favor of it originates
with those who either honestly entertain an erroneous opinion, or
who desire to justify by a forced construction an act which they
have predetermined to do." He maintained that it was "but mockery
to say that the Legislature of Virginia has ever consented to the
division. Only two hundred thousand out of a million and a quarter
of people have participated in the proceedings." He contended that
"the State of Virginia has a regular organization, and by a large
majority of the people it has changed its relations to the Federal
Government." He knew that this was treason in the individuals who
participated in it; but so far as the State was concerned, it was
a valid act. Our government, he argued, "does not act upon a State.
The State, as a separate distinct body, is the State of a majority
of the people of Virginia, whether rebel or loyal, whether convict
or free men. The majority of the people of Virginia is the State
of Virginia, although individuals have committed treason." "Governor
Pierpont," continued Mr. Stevens, "is an excellent man, and I wish
he were the Governor elected by the people of Virginia. But
according to my principles operating at the present time I can vote
for the admission of West Virginia without any compunctions of
conscience--only with some doubt about the policy of it. None of
the States now in rebellion are entitled to the protection of the
Constitution. These proceedings are in virtue of the laws of war.
We may admit West Virginia as a new State, not by virtue of any
provision of the Constitution but under our absolute power which
the laws of war give us in the circumstances in which we are placed.
I shall vote for this bill upon that theory, and upon that alone.
I will not stultify myself by supposing that we have any warrant
in the Constitution for this proceeding."

ADMISSION OF WEST VIRGINIA TO THE UNION.

Mr. Bingham of Ohio made an able argument principally devoted to
rebutting the somewhat mischievous ground assumed by Mr. Stevens.
He affirmed that "the minority of the people of the State cannot
be deprived of their rights because the majority have committed
treason." He argued that, the majority of the people of Virginia
having become rebels, the State was in the hands of the loyal
minority, who in that event had a right to administer the laws,
maintain the authority of the State government, and elect a State
Legisla