The Exponent Telegram: 'Western Virginia' barbs are good natured fun

[Brog]

Don't be so sure, remember the Game Day geniuses didn't know it was a lizard.

I wish we would incorporate lizard into our vocabulary for cheers, etc so the ignorance of the people that named our mascot force the unknowing to keep up this amphibious nomenclature.

Riff Ram, lizard zoo,
Lizard, lizard, zoo, zoo,
Who wah, wah who,
Giv'em lizard, TCU.

 

[toadallytexan]

Make 'em scream, and Make 'em shiver,
Split their spleens, and Slit their livers.
Reach down their throats, Rip out their gizzards
Make em sorry they played the Horned Lizzards.
While waving on high our purple banner,
We do these things in a Christian manner.

 

[Limey Frog]

How do you figure?

"New States may be admitted by the Congress into this Union; but no new Statesshall 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..."

Lincoln claimed that the seceded state governments after 1861 were not truly state governments but merely insurrections of organized rebels whose actions disrupted the regular functioning of the true state governments. In theory the states continued to exist and would resume their regular position within the union once the insurrection could be suppressed by military action. Then in 1863 his government presided over the creation of West Virginia out of part of Virginia without the consent of the legislature of Virginia, which he for other purposes maintained was still theoretically and legally in existence but merely disrupted by temporary insurrection. In effect he, like most politicians, wanted it both ways as matters suited his requirements. The SCOTUS, by then packed with Lincoln appointees retroactively approved the creation of occupied Va. in a case that virginia's govt. filed following reunion. If you accept the idea that the constitution says whatever five members of the high court decide they want it to say, then West Va. is legit.

 

[Frog-in-law1995]

"New States may be admitted by the Congress into this Union; but no new Statesshall 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..."

Lincoln claimed that the seceded state governments after 1861 were not truly state governments but merely insurrections of organized rebels whose actions disrupted the regular functioning of the true state governments. In theory the states continued to exist and would resume their regular position within the union once the insurrection could be suppressed by military action. Then in 1863 his government presided over the creation of West Virginia out of part of Virginia without the consent of the legislature of Virginia, which he for other purposes maintained was still theoretically and legally in existence but merely disrupted by temporary insurrection. In effect he, like most politicians, wanted it both ways as matters suited his requirements. The SCOTUS, by then packed with Lincoln appointees retroactively approved the creation of occupied Va. in a case that virginia's govt. filed following reunion. If you accept the idea that the constitution says whatever five members of the high court decide they want it to say, then West Va. is legit.

I was trying to be a smart-ass in pointing out that you cited the wrong Article of the Constitution.

 

[Limey Frog]

I was trying to be a smart-ass in pointing out that you cited the wrong Article of the Constitution.

Did I?

 

[Frog-in-law1995]

Did I?

Yes, it’s Article 4, not 1.

 

[Purp]

Like at the basketball games calling it the home of the leaping lizards or something when the team is announced...

Gunner? That you?

They showed a picture of a Horny Toad, identifying it as a reptile or lizard was the objective.

Isn't it both?

 

[Purp]

"New States may be admitted by the Congress into this Union; but no new Statesshall 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..."

Lincoln claimed that the seceded state governments after 1861 were not truly state governments but merely insurrections of organized rebels whose actions disrupted the regular functioning of the true state governments. In theory the states continued to exist and would resume their regular position within the union once the insurrection could be suppressed by military action. Then in 1863 his government presided over the creation of West Virginia out of part of Virginia without the consent of the legislature of Virginia, which he for other purposes maintained was still theoretically and legally in existence but merely disrupted by temporary insurrection. In effect he, like most politicians, wanted it both ways as matters suited his requirements. The SCOTUS, by then packed with Lincoln appointees retroactively approved the creation of occupied Va. in a case that virginia's govt. filed following reunion. If you accept the idea that the constitution says whatever five members of the high court decide they want it to say, then West Va. is legit.

Similar constitutional conflicts exist with the proposal and ratification of the reconstruction amendments. I agree that Lincoln's regard for the Constitution may have been as bad as any president in history. I'd stop short of saying he'd have eventually become a tyrant like Hitler, but I'm curious to know what you've read to leave you with such an impression. I think Lincoln was motivated to accomplish a noble goal by any means necessary, but ended up doing so in a less than noble manner. And some of his goals beyond ending slavery weren't very noble either, but I would still stop short of calling him one of the worst humans to ever walk the earth.

I've been reading history from that era recently as well and it's fascinating how much I learned in school that was totally opposite of reality.

