|
The Commonwealth of Virginia,
1776-1861.
Virginia Troops in the
Revolution.
The political leadership of
Virginia during the revolutionary epoch has been universally recognized
and the published writings of her statesmen have placed their fame beyond
the reach of cavil or detraction. The military history of the state has,
on the contrary, been sadly neglected, and what is still worse many of the
most important documentary sources are now lost. To have contributed
Washington to the cause of independence seemed glory enough for one state,
and the services rendered by the Virginia line have consequently received
scant treatment even at the hands of the state historians.
When Virginia's own writers
have neglected the part played by her troops in the Revolution, it is not
strange that others have disparaged it. It is frequently claimed that New
England furnished more troops than all the other states combined, and that
Massachusetts sent to the front nearly double the number furnished by any
other state. By merely adding up the yearly returns of the continental
army as given by General Knox in a report prepared for Congress in 1790,
when he was secretary of war, the Massachusetts historians arrive at the
conclusion that their state furnished a total of 67,907 men to the
continental line and Virginia 26,672. Knox also gives estimates of the
militia, these figures being very full for New England and very meagre for
the South, but he states by way of explanation that "in some years of the
greatest exertions of the Southern States there are no returns whatever of
the militia employed." Heitman, in his Historical Register of the Officers
of the Continental Army, after a careful study of the subject, places the
number of Massachusetts militia at 20,000 and the number of Virginia
militia at 30,000. Adding together Knox's and Heitman's figures it would
appear that Massachusetts furnished 87,907 men during the Revolution, and
Virginia 56,672. Next to Virginia comes Connecticut with 40,939.
But a careful analysis of
Knox's figures will show that they are subject to certain corrections. The
16,444 men credited to Massachusetts in 1775 were not regularly organized
continentals, but militia on continental pay, whose terms expired in
December of that year. The 13,372 men credited to the same state for 1776
likewise include militia on continental -pay, whose terms expired at the
end of the year. The explanation of this is that Massachusetts was so hard
pressed during the first and second years of the war that she was unable
to pay her militia and appealed to Congress to assume the burden. This
Congress consented to do and large sums of money were forwarded to
Washington's headquarters to be paid out to the Massachusetts militia
under his direction. Here then is a deduction of nearly 30,000 to be made
from the Massachusetts total of continental troops. Another point to be
noted is that Knox takes no account of the term of enlistment and makes no
effort to reduce his figures to a common basis. It is well known that
enlistments in Massachusetts were for short periods, while enlistments in
Virginia were for three years or the war. For instance the 3,732
continentals credited to Massachusetts in 1781, when the war had been
transferred to the South, were enlisted, according to Knox's report, for
four months only. When we come to consider the terms of service of the
militia, an examination of the volumes published by the secretary of the
commonwealth of Massachusetts under the title of Massachusetts Soldiers
and Sailors o f the Revolutionary War shows that many of them served for
very short periods. Hundreds of men listed in these volumes served in
reply to some alarm for from one to thirty days and saw no other service,
while thousands of them served for one, two, three or four months. The
completeness and detail of these records is remarkable. We do not wish to
discredit or underrate the services of Massachusetts to the cause of
independence, which were very great, particularly in the early years of
the war, but merely to point out the extravagance of many of the claims
advanced by her historians. These claims have been so often repeated that
they have almost acquired the force of truth. After all the real interest
centres not in the number of troops furnished by a state but in the
character of the service performed, and in this regard Virginia yields
precedence to none. Her troops fought over a wider area and further from
home than those of any other state. They served in every part of the
country from Quebec to Savannah and from Boston to Kaskaskia and
Vincennes.
The fact that the
commander-in-chief was a Virginian was a serious obstacle to the
advancement of other officers from that state. Three of the major-generals
appointed by Congress, however, claimed Virginia as their residence,
though only one was a native. They were Charles Lee and Horatio Gates,
former British army officers who had acquired estates in Berkeley county
near Leetown, in what is now Jefferson county, West Virginia, and Adam
Stephen, of the same county, who had served with distinction in the Indian
wars. By a strange coincidence these three generals, whose homes were
within a few miles of one another, all fell into disgrace. Lee was
dismissed for his conduct at Monmouth, Gates was suspended after his
defeat at Camden, and Stephen was cashiered for drunkenness and blundering
at the battle of Germantown.
