F 230 
 
 .H17 
 Copy 2 
 

 
 V ♦.To ** <^ 
 
 
 e» <^» 
 
 
l* . O " O „ *q - «£■ „ u » 
 
 v-<y 
 
 r oK 
 
 
 
 
 O 5, ,'••. "*b 
 
 ■ 
 
 
 ( ^o^ 
 
 r oV 
 
 J?^ 
 
 
Digitized by the Internet Archive 
 in 2011 with funding from 
 The Library of Congress 
 
 http://www.archive.org/details/twovirginiasgene01hall 
 
THE T WO 
 VIRGINIAS 
 
 GENESIS OF OLD AND NEW 
 
 "A ROMANCE OF 
 AMERICAN HISTORY" 
 
 BY 
 
 GRANVILLE DAVIS SON HALL 
 
THE 
 TWO VIRGINIAS 
 
 Genesis oi Old and New 
 
 A ROMANCE OF AMERICAN HI VI OP.'/' 
 
 for rr+.-.'.'.r. t r,»"> o' ' ► -.►*.- 
 •/■ .; ► *,, r«h 
 
 -7Vl. Of*'.ur 
 
 STATE SOVEREIGNTY 
 
 Phantom of a Stupendous Folly 
 
 AbrdftA -' I - ■ 
 
 ByGRANVJLLE davisson hall 
 
 Author oi 
 
 V*.:.<i : :■ of '•'-;•• ■•■■■<■ \Jw/:,*fit of ■■■■'-. V,\rr. 
 
 19 IS 
 
.Hil 
 
 OyUAj 
 
 
 m 
 
THE TWO VIRGINIAS 
 
 f S53 
 
 PKEEUSIVE AlNE PERSONAL. 
 
 Hus brochure 'i as written five years sat; and it bas 
 
 been in cold trap e e o e a ring for resurrection 
 
 and judgment lav, hold sterage is a valaatle aa runner eia'. 
 
 levke for the preservation of dead |m@s and other food 
 
 us-naurc-aiues' V:: :: is ntt adapted tt rauserve the terebra 
 products .: man. A manuscript ome human live- 
 
 rs has charged with "juice"' carries the latent fire t: 
 thought; and if tr.'.p waifs for Ingalls" **'opportunitr. 
 
 kr.atk at the atar ?rh ahetk seme tirr.pl* uh -■-.-. it: 
 
 ■':: :-c : 
 
 Not sua at the dav= :f Jed ar H truer hi: any mar. 
 ten a thing he conceited was clever that he hid not find 
 could get no rest till it was printed How the old 
 monks and orders t ncealed the precious manuscripts tf 
 amiquity and carried them through the dark ages to the 
 dawn of the later cnilization. For a manuscript is like 
 :er — it v.ih tut 1: harge: unamtrtau: — 
 
 there is r oppressing it It "has great allies. Earth, air 
 and EkieE art p t e " t that -- : -.:•: far i: ItE friends a:- 
 euuitatitns agtnies ana lave ana man = ametr.tuershde 
 mint V.'trds* trtlt haa deer, thrtuph it — ana at kr.t 
 
 Ida ana darkness suggest extinatiar: light ana 
 
 t-rrha are life and salvation. In the Sermon on the 
 
 1'dtun: :: is an rata at as: an: a light under a aa 
 
 They put it on top, so people can see if That :s what 
 
 ugh: is far It: :here he ligh: ,-a= the nrs: ha: rol- 
 
 : 
 
lowing Creation. What was the good of creating "the 
 heaven and the earth" if nobody could see them? 
 
 Why was "The Two Virginias" written? Altruism. 
 The writer thought it might profit the Old Virginians of 
 the present day to be reminded of some of the things their 
 distinguished forbears did, and some they omitted, in the 
 long ago in which they feel so just a pride. Besides, he 
 himself, like the Kaiser, wanted "a place in the sun." Such 
 an aspiration is but the longing of nature — the true reptilian 
 instinct. The first thing the snakes do when they come out 
 of cold storage in the Spring, is to try for the sunny side 
 of a rock. The instinct is as old as Eden, and as modern 
 as the submarine. 
 
 It was my fortune — or misfortune — to get mixed up 
 with the Virginia ruction at the beginning of the civil war, 
 in 1861 ; and I "have grown old and blind" (as George 
 Washington once said) trying to elucidate the merits and 
 demerits of this ancient discord in the Virginia household. 
 The elder of the "Two" is my original mother ; the younger, 
 who claimed my allegiance in 1863, is my "really and truly" 
 mother. If my story is well told, it will doubtless appear 
 that I am partial to the younger matron. The old mother — 
 she being also the "Mother of Presidents" — Washington to 
 Wilson — seems to me now more like a step-grandmother, 
 for whom I have the utmost respect but cannot pretend any 
 affection. Indeed, as far back as I can remember anything 
 political, I never did quite like the way the old lady kept 
 the house or ran the farm, nor the kind of people she had 
 around the place. 
 
 The recent probate in the United States Supreme Court 
 of the Old Grandmother's will — bequeathing to her daughter 
 one-third of her beautiful "I owe you's" — has dragged both, 
 
 4 
 
once more, into the lime-light; and it may be what I have 
 herein chronicled about their wrangles long ago, across the 
 back fence, will be not untimely, whatever else it may be. 
 
 To the story of the 'Two Virginias," the reader will 
 see I have hitched a wagon called State Sovereignty. I 
 must plead not guilty of any original intention to do this. 
 But Senator Oliver of Pennsylvania, to whom I am indebted 
 for my text, so got himself "up in the air" in his contention 
 that Governor Peirpoint was revolutionist and usurper, that 
 I am obliged to use this wagon as a ladder to let the Senator 
 down on terra firma once more. He seems to be the victim 
 of something like Frank Stockton's "negative gravity" ; and 
 in my endeavor to find ground for him and his argument 
 to stand on, I have been obliged to lug in this ancient dogma 
 and line him up with the late lamented Jefferson Davis, to 
 make him consistent. Having been thus driven by the 
 Senator into the State Sovereignty field, I would invite the 
 reader to take a turn with me around the fences and see 
 what he thinks of them. 
 
 Noah Webster defines "Genesis" as the first book of 
 the Bible — "the history of the Creation, the apostacy of 
 man, of the deluge," etc. I have tried to outline the history 
 of the creation of the two Virginias — one reaching back 
 nearly ninety years farther than the other — the measures, 
 the methods and the animus of each, as a structure of gov- 
 ernment more or less "republican in form." Where, in the 
 progress of the story, "the apostacy of man" crops out, 
 each reader can place that to suit himself. As for the 
 "deluge," let us, like the witty Frenchwoman, put it behind 
 us. G. D. H. 
 
 Glencoe, Illinois, 
 August, 1915. 
 
THE TWO VIRGINIAS. 
 
 Genesis of Old and New. 
 
 In January, 1901, the Legislature of West Virginia 
 made provision for a statue of Francis Harrison Peirpoint, 
 Governor of the Restored Government of Virginia, to be 
 placed in the National Hall of Fame, in the United States 
 Capitol. Several years later, the statue was received from 
 the sculptor and set up in Statuary Hall, in the west wing 
 of the Capitol, to await the ceremonial of the unveiling. 
 This did not transpire until April 30, 1910. 
 
 As one of the remaining few who knew from personal 
 contact somewhat of the men and the measures that figured 
 in the Virginia Restoration, at Wheeling, in 1861, the writer 
 read in the official publication the eulogies pronounced upon 
 the work of Governor Peirpoint and his co-patriots, in con- 
 nection with this episode — civic, patriotic, economic, his- 
 torical, personal — in full sympathy with the spirit which 
 pervaded them; but he paused a little over this passage in 
 the address of Senator Oliver of Pennsylvania : 
 
 "From a strictly legal standpoint, it is hard to justify the move- 
 ment by which the Peirpoint government was set up, although able 
 arguments were presented to the Convention. It was revolution, 
 pure and simple; and it required success to make it even respectable. 
 It was justified by the dire emergency which confronted the loyal 
 people of West Virginia, and by that alone. It met with that 
 
measure of success which made it not only respectable but illustri- 
 ous ; and it is a curious fact that the present government of the 
 old Dominion traces its title through the usurper, Pcirpoint, and 
 not through the legitimist, Letcher." 
 
 This is not a case to be judged solely from the "strictly 
 legal" standpoint. Human nature and civil society have 
 some rights superior to the "legal" devices of the lawyers. 
 The latter must give way when issues of life and death are 
 involved. The rights which involve personal liberty and 
 social order, the right of property — as old and as sacred 
 as civilization — and the indefeasible right of self-preserva- 
 tion — are primal and imperious. Inter arma leges silent. 
 
 The government of Virginia had been destroyed by 
 the treason of those entrusted with its powers — Letcher 
 nominally at the head of them. A traitorous convention, 
 brought together by him without authority, was trying to 
 deliver the people of Virginia, against the declared wishes 
 of two-thirds of the voters, to an armed rebellion organized 
 to overthrow the government of the United States. 
 
 In this emergency, involving property, life and liberty, 
 did those people have to wait for a "legal" adjudication of 
 their right to defend their property, their persons, and their 
 families against seizure and other violence? A struggle of 
 this nature does not need "success" to make it "respectable." 
 If the United States government had been overthrown and 
 western Virginia doomed to absorption in the proposed slave 
 confederacy, resistance to such doom would have been just 
 as necessary, just as righteous and heroic, as it is confessed 
 to be now being successful and "illustrious." Mr. Oliver's 
 declaration that such a "movement" is not respectable unless 
 it succeeds, sets up a standard which dishonors human 
 nature. 
 
 8 
 
If any man still doubts the legality, the complete regu- 
 larity, of this Virginia restoration under the law of nations 
 and precedent, and under the declared foundation prin- 
 ciples of this republic, he would do well to acquaint him- 
 self with the action, and the reasons, of the highest tribunal 
 in the land— the Supreme Court of the United States — 
 when all the questions entering into the transaction were 
 considered and adjudicated: first, when the ownership of 
 the counties of Berkeley and Jefferson was in controversy 
 soon after the division of Virginia; second, in the suit of 
 Virginia v. West Virginia, begun at the October term, 1906, 
 for an adjustment of the ante-war debt of Virginia. In the 
 briefs and addresses of counsel in these cases, all purely 
 legal phases of the restoration were subjected to the most 
 critical scrutiny. If Senator Oliver knew of any missing 
 links, that was the time to divulge his information. 
 
 The Founding of the Commonwealth. 
 
