YALE UNIVERSITY
LIBRARY

Bought with the income
ofthe
WILLIAM C. EGLESTON FUND

This book was digitized by Microsoft Corporation in
cooperation with Yale University Library, 2008. You
may not reproduce this digitized copy of the book for
any purpose other than for scholarship, research,
educational, or, in limited quantity, personal use. You
may not distribute or provide access to this digitized copy
(or modified or partial versions of it) for commercial purposes.

The
Disruption of Virginia

BY
james c. McGregor, ph.d.

THE MACMILLAN COMPANY
1922
All rights reserved

PRINTED IN THE TTNITED STATES OP AMERICA

Copyright, 1922,
By THE MACMILLAN COMPANY.

Set up and printed. Published October, 1922.

Press of
J. J. Little & Ives Company
New York, U. S. A.

To
MY FATHER

PREFACE
This book was written on the assumption that the
admission of a new state into the Union is always a
matter of some historical importance, and that the
facts of such admission should be made available for
the reader of history.
In the case of West Virginia prejudice and par
tisanship have tended to obscure the exact truth, and
"The Disruption of Virginia" is an attempt to pre
sent an unbiased account of the strange course of
events in the history of Virginia from the time of
Lincoln's election to the Presidency to the month of
June, 1863, when West Virginia was formally ad
mitted into the Union.
The author has no grudges to satisfy and no patron
to please. If he seems harsh in his opinions and con
clusions regarding the irregular and inexpedient meth
ods employed in cutting off the western counties of
Virginia and forming them into a new state it is due
to the conviction that an unnecessary wrong was com
mitted, a wrong that helped not at all in Lincoln's
prosecution of the Civil War. He is convinced that
not only was the act unconstitutional, but that it was
not desired by more than a small minority of the peo
ple of the new state. The President and Congress

VU1 PREFACE
were grateful to the Union men in north-western Vir
ginia for their efforts to keep their section out of the
Southern Confederacy, and as a reward consented to
their organizing a new state, the United States Con
stitution to the contrary notwithstanding.
It is true that sectionalism had prevailed in Vir
ginia for many years, and that the most widely sepa
rated parts were entirely out of sympathy with each
other. Possibly the end has justified the means and
Virginia as a whole is happier divided than united.
With that the author has no concern. He is only
interested in presenting the facts as he has found them.
The chapters dealing with the Richmond Convention,
the anti-war sentiment in western Virginia, and the
Wheeling Conventions were presented to the authori
ties of the University of Pennsylvania in 1913 as a
partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree
of Doctor of Philosophy. Acting upon the advice
of Prof. John Bach McMaster the author wrote the
chapters on early sectional difficulties in Virginia and
searched further for new material. In the Department
of Archives and History of the state of West Virginia,
at Charleston, were discovered a number of letters
touching upon the situation in the western counties
in 1861-3 ; and, what was of greater importance, the
original manuscript of the first constitutional con
vention of the state was found.
All this new material was confirmatory, and satis
fied the author that his original conclusions were cor
rect. On almost the last day of the constitutional

PBEEACE IX
convention of November, 1861, according to the manu
script, a motion was made that the records of the con
vention be printed. One of the delegates opposed
this motion for the reason that the discussion had re
vealed so plainly the opposition of the people of West
Virginia both to the North and to the new state that
the publication of the debates might interfere with
the admission of the state. His opinion prevailed and
to this day the record remains unprinted, although
its importance is unquestioned.
Prof. McMaster and Dean Herman V. Ames of the
University of Pennsylvania have read the manuscript
and made some helpful suggestions. The author takes
this occasion of thanking them for the interest they
have shown. For any errors that may appear and
the opinions expressed he must take the full re
sponsibility.

BIBLIOGRAPHICAL NOTES
"Sectionalism in Virginia," by Chas. H. Ambler (Chi
cago, 1910) covers the period from 1776 to 1861, and
treats in some detail the subject matter included in the
first six chapters of "The Disruption of Virginia."
"The Rending of Virginia," by Granville D. Hall
(Glencoe, Illinois, 1902) is a rambling account of the
secession of Virginia and the formation of West Vir
ginia. The author was a participant in the Wheeling
Conventions and harbored a bitter resentment toward
the eastern Virginians. Hence his book is not merely
worthless as history — it is misleading and harmful.
The secondary works mentioned above are the only
ones of any importance quoted in "The Disruption of
Virginia." The source material comes principally from news
papers, state records, and private letters, found in
the Historical Library at Richmond, Virginia; the
Library of Congress, Washington, D. C. ; the State
Library, Charleston, W. Va. ; and the Public Libraries
of Wheeling, W. Va., Pittsburgh, Pa., and Philadel
phia, Pa.
Mrs. Letty Carlile Strader, daughter of John S.

X11 BIBLIOGRAPHICAL NOTES
Carlile, permitted the author to use her father's pri
vate correspondence.
Other information was gathered from persons who
remember the state of affairs in their communities dur
ing the early part of the Civil War.

CONTENTS
CHAPTER PAGE
I Geographical Features  1
II Population  7
III Social and Economic Divergencies . . 16
IV The Opening of the Breach .... 27
V The Constitutional Convention of
1829-30  35
VI The Progress of Sectionalism ... 49
VII Western Virginia at the Outbreak of
the Civil War  66
VIII The Preliminaries of the Convention . 87
IX The Virginia Convention of 1861 . . 124
X The Beginning of the New-State Move
ment  182
XI The May Convention  192
XII The June Convention  206
XIII West Virginia Before Congress . . . 224
XIV The West Virginia Ordinance . . . 231
XV War Sentiment  244
XVI The Constitutional Convention . . . 257
xiii

XIV CONTENTS
CHAPTER PA0E
XVII Irregular Congressional Elections . . 278
XVIII The West Virginia Bill in the U. S.
Senate  286
XIX West Virginia the Thirty-sixth State
in the Union  302

THE DISRUPTION OF VIRGINIA

THE DISRUPTION OF VIRGINIA

CHAPTER I
GEOGRAPHICAL FEATURES
When nature erected a mountain barrier between
eastern and western Virginia-vthere was laid the foun
dation of an intra-state dispute which ended only when
the two antagonistic sections were under the authority
of different state governments. It is but slight exag
geration to affirm that the Alleghany Mountains were
responsible for all the quarrels between the cismontane
and the transmontane sections of Virginia. Writers
who stress racial differences as the cause of the diffi
culties which arose between the Virginians forget that
almost every state in the Union was compelled to go
through a process of race harmonization, and in every
case intimate contact brought about race amalgama
tion. It was this lack of personal contact which pre
vented a good understanding between the English in
habitants of eastern Virginia and the German, Scotch-
Irish, and English inhabitants of western Virginia. At
any time previous to the Civil War a good system of
canals and railroads would have gone far toward bring-
1

2 THE DISRUPTION OF VIRGINIA
ing the two parts of the Old Dominion more closely
together; but the Richmond Junto was blind to the
importance of such improvements and the contest of
1861 dawned with eastern and western Virginia as
widely apart in manners, customs, and sympathies as
though thousands of miles intervened between them.
A survey of the chief geographical features of Vir
ginia reveals the fact that the surface of the state is
divided into two unequally inclined planes and a
centrally located valley.1 Further subdivisions
marked out by earlier historians were as follows : The
eastern plane naturally fell into two parts, the Pied
mont and the Tidewater division, the western plane
into the Alleghany highlands, the Cumberland plateau,
and the Ohio Valley section. The valley lying between
the two mountain ranges which run parallel across the
northern part of the present state of Virginia is the
famous Shenandoah Valley. While the actual bounda
ries of these divisions are of course purely arbitrary,
yet we may easily comprehend what is meant when we
hear the terms Tidewater, Piedmont, Valley, Trans-
montane, etc. The Fredericksburg, Richmond and
Petersburg Railroad may be said to divide, roughly,
the Tidewater from the Piedmont. The latter lies in a
right angle, with the fall-line of the Atlantic rivers —
the James, the Potomac, and the Roanoke — as its per
pendicular, and the Blue Ridge as its hypothenuse.2
The Valley has a length of approximately three hun-
1 Ambler, "Sectionalism in Virginia," p. 1.
xIbid.

GEOGRAPHICAL FEATURES 3
dred miles and an average width of from twenty-five to
thirty miles. It forms a part of the Appalachian Val
ley system and opens up in but two places, namely, at
the head waters of the James River to the east and at
the head waters of the Kanawha River to the south
west. A more detailed description would place a middle
section between the Tidewater and the Piedmont, an
other subdivision between the Piedmont and the Valley,
and on the extreme western border an Appalachian
section including counties which are geographically
distinct from the Valley counties.1 The areas of these
various subdivisions may be approximated somewhat as
follows: Tidewater, 11,350 square miles; Piedmont,
12,470 square miles ; Blue Ridge, 1,230 square miles ;
Valley, 13,550 square miles ; Appalachian, 5,720 square
miles. The surface of West Virginia presents many difficul
ties for the topographer. Scarcely any scheme of di
vision could be created which he would be willing to
accept as accurate. The general slope is from the
Alleghanies to the Ohio River, but exceptions must be
noted even here, for north of the Little Kanawha no
considerable stream flows into the Ohio. South of
a line drawn from Pocahontas County to Tyler County
all the rivers flow into the Ohio. North of this line the
waterfall is away from the Ohio toward the Monon
gahela and the Potomac rivers. The usual classifica
tion of West Virginia into the Alleghany Highlands,
the Cumberland Plateau, and the Ohio Valley region is
1 Alleghany, Bath, and Highland.

4 THE DISRUPTION OF VIRGINIA
unsatisfactory for purposes of accuracy, but will per
haps serve the purpose of the historian.
A grouping of counties according to similarity of
natural features would require almost as many divisions
as there are counties. Scarcely any two contiguous
counties present the same surface peculiarities, and in
a number of instances adj oining counties are walled off
by mountain spurs which form complete barriers.
Speaking roughly, the Eastern Panhandle counties may
be said to belong, geographically, to the great Valley
of Virginia and form a natural division. Shut off from
the remainder of the state by the Alleghany Mountains,
the people of this region are turned toward Virginia
and Maryland. This area is a little more than 3,700
square miles and includes a district scarcely surpassed
for fertility of soil and natural resources. The rivers
empty into the Potomac and consequently the commerce
of this district is carried on with the cities of Baltimore
and Washington.
To the southwest is a group of mountain counties,
including Preston, Tucker, Randolph, Greenbrier,
Monroe, and parts of Hardy and Pendleton. Beyond
the fact that these counties lie near together and are
in the same general mountain division, they have few
features in common. Turning toward the north and
west, we have at the extreme limit of the state that
strange projection known as the Northern Panhandle.
Belonging naturally to Pennsylvania, it is the sole
remnant of that portion of Pennsylvania which Virginia
has claimed from early times. The counties included

GEOGRAPHICAL FEATURES 5
in it, Hancock, Brooke, Ohio, and Marshall, present
a uniformity of geographical features. All border on
the Ohio River, communication among them is easy and
natural, and as a result there has been developed a
similarity of social and political life unequaled by any
other portion of the state. South of the Panhandle
are Wetzel, Tyler, Pleasants, Wood, and Jackson
counties, possessing enough features in common to be
classed as a group. All have frontage on the Ohio
River and the surface of each county is rough and un
even. South, to the interior, we come to a group of
counties in the Kanawha Valley, comprising all or parts
of Mercer, Monroe, Greenbrier, Raleigh, Fayette,
Kanawha, Putnam, and Mason. A glance at the map
will reveal the fact that their chief and almost only
feature in common is the Great Kanawha River, which,
rising in Ashe County, North Carolina, drains an area
of 10,000 square miles before it finally empties its
waters into the Ohio. Every possible variety of sur
face is presented in this region, which is the despair of
the topographer. To the south of the Kanawha Val
ley there is a group of counties, Boone, Cabell, Wayne,
Logan, Wyoming, and McDowell. These stretch along
the southern part of the state from the Ohio River to
the border of Virginia and include some of the wildest
and most isolated spots to be found anywhere in the
United States. The Monongahela River and its tribu
taries enclose an important group of counties. Less
rugged and more accessible than the counties of the
south and east, this district was settled very early and

6 THE DISRUPTION OF VIRGINIA
plays a part in the stirring drama of 1861-63 only a
little less important than that of the Northern Pan
handle counties. Monongalia, Marion, Taylor, Bar
bour, Harrison, Lewis, Doddridge, Ritchie, Wirt, Cal
houn, Gilmer, Roane, Braxton, Upshur, Webster,
Nicholas, and Clay, the counties in this group, are
drained wholly or in part by the Monongahela river
system. If it be true, as Washington once said, that people's
faces are naturally turned in the direction of the flow of
their rivers, then we may comprehend why misunder
standings were constantly arising, not only between
the eastern and western Virginians but also between
the inhabitants of the smaller subdivisions of the old
state. East of the Blue Ridge the people follow their
rivers to the east or the south ; the western Virginians
reached out to the north or to the southwest. The
commercial interests of the two great parts of Virginia
were so dissimilar that when the war broke out in 1861
it was found that the two sections of Virginia had little
commercial dependence upon each other. The division
of the state in 1863 is of little importance to any one
but the historian.

CHAPTER II

POPULATION

A detailed account of the movements of population
in Virginia would carry us far beyond our province, so
it will be sufficient to remind the reader that the Eng
lish settlers made their way up the Atlantic rivers and
gradually extended their frontiers until they had
reached the base of the Alleghany Mountains. This
had taken place long before the Revolutionary War.
The population of Virginia at this time, while more
or less homogeneous, was divided into distinct classes
of society, the pioneers of the western section being
regarded as peasantry by the Tidewater patricians.
Before the beginning of the nineteenth century, how
ever, the inhabitants of the Piedmont district had de
veloped a civilization very much like that of the earlier
settled portions of the state. On all questions affect
ing their social and political life, the people of the
Tidewater and the Piedmont were one. Not so the
dwellers in the Shenandoah Valley. Separated from the
rest of the colony by the Blue Ridge, they developed
a social and economic life which differed considerably
from that which prevailed on the other side of the
mountains. An influx of Germans and Scotch-Irish,
7

8 THE DISRUPTION OF VIRGINIA
beginning in 1720, was responsible in part for this
variation in customs and manners. Each race had its
own little settlements scattered through the numerous
valleys, and there was scarcely any communication be
tween these settlements. So rarely did these people
come into contact with the outside world and so rapidly
did the Germans enter the Valley that it became neces
sary to translate the laws into the German language.
It is easy, however, to overestimate the proportion of
alien settlers in this district. Certain it is that a
majority of the Valley inhabitants came up from the
older parts of the state along the Potomac River.
The fact that the German settlers Anglicized their
names soon after landing in Virginia has made it im
possible to do more than guess at the proportion of
the population which they constituted. On the files
of the Revolutionary War records few German names
appear, which may show either that these immigrants
were averse to fighting or that they preferred chang
ing their names into good English ones. When Wash
ington came to Winchester in 1747 as a young surveyor
in the employ of Lord Fairfax the fact is recorded that
there were great numbers of settlers — Germans,
Scotch, Irish, and English, with a sprinkling of French
Protestants — already preparing homes in the Valley.1
For fifty years the Valley grew, almost unnoticed by
the older sections of the state. Its inhabitants turned
their faces longingly to the west, but previous to the
Revolution all progress in that direction was checked
»Dandridge, "Historic Shepherdstown," p. 22.

POPULATION 9
by the Proclamation of 1763, which the officials of Vir
ginia, both clerical and secular, enforced with much
zeal. In the light of later events it is just as well that
migration to the west from the Valley was not permitted
at this time, for if the Valley settlers had scattered
themselves through the wilds of western Virginia they
would have rendered far less service to their country
in the Revolutionary War.
It is impossible to trace with any degree of accuracy
the movements of population in western Virginia. We
know that the first white settlers made their abodes in
the Eastern Panhandle probably about 1726, and that
they were mainly Scotch, Welsh, and German.1 This
movement along the Potomac and its tributaries was
an easy and natural transition and so agreeably were
these pioneers impressed with their surroundings that
they were contented to remain in the Valley, and thus
did not penetrate beyond the mountains into the wilder
ness for many years. Thus up to the middle of the
eighteenth century no white settlers, so far as we are
aware, were to be found in the present boundaries of
West Virginia. Between 1750 and 1800 small isolated
settlements began to dot the borders of the state ; but
the names of these settlers and their exact location
form a matter yet to be determined by research. Emi
gration from the north to West Virginia was through
Pennsylvania down the Ohio River or up the Monon
gahela and its tributaries. The movement was gradual
1 Third Biennial Report of State Department of Archives and
History— West Virginia, 1911, p. 15.

10 THE DISRUPTION OF VIRGINIA
and the settlements so scattered that as late as 1787
Jefferson's map of Virginia shows only two towns,
Wheeling and Parkersburg, in the northern part of
western Virginia. After the Revolution the northern
Panhandle grew rapidly and with the opening of the
Mississippi River began to rival commercially the older
settlements of the east.
South of the Little Kanawha the people came mainly
from Virginia and Maryland. By 1755 pioneers had
pushed into the valley of the Greenbrier and spread
out into all parts of the Great Kanawha Valley. The
entire district west of the Blue Ridge was organized
as Augusta County and the portion lying west of
Hampshire County was commonly known as West Au
gusta. In 1769 Botetourt County was carved from
the southern portion of Augusta, extending from the
Blue Ridge to the Ohio River and separated from the
older division by a line drawn along the 55th degree
west longitude crossing Greenbrier County at the
southern terminus of the Marlin Mountains and reach
ing across to Belleville.1 Fincastle County was or
ganized in 1772 and included all the present state of
West Virginia lying between the Great Kanawha and
the Big Sandy rivers. In 1776 West Augusta was di
vided into Ohio, Monongalia, and Yohogania counties,
the latter disappearing when the extension of the Mason
and Dixon line cut off all but a small portion from
Virginia. The same year saw Fincastle County tri
sected into Kentucky, Washington, and Montgomery
1 Report quoted on p. 9.

