army judge
Super Moderator
If you and others pull it off, I'll be among the first people to applaud your amazing feat!!!
-
Welcome to our legal community! Click here or the create new topic button to ask a question and receive answers and comments from our friendly and helpful legal community.
Articles that answer frequent legal questions are in our Law Guide. Important legal news is reported in The Law JournalYou can find a lawyer near you in the Lawyer Directory. If you know that you need to hire an attorney, you can submit a case review from a lawyer.
West Virginia in 1863
- Thread Starter Southeast US
- Start date
If you and others pull it off, I'll be among the first people to applaud your amazing feat!!!
adjusterjack
Super Moderator
Just for new members.
Then it's going to come down to money. Where will all those people get the money to organize and pursue the secession. You think I was kidding when I said millions. I wasn't. Look at how much money politicians spend just to get elected to an office.
Tax Counsel
Well-Known Member
The red counties make up two-thirds of the state's land area, but certainly not two-thirds of the state's population. If you had two-thirds of the population VA would still be a very red state and you folks wouldn't be upset at how the state is run. The whole issue you have is that VA is no longer dominated by those conservative folks and has been moving leftward. Your problem is that you'd need to get a majority of the whole state, red and blue, to support splitting the state to have a shot at it. And based on my familiarity with northern VA, I doubt very much you'll have that kind of support to win a majority of the whole state.
The solution to feeling in the minority in political views is not to split the state. If every group that felt in the minority politically was able to split themselves off from everyone else, this country would quickly deteriorate into a bunch of very small nations/states and end up much diminished as a result.
Southeast US
Member
While I was typing up another reply, with more legal questions, you have already answered some of them. If we need a majority of the People of the "whole state", we're toast. If we need the majority of the Politicians of the "whole state", we're toast. But if we can get the majority, or even 2/3's of our "area", we will have something there.
The main reason for the split is to get away from them and their policies. Not that long ago when we had a Red majority of politicians with good sensible values, there was no need.
I'm also well aware of other states in our position, although as stated, I believe we have a unique case.
Why am I (we) doing this? Voting is not working.
Also want to say that the main reason I joined this site, is to learn what is actually needed to try to get it accomplished, even though I am well aware of it working as mentioned earlier.
Even though I welcome replies, personal negative opinions is not what I'm looking for. I can get them anywhere. But leaning facts and education on the subject is what I am seeking, even if that is all I end up with.
Thanks
Tax Counsel
Well-Known Member
That's the challenge. It's not just a majority of the people in the counties that would split off that you need. You need a majority of the whole state. After all, the split affects everyone in the state, not just those who want to leave, so all should have a say in the matter. What Congress will want to see to even entertain the idea of approving splitting the state is a state election showing the idea has the support of the majority of ALL the state voters.
That's the motivation behind most of the ideas in recent years to split off states or for states to secede from the union. I suspect your effort will also meet the same fate as theirs, but at least the great thing in this country is that you have the right to try to convince the people of your state that splitting it will ultimately benefit them more than keeping it together.
Voting is working — people get to express their preferences for policy by the people they elect and the ballot issues they vote on. Your problem is not that voting is defective, it's that your state now has more voters that are more liberal in their views than it once had. One fix to that is to work on convincing more of those folks that conservative views are the better answer to the problems the state faces. That is how democracy functions at its core.
army judge
Super Moderator
A twist on what you're thinking about is organize a mass exodus of like minded people to relocate to a state or territory that is more compatible with your beliefs.
Fortunately state to state movement hasn't been restricted YET!
If people vote with their feet, that's far easier than trying to drum up millions of votes requiring millions or billions of dollars.
There are many ways to accomplish every goal.
adjusterjack
Super Moderator
Like the Real McCoys. From West Virginny they came to stay in sunny Californ aye ay. Grandpappy Amos and the girls and boys of the family known as the Real McCoys.
army judge
Super Moderator
Southeast US
Member
The problem we have here is DC. If DC was located somewhere in the middle of NY somewhere for example, we would have no problem. DC over-spills into Northern Virginia. To change the mentality of the extreme Liberals, most who were not even from there originally, would be next to impossible.
We, the people, the law enforcement and the politicians are doomed. When we have close elections, I will follow the results live online. We will be winning all night, till NoVa, who always reports late, knocks us out every time. If nothing else can stop it, we will be another California in no time. The painful part is watching Virginia change this quickly. Not that long ago, we were a pretty solid Red state. Thus my inquiry for an alternative.
Thanks
Southeast US
Member
This is the exact info that I was looking for. Which brings to mind back to 1863. Now I know that the Civil War complicated things, but if that is the case, how did what is now the Commonwealth of Virginia agree to give up a large portion of it's state like they did back then?
army judge
Super Moderator
The commonwealth was busy trying to supply food, goods, and troops to fulfill what the CSA demanded of them.
Plus, there were valid fears of Union troops swarming and storming the walls and the gates of the bastions of leadership and finance within the commonwealth.
In my view, allowing a smallish portion of western Virginia to break away and join the Union was the most expedient strategy.
We also need take note of an historic event prior to the Civil War.
There was an effort by abolitionist John Brown, from October 16 to 18, 1859; to initiate/instigate a slave revolt across the Southern states by taking over the United States arsenal at Harper's Ferry, Virginia. It has been called the dress rehearsal for, or Tragic Prelude to, our Civil War.