 Let us inquire a little into this old Virginia "legitimacy" 
 and see just how legitimate Mr. Letcher was before he be- 
 came a traitor to his country and his State. Afterwards, it 
 will be pertinent to ascertain the particulars and nature of 
 the Peirpoint "usurpation." 
 
 John Letcher, Governor of Virginia, and those who 
 joined him (it might be more accurate to say, whom he 
 joined) in the conspiracy to deliver to the head of the or- 
 ganized rebellion all the military resources of Virginia, 
 committed offenses which are described in the supreme law 
 of the land as "treason" ; and not one of them who partici- 
 pated in the crime would have suffered any wrong if he 
 had been hanged as high as Haman. The things thus done 
 by them put an end to the municipality of Virginia. It had 
 
 9 
 
been a state only by virtue of its being one of the United 
 States ; and it ceased to be a State the moment it ceased to 
 maintain a relation of loyalty and amity to the United States. 
 
 Let us go back to the opening of the American Revolu- 
 tion and see how Virginia first became a State; what its 
 origin; how organized; on what foundation built; by what 
 means and methods it grew ; what its claims to legitimacy ; 
 whether it was not, from its ignoble birth by usurpation 
 down to the Rebellion eighty-five years later, an aristocracy 
 under which a large majority of the white citizens were 
 ground under a severe denial of their most vital rights of 
 citizenship, while the ruling minority enjoyed special powers, 
 privileges and immunities, exemptions and discriminations, 
 utterly inconsistent with republican government. 
 
 At the beginning of the Revolution — prior to March, 
 1775 — the colonial government of Virginia was dissolved 
 "by an act of regal authority," as described by Philip Dodd- 
 ridge, in the Virginia Convention of 1829-30. Lord Dun- 
 more, the colonial Governor, abandoned his capital at Wil- 
 liamsburg and took refuge on board a ship which carried 
 him to his royal master across the sea. The royal House 
 of Burgesses went into deliquium, and its members became 
 private citizens, "pure and simple." Authority was at an 
 end in Virginia ; there was an interregnum. In the language 
 of the Declaration of Independence, soon to be phrased by 
 an eminent Virginian and adopted by all the revolutionary 
 colonies, the government of the Colony of Virginia had 
 "abdicated," and "the legislative powers, incapable of an- 
 nihilation," had reverted to the people of Virginia "for 
 their exercise." How was a form for a new government 
 to be framed? Who had the right to frame it? Did the 
 citizens of all classes and conditions gather en masse or in 
 
 10 
 
delegated bodies and re-establish local government for 
 themselves by virtue of their primordial right as men and 
 members of the community ? No. A very different method 
 was interposed. 
 
 The few private gentlemen who had been burgesses 
 under the British crown got together, solely on their own 
 initiative, without authority of any kind, and usurping 
 the legislative powers which belonged to the whole body of 
 the people, passed pretended laws for the election of dele- 
 gates to meet in convention and organize a new frame of 
 government. 
 
 The persons who did this were "freeholders" of a 
 limited*class. They provided that in the election called and 
 conducted by them, only "freeholders," like themselves, 
 should be voted for or be eligible to serve in the body to be 
 thus chosen and assembled. The persons thus elected met 
 in May, 1776, and framed a constitution. The Bill of 
 Rights adopted by this body as a preamble to their con- 
 stitution — as the foundation stones of the government to be 
 organized — was written by "the illustrious George Mason," 
 one of its members. It is this "Bill of Rights" and the 
 name of its author which have given fame to this first Vir- 
 ginia constitution. The Bill of Rights declares : 
 
 "All men are by nature equally free and independent and have 
 certain inherent rights of which when they enter into a state of 
 society they cannot by any compact deprive or divest their posterity, 
 namely: the enjoyment of life and liberty, with the means of 
 acquiring and possessing property and pursuing and obtaining happi- 
 ness and safety. 
 
 "That all power is vested in and consequently derived from the 
 people. 
 
 "That a majority of the community hath an indubitable, inalien- 
 able and indefeasible right to reform, alter or abolish the govern- 
 ment. 
 
 11 
 
"That no man or set of men are entitled to exclusive or sepa- 
 rate emoluments or privileges but in consideration of public services. 
 
 "That all men having sufficient evidence of permanent common 
 interest with and attachment to the community have a right to suf- 
 frage and cannot be taxed or deprived of their property without 
 their consent or their representatives, nor bound by any law in 
 which they have not in like manner assented for the public good." 
 
 A convention which would place a declaration like this 
 at the head of their organic law were bound to provide 
 an equal suffrage for all citizens thus declared entitled to it. 
 Did they do it? On the contrary, they provided that only 
 "freeholders" (who were a minority of the whole body of 
 citizens — holding fifty acres of improved land or one hun- 
 dred acres of unimproved) should exercise the suffrage and 
 give character to the government in the Commonwealth of 
 Virginia. That such a declaration of rights should have 
 been placed at the head of a constitution which denied to 
 a majority of the people to be governed by it the most es- 
 sential right attaching to citizenship, is an anomaly never 
 yet explained. 
 
 This constitution was never even submitted to the 
 people of Virginia — nor to any class of them — for approval. 
 It was therefore wholly without their authority, at any stage, 
 in any degree. The whole proceeding was an absolute 
 usurpation which nothing in surrounding conditions could 
 or did justify. 
 
 The landed aristocracy which thus usurped the powers 
 of government in Virginia, for their own ends, and per- 
 petuated their control in this and subsequent constitutions, 
 had controlled the legislation of the Colony back to the 
 restoration of the Stuarts in England. Prior to that the 
 suffrage had been exercised in Virginia by all the freemen 
 in the colony. In 1676, the freehold suffrage was imposed 
 
 12 
 
on the Colony by a command given to Berkeley, then royal 
 Governor, by Charles II of "infamous memory." The docu- 
 ment signed by the King's own royal hand commanded 
 Berkeley to permit none but "freeholders" to exercise the 
 inestimable right of the suffrage. 
 
 It was a memorial presented by Chief Justice Marshall 
 in the Virginia convention of 1829-30, which characterized 
 Charles Stuart II as being of infamous memory. In that 
 convention, another delegate (Mr. Henderson, of Loudoun), 
 added another decoration: "One of the most odious and 
 profligate tyrants who ever wielded the British scepter." 
 Mr. Henderson declared "the freehold suffrage was imposed, 
 not by any act of the legislature or of the English parlia- 
 ment, or of the people of either country. It was the off- 
 spring of regal interposition entirely; it was the precious 
 fruit of despotism." 
 
 This despotic rule was maintained in Colonial Virginia 
 for a hundred years. It persisted — as all evil things do per- 
 sist, unless cut down by some heroic hand — to the time when 
 the usurping burgesses imposed the same evil restriction on 
 the people of the embryo Commonwealth. 
 
 This was in a time of excitement and alarm over the 
 opening of the War for Independence. Yet these measures 
 were not carried through without protest. The common 
 people — who in every country in peaceful times do the 
 rough and necessary world's work — the clearing, the build- 
 ing, the cropping, transporting, trading — in a word, the 
 drudgery and service essential to the world's subsistence 
 and commerce — and who in time of war do the fighting, 
 and in all times do their full share of the tax-paying — were 
 too busy with the British and Tories to give much attention 
 to their own civil rights as citizens. But protest was made, 
 
 13 
 
and Mr. Jefferson was among those who objected to the 
 aristocratic features of the constitution, and especially to 
 its lack of authority. He did not for several years cease 
 his endeavors to have a convention assembled to frame a 
 more liberal and more authoritative instrument. 
 
 Precocious Disunion. 
 
 Let us here turn aside to notice some developments of 
 a political character in Virginia, in the later years of the 
 Eighteenth century. The first serious menace to the 
 American Union was organized in Virginia before that 
 Union, under the constitution, was a dozen years old. It 
 had its animus in the red republicanism of Thomas Jefferson, 
 seconded by Aaron Burr and kindred spirits, professing 
 to believe that the Federal party sought to subvert the 
 government and establish a monarchy. It is part of the 
 Virginia "genesis" and must be mentioned. 
 
 When Jefferson and Burr were candidates for the 
 presidency, in opposition to the re-election of John Adams, 
 Virginia was armed and equipped for war in case the Fed- 
 eralists should be successful. She had built factories for 
 the manufacture of arms and armories to house them ; had 
 been for several years laying taxes to equip and maintain 
 her military establishment ; and at the opening of the presi- 
 dential year (1800) had her military ready for mobilization 
 at short notice. Washington, then in retirement, appealed 
 to Patrick Henry to come to the defence of the govern- 
 ment against the growing disloyalty and revolt inspired by 
 men whom in his letter he plainly indicated but did not 
 name. Writing January 15, 1799, Washington speaks of 
 "measures systematically and pertinaciously pursued by the 
 
 14 
 
'Republican' party, especially in Virginia, which must dis- 
 solve the Union or produce coercion." 
 
 "Vain will it be," he says, "to look for peace and happiness, or 
 to the security of liberty or property, if civil discord should ensue. 
 And what else can result from the policy of those among us who 
 by all the measures in their power are driving matters to extremity 
 if they cannot be counteracted effectually? The views of men can 
 only be known or guessed at by their words or actions. Can those 
 of the leaders of the opposition be mistaken, then, if judged by this 
 rule?" 
 
 At a date a fortnight later, Judge Iredell, a Justice 
 on the Supreme 'Bench, appointed by Washington, wrote to 
 his wife : 
 
 "The General Assembly of Virginia are pursuing steps which 
 directly lead to a civil war, but there is a respectable minority 
 struggling in defense of the Government, and the Government itself 
 is fully prepared for anything they can do, resolved if necessary to 
 oppose force with force." 
 
 Hamilton wrote to Dayton in 1799: 
 
 "It is stated, in addition, that the opposition party in Virginia — 
 the headquarters of the faction — have followed up the hostile 
 declarations which are to be found in the declarations of the General 
 Assembly by an actual preparation of the means of supporting them 
 by force; that they have taken measures to put their militia on a 
 more efficient footing — are preparing considerable arsenals and 
 magazines; and (which is unequivocal proof how much they are 
 in earnest) have gone so far as to lay new taxes on their citizens ; 
 and amid such serious indications of hostility the safety and duty 
 of supporters of the Government call upon them to adopt vigorous 
 measures of counteraction. It will be wise in them to act upon the 
 hypothesis that the opposers of the Government are resolved, if it 
 should be practicable, to make its existence a question of force." 
 
 And to King, January 5, 1800: 
 
 "The spirit of faction is abated nowhere. In Virginia it is 
 more violent than ever. It seems demonstrated that the leaders 
 there, who possess completely all the powers of the local govern- 
 
 15 
 
ment, are resolved to possess those of the National by the most 
 dangerous of combinations ; and if they cannot effect this, to resort 
 to the employment of physical force. The want of disposition in 
 the people to second them will be the only preventive. It is believed 
 it will be an effectual one." 
 