POPULATION 11
counties; and in 1777 Greenbrier County was con
structed out of the western part of Botetourt County.
At the outbreak of the Revolution it was estimated that
there were 30,000 white people within the boundaries
of what is now West Virginia.1 In 1790 the first census
disclosed a population of approximately 59,000 people
in the nine counties lying wholly or in part in West
Virginia. The increase of population from 1800 to
the Civil War was marvelously rapid and every year
found the western counties growing both in size and
importance.2 The census of 1860 gave Virginia a
population of 1,596,318, which made it the fifth state
in the Union. The native born of the people numbered
97.81 per cent, and of the foreign born, approximately
13 per cent were English, 47 per cent Irish, 30 per cent
German. Statistics showed that 399,700 Virginians
had migrated to other states. Emigrants from other
parts of the United States into Virginia numbered
68,341, half of whom were from three states, Pennsyl
vania, Ohio, and Maryland.
Within the bounds of the present state of West Vir
ginia there were approximately 323,526 white persons
and 28,256 slaves. In eastern Virginia the slave popu
lation numbered 490,865. A comparison of the ratios
shows that in the newer sections of the state west of
the Alleghanies free persons outnumbered the slaves
1 Report quoted on page 9.
"This is shown by the following figures: 1800, 78,593 popula
tion in thirteen counties; 1810, 105,469 in sixteen counties; 1820,
136,768 in twenty-two counties; 1830, 176,924 in twenty-five
counties; 1840, 224,537 in twenty-eight counties; 1850, 302,310 in
forty counties.

12 THE DISRUPTION OF VIRGINIA
by more than ten to one, while east of the mountains
the slaves constituted nearly one third of the entire
population.1 Figures showing the distribution of the
slave population in western Virginia in 1860 serve as
a clue in determining the division of sentiment that
existed when the question of slavery was under discus
sion. The northern Panhandle with a total population
of 45,358 contained but 149 slaves. The close
proximity of this section to Ohio and Pennsylvania
made it difficult for the people to keep slaves if the
latter desired to escape. Furthermore, the large for
eign-born population residing here were almost with
out exception opposed to the institution of slavery.
In Ohio County at the outbreak of the Civil War there
were 5,511 persons of foreign birth, principally Irish
and German, thus constituting one seventh of the entire
foreign-born population of the state. In contrast with
this we have in the eastern Panhandle a population al
most entirely native-born, a people who for generations
had been accustomed to regard slavery with tolerance
if not always with entire approval. Thus on the great
question of the day the people of the two Panhandle
districts of western Virginia were as widely apart as the
poles. Morgan, Jefferson, Berkeley, Hardy, and
Hampshire counties, with a white population nearly
equal to that of the northern Panhandle counties, con
tained 7,990 slaves or nearly one third of the entire
*In I860, 58,042 free colored persons were to be found in the
state of Virginia. Of these but 2,709 lived in western Virginia.
A strong antipathy appears to have existed in the latter section
for free negroes.

POPULATION 13
slave population of the western section. In only two
other counties were there more than 1,000 slaves,
Greenbrier with 1,525 and Monroe with 1,114. In the
twelve counties bordering on the Ohio River there were
but 1,247 slaves, while in the six counties drained by
the Great Kanawha River the slave population num
bered 3,047. Turning to the north, we find that the
counties in the Monongahela Valley held 1,336 slaves;
of these eight counties Harrison contained almost as
many negroes as the other seven counties combined.
The truth now becomes apparent that slaves in west
ern Virginia were of little economic importance, while
in the eastern part of the state they were almost the
sine qua non of the prosperity of the planters of that
section.1 In 1870 Virginia produced 37,086,364
pounds of tobacco with the value of $7,154,770. West
Virginia the same year raised 2,046,452 pounds of
tobacco valued at $457,573. In the production of wool
West Virginia was in the lead, with a total of 1,593,541
pounds to 877,110 pounds.2 Negroes are peculiarly
fitted for the cultivation of tobacco, a plant which re
quires the attention of many hands. In the raising of
sheep a large area is needed, but comparatively few
laborers. Hence the relative uselessness of the negro
slave in those counties where the soil was not fitted for
'In the decade between 1850-60 the increase of population by
sections is shown as follows:
Tidewater Piedmont Valley Trans-Alleghany
Whites  29% 15% 14% 26%
Slaves  12% 6% 3% 11%
— De Bow's Review, 1860, Vol. 28, p. 354.
•United States Census Reports, 1870.

14 THE DISRUPTION OF VIRGINIA
the production of tobacco. In Virginia, with almost
no exception, the counties producing the largest amount
of tobacco contained the greatest number of slaves. In
western Virginia we discover an apparently anomalous
situation. Here the counties containing the greatest
number of slaves raised little or no tobacco, while other
counties wdth few slaves produced great quantities of
the plant. Thus of the largest slaveholding counties
Berkeley raised no tobacco, Greenbrier, 3,000 pounds
annually, Hampshire, 53 pounds, and Jefferson, 6,700
pounds. Monroe with 1,114 slaves raised in one year
123,221 pounds, but slavery was evidently of less im
portance than we might think, for a decade later when
the institution of slavery had been abolished the census
reports show that Monroe produced almost identically
the same amount of tobacco as in I860. The largest
tobacco-raising counties of West Virginia were, in 1860,
Jackson, Fayette, Kanawha, Mercer, Monroe, and Put
nam. In the first named there were but 55 slaves; in
the second, 271 slaves ; in the third, 629 slaves ; in the
fourth, 362 slaves; in the fifth, 1,114, and in the last,
with a production of 472,765 pounds of tobacco, there
were only 580 slaves. The irresistible conclusion is that
in the counties west of the Alleghany Mountains the
ordinary dependence of tobacco-raisers upon slaves did
not exist ; comparatively few persons were seriously
affected when slavery was abolished and the strong de
fense of the institution was principally founded on
sentimental reasons. In the first five years after the
Civil War Virginia's output of tobacco was less than

POPULATION 15
one third of what it had been in I860, while during the
same period the production of tobacco in West Virginia
increased by one third. No better proof could be de
sired that slavery played but little part in the economic
life of the Western Virginians.

CHAPTER HI
SOCIAL AND ECONOMIC DIVERGENCIES
The divergence of interest between the two sections
is further illustrated by a comparison of the manu
facture of iron, West Virginia's tonnage being nearly
three times as great as that of Virginia. The eastern
section of the state was comparatively poor in natural
resources, while the western counties were underlain
with great quantities of iron, coal, oil, and other prod
ucts which lie beneath the surface of the earth.
Church statistics reveal the fact that out of a total
of one hundred and eighty-eight Episcopal churches
in the state of Virginia one hundred and seventy-two
were to be found in the eastern section ; fifty-six out of
seventy-three Disciples churches were in the same part
of the state; sixteen out of seventeen Quaker churches;
ten of the twelve German Reformed congregations;
two of the three Jewish churches; fifty-eight out of
sixty-nine Lutheran churches ; nine hundred and sixty-
two out of fourteen hundred and three Methodist
churches; one hundred and ninety-seven out of two
hundred and ninety Presbyterian congregations; and
fourteen of the thirty-three Catholic churches were in
16

SOCIAL AND ECONOMIC DIVERGENCIES 17
the east.1 The significant fact here is that the Estab
lished Church of Virginia maintained its traditional
aloofness and made no efforts to establish new parishes
in the western counties. In the latter section such
churches as did exist were mainly evangelical. The at
titude of the western inhabitants of Virginia toward the
Episcopal Church was not altogether unlike that of the
Scotch Covenanters towards the members of the Estab
lished Church of England. Religiously, socially, and
economically the people of West Virginia differed as
widely from their eastern brethren as to-day the moun
taineer of the isolated sections of Kentucky or Ten
nessee differs from the dweller in Louisville or Mem
phis. "Commerce is the grand lever which sets in opera
tion and controls all important political movements."
The truth of this is too well established to require
exemplification. We might go a little further and say
that absence of commercial relations is the grand lever
which sets in motion many political misunderstandings.
That this was the case in Virginia is beyond dispute,
and a little inquiry into the subject reveals a situation
unique in the history of the various commonwealths of
the United States. We see a state containing 67,000
square miles of territory, divided into unequal parts by
high mountain ranges. Commerce on the eastern side
follows its natural course and is diverted toward the
Atlantic Ocean. In the western region, following the
•All figures and estimates given above were taken from the
United States Census Reports of 1860 and 1870.

18 THE DISRUPTION OF VIRGINIA
natural law, commercial communications are carried on
almost wholly with the cities and towns of the section
of the United States drained by the Mississippi and its
tributaries. In this age Nature's commands are fre
quently disregarded by ingenious man; and railroads,
canals, and steamships have not only annihilated dis
tance, but have afforded easy means of communication
between regions separated by natural barriers. Not
so in Virginia. Blind to the certain consequences of
continued sectional strife, having as its great cause lack
of personal contact between the people of the two sec
tions, the Old Dominion made little effort to bring to
gether the mountain-severed peoples.
It is not to be understood that there were entirely
lacking wise men who endeavored to bridge the gap, for,
as we shall see, the number of schemes having this
object in view is evidence that the danger was foreseen
in some quarters. A note of alarm was sounded offi
cially in 1857. After complaining that the products
of western Virginia were sent to Pennsylvania, Ohio,
and Louisiana the writer declares as follows: "Thus,
by every geographical and geological cause were our
people segregated into separate communities and di
vided from each other and all mutual commercial de
pendency." Lack of harmony, we are told, resulted in
schemes of internal improvements which were dictated
by sectional feeling.1 The writer in the role of apolo
gist is not altogether successful; his evident purpose
1 Address of Governor Henry A. Wise. De Bow's Revitw,
1857, Vol. 23, pp. 58-70.

SOCIAL AND ECONOMIC DIVERGENCIES 19
was to excuse or at least to palliate the evident selfish
ness and short-sightedness of the people of his section
who had long controlled legislative affairs in Virginia.
He describes correctly the difficulties which would pre
sent themselves to the railroad engineer who endeavored
to pierce the mountain ranges. To bring the Ohio
River region into connection with the cismontane it
was necessary to "pass over or through a backbone of
from one to two hundred miles of mountains running
in parallel ridges north, east, and southwest across
her entire limit. Tunnel after tunnel at short intervals
arrest her progress and make each work one of patient
labor and of time. She has to overcome a summit level
of nearly 2,000 feet for a breadth from east to west;
which no other people on the continent, any more than
Virginians, have as yet overcome." x
Looking backward from the year 1861 we see a suc
cession of abortive attempts to unite the sections of
the state. The ambition of the Chesapeake & Ohio
Canal Company was to bring together the waters of
the Potomac and the Monongahela rivers. This plan
did not result in anything especially beneficial to Vir
ginia and it may be doubted if the completion of the
canal from Cumberland, Maryland, to the Mononga
hela would have served the purpose we are now dis
cussing. It is probable that its effect would have been
similar to that of the Baltimore & Ohio Railroad —
that is, the diversion of western trade to Baltimore
rather than to Richmond. Something of this kind
1De Bow's Review, 1857, Vol. 23, pp. 58-70.

20 THE DISRUPTION OF VIRGINIA
must have been foreseen because the James River &
Kanawha Canal Company was the direct outgrowth of
the hostility toward the Chesapeake and Ohio Canal on
the part of the eastern Virginians. A convention was
held at Charlottesville to revive interest in the plan of
uniting the James and the Kanawha rivers. While
nothing definite was done, the scheme was not aban
doned, for it appears again in the Constitutional Con
vention of 1829-30. Here sectional jealousies again
prevented action. The western members of the con
vention were accused of making an attempt to swamp
the state with a debt created for the purpose of bene
fiting the west alone.1 And in the latter section there
was lack of agreement between the counties of the
northeast and the southwest, the former favoring the
Chesapeake & Ohio plan and the latter, the union of the
James and the Kanawha. In the Virginia Assembly of
1828 a bill was introduced whereby the state would
subscribe for $400,000 worth of Chesapeake & Ohio
stock.2 As its only strong supporters were the repre
sentatives from the two Panhandle districts, the bill
failed. Of far greater importance to the state was the
project which had for its purpose the connecting of the
James and the Kanawha rivers. Here the benefits
would have been far greater to the Richmond district
than to any western region. But lack of foresight
again was the cause of the failure of the plan, which
1 Debates of Constitutional Convention of 1829-30, p. 154 et
seq., p. 211 et seq.
'Ibid., p. 114.

SOCIAL AND ECONOMIC DIVERGENCIES 21
might have prevented in 1861 the defection of the
counties drained by the Kanawha.
Thus the golden opportunity was allowed to slip by
with but feeble attempts to carry out the projected
scheme, and when the Civil War broke out the canal
had been completed only as far as the town of
Buchanon.1 Sectional differences were immediately re
sponsible for the lack of action, but even if these had
not existed the Whigs and the Democrats would have
checked any attempt to provide for a permanent plan
of improvements. Far-sighted merchants, however,
continued their efforts to bring the sections of the state
into closer commercial relationship. In an annual re
port of one of their associations it was recommended
that the Assembly lay aside all petty jealousies and
pass a bill for the union of the James and the Kanawha
rivers, "and thus complete one of the grandest schemes
that has engaged the attention of the country since the
proposition of the Erie Canal." 2
The relations of the Baltimore & Ohio Railroad with
the state of Virginia are inextricably mixed up with
party and sectional politics. Like the Chesapeake &
Ohio Canal, the road was to touch merely that part of
Virginia bordering on the Potomac and would un
doubtedly serve to draw trade away from Richmond
toward Baltimore. The charter was first confirmed in
1827 ; in 1836 the state subscribed for $302,100 worth
1 In Botetourt County.
1 Report of Merchant Exchange of Norfolk. De Bow s Review,
1860, Vol. 28, p. 100 et seq.

22 THE DISRUPTION OF VIRGINIA
of bonds, and in 1838 this subscription was increased
by $1,058,420. An extension was granted the same
year, whereby the Company should be given until 1843
to complete the road, which had thus far reached only
to Cumberland, Maryland, one hundred and seventy-
eight miles from Baltimore.1 The next four years were
marked by the unavailing efforts of the Company to
get a new and more satisfactory charter from the Vir
ginia Assembly, but so many demands were made and
so many restrictions regarding taxation and routes
were insisted upon that no common agreement could be
made until 1847, in which year a charter was granted
whereby the road was to be constructed from Cumber
land to Fairmont 2 and thence to Wheeling.3 This
proved to be a working agreement; the project was
carried on with all possible speed and on January 1,
1853, the first train was run over the road into Wheel
ing, thus bringing the Ohio River district within easy
distance of the eastern markets. As a means of con
summating a union of eastern and western Virginia the
Baltimore & Ohio Railroad was a complete failure. It
confirmed Wheeling in its position as the first city in
western Virginia and brought the people of the Ohio
River district more closely together, but its commercial
effect was to attract trade from all parts of the north
west to the city of Baltimore. Thus in 1858 the Bal-
• For complete account see Milton Reizenstein, "Economic His
tory of the Baltimore and Ohio Railroad, 1827-^53," Johns Hop
kins University Studies, Series XV, pp. 283-360.
' In Marion County, now West Virginia,
* On the Ohio River.

SOCIAL AND ECONOMIC DIVERGENCIES 23
timore & Ohio Railroad carried into its eastern term
inus 1,000,594 barrels of flour, of which 682,314 came
from the Wheeling district. Again, the route across
the mountains from Wheeling to Baltimore proved of
the greatest assistance to the Union during the Civil
War. Except for a brief space of time in 1861, when
the Confederates were in possession of certain sections
of the road, the Northern Government controlled its
operations and used it to transport troops and supplies
from the western states to the east. It is easy to see
that so far as the welfare of eastern Virginia was con
cerned, the building of the Baltimore & Ohio Railroad
was a mistake.1
A report to Congress in 1857 shows that the tonnage
of the Ohio River from Pittsburgh to Louisville
amounted to $138,630 per annum, and in one year,
1856, 1,150,453 persons had traveled up and down the
river between the cities of Pittsburgh, Wheeling, Cin
cinnati, and Louisville.2 Some of this traffic was di
verted naturally toward the Mississippi; a great deal
of it went to Baltimore after 1853, but unquestionably
a railroad uniting directly Richmond and the Ohio
River would have worked a revolution in commercial
geography. When to this are added the tremendous
benefits which would have accrued to all sections
through the opening up of the rich coal fields of the
1 It is to be noted that in 1846 an act of the Virginia Assembly
repealed the former act of 1836 and 1838 subscribing for stock
in the B. & O. R. R.
'Report of Captain Palmer, a topographical engineer, to Con
gress. De Bow's Review, 1857, Vol. 23, p. 630.

24 THE DISRUPTION OF VIRGINIA
Kanawha region, it is very evident that the failure of
the eastern Virginians to foresee the latent possibilities
of the Trans- Alleghany counties was the cause of their
undoing and, more than anything else, made the division
of the state possible. A railroad such as the Chesa
peake & Ohio connecting Huntington on the Ohio River
with Staunton or Lynchburg, with a lateral branch to
Richmond, might have had the effect of preserving the
state intact.
In 1861 there were 1,379 miles of completed railroads
in the state of Virginia. Of these but 361 miles were
located in the western counties.1 It had long been the
custom of the Virginia Assembly to subscribe for three
fifths of the stock in any intra-state railroad,2 but al
most no encouragement was given to companies plan
ning to open up the western region. In 1860 the state
owned railroad bonds to the amount of $20,000,000 and
not a dollar of this had been spent in western Virginia.
The Covington & Ohio Railroad was designed to con
nect Charleston with the Big Sandy region, but the
plan fell through, as usual because of sectional jeal
ousies, and the railroad panic of 1857 put a final qui
etus on the efforts of its promoters. A report made
to the General Assembly in 1857 urged the necessity
of a state grant to the Alexandria, Loudoun, & Hamp
shire Railroad, which had for its object a junction with
the Baltimore & Ohio near Piedmont. This was an old
project, but it was not carried through until many
'Poore's "Manual of Railroads," 1869-70, Preface, p. xxvii.
* American Railroad Journal, 1854, p. 116.

