The Journal of Negro History, Volume 6, 1921Various
History
The Journal of Negro History, Volume 6, 1921
Various
African Americans -- Periodicals
Replying to these arguments, Mr. Brown, of Virginia, claimed
constitutional regularity of procedure in forming the new State and in
seeking to have it admitted into the Union. He referred to the case of
Kentucky as a precedent, attempting thereby to show the competency of
Congress to admit a State formed within the jurisdiction of another.
He pointed out that the Senate, the House, the Executive Department of
the United States Government and a State Court in Ohio had, all, by
their several acts and relationships with the Wheeling Legislature
recognized it to be the legal legislature of Virginia. Discussing the
original powers of the people, Mr. Brown asserted "that the principle
was laid down in the Declaration of Independence that the legislative
powers of the people cannot be annihilated; that when the
functionaries to whom they are entrusted become incapable of
exercising them, they revert to the people, who have the right to
exercise them in their primitive and original capacity." "When,
therefore, the government of old Virginia capitulated to the
Confederacy," said he, "the loyal people of Western Virginia acted in
accordance with the directing principle of the Declaration of
Independence."[115]
Conforming to the opinion of Mr. Brown, Mr. Colfax urged the admission
of the proposed new State, "because in their constitution, the people
provided for the ultimate extinction of slavery."[116] Among other
speakers urging the admission of the new State were Edwards, Blair,
Stevens, and Bingham. Edwards asserted that the two questions
presented had to do with (1) the constitutional power of Congress to
admit the State and (2) the question of expediency. Blair, while
urging the admission of the new State, took occasion to inform Mr.
Crittenden, of Kentucky, that the people of the proposed new State of
West Virginia had bound themselves to pay a just proportion of the
public debt owed by the State of Virginia, prior to the passage of the
Ordinance of Secession. Thaddeus Stevens held that the act of the
legislature of Virginia assenting to the division of the State was
invalid as such, but that West Virginia might be admitted under the
absolute power that the laws of war give to Congress under such
circumstances. "The Union," he said, "can never be restored under the
Constitution as it was," and with his consent, it could never be
restored with slavery to be protected by it. He was in favor of
admitting West Virginia because he "found in her constitution a
provision which would make her a free state."[117]
Public-domain text, read in full here on John Shaqi.
Reviews
Reviews
No reviews yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this work.
Elsewhere in the archive
Join the Discussion
Join the discussion
Sign in to leave a comment or review.
Sign InorCreate an account