 

[Phil Ken Sebben]

Similar constitutional conflicts exist with the proposal and ratification of the reconstruction amendments. I agree that Lincoln's regard for the Constitution may have been as bad as any president in history. I'd stop short of saying he'd have eventually become a tyrant like Hitler, but I'm curious to know what you've read to leave you with such an impression. I think Lincoln was motivated to accomplish a noble goal by any means necessary, but ended up doing so in a less than noble manner. And some of his goals beyond ending slavery weren't very noble either, but I would still stop short of calling him one of the worst humans to ever walk the earth.

I've been reading history from that era recently as well and it's fascinating how much I learned in school that was totally opposite of reality.

Lincoln was definitely shady in terms of following the constitution. He disregarded numerous civil liberties and civil rights in an ends-justify-the-means way. Just as you say. But the Union won the war and were able to write the history books to make it look better than it was. There certainly is a lot more to the war than what children are told in school.

I started reading Jefferson Davis' The Rise and Fall of the Confederate Government. You have to remember the source when taking some of his arguments into account, but he backs all nearly everything with citations to letters, speeches, laws, and historical records.

What I found quite interesting was that the New England states, led by Massachusetts, heavily considered secession in 1803-04 because they were concerned with their loss of power over the Louisiana purchase. Furthermore, John Q. Adams wrote that he believed secession was a right of all states of the union. Apparently in the early 1800s no one actually thought that the decision to join the union was permanent. Rather, they believed that a state's membership in the federal government was contingent on the consent of the governed. That if those in the state, the governed, decided that they no longer wishes to remain in the union they were perfectly free to withdraw their consent and remove themselves from the union.

It is a fascinating book which I highly recommend reading. Jefferson Davis was an extremely well respected statesman who very clearly outlines the legal and factual history of the confederacy with documented sources.

In regards to WVa, you're probably right. It likely was unconstitutionally formed. But at this point it's too late to do anything about it. Five individuals seem to have more power than all of the rest of the nation combined.

 

[Mean Purple]

Are we going to burn couches if we win? LOL

no

 

[Limey Frog]

Yes, it’s Article 4, not 1.

My bad. That was a typo.

 

[Purp]

Lincoln was definitely shady in terms of following the constitution. He disregarded numerous civil liberties and civil rights in an ends-justify-the-means way. Just as you say. But the Union won the war and were able to write the history books to make it look better than it was. There certainly is a lot more to the war than what children are told in school.

I started reading Jefferson Davis' The Rise and Fall of the Confederate Government. You have to remember the source when taking some of his arguments into account, but he backs all nearly everything with citations to letters, speeches, laws, and historical records.

What I found quite interesting was that the New England states, led by Massachusetts, heavily considered secession in 1803-04 because they were concerned with their loss of power over the Louisiana purchase. Furthermore, John Q. Adams wrote that he believed secession was a right of all states of the union. Apparently in the early 1800s no one actually thought that the decision to join the union was permanent. Rather, they believed that a state's membership in the federal government was contingent on the consent of the governed. That if those in the state, the governed, decided that they no longer wishes to remain in the union they were perfectly free to withdraw their consent and remove themselves from the union.

It is a fascinating book which I highly recommend reading. Jefferson Davis was an extremely well respected statesman who very clearly outlines the legal and factual history of the confederacy with documented sources.

In regards to WVa, you're probably right. It likely was unconstitutionally formed. But at this point it's too late to do anything about it. Five individuals seem to have more power than all of the rest of the nation combined.

A couple books that changed my perspective a bit are "Is Davis a Traitor" by Albert Taylor Bledsoe and "The Politically Incorrect Guide to the Civil War" by some guy named Crocker.

Bledsoe was a legal peer of Lincoln in Illinois early on and they were fairly close prior to the war IIRC. He writes with a unique knowledge base and familiarity that lends itself to a very compelling case.

I've enjoyed several books from the Politically Incorrect Guide series and picked that one up too. "The Politically Incorrect Guide to the Constitution" by Gutzman is another good one, but it only devotes a chapter or two to "The War for Southern Cecession." The issue with the term "civil war" is that it implies a fight between two sides over the same government when this was very clearly not that at all. That's why he settled on the name for it that he did.

I've also read some history on the New England states considering secession. They were very close to it and, in many ways, it's surprising that it didn't happen. From the founding through the "Civil War" there was always a power struggle in the general government between northern industrial states and southern agricultural states. There was always a lot of distrust and bickering because their interests were very different from one another. It's one of the main reasons Patrick Henry and George Mason didn't support the Constitution, but preferred to amend the Articles of Confederation. There is so much fascinating history from those times that gets lost when it's condensed for school text books.