SOCIAL AND ECONOMIC DIVERGENCIES 25
years later, long after there was any particular object
in bringing together the northwest and the southeast.
When trouble between the North and the South
seemed inevitable, there was a reawakening of interest
in the plans having for their purpose the bettering of
means of communication between all sections of the
state, for it was seen that western Virginia, isolated as
it was from other sections of the South, could be taken
by Northern troops with little opposition. Former
opponents x now urged the completion of the Coving
ton & Ohio Railroad because it would permit western
Virginia to send troops to eastern Virginia in the event
of war. A new light seemed to dawn upon those who
had previously been blind to the necessity of bringing
the eastern and western sections of the state together.
"It will be observed that two fifths of the whole Trans-
Alleghany region is wholly isolated, that it has no com
munication with the northern frontier except a pre
carious one up the Ohio, and none with eastern Vir
ginia. Yet this very region is the seat of a large por
tion of the military portion of the state. ... It is as
if we had a citadel filled with men and outworks feebly
manned, with no connection from one to the other."
Stated baldly, the evident purpose of these new sup
porters of internal improvements was to make the west
serve as a bulwark to protect the east. Their previ
ously successful attempts to block progress in the
western section now proved to be a boomerang and, too
'Notably the Richmond Enquirer.
'De Bow's Review, Vol. 19, p. 445.

26 THE DISRUPTION OF VIRGINIA
late, they had seen the light. Nothing could now be
accomplished. Railroads were not built in a day or a
year. The storm burst in 1861 and found Virginia
almost as completely severed as she had been in Revo
lutionary War days.

CHAPTER IV
THE OPENING OP THE BREACH
Nothing illustrates better the domineering spirit of
the Tidewater planters than the fact that each new
community as it established itself in the west gave un
mistakable evidence of chafing under a political
tyranny. The Piedmont, the Valley, and the Trans-
Alleghany regions in succession, and sometimes work
ing in conjunction, made vigorous but usually futile
protests against the unjust discrimination existing in
the state constitution and in statutory enactments.
Kept in power by a system of representation that was
only a degree less antiquated than the English rotten
borough system, a small eastern clique was enabled to
put through such legislation as it pleased. With the
history of the struggle of the Piedmont and the Valley
for political equality, we are concerned only when it
connects itself with the longer and more bitter quarrel
between the Trans-Alleghany and the Tidewater. The
constitution of 1851 was satisfactory to all the various
sections on the eastern side of the Alleghanies; old
grievances had been redressed and for the first time in
the history of Virginia all differences seemed to have
been composed. 27

28 THE DISRUPTION OF VIRGINIA
Before 1830 the inhabitants of western Virginia,
"the peasantry of the West," worked under almost
every political disadvantage which could afflict a free
people. The constitution of 1776 established a unit
scheme of representation, each county sending two dele
gates to the General Assembly. Its injustice became
apparent after 1800, when the western counties began
to fill up rapidly, while in the Tidewater district a dis
tinct retrogression set in. The parallel between the
situation in Virginia before 1830 and that in England
before the Reform Bill of 1832 must instantly suggest
itself. The transmontane counties of Virginia were
only a degree less unjustly treated than the manufac
turing districts of northern England, and the decadent
counties of eastern Virginia might not inaptly be com
pared with English boroughs such as Old Sarum.
The rapid growth of the west is shown by the fol
lowing figures: From 1790 to 1810 Harrison County
increased in population from 2,080 to 9,958; Ohio
County, from 5,212 to 8,175 ; Pendleton County, from
2,452 to 4,234; Randolph, from 951 to 2J854.1 The
refusal of the Assembly to provide for the proportion
ate increase of representation in the House of Dele
gates enabled the eastern members to retain the balance
of power. Thus "forty-nine counties adjacent to each
other in the eastern and southern sections of the state
had a majority of the whole number of representatives
in the most numerous branch of the legislature, and
those counties and boroughs contained in 1810 only
1 Niles Register, 1812, Vol. 1, p. 289.

THE OPENING OF THE BREACH 29
204,766 white inhabitants, less than one half of the pop
ulation of the state by 72,138 souls." x The Senate was
composed of twenty-four members elected from sena
torial districts, and in the course of years the shifting
of population had rendered the old grouping of counties
as much out of date as was the system of representa
tion in the lower house. Thus we find that in 1810,
212,036 white persons of Virginia were represented by
four Senators, while in another part of the state thir
teen Senators were chosen by a white population of
162,717.2 Jefferson declares that "the majority of the
men in the state who pay and fight for its support are
unrepresented in the legislature, the roll of freeholders
entitled to vote not including the half of those on the
roll of the militia or of the tax gatherers." 3 In one
company of eighty men which fought in the war of
1812 there was only one voter. It is not surprising,
however, to find in Virginia before 1830 the voting
privilege limited to freeholders, for such was almost
universally the case throughout the United States.4
According to the writers and speakers of the east, this
restriction worked very little hardship upon the west
ern inhabitants of Virginia, for land was cheap and
plentiful in the west and one might qualify as a free
holder for a very small sum of money. "In the west a
'From the Memorial of the Staunton Convention of 1816.
Quoted in Niles Register, 1816, Vol. 11, pp. 15-23.
-Ibid."'Notes on Virginia." (Phila., 1794), p. 168.
¦ According to a speaker in the convention of 1829-30, Virginia
was the only state in the Union which maintained the freehold
qualifications throughout. See "Debates," p. 356.

30 THE DISRUPTION OF VIRGINIA
certain quantity of land, not worth five cents in all,
was sufficient to make a man a voter, while in the east
the smallest quantity of land communicating the same
privilege was worth from fifty to one hundred dollars." 1
The persons really discriminated against were the lease
holders, the mechanics and tradesmen of the cities, and
the small farmers of the east. These, rather than the
yeomen of the west, had reason to complain of electoral
injustice. Nevertheless, it is from the west that the
cry of oppression is most frequently heard. It was
declared that the rights which the Revolutionary fa
thers obtained by the sword had been resisted by the
little eastern counties, feeling power and forgetting
right. We are told that one western county, in regard
to population, wealth, and physical force should have
had the weight of ten eastern counties, some of which
had scarcely two hundred free white males in them above
the age of twenty-six.2
Evidence of the discontent existing in Virginia be
fore 1816 is rather fragmentary, such as the expression
in a certain memorial that only the immediate rectifi
cation of present evils could allay "the excitement ex
isting in the state." 3 In 1816 the sectional troubles
culminated in the Staunton Convention, the first of a
series of meetings held for the purpose of protesting
against the administration of the Richmond Junto.
Thirty-seven counties lying between the Blue Ridge and
1 Debates of Constitutional Convention, 1829-30, p. 346.
'Niles Register, 1822, Vol. 23, pp. 341-342.
3 Memorial of the Staunton Convention. See above, p. 29.

THE OPENING OF THE BREACH 31
the Ohio River were represented by seventy delegates.
From the Trans-AUeghany were twenty-eight delegates
from the following counties : Berkeley, Brooke, Green
brier, Hampshire, Hardy, Harrison, Jefferson, Kana
wha, Monongalia, Monroe, Ohio, Pendleton, Randolph,
and Wood.1 In this convention Botetourt, Rockbridge,
Augusta, and Montgomery counties favored merely a
mild petition to the legislature urging a redistricting of
the state. Delegates from the counties further west
felt the need of a stronger method of persuasion and
were willing to go to any reasonable length to accomp
lish their purpose. Their chief ambition was to provide
for the amendment of the state constitution "so as to
give a fair and equal representation to every part of
the state in both branches of the legislature." 2 The
convention adjourned after drawing up a memorial to
the General Assembly and providing for a working
organization in each county. In the petition only the
mildest language was used, and it was even declared
that existing inequalities were caused by the "opera
tion of natural causes." The legislature was requested
to call a constitutional convention for the purpose of
redressing certain wrongs which were inevitable under
the old constitution.
At various times, beginning in 1817, bills had been
introduced into the General Assembly providing for the
'The delegates elected from Tyler County failed to put in
their appearance.
aIt is interesting to observe that the delegates from the ex
treme western counties were more conservative than the Valley
delegates.

32 THE DISRUPTION OF VIRGINIA
calling of a constitutional convention. Sometimes they
had passed the lower house only to be defeated in the
Senate.1 The services of Thomas Jefferson were en
listed in the cause of constitutional revision and the
noble old democrat, then standing on the brink of the
grave, expressed his views in language which could not
be misunderstood. "Upon what principle of right or
reason can anyone justify the giving to every citizen
of Warwick as much weight in the government as twen
ty-two equal citizens in Loudoun ?" 2 he asks, and the
eastern patricians could only reply that the constitu
tion, under which they had enjoyed for forty years a
share of political prosperity and personal blessings
which had rarely fallen to the lot of man, should not be
left to the mercy of untried hands.
In 1823 a new line of attack was begun and the mat
ter of removing the capital from Richmond to some
city in the Valley was first agitated. Representative
Baldwin who sponsored the bill in the House of Dele
gates showed that Richmond was not even close to the
center of white population any longer. Since 1790 the
west had increased 132,076, while the east had gained
but 42,032. But Richmond as the seat of government
was too firmly fixed in the minds of the people of the
state to be shaken by anything less than a revolution,
and it was altogether likely that the proposal was a
sort of declaration of intention, to the effect that if
1 In 1817 the contest was a close one and moves the editor of
Niles Register to remark: "We hardly believed that it would have
been so much opposed." Vol 11, p. 399.
'Ibid., 1824, Vol. 26, p. 179.

THE OPENING OF THE BREACH 33
more privileges were not granted the western counties
there would be open war between the sections of the
state. At the time there is no question that Virginia
was "an aristocratical republic" where the right of suf
frage, which was the constituent quality and the sov
ereign power of a citizen, was limited to the landed
aristocracy of the state.1 Little wonder that in an as
sembly where "working people were rarely found" 2 and
little welcomed, a bill designed to democratize the or
ganic law of the state encountered bitter opposition.
The voice of the people would not be stilled, how
ever, and the Assembly was forced to yield to the im
portunities of the western counties ; so in 1828 the
question of calling a constitutional convention was sub
mitted to the people of the state and the proposition
was endorsed by a vote of 21,896 to 16,646. As might
be expected seven eighths of the Tidewater district
were in opposition. We are somewhat surprised to find
an almost equal division of opinion in the Piedmont.
The vote in the Valley was overwhelmingly in favor of
the convention; and in the Trans-AUeghany three
fourths of the qualified voters expressed their ap
proval.3 February 10, 1829, the General Assembly
passed an act calling for the election of delegates to a
convention which should meet in Richmond October 5,
1829, for the purpose of revising the existing constitu
tion or of drawing up a new one. The western members
1 Niles Register, 1825. See article on "Sovereignty of the
People," Vol. 27, pp. 17, 33, 49, 66, 97.
'Ibid.
¦Ambler, "Sectionalism in Virginia," p. 144.

34 THE DISRUPTION OF VIRGINIA
of the legislature contended for the election of dele
gates on the basis of white population, but they were
overruled and a compromise favorable to the east was
adopted, giving each senatorial district four repre
sentatives. That this plan worked to the advantage of
the eastern counties may be seen from the fact that of
the ninety-six delegates to the convention forty-eight
were from the Tidewater, twenty from the Piedmont,
and twenty-eight from the Valley and the Trans-
Alleghany. As the two older sections of the state were
one on all important questions, particularly when their
political primacy was at stake, the result was to give
the conservatives sixty-eight of the ninety-six dele
gates in the convention. Stated more graphically, 362,-
745 white inhabitants in the Tidewater and Piedmont
elected sixty-eight delegates and 319,518 white persons
in the Valley and Trans-Alleghany were represented by
twenty-eight delegates.1 Several eastern senatorial dis
tricts contained fewer than 20,000 whites, while the
western senatorial districts, entitled to the same num
ber of representatives, four, had a population of from
37,000 to 60,000.2
1 Debates of Constitutional Convention, 1829-30, p. 335.
'Ibid., p. 87.

CHAPTER V
THE CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION OE 1829-30
In no state convention, perhaps, have there been more
distinguished men than in the convention which assem
bled at Richmond October 5, 1829. The presence of
Madison, Monroe, and Marshall alone would have given
the gathering unusual prominence ; but there were other
men, no less able, possessing reputations which extended
far beyond the borders of the state. Senators Tyler
and Tazewell, Representatives Randolph and Barbour,
Judges Upshur and Green upheld the tradition that
Virginia was the mother of statesmen. All the above-
mentioned persons were from that part of Virginia
lying between the Blue Ridge and the sea. From the
west came men of only local prominence, but their
character and ability were soon recognized on the floor
of the convention hall. Philip Doddridge and Alexan
der Campbell, from Brooke County, deserve special
mention. Doddridge had served in the National House
of Representatives and was the author of a book which
created quite a furore at the time.1 Campbell is best
known as the founder of the Disciples (or Christian)
Church. Eloquent speakers such as Tazewell, Upshur,
'Doddridge's "Notes," printed in 1824, was one of the first
anti-slavery publications to receive wide circulation.
35

36 THE DISRUPTION OF VIRGINIA
and Green met their match in this western preacher,
upheld as he was by the splendid logic and the unsur
passed eloquence of Mr. Doddridge. The other sixteen
delegates from the Trans-Alleghany were unknown to
their eastern colleagues, and received but scant consid
eration. Throughout the convention the Trans-Alle
ghany and the Valley were aligned against the Pied
mont and the Tidewater, the Blue Ridge forming
the dividing line as did the Alleghanies thirty years
later. The convention organized with James Monroe as
President, but before the meetings were half over he
was compelled to resign because of poor health and P.
P. Barbour x was elected to fill the place. Four com
mittees consisting of one delegate from each of the
twenty-four districts were appointed, and to one com
mittee was assigned the task of framing the clauses re
lating to the legislative department; to another was
assigned the executive department; to a third, the
judicial, while the fourth was to report a bill of rights.2
In the debate upon the appointment of committees Mr.
Tazewell of Norfolk borough advocated the revision of
the old constitution because the small majority which
had called together the convention was composed of a
"mixed and heterogeneous mass," while the minority
who opposed the act were made up of an element re
spectable in numbers and character.3 Thus in one sen-
1 Afterward Associate Justice of the United States Supreme
Court. ' "Debates," pp. 20-21.
'Ibid., p. 17.

CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION OF 1829-30 37
tence we can perceive the narrow and intolerant spirit
which dominated the minds of the Tidewater aristocrats.
Two great questions were under discussion the major
portion of the time; viz., the basis of representation
and the extension of the voting privilege. The Trans-
Alleghany was most interested in the former question,
for the reason that slaves composed but a small part
of the population of its counties. Delegates from the
Valley, in which section resided a large and intelligent
non-voting class, massed their strength against the re
strictions on suffrage.
The committees on judiciary and executive reported
on October 20th, but the only change of any impor
tance which they recommended was the abolition of the
Governor's Council, a body that had given offense to
the west by its opposition to internal improvement.1
October 24th the legislative committee made its report,
one that precipitated a debate which lasted with but
slight intermission until the end of the session. The
most important recommendations of this committee
were: First, that in the apportionment of representa
tion in the House of Delegates regard should be had to
white population exclusively; second, that reappor
tionment should be made at least every twenty years
after 1845; third, that suffrage be extended to three
classes of citizens besides the freeholders already exer
cising that right — namely, owners of an estate in fee,
in remainder, or in reversion, leaseholders, and certain
heads of families paying revenue to the state. The
1 "Debates," p. 33 et seq.

38 THE DISRUPTION OF VIRGINIA
fourth recommendation was to the effect that the num
ber of Senators should neither be increased nor dim
inished. These suggestions met with the approval of
the eastern delegates, who had always upheld the prin
ciple that property as well as persons should be repre
sented. So Judge Upshur says, "If the interests of
the several parts of the commonwealth were identical it
would be safe and proper that a majority of persons
only should give the rule of political power. But our
interests are not identical and the difference between us
arises from property alone." 1
Doddridge attacked this position and showed that
under the rule of property the west had been retarded
in growth. "Your doctrine makes me a slave," he said
to Upshur; "we are a majority of individual units in
the state and your equals in intelligence and virtue,
moral and political. Yet you say we must obey you.
You declare that the rule of the minority has never
oppressed us nor visited us with practical evil; but of
this we are the best judges. We have felt your weight
and have suffered under misrule." 2 An amendment to
the first resolution reported by the committee on legis
lature providing "that in the apportionment of repre
sentation in the House of Delegates regard should be
had to white population and taxation combined," pro
voked a discussion which lasted three weeks. Its only
effect was to increase the ill-feeling among the dele
gates. The east favored the amendment, on the ground
1 "Debates," p. 65 et seq.
'Ibid., p. 88.

CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION OF 1829-30 39
that power to govern should reside in that portion of
the people which paid the most taxes. The west, it was
asserted, took more from the treasury each year than
it contributed and yet it was asking the east to trans
fer political control to those who were paying one
fourth of the taxes.1 The approximate truth of this
statement was admitted by the western speakers who,
in rebuttal, replied that if property was to be counted
as a basis for voting, consistency demanded that each
person be entitled to as many votes as some standard
which should be fixed by his tax receipts should war
rant. Then and only then could we "come out into the
open as an aristocracy and not parade around in the
guise of a republic." 2
The contemptuous attitude exhibited by the eastern
delegates toward their western colleagues did much to
widen the breach which had existed before the conven
tion met. For example, Mr. Leigh, of Chesterfield
County, expressed the following opinion: "In every
civilized country under the sun some there must be who
labor for their daily bread, either by contract with or
subjection to others, or for themselves. Slaves in the
eastern part of this state fill the place of the peasan
try of Europe, of the peasantry or day laborers in the
non-slaveholding states of this Union. . . . Even in
the present state of the population beyond the Alle
ghany there must be some peasantry . . . that is,
men who tend the herd and dig the soil, who have
^'Debates," p. 112.
'Ibid.

40 THE DISRUPTION OF VIRGINIA
neither real nor personal capital of their own and who
earn their daily bread by the sweat of their brow.
These, by this scheme 1 are all to be represented — but
not our slaves. And yet in political economy the lat
ter fill exactly the same place. . . . Now what real
share so far as mmd is concerned does any man suppose
the peasantry of the west . . . can or will take in the
affairs of the state?" 2
November 7th the one Tidewater delegate 3 who ad
vocated the adoption of the white basis of representa
tion throughout resigned, because he had been re
quested by his constituents to support his fellow mem
bers from the east. His withdrawal and the election
of Hugh Grigsby weakened the reformers at a time
when every vote counted. So tightly were party lines
drawn and so embittered did the discussions become that
more than once a division of the state was suggested as
the only possible outcome of an otherwise insoluble
question. Mr. Monroe was fearful that such would be
the outcome eventually, and Mr. Giles held the same
view. "Could not every gentleman see in these extra
ordinary excitements and actual movements of the
people great danger of a separation, particularly
where a geographical line of demarcation was already
1 Referring to the recommendation of the committee to appor
tion delegates in the lower house according to white population.
'"Debates," p. 158 et seq. The terms "peasantry" and "yeo
manry" had always been applied to the Trans-Alleghany settlers.
The Richmond Whig and Advertiser May 13, 1836, tells of a
monument erected at Norfolk to the "brave and patriotic yeo
manry of the upper country who defended Norfolk in 1814-15."
• Robert B. Taylor of Norfolk. "Debates," p. 234.

CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION OF 1829-30 41
designated for separating the combatants?" he
asks.1 The discussion dragged along until November 14th
when it was brought to a conclusion by John Randolph
in a typical speech wherein he declares that it was the
first time in his life he had ever heard of power being di
vorced from property, and said, furthermore, that if
he were a younger man he would not "live under the
monstrous tyranny of King Numbers which it was pro
posed to subject. us to." 2 Green's amendment was de
feated by a vote of forty-seven to forty-nine. Mr.
Leigh now proposed to adopt the federal basis of rep
resentation in the House of Delegates, a proceeding
characterized by Alexander Campbell as that of "mak
ing three white men out of five negroes or of putting
five souls into three bodies." 3 Mr. Leigh's proposition
was defeated and as it was perceived that no compro
mise could be effected at this time, the section was
passed by and the recommendations in reference to suf
frage were taken up.
The east was firmly opposed to the extension of the
ballot. Already there were too many ignorant voters
in the state and now it was proposed to add further to
the list. Mr. Wilson of Monongalia County offered a
substitute for the report of the committee, which, if
adopted, would have given Virginia a most liberal suf
frage law. The only qualifications for voting were to
'"Debates," p. 253.
'Ibid., p. 321.
'Ibid., p. 123.

42 THE DISRUPTION OF VIRGINIA
be those of age, residence, enrollment in the militia, and
the possession of good character and sound mind. The
abolition of the freehold limitation was urged because,
first, it worked a hardship upon the man who was so
unfortunate as to lose his property; second, because
many able persons failed to acquire property; third,
because it banished "vast numbers of our young men to
the western states, where this odious restriction does
not exist. ... I speak of western Virginia when I say
that if the state were called upon to furnish annually
her quota of troops to aid the general Government in
resisting the attack of all Europe combined it would
not consume our strength or retard our population
more than do the restrictions imposed by her laws upon
the right of suffrage." 2 In opposition to this it was
declared that the freehold restriction was the safeguard
of the middle class and the enemy of aristocracy. The
dependents of the wealthier classes would vote as they
were directed, a condition which would be far worse
than the existing one.2 Mr. Wilson's substitute was
defeated thirty-seven to fifty-three.3 The west was
now committed to universal suffrage and around this
the debate raged for many days. It was advocated as
the panacea for all political ills and opposed as the
source of all the evils to which the flesh was heir. Mon-
1 "Debates," p. 254.
' Ibid., p. 367.
"Monroe, Madison, and Marshall all voted in the negative, and
in practically all questions aligned themselves with the con
servatives, although on several occasions Madison voted with the
western delegates.

CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION OF 1829-30 43
roe, whose aim as long as he sat in the convention 1 was
to play the part of pacificator, wished to reconcile the
divergent views of the members if possible, but proved
from history that every republic which had decayed and
passed away was first of all undermined by laws de
signed to open up citizenship and voting to those peo
ple who had no permanent interest in the State.2
By mutual consent the convention passed on to con
sider the question of how the Senate should be chosen.
Many propositions were brought in designed to reform
this body, but the plan finally adopted was one which
left unchanged the basis of representation. It merely
distributed the Senators among the four grand divi
sions of the state — a virtual recognition of sectional
ism. There were to be thirty-two Senators and one
hundred and thirty-four members in the lower house.
The Valley and the Trans-Alleghany split on the ques
tion of the adoption of the white basis of representa
tion. The former possessed large numbers of slaves and
was not willing to see them omitted when the time came
for apportioning representation. The plan finally
agreed to suited this section very well, as it left unset
tled the question at issue and gave to its counties a
much larger delegation in the legislature.3
1 He resigned Dec. 12, 1829.
2 "Debates," p. 325.
sThe plan finally adopted was opposed by every Trans-Alle
ghany delegate; was voted for by every delegate from the
Tidewater, while the Valley cast the deciding vote in its favor.
Nearly all the eastern delegates who voted for the white basis
were from counties bordering on North Carolina, Kentucky, and
Maryland.

44 THE DISRUPTION OF VIRGINIA
The executive department was the next object of at
tack, and here Mr. Doddridge proposed a radical
change — that of having the Governor elected by the
people instead of by the legislature. The council was
to be abolished altogether. In spite of the fact that
the conservatives could find few real arguments against
these proposals they were defeated. Similarly an ef
fort to have the county court elected by the people in
stead of being appointed by the Governor failed. This
body had become a close corporation and its power of
electing the sheriff gave it tremendous power in the
localities. The reformers also endeavored to have the
office of sheriff made an elective one, but their efforts
proved of no avail, even though the report of the com
mittee on legislation favored it. The conservatives were
in full control of the convention and wrote into the con
stitution anything they dared. We say dared becauge
the thinly-veiled threats of the western delegates had
not been lost, and while the new frame of government
was far from being ideal, viewed from the twentieth
century, it had, nevertheless, gone farther than would
have been the case had the western leaders held their
peace. The last two weeks of the convention were taken up
with the consideration of minor questions. A resolu
tion introduced endorsing a free public school system
was contemptuously rejected. A provision for future
amendments to the constitution was removed from the
final draft by a vote of sixty-eight to twenty-five. It
was at this point that John Randolph prophesied that

CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION OF 1829-30 45
the new constitution would not last twenty years. Op
posed to all change, he believed the oldest things to be
the best. "They may say what they please about the
old constitution," he said ; "the defect is not there. It
is not in the form of the edifice . . . neither in the de
sign nor in the elevation ; it is in the material, it is in
the people of Virginia. I will do nothing to provide
for change. I will not agree to any rule for future
apportionment or to any provision for future changes
called amendments to the constitution. They who love
change, who delight in public confusion, who wish to
feed the cauldron and make it bubble may vote if they
please for future changes. . . . No constitution that
you can make will last the half of half a century. Sir,
I will stake anything short of my salvation that those
who are malcontent now will be more malcontent three
years hence than they are to-day." x And so it proved,
for within less than three years organized movements
were set on foot to destroy the document which had
been constructed so recently at so much expense and
labor. The convention ended its work January 14, 1830,
with the adoption of the constitution by a vote of fifty-
five to forty. On the negative side were all the dele
gates from the Trans-Alleghany, one of the Valley rep
resentatives 2 and a Mr. Stanard from Spottsylvania
County.3 The sentiment among the western members
1 "Debates," pp. 790-791.
2 Mr. Cooke, of Frederick County.
8 The final vote is recorded on p. 382 of the "Debates."

46 THE DISRUPTION OF VIRGINIA
seemed to be that in the constitution of 1830 they had
not been given even half a loaf; that the Tidewater
planters had again succeeded in frustrating all at
tempts to make Virginia a democratic state in a demo
cratic Union.
In accordance with the schedule the constitution was
submitted to the qualified voters of the state at the
regular April election and after a bitter contest, in
which the chief sensation was a circular letter sent out
by Mr. Doddridge attacking certain members of the
convention, the new frame of government was ratified
by a vote of 26,055 to 15,56s.1 An analysis of the
vote shows that with two exceptions 2 every county in
cluded in the present state of West Virginia piled up
majorities against ratification. The northern Pan
handle rejected it by 1,014 to 3, and in no western
county was there anything more than a mere scattering
of votes in the affirmative. It is somewhat surprising
to find the Valley supporting strongly the new consti
tution, an action which was a virtual rejection of the
action of the Valley delegates in the convention.3
Thenceforth the two western divisions of Virginia were
to pursue separate courses, with but few exceptions.
The slaveholding Valley was to have little in common
with the free western counties in the future.
The constitutional convention of 1829-30 marks an
1 "Debates," p. 903.
' Jefferson and Hampshire counties.
"Giles, Bath, Montgomery, Wythe, Grayson, Warwick, Scott,
Russell, and Lancaster counties, all of which held few slaves,
voted against ratification. The vote in Wythe County was 41 to
625; and in Grayson, 70 to 649.

CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION OF 1829-30 47
important epoch in the history of Virginia. Sum
moned for the purpose of silencing sectional disputes,
its one great and lasting effect was to crystallize these
disputes into such a form that ever after they were
easily recognized and understood. It had the useful
effect of bringing together men from all sections of the
state and showed the east that some good and able men
could come from the west. The two great factions
from this time on had a truer if not a better under
standing of each other. For the first time the east
began to appreciate the vast possibilities that lay be
yond the Alleghanies, and the west, conscious of its
latent power, threatened secession from the state when
ever it believed itself to be unjustly treated. Western
Virginia at this time was certainly not opposed to slav
ery, although it was so considered by the other sections
of the state. But it is unquestionably true that the
reformers came away from the convention of 1829-30
more hostile to slavery than they had ever been before.
They saw that the "almighty nigger" enabled the east
to maintain its grip on the political situation and were
under no illusions regarding the unwillingness of the
east to surrender the power which was theirs as a re
sult of property in slaves.
As has been previously suggested, the adoption of
the constitution of 1830 widened the gap between the
two sections of Virginia. "The power of the state was
divided against the necessity of the state. . . . The
struggle to equalize the representation according to the
number of citizens engendered strife and sectional an-

48 THE DISRUPTION OF VIRGINIA
tagonisms. The east then felt the necessity to be taxed
for roads and canals and had the majority of repre
sentation to withhold appropriations to public
works." x The west was conscious of its growing
strength, and the publication of the census of 1830
made that section feel more strongly that it was labor
ing under oppressive and unjust laws.2 Immigration
served to keep up this spirit of discontent, for the new
settlers came principally from foreign countries and
from free states and had no sentiment for old Vir
ginia traditions. Much of the conservative spirit
which cropped out in western Virginia at all times was
due to sentiment alone ; but the new settlers who helped
to swell the population of the western counties could not
be checked in some action hostile to the east by the
command to conjure up the memory of Washington,
Patrick Henry, and Jefferson.
1 Address of Henry A. Wise. De Bow's Review, 1857, VoL 23,
p. 65.
'The census showed the following distribution of population in
Virginia: Whites Slaves Free Total
Colored
Trans-Alleghany  183,245 18,671 1,492 203,403
VaUey  134,825 34,804 4,681 174,310
Middle  208,895 230,953 11,960 451,808
Tidewater  166,089 186,445 28,873 381,407
1,210,973

CHAPTER VI
THE PROGRESS OF SECTIONALISM
Between 1830 and 1840 sporadic attempts were
made to rectify the existing abuses. The time was not
ripe for the calling of another convention, for the state
had not forgotten what the last one had cost. The
west, however, never let the question drop and through
the medium of newspaper editorials and resolutions of
public meetings the western heart was fired for a re
form which should be reform indeed. National politics
were at fever heat during this decade and absorbed the
time and attention both of the people and of their rep
resentatives in the legislature. At the opening of the
special session of the legislature in 1837 Governor
Campbell in his message advised that body to adjourn
just as soon as it had disposed of the one question for
which it had been called together, because, said he, "no
good can arise from agitating the public mind by pro
posing new plans of reform — and evil may."
The census of 1840 showed the white population of
the west to be greater than that of the east by 2,351.
And the west was not slow in making capital of this
fact. As a proof that the political leaders of the east
had failed to keep up with the spirit of the times, they
49

50 THE DISRUPTION OF VIRGINIA
pointed to the figures on illiteracy, which proved that
Virginia was in a deplorable condition educationally.
The census reports announced the illiterate whites in
Virginia to number 58,732 at this time, 29,808 of whom
were in the east and 28,924 in the west. Harrison and
Monongalia counties led with 2,327 and 2,132 respec
tively.1 The east professed its inability to perceive
any good reason for this, admittedly, disgraceful con
dition of affairs, but the west placed the blame on the
retrogressive eastern Junto, whose aims and ideas were
no further advanced than those of Governor Berkeley,
The west fairly clamored for reform. The discovery
that the majority of white persons in the state were
represented by ten Senators and fifty-six delegates,
while the eastern minority sent nineteen Senators and
seventy-eight delegates to the General Assembly, made
the reformers more determined than ever to seek and to
obtain redress. The constitution of 1830 provided
"that the General Assembly after the year 1841 and at
intervals thereafter of not less than ten years shall have
authority, two thirds of each house concurring, to
make reapportionment of delegates and Senators
throughout the commonwealth"; and to this clause the
western leaders pinned their hopes. However, there
was nothing mandatory about this provision and behind
this the east took refuge. In 1842 a bill to reapportion
delegates on the basis of qualified voters was rejected,
in spite of a favorable committee report. Similarly,
1 "The Sentinel of the Valley," quoted in Niles Register. Vol.
69, pp. 22-23.

THE PROGRESS OF SECTIONALISM 51
a movement to call a convention failed.1 Before this
legislature adjourned a protest was submitted by fifty
western members, pronouncing the refusal of the east
to live up to the spirit of the constitution as sufficient
cause for decisive action.2 The refusal on the part of
the east to correct the inequality of representation was
a violation of the Declaration of Rights, declared the
protestants. Meetings were called in various parts of
the western counties and resolutions and memorials
adopted without number. A convention at Lewisburg
in the summer of 1842 was attended by eighty dele
gates, quite a number of whom took a prominent part
in the events of 1861. 3 Newspapers hurled editorial
broadsides at their eastern brethren. A most succinct
statement of grievances is to be found in a paper pub
lished in the northern Panhandle:
"West Virginia has a population of 271,000 and a
representation of fifty-six in the Assembly, while Vir
ginia has 269,000 and seventy-eight delegates. West
Virginia has in the Senate thirteen, eastern Virginia,
nineteen. The consequence is, eastern Virginia caring
nothing about roads, we have none — opposed to the
general policy of other states, and we are compelled to
submit. West Virginia is represented in Congress by
seven members, eastern Virginia by fourteen members.
No Senator has ever been elected from west of the Blue
Ridge. All public officers are appointed from the east ;
'¦Niles Register, 1842, Vol. 62, p. 32.
'Ibid., p. 80.
'Ibid., p. 387.

52 THE DISRUPTION OF VIRGINIA
the Governor is an eastern man, and all the state ex
penditures are made in the east. It strikes us that
these are something to quarrel for." 1
The session of 1843 ended without decisive action on
the sectional questions at issue, although the House
of Delegates passed a bill for reapportionment on the
combined basis of population and taxes. This the west
did not want. They knew that the east contributed
more to the state treasury, and any election of dele
gates with taxation as a basis would confirm the east
in its political mastery. The plan was denounced as
"the most iniquitous and unjust that could be devised by
any process short of a resort to the regions of Pluto.
There is a line over which the oppressor cannot pass.
This line has been overstepped by the Virginia legis
lature and we shall be craven-hearted cowards if we do
not bid them to come farther at their peril." 2 This
and similar examples of editorial hyperbole served the
cause of reform, but it is only fair to state that the
grievances of the west, real as they were, were always
overstated. Statistics show that the Trans-Alleghany
had received some money for internal improvements,
and had been represented in the principal offices of the
state. The east positively declined to admit that there
were any just grounds for complaint, and professed to
view the whole matter as a means whereby the west could
undertake the coercion of the east and thereby obtain
1 Wheeling Times and Advertiser, Jurie 28, 1842, quoted in
Niles Register, Vol. 62, p. 387.
'Ibid., Feb. 16, 1843, quoted in Niles Register, Vol. 67, p
400.