But the names of the
brigadier-generals of Virginia form an honor roll of which the state may
well feel proud. They are Daniel Morgan, who led the first body of
Southern troops to join Washington before Boston, fought his way into the
heart of Quebec only to be captured through failure of the supporting
column, twice turned the tide at Saratoga and finally, after a tardy
promotion to the grade of brigadier, routed the dread Tarleton at Cowpens
in one of the most brilliant engagements of the war; Peter Muhlenberg, who
led a German regiment from the valley of Virginia to the relief of
Charleston in 1776, commanded a brigade at Brandywine, Germantown,
Monmouth, Stony Point and Yorktown; Hugh Mercer, whose brigade formed the
attacking column at Trenton and at Princeton, and who died of his wounds a
few days later lamented by the entire army; George Weedon, who commanded a
brigade at Brandywine and at Germantown; William Woodford, who commanded
the Virginia militia at Great Bridge and led a Virginia brigade at
Brandywine, Germantown and Monmouth; Charles Scott, who commanded a
Virginia regiment at Trenton and at Stony Point and was the last to leave
the field at Monmouth when Charles Lee retreated; Edward Stevens, whose
regiment checked the British advance at Brandywine and who served with
distinction at Germantown and at Guilford Court House; Robert Lawson, who
commanded a brigade of Virginia militia at Guilford Court House; William
Campbell, who led a regiment of 400 Virginians to King's Mountain and was
chosen by the other officers to lead in that fight; Gov. Thomas Nelson,
who commanded the Virginia militia in the Yorktown campaign, and George
Rogers Clark, whose conquest of the Northwest will be described later.
Morgan, Muhlenberg, Mercer, Weedon, Woodford and Scott were brigadiers in
the continental line; Stevens and Lawson served as colonels in the
continental line and later received commissions from Virginia as
brigadiers of militia ; Campbell, Nelson and Clark also commanded militia
or volunteers.
Not less distinguished,
though of lower rank, were Col. Henry Lee ("Light-Horse Harry"), whose
legion rendered such brilliant service under Washington in New Jersey, and
later under Greene in the Carolinas; and colonels William Washington,
George Baylor and Theodoric Bland, who shed new lustre on the chivalry of
Virginia, while Col. Charles Harrison, the commander of the First
Continental Artillery, was equally conspicuous in another arm of the
service.
The first year of the war
was fought mainly in New England by New England militia, who were enlisted
at first to serve until December, 1775, when twenty-six new regiments were
raised to serve for one year. When the seat of the war was transferred to
the Hudson many of these troops accompanied Washington and served during a
part of the campaign in New Jersey, but very few of them would consent to
re-enlist when their terms expired. Washington was reduced to great
straits and appealed to Congress and the states for troops to take their
place. In a letter to the president of Congress Dec. 24, 1776, he says:
"By the departure of these regiments, I shall be left with five from
Virginia, Smallwood's from Maryland, a small part of Rawlins's (Maryland
and Virginia Rifles), Hand's from Pennsylvania, part of Ward's from
Connecticut and the German Battalion, amounting in the whole at this time
from fourteen to fifteen hundred effective men." In the battles of
Trenton, Princeton, Brandywine, Germantown and Monmouth, Virginia troops
bore the brunt of the fighting. In December, 1779, practically the whole
Virginia line, its ranks greatly depleted by hard service in New Jersey,
was ordered to South Carolina under generals Woodford and Scott, and was
surrendered to the British by the capitulation of Charleston, May 12,
1780.
During the greater part of
the war the soil of Virginia was free from the invader. After the repulse
of the British at Great Bridge, Dec. 9, 1775, and the destruction of
Norfolk by Lord Dunmore's fleet three weeks later, there were no military
operations in Virginia for several years. Patrick Henry was the first
governor of the commonwealth, having been elected June 30, 1776, by the
convention which framed the original constitution. He filled the office
ably and acceptably for three terms of one year each. During this time a
number of important legal reforms were enacted by the legislature under
the leadership of Thomas Jefferson. The most important were the act
abolishing entails, the statute of descents, the act repealing the laws on
which the established church rested, and an act prohibiting the further
importation of slaves. At the same time Jefferson prepared a bill
providing for the gradual emancipation of slaves and the celebrated
statute of religious liberty. The former was never enacted; the latter
after an interval of several years.