 It was during the excitement of this period that the 
 Virginia and Kentucky resolutions of 1798 and 1799 — 
 written respectively by Madison and Jefferson — put a dan- 
 gerous suggestiveness into the theory of "State Sovereignty." 
 The election of Mr. Jefferson to the presidency — after a 
 prolonged and exciting contest in the House of Representa- 
 tives, as a result of a tie vote with Burr — and the accession 
 to power of the party out of whose agitation this deadly 
 poison had been brewed, allayed the military furor; and 
 the "sovereignty" dogma did not assume dangerous promi- 
 nence again until raised in the Senate debates about 1829, 
 and later by the direct issue of "nullification" in South 
 Carolina — a word which Mr. Jefferson in his Kentucky 
 resolutions had been the first to pronounce in American 
 politics. 
 
 The Long Fight for a Convention. 
 
 Resuming the thread of domestic affairs in Virginia, 
 let us note that in 1784 a petition from Augusta county 
 asked for a constitutional convention; but, though advo- 
 cated by Mr. Madison, the proposal was defeated, largely 
 through violent opposition from Patrick Henry. In 1806, a 
 bill to submit the question of a convention to the people 
 passed the House of Delegates but was defeated in the 
 Senate. In 1814, a similar measure was brought forward, 
 but failed in the House by a close vote. 
 
 As the population increased and spread westward, great 
 inequalities in representation grew up. Around Williams- 
 
 16 
 
burg, the seat of government, counties and settlements 
 were subdivided into small precincts, to each of which two 
 members of the House of Delegates were allowed, while no 
 more was allotted to the larger counties farther removed 
 from the executive influence. No more was allowed to all 
 West Augusta. Representation was distributed in double, 
 triple or even quadruple proportions around Williamsburg, 
 to the great dissatisfaction of people farther west. 
 
 In 1816, a large and intelligent population having grown 
 up in the valleys west of the Blue Ridge, a serious agitation 
 for a fairer basis of representation in the Assembly, was 
 started at Winchester. Frederick Cook, General Boyd and 
 Edmund Pendleton prepared and sent out circulars in May, 
 which gave the first decided impulse to the cause of consti- 
 tutional reform west of the Blue Ridge. These brought 
 together at Winchester, twenty-five to thirty gentlemen, by 
 whom the grievances of Middle and Western Virginia, and 
 means of redress, were discussed. 
 
 July fourth following, a convention of delegates from 
 thirty-six counties was held at Staunton, who memorialized 
 the Assembly to equalize representation among the free 
 white people of Virginia according to numbers, and to 
 equalize the land tax; to which was added, on motion of a 
 member from Fairfax, to extend the suffrage to all white 
 male citizens twenty-one years of age who "have evidence 
 of common interest with and attachment to the community" 
 (this being the language of the Bill of Rights). A bill in 
 this form was passed in the House of Delegates. In the 
 Senate a motion was made to introduce representation 
 for slaves. It did not pass the Senate, but a bill was passed 
 to equalize representation in the senatorial districts; and 
 this was the law when the Convention of 1829-30 was called. 
 
 17 
 
Another Convention gathered at Staunton, in 1825. 
 More than a hundred delegates were present. They had 
 come from all parts of the State, — from the Potomac and 
 Tidewater to the Ohio River, — to demand representation in 
 the House of Delegates based on the white population; re- 
 duction of the number of delegates in the House; enlarge- 
 ment of the right of suffrage; abolishment of the executive 
 council, and the creation of a more responsible executive. 
 Their object was to bring their grievances before the public. 
 They sat with open doors and kept a journal, which was 
 published in all the gazettes of the day and communicated 
 to the Assembly with a memorial. 
 
 As result of this convention, an act of Assembly was 
 passed submitting (but to freeholders only) the question of 
 calling a convention. The act proposed to base representa- 
 tion on what was called the "Federal Number" — that is, 
 three-fifths of the slaves to be counted in the basis. This 
 was called the "black basis." Under discussion, the proposi- 
 tion was made so odious that it was abandoned. It was 
 found if the argument justified basing representation on any 
 part of the slaves, it justified including them all. 
 
 The bill as passed based representation in the conven- 
 tion on white population and taxation combined — that is, 
 persons and property. As slaves were property, this element 
 was an offset against the free citizens. 
 
 The convention was called by a vote of 21,896 in favor, 
 to 16,646 against. In the West, the vote was almost unani- 
 mous in favor of the convention ; in the East, almost half the 
 vote was against it. 
 
 18 
 
The Convention of 1829-30. 
 
 This was the first constitutional convention ever as- 
 sembled in Virginia, with the authority of the people behind 
 it; and even then, only a minority of them, for none but 
 freeholders were allowed to vote. It had taken nearly 
 fifty-four years to make this much progress ; and even yet, 
 the unlanded white people were denied a share in the selec- 
 tion of the delegates. Nearly two generations had passed 
 under the iron rule made for them by the ex-burgesses, and 
 the East still resisted the assemblage of any body which 
 might take down the bars that hedged in their landed and 
 slave domination and excluded the free white element lack- 
 ing these requisites of Virginia citizenship. 
 
 The Convention of 1829-30 embraced ninety-six mem- 
 bers. In the personal distinction of many of the delegates, 
 the ex-burgesses' gathering in 1776, cannot have equalled 
 this. Ex-President Monroe was a delegate from Loudon 
 county and president of the Convention. Ex-President 
 Madison was delegate from Orange. Chief Justice Marshall 
 represented the city of Richmond. John Randolph, Benja- 
 min Watkins Leigh, and numerous other names scarcely 
 less distinguished in that period, figured in the roll-call. 
 Philip Doddridge, Lewis Summers and Alexander Campbell 
 were among the eminent members from the West. Monroe, 
 Madison, Doddridge, Marshall and Summers constituted the 
 most important committee — on the executive and legislative 
 departments and on the fundamental principles of govern- 
 ment. Yet even this array of heavy metal did not result 
 in battering down the barriers raised by their predecessors 
 in 1776, against participation in the government by the un- 
 endowed white citizen. 
 
 19 
 
A masterly inactivity was clearly the plan of those who 
 controlled this convention. The report of the Committee 
 named was in favor of basing representation in the House 
 of Delegates on the white population exclusively. But noth- 
 ing came of it. In the discussion "exclusively" was stricken 
 out and the words "and taxation" substituted. This simply 
 continued the existing basis. On this issue was founded 
 most of the debate which occupied the convention; but it 
 had been fore-ordained that it should result in nothing. 
 
 Memorials demanding a more liberal suffrage were pre- 
 sented from eastern as well as western counties. Chief 
 Justice Marshall presented one, appealing to the Bill of 
 Rights and quoting from its declarations as their justifica- 
 tion. Philip Doddridge went back to the organization in 
 1776 and showed that it utterly lacked the authority of the 
 people, having nothing behind it save the initiative of the 
 gentlemen who had been burgesses under the Colony, who 
 simply usurped the functions of the people without asking 
 their consent. 
 
 There was in this convention a good deal of restless- 
 ness — even anger — among the western members over the un- 
 willingness of the East to let down the bars to a wider suff- 
 rage and a fairer basis of representation ; and eastern mem- 
 bers realized that the seed had already been sown for a 
 division of the State. Ex-President Monroe — true to his 
 ancient fame as a peacemaker — addressed the Convention 
 in an endeavor to pour oil on the angry waters. He depre- 
 cated the possibility of a severance of East and West as 
 the greatest calamity which could befall the commonwealth. 
 He admitted frankly that the East, with its large slave and 
 landed interests to protect might be excused for an unwill- 
 ingness to give up the advantages, those interests enjoyed 
 
 20 
 
under existing limitations on suffrage and legislative repre- 
 sentation, or to risk these advantages by granting increased 
 political power to classes unfriendly to the existing dis- 
 criminations. Mr. Monroe expressed solicitude for the pro- 
 motion of lines of communication and commerce with the 
 distant West, one crossing the mountains on the line of the 
 Potomac, another from the line of the James River, for 
 national reasons. Like other statesmen of his time, he was 
 afraid there might develop a line of cleavage north and south 
 between the original states and the Mississippi Valley, from 
 lack of commercial facilities between East and West, which 
 would result in a movement for a separate government in 
 the Mississippi region, such as it is believed Burr contem- 
 plated when he organized his expedition to the Southwest. 
 Such lines, while reaching beyond Virginia, would also pro- 
 mote settlements in western Virginia and strengthen the ties 
 between that outlying region and the tidewater. 
 
 But in the matters of a broader suffrage or a fairer 
 basis of representation in the General Assembly, the East 
 had the votes and were unwilling to make the concessions 
 demanded by the West. 
 
 At that period Virginia was the only State which still 
 adhered to a strictly freehold suffrage. She had 143,000 
 free white male citizens, of whom 100,000 paid taxes to the 
 State; of whom, again, only 40,000 were freeholders. This 
 minority, with three-fifths representation for their slaves, 
 held control of all State legislation. 
 
 The odium attaching to this aristocratic system in Vir- 
 ginia was not confined within her own boundaries. That it 
 was a matter of- criticism elsewhere is shown by an incident 
 in the United States House of Representatives in January, 
 1805. Mr. Dawson of Virginia had introduced resolutions 
 
 21 
 
to retrocede to Maryland and Virginia the territory each 
 had given for the District of Columbia. The advocates of 
 retrocession laid stress upon the hardship imposed upon the 
 people in the District within the lines of the states from 
 which they had been taken because they were deprived of 
 the political representation in local government enjoyed by 
 the citizens of the states from which they had been with- 
 drawn. They were declared to be the veriest "political 
 slaves." 
 
 Mr. Dennis, of Pennsylvania, replying, remarked that 
 if the citizens of that portion of the District west of the 
 Potomac should be retroceded, it would not relieve them 
 from their political slavery, because a large portion of the 
 people of Virginia were already denied representation in the 
 State government; and the only effect of giving back this 
 territory to Virginia would be to add to the number of the 
 "political slaves" already there. 
 
 The constitution submitted by the Convention of 
 1829-30 was adopted by the people. The vote was 41,618 for 
 and 15,563 against. Within the bounds of what is now 
 West Virginia 8,365 votes were cast against the constitution 
 and only 1,383 in favor of it. Philip Doddridge was espe- 
 cially emphatic and influential in his denunciation of it. 
 Doddridge, who died in 1832, was recognized as one of the 
 ablest men in Virginia — or in the United States. 
 
 The Convention of 1850-51. 
 