THE PROGRESS OF SECTIONALISM 53
large sums of money for improvements which would not
benefit the whole state.
A new turn in affairs was taken when the legislature
refused to permit the Baltimore & Ohio Railroad to
construct a line which would strike the Ohio at the
mouth of the Little Kanawha River. The Wheeling
district would be taken care of by the line through
Cumberland to Baltimore, but the central counties of
western Virginia were isolated from the rest of the
state. A meeting was held at Clarksburg, May, 1845,
to protest against the restrictive policy of the legisla
ture. "If such is to be the settled policy of the legis
lature toward the northwest," the resolutions read,
"better, much better would it be for this portion of the
state at once to dissolve the political connection that
now binds it to the rest of the state." x Richmond was
opposed to the granting of any franchise that might
lead to the diversion of trade in the direction of Balti
more and preferred to see the James River and Kana
wha Canal completed,2 but the superiority of the rail
road over the canal was now unquestioned and the west
'Niles Register, 1845, Vol. 68, p. 254. Many of the Valley
newspapers endorsed the sentiments of the Clarksburg resolu
tions. 'Niles Register, 1846, Vol. 68, p. 255, quotes the Richmond
Times to that effect. A Right of Way Convention was held at
Weston, Lewis County, Sept. 25, 1846, to protest against the
refusal of the Legislature to grant the B. & O. a franchise. The
act was denounced as one of "injustice and oppression un
paralleled in the history of legislation." Ibid., Vol. 71, p. 99.
Feb. 19, 1845, the Legislature passed an act granting a right
of way to the B. & O. R. R. but the restrictions were so onerous
that the directors declined. Niles, Vol. 68, p. 310.
It is worthy of observation that after 1847 "western Virginia"
is often printed West Virginia.

54 THE DISRUPTION OF VIRGINIA
became indifferent to those great enterprises which had
for their object the union of the various sections of the
state by a system of canals. Baltimore was looked
upon as the natural eastern market and while, every
thing else being equal, the west would have preferred to
do business with Richmond, nature had provided other
wise. February 10, 1846, a bill calling for a constitutional
convention could have been enacted had the west been
willing to yield its demand for the white basis of rep
resentation, but this they refused to do and the dispute
dragged on for several years. As the time approached
for taking the census of 1850 a feeling became mani
fest among the western advocates of reform that it
would be as well to await the census returns, for they
felt sure that the Trans-Alleghany region would be
shown to have a clear maj ority of the white population
in the state. John Letcher, Governor of Virginia at
the time of the outbreak of the Civil War, in a speech
at Wheeling gave expression to this idea :
"Three years hence another census will have been
completed. Then it will appear how large a majority
we are of the citizens of the commonwealth and how
unjust it is that our fellow citizens of eastern Virginia,
being a minority of the people, should be able by means
of their majority in the legislature to govern both east
ern and western Virginia for their own advantage.
You have striven in vain to get this inequality of rep
resentation rectified. The same legislative majority
has used the power of which we complain to make our
complaints fruitless and to retain the ascendancy now,

THE PROGRESS OF SECTIONALISM 55
when they represent a minority of the people, which
they secured to themselves eighteen years ago while
they yet represented the majority. There is ... in
different parts of Virginia every degree of difference
from the least to the greatest between the slaveholding
and the non-slaveholding interests of the people. In
several parts of the state the slaves are two or three
times as numerous as the whites, and the slaveholding
interest overrules and absorbs everything." 1
Western irritation was well expressed in the editorial
columns of the largest newspaper in that section:
"Is there any strong line of demarcation between
the different sections? Is the fact of residing above
tidewater, east or west of the Blue Ridge, on the Ohio
or on the Atlantic, a good and sufficient reason why
distinction should be made in the grant of legislative
power? If so, then the fact forms good grounds for a
separate state government. If the west is not capable
of self-government and it is not granted, then the west
is in a state of colonial dependence and deemed un
worthy of a fair and equal association, and either de
serves the fostering care that a territory or colony de
serves or a separate and distinct government. Colonies
and territories are generally refused a representation
. . . but the expenses of their government are paid for
them. . . . Not so free, liberal, democratic Virginia.
She holds her western colony in subjection, denies her
representation; taxes her in full proportion to her
population; kindly calls on her sons to defend her in
war . . . and yet expends nothing upon her or for her
benefit."2 1 Wheeling Intelligencer.
' Niles Register, Vol. 68, p. 390, quoting The Western Virginian.

56 THE DISRUPTION OF VIRGINIA
In 1850 a division in the western delegation in the
General Assembly enabled the legislature to pass an
act calling for a constitutional convention, delegates to
be chosen on the mixed basis. The west opposed the
convention on the ground that every white person was
to have just a little more than half as much weight as
a dollar in taxes, since the white population of the
state was 887,717 and the revenue tax amounted to
$472,516.31. Thus every $7,000 elected one delegate
and every 13,151 white persons chose one delegate.1
In the popular vote on the question of calling a conven
tion twenty-nine of the forty-three western counties
were recorded in the negative. All but two of the east
ern counties voted in its favor. It is a noteworthy fact
that every county in the Valley gave a majority for
the convention — unimpeachable evidence that the two
districts west of the Blue Ridge were no longer of the
same political mind.2 The people of the state ex
pressed themselves as approving of a change in the
organic law of the state by a majority of 25,000, which
is sufficient proof that Tidewater Virginia for the first
time conceded the need of reform. This fact is illus
trated by the changed attitude of the Richmond
Enquirer, which now came out unreservedly for a thor
ough renovation of a "system universally repudiated by
all who have any confidence in the capacity of men for
self-government." 1J. A. C. Chandler, "History of Suffrage in Virginia," Johns
Hopkins University Studies, Series 19,, pp. 279-346.
' Ambler, "Sectionalism in Virginia," p. 260.

THE PROGRESS OF SECTIONALISM 57
Alarm was felt over the economic condition of the
state. Emigration from the eastern counties was tak
ing place to such an extent that many of them showed
an actual decrease in population. Newspapers of the
time contained almost daily accounts of the removal of
young men from the homes of their fathers to some
point farther west. That measures had to be taken to
check this movement was becoming evident:
"We want something here to reanimate and revive
the people. We have slept on until we require to be
aroused. . . . But let us not run to excess. Give the
people more power. . . . Make them take an interest
in their government by imposing on them the duty of
selecting more of the agents of that government, and
we doubt not that these functionaries will be more com
petent for the faithful discharge of their duties than
those heretofore elected. We shall become a fresher
and more animated people."
The election of delegates to the convention was held
on the fourth Thursday in August, 1850. In nearly
every county the chief issue raised was that of the
basis of representation. In the east Henry A. Wise was
the only delegate to be elected on a platform favoring
the white basis in both House and Senate. With
characteristic boldness he declared himself in favor
of a liberal public school system, equality of represen
tation, and the rule of the majority. Representation
based on slaves who had no political voice or entity, on
carriages which were luxuries, and on licenses to sell
whisky he pronounced as fundamentally aristocratic.

58 THE DISRUPTION OF VIRGINIA
Wise further advocated biennial sessions of the legisla
ture, the abolition of imprisonment for debt, universal
male suffrage, and the election by the people of all
important state and local officers.1
As might be expected, every delegate from the Trans-
Alleghany was pledged to the white basis of representa
tion in both houses of the legislature. The people of
the Valley were in the fortunate position where reform
could neither make nor mar their fortunes and were
naturally less interested in the convention than the
other sections of the state. Scanning the names of the
one hundred and thirty-five delegates chosen, one can
not but be struck by the fact that a new generation had
sprung up in the past two decades. There was not a
prominent member of the convention of 1829-30 pres
ent in 1850 to assist in the making of Virginia's third
constitution. The Leighs, Madisons, Monroes, Mar-
shalls, Doddridges, Campbells, and Randolphs had few
compeers on the floor of this convention. There were
many who became prominent in the Civil War period,
notably, M. R. H. Garnett, John Minor Botts, John
Janney, John Letcher, John S. Carlile, Benjamin R.
Floyd, C. J. Faulkner, and W. T. Willey ; but few of
these men had attained more than local prominence in
1850. The convention organized with John Y. Mason as
President. In his opening address Mason was careful
to avoid any direct reference to the sectional questions
at issue and urged his fellow members to recall the fact
1 Wise, "The Life of Henry A. Wise," pp. 144-145.

THE PROGRESS OF SECTIONALISM 59
that "patriotism knows no section." x After the usual
skirmishing for position by the various factions, com
mittees were appointed to take under consideration the
main points at issue. The most important, that of the
basis and apportionment of representation, was to be
considered by men chosen in equal numbers from the
east and the west. This principle was observed pretty
generally in the selection of all committees. Party
lines were so tightly drawn that there was scarcely a
person whose views were not known to his colleagues.
It soon became evident that much of what was to be
accomplished would be based on statistical reports, and
this being the case the better part of wisdom was to
adjourn until the results of the census of 1850 were
known. So on November 4th the western delegates suc
ceeded in carrying through their plan of adjourning
until January 6, 1851. The east, fearing that the new
census would give their opponents an important ad
vantage by revealing the eastern minorities, fought the
point bitterly, but it was carried by a majority of four
votes.2 The convention reassembled at the time designated
and remained in session until August first. Its pro
ceedings were characterized, generally, by an intense
desire on all sides to come to some satisfactory agree
ment and while there was a great display of sectional
feeling and numerous threats of secession were made,
nevertheless the general tone of the convention was of a
•Journal, Virginia Convention of 1850-51, pp. 5-6.
'Ibid., p. 75.

60 THE DISRUPTION OF VIRGINIA
more conciliatory nature than that which had pre
vailed at other times when representatives from the dif
ferent sections of the state had gathered together for
such a purpose. There was really only one big question
to settle : that of the basis of representation. The ex
tension of the ballot to all men over twenty-one years
of age was practically assured before the convention
met, and all other issues were comparatively unim
portant or susceptible of satisfactory compromise.
The committee on representation struggled hard to
reach a conclusion acceptable to all, but was compelled
to report finally that it was "equally divided in opinion,
twelve of its members agreeing and adhering to one
principle of representation and the other twelve mem
bers agreeing and adhering to another and different
principle." 1 Two plans were submitted — one, that of
the eastern delegates providing for a lower house of
one hundred and fifty-six members and a Senate of
fifty-one members, while the western recommendation
was for a House of one hundred and fifty-six members
and a Senate of thirty-six. The eastern apportion
ment was based on a combination of suffrage and taxa
tion, one seventy-fifth of the total taxation giving a
member regardless of population. The principal ad
vocates of this plan, Scott, Barbour, and Stanard, af
firmed that any other basis would give the west a pre
dominance in the legislature to which it was not entitled
by virtue of its share in taxation.2 Thus their scheme
1 Report of the Committee on the Basis of Representation:
Journal of the Convention, appendix, pp. 1-5.
¦ "Life of Henry A. Wise," p. 148.

THE PROGRESS OF SECTIONALISM 61
would give the east eighty-two delegates and twenty-
eight Senators, and the west sixty-eight delegates and
twenty-three Senators. The western members of the;
committee based their report on white population and
suffrage alone, conceding seventy-one delegates and
seventeen Senators to the east, while the west was to
be represented by eighty-five delegates and nineteen
Senators.1 The white population west of the Blue Ridge at this
time was nearly 100,000 in excess of that of the cis-
montane region, so the issue was clearly drawn : Should
property as well as persons be represented? With this
problem the convention wrestled for four months and
at the end of that time had arrived at no conclusion.
Many compromises were suggested and rejected, some
times without consideration. One would divide repre
sentation in both houses equally between the two grand
divisions of the state.2 A proposal of Mr. Summers to
allow the people to decide the question was turned down
by a strictly sectional vote, the east not caring to take
their chances with the hostile western majority.
Henry A. Wise suggested that until 1861 the east be
given the majority in both Houses, and after that time
representation be apportioned according to the number
of qualified voters. For five days Mr. Wise spoke in
favor of the white basis. He denounced a system which
•The counties included in the present state of West Virginia
would have been given thirty-six delegates and ten Senators by
the eastern plan, and forty-nine delegates and eleven Senators
by the western plan.
' This suggestion by Mr. Botts was derided by the Richmond
Examiner as chimerical as his speech was inane.

62 THE DISRUPTION OF VIRGINIA
would give $132,000 more weight in the government
than 94,000 white persons. "Give us an united people
with one affection, one interest, one feeling, one im
pulse. . . . Give me for the people of Virginia free
and universal education; give me free and equal suf
frage; give me free and universal representation for
our people and who can foretell our destiny?" x are his
final words. His exhortations were of no avail and
this proposal was rejected.
As the debates grew more acrimonious, talk of a divi
sion of the state was revived. Several eastern delegates
declared that they would favor separation if the white
basis were adopted ; 2 an article in the New York
Tribune claiming that the west would abolish slavery
when they got the power into their hands was quoted
frequently on the floor of the convention.3 The leading
Democratic organ of Richmond 4 predicted dismember
ments of the state unless a better spirit was exhibited
on both sides :
"Such a result we should regard as a most melancholy
catastrophe. ... If Virginia cannot regulate her in
ternal affairs, if the interests and feelings of her citi
zens are so diverse and so conflicting that the noble old
state must be severed in twain, what reasonable hope
can we entertain that the vast line of states stretching
from one ocean to another can resist the divellent forces
and survive dissolution? . . . Virginia divided; the
1 "Life of Henry A. Wise," p. 150.
'Ibid. ' Weekly Pennsylvanian, Apr. 26, 1851.
4 The Enquirer.

THE PROGRESS OF SECTIONALISM 63
Union dissolved . . .; what an awful record would be
spread out for the pages of history !" 1
An ill-chosen remark by Mr. Chilton of Fauquier
County that "we mjust have an infusion of monarchical
and aristocratic principles in order to check pure
democracy" aroused the ire of the liberals. Wise re
torted, "your doctrines have been for seventy-odd years
too much regarded." 2 The west, led by Joseph John
son, the only Trans-Alleghany governor Virginia had
chosen previous to 1860, began to take active steps for
the dismemberment of the state, which course was de
clared to be entirely factious and unjustifiable and one
that would excite strong feeling throughout the state.
The east, it was asserted, having a clear majority and
able to decide upon the mixed basis had nevertheless
offered to compromise and had proposed liberal terms
which the west had rejected. Therefore the responsi
bility for what might happen rested upon this section.3
After it was perceived that neither of the reports
brought in by the original committee could be adopted,
a new committee of eight, evenly divided between the
two factions, was elected on May 12th.* The western
members of this committee, proving more complaisant
than had been expected, consented to bring in a report
giving the majority in the Senate to the east and the
majority in the House to the west. By a majority of
1 The Enquirer, Apr. 15, 1851.
" Weekly Pennsylvanian, Mar. 29, 1851.
"Alexandria Gazette, May 14, 1851.
'Journal of the Convention, p. 206.

64 THE DISRUPTION OF VIRGINIA
one this plan was turned down. A reconsideration of
the report led to a succession of compromises, ending
finally in the adoption of a plan providing for a House
of one hundred and fifty-two members and a Senate of
fifty, the west to control the lower, and the east, the
upper house. A reapportionment of representatives
should be made in 1865 and every ten years thereafter,
and in the event that the General Assembly failed to
provide for this the governor was to submit four ques
tions to the voters giving them their choice of the "suf
frage basis" in both houses, the "mixed basis" in both
houses, the "taxation basis" in the Senate, or the
"mixed basis" in the Senate and the "suffrage basis"
in the House. The acceptance of this plan ended a
contest which had occupied the center of the stage for
thirty years. Neither party was entirely satisfied, but
the belief prevailed that the west had a little the better
of the bargain, especially as it gave that section
a majority of four on joint ballot.1
As for the other points at issue, universal manhood
suffrage was easily carried through — an impressive
commentary on the modification of political ideas in
Virginia ; the sessions of the legislature were to be held
biennially; and all important state officers from the
Governor down were to be elected by popular vote.2
Thus the principal points for which the west had
fought for three decades were finally won and Virginia
1 One of the first results of the new constitution was the elec
tion of a Governor and two U. S. Senators from the west
"There was little opposition to the abolition of the Governor's
Council.

THE PROGRESS OF SECTIONALISM 65
was at last qualified to call herself a truly democratic
state. One clause was inserted in the constitution under
taxation and finance which was destined to cause mis
chief. Sections 23 and 24 provided for the assessment
of all property other them slaves according to its full
value. Slaves under twelve years of age were exempt
from taxation altogether ; all others were to be assessed
at $300 per capita.
The new constitution won its way gradually to pop
ularity. It had gone further toward reform than the
east desired, as is shown by the fact that when it came
to a question of its adoption or rejection by the people
the east voted against it.1 The campaign against rati
fication was carried on vigorously, but opposition grew
less and less as election day approached and when the
ballots were counted it was found that the new instru
ment of government had been adopted 75,784 to
11,063.2 For the next ten years little complaint was heard
from any part of the state. It is true that rumors
were circulated and gained credence that the white
planters were intimidating the poor whites at every
election, but all in all, Virginia from 1850 to 1860 en
joyed a period of political quiet unparalleled in her
history. -
•Ambler, "Sectionalism in Virginia," p. 271.
'Ibid.

