Admittingly W.Virgina did raise some problems.
However, since Virgina was in revolt, those who were loyal to the Union needed to be protected.
What W.Virgina does show is the logical outcome of allowing secession as a means of dealing with political disagreements.
Yeah, like its existence. We wouldn't have to put up with Bobby Byrd if Lincoln hadn't pulled his shenanigans.
However, since Virgina was in revolt, those who were loyal to the Union needed to be protected.
Is that why Lincoln partitioned all those other States? Oh, wait -- he didn't. There goes that argument.
What W.Virgina does show is the logical outcome of allowing secession as a means of dealing with political disagreements.
Read the Constitution. Read The Federalist.
States are the sovereign political entities that embody the People. Counties are not. A rump convention isn't a State (the Unionists in Virginia lost the secession issue by 3:1), but Lincoln interposed the U.S. Army and said it was. In so doing he violated Article IV of the Constitution himself.
Get it straight. The seceding States did not violate the Constitution. They withdrew from the Union and formed their own federation. Lincoln, however, did violate the Constitution -- repeatedly. And never more blatantly than when he used the Army and a political fiction to partition Virginia.
Get used to this: At some point, you're going to have to admit that Lincoln was engaged in political gamesmanship at the highest level, enabled by war and greased by the blood of the People.