Jefferson succeeded Henry
as governor, and his two terms fell in what was for Virginia the most
stormy period of the war. While he was governor Sir Henry Clinton sent
three expeditions to raid and harry the coasts and rivers of Virginia,
Matthews and Collier in 1779, Leslie in 1780, and Arnold and Phillips in
1781. In the spring of 1780 Washington sent General Muhlenberg to Virginia
to take charge of the defenses of the state. With the aid of a few
officers of the continental lines, who were at home on furlough, he
collected and organized a sufficient body of militia to lay siege to
Leslie in Portsmouth, but through the failure of the French fleet to
co-operate that officer made his escape and joined Cornwallis at
Charleston. Shortly afterwards Maj.-Gen. Baron von Steuben was sent to
Virginia and Muhlenberg became second in command. The best equipped troops
were sent to join Greene in the Carolinas and the militia and volunteers
disbanded. On Jan. 2, 1781, Benedict Arnold landed at Portsmouth and two
days later proceeded up the James to Richmond. After destroying nearly
everything of value he fell back down the river to Portsmouth, where he
was kept closely within his intrenchments by the militia which Muhlenberg
quickly collected. In view of the helpless state of Virginia, Washington
dispatched Lafayette to its aid with 1,200 regulars from the main army,
hoping, through the cooperation of the French fleet, to capture Arnold.
Leaving his troops at the head of Elk River, Maryland, Lafayette hastened
forward to Virginia. On March 19 he arrived at Muhlenberg's camp near
Suffolk, but the next day the British fleet of Admiral Arbuthnot, having
defeated the fleet of Destouches off the capes, landed 2,000 men at
Portsmouth under command of Major-General Phillips. Advancing up the James
again the British destroyed a large quantity of tobacco and other stores
at Petersburg, but were prevented from taking Richmond by the timely
arrival of Lafayette's force. On May 13, 1781, General Phillips died at
Petersburg, and a week later Cornwallis arrived with his army from the
Carolinas and assumed direct command, soon after which Arnold returned to
New York. The events of the campaign that followed, ending at Yorktown and
bringing the war to a close, are too familiar to need repetition here.
Governor Jefferson was
severely criticized for his management of affairs during Arnold's
invasion. He had to abandon Richmond and adjourn the legislature to
Charlottesville, where he barely escaped capture by Tarleton's cavalry
which Cornwallis sent there for that purpose. Jefferson could do little or
nothing without the cooperation of the regular army, and Washington
advised that the only safety for Virginia lay in the defense of the
Carolinas. Accepting this view of the situation Jefferson hastened to the
South every available musket, man, wagon and horse, thus leaving Virginia
defenseless. Lincoln's surrender of Charleston and Gate's defeat at Camden
were appalling disasters, but the brilliant strategy of Greene saved the
day and justified the course that had been pursued.
The Virginia Navy of the
Revolution.
Lord Dunmore's raids on the
coasts of Virginia in the summer and fall of 1775 led the provincial
convention, in December, to instruct the committee of safety to provide
and equip vessels for the defense of the colony. The committee purchased
five vessels and commissioned a number of officers, the most prominent of
whom were captains James Barron, Richard Barron, Richard Taylor, Thomas
Lilly and Edward Travis. In May, 1776, the convention appointed a board of
naval commissioners consisting of five persons. During the next two years
vessels were built on the Eastern Shore, on the Potomac, Rappahannock,
Mattapony, Chicahominy and James, and at Portsmouth, Gosport and South
Quay. A rope-walk was established by the state at Warwick on the James, a
few miles below Richmond; four naval magazines were opened at points on
the James, York, Rappahannock and Potomac; the manufacture of sail-duck
begun, and a foundry operated. In March, 1776, John Henry Boucher, who was
then serving in the Maryland navy, was appointed to command the Potomac
fleet, and soon after made commodore of the Virginia navy. He resigned in
November, and in April, 1777, Walter Brooke was made commodore and served
until September, 1778. The navy seems to have been practically out of
commission for the next year or more, but on the transference of the war
to the South it was reorganized, and in July, 1780, James Barron was
appointed commodore and served until the close of the war.
We have the names of about
seventy vessels commissioned by the state during the course of the war. Of
these at least fifty were armed and equipped as vessels of war; the others
were trading vessels serving under the direction of the navy board and
under the immediate charge of William Aylett. As far as numbers go
Virginia had the largest navy of any of the states. Massachusetts came
next with sixteen ships. The energy of her maritime population went out
mainly into privateering, so that it was difficult to get enough men to
man the state ships; but in Virginia there was little privateering. The
main service by the Virginia navy was in suppressing Tories and in freeing
the waters of the Chesapeake of British privateers, but some of the
Virginia vessels went as far as the West Indies and took some valuable
prizes there. Some of the Virginia vessels were taken at sea and more than
twenty were taken or destroyed by Matthews and Collier in 1779. When
Arnold and Phillips invaded the state in 1781 only twelve vessels of the
state navy remained, and these were too poorly manned to be of much
service. As the hostile force advanced up the river towards Richmond, this
little fleet made a stand at Osborne's, supported by militia on the shore.
