As for you CumCzar, you win things only in your own mind. You can pat yourself on the back all you like, you are still a pathetic, racist, homophobic little man. And always will be.
And there is zero point in responding to IB Hankering any more. As someone pointed out above, he keeps posting more and more unrelated shit or misquoted or irrelevant stuff until he wears you out. He thinks if he gets the last post he wins.
He cut and pasted an enormous quote from McPherson above that relies on diary notes from Lincoln's attorney general, but as usual he doesn't cite any legal scholars or case law. The one case on point, Virginia vs. W. VA went against him. MacPherson appears to be a Southern apologist, so I'm not surprised he's relying on diary entries and not a legal decision.
Regarding the Supreme Court, I asked him if he knew the difference between: 1) "tried before" (or "brought before") the Supreme Court and 2) the Supreme Court "not ruling" on the issue of constitutionality.
He responded that I was wrong because "tried before" and "brought before" mean the same thing. Which is true, but that was NOT what I asked him - notice where the 1) and the 2) are placed in the question. So apparently he cannot read.
The comparison was between 1) "tried before/brought before" the SCt on the one hand and 2) the SCt. "not ruling" on an issue on the other hand.
The Shelby Foote quote from above is another example. I remember Foote saying it in the Ken Burns PBS series "The Civil War" back in 1990.
It is absolutely true and absolutely irrelevant to the issue of secession.
So, I'm not even going to address his enormous posts. I have wasted FAR too much time in this post. IB apparently doesn't have a demanding job. I do.
And IBH will just go back to posting from more Southern sympathizers, not legal holdings, especially not VA vs. WVa.
As the saying goes "Never argue with stupid people, they will drag you down to their level and then beat you with experience."
IBH definitely has the weight of experience working for him.
But here is a question to ponder. If something is unconstitutional, it is always unconstitutional. The Radical Republicans of the Reconstruction Era are long gone. The Supreme Court can always reverse its earlier holdings (Brown v. Board of Ed.). So, what is to prevent Virginia from bringing suit TODAY for violation of Article IV, section 3, and demanding the return of West VA?
Perhaps because no one things it will work? Other than Confederate sympathizers, that is.
Originally Posted by ExNYer
You're an ignorant and inveterate liar, ExNYer!!! Lincoln's Attorney General, Edward Bates: both a lawyer and a judge and other men in Congress and in the Lincoln administration – all properly cited above (from J.G. Randall and the New York Times; not McPherson!) – determined and advised Lincoln that the process was unconstitutional BEFORE Lincoln acted on the matter. Those citations were neither misquoted nor irrelevant, but they sure as hell render your POV worthless!
Read lawyer, judge and Attorney General Bates' judgment again, you blathering ignoramus:
THE CASE OF WEST VIRGINIA.; Opinion of Attorney-General Bates. Hon. A.F. Ritchu. Virginia Convention, Wheeling:
Published: December 27, 1862
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