CHAPTER VII
WESTERN VIRGINIA AT THE OUTBREAK OF THE CIVIL WAR
As has been suggested, the constitution of 1851 was
satisfactory to the west in all but two particulars ; viz.,
the basis of representation in the upper house and the
partial exemption of slave property from taxation.
Even these alleged grievances could scarcely be called
burning issues previous to the time when it appeared
possible that Virginia might secede from the Union.
Then they were seized with avidity by the north-western
leaders, were used as a club by these men in the Rich
mond Convention and, when the ordinance of secession
was passed before redress was assured, they became the
chief basis of almost every speech in favor of the dis
solution of the state, with the Alleghanies as the divid
ing line.
In the presidential election of 1860 western Virginia *
had exhibited as great a variety of opinions as any sec
tion in the United States. Breckenridge carried eight
een counties, Bell, fifteen, and Douglas, two. Han
cock County was evenly divided between Lincoln and
Breckenridge, while the other counties scattered their
1 The term "western Virginia" will from this point on be un
derstood to include only those counties now in the state of West
Virginia. 66

AT THE OUTBREAK OF THE CIVIL WAR 67

votes among all the candidates. Lincoln received 1,£
votes, nearly all of which were cast in the northern
Panhandle.1 It is difficult to imagine any election less
sectional in its character. Each candidate, excepting
Lincoln, had a large number of supporters in the west
ern counties, and the heavy vote polled by Brecken
ridge in the counties of the northwest had its counter
part in the "black belt" of the southeast. Looking at
the map of the election of 1860 showing the vote by
counties, one not familiar with the situation would be
puzzled to discover any foundation for the common
belief that West Virginia was strongly anti-slavery.
But such was the general opinion in the North at the
time, and a great deal of sympathy was wasted upon
the free-soil inhabitants of western Virginia. But what
had become of the persons who had moved into this sec
tion from the North and who had brought with them
such decided views upon the slavery question? Where
were they at the time when the issue was clearly that
of Lincoln, with his well-known views upon slavery,
against the other candidates for the presidency, with
their varying support of the institution? In western
Virginia outside of the northern Panhandle Lincoln
was given practically no support, even in those counties
where few slaves were held. It may be that the viva
voce method of voting acted as a deterrent in some
slavery strongholds, but this could not have been im
portant. It cannot be emphasized too strongly that
1 Ambler, "Sectionalism in Virginia," p. 330. Virginia gave
Bell a plurality of 319 popular votes over Breckenridge.

68 THE DISRUPTION OF VIRGINIA
if the result of the election in western Virginia has any
meaning at all it means that the people of that section
had little more sympathy with the anti-slavery propa
ganda than had their eastern brethren.1 It is true that
western Virginia had not the same passionate devotion
to the institution that eastern Virginia had. Such a
thing would not be possible where so few slaves were
held. But it cannot be controverted, that, whatever
may be the popular opinion to the contrary, the whole
state of Virginia from the Ohio River to the Atlantic
Ocean and from Pennsylvania and Maryland to Ken
tucky and North Carolina was pretty well united on
the general issues of slavery and states' rights. The
differences of opinion that existed in Virginia in 1861
were not national in their character but entirely sec
tional, brought out at this time principally for the
purp°se of enabling the people of one small portion of
the state lying mainly in the valleys of the Monongahela
and the upper Ohio to accomplish something which they
believed would benefit their locality and to which they
were urged by the Republican leaders in Congress.
Daniel Webster in a Fourth of July oration deliv
ered at Washington in 1851 sounded a note of warn
ing to Trans-Alleghany Virginia. His words on this
occasion proclaim the prophet:
"Ye men of western Virginia who occupy the great
slope from the top of the Alleghany to the Ohio and
'An editorial in the Kanawha Valley Star, Aug. 31, 1858,
states that there were more abolitionists east of the Blue Ridge
than west.

AT THE OUTBREAK OF THE CIVIL WAR 69
Kentucky, what course do you propose to yourselves
by disunion? If you secede what do you secede from
and what do you accede to ? Do you look for the cur
rent of the Ohio to change and to bring you and your
commerce to the tidewaters of the eastern rivers ? What
man in his senses can suppose that you will remain
part and parcel of Virginia a month after Virginia
should have ceased to be part and parcel of the United
States?"1 The truth of this was clearly perceived in 1861 by
all but those who willfully blindeid themselves to the true
state of affairs and who still asserted that when the
crisis came "there would be no Alleghanies." Webster's
speech was no longer an abstraction. Many times from
November, 1860, to May, 1861, did the people of the
west ask themselves the very questions which Webster
had formulated nine years before. What would be
come of them if Virginia seceded? The difficulty of
their situation appears when we glance at the map,
which helps to explain why the western counties were
opposed to leaving the Union. They had no desire to
see themselves isolated from the southern states and
exposed to the mercies of an invading army from the
north. The counties bordering on the Ohio and those
drained by the upper waters of the Monongahela were
so close to Ohio and Pennsylvania that in the event
of war they could be overrun by Federal troops in a
few days. The largest city in the section, Wheeling,
was only sixty-six miles distant from Pittsburgh. Its
'National Intelligencer, July 5, 1851.

70 THE DISRUPTION OF VIRGINIA
large manufacturing interests could be destroyed
easily forty-eight hours after war was declared. Other
Ohio river towns occupied positions only a degree less
exposed. Troops concentrating at Pittsburgh could
penetrate into the very heart of western Virginia simply
by going up the Monongahela River. Passing down
the Ohio River they could unite with the forces of Ohio,
Indiana, and Illinois and carry the war back into the
interior for a hundred miles, either by boat up the
Little Kanawha and the Great Kanawha or on foot.
Only the southern and southwestern counties could feel
any degree of assurance that the war would not imme
diately bring about an invasion of their region. These
counties not only took no real part in the formation
of the new state of West Virginia but opposed it as
far as they were able.
Thus secession loomed up as a terrible calamity to
western Virginia. No one expected the eastern coun
ties to drain their resources in order to defend the west,
and the people of the latter section were not so deeply
imbued with the wrongs of the South that they could
enter into a war with anything resembling enthusiasm.
Western leaders made their position known long before
the Civil War broke out. They did not desire to
emulate the example of the Scotch Highlanders and
retreat to the fastnesses of the mountains when at
tacked. Their cry was, "Let us alone"; and, had it
not been for the activities of a small group of persons
from the northwest, it is altogether likely that their

AT THE OUTBREAK OF THE CIVIL WAR 71
desire to keep aloof from both sides would have resulted
in the preservation of the state.
Waitman T. Willey, whose stand on the question of
dividing the state was undecided before he was elected
to the U. S. Senate, wrote:
"I am for Virginia as she is and was ; as our fathers
created her . . . one and indivisible. I have depre
cated recent manifestations for her dismemberment.
Let her be integral forever. But if we are to be dragged
into secession or disunion; become a mere outside ap
pendage of a Southern Confederacy, defenseless and
exposed as we must be by our geographical position
. . . our oppression may become intolerable, and I for
one will be ready to accept the only alternative." 1
A further presentation of the difficulties confronting
western Virginia is given in a paper published in the
interior of the state:
"Her territory presents such an immense exposed
border, should she resolve to join in with the Southern
Confederacy, it would be impossible for the people to
defend themselves against an invasion from the North.
And in such an event eastern Virginia can afford us
no assistance ; nor can she expect us to leave our homes
and come to her aid. The North, we believe, will not
invade us if we stand firm where we are, and the east
has not the means of compelling us to abandon our
defenceless homes." 2
'National Intelligencer, Jan. 9, 1861.
'Kingwood Chronicle, Apr. 27, 1861, quoted in National In
telligencer, May 2, 1861.

72 THE DISRUPTION OF VIRGINIA
An even more graphic description appears in the
Wheeling Intelligencer: x
"We are as powerless as an infant would be in the
grasp of Hercules. They could crush us in a day.
Cannon planted on the Ohio hills would lay us in ruin.
Never did a people occupy a more unenviable position
for a hostile collision with their neighbors. Where,
in case of collision are we to look for help? From
Richmond, away off across the mountains ? We might
as well look to the moon for help. She will have her
hands full and it will keep her busy enough to enter-
tain Jeff Davis's army of occupation. No help there
for us. The Secessionists here must remember that
Pennsylvania has never yet abandoned her claim to
this strip of territory.2 On the contrary, she has again
and again asserted her claim to it. Suppose we were
now to set ourselves against the Government. Why,
she would have us in a week's time."
A mass meeting at Wellsburg, Brooke County,
adopted a resolution against secession on the ground
that their section, the northern Panhandle, would be
most adversely affected, occupying as it did the most
northern point of southern territory and bounded by
Ohio and Pennsylvania, "with whom we are so closely
connected in social, political, and commercial inter
ests." 3 A New York newspaper pins its faith to West
Virginia because it "gravitated by kindred attraction
to the north." 4
'Apr. 20, 1861.
* Referring to the northern Panhandle, over which Virginia
and Pennsylvania had disputed for many years.
" Wellsburg Herald, Feb. 2, 1861.
•New York Times, May 1, 1861,

AT THE OUTBREAK OF THE CrVTL WAR 73
It is not surprising that when the first distinct mut-
terings of war were heard, western Virginia was seized
with alarm. All her old sectional wrongs came up to
her again as the means whereby Virginia might be
kept from secession. The only alternative, the disrup
tion of the state, was to be used as the last resort. In
the meantime a chorus of protests arose against taking
any steps that might lead to civil war. When her
cry was unregarded and the trend toward war was
clearly perceived, some of the old sectional bitterness
was revived. The situation was described as one of
confusion, conflict, and strife. "Western Virginia has
always been trodden upon by the aristocracy of eastern
Virginia in various ways. That most particular is
the three fifths representation which has always been
and always will be regarded as the very essence of
injustice." x The writer of this communication shows
that western Virginia had 135,000 more whites than
eastern Virginia but that out of thirteen members of
the national House of Representatives, West Virginia
had but five. "So," he continued, "western Virginia
is literally ruled by the almighty nigger. The senti
ments of western Virginia are different, our customs,
our laws are different, and have long called for re
dress." In an address at Wheeling, May 23, 1860,
Francis H. Pierpoint, afterward war governor of the
state, claimed that $900,000 a year was lost to the
state through the exemption of slaves under twelve
from taxation and the under-assessment of those over
1 Letter to the New York Herald, Oct. 5, 1860.

74 THE DISRUPTION OF VIRGINIA
that age. He asserted that the state debt had been
increased from $16,000,000 to $46,000,000 since 1851,
all for internal improvements in eastern Virginia.
Slaves were taxed ten cents on the hundred dollars and
all other property forty cents on the hundred dollars.
The income of the slaveholder was not taxed one cent
while that of the laborer earning $400 a year was taxed
$4.80. Later Pierpoint wrote: "The clerk, machinist,
etc., pays $22.80 for the state if his income is $1,100
a year; a slaveholder with nineteen slaves will derive
$300 a year from them and pay not one cent for income
tax. When the clerk dies or is sick his wages cease
but the slaves go down as an inheritance to his chil
dren." *
Western Virginia was only mildly interested in the
great national issue of the day. Caring little about
slavery as a social or economic institution, the alleged
wrongs of the South caused little concern to the people
of this section, although they were far from counte
nancing the methods of the Northern Abolitionists. The
feeling prevailed that if complaint should be made it
would be against the domineering actions of the slave
holders of the east rather than against the people of
the non-slaveholding states. So far as the loss of slaves
through the underground railroad was concerned, west
ern Virginia suffered more, proportionately, than did
eastern Virginia. As was stated by one of the western
newspapers: "Western Virginia will lose hundreds of
slaves while South Carolina would not know the result
"Wheeling Intelligencer, May 24, 1860.

AT THE OUTBREAK OF THE CIVIL WAR 75
of the Northern nullification laws. Western Virginia
to the present day has suffered more from the oppres
sive dictation of her eastern brethren than even the cot
ton states all put together have suffered from the
northern personal liberty laws." 1 A Morgantown
newspaper asserted that "the grievances of the people
of West Virginia against the state of Virginia are ten
fold greater than those of the South against the
North." Of $1,147,346.00 raised annually in the
state almlost nothing was spent in the west; $195,000,-
000 worth of property was released from taxation in
the east; no state-built railroads or canals were to be
found west of the Alleghanies. "We have been hewers
of wood and drawers of water for eastern Virginia long
enough and it is time that section understood it." 2 A
letter from Wayne County to the Wheeling Intelli
gencer shows clearly that a certain portion of the peo
ple of the west had become opportunists. The division
of the state should be insisted upon if a reform in
methods of taxation was not adopted at once.3 The
disposition of the western leaders to take advantage of
the crisis in Virginia was much deplored in the con
vention which was later assembled at Richmond, but
their action may be palliated because of the fact that
they were fighting not only for self-preservation but
also for the preservation of the Union.
1 Clarksburg Guard. Quoted in Wheeling Intelligencer, Jan. 16,
1861. 'Morgantown Star. Quoted in Wheeling Intelligencer, Jan. 14,
1861. "Wheeling Intelligencer, Jan. 16, 1861.

76 THE DISRUPTION OF VIRGINIA
The east had plenty of warning that local politics
would be injected into the Richmond convention, for
the newspapers of the east quoted and commented on
articles appearing in the western journals serving
notice upon the east that if a convention were ever
held, more would, be talked about than the question of
secession: "If a state convention is called, the first question to
be settled is the basis of representation. The west
will accept nothing but the white basis. The conven
tion must have power to amend the constitution of the
state, at least that part which exempts a large portion
of the slave property from taxation. If our eastern
brethren withhold these rights from the west, it will
take 100,000 bayonets from a southern confederacy
to force western Virginia into a union with the cotton
states. We want all these questions settled before we
join partnership with South Carolina." 1
The inference one would draw from the above is that
western Virginia could have been bribed into voting
for secession. That such was the case we do not be
lieve. It is possible that some of the delegates to the
convention may have given the impression that it would
require merely the alteration of the constitution in two
particulars to bring the western counties over on the
side of secession; but the people of the west would
never have sustained this action of their representa
tives.2 •The Alexandrian Gazette, Marion Co. correspondent. Quoted
in National Intelligencer, Oct. 24, 1860.
"The Richmond Enquirer charged that a bargain was being
made whereby the east would not press secession if the west

AT THE OUTBREAK OF THE CIVIL WAR 77
Throughout the South at this time the feeling ex
isted that any state or portion of states south of the
Mason and Dixon line which opposed secession was
disloyal. While this sentiment was strongest in the
cotton states, there was a considerable element in Vir
ginia that took the same position in reference to the
well-known opposition of the west to leaving the Union.
Their attitude was that loyalty to the Union was in
compatible with the rights and interests of the slave-
holding class.1
At the opening of 1861 a call was issued for a special
session of the legislature. Western Virginia opposed
this action, foreseeing that an effort would be made to
summon a state convention which might, by ordinance,
dissolve the bonds which united Virginia to the Union.
This was possible because a convention of the people
superseded, for the time being, both legislature and con
stitution, and its action might be made final without
reference to the people who had called it together. It
was urged, on the other hand, that Virginia should be
allowed to proceed with her plans for disunion, but while
that was going on western Virginia could call upon
the Federal Government for aid and institute proceed
ings for a new state.2 It was the general feeling that
the calling of a convention was the first step toward
would drop its demands for a new tax system. The Wheeling
Intelligencer jeered at the Enquirer for its publication of this
charge and said that the west would gain both of its objects.
1 National Intelligencer, Jan. 16, 1861.
a Wellsburg Herald, Dec. 10, 1860.

78 THE DISRUPTION OF VntGINIA
secession and that its advocates in the legislature sym
pathized with the actions of South Carolina.1
In the special legislative session of January, 1861,
the western representatives took little part in the de
bate over the calling of a convention. The eastern
members were resolved to bring together such a body
and the pro-Union members from the west were not
strong enough numerically to check such an action. It
is a fact that the Assembly was far more inclined toward
radical measures than the convention which it sum
moned; known supporters of the Union were given no
hearing,2 and the bill calling for a convention was put
through in all possible haste.
At first there was some sentiment in the northern
part of western Virginia favoring the non-election of
delegates to represent that section. Such an act would
have exhibited the disapproval of the people in a man
ner not to be misunderstood ; then if this warning failed
and secession was resolved upon, an opportunity would
be given for the formation of a new state.3 Calmer
counsel prevailed, however, and the west elected its full
quota of delegates, taking the precaution of sending
persons who pledged themselves to oppose secession.
In every town of the northwest rousing mass meetings
were held in which resolutions were adopted denounc
ing the eastern Secessionists. Northern newspapers
printed letters and dispatches sent by correspondents
1 Wheeling Intelligencer, Dec. 20, 1860.
* Senator Caldwell of Wheeling was not assigned to a com
mittee. * Wheeling Intelligencer, Jan. 5, 1861.

AT THE OUTBREAK OF THE CIVIL WAR 79
or residents of this section, declaring that the whole
country was ablaze with Union enthusiasm. It is not
surprising that people in the North obtained an erro
neous impression of the sentiment of the western Vir
ginians. Newspaper correspondents mistook the anti-
secession feeling, which was indeed overwhelming, for a
pro-Union feeling which certainly did not exist to the
extent they thought. Later, when the pressure of
danger was removed, the indifference and the inertia
of western Virginia brought upon her many reproaches
from the Northerners, who openly declared that they
had been deceived into thinking that the people of
western Virginia were heart and soul for the Northern
cause. At the time when it appeared likely that Vir
ginia would be "hitched to the tail of a cotton con
federacy" and the western region of the state would
become the rear guard of the South, there were many
indications that western Virginia would do all in her
power to prevent the United States from being severed
in twain. The newspapers of the North were assured
that practically no Secessionists could be found in the
Trans-Alleghany country, at least north of the Great
Kanawha. A writer living in Wood County, declared
that "for every Secessionist there were one hundred
Unionists who would accept a division of the state of
Virginia as preferable to the dissolution of the
Union." 1 It may fairly be inferred from this that the
1 National Intelligencer, Jan. 9, 1861. My father, Harlan Page
McGregor, who lived in Wood County during the Civil War, has
always declared that the Secessionists there outnumbered the
Unionists three to one.