The Virginians were soon compelled to abandon their ships. Some were
scuttled or fired and others captured. None escaped. Only one vessel of
the Virginia navy now remained-the Liberty. According to a recent
authority, "The Liberty saw more service than any other state or
continental vessel of the Revolution. She was in the employ of Virginia
from 1775 until 1787." [Paullin: The Navy of the American Revolution, 417]
Conquest and Cession of
the Northwest Territory.
By the Quebec Act of 1774
the territory lying between the Ohio and Mississippi rivers was annexed to
the province of Quebec, and soon after the beginning of the Revolution
Colonel Hamilton, the British commander at Detroit, undertook to organize
the Indians of the Northwest for an attack on the settlers south and east
of the Ohio River. But his plans were thwarted by the foresight of a young
Virginian, George Rogers Clark, one of the early settlers in Kentucky who,
counting on the support of the French inhabitants, was convinced that with
a small force he could take possession of this territory. Late in the
autumn of 1777 he made his way back to Virginia along the Wilderness Road
and laid his plans before Governor Henry. As it was of the utmost
importance that the enterprise should be kept secret, the governor did not
consult the legislature, but after conferring with Jefferson, Wythe and
Madison he authorized Clark to raise a force of 350 men for the
expedition. Clark immediately recrossed the mountains and began collecting
men and supplies on the upper Ohio, nominally for the defense of Kentucky.
By May, 1778, he had succeeded with difficulty in getting together 180
picked riflemen, a flotilla of small boats and a few pieces of light
artillery. With these he proceeded down the Ohio to its junction with the
Mississippi and disembarked in what is now southern Illinois. Marching his
force over the prairie to Kaskaskia he surprised the garrison and took
possession of the town without resistance. With the aid of Father Gibault,
a Catholic priest, he succeeded in winning over Cahokia and other
neighboring villages.
As soon as Governor
Hamilton heard of these events he marched from Detroit with a motly force
composed of 500 men, regulars, Tories and Indians, to Vincennes on the
Wabash and garrisoned that fort. But Clark was not to be outdone. Sending
some provisions and a few pieces of artillery around by the Ohio and
Wabash, he set out from Kaskaskia in the dead of winter with 130 men,
marched for sixteen days in the face of apparently insurmountable
difficulties across the drowned lands of Illinois, met his boats just in
time to save his party from starvation and despair, and appeared before
Vincennes to the utter amazement of the British garrison. The town readily
submitted, and after a siege of twenty hours Hamilton surrendered the fort
February 23. The Northwest territory was thus secured to Virginia and
organized as the "county" of Illinois.
The importance of this
brilliant exploit was destined to be far greater than even Clark foresaw,
for when the treaty of peace was being negotiated at Paris in 1782 our
allies, France and Spain, were both more than willing to sacrifice our
interests in order to keep us out of the Mississippi Valley, and the
western boundary of the United States would undoubtedly have been fixed at
the Alleghanies instead of the Mississippi but for the fact that this
western region was actually occupied by Virginians.
At the close of the
Revolution the boundaries of Virginia extended from the Atlantic Ocean to
the Mississippi, and from the parallel of 36° 30' on the south to the
Great Lakes on the north; but the vast extent of these imperial
possessions aroused the jealousy of the other states and rival claims to a
part of the territory north of the Ohio River were revived. Virginia's
original claim to this region was based on the charter of 1609, which
conveyed all the lands 200 miles north and 200 miles south of Point
Comfort, "up into the land, throughout from sea to sea, West and
Northwest." The later grants to Massachusetts and Connecticut, as
described in their charters, likewise ran west to the Pacific, the
impression of that day being that the continent was no broader here than
in Mexico. New York, as successor to the rights of the Iroquois, asserted
a rather shadowy claim to this territory, whose tribes had formerly been
subject to the Six Nations. To her original claim Virginia added the
stronger claim of conquest and possession. The little states, Rhode
Island, New Jersey, Delaware and Maryland, which had no claims to western
lands, were strongly opposed to recognizing the claims of the larger
states. Maryland first proposed the cession of all western lands to the
Union, and later declared that she would not ratify the Articles of
Confederation until she should receive some assurance that the states in
question would cede their claims. In February, 1780, New York decided to
surrender her claims to the general government, not a very great sacrifice
on her part, and a little later Connecticut offered to cede her claims
with the exception of 3,250,000 acres reserved for school purposes. This
arrangement was not approved at the time, but was finally agreed to in
1786. In January, 1781, Virginia agreed to cede her lands on condition of
being guaranteed in her possession of Kentucky, but three years later the
cession was made without this proviso, and a few weeks later Massachusetts
followed with a surrender of her claims.
