[You] And neither act was unconstitutional just because you said it was.
You're quite correct, that neither act was unconstitutional just because I say they were......they're unconstitutional on their own merits.
But I take it you deny the merits, and you won't listen to anything but your own voice on this subject, so what's the point of discussing it? Your intransigent stand on ancient propaganda and old wrongs condemns you, but that's your business and the reader's. The unreadiness of Nevada for statehood, with only a few thousand miners and drygoods merchants in the whole territory, is manifest and needs no further comment from me. The issue of West Virginia's bastardy is settled, there was no "legislature" among the cabal you name, and no faction, party, or group that was capable of acting for the State of Virginia other than the State of Virginia, whose lawfully elected legislature still met in order in Richmond.
You cannot partition a State without its consent, and nobody but the State itself can be party to any such consent. The fictitious "consent" Lincoln manufactured for his unconstitutional political purposes was a fraud, and you simply impeach yourself when you countenance it.
And who is the judge of those merits? You again.
But I take it you deny the merits, and you won't listen to anything but your own voice on this subject, so what's the point of discussing it?
What has there been that had been worth listening to? You claim Nevada's admission was unconstitutional because of population, but can't point to a clause in the Constitution that supports it. You claim West Virginia's admission was unconstitutional and offer a lot of opinions, countered by opinions submitted by me in rebuttle, but the long a short is that the Supreme Court recognized the legality of West Virginia's admission in 1871. So you're right. What is the point of discussing it?