 Thus this long-contested vital issue — whether citizen- 
 ship or property should shape the legislation of the State, 
 and whether the burden of taxation should be borne equit- 
 ably by all interests — was again referred to the growing 
 future. The Westerners looked hopefully to the growth 
 
 22 
 
west of the mountains to strengthen their cause. The East- 
 erners apparently were weakening on some points of the old 
 and bitter controversy, and recognized that in time western 
 growth might vanquish them. 
 
 It had taken more than fifty years to get one convention 
 — how far away was the next? In the twenty years that 
 followed, Virginia could not but feel the impulse of national 
 progress all around her, desperately as she might resist it 
 for the protection of the semi-barbaric system of breeding 
 human chattels for the cane and cotton fields of the South ; 
 but twenty years brought around provision for a convention 
 to be held in the winter of 1850-51. The whole number of 
 delegates was to be 135, of whom the territory now in West 
 Virginia was allowed thirty-four. 
 
 The convention met in October, 1850, and adjourned to 
 January, to await census data. The foremost and absorbing 
 question when they got to work was, once more, equality of 
 representation and equal suffrage. The attitude of the 
 western men was firmer than ever, and the feeling on both 
 sides more bitter. 
 
 On the 10th of May, the convention was in such temper 
 it could not do business and adjourned over. 
 
 In the first West Virginia constitutional convention, 
 Mr. Van Winkle stated, in the hearing of the writer, that in 
 the Virginia convention of 1850-51, of which he had been 
 a member, the western members had reached complete con- 
 cert of action and determined that if the East would not 
 agree to concede the white basis for the House of Delegates, 
 they would withdraw in a body from the convention. The 
 crisis seems to have been reached May 10th, when that day's 
 adjournment occurred; for, upon reassembling, the East was 
 ready to come to terms. The eastern majority did yield the 
 
 23 
 
white basis for the House and made other important conces- 
 sions, one being the election of governor by the people and 
 another a move in the direction of fairer taxation. The 
 constitution as submitted declared taxation should be "equal 
 and uniform," except that slaves should be taxed on only 
 $300 value at the rate laid on land, and those under twelve 
 years old should not be taxed at all. The West fought hard 
 to keep out this exception, but in vain. 
 
 The victory was, after all, a rather barren one for the 
 West; for the East continued in the Senate its representa- 
 tion for three-fifths of its slaves — then numbering near a 
 half million— and thus controlling the Senate, it could effect- 
 ually check any reformatory legislation which might be 
 attempted by the House. 
 
 The constitution was ratified, in a three-days' election, 
 by a vote about seven to one. The only counties giving 
 majorities against it were in the East. 
 
 End of the Fruitless Struggle. 
 
 This was the end of the struggle in Virginia for demo- 
 cratic government. For a hundred years, while colony 
 under the British crown, and seventy-five years as a state 
 in the American Union, Virginia had been an aristocracy, 
 denying equal part in the government to the majority of its 
 white citizens. 
 
 And the end was not yet. The ancient wrong, so deeply 
 rooted in the whole history of Virginia, was carried forward 
 for one more decade, with its unequal representation and its 
 discriminative taxes ; with a great population held as chattels 
 yet used to control the legislative policy of the State; with 
 the growing national issue of universal slavery or dis- 
 
 24 
 
union rising like a black storm-cloud in the South and 
 steadily growing in political menace. 
 
 The Seal a Misfit. 
 
 During the greater part of the three-quarters of a 
 century through which Virginia had been an American State 
 she was absorbed in the industry of breeding negro laborers 
 for the planting states around the Gulf and in the domestic 
 traffic of marketing them. If the men who designed the 
 seal prescribed in her first constitution had been gifted with 
 prophetic ken and the true artistic sense, instead of the 
 amazon with spear and sword standing with one foot on the 
 prostrate tyrant and uttering the legend "Sic semper 
 tyrannis," the design would have been a typical "nigger- 
 trader" armed with the tools of his trade — a black-snake 
 whip and "horse pistol," hand-cuffs and chain — with an 
 auction block and a collection of unhappy chattels in the 
 foreground. 
 
 "Legitimacy" — The Genuine Brand. 
 
 For more than half the nineteenth century, while the 
 rest of the world was waxing in civilization and humane 
 amelioration, the commonwealth of Virginia was given over 
 to the system which would have been typified by such a seal : 
 all the while denying equal civil rights to white citizens who 
 did not approve of nor participate in the profits of breeding 
 or trafficking in this human commodity. 
 
 This was "legitimacy" in old Virginia; rooted away 
 back in the unspeakable cruelty and corruption of English 
 royalty; founded in usurpation and denial of civil rights; 
 maintained in implacable discrimination; ending in treason 
 
 25 
 
and war to maintain and extend this semi-barbaric anthropo- 
 phagic cult, against the growing protest of the whole enlight- 
 ened world. 
 
 What is to be the future of the African crop planted by 
 Virginia in the states bordering the Atlantic and the Gulf, 
 may well give our wisest statesmen pause. It is a heritage 
 of evil already grown so great as to cast an immense shadow 
 athwart the future. Fixed and inexorable as eternal justice 
 it is, that "the evil men do lives after them." 
 
 The Revolt West of the Mountains. 
 
 The revolt in the mountains of West Virginia against 
 the bargain made by the Richmond convention in 1861 with 
 the emissary of the Montgomery League, to turn over Vir- 
 ginia for purposes of rebellion to the Southern Confederacy, 
 was a deliverance — as far as it could reach — from the in- 
 famous system described; and the visible head of that revolt 
 was a deliverer, not a usurper. The restoration with which 
 his name is linked only restored the Virginia municipality 
 as it existed before the rebellion. The division of the 
 commonwealth afterwards was the logical aftermath of the 
 crop of treason and rebellion gathered at Richmond. 
 
 There is nothing in the long history of Virginia which 
 we can be prouder of than the uprising west of the moun- 
 tains in 1861 — nothing approaching it in patriotism or moral 
 heroism, unless we go back to the rebellion of Nathaniel 
 Bacon, against the incapacity or cowardice of Berkeley, to 
 save the people of the colony from the savages. 
 
 There were then west of the Alleghenies a resolute and 
 intelligent people numbering between three and four hundred 
 thousand. Most of them were native to the soil and inured 
 to the hardships long suffered in the West under the harrow 
 
 26 
 
of Virginia aristocratic rule. A majority of them were of 
 the freedom-loving Scotch-Irish stock, whose ancestors had 
 been driven from European homes in the eighteenth cen- 
 tury ; who pouring through the intervales of the Appalachian 
 range in Pennsylvania, Virginia and the Carolinas, planted 
 in those regions the rich blood and rugged virtues which 
 have characterized that hardy and virtuous stock wherever 
 it springs. Not much of the Cavalier element, which found 
 congenial conditions in the tidewater region, ever made its 
 way across the mountains in Virginia. Indeed, it was a 
 hundred years after the early settlements in the tidewater 
 before those people had crossed the fifty miles of forest 
 which separated them from the Blue Ridge. The people 
 who settled the Shenandoah Valley and the valleys between 
 that and the Ohio River, whatever else they lacked, had one 
 sterling virtue found in all mountain peoples: they were 
 vigilant to resist encroachment upon their liberties. 
 
 27 
 
THE RESTORATION AT WHEELING. 
 
 When the treasonable combination at Richmond had 
 consummated the barter of all the military resources of 
 Virginia to the Confederacy, what were these transmontane 
 people to do? The crisis was urgent — imperative — instant! 
 They did what any people deprived of government have a 
 right to do. They gathered in public assemblages and every- 
 where denounced their betrayers; declared their adhesion 
 to the national government, now attacked by a great organ- 
 ized rebellion ; and in the exercise of their rights as citizens 
 of Virginia — defined and declared in their own Bill of 
 Rights and in the contemporaneous Declaration of Inde- 
 pendence — they reorganized their government in assertion 
 of their imprescriptable rights, and refused to be driven 
 from the Union under which they had been free and pros- 
 perous. 
 
 The May Convention. 
 
 Seven days after the Virginia ordinance of secession 
 was passed at Richmond, behind locked doors, amid drawn 
 pistols and other terrors, the call went out for the May 
 convention at Wheeling. That body, through a three-days' 
 sitting, declined to employ any revolutionary measures. 
 They denounced the attempted withdrawal of Virginia as a 
 nullity, and the bargain to deliver them to the Southern 
 Confederacy as a violation of all their rights as citizens of 
 State and nation. They affirmed their fealty to the United 
 
 28 
 
States and their detestation of the traitorous cabal. They 
 were determined to resist the attempt to decitizenize them. 
 They constituted a central committee to exercise their 
 powers ; who appealed to the loyal people of Virginia, wher- 
 ever free to act, to join them in rescuing the commonwealth 
 from the traitors who had seized it and in restoring it to a 
 relation of loyalty to the United States. They appointed 
 elections to be held June 4th to choose delegates to a con- 
 vention to meet in Wheeling June 11th, and invited the 
 members of the General Assembly, who would be chosen at 
 the regular election May 23rd, to take seats as members 
 of the June convention. 
 
 The June Convention. 
 
 The convention thus called and constituted embraced 
 men of high character, many of them able and experienced 
 in public affairs. There were delegates from thirty-four 
 counties, some of these from eastern counties, where Con- 
 federate soldiery prevented any organized action but could 
 not prevent individual citizens from going to declare their 
 approval of the movement and their wish, as far as possible, 
 to encourage and co-operate with it. 
 
 The groundwork laid by this body and the detail of the 
 measures taken for the rebuilding of the wrecked munici- 
 pality of Virginia — betrayed and abandoned by the "legiti- 
 mist Letcher" — are within the reach of all who care to study 
 them. It is sufficient to the scope of this paper to mention 
 the essential things said and done constituting the founda- 
 tion stones of the superstructure raised and restored. 
 
 29 
 
Declaration of Wrongs and Rights. 
 
 In the third day's sitting, the committee to prepare 
 business reported a declaration of the people of Virginia 
 represented in this convention, which in strength and man- 
 ner of statement will compare well with any state paper 
 ever presented to a similar body in a like crisis. Declaring 
 and detailing the acts of lawlessness and violence at Rich- 
 mond, the convention concluded its indictment with the 
 declaration, u on behalf of the good people of Virginia," that : 
 
 "The preservation of their dearest rights and liberties and 
 their security in person and property imperatively demand the re- 
 organization of the government of the Commonweaith, and that all 
 acts of said (Secession) Convention and executive tending to sepa- 
 rate this Commonwealth from the United States, or to levy and 
 carry on war against them, are without authority and void; and 
 that the offices of all who adhere to the said Convention and 
 Executive, whether legislative, executive or judicial, are vacated." 
 
