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.
Actually their unilateral acts of secession did violate the Constitution, as the Supreme Court determined.
Lincoln, however, did violate the Constitution -- repeatedly. And never more blatantly than when he used the Army and a political fiction to partition Virginia.
Actually no he didn't, at least I'm not aware of any Supreme Court judgement that said he did.
And what are the excuses for the other blue states?
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.
No, because W.Virgina was a unique case, in which they asked to be separated from their parent state.
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.
And so....?
I think Andrew Jackson and Lincoln read both of them.
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.
And States do not have the right to vote to revolt against the Constitution.
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.
So firing on federal forts is not a violation of the Constitution?
Taking over federal installations is not a violation of the constitution?
There is no 'right'to secede in the Constitution.
Just as there is no right for the Federal gov't to throw out any state or states from the Union.
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.
No, what Lincoln did was what he was suppose to do as the President, defend the Constitution from all enemies foreign and domestic.