The commonwealth leaders had bigger battles to fight than trying to stop the angry people of western Virginia from seceding.
By the way, the western region was admitted to the Union in 1863 as a new state, initially it wanted to be known as the State of Kanawha, but ultimately took the moniker of West Virginia.
PayrollHRGuy
Well-Known Member
Your position is not that unique at all. Most states in the South and West are in the same condition.
adjusterjack
Super Moderator
Yeah, mine turned blue. Probably just to dump Trump.
Southeast US
Member
I agree that Virginia is not the only one, but for an example of my point, what state had a better showing of unity and solidarity of having 2nd Amendment Sanctuary Counties out there recently? These folks are not Liberal Democrats. We just not had the support of our Politicians and Citizens, but we also had the strong support of Law Enforcement as well. Some very boldly to boot.
Check out this map showing support as of January '20. Be sure to read the list of Towns and Counties under it in detail:
Virginia has become an overnight tidal wave of Second Amendment Sanctuaries
Last edited:
adjusterjack
Super Moderator
Interesting that 14 of your local governments passed Second Amendment resolutions but refused to use the word "sanctuary."
I'm a gun guy and staunch supporter of gun rights but I have objected to the use of "sanctuary" from the getgo. To me it brings up a vision of trigger happy loonies living in an enclave somewhere out in the boonies (like Waco) and that's not a good image for gun rights activists to have.
Unfortunately, for better or worse, we're stuck with it now that it's in widespread use.
Maricopa County, our largest and most populous county, where Phoenix is located, became a "Second Amendment Preservation County" in Feb 2020. Five other counties in AZ are sanctuary counties.
Tax Counsel
Well-Known Member
The legal argument, should one have been needed in the courts back in 1863, is that the Commonwealth was no longer a state of the Union at the time as it had seceded and taken up arms against the Union. Since it was no longer a state, the requirement in the Constitution that the state legislature must approve the split no longer applied. As a result, only the approval of Congress was needed to make West Virginia a state. That rebellion thus provided the unique circumstance that allowed for making that state without Virginia's approval. As you don't have that circumstance today, you can't point to West Virginia's admission to the Union as a path forward to splitting up what remains of Virginia today.
You need two things to make it happen under the US constitution: consent of the Virginia legislature and consent of Congress. It is pretty much a certainty that Congress would insist at a minimum that the idea be approved by a statewide vote of the people of that state. ALL of the state, not just the counties that may favor splitting. But that would be a decision for the Congress sitting at the time.
You have an even greater challenge at the Virginia level. Virginia's Constitution has a provision, perhaps unique among the states, that expressly prohibits splitting the state. It is a provision in the state's bill of rights. Article I section 14 states: "That the people have a right to uniform government; and, therefore, that no government separate from, or independent of, the government of Virginia, ought to be erected or established within the limits thereof." So for your plan to succeed, you'd first need to get the state Constitution amended to make an exception to this provision to allow splitting the state in two. And Article XII, Section 1 requires that the legislature approve the constitutional change and then put it to a vote of the people — again this would be ALL the people of the state.
So ultimately, you'd need a majority of all Virginians, red, blue, purple or whatever, to approve splitting the state. I used to live in DC and worked with a lot of Virginians, mostly from northern VA, and my gut reaction is that you'd get nowhere near the majority of the state voters you'd need for this kind of drastic change to the state's political system.
Southeast US
Member
Tax Councel,
That is the exact info I was looking for, again, but this time in legal terms which I was just about to ask you for. I will read the links in detail as time allows. This now brings me to the end of my road. I am satisfied with my search and thanks to all that helped.
Interesting thing about the Civil War though. I'm a member of a Civil War site and there are members there that swear up and down that the Confederacy was not legal and technically never existed. It's really something how sometimes it was and sometimes it wasn't. Usually to the Union's benefit.
Which brings me to another question. Did you all ever have a thread going on the legalities and such of the Civil War here on the forums?
That is the exact info I was looking for, again, but this time in legal terms which I was just about to ask you for. I will read the links in detail as time allows. This now brings me to the end of my road. I am satisfied with my search and thanks to all that helped.
Interesting thing about the Civil War though. I'm a member of a Civil War site and there are members there that swear up and down that the Confederacy was not legal and technically never existed. It's really something how sometimes it was and sometimes it wasn't. Usually to the Union's benefit.
Which brings me to another question. Did you all ever have a thread going on the legalities and such of the Civil War here on the forums?
zddoodah
Well-Known Member
These forums (along with others that exist and have previously existed on the internet) generally focus on current legal issues being faced by poster. Discussion of historical matters comes up fairly rarely and rarely goes into any depth.
adjusterjack
Super Moderator
There are people that swear up and down that the income tax is voluntary and you don't have to pay it.
There are people that swear up and down that you don't need a driver's license to drive a car and that state governments have no right to make you have one.
There are people that swear up and down that the Holocaust never happened.
There are people that swear up and down that evolution is a crock and the Earth is only 6000 years old. They also believe that man and dinosaurs co-existed.
Tax Counsel
Well-Known Member
There is no doubt that the Confederacy existed. But it is also the case that the Union took the view that the secession was illegal since the Constitution does not provide any mechanism for a state to leave the union, only a way to join it. Since the Union won the war, it effectively won that argument.
Share this page
