Replies

Since the Constitution gives Congress the sole authority to create a state, combine states, split states, or to adjust their borders in any way whatsoever, then it is clear that matters pertaining to the status of a state was a power reserved to the United States. That would include withdrawing from the Union.

Actually the Constitution does not grant Congress such authority. Article IV, Sec. 3 says:

but no new states 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.

Thus, joint jurisdiction over states was given to the federal Congress and to the legislatures of the given states. (For that reason I think the State of West Virginia is still unconstitutional [no offense to WVers here], since the Virginia legislature never agreed to let it go... although, not being a studied up on the subject I'd like to hear other FReepers' take on that...)

Knowing something of the attitudes of people before the Civil War and especially at the founding, I'm nearly certain that the Constitution was not understood to prohibit sucession--until Lincoln "proved" it through force of arms...

since the Virginia legislature never agreed to let it go

The legislature of Virginia said they were no longer part of the United States; you can't have it both ways.

Walt

but no new states 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.

Thus, joint jurisdiction over states was given to the federal Congress and to the legislatures of the given states. (For that reason I think the State of West Virginia is still unconstitutional [no offense to WVers here], since the Virginia legislature never agreed to let it go... although, not being a studied up on the subject I'd like to hear other FReepers' take on that...)

That's a tough one. Maybe they thought the Virginia legislature didn't get a say because Virginia did not consider herself to be one of the United States at the time. Or maybe they thought the area wasn't under the jurisdiction of Virginis at the time.

Note that if I was a West Virginian after the War Between the States, I would not have liked the idea of having to go back to being a Virginian. That would have been, shall we say, uncomfortable. And maybe unhealthy.

The following link might interest you. http://www.wvculture.org/history/journal_wvh/wvh30-1.html

(Of course everyone on this thread understands that the problem only arises because Virginia was one of the original States. The rest of the States were formed with boundaries on lands that belonged to the United States as a union. These lands came into the possession of the United States through conquest, purchase and treaty. These lands were organized as Terriories. If the leislature of any State established from such Terrirtories wished to secede, they would have in all honor and equity had to return the lands to the possession of the United Staes--from whence they came. The United States could then have allowed the formation of new States, possibly with different boundaries. This of course would not have affected private ownership. Any private owner who agreed to the secession of the State in question could still own land just like any expatriate or foreigner.)