80 THE DISRUPTION OF VIRGINIA
Union men of the state were necessarily looking for-
ward to the division of the state only as a last resort.
The commonly accepted idea that the western Vir
ginians were only waiting for the opportunity to de
clare their independence of Virginia is demonstrably
false, for if we read between the lines of almost any
western resolutions of the time we can see that the
disruption of Virginia was not regarded as one of the
possible future blessings, but on the contrary was only
to be used as a final alternative. Many who appar
ently favored such a move did so because they thought
it would be an effective means of keeping Virginia out
of the Southern Confederacy.1
Newspapers of the western counties sent their appeal
out broadcast, urging the people to assemble in mass
meeting and show their disapproval of the actions pf
the state legislature. In Monongalia County it was
asserted that there were not one thousand men out
of the twelve thousand voters of that district who
were favorable to the secession doctrines. Any act
tending toward disunion should be resisted to the death.
The following passionate appeal was made to the loyal
citizens :
"We call on you people of western Virginia to
awake, arise. If you are, like ourselves, poor in purse
you can afford to be indifferent, for there is nothing
'The declaration of a Grafton newspaper in its first issue
is of this variety: "We are for the interests and rights of west
ern Virginia in the state and in the Union if they can be had
at the same time; but if they are made to conflict with each
other we are for western Virginia in the Union." — The Western
Virginian, Jan. 6, 1861.

AT THE OUTBREAK OF THE CIVIL WAR 81
but your life in danger. But if you are a farm owner
your all is in danger and if you do not awake to the
importance of your interests and battle for them you
will soon find your property confiscated. If you are
for the preservation of the Union let it be known. We
here warn you to beware the insidious smiles of
secession. It commenced as a peaceable lamb and has
increased step by step until it has become a monster
of power. Again we call upon you to arouse to your
interests ; to choose whether you shall be for or against
your country." 1
Judging from the many references to be found to
the "wolves in sheep's clothing" and the "Judas
Iscariots," there must have been more Secessionists in
the northwestern counties than is generally believed.
That their number was not negligible is shown by the
fact that editors were continually castigating their
loyal readers for their apathy and were continually
warning the people of what would happen if these
traitors were not put down. Secessionism was never
blatant in the northwest. Its advocates were careful
not to let their views become too well known, for in
almost every community they were outnumbered, at
least before June, 1861. There is a strong probability,
furthermore, that they composed for the most part the
less substantial class of citizens, those who had no prop
erty to lose. But it cannot be emphasized too emphat
ically that strong supporters of the Southern cause
were to be found in every part of western Virginia in
'The Morgantown Star. Quoted in Wheeling Intelligencer,
Jan. 9, 1861.

82 THE DISRUPTION OF VIRGINIA
far greater numbers than one would suspect. The
truth of this assertion is attested by the events in
western Virginia after the "old state" had seceded —
which events are reserved for a later chapter.
In the event of the passage of an ordinance of seces
sion the people west of the Blue Ridge were urged to
call a convention "for the purpose of adopting such
a course as ought to be pursued, so that West Virginia
may secede from eastern Virginia and form a new state
in the Union." 1 A letter to the Wheeling Intelligencer
advised western Virginia to act for herself if the state
seceded and promised the aid of the Valley.2 Pitts
burgh papers sent special correspondents through
northwestern Virginia for the purpose of ascertaining
the drift of public sentiment, and all reported the same
thing: West Virginia was resolved to remain in the
Union and would not follow the gulf states under any
circumstances. It is little wonder that the readers of
these journals were surprised and grieved some months
later when they learned that it was almost impossible
to raise Union troops in those very districts which had
been reported to be burning with zeal for the Union.3
Not all declarations against secession show the same
degree of fervor. Many persons calling themselves
Unionists opposed secession because of the certain in
crease of taxation.4 A series of resolutions adopted
1 Virginia Plaindealer. Quoted in National Intelligencer, Jan.
12, 1861.
"Jan. 7, 1861. The writer signed himself "Shenandoah."
" Pittsburgh Chronicle, May 10, 1861.
* Whatever opposition existed to secession south of the Great
Kanawha was chiefly on this ground.

AT THE OUTBREAK OF THE CIVIL WAR 83
at a mass meeting in Clarksburg shows the practical
nature of some of the opposition to secession, which
act, it was declared, would be an abandonment by the
seceding states of all their rights under the Federal
Constitution. Since it could not increase the distance
from the non-slaveholding states, these friendly and
commercially profitable neighbors would be converted
into bitter enemies. The last clause of the resolution
is worthy of note: "That it ill-comports with our idea
of Southern chivalry and Southern courage to run
away before we make an effort to defend ourselves from
apprehended danger." x
The sentiment of the western slaveholding counties
is exhibited in the following resolutions:
"First, that the dismemberment of the Union would
entail upon us a longer and blacker train of woes than
has ever yet affficted any people; second, that the
trouble has been brought about by the wcmton and
wicked fanaticism of the North and the gasconading
folly and sinister selfishness of the South; third, that
we recognize the Federal Union within the sphere of
its appointed duties and delegated powers as positive,
potential, and paramount in its authority over every
individual citizen of the nation; fourth, that no state
or combination of states can absolve herself from her
duty to her co-states under the Constitution; fifth,
that as the hasty and precipitate course of South Caro
lina has been avowedly predicated upon the intention
to involve all the slaveholding states in the woes of a
civil war, therefore we deprecate her conduct as ill-
1 Pittsburgh Chronicle, Feb. 2, 1861.

84 THE DISRUPTION OF VD3GINIA
advised, unjust, and disrespectful to her sister states
of the South." 1
Along the Ohio River there was much undisguised
sentiment in favor of the formation of a new state. As
early as January 7, 1861, before the legislature had
assembled, one of the papers of this section came out
with the following: "We are for secession at once and
let the Blue Ridge Mountains be the line." 2 In the
same issue appears a letter declaring that if secession
was the only method by which any portion of the Amer
ican people could secure their rights and if it was one
against which there was no argument, then it was
applicable to both; or, as it was put in another com
munication, "If Virginia secedes from the Union the
secession of West Virginia from her is a question of
time." The people of the west were urged to prepare
themselves for the call of a loyal convention which
should take "proper measures for forming a new state
in the Union, or in other words to be ready to secede
from Virginia the very moment that Virginia shall
withdraw from the Union . . . believing that the peo
ple of West Virginia are hitched by the strong cords
of their affection to the Constitution and the Union,
and feeling secure under its broad folds will forever
defy any such underground engine." 3 With special
reference to the Wheeling district, it was asserted that
1 National Intelligencer, Jan. 3, 1861.
* Tyler County Plaindealer. Quoted in Wheeling Intelligencer,
Jan. 8, 1861.
8 Wheeling Intelligencer, Jan. 1, 1861.

AT THE OUTBREAK OF THE CIVIL WAR 85
the acquiescence of West Virginia in an act of secession
would strike a death blow to that section :
"Make us a foreign city to Ohio and Pennsylvania
and grass will grow on every street next summer. This
will be our condition and it will be the condition of
every town and hamlet of West Virginia. In view of
this fact is it not time that we gave eastern Virginia
to understand that if she goes into a cotton state con
federacy she goes alone and without West Virginia?
We are as much two people and even more than those
living on the two sides of the Alps. If we are not, it
follows that eastern Virginia and western Pennsylvania
are a united and homogeneous people because the God
of Nature made us a part of Pennsylvania, while the
surveyor made us a part of Virginia."
Referring to the eastern Virginians the writer says:
"We hardly speak the same language with them.
They talk about us as New Virginia and most of them
know as little about us as Asiatic Russia knows about
European Russia, and there is not near as much sym
pathy between us. The capital of the state, Rich
mond, is a far-off place where there is little that is
common to us of western Virginia. If secession is
pleasing and profitable let her go — without the rest." 1
The suggestion was made that the northern Pan
handle with her population of 48,000 whites, nearly as
"Wheeling Intelligencer. The Philadelphia North American
commenting on this says: "As regards Wheeling this is un
doubtedly true. The city derives its growth mainly from the
adjacent districts of Ohio and Pennsylvania and from the
through trade between the free states of the west and the great
cities of the east. Let Maryland and Virginia secede and the
business of the Baltimore and Ohio will be ruined and Wheeling
would mourn in sackcloth and ashes."

86 THE DISRUPTION OF VIRGINIA
many as the state of Florida, could attach herself to
Pennsylvania.1 At no time, however, does this ques
tion seem to have been seriously regarded.
We close this chapter with an excerpt from a letter
written by John S. Carlile to the National Intelligencer
early in 1861 : "Dissolve this Union and hitch Vir
ginia to the tail of a Southern Confederacy to stand
guard and play patrol for King Cotton! I drop the
pen. I cannot contemplate the picture. I turn with
horror from such a sight. Oh! for a Jackson to say
and make good the saying, 'The Federal Union; it
must and shall be preserved.' " 2
1 Wellsburg Herald, Jan. 10, 1861.
* National Intelligencer, Jan. 5, 1861.

CHAPTER VIII
THE PRELIMINARIES OF THE CONVENTION
Any recital of the secession of Virginia from the
Union would be incomplete without some reference to
the stirring events of the preceding eighteen months.
Only through such a study can we appreciate the sit
uation in which Virginia found herself in 1861, with
internal discord as well as external pressure to combat.
The latter forced her hand when she was almost ready
to assume the role of neutral; a small band of Union
sympathizers in the west seized the opportunity, se
cured the aid of the Federal Government, turned a deaf
ear to those among them who did not desire to take
advantage of the old state's embarrassment — and West
Virginia was the result.
We shall first take up some of the significant happen
ings of the year 1860, passing over the famous raid of
John Brown in October, 1859, with the comment that
the suspicious, almost captious attitude of Virginia
toward the North was partly the result of this hostile
incursion. The South felt that Brown was only the
tool of more important men ; that the Abolitionists had
planned the raid as a warning to slaveholders, which
was tantamount to declaring war upon slavery. Vir-
87

88 THE DISRUPTION OF VIRGINIA
ginia with her exposed border had for years suffered
from the activities of the Underground Railroad; in
western Virginia it was very difficult for the people to
keep slaves, even had they desired to do so. That the
people of Virginia were deeply attached to the Union
cannot be questioned, but there is just as little doubt
that the long-continued attacks upon slavery, an insti
tution recognized but not wholly protected by law, were
making a heavy drain upon their patriotism. Consid
ering the great economic importance of slavery to Vir
ginia, it is surprising that the state hesitated so long
before seceding from the Federal Union. Its re
luctance to do so is a tribute to the natural conserva
tism that has always been a characteristic of the Old
Dominion. The year 1860 found the people of Virginia in a con
dition approaching political hysteria. John Brown's
raid was still a principal topic of conversation and
the gubernatorial contest had increased the excitement.
The successful candidate, John Letcher, had been put
in the position of endorsing the anti-slavery propa
ganda and thus received comparatively little support
in the east where he carried but two congressional dis
tricts.1 His opponent, William L. Goggin, made the
race on a strong pro-slavery, states-rights platform,
but disclaimed any thought of breaking up the Union
"The Kanawha Valley Star, a western paper, attacked Letcher
for having endorsed the Ruffner anti-slavery pamphlet. In a
letter to the Richmond South a short time before the election
Letcher reiterated his belief that slavery was a political and
social, but not a moral, evil.

PRELIMINARIES OF THE CONVENTION 89
and declared that it must be preserved as long as there
was any hope that the rights, property and preroga
tives of the South could be preserved. The almost
unanimous support given Letcher by western Virginia
overcame the large majorities received by Goggin in
the slavery strongholds, and the former was elected to
a chair which brought its occupant nothing but worry
and disappointment. With most of his personal affilia
tions in the part of the state that afterwards became
West Virginia, Letcher as Governor professed to con
sider it his duty to go along with the old state and
share her fortunes.
As far as national political parties were concerned,
no great difference in their attitude toward secession
may be observed in Virginia. The Whig party still
numbered among its adherents some of the most promi-.
nent men of the state and as a rule they could be
counted as conservatives. One of their leaders, William
C. Rives, wrote to a friend late in 1860 that there were
no evils of misgovernment or maladministration for
which the multiplied defensive resources of the federa
tive system could not in time find an adequate remedy.1
Similar views were held by scores of men who were com
pelled to admit a few months later that, admirable as
the national system was, it still possessed one fatal
defect. At the Whig opposition convention held in Richmond
February, 1860, resolutions were adopted to the effect
that the general government had no right to interfere
'National Intelligencer, Oct. 2, 1860.

90 THE DISRUPTION OF VIRGINIA
with slavery within the states ; that the South intended
to stand by the principles laid down in the Compromise
of 1850, and that it was to the best interests of the
South to abstain from any efforts looking toward the
establishment of the foreign slave trade. The conven
tion expressed "an immovable attachment for the
Union" and urged all parties to unite in the endeavor
to preserve the Union of their fathers.1
The Democratic party of Virginia was outwardly
only a degree less pronounced in favor of maintaining
the Federal Union, so it may be said that nearly all the
expressions heard favoring the dissolution of the Union
emanated from private sources.2
Schemes for a Southern Confederacy which had been
fostered by the cotton states under the leadership of
South Carolina had always been more or less contingent
on the attitude of Virginia, and never was her position
of primacy among the Southern states more clearly
1 National Intelligencer, Feb. 24-25, 1860. It is only fair, how
ever, to state that in this convention the sentiment expressed by
Robert Scott that "while he loved and venerated the Union he
loved Virginia more" was received with general approbation.
The feeling against the "Black Republicans" was very bitter
in this convention and cropped out on every occasion. The
Wheeling Intelligencer was reported by the Richmond Whig,
Feb. 15, as giving an account of the sending of a Republican
representative to the convention. The Whig advises him to
"stay at home and save his money and his bacon."
2 In a letter to the Richmond Enquirer, Dec. 6, I860, Secre
tary of War Floyd expressed himself as follows: "For one, I
am not for secession, as long as any honorable effort can be
made to preserve the Union on a constitutional basis, guaran
teeing equality, justice, and protection of the negro property
of the South. . . . The main study of all should be to prevent
any collision between the two sections, and most especially the
shedding of the first drop of blood."

PRELIMINARIES OF THE CONVENTION 91
shown than in the early part of 1861, when the united
cotton states were bending all their energies toward
winning Virginia away from her Northern allegiance.
In the convention held at Montgomery in May, 1858,
her representatives, with the exception of Roger A.
Pryor, held aloof from anything that savored of dis
loyalty to the United States. Pryor, indeed, assured
the delegates that Virginia was loyal to the Southern
cause, "even the hard-fisted democracy of western Vir
ginia"; but it was just as well that they did not pre
sume upon this loyalty.1 At a later time William L.
Yancey wrote to Pryor that it was no part of their
plan to include Virginia in the Southern Confederacy,
at least in the beginning. She, together with the other
border states, should remain in the Northern Union
and nullify any attempt at coercion on the part of the
general government.2
In the early part of the legislative session of 1860
commissioners from South Carolina appeared before
the Assembly of Virginia and urged that body to sum
mon a convention of the people which should take under
consideration the question of secession from the Union.
The ostensible purpose was to be the preservation of
the Union but, as the Richmond Whig remarked, no
one would be deceived as to the real purpose of the
convention. Pubhc sentiment was almost universally
"De Bow's Review, 1858, Vol. 24, pp. 524-606, covering Mont
gomery Convention.
'National Intelligencer, Nov. 28, 1860. Edmund Ruffin of
Virginia, in a speech delivered at Columbia, S. C, expressed the
same idea, that of making Virginia a buffer state.

92 THE DISRUPTION OF VIRGINIA
against the proposition and the commissioners went
back convinced that it was useless to make any further
attempts to "fire the heart of the Virginians."
One of these commissioners, Mr. Memminger, made
an exhaustive report of the condition of affairs in
Virginia. He was of the opinion that the extent and
diversity of Virginia impaired the unity of action and
that nothing could be expected from her until the peo
ple of the state were more united. Furthermore, he
says, most people seemed to think that the rights of
the state would yet be secured in the Union and it would
be dangerous to assemble a convention at that time.1
William C. Rives in a letter to the Whig asserted that
there were too many points of divergence between Vir
ginia and the cotton states to make a union between
them either practical or desirable.
"I glance at these things," said he, "that in the
Utopia of a Southern Confederacy we should have no
more harmony and concord . . . than in the great con
tinental temple dedicated by our fathers to American
unity, peace, and freedom. ... If evils arise from
time to time, let us seek a remedy for them within the
Union as it is. Let us not upon the sudden appearance
of a squall or because one or two of the crew have
"The Vicksburg Whig commends Virginia for her "wise and
patriotic action." The Lynchburg Virginian expresses pride
that the state was living up to her splendid traditions.
The South Carolinians displayed considerable bitterness toward
Virginia after their emissaries had reported the failure of their
mission. The Charleston Mercury led the attack, and so
acrimonious were some of the articles printed in this paper
that the Alexandria Gazette was forced to warn its Charleston
contemporary that a continuation of such abuse would drive
many Virginians over to the Union side.

PRELIMINARIES OF THE CONVENTION 93
mutinied desert the good ship Constitution, abandon
our comrades, and in a panic betake ourselves to the
crazy raft of secession which will conduct us we know
not whither." x
It is very difficult to arrive at any conclusion as to
the general sentiment of the people of Virginia up to
the time of Lincoln's election. Outwardly the peace
element predominated. Few newspapers were advocat
ing radical measures and the resolutions adopted at
the inevitable mass meetings were generally pacific in
character. On the other hand, we know that active
war preparations were being made in various parts of
the state as early as the summer of I860.2 These
martial demonstrations are really not so significant as
one might think at first glance, for the idle men in
Virginia (and there were many such) needed but slight
excuse to form themselves into military companies, don
gay uniforms and parade the streets. Their feeling
1 National Intelligencer, Feb. 13, 1860, quoting Richmond
Whig. Mr. Rives was such a devoted Union man at this time
that it is hard to credit the fact that only a year later he was
in Montgomery for the very purpose of hitching Virginia to
the "crazy raft of secession."
' The editor of the Christian Barmer wrote June 7, 1860. "The
atmosphere, the very element in which we live seems to be preg
nant with the spirit of war. . . . The very devil seems to be
turned loose among the people. Battalions are being formed
all through the South and sublime and costly preparations for
war are being made everywhere. . . . Even the little boys in our
town . . . have caught the war spirit and formed themselves
into military companies and perambulate the streets dressed
out in uniforms, with their banners floating before the breeze,
their mock drums beating, and their imitation guns on their
shoulders. . . . The people seem to be taking it into their heads
that there will be war, there must be war, and there shall be
war." — Hunnicutt, "The Conspiracy Unveiled, or the Horrors
of Secession," p. 22.