 This declaration, after three days' discussion, was en- 
 grossed on parchment and formally adopted, and signed on 
 the 17th day of June by all the members of the convention 
 present, fifty-six in number — by coincidence the same num- 
 ber as the signers of the Declaration of Independence. 
 
 Reorganizing the State Machinery. 
 
 The next basic measure was the adoption of an ordi- 
 nance for the reorganization of the State government. It 
 provided for the appointment by the convention of a 
 governor and lieutenant-governor, and a governor's council 
 of five — all to exercise the powers and discharge the duties 
 pertaining to their several offices under the existing laws 
 of Virginia, and to continue until their successors should be 
 elected and qualified. The delegates chosen to the General 
 Assembly, and the senators entitled under existing laws to 
 
 30 
 
seats in that body, to constitute the legislature of the State 
 and discharge the duties and exercise the powers pertaining 
 thereto. All officers assuming and holding office were re- 
 quired to take an oath to support the constitution of the 
 United States and "to uphold and defend the government 
 ordained by the convention which assembled at Wheeling 
 on the 11th day of June\ 1861." 
 
 Other ordinances were passed necessary to provide for 
 the detail connected with re-starting the machinery of local 
 government, state and county. 
 
 At the end of fourteen days it was thought the work 
 was complete enough to permit an adjournment; and the 
 convention accordingly took a recess until the 6th of August. 
 Governor Peirpoint had made his appeal to the President 
 of the United States for the aid against insurrection to 
 which the State was entitled, and had received official assur- 
 ance through the Secretary of War that it would be rendered 
 speedily. 
 
 Review of What Had Been Done. 
 
 On the day of this adjournment the convention issued 
 an address, written by Daniel Lamb, of Wheeling — the 
 master mind of the whole restoration movement, without 
 whose approval no important single step was taken. This 
 address states clearly, in temperate language the general 
 scope of the movement now about consummated. It also 
 details many of the outrageous measures of usurpation and 
 violence which had compelled the action taken by this con- 
 vention as the only lawful and peaceful mode of self- 
 defense. As a whole, the document is an admirable presen- 
 tation of an extraordinary passage in American history, but 
 it is too long to be copied here entire. Some extracts follow : 
 
 31 
 
Restoration Explained and Justified. 
 
 "The proceedings of the Richmond convention up to the 17th 
 of April were evidently intended by those in the secret to persuade 
 the members favorable to the perpetuity of the Union to propose 
 terms on which it could be maintained. On that day the mask 
 was thrown aside and the secession ordinance passed." 
 
 Touching the conditions under which the people had 
 been called on to vote May 23rd — a month after the Con- 
 federacy had taken military possession of the State — 
 whether they would ratify the ordinance of secession, we 
 quote : 
 
 "Threats of personal and other intimidation, such as had been 
 uttered upon the floor of the usurping Convention against the 
 remaining friends of the Union there, were used by the adherents 
 of the conspirators in every county in the State. Judges charged 
 the grand juries that opposition to Disunion would be punished as 
 treason against the Commonwealth ; and the armed partisans of the 
 conspirators in various places arrested, plundered and exiled peace- 
 able citizens for no other crime than their adherence to the Union 
 their fathers had constructed and under which they had been born 
 and lived in prosperity and peace. 
 
 "The great principle which underlies all free government — the 
 principle that the will of the people is the supreme law, or, as 
 expressed in the Declaration of Independence, that 'Governments 
 derive their just powers from the consent of the governed,' and, in 
 our own Bill of Rights, that 'All power is vested in and conse- 
 quently derived from the people,' has not only been violated and 
 set at naught but has been trampled under foot. The men justly 
 termed conspirators, because they cannot show you warrant for 
 their acts, were, when this Convention met, practically in full 
 possession of every branch of the State government and still claim 
 the right to exercise their usurped power; and if you submit to 
 their acts of secession and affiliation with usurpers like themselves, 
 you yield to them the right to govern you in perpetuity. 
 
 "Impressed with these views, the northwestern counties of the 
 State, knowing that a large majority of their people remained and 
 would remain faithful to the Union under all circumstances, met 
 in convention in Wheeling on the 13th of May last to consult upon 
 their condition and to take such steps as it might indicate. It 
 was literally a mass convention, and from the irregular manner 
 
 32 
 
of the appointment of its delegates was not calculated for the 
 despatch of business. As result of its deliberations, the conven- 
 tion which now addresses you was called; the representation in 
 which is proportioned to that of the General Assembly. The num- 
 ber of counties actually represented is thirty-four; and we have 
 reliable assurance that several which are now with us in spirit 
 will ere long be present by their regularly appointed delegates. 
 Considering that in so many counties free expression of opinion 
 unfavorable to the conspirators is suppressed, the number already 
 represented is larger than could have been anticipated. Several 
 of the delegates present escaped from their counties at the risk of 
 their lives, while others are still detained at home by force or 
 menace against them-' or their families and property. 
 
 "Besides submission to palpable usurpation, there was but one 
 alternative, namely: Under the authority of numerous precedents 
 in the history of nations, to assume the conduct of the government 
 on the ground that those previously entrusted with its administra- 
 tion, by their numerous illegal and unconstitutional acts in plain 
 derogation of the rights of the people, had, in the language of the 
 Declaration of Independence, 'abdicated government by declaring 
 us out of their protection and waging war against us,' whereby, in 
 the words of the same instrument, 'the legislative powers, incapable 
 of annihilation, have returned to the people for their exercise.' * 
 
 * In the U. S. House of Representatives, in the memorial 
 proceedings upon the unveiling and acceptance of the Peir- 
 point monument, Hon. William P. Hubbard, in the course 
 of his address said : 
 
 "The Union men of Virginia, with their instincts and genius 
 for orderly government, did the same things which under like 
 circumstances had been done by other free peoples before them, 
 just as we can see that nothing was then done which could have 
 been better done otherwise. 
 
 "Three centuries ago, the United provinces of the Netherlands 
 declared that they forsook Philip because he had forsaken them, 
 and that they had a right to depose him and elect another in his 
 room. But that government did not perish because he had abdi- 
 cated it; and for years the Netherlands, in the name of Philip, 
 waged war against Philip. 
 
 "A century later, the lords and commons of England, not in 
 Parliament but in a convention, published a declaration of right, 
 reciting the errors and rights of James and asserting that he had 
 abdicated the Government. 
 
 "After yet another century, our Declaration of Independence 
 asserted that legislative powers are incapable of annihilation; and 
 that when the persons entrusted with those powers cease to exer- 
 cise them, they may be resumed by the people, and recited the 
 
 33 
 
''This Convention, therefore, in humble but as they firmly 
 believe proper imitation of the sages of 76, have 'in the name and 
 on behalf of the good people of Virginia' issued their Declaration 
 'that the preservation of their dearest rights and liberties, and their 
 security in person and property, imperatively demand the reorganiza- 
 tion of the government of the Commonwealth.' 
 
 "In pursuance of this Declaration, we have passed such 
 ordinances as are immediately necessary to reorganize the govern- 
 ment and put it in operation. We have appointed a Governor, 
 Lieutenant Governor, Attorney General and Executive Council, 
 leaving to the General Assembly, which we have directed to be 
 convened at a very early day, to fill or provide for filling all other 
 offices as soon as in their judgment it can properly be done. The 
 terms of the officers we have appointed are limited to six months 
 or until the election and qualification of their successors, for which 
 the General Assembly is authority to provide at the earliest pos- 
 sible period. 
 
 "In all this, our fellow citizens will clearly perceive that there 
 has been no disposition to assume any power or authority not 
 demanded by the exigencies of their present unhappy condition, or 
 to retain it longer than a regard for their highest interests may 
 require. 
 
 "Under all these circumstances, with the firm conviction that 
 the course adopted is the only one by which the State can be 
 retained in the Union and the liberties and rights of the people 
 secured and perpetuated, we most earnestly call upon our loyal 
 fellow-citizens in every county of the Commonwealth, who are 
 not already represented in the General Assembly and in this Con- 
 
 usurpations and wrongs because of which the United Colonies 
 were absolved from all allegiance to the British crown. 
 
 "And so, in still another century, the loyal people of West 
 Virginia annulled the acts of those who in the name of Virginia 
 had violated the provisions of the constitution of the United States 
 forbidding any State to enter into any treaty, alliance or confedera- 
 tion, or, without the consent of Congress, to enter into any agree- 
 ment or compact with another State; and that loyal people went 
 on to exercise the powers of government which had been abdicated 
 at Richmond." 
 
 On the same occasion, in the U. S. Senate, Senator 
 Dolliver, of Iowa, a native son of Virginia, said: 
 
 "I have compared the proceedings of these mountain people of 
 my native State with the parliamentary debates around which 
 English liberty has been organized in all centuries ; and I am not 
 exaggerating anything when I say that the men who rode on 
 
 34 
 
vention, to elect members of the Legislature and appoint delegates 
 to this body at the earliest possible moment. Writs of election will 
 be issued by the Executive whenever it appears they can be 
 executed and representatives from every county will be most 
 cordially received.. No suspension or essential change in any part 
 of the constitution or laws of the Commonwealth, unless positively 
 demanded by the exigencies of the times, will be made, until the 
 will of the whole people or of their authorized representatives can 
 be freely expressed ; and such changes as have been or may here- 
 after be so demanded will be submitted for ratification at an early 
 day." 
 
 In debate, August 16th, answering some objections 
 made by Mr. Lewis of Harrison, to the manner of organiz- 
 ing what he referred to as a "provisional government," Mr. 
 Lamb took some pains to explain that the restored govern- 
 ment was not a "provisional" government. It was designed 
 to perpetuate a regular and permanent succession. (For 
 Mr. Lamb's remarks see p. 371, Rend. Va.) 
 
 Restoration Approved by the Supreme Authorities. 
 
 The authority and regularity of the Restoration at 
 Wheeling received, as it was entitled to, the recognition of 
 all branches of the United States government. Representa- 
 tives chosen at elections held under writs issued by Gov. 
 Peirpoint were admitted to seats in the House of Represent- 
 atives. Senators elected by the General Assembly of the 
 Restored government at Wheeling were admitted to the 
 places in the United States Senate vacated by Mason and 
 Hunter. Governor Peirpoint had already been recognized 
 
 horseback into Wheeling from the mountains and tied their horses 
 behind the old hotel with which my boyhood was familiar and 
 inquired of a policeman where the Convention was meeting — these 
 men created a literature as lofty, as pure, as patriotic, as inter- 
 pretative of the spirit of freedom, as was ever made in either 
 England or America in all the struggles which have been fought out 
 in the progress of civil liberty." 
 