In 1784 Jefferson proposed
in Congress a scheme for the government of the Northwest Territory which,
among other provisions, excluded slavery. Though stricken out at the time,
this provision was later embodied along with other ideas of Jefferson in
the celebrated ordinance of 1787. The creation of a national domain was a
mighty stride forward in the formation of a permanent union. The
possession of a territory of its own outside the limits of the several
states gave the government something of a national character, and was
destined to have far-reaching influences on its development.
In 1791 Kentucky was
organized with the consent of Virginia as a separate state, and the bounds
of the "Old Dominion" were thus reduced to the point at which they
remained until 1861.
The Adoption of the
Constitution of the United States.
When the Articles of
Confederation had proven inadequate and the union of states seemed
drifting toward anarchy, Virginia took the first step in the formation of
a new government by inviting the states to send delegates to Annapolis for
the purpose of conferring additional powers on Congress, and when the
Federal convention met at Philadelphia in May, 1787, Washington was chosen
to preside over its deliberations. His sound sense, dignified bearing and
tactful manner contributed more than any other single factor towards the
ultimate success of the work. The leading part in the proceedings was
taken by another son of Virginia, James Madison, who became known as the
"Father of the Constitution." He was the author of the Virginia plan which
formed the basis of discussion and entered largely into the new
constitution. Washington laid the work of the convention before Congress,
accompanied by a letter, and after eight days of discussion the
constitution was submitted to the states for ratification. The next
question was, would the states ratify? Of this there was grave doubt.
In Virginia Patrick Henry
and Richard Henry Lee had opposed the whole plan of a Federal convention
and had refused to go as delegates, while George Mason and Edmund Randolph
had refused to sign the constitution after it was drafted. Delaware,
Pennsylvania, New Jersey, Georgia, Connecticut, Massachusetts, Maryland
and South Carolina ratified in the order named before the meeting of the
Virginia convention June 2, 1788. As it took nine states to put the new
government into operation, all eyes were now turned to Virginia. Patrick
Henry led the fight against the constitution and brought to bear against
it all the force of his fiery eloquence. He was ably seconded by George
Mason and William Grayson. Madison, meanwhile, had won over to his side
Gov. Edmund Randolph, and Washington's influence, though he did not attend
the convention, carried great weight with the members. Madison was aided
by the popular eloquence of "Light-Horse Harry" Lee and the forceful
arguments of John Marshall. The debate finally narrowed itself down to the
question whether the constitution should be ratified as it stood and
amendments subsequently proposed, or whether ratification should be
postponed until another Federal convention could convene and make the
desired changes. The former alternative was finally adopted, and on June
25 the constitution was ratified by a vote of eighty-nine to seventy-nine.
It was learned later that New Hampshire had ratified four days earlier,
making the ninth state, but the action of Virginia was none the less
decisive for it turned the scale in New York, which, after a long
struggle, followed Virginia's example, and the new government was
organized notwithstanding the fact that Rhode Island and North Carolina
still held back. Patrick Henry's principal objection to the constitution
was the absence of a bill of rights. His fierce opposition had its effect,
and in ratifying the constitution the convention proposed a score of
amendments which, together with those proposed by other states, were
finally reduced to ten. The first ten amendments are thus, in part at
least, Henry's contribution to the constitution, and no student of
constitutional history will deny that he was right in insisting on a bill
of rights.
Resolutions of 1798-1799.
