It is interesting when a new development we all like to see is based on an old development that was unconstitutional. I am not sure, but weren't many of states incorporated into the Union done under controversial terms?
Congress has the control of specific stipulations on making a State, not the President....
Constitution does Not Allow for a State to be made inside a State, or from part of a State or parts of States, meaning it has to be an Original State made from a Territory....
I could see making only confederate states not hold slaves while allowing all the neutral states to keep them would be considered unconstitutional. Since it's clearly applied to a political rival and not speak equally through the states
States that were in rebellion, we're in rebellion and could be treated by the federal government differently. Slaves were freed in the rebelling states, as a war measure, to deprive rebels of their "property" as punishment for their rebellion. That's what they get for trying to claim that people were their property.
Yankees were doing the very same thing up until a few years before the war. The fact that the Emancipation Proclamation had so many "exceptions" proves that Lincoln didn't give a damn about the slaves and just wanted to punish people who dared defy him by trading with England without using Yankee trading companies. Slavery was going to be gone in the South by the 1880s anyway. It was not the real issue.
I know plenty when it comes to American and US history. I know many people are wrong on this. I know there are multiple sides to every story.
The confederate states' stated reason for leaving the union was to self-govern and protect their own interests, which is a reasonable and understandable desire. However, the underlying reason for their decision to secede was their desire to maintain and expand the practice of slavery, which is morally reprehensible and completely unacceptable.
New States may be admitted by the Congress into this Union; but no new State shall be formed or erected within the Jurisdiction of any other State; nor any State be formed by the Junction of two or more States, or Parts of States, without the Consent of the Legislatures of the States concerned as well as of the Congress.
So according to the constitution, this will never happen. And plus, West Virginia will be just Virginia again…if this gets pushed. Unless I’m reading that incorrectly.
You are reading it correctly but Virginia was seceded from the US at the time and WV broke away to rejoin the US, thus, most are looking at the WV / VA situation wrongly: it is not the same as New California trying to breakaway from a California that is still a part of the US
I was also pointing out that your statement "Constitution does Not Allow for a State to be made inside a State, or from part of a State or parts of States, meaning it has to be an Original State made from a Territory...." was untrue. It is conditional.
As for Lincoln, he was put in a tough situation where he had to either let the Cabal win or break the constitution. They are experts in cooking up such situations.
The only question I am interested in is whether, if he had allowed the South to secede, it would have hastened the enslavement by the Cabal or not. I strongly believe it would have.
Trump definitely learnt from this, and while people hate him for wanting to do everything by the book, this is exactly what he is trying to avoid.
Every breath we exhale should be a gratitude for the past mistakes that helps us avoid them in future.
Maine, Kentucky and Michigan had some extremely constitutionally questionable circumstances. Kansas was a shitshow, but ultimately legal. Missouri was a mess as well.
It is interesting when a new development we all like to see is based on an old development that was unconstitutional. I am not sure, but weren't many of states incorporated into the Union done under controversial terms?
Controversial,yes, but not Unconstitutional....
Congress has the control of specific stipulations on making a State, not the President....
Constitution does Not Allow for a State to be made inside a State, or from part of a State or parts of States, meaning it has to be an Original State made from a Territory....
I could see making only confederate states not hold slaves while allowing all the neutral states to keep them would be considered unconstitutional. Since it's clearly applied to a political rival and not speak equally through the states
States that were in rebellion, we're in rebellion and could be treated by the federal government differently. Slaves were freed in the rebelling states, as a war measure, to deprive rebels of their "property" as punishment for their rebellion. That's what they get for trying to claim that people were their property.
Yankees were doing the very same thing up until a few years before the war. The fact that the Emancipation Proclamation had so many "exceptions" proves that Lincoln didn't give a damn about the slaves and just wanted to punish people who dared defy him by trading with England without using Yankee trading companies. Slavery was going to be gone in the South by the 1880s anyway. It was not the real issue.
Please read this::
The South was right, by S. A. Steel - Internet Archive https://archive.org/details/southwasrightbys00stee
I read that before
I know plenty when it comes to American and US history. I know many people are wrong on this. I know there are multiple sides to every story.
The confederate states' stated reason for leaving the union was to self-govern and protect their own interests, which is a reasonable and understandable desire. However, the underlying reason for their decision to secede was their desire to maintain and expand the practice of slavery, which is morally reprehensible and completely unacceptable.
Article IV, section 3:
So according to the constitution, this will never happen. And plus, West Virginia will be just Virginia again…if this gets pushed. Unless I’m reading that incorrectly.
There is a scenario. If CA election fraud breaks wide open ...
You are reading it correctly but Virginia was seceded from the US at the time and WV broke away to rejoin the US, thus, most are looking at the WV / VA situation wrongly: it is not the same as New California trying to breakaway from a California that is still a part of the US
And that is just another piece of the Federal Constitution that Lincoln directly Violated....
He has a long list of actual Constitutional Violations, and I do believe the Founders would have had him Shot with Cannons for Treasonous Acts....
Maybe this will help add to the Convo::
The South was right, by S. A. Steel - Internet Archive https://archive.org/details/southwasrightbys00stee
I was also pointing out that your statement "Constitution does Not Allow for a State to be made inside a State, or from part of a State or parts of States, meaning it has to be an Original State made from a Territory...." was untrue. It is conditional.
As for Lincoln, he was put in a tough situation where he had to either let the Cabal win or break the constitution. They are experts in cooking up such situations.
The only question I am interested in is whether, if he had allowed the South to secede, it would have hastened the enslavement by the Cabal or not. I strongly believe it would have.
Trump definitely learnt from this, and while people hate him for wanting to do everything by the book, this is exactly what he is trying to avoid.
Every breath we exhale should be a gratitude for the past mistakes that helps us avoid them in future.
Maine, Kentucky and Michigan had some extremely constitutionally questionable circumstances. Kansas was a shitshow, but ultimately legal. Missouri was a mess as well.