 35 
 
as the rightful executive of Virginia, in the response made 
 to his demand for the protection against insurrection guar- 
 anteed by the constitution. Thus the two great controlling 
 branches of the Government (legislative and executive) had 
 acted in clear conformity to the ruling of the third, the 
 judiciary. 
 
 In an opinion reported in Howard, p. 47, speaking of 
 the power of the President of the United States to decide 
 which is the rightful government of a state when there are 
 contesting organizations, Chief Justice Taney, declaring the 
 opinion of the Court, said this power could not be placed 
 more safely nor where it would be more effectual. "When 
 citizens of the same State," he said, "are in arms against 
 each other and the constituted authorities are unable to 
 execute the laws, the interposition of the United States 
 must be prompt or it is of little value. The ordinary course 
 of proceedings in courts of justice would be utterly unfit for 
 the crisis. The elevated office of the President, chosen as he 
 is by the people of the United States, and the high responsi- 
 bility he could not fail to feel when acting in a case of so 
 much moment, appear to furnish as strong safeguards 
 against wilful abuse of power as human foresight could well 
 provide. At all events, it is conferred upon him by the 
 constitution and laws of the United States and must there- 
 fore be respected in its judicial proceedings." 
 
 The Restored government of Virginia having been thus 
 recognized and declared to be the rightful government of 
 Virginia, 
 
 1st — By the executive branch of the United States 
 Government ; 
 
 2nd — By both Houses of the Congress of the United 
 States ; 
 
 36 
 
3rd — By decisions of the Supreme Court of the United 
 States declaring the President is empowered 
 by the constitution to decide on the validity of 
 contesting State governments, 
 
 one does not readily see just what becomes of the pronuncia- 
 mento of the eminent Pennsylvania senator, that the setting 
 up of "the Peirpoint government" was "revolution pure and 
 simple," and that Peirpoint was an "usurper." 
 
 The Restored Government at Richmond. 
 
 But the genesis of Old Virginia would not be complete 
 without a statement of what happened to the Restored 
 government after it was removed to its ancient capital in 
 May, 1865. Even that has been so long ago, transpired 
 under such pressure of more exciting events, and attracted 
 so little attention at the time, that it is at this day almost 
 forgotten. 
 
 The defeated rebel element in Virginia had been humili- 
 ated into the dust by the surrender of the Confederate 
 armies. Immediately following the assassination of Lincoln 
 and the succession of Andrew Johnson, they were reinspired 
 by Mr. Johnson's deplorable "policies" towards Southern 
 leaders and politicians with new hope and expectations of 
 effecting their original purpose by political combination with 
 the disloyal element in the North. In the winter of 1865-66, 
 Congress constituted a joint committee on reconstruction to 
 investigate the menacing developments of this new revolt in 
 the Southern States, including Virginia. The sworn testi- 
 mony taken by this committee was submitted at the first 
 session of the 39th Congress. It fills a volume of 800 large 
 and closely printed pages. Fifty Virginia witnesses were 
 
 37 
 
examined — some of them distinguished men; some loyal 
 through the war; some disloyal — Gen. Lee and John Bald- 
 win among them; others on the fence; some in the humble 
 walks of life, among them a number of intelligent negroes. 
 Their story covers 166 pages of the volume. In its human 
 interest, it is "like a tale that is told" — rather a series of 
 tales — touching grave social, political and economic problems 
 of both local and national importance. 
 
 One of the many subjects of inquiry was the attitude 
 of the Virginia leaders and people towards the Restored 
 State Government of Virginia. 
 
 When West Virginia had become an independent State 
 in June, 1863, the Restored Government was removed to 
 Alexandria, where it remained in esse, awaiting the over- 
 throw of the Confederate military power. That government 
 was not "provisional.''' The framer and director of its 
 structure, Daniel Lamb, distinctly explained in the August 
 sitting of the June convention at Wheeling, that it had been 
 planned for permanence; and the necessary formalities of 
 elections, appointments and legislative sessions had been 
 observed within the territory under military protection 
 around Alexandria. When, following the surrender of the 
 Confederate armies, this Restored government was to be put 
 into operation over the whole State, it was realized that 
 even under the most favorable conditions it would require 
 time and forbearance to establish the new government in 
 the ancient capital. The constitution had been amended so 
 as to preserve a loyal control till conditions should justify 
 the removal of restrictions by lawful and regular procedure. 
 The removal to Richmond occurred (perhaps of necessity) 
 at a crisis when the mischievous "policies" of President 
 Johnson had taken a strong grip on the Confederate leaders 
 
 38 
 
in Virginia ; had awakened wild expectations that they were 
 to come back at last by political combinations and diplomacy 
 to the domination they had thrown away by their military 
 revolt. They were in no temper to wait for the healing 
 ministries of time or the growth of commercial and economic 
 rehabilitation. The fatal virus of Johnsonism had made it 
 impossible. The "get back quick" hunger was overpowering. 
 
 Governor Peirpoint's position was painfully unenviable. 
 The hardships the people of Virginia had brought upon 
 themselves appealed to him strongly ; and he gave way to his 
 sympathies, more perhaps than was wise. For rulers in 
 great crises must be firm as well as kind. 
 
 Complaints had been made by loyal citizens of Alex- 
 andria, Fairfax and some other counties that in calling an 
 election to choose a new legislature, with a view to so amend 
 the Alexandria constitution as to remove the political dis- 
 abilities of the Virginia ex-Confederates, Gov. Peirpoint 
 had been overreached by the leaders at Richmond and had 
 made a fatal surrender by recognizing an unlawful Assembly 
 elected in disregard of the existing restrictions in the 
 Alexandria constitution. Some of the witnesses who testi- 
 fied regarding this matter reflected on the executive severely ; 
 others apparently excused him as having done the best he 
 could under the difficult circumstances. The statement of 
 Charles H. Lewis, Gov. Peirpoint's secretary of the com- 
 monwealth, is perhaps the most comprehensive and per- 
 spicuous one made. Mr. Lewis was a citizen of Rockingham 
 county ; a brother of John F. Lewis, who had been one of 
 the delegates from that county in the Richmond convention 
 and the only loyal member east of the mountains who 
 refused to the end to sign the ordinance of secession. In 
 the course of his statement, Mr. Lewis said : 
 
 39 
 
Question. And in the meantime the legislature of Virginia 
 had assembled? 
 
 Answer. Yes, sir. The legislature assembled the first Monday 
 in December, 1865 — that is, what claims to be the present legislature 
 of Virginia. 
 
 Question. Composed, I suppose, of members elected under the 
 laws of Virginia? 
 
 Answer. Yes, sir. They so claim. 
 
 Question. Were they elected under the laws passed by the 
 rebel legislature of Virginia, or under the old laws in force before 
 the rebellion? 
 
 Answer. It is proper that I should give some explanation of 
 that election. On our return to Richmond, what is called the 
 Alexandria constitution was in operation — that is, a constitution 
 adopted by the convention assembled at Alexandria in 1864. That 
 constitution was framed, of course, under what is called the Re- 
 stored Government. I mean the government which was recognized 
 by the government of the United States. It was called the Restored 
 Government of Virginia because it was restored at Wheeling by a 
 loyal convention assembled there. That Alexandria constitution 
 was in operation and was recognized as the constitution of Vir- 
 ginia. There was an article in that constitution which forbade 
 all persons from voting who did not take and subscribe an oath 
 that they would be loyal to the government of the United States; 
 that they recognized and would uphold the government of Virginia 
 as established at Wheeling in June, 1861 ; and that since the first 
 day of January, 1864, they had not been voluntarily engaged in 
 the rebellion against the government of the United States. That 
 was the substance of the oath. That article of the constitution 
 further provided that no person should hold office who had held 
 any office, military or civil, except county offices, under the so- 
 called government of the Confederate States or under any State 
 government in rebellion against the government of the United 
 States. The legislature of Virginia which was called the Alexandria 
 legislature was convened by Governor Peirpoint at Richmond in 
 a called session in June, 1865. That legislature provided that the 
 governor should submit to the people at the next election for mem- 
 bers of Congress and of the general assembly the question whether 
 the next legislature should have power to alter and amend that 
 third article of the constitution. At the same election at which 
 the vote was taken a number of persons were elected as members 
 of the general assembly who were ineligible under the third article 
 of the constitution. On the day of the assembling of the legislature 
 at Richmond the house of delegates was organized without any refer- 
 
 40 
 
ence to the ineligibility of any person claiming to be a member 
 under that third article of the constitution. The legislature, after 
 being organized, took measures to remove the restrictions, although 
 a number of the persons who voted for the removal of the restric- 
 tions were ineligible under the constitution. Their first act was 
 to elect a speaker who had been a member of the Confederate 
 Congress — Colonel John B. Baldwin. 
 
 Question. Were you turned out of office? 
 
 Answer. I was not re-elected to the office of Secretary of 
 the Commonwealth. 
 
 Question. When would your term of office expire? 
 
 Answer. The legislature proceeded to the election of a Secre- 
 tary of the Commonwealth, by joint ballot, under a resolution 
 adopted by themselves. But for that resolution my term of office 
 would not have expired until January, 1867. 
 
 Question. Whom did they elect in your place? 
 
 Answer. Mr. John M. Herndon. 
 
 Question. What was his political character? 
 
 Answer. I do not know further than that I have always 
 heard and believed that he sympathized and acted with the seces- 
 sion party during the war. 
 
 Question. State whether the removal from office by joint action 
 of the legislature was general in Virginia? 
 
 Answer. Every Union man who held office by Governor Peir- 
 point's appointment, whom the legislature could reach, was removed. 
 
 Dr. Arthur Watson, a resident of Accomac county, who 
 had been a member of the convention which had amended 
 the constitution, made the following answers, in the course 
 of his examination : 
 
 Question. Do you think of anything else you deem it important 
 to state? 
 
 Answer. I would like to bring to your notice the action of 
 the present legislature. We had a legislature which sat in June, 
 1865. That legislature was composed of less than thirty members, 
 embracing both houses. Although the constitution requires that 
 the lower house of the legislature shall consist of not less than 80 
 nor more than 104 members, and the senate shall consist of not less 
 than one-third nor more than one-half of the number of the lower 
 house, in order to compose a constitutional legislature. That legis- 
 lature in June 1st, composed of less than 30 members, passed an 
 act enfranchising those people of Virginia who had been dis- 
 
 41 
 
franchisee! by the constitution as amended in Alexandria in 1864; 
 that is, they submitted to the people of Virginia the proposition 
 whether the third article of that constitution should be amended. 
 There was a majority of votes cast in favor of amending that 
 article of the constitution. 
 
