurrection. The restored government was merely a provisional government intended as a patriot nucleus.
No real “legislature of Virginia,” according to his view, had consented to the separation.
Such was Bates’ official opinion. His unofficial and confidential statements on the subject were more emphatic. He wrote in his diary of “a few reckless Radicals, who manage those helpless puppets (the straw Governor, & Legislature of Virginia) as a gamester manages his marked cards,” and added: “I have warned one member of W. V. of the fate preparing for his misbegotten, abortive State. These Jacobins, as soon as they get, by the Alexandria juggle, an anti-slavery Constitution for Virginia, will discover that
West Virginia was created without authority — and then, having no further use for the political bantling, will knock the blocks from under, and let it slide. For, already, they begin to be jealous of the double representation in the Senate.”
Again Bates wrote that the West Virginia bill was precipitately passed with “the most glaring blunders” because its sponsors feared discussion and dreaded “any revival among the M. C.s of a sense of justice and decency.”
James G. Randall,
Constitutional Problems under Abraham Lincoln, pp. 458-60.
http://www.archive.org/stream/consti...randa_djvu.txt
THE CASE OF WEST VIRGINIA.; Opinion of Attorney-General Bates. Hon. A.F. Ritchu. Virginia Convention, Wheeling:
Published: December 27, 1862
It is understood that the President, in his action upon the bill now in his hands, for the admission of West Virginia as a separate State, will be guided mainly by the question of the constitutionality of the measure, as indicated by the Attorney-General. Mr. BATES has already given his opinion in the case. It was written in reply to a question of a member of the West Virginia Convention, in session at Wheeling, a year and a half ago. He puts the case clearly and forcibly, and it will be seen he is opposed to the creation of a new State, at this period of time. It is probable, under these circumstances, that the President will veto the bill.
ATTORNEY-GENERAL's OFFICE, Aug. 12, 1861.
SIR: your letter of the 9th instant was received within this hour, and as you ask an immediate answer, you, of couse, will not expect me to go elaborately into the subject.
I have thought a great deal upon the question of dividing the State of Virginia into two States; and since I came here, as a member of the Government, I have conversed with a good many, and corresponded with some, of the good men of Western Virginia in regard to that matter. In all this intercourse, my constant and earnest effort has been to impress upon the minds of those gentlemen the vast importance -- not to say necessity -- In this terrible crisis of our National affairs, to abstain from the introduction of any new elements of revolution, to avoid, as far as possible, all new and original theories of Government; but, on the contrary, in all the insurgent Commonwealths to adhere, as closely as circumstances will allow, to the old constitutional standard of principle, and to the traditional habits and thoughts of the people. And I still think that course is dictated by the plainest teachings of prudence.
The formation of a new State out of Western Virginia is an original, independent act of revolution, I do not deny the power of revolution, (I do not call it right -- for it is never prescribed, it exists in force only, and has and can have no law but the will of the revolutionists.) Any attempt to carry it out involves a plain breach of both the Constitutions -- of Virginia and the nation. And hence it is plain that you cannot take that course without weakening, if not destroying, your claims upon the sympathy and support of the General Government; and without disconcerting the plan already adopted both by Virginia and the General Government, for the reorganization of the revolted States, and the restoration of the integrity of the Union. That plan, I understand to be this: When a State, by its perverted functionaries, has declared itself out of the Union, we avail ourselves of all the sound and loyal elements of the State -- all who own allegiance to and claim protection of the Constitution, to form a State Government as nearly as may be, upon the former model, and claiming to be the very State which has been, in part, overthrown by the successful rebellion. In this way we establish a constitutional nucleus around which all the shattered elements of the Commonwealth may meet and combine, and thus restore the old State to its original integrity.This, I verily thought, was the plan adopted at Wheeling, and recognized and acted upon by the General Government here. Your Convention annulled the revolutionary proceedings at Richmond, both in the Convention and General Assembly, and your new Governor formally demanded of the President the fulfillment of the constitutional guarantee in favor of Virginia -- Virginia as known to our fathers and to us. The President admitted the obligation and promised his best efforts to fulfill it; and the Senate admitted your Senators, not as representing a new and nameless State, now for the first time heard of in our history, but as representing "the good old Commonwealth."
Must all this be undone, and a new and hazardous experiment be ventured upon, at the moment when dangers and difficulties are thickening around us? I hope not; for the sake of the Nation and the State, I hope not. I bad rejoiced in the movement in Western Virginia, as a legal, constitutional and safe refuge from revolution and anarchy, as at once an example and fit instrument for the restoration of all the revolted States.
I have not time now to discuss the subject in its various bearings. What I have written, is written with a running pen, and will need your charitable criticism.
