Posted on 09/10/2005 4:46:12 AM PDT by Colonel Kangaroo
An interesting aftershock of the Civil War was the 1924 Democratic Convention. One of the reasons the frontrunner, William G. McAdoo, did not get the nomination was that he had been born in Georgia in 1863, a time when neo-Confederates were still claiming that the state was not part of the United States. So, his opponents argued, if Georgia was not part of the United States in 1863, then McAdoo was not a natural born citizen of the United States and so ineligible for the presidency. They said that the neo-Confederates could not have it both ways. Rather than admit that Lincoln was right, southern Democrats were forced to give up on McAdoo.
Actually, Presdient Lincoln had troops surround the Maryand legislature, ready to arrest anyone who voted to secede. The Confederate sympathizers backed down, and no one was arrested. Lincoln did arrest, I think, several Maryland state legislators on other occasions, but for specific pro-rebels acts.
President George W. Bush would have done the same.
Thank you for the history lesson on my adopted state. I love this place. Unfortunately, I'll go to my grave as "...that feller from New York City" instead of as a Mountaineer.
A minor distinction, I think, and yes, President Bush would have done the same, and I would object to that as well. Maybe it's a Republican thing...
West Virginia only pays for holidays and not work days?
How does eliminating a paid holiday and making it a paid work day save money?
A lot of people in WV remained loyal to Virginia and fought on the Confederate side...One of them was Stonewall Jackson, who was a native of what became WV although a resident of Lexington, VA (he died before WV was officially admitted as a state).
This is anecdotal history but my grandfather who in 1999 died at age 100, always said that armed Federal troops stood outside the polling places and asked how someone planned to vote on the statehood issue. If they were against it they were turned away.
I always discounted it until I read Caperton's book on the history of WV. He says basically the same thing. The election for statehood of WV was held at gunpoint.
You may call it make-believe, but the formation of the state of West Virginia was accepted by the President, Congress, and the Supreme Court.
My g-grandfather fought with the 36th Virginia, a Confederste outfit and his brother fought for the Union with the 7th West Virginia, Both were from Harrison County where their great-grandfather pioneered in the 1780s. Their civilian father was killed, and their uncle's business was burned to the ground by Union troops.
What happened, happened. Parsing of words did not start with Clintoon. It's what politicians do. They are for the most part afterall, lawyers. Besides, with the exception of the Eastern Panhandle, I sincerely doubt that the state of Virginia would want West Virginia back! };^)
Washington did not ignore the Constitution the way that Davis and his pet congress ignored their's.
Well let's turn that around for a moment. The rebel leadership in Virginia believed that a state could secede from the Union because nothing in the Constitution specifically prevented it. What in the confederate constitution or the Virginia Constitution prevented part of the state from seceding and joining another country?
Lieutenant General Scott Washington, April 25--- 1861.
My dear Sir: The Maryland Legislature assembles to-morrow at Anapolis; and, not improbably, will take action to arm the people of that State against the United States. The question has been submitted to, and considered by me, whether it would not be justifiable, upon the ground of necessary defence, for you, as commander in Chief of the United States Army, to arrest, or disperse the members of that body. I think it would not be justifiable; nor, efficient for the desired object.
First, they have a clearly legal right to assemble; and, we can not know in advance, that their action will not be lawful, and peaceful. And if we wait until they shall have acted, their arrest, or dispersion, will not lessen the effect of their action.
Secondly, we can not permanently prevent their action. If we arrest them, we can not long hold them as prisoners; and when liberated, they will immediately re-assemble, and take their action. And, precisely the same if we simply disperse them. They will immediately re-assemble in some other place.
I therefore conclude that it is only left to the commanding General to watch, and await their action, which, if it shall be to arm their people against the United States, he is to adopt the most prompt, and efficient means to counteract, even, if necessary, to the bombardment of their cities---and in the extremest necessity, the suspension of the writ of habeas corpus. Your Obedient Servant
ABRAHAM LINCOLN.
As it turned out, the legislature voted against secession. When the legislature met again in September 1861 a number of legislators were arrested since they were plotting to take Maryland out of the Union and join an armed rebellion that was already underway. Under those circumstances there should be no controversy on their arrests.
President Eisenhower cited President Washington sending in the troops to quash the Whiskey Rebellion as a precedent for sending in federal troops to Little Rock in part as a reaction to the Arkansas Governor using his National Guard to defy the federal government.
I had a first cousin, five times removed, living in Raleigh Co., WV, who served in Co. A, 30th Virginia Sharpshooters until he was captured by Union forces in 1864.
I had a first cousin, five times removed, living in Raleigh Co., WV, who served in Co. A, 30th Virginia Sharpshooters until he was captured by Union forces in 1864.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.