 The legislature elected in the fall of 1865 assembled in Richmond 
 on the 1st of December, 1865, and they amended the third article 
 of the constitution of Virginia so as to enfranchise and give to 
 themselves the right to hold office as members of that legislature; 
 whereas the third article of the constitution of Virginia expressly 
 provides that no man shall either vote or hold office in Virginia 
 who has ever held office under the government of the Confederate 
 States or under any State government in rebellion against the 
 government of the United States. By that third article those very 
 men were prohibited from either voting or holding any office under 
 the State of Virginia. But before amending that third article 
 of the constitution of Virginia, which they claimed they had the 
 right to do because of the people of Virginia voting in favor of 
 amending it, they took their seats and removed the prohibition 
 which the constitution placed upon themselves. 
 
 Question. That was an unconstitutional proceeding on their 
 part? 
 
 Answer. Certainly. 
 
 Question. Entirely revolutionary? 
 
 Answer. Yes, sir; and I claim that in consequence of that 
 proceeding they have not administered the government in a republi- 
 can manner— that they were usurpers. I have written an article 
 to that effect, which I intended to have published, but which I 
 have not yet published. I also claim that Governor Peirpoint, in 
 recognizing the illegal legislature of June, 1865, and in recognizing 
 the present legislature before the constitutional prohibition was 
 removed, usurped power which was expressly prohibited to him. 
 
 Question. And the result is that the government of the State 
 of Virginia is in the hands of the rebels? 
 
 Answer. Entirely so, by their own illegal and unconstitutional 
 acts. 
 
 Question. Are you aware that President Lincoln interfered in 
 any way in that respect? 
 
 Answer. I am not. 
 
 Question. Did Governor Peirpoint remonstrate or protest 
 against any such proceeding? 
 
 Answer. He did not. I was told by a reliable gentleman that 
 his attention was called to the fact, but he made no remonstrance. 
 
 42 
 
He sent in his messages to that legislature as though it was 
 entirely legal. 
 
 Question. He sent his messages to it, and received its acts for 
 his signature as though it was the legal legislature of the State 
 of Virginia? 
 
 Answer. Yes, sir. 
 
 These quotations sufficiently show the substantial fact 
 that, under pressure of an eager purpose to get control of 
 the General Assembly, an illegal legislature was chosen 
 whom Governor Peirpoint (weakly and mistakenly, in the 
 opinion of some of the witnesses) recognized as the lawful 
 legislature of Virginia by sending in his messages, when, in 
 fact, a number of them were not entitled to be elected or to 
 qualify on account of constitutional disabilities. 
 
 John B. Baldwin, of Rockingham county, who had 
 turned traitor in the Secession convention at the last mo- 
 ment ; who had betrayed the confidence of President Lincoln 
 when sent to him by Summers; who had signed the ordi- 
 nance of secession and voted for it at the polls; had been 
 commissioned a colonel in the Confederate army and, by 
 special dispensation allowed to sit in the Confederate Con- 
 gress through the war — was elected Speaker of the House, 
 and while Speaker was a witness before the Reconstruction 
 Committee. It appears, further, that though Governor Peir- 
 point was permitted to serve out his, term, his Secretary of 
 the Commonwealth was turned out, with other subordinate 
 officers ; and, according to some of the witnesses, that it was 
 but a short time till every loyal man he had appointed was 
 removed and disloyal men appointed in their places. Thus 
 did the reawakened revolt exhibit its implacable spirit and 
 purpose. 
 
 In a word the Restored Government had been seized and 
 usurped by violence, just as the original organization, ninety 
 
 43 
 
years before at Williamsburg, was usurped by the persons 
 who had been burgesses of the colony under Lord Dunmore, 
 the royal governor. Through the assassination of one 
 president and the hope of treachery in his successor, the 
 purpose to win by violence, if necessary, remained persistent 
 and inflexible. The Virginia government as it exists at 
 Richmond today, therefore, carries this stain of invalidity, 
 and is just about as "legitimate" as the original common- 
 wealth. 
 
 44 
 
STATE SOVEREIGNTY— SECESSION. 
 
 The Attitude of Senator Oliver. 
 
 Let us turn into another field and talk a little about the 
 Peirpoint "usurpation" and the State Sovereignty dogma. 
 Mr. Oliver does not recognize the authority of the three 
 great co-ordinate branches of the United States government 
 to settle the national issue raised by the Rebellion. Fifty 
 years after this issue had been adjudicated, first by the mili- 
 tary power, and next by the judicial, the legislative and the 
 executive powers of the nation — constituting its whole and 
 sole authority — he declares in his place in the Senate that 
 the restoration of the Virginia government was "revolution, 
 pure and simple," and Governor Peirpoint a "usurper." 
 This is precisely the attitude of Jefferson Davis in his book, 
 "The Rise and Fall of the Confederate Government." It is 
 a clean cut issue between these two distinguished gentlemen, 
 on the one hand, and the solid authority of the United States 
 government on the other. If there had been no Restoration 
 of the Virginia government at Wheeling, under recognition 
 and support of the United States, and no subsequent organi- 
 zation of a separate State under which military resistance 
 to occupancy by the Confederacy was successfully organ- 
 ized, it is probable that Pittsburgh, where the Senator was 
 then a youth, would have been in very close and uncomfort- 
 able propinquity to the Southern Confederacy. 
 
 45 
 
Hayne and Webster in the Senate. 
 
 When Gen. Hayne of South Carolina — the ideal orator 
 and statesman of his time in the South — launched his thun- 
 derbolt in the Senate on the Foote resolution, in 1829, he 
 was answered by Webster in vindication of the Constitution 
 and the Union, in terms so magnificent that the whole coun- 
 try thrilled with the splendor of his theme and his superb 
 treatment of it. It was the first time the great controversy 
 had come into the highest forum of the nation. Then the 
 people realized, as never before, on the one hand the grand- 
 eur of the American nationality, and on the other the terrors 
 of dissolution — "States dissevered, discordant, belligerent! 
 A land rent with civil feuds, or drenched, it may be, in fra- 
 ternal blood !" 
 
 Old Hickory Ready to Hang Calhoun. 
 
 The threat of nullification by South Carolina was 
 answered by the proclamation of President Jackson. John 
 Minor Botts, in his "Great Rebellion," declares that Jackson 
 would have hanged Calhoun if a by-pass had not been found 
 in Clay's tariff compromises through which Calhoun and 
 South Carolina were permitted to withdraw the issue they 
 had raised. 
 
 To Mr. Botts' testimony may be added a statement 
 made in his later years by Hon. William Kennon, of St. 
 Clairsville, Ohio, who had been associated in earlier life with 
 Webster, Clay and Calhoun at Washington. In his "Bonnie 
 Belmont," Judge John S. Cochran, who had studied law 
 under Judge Kennon, says Mr. Kennon, being asked one day 
 for an estimate of the three men, made the following state- 
 ment in regard to Calhoun : 
 
 46 
 
"Judge Kennon said it was the firm determination of President 
 Jackson to have had Calhoun shot by drum-head court-martial had 
 he performed one covert act in carrying out his principle of nullifi- 
 cation while a United States senator; that at one time it was noised 
 about in Washington that Calhoun contemplated making a speech 
 in the Senate resigning his seat and then going home to his own 
 State to participate in a movement withdrawing from the Union ; 
 that Jackson prepared to arrest him if he did, and to that end had 
 every avenue of escape from Washington guarded ; and that when 
 Calhoun was quietly informed of Jackson's intentions he actually 
 turned pale, for he knew what the old hero of New Orleans 
 undertook he would execute, regardless of consequences." 
 
 Afterwards, answering Calhoun's great sophistical 
 argument in the Senate, Mr. Webster held : 
 
 Webster's Argument Against Nullification. 
 
 Beginning with the original error that the constitution of the 
 United States is nothing but a compact between sovereign states; 
 asserting, in the next step that each state has the right to be its 
 own sole judge of the extent of its obligations, and consequently 
 of the constitutionality of the laws of Congress ; and, in the next, 
 that it may oppose whatever it sees fit to declare unconstitutional, 
 and that it decides for itself on the mode and measure of redress, 
 the argument arrives at once at the conclusion that what a state 
 dissents from it may nullify; what it opposes it may oppose by 
 force ; what it decides for itself it may execute by its own power ; 
 and that, in short, it is itself supreme over the decisions of the 
 national adjudicature — supreme over the supreme law of the land. 
 
 However, it seeks to protect itself against these inferences 
 by saying that an unconstitutional law is no law, and that it only 
 opposes such laws as are unconstitutional. Yet this does not in 
 the slightest degree vary the result, since it insists on deciding 
 this question for itself; and, in opposition to reason and argu- 
 ment, to practice and experience, to the judgment of others having 
 an equal right to judge; and it says only: "Such is my opinion, and 
 my opinion shall be my law; and I will support it by my own 
 strong hand. I denounce the law; I declare it unconstitutional. 
 Men and arms are ready to resist its execution." 
 
 Against such theories Mr. Webster maintained : 
 
 First. That the constitution of the United States is not a 
 league, confederacy or compact between the people of the several 
 
 47 
 
states in their sovereign capacities; but a government founded on 
 the adoption of the people and creating direct relations between 
 itself and individuals. 
 
 Second. That no state authority has power to dissolve those 
 relations ; that nothing can dissolve them but revolution ; and that, 
 consequently, there can be no such thing as secession without 
 revolution. 
 
 Third. That there is a supreme law consisting of the Consti- 
 tution of the United States, the acts of Congress passed in pur- 
 suance of it, and treaties ; and that in cases not capable of assuming 
 the character of a suit in law or equity, Congress must judge of 
 and finally interpret this supreme law when it has occasion to 
 pass acts of legislation; and in cases permitting the assumption of 
 and actually assuming, the character of a suit, the Supreme Court 
 of the United States is the final interpreter. 
 
 Fourth. That an attempt by a state to abrogate, annul or 
 nullify an act of Congress, or to arrest its operation within her 
 limits, on the ground that in her opinion such law is unconstitu- 
 tional, is a direct usurpation of the just powers of the General 
 Government, in derogation of the equal rights of the other states; 
 a plain violation of the constitution and a proceeding essentially 
 revolutionary. 
 
 Jackson's Defense of the Union. 
 
 The proclamation issued by President Jackson in this 
 South Carolina crisis declared : 
 
 "The constitution of the United States forms a government, not 
 a league. It is a government in which all the people are repre- 
 sented; which operates directly on the individual, not upon the 
 States. They retain all the power they did not grant; but each 
 State having expressly parted with so many powers as to consti- 
 tute jointly with the other States a single nation, cannot from that 
 period possess any right to secede, because such secession does 
 not break a league but destroys the unity of a nation; and any 
 injury to that unity is not only a breach which would result from 
 the contravention of a compact but it is an offense against the 
 whole Union. 
 