If I had time I think I could give persuasive reasons for declining the attempt to create a new State at this perilous time. At another time. I might be willing to go fully into the question, but now I can say no more. Most respectfully, your ob't serv't,
EDW. BATES.
http://www.nytimes.com/1862/12/27/ne...-virginia.html
The bill giving the consent of Congress, to the formation of this new State was rushed through precipitately. The friends of the bill thought delay dangerous -- any little accident, any revival among the Members of Congress, of a sense of justice and decency would, probably defeat it: And so, it was pressed through without any of the ordinary care and caution which is due to every legislative enactment -- and, in fact, the bill was full of the most glaring blunders. But the friends of the bill dared not attempt to amend it, lest delay and the scrut[in]y of debate might expose its absurdity and defeat its passage -- And so it was passed in all its deformity." Howard K. Beale, editor,
The Diary of Edward Bates,(October 12, 1865), p. 508.
1) McPherson, Randall and other historians have documented how the process violated Art IV, Sec 3 of the Constitution; thus, de facto making the act "unconstitutional".
2) McPherson, Randall and other historians have documented that the self-aggrandizing policititians who pushed for annexation as an independent state did not in fact represent the population, and Lincoln and Congress were complicit in that "legal fiction".
3) McPherson, Randall and other historians have documented that West Virginia would not have been admitted as an independent state were it not for federal occupation troops manning polls and voting illegally during the referendum.
Statehood for West Virginia: An Illegal Act? By Sheldon Winston
http://www.wvculture.org/history/jou...h/wvh30-1.html
The "Bibliography" from wiki since you are illiterate and cannot read.
Barnes, Johnny. "Towards Equal Footing: Responding to the Perceived Constitutional, Legal and Practical Impediments to Statehood for the District of Columbia." University of the District of Columbia Law Review. 13:1 (Spring 2010).
Cohen, Stan. The Civil War in West Virginia: A Pictorial History. Charleston, W. Va.: Pictorial Histories Publishing Co., 1996.
Curry, Richard O. A House Divided, Statehood Politics & the Copperhead Movement in West Virginia, University of Pittsburgh Press, 1964.
Davis, William C. and Robertson, James I. Virginia at War. Lexington, Ky.: University Press of Kentucky, 2005.
Donald, David Herbert. Lincoln. Paperback ed. New York: Simon & Schuster, 1996.
Ebenroth, Carsten Thomas and Kemner, Matthew James. "The Enduring Political Nature of Questions of State Succession and Secession and the Quest for Objective Standards." University of Pennsylvania Journal of International Economic Law. 17:753 (Fall 1996).
Egger, Daniel. "Court of Appeals Review of Agency Action: The Problem of En Banc Ties." Yale Law Journal. 100:471 (November 1990).
Fairman, Charles. Reconstruction and Reunion, 1864-88. 2d ed. New York: MacMillan, 1987.
Fenn, Charles T. "Supreme Court Justices: Arguing Before the Court After Resigning from the Bench." Georgetown Law Journal. 84:2473 (July 1996).
Freehling, William W. The Road to Disunion: Secessionists Triumphant, 1854-1861. New York: Oxford University Press, 2007.
Glatthaar, Joseph T. General Lee's Army: From Victory to Collapse. New York: Simon and Schuster, 2009.
Greve, Michael S. "Compacts, Cartels, and Congressional Consent." Missouri Law Review. 68:285 (Spring 2003).
Hoar, Roger Sherman. Constitutional Conventions: Their Nature, Powers, and Limitations. Littleton, Colo.: F.B. Rothman, 1987.
Jameson, John Alexander. The Constitutional Convention: Its History, Powers, and Modes of Proceeding. New York: C. Scribner and Co., 1867.
Kesavan, Vasan and Paulsen, Michael Stokes. "Is West Virginia Unconstitutional?" California Law Review. 90:291 (March 2002).
Kogan, Lawrence A. "Symposium: The Extra-WTO Precautionary Principle: One European "Fashion" Export the United States Can Do Without." Temple Political & Civil Rights Law Review. 17:491 (Spring 2008).
Lesser, W. Hunter. Rebels at the Gate: Lee and McClellan on the Front Line of a Nation Divided. Naperville, Ill.: Sourcebooks, 2004.
McGregor, James C. The Disruption of Virginia. New York: MacMillan Co., 1922.
McPherson, James M. Battle Cry of Freedom: The Civil War Era. New York: Oxford University Press, 1988.
"Note: To Form a More Perfect Union?: Federalism and Informal Interstate Cooperation." Harvard Law Review. 102:842 (February 1989).
Randall, James G. Constitutional Problems Under Lincoln. Rev. ed. Urbana, Ill.: University of Illinois Press, 1951.
Reynolds, William L. and Young, Gordon G. "Equal Divisions in the Supreme Court: History, Problems, and Proposals." North Carolina Law Review. 62:29 (October 1983).
Rice, Otis K. and Brown, Stephen Wayne. West Virginia: A History. Lexington, Ky.: University Press of Kentucky, 1993.
<------exMan