 

[NNM]

Not sure how anyone could look at the horned lizard and not know it is a reptile, lizard, mini-dinosaur, anything but an actual frog.

Yes, a horned lizard like the one in your avatar certainly looks like a lizard.

But the fat bullfrog on our helmets could certainly confuse people.

 

[Phil Ken Sebben]

A couple books that changed my perspective a bit are "Is David a Traitor" by Albert Taylor Bledsoe and "The Politically Incorrect Guide to the Civil War" by some guy named Crocker.

Bledsoe was a legal peer of Lincoln in Illinois early on and they were fairly close prior to the war IIRC. He writes with a unique knowledge base and familiarity that lends itself to a very compelling case.

I've enjoyed several books from the Politically Incorrect Guide series and picked that one up too. "The Politically Incorrect Guide to the Constitution" by Gutzman is another good one, but it only devotes a chapter or two to "The War for Southern Cecession." The issue with the term "civil war" is that it implies a fight between two sides over the same government when this was very clearly not that at all. That's why he settled on the name for it that he did.

I've also read some history on the New England states considering secession. They were very close to it and, in many ways, it's surprising that it didn't happen. From the founding through the "Civil War" there was always a power struggle in the general government between northern industrial states and southern agricultural states. There was always a lot of distrust and bickering because their interests were very different from one another. It's one of the main reasons Patrick Henry and George Mason didn't support the Constitution, but preferred to amend the Articles of Confederation. There is so much fascinating history from those times that gets lost when it's condensed for school text books.

I'll have to look into those books. I've studied the history around the war a fair amount, and am always interested in learning more.

That's definitely an interesting point about the term "civil war." I had never considered the linguistic significance of referring to it as such. Maybe that's because I often just call it the "war of northern aggression." haha

To your point about the interests of the industrial north and agricultural south's differences causing a strain on the union, you are quite correct. The Strain of the diverging interests was only ended by the war. (It was not truly ended, but the south became so weak that it could not pursue or protect its interests and therefore the interests of the industrial north were wholly in control for decades.) This type of sectionalism and divergence in interests led to the war. Conflict was always just around the corner. People like to point to slavery and pretend that was the only issue which the war was about, but this is simply a way to white wash the past to make the union seem like the morally just defenders of freedom. We should not sharpen the complex political and social landscape of American history in the mid-1800s to simply says "slave owners v. freedom fighters." But that seems to be what's in history books which are being taught now.

 

[toadallytexan]

I was trying to be a smart-ass in pointing out that you cited the wrong Article of the Constitution.

You got half way there.

 

[toadallytexan]

A couple books that changed my perspective a bit are "Is David a Traitor" by Albert Taylor Bledsoe and "The Politically Incorrect Guide to the Civil War" by some guy named Crocker.

Bledsoe was a legal peer of Lincoln in Illinois early on and they were fairly close prior to the war IIRC. He writes with a unique knowledge base and familiarity that lends itself to a very compelling case.

I've enjoyed several books from the Politically Incorrect Guide series and picked that one up too. "The Politically Incorrect Guide to the Constitution" by Gutzman is another good one, but it only devotes a chapter or two to "The War for Southern Cecession." The issue with the term "civil war" is that it implies a fight between two sides over the same government when this was very clearly not that at all. That's why he settled on the name for it that he did.

I've also read some history on the New England states considering secession. They were very close to it and, in many ways, it's surprising that it didn't happen. From the founding through the "Civil War" there was always a power struggle in the general government between northern industrial states and southern agricultural states. There was always a lot of distrust and bickering because their interests were very different from one another. It's one of the main reasons Patrick Henry and George Mason didn't support the Constitution, but preferred to amend the Articles of Confederation. There is so much fascinating history from those times that gets lost when it's condensed for school text books.

On a tour of Charleston, we were advised by the guide about referencing that conflict: "civil war" was almost never used there, "war between the states" got some currency, but the refined ladies of the city simply said, "the late, great unpleasantness."

 

[The Frog to be Named Later]

In regards to WVa, you're probably right. It likely was unconstitutionally formed. But at this point it's too late to do anything about it. Five individuals seem to have more power than all of the rest of the nation combined.

We could make a CGD sign calling them out on their bogus statehood?

Seriously that was educational. I have the same opinion but not near a well read on it as you two.

#themoreyouknow
#powerofhasmsp...ohwait

 

[Phil Ken Sebben]

We could make a CGD sign calling them out on their bogus statehood?

Seriously that was educational. I have the same opinion but not near a well read on it as you two.

#themoreyouknow
#powerofhasmsp...ohwait

78 U.S. 39 was wrongly decided!

Make West Virgina Western Virginia again!