 "To say that any State may at pleasure secede from the Union 
 is to say that the United States are not a nation ; because it would 
 be a solecism to contend that any part of a nation might dissolve 
 its connection with the other parts to their injury or ruin without 
 committing any offense. 
 
 48 
 
"Secession, like any other revolutionary act, may be morally 
 justified by the extremity of oppression; but to call it a constitu- 
 tional right is to confound the meaning of terms and can only be 
 done through gross error or to deceive those who are willing to 
 assert a right but would pause before they made a revolution or 
 incurred the penalty consequent on failure." 
 
 In regard to President Jackson's proclamation, Mr. 
 Webster said : 
 
 "Its great and leading doctrines I regard as the true and only 
 doctrines of the constitution. They constitute the sole ground on 
 which dismemberment can be resisted. Nothing else, in my opinion, 
 can hold us together. While those opinions are entertained, the 
 Union will last; when they shall be generally rejected and aban- 
 doned, that Union will be at the mercy of a temporary majority 
 in any one of the States." 
 
 This exposition of the nature of the tie which binds 
 the people of all these States today — many in one — is as 
 convincing a judgment as was ever pronounced on a great 
 public issue in any country. Fifty years ago, this issue was 
 appealed to the court of last resort, and the judgment 
 rendered by that dread tribunal sustained the argument of 
 Webster and Jackson. That judgment has been accepted as 
 unanswerable, except by a bereft minority in the South, 
 where the sophisms of Jefferson and Calhoun were once 
 thought to be serviceable to a local interest and to the poli- 
 tics based on it. Even there, the contrary opinion is now 
 held only in the academic sense, as a basis for social organi- 
 zations ; by whom the sacred fire is kept alive in sack-cloth ; 
 as ash-covered embers sometimes carry fire long after the 
 conflagration has passed that swept away the structure. 
 
 Lincoln's Analysis of "Sovereignty." 
 
 There is yet another angle to this great argument in 
 support of nationality. Abraham Lincoln, in the recesses 
 
 49 
 
of his almost unsearchable wisdom, applying a simple but 
 masterful analysis, has shown how impossible it would be 
 for this continental people to exist under any government 
 not centered around a strong core of authority and bound 
 together by indissoluble ties. 
 
 In his first message to Congress, July 4, 1861, he dis- 
 cussed the dogma which had just then embroiled the country 
 in civil war — the pretense that under the constitution States 
 were possessed of "sovereignty," and that each had a right 
 to withdraw from the Union at its own pleasure without 
 consent of the others. His argument is analytic — not stated, 
 as Webster's is, in legal formula — but his analysis is even 
 more convincing than Webster's logic. 
 
 It begins with a recital of historical facts : with the 
 statement that for (then) thirty years the conspirators in 
 the South had been preparing their people for secession, by 
 inculcating studiously the proposition that the right of 
 secession could be exercised legally and peaceably. They 
 refrained from any suggestion that it was a resort to war, 
 rebellion or revolution. 
 
 Mr. Lincoln then takes up the assumption that a State 
 is invested with "sovereignty." Not one of the States, he 
 says, ever possessed such an attribute. Not one of them 
 ever was a State until combined into the first Union under 
 the Articles of Confederation. The name "States" was 
 first assumed in the Declaration of Independence. The 
 "United Colonies" were declared to be "free and indepen- 
 dent States" — independent, not of one another, but of the 
 mother country. 
 
 Two years after this declaration, all of the colonies 
 then existing combined under the Articles of Confederation 
 in a "perpetual union." Under this union, and likewise 
 
 50 
 
under the later union created by the constitution, none of 
 these had any more power or sovereignty than was reserved 
 to them by the express terms of the instrument of union. 
 
 President Lincoln defines a "sovereign power" as "a 
 community which has no political superior." Tested by this 
 standard, no one of the States except Texas ever was a 
 sovereignty; and Texas gave up that character by coming 
 into the Union. The States have their status as states in 
 the Union, and never had such legal status anywhere else. 
 "If they break away from this," said Lincoln, "they can 
 only do so against law by revolution. The Union is older 
 than any of the States, and, in fact, it created them as 
 states. No one of them ever had a state constitution inde- 
 pendent of the Union. The powers reserved to them, either 
 under the first or the existing Union, did not include any 
 which could constitute sovereignty. None of them ever had 
 independent relations with foreign governments." 
 
 True Basis of Federation. 
 
 The true principle of national power and State rights, 
 declared Mr. Lincoln, is this: "Whatever concerns the 
 whole, should be confided to the whole — to the general 
 Government. Whatever concerns only the State should be 
 left exclusively to the State." There has never been a more 
 comprehensive and felicitous embodiment in words of the 
 true bases for an American commonwealth. 
 
 How Would Secession Work ? 
 
 President Lincoln thus runs out the practical operation 
 
 of the exercise of a right of secession : 
 
 "The Union purchased with money the countries out of which 
 several of these States were formed. Is it just that they shall go 
 off without leave and without refunding? 
 
 51 
 
"The Union paid a very large sum (in the aggregate nearly 
 a hundred millions) to relieve Florida of the aboriginal tribes. Is 
 it just that they shall now be off without making any restitution? 
 
 "The Union is now in debt for money applied to the benefit 
 of these so-called seceded States, in common with the rest. Is it 
 just either that creditors shall go unpaid or that the remaining 
 States pay the whole? 
 
 "If one State may secede, so may another. When all shall have 
 seceded, none is left to pay the debts." 
 
 The principle of secession, it is thus seen, is one upon 
 which no nation can endure. When the United States, by 
 this process of elimination, had reached the vanishing point, 
 what would foreign holders of its bonds have to say ? Need 
 it be asked what they would do ? They would come in with 
 their armies and navies and recoup themselves by taking 
 possession of the helpless territory. 
 
 The men who planned the American Rebellion lacked 
 the essentials of statesmanship. They either had no com- 
 prehension of the profound causes shaping the future of 
 the American people, or they were so reckless and desperate 
 they did not care what might be the consequences of their 
 application of the torch to a greater than the Ephesian dome. 
 
 Suppose their theory of a peaceful secession could be 
 put into operation today, what would be the situation of 
 these half hundred States, with their vast and complex 
 interests? What the situation of the hundred millions of 
 people, now happy and prosperous, inhabiting them? How 
 long could we maintain peaceful relations with foreign 
 powers? And how defend ourselves against their aggres- 
 sion? How could we organize, with a lot of mutually 
 repellant sovereignties, with no unity of interest and no 
 concert of action ? How would the "Republic of Virginia" 
 maintain itself against such a power as Germany? Or Cali- 
 fornia against Japan? Or New York against Great Britain? 
 
 52 
 
How long could these separate "sovereign ties" — divided 
 only by rivers, or lakes, or imaginery lines — even maintain 
 amicable relations with one another? Each of these States 
 or groups of States would be a foreign power to every other. 
 Each would have its own tariff, its vexatious custom houses 
 at the frontier ; its regulations and guards to prevent smug- 
 gling; each its diplomatic staff to deal with the new, complex 
 and ever multiplying international differences. How could 
 the enormous internal commerce of this great country (then 
 no longer interstate but international) be handled, either by 
 rail or keel ? An inextricable maze of treaty and diplomatic 
 agreements and arrangements would be required to move 
 the crops and the return merchandise of a single season, 
 even if all were friendly and peaceable. In time of war. 
 some States would starve for lack of what was rotting in 
 the fields or warehouses of other (hostile) States. 
 
 This great country, spanning a continent, embracing 
 the coast slopes of two oceans and the valleys of one of the 
 greatest river systems in the world, was not made for petty- 
 divisions of control. It could no more endure the operation 
 of State secession than a living man could endure dismem- 
 berment on the butcher's block. 
 
 If State sovereignty was ever possible for this federa- 
 tion, it is possible no longer. Even as an academic issue, 
 there is no longer room for it. We have outgrown it. For 
 better or worse — for weal or woe — this people must live 
 together, under one flag, with a common destiny, for a term 
 to which no statesmanship can now assign a limit. 
 
 Sovereignty is the attribute solely of national unity. 
 The unit may be large, or it may be small ; but a unit it must 
 be. The American unit is already continental. We cannot 
 foresee how it is to be reduced, or when safety will admit 
 
 53 
 
of less centripetal force. Such as it is, we must abide with it 
 and try to make it the home of a great orderly people. 
 
 "Finally, Brethren." 
 
 Returning to the text from this wide excursion, are we 
 not warranted in claiming that the reorganization of the 
 Virginia government by the people of Northwest Virginia — 
 the only portion of the commonwealth where her citizens 
 could make effective protest — was not only "justified by the 
 dire emergency," as admitted by Senator Oliver, but justified 
 and supported by the highest law-making and law-declaring 
 authorities of the nation? When the President of the 
 United States, the two Houses of Congress and the Supreme 
 Court — the three supreme co-ordinate powers of the Gov- 
 ernment — unite in declaring that "what was done in the 
 mountains of West Virginia" (in the words of Senator 
 Dolliver of Iowa, himself an eloquent son of the Old 
 Dominion) was not only necessary but lawful and valid, 
 who is there to gainsay it? 
 
 All this is but to declare, with equal force, that while 
 the right of revolution exists everywhere, the right of 
 secession cannot exist in a nation, and that "State sover- 
 eignty" in the American Union is today but the phantom of 
 a stupendous folly. 
 
 May it not be added, by way of grace after meat, that 
 what was so done in the West Virginia mountains was 
 "not only respectable but illustrious"; and was, as Mr. 
 Oliver declared in the opening of his address, "one of the 
 romances of American history." 
 
 GRANVILLE DAVISSON HALL. 
 
 54 
 
 mo a 4* 
 
\ 
 
 
 Press of 
 
 THE MAYER & MILLER COMPANY 
 
 525 South Dearborn Street 
 
 CHICAGO 
 

 ° N ° <a u 
 
 
 -o 
 
 a °* i 
 
 \/ 
 
 4°^ 
 
,0 ^ 
 
 ^ 
 
 > ***** > V % *t*rl'* <*U <0 V * v *°* ^ 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 ,0 ^ 
 
 
 
 
 
 D0BBSBR0S. „ V? « "$$^1)%'' ^ y- 
 
 LIBRARY BINDING 
 
 J UN 73 : « 
 
 ST. AUGUSTINE 
 
 *>°* 
 
 ^ 
 
 
 ^ FLA. o 
 
LIBRARY OF CONGRESS 
 
 014 442 724 5 #