The closing years of the
century were marked by the bitterest partisan feeling. During the
administration of President Adams, while relations with France were
strained and war imminent, the Federalist majority in Congress passed the
alien and sedition acts, the first empowering the President to remove
objectionable aliens from the country, and the second seriously
restricting freedom of speech and the liberty of the press. The intention
of the acts was to intimidate the Republicans and suppress certain of
their newspapers. Jefferson's followers were greatly incensed and at once
took steps to counteract the effect of the acts and to secure their
repeal. Jefferson prepared a set of resolutions for the Kentucky
legislature which were introduced by John Breckinridge and passed Nov.10,
1798. They declared that the alien and sedition acts were "void and of no
force," and appealed to the other states to protest and to take steps to
secure their repeal at the next session of Congress.
At the same time Madison
prepared resolutions of similar purport which were introduced in the
Virginia legislature by John Taylor, of Caroline. They declared that the
Federal government was a compact, that the powers of Congress were limited
by the plain sense and intention of the instrument constituting that
compact, and that in case of a deliberate, palpable and dangerous exercise
of other powers not granted, the states had the right and were in duty
bound "to interpose for arresting the progress of the evil, and for
maintaining within their respective limits the authorities, rights and
liberties appertaining to them." The resolutions were forwarded to the
governors of the other states, inviting them to declare the said acts
unconstitutional and to cooperate with Virginia in maintaining the rights
of the states unimpaired. Answers decidedly unfavorable, some of them
strongly condemnatory, were received from Delaware, Rhode Island,
Massachusetts, New York, Connecticut, New Hampshire and Vermont. This
threw Virginia on the defensive and precipitated a hot discussion between
the two political parties within the state. At the next meeting of the
legislature Madison presented an able and lucid report in defense of the
resolutions of the previous year. The "Madison Report" of 1799 was widely
accepted as an authoritative exposition by the "Father of the
Constitution" of the doctrine of states' rights. In the effort to
perpetuate their power the Federalists had overstepped themselves, and the
following year they were swept out of office never to recover control of
the government.
Internal Improvements and
the State Debt.
When the National
government assumed the revolutionary debts of the several states in 1790,
Virginia had already extinguished the greater part of hers and hence
opposed assumption. Most of the states remained free from debt until the
period of development following the war of 1812, when the demand for
better means of communication led to the creation of public debts for the
construction of roads, bridges and canals. At this time the part of
Virginia lying east of the Alleghanies was devoted largely to agriculture
and grazing with but few manufactures, while to the west, in the counties
now embraced within the state of West Virginia, lay vast stores of
minerals and timber as yet inaccessible. In order to develop these
resources and bring them to the markets of the world, the state undertook
the construction of graded roads, bridges, canals and, later, railroads,
extending from tidewater towards the Ohio River. Some of these works were
constructed on state account, but the greater part of them by state
subscription to the capital stock of incorporated companies. The
appropriations and subscriptions were expended under the direction and
supervision of a board of public works created as early as 1816, the
members of which were elected by the voters of the state at large. The
expenditures did not assume very large proportions until 1837, but from
that time on they grew at a progressive rate until 1860. The total sum
appropriated for internal improvements and banks was over $40,000,000,
less than a fourth part of which had been liquidated before the War of
Secession. By 1850 the state debt had grown to about $10,000,000, and by
1860 it had reached the sum of $33,000,000. Of this amount $4,761,564 had
been incurred for roads, turnpikes and bridges; $12,492,616 for canals and
river improvements, and $15,440,910 for railroads. Appropriations for
works of internal improvement were almost invariably supported, as the
legislative records show, by a majority of the members from the counties
west of the Alleghanies, and almost invariably opposed by a majority of
the members from the eastern counties. Thus Virginia entered on the War of
Secession burdened with a heavy debt, which was soon made all the heavier
by the separation of the counties in whose interests and by whose votes
the debt was created. [For most of the facts in regard to the creation of
the state debt the writer is indebted to the briefs and papers prepared by
Hon. William A. Anderson in the case of Virginia vs. West Virginia. ]
State Sectionalism.
The diversity of interests
between the East and the West was responsible for the early development of
sectionalism within the state. The constitution of 1776 continued in force
the colonial system of representation in the state legislature, which was
based on districts and not on population. With the development of the
western counties came the demand for larger representation in the General
Assembly and the extension of the suffrage, but the eastern counties
resisted every attempt to deprive them of the political ascendancy they
had inherited from earlier times. From 1790 on petitions for reform were
presented at nearly every session of the legislature, but without effect.
Finally, in 1816, a convention of prominent men from the western counties
met at Staunton and drew up a memorial asking the legislature to submit to
the voters the question whether or not a convention should be called to
equalize representation on the basis of the white population. The
organization of the Senate was especially unfair. The western section,
with a white population of 233,469, had only four senators, while the
eastern counties, with a white population of 342,781, had twenty senators.
