You mean the ipse dixit (i.e., asserted, not proved) opinion by Chief Justice Chase formerly of the Lincoln cabinet who helped fight the war against Southern secession and who was the tenth justice of the Supreme Court back when he was nominated thanks to the Republican Congress and Lincoln who packed the court by adding a tenth justice to ensure favorable opinions?
And there was nothing illegal or unconstitutional about the creation of West Virginia. ... Congress later approved their actions, and the Supreme Court recognized the legality of the split when they heard the case of Virginia v. West Virginia following the rebellion. The case which, by the way, said West Virginia could keep the counties in question.
From: [Link]
Although the Court never directly addressed the matter of the constitutionality of West Virginia statehood, despite persistent questions as to whether the Reorganized Government had legitimately given Virginia's consent to the creation of the new state, the conclusion in Virginia v. West Virginia also settled, for practical purposes, the statehood issue.
According to that site SCOTUS never ruled on the constitutionality of WV statehood. From that link again:
In Virginia v. West Virginia, the Supreme Court in 1871 rejected (7-3) Virginia's claims. It held that the statutes of the Reorganized Government regarding Berkeley and Jefferson effectively created an agreement between the two states that the counties would become part of West Virginia "whenever" voters assented.
One side can create an agreement binding on both? Is this a new law passed by the Supreme Court? Who knew? I can agree that you should give me your car, and your objection to that will not stand up in court.
What about the large number of counties whose voters did not assent in the 1861 WV statehood referendum? Also, Jefferson County, one of the two counties in question in the Virginia v. West Virginia case, had voted to secede from the US in 1861. It then voted to join WV in 1863 but only when its Confederate soldiers were absent. Sounds like Northern style politics all right.
I'm referring to the Supreme Court decision that ruled the rebel acts of unilateral secession unconstitutional. Your whining about the Chief Justice and the make-up of the court notwithstanding.
Although the Court never directly addressed the matter of the constitutionality of West Virginia statehood, despite persistent questions as to whether the Reorganized Government had legitimately given Virginia's consent to the creation of the new state, the conclusion in Virginia v. West Virginia also settled, for practical purposes, the statehood issue.
Not directly no. But by taking up the Virginia v West Virginia case it recognized both states as equals and ruled in favor of the state of West Virginia.
I can agree that you should give me your car, and your objection to that will not stand up in court.
Analogous to what y'all seem to believe solved the status of Fort Sumter. But I digress.
What about the large number of counties whose voters did not assent in the 1861 WV statehood referendum? Also, Jefferson County, one of the two counties in question in the Virginia v. West Virginia case, had voted to secede from the US in 1861. It then voted to join WV in 1863 but only when its Confederate soldiers were absent. Sounds like Northern style politics all right.
Complain, complain, complain.
I think a lot of the counties in what is now the southern part of West Virginia did not participate in the 1864 election—since the people there still thought of themselves as part of Virginia. I had distant cousins who lived in that area during the war and served in Confederate units.