As a result of the Staunton memorial the House of Delegates passed a bill
in favor of a convention, but the Senate rejected it. In order to allay
the growing discontent, however, the legislature proceeded to reorganize
the Senate, giving the East fifteen and the West nine senators.
Finally, in December, 1827,
the legislature agreed to submit the question of calling a convention to
the voters. The measure was carried by 21,896 to 16,637 votes. The
reformers wanted the delegates to the convention assigned on a basis of
white population, while the conservatives demanded a mixed basis of white
population and taxation, or Federal numbers, that is, white population and
three-fifths of the slaves. After long discussion the House adopted the
county system as the basis of organization, but this plan was rejected by
the Senate and the two houses finally agreed on the senatorial district as
the basis, each district to be allowed four delegates.
The convention of 1829-30
was remarkable for the number of able men who sat in it, among them
ex-Presidents Madison and Monroe, and Chief Justice Marshall. After
discussing the basis of representation for weeks, a committee was finally
appointed to apportion delegates for the House without adopting any basis.
As a result the Trans-Alleghany district was given thirty-one delegates,
the Valley twenty-five, Piedmont forty-two and Tidewater thirty-six.
The suffrage question was
the next most important subject before this convention. The constitution
of 1776 had left the suffrage where it was fixed by act of the House of
Burgesses in 1736. This act vested it in freeholders, a freehold being
defined as 100 acres of unimproved, or twenty-five acres of improved land,
with a house on it, or a house and lot in town. The convention of 1829-30
refused, after a stormy debate, to consent to any radical reform. The
suffrage was extended to leaseholders and taxpaying housekeepers, but this
added only a few thousand to the electorate.
The West was by no means
satisfied, but remained quiet for a while. In March, 1850, the General
Assembly finally agreed to submit the question of calling another
convention to the people, determining in advance, however, that the
convention should be organized on the mixed basis (white population and
taxation). This arrangement gave the East seventy-six delegates and the
West fifty-nine, an eastern majority of seventeen; whereas, on the white
basis, the East would have had sixty-one and the West seventy-four, a
western majority of thirteen. In spite of the fact that the East
controlled, the convention of 1850-51 is known as the reform convention.
The apportionment of representatives for the House was finally fixed on
the white basis, giving the West eighty-three delegates by the census of
1850, and the East sixty-nine, while the Senate was still based on an
arbitrary apportionment of thirty to the East and twenty to the West. The
West now had a majority of four on joint ballot. This convention also
extended the suffrage to every male white over twenty-one years of age who
had resided two years in the state and one year in the district. These two
reforms, together with the popular election of governor and judges,
changed Virginia from an aristocratic government into one of the most
democratic in the Union. [For the facts stated in this section the writer
is largely indebted to J. A. C. Chandler's two monographs on
Representation in Virginia and History of Suffrage in Virginia in the
Johns Hopkins University Studies in Historical and Political Science.]
Slavery.
We have already referred to
Jefferson's desire for the abolition of slavery in 1776. There were no
stronger abolitionists in America at that time than Jefferson, George
Mason and St. George Tucker, while Madison, Washington and Henry, though
more conservative, earnestly desired to see slavery disappear. The
disposal of the free negro - a question of little consequence at the North
where the relative proportion of blacks was small-retarded all plans for
general emancipation at the South, and while the question was continually
discussed, no action was taken.
Nat Turner's insurrection
in Southampton county in August, 1831, in which sixty-one persons, mostly
women and children, were barbarously murdered, brought the question very
forcibly to the attention of Virginia statesmen. On Jan. 11, 1832, Thomas
Jefferson Randolph, a grandson of Jefferson, proposed to submit to the
voters a plan for freeing all slaves born after July 4, 1840, the males on
arriving at twenty-one and the females at eighteen, and for removing them
beyond the limits of the United States. This motion was tabled without a
recorded vote. The general question continued to be very earnestly
debated, however, for two weeks, when it was finally disposed of on a test
resolution declaring that it was expedient to adopt some legislative
enactments for the abolition of slavery. This motion was defeated by a
vote of seventy-three to fifty-eight. The rise and growth of Garrisonian
abolition at the North during The next twenty years threw the South on the
defensive, and the abolition sentiment in Virginia never again acquired
the force that it had in 1832. It is estimated that at least 100,000
slaves were freed by Virginians between the Revolution and the War of
Secession without legal compulsion, as against a total of 59,421 freed in
the entire North by legislation.
Secession.
South Carolina passed the
ordinance of secession Dec. 20, 1860, and was followed during January by
Mississippi, Florida, Alabama, Georgia and Louisiana, and on February 1 by
Texas. The Virginia legislature was convened in extra session by Governor
Letcher January 7, and issued an invitation to the other states to send
commissioners to a convention in Washington "to adjust the present unhappy
controversies." But the time for compromises had passed, and the so-called
"peace convention" which assembled at the national capital February 4, and
over which ex-President Tyler presided, accomplished nothing.
On the day that the peace
convention assembled the election of delegates for a state convention was
held in Virginia, and resulted in a Union victory. Of the 152 delegates
chosen 30 were classed as secessionists, 20 as Douglas men and 102 as
Whigs, but not more than half a dozen were "actual sub-missionists - that
is, men in favor of the preservation of the Union under any and all
circumstances." When the convention met it soon became evident that, while
a large majority were opposed to secession as matters then stood, a large
majority were al so opposed to coercion. Lincoln's inaugural address was a
great blow to the Union men of Virginia, and when it became evident that
he did not intend to evacuate Fort Sumter the secession forces gained
strength rapidly. Still, as late as April 4 a resolution to submit an
ordinance of secession to the people was voted down in the convention by
89 to 45. On April 15 President Lincoln issued a call for volunteers and
called on the governor of each state for its quota. Virginia was thus
forced to choose between joining the Confederacy and assisting in its
coercion. There was little doubt as to the out come. On the 17th the
convention passed the ordinance of secession by a vote of 88 to 55,
subject to ratification by the people at the polls. As soon as the vote
was announced nine delegates changed their votes from negative to
affirmative and six new votes were recorded, so that the final vote stood
103 to 46. The scene is described as both solemn and affecting. One
delegate, while speaking against the ordinance, broke down in incoherent
sobs; another, who voted for it, wept like a child. The sentiment of the
people had run ahead of their leaders. A. H. H. Stuart, who had
strenuously opposed secession, now issued a letter urging the people to
stand together, and John B. Baldwin, when asked by a Northern friend "What
will the Union men of Virginia do now?" replied: "There are no Union men
left in Virginia." On April 20 Robert E. Lee, refusing the chief command
in the United States army, resigned his commission and offered his
services to his state. Governor Letcher, who had been a strong Union man,
at once took steps for the defense of the state and formed a provisional
alliance with the Confederacy. The ordinance of secession was ratified by
the people May 23 by a vote of 96,750 to 32,134, the opposition coming
almost exclusively from the western counties, which soon after took steps
to separate from the state. Reluctantly and in sorrow, but calm and strong
in the consciousness of right, Virginia severed the ties that bound her to
the Union she had done more than any other state to form, and devoted her
soil to the carnage of war.
BIBLIOGRAPHY. - Ballagh:
History of Slavery in Virginia (1902); Chandler: Representation in
Virginia in Johns Hopkins University Studies (1896), History of Suffrage
in Virginia in Johns Hopkins University Studies (1901); Force: American
Archives (5th series); Graham: Life of General Daniel Morgan (1856);
Goolrich: Life of General Hugh Mercer (1906); Heitman: Historical Register
of the Officers of the Continental Army (1893); Henry: Life of Patrick
Henry (1891); Muhlenberg: Life of Major-General Peter Muhlenberg (1849);
Paullin: The Navy of the American Revolution (1906); Rhodes: History of
the United States (Vol. III., Chaps. XIV. and XV.); Tower: The Marquis de
LaFayette in the American Revolution (1895); Tyler: Letters and Times of
the Tylers (1885); Weedon: Valley Forge Orderly Book of General George
Weedon (1902); Wise: Seven Decades of the Union (1881); The Virginia Navy
of the Revolution in Southern Literary Messenger (1857, January, February,
March, and April); Writings of Washington, Jefferson and Madison; Virginia
Debates of 1788 in Elliot's Debates (Vol. Ill.); The Virginia Report and
Debates 1798-1799 (1850); Proceedings and Debates of the Virginia State
Convention of 1829-30 (1830); Journal, Acts, and Proceedings of the
Virginia Convention of 1850-51 (1851); Journals of the House of Delegates
of the Commonwealth of Virginia.
JOHN HOLLADAY LATANE,
Professor of History, Washington and Lee University. |