94 THE DISRUPTION OF VIRGINIA
against the North was one of resentment rather than
hatred, and certainly not strong enough as yet to
inspire them to deeds of arms.
It must be borne in mind, too, that it is impossible
to make any statement about Virginia that would be
true of all sections. Not all eastern Virginia was a
unit by any means. The cities and larger towns seemed
to contain the only radical elements of any conse
quence; county newspapers were a unit, almost, in
counseling moderation and it is a fair assumption that
they reflected the sentiments of their readers. Across
the Alleghany Mountains conditions were so entirely
different that it is not easy to remember that trans-
Alleghany Virginia was still an integral part of the
state. No secession party of any consequence existed
in any portion of the west.1 The recent immigrants
from the North were, of course, pronounced in their
Union sympathies, while the native western Virginians,
not having much at stake, as they thought, at that
time displayed an indifference to national questions
that could scarcely be found anywhere else in the whole
country. The greater part of the section was far re
moved from the scene of conflict and it is altogether
likely that a vast majority of the people were as igno
rant of, as they were indifferent to, the great political
events of the day.
The presidential campaign of 1860 proved to be one
1 The Kanawha Valley Star was one of the very earliest ad
vocates of secession, but it cannot be shown that this paper had
a very large following?

PRELIMINARIES OF THE CONVENTION 95
of the most exciting that Virginia had ever experienced.
In addition to the close contest between Bell and
Breckenridge, and overshadowing it in importance, was
the momentous question: What will be the outcome if
Lincoln is elected? As the summer and fall of that
year wore away, it became evident to all that the "Black
Republican" candidate had the best chance of election
and a certain hopelessness is observable in the Union
ranks. It was felt that Virginia could no more prevent
the dissolution of the Union after Mr. Lincoln's elec
tion than she could prevent that election,1 and this
was the prevailing sentiment even among the strongest
Union men.
The Secessionist Richmond Enquirer averred that
nothing could prevent civil war with all its attendant
horrors. Any one of the Southern states could involve
the whole country in a desolating war and this would
doubtless be the outcome. As for the position of Vir
ginia, that would be determined by the votes of a ma
jority of her people and no one could doubt, says this
journal, what their decision would be when the honor
of the state was in question, although there were many
who preferred waiting for some overt act. "But,
hitched as she is to the Southern states, she will be
dragged into a common destiny with them no matter
what may be the desire of the people." 2 This last
phrase received much attention from a certain class
of Virginians who objected to the allegation that their
"The Richmond Whig, Sept. 20, 1860.
'Enquirer, Oct. 2, 1860.

96 THE DISRUPTION OF VIRGINIA
state could be forced into doing anything against its
will. As one paper declared: "Virginia would never
be hitched to the Southern Confederacy unless it was
by her own free will and consent." 2
At a Rockingham County mass meeting resolutions
were adopted to the effect that
"the allegation that Virginia is so hitched to the South
ern states that they can drag her into a common
destiny with them no matter what may be the desire
of her people is a foul calumny and aspersion on this
noble commonwealth and a gross insult to her people;
that we believe that nine tenths of the people of this
state will be opposed to resisting the general govern
ment as long as it may be administered in conformity
to the Constitution and the common benefit of all the
states ; that Virginia owes no duty to the Southern
states or any other quarter of the world except to dis
charge those constitutional obligations resting on her
as a member of the Union and which every civilized
community owes to every other; and that she has the
ability and the resolution to maintain her rights from
whatever quarter they may be assailed." 2
"The Whig, Oct. 4, 1860.
'National Intelligencer, Oct. 10, 1860. Not a little of the
bitterness against the states farther south arose from the agita
tion over the reopening of the slave trade which Virginia op
posed. The Lynchburg Virginian on Oct. 10, 1860, printed a long
article showing what would be the effect if restrictions upon
this "execrable commerce" were removed. A marked deprecia
tion in the price and value of slaves would undoubtedly follow
and this would tell seriously on the fortunes of the state. "But
let the two favorite measures of the Southern agitators be
adopted, to wit a dissolution of the Union and the reopening of
the slave trade and what then? Cannot anybody perceive that
with the influx of cheap negroes from Africa to take the place
of those that are usually carried from Virginia; with the de-

PRELIMINARIES OF THE CONVENTION 97
The Enquirer insisted that it was only pride which
kept them from admitting their dependence on the
South. After the gulf states had gone out it would be
impossible for Virginia to continue in the Northern
Union, and in a border state confederacy slavery would
have no protection whatsoever, being compelled to run
the gauntlet of the Northern Abolitionists on the one
hand and the discriminatory acts of the gulf states on
the other. The result would be the financial ruin of
Virginia and the beginning of a desultory civil war.1
Some of the more optimistic expressed the opinion
that the election of Lincoln, if accomplished through
the division of his opponents, would be a barren victory
for the Republicans, since the Democrats at any time
could unite and checkmate any move of the anti-
slavery men in Congress.2
Henry A. Wise in a letter to the Democratic Club
of Boston expressed the fear that Black Republicanism
was to triumph in the coming election and outlined a
course of action which he called "fighting in the Union."
Virginia should retain her constitutional relations to
the Federal Government, but the latter was to be
embarrassed in every possible way. No Federal officers
should be allowed to perform their duties, and the state
was to throw itself in a defensive position awaiting
mand cut off in that quarter for our surplus and redundant
slave population our property would soon become worthless?"
1 Enquirer, Oct. 12, 1860.
"The Alexandria Sentinel first expressed this idea in an able
article appearing Oct. 10, 1860.

98 THE DISRUPTION OF VIRGINIA
some hostile move on the part of the central authori
ties.1 A great many people thought that the election of
Lincoln was a matter of little consequence, war being
inevitable anyhow.2 Said Robert Scott: "I believe in
no practicability of establishing upon the ruins of the
Union an enduring Southern Confederacy. Between
the border states and the gulf states there exist too
many diversities of soil, climate, and interests." 3 But
even in this unenviable position he saw no escape for
Virginia as long as there were such important sectional
matters at stake. Since disunion had been decided upon
by the "fire-eaters" of the South, it was of no conse
quence whether Lincoln was elected or not; it would
merely serve as a reasonable pretext. The plan was
to get Governor Letcher to call a special session of the
legislature and by a warlike message stir that body
up to rebellion.4
The eastern Virginians were warned that the western
counties would not be dragged into secession ; that nine
tenths of the people of western Virginia were in favor
of trying the administration of Mr. Lincoln, even
though they abhorred his principles. The opportunity
was seized to read the east a homily on their duty to
the west. On the other side of the Blue Ridge Moun-
1 Philadelphia Public Ledger, Dec. 17, 1860. See below.
'This presentiment was probably more general than appears
on the surface. Union men disliked to admit that their cause
was hopeless.
3 From a speech delivered at Alexandria, Oct. 10, 1860.
* National Intelligencer, Oct. 20, 1860.

PRELIMINARIES OF THE CONVENTION 99
tains were the majority of the white population of Vir
ginia ; these constituted the bone and sinew of the state,
furnished the fighting men in time of war, were ardently
devoted to the Union, and would not follow the state
leaders in any war upon the Federal Government until
that government had actually ceased to be the govern
ment of the whole United States. One of the western
correspondents, with prophetic foresight, wrote: "It
is evident from what I have seen and heard through
western Virginia that if John Letcher and the Rich
mond Junto attempt to drag Virginia into secession —
Virginia will be two states before it is finished." x
The election of Lincoln came as a bitter blow to
the peace-lovers of Virginia for while the event was
expected, there still remained the hope that something
might hap^n to bring about the defeat of the "Black
Republican" candidate. Immediately upon receipt of
the news, the commandant of the state armory left for
Washington for the purpose of buying military stores
and supplies of all kinds.2 The fact that this was done
so openly leads us to suspect that it was undertaken
more as a warning than anything else. There is little
reason to doubt that the great body of Virginians still
maintained their conservative attitude. Secretary of
War Floyd, while affirming his belief in the right of a
state to sever its connection with the Federal Govern
ment and deploring the election of Lincoln as a na-
"From a letter to the National Intelligencer signed "Vir
ginian," Oct. 20, 1860.
"Philadelphia Public Ledger, Nov. 6, 1860.

100 THE DISRUPTION OF VD3GINIA
tional calamity, counseled Virginia to go very slowly.
He believed that some readjustment of national affairs
would have to be made, but rested his faith on the
powerful influence of the business interests of the coun
try.1 Senator Hunter of Virginia openly endorsed
these views, but doubted if war could be averted after
the first drop of blood was shed.2 John S. Millson in
the House of Representatives expressed the idea of a
great many Virginians when he declared that it was
not a question of Virginia's submitting to Lincoln but
of the latter's submitting to Virginia.3 The press of
the state was divided on the issue pretty much accord
ing to sections. Western Virginia, having compara
tively little to lose from an attack on slavery, was in
clined to belittle the importance of the event. The
papers of the Valley interpreted it much more seri
ously, but so far from being willing to give up the
Union they were almost unanimously of the opinion
that some amicable agreement could yet be reached.
The Whig journals fixed the responsibility for Lin
coln's election upon the "Breckenridgers under Yancey
and the corruptionists under Buchanan." * In the east
few newspapers advised radical action, although there
was little hope that anything could be done to pacify
the dissonant sections of the United States. In any
case, Virginia should exhibit the wisdom, moderation,
" Richmond Enquirer, Dec. 6, 1860.
'National Intelligencer, Dec. 7, 1860.
"Congressional Globe, Second Session 36th Congress, appendix,
p. 77.
'Richmond Whig, Dec. 1, 1860.

PRELIMINARIES OF THE CONVENTION 101
and patriotism by which she had always been char
acterized, and should go very slowly in making any
alliances.1 Only one important daily newspaper urged imme
diate and decisive action. What good is there, it asks,
in attempting to patch up differences that all people
should recognize by this time as irreconcilable? If
the Virginia authorities wished to act in a manner be
coming to the officials of a great state they would at
once dispatch commissioners to Maryland and the two
states acting together should capture Washington, Old
Point Comfort, Harper's Ferry, and the Gosport
Navy Yard. "Disunion to all intents and purposes
exists. Let each state provide quickly for its own
safety." 2
As is always the case in times of great political ex
citement, the people came together in mass meetings
and gave utterance to their sentiments through the
medium of resolutions and memorials. All deplored
the election of Lincoln as a terrible misfortune, but
few of them held that this in itself constituted suffi
cient cause for secession. West of the Blue Ridge the
feeling seemed to prevail that the safety of Virginia
lay in an agreement of some kind with the border
states : not necessarily a formal alliance, but some kind
of understanding that they should all stand together
to resist alike the usurpations of the Northern Union
"Alexandria Gazette, Dec. 1; Richmond Examiner, Dec. 2,
1860. 'Richmond Enquirer, Dec. 8, 1860.

102 THE DISRUPTION OF VIRGINIA
and the importunities of the Southern Confederacy.1
While the people of the large slaveholding counties in
the Valley viewed with great alarm the election of a
man who had at one time sworn to strike the institu
tion of slavery a blow, their sentiments as expressed
by resolutions in mass meetings were far less radical
than we should expect considering what they had at
stake. At the most they seldom went any further than
to advise the calling of a Southern states' convention
for the purpose of considering how their rights could
be secured in the Union. Occasionally we find a veiled
threat such as "in the event of a failure to obtain guar
antees ... we are resolved to adopt in concert with
the other states of the South or alone such measures
as may seem most expedient to protect the rights and
insure the safety of the people of Virginia." 2
As the year 1860 passed and nothing was done to
heal the differences between the sections of the coun
try, there was a pronounced drift toward secession in
Virginia. The feeling that war was inevitable pre
vailed and it became more apparent every day that
Virginia could not take a neutral position when the
struggle broke out.3 The radical element grew with
great rapidity and no effort was spared to bring about
1 Resolutions to this effect were adopted in mass meetings
held in Bath County, Loudoun County, Albemarle County,
Botetourt County, etc.
' "Messages and Documents of Virginia." Document No. 14.
a As early as Dec. 17, 1860, a dispatch from the Richmond
correspondent of the Wheeling Intelligencer declared that the
general sentiment was that "dissolution could not be avoided,
and Virginia must go along with the South."

PRELIMINARIES OF THE CONVENTION 103
a collision with the general government. The people
of the east were warned by the loyal newspapers of
the "precipitating Disunionists in their midst" and
urged to check in every way the progress of the war
party.1 However, the Secessionist minority was strong
where the Unionist minority was weak. The former
based all their appeals on Virginian pride and Southern
homogeneity, while the latter were forced to appeal to
a much weaker sentiment — the love of the Union.
The position of Governor Letcher was an unenviable
one at this time. Possessing moderate views as to the
course which Virginia should take, he was between two
fires. Owing his election to his fellow-citizens of tjie
west, and characterized by the eastern slaveholders as
one whose principles savored of "Black Republicanism,"
it is surprising to find him lined up with the leaders
of the Secession party and becoming a fairly pliable
tool in their hands. His views on states' rights and
slavery had changed since the Constitutional Conven
tion of 1850-51 2 as had his opinion of the "Eastern
Junto." In his message to the General Assembly in
1860 we have the first intimation that the Governor's
ideas have undergone a transformation. Yancey him-
1 The Richmond Whig, still a Union paper, performed heroic
service in its efforts to neutralize the effect of the Secessionist
speeches. 2 Letcher had sat in this convention as a representative from
western Virginia and had made himself obnoxious to the eastern
leaders. His soubriquet, "Honest John," had been earned when
he was in Congress. He had refused to accept the salary in
crease provided by Congress until the act received the sanction
of his constituents. — Kanawha VaUey Star, Jan. 13, 1857, quot
ing from the Weekly Expositor.

104 THE DISRUPTION OF VIRGINIA
self could not wax more indignant over the wrongs j)f
the South. The North must give additional guarantees
if it expected to preserve the Union intact, and Vir
ginia would not hesitate to resume her sovereign power
if her connection with the United States became in
tolerable. September 17, 1860, the official organ of the state
government announced that a special session of the
legislature would be called, the purpose of which was
the consideration of the sale of the James River and
Kanawha Canal Company to some French capitalists.
"Nevertheless," the item continues, "it is possible that
the legislature on assembling will find even more serious
work to do." x No better illustration of the conserva
tism which prevailed in Virginia at that time could be
given than this rather hesitating announcement of the
coming special legislative session. Had the peopleof
the state been demanding war, it would not have been
necessary to make the attempt to deceive citizens as
to the real purpose of the call. Undoubtedly the
Secessionist leaders who were responsible for the sum
moning of the Assembly understood well the sentiment
of the majority of the Virginians and did not wish to
arouse the suspicions of the Union men. But the
proclamation really deceived few and only served to
awaken deeper suspicion.
The official notice was sent out by Governor Letcher
November 15th and called the General Assembly to
meet January 7, 1861.
"*" Richmond Enquirer, Sept. 17, 1860.

PRELIMINARIES OF THE CONVENTION 105
Accordingly at the appointed time the Virginia As
sembly came together in a session which was to last
until after Virginia had taken herself out of the Union.
The Governor's message was a peculiar document, lack
ing in nothing so much as consistency. Starting with
the premise that all might yet be well if the "fires of
patriotism" could be kindled anew, he advocated the
division of the United States into four republics and
declared that the Union was already dissolved. South
Carolina and Mississippi came in for their share of
the general castigation, the reason for which was their
precipitancy in leaving the Union without further con
sulting the border states. While the Governor was of
the opinion that the dictum of Lincoln to the effect
that the United States could not exist half slave and
half free marked him as a dangerous man, yet he would
not leave the Northern Union and go into a confed
eracy with the cotton states until it should appear
what they had to offer in the way of guarantees. After
the subject of Virginia's grievances has been thor
oughly considered, the message goes into a discus
sion of what might be expected if a state convention
should be called. The opinion is expressed that it was
unnecessary to provide for such a convention, at that
time anyhow, for the legislature could act in any prob
able contingency. Just why the Governor took this
stand is difficult to determine. His love of the Union
may still have been strong enough to induce him to
hold back from any step which seemed likely to lead
to disunion; or, on the other hand, he may have been

106 THE DISRUPTION OF VIRGINIA
advised that a convention called at that time and con
trolled by the Valley and Trans-Alleghany members
would never take Virginia out of the Union; and the
legislature was far more amenable to Secessionist ideas
than any convention would be.
From the Federal Government, runs the message,
there should be demanded six guarantees before Vir
ginia would even consider remaining in the Union:
First, the personal liberty laws must be repealed; sec
ond, the institution of slavery in the District of Co
lumbia must be protected; third, the territories of the
United States should be thrown open to slavery ; fourth,
there must be no interference in the transference of
slaves from one slave state to another, and the right
of transit through free states must be secured; fifth,
rigid laws should be passed prohibiting the publication
and circulation of literature intending to incite the
slaves to insurrection; sixth, no officers known to be
hostile to slavery should be appointed to positions in
the slave states. Here we have summed up all the griev
ances which the South had ever complained of, and
had Congress been willing to give all the additional
guarantees demanded it is probable that there would
have been no Civil War in 1861. A close scrutiny of
the message reveals the fact that the ostensible reason
for calling the legislature together — to consider the sale
of the James River and Kanawha Canal bonds — was
lost sight of in the discussion of more important issues.1
The document under discussion was not the most
1 "Messages and Documents," No. 1.

PRELIMINARIES OF THE CONVENTION 107
unskillful one that could have been penned. Its author
succeeded admirably in taking the middle ground and
so framed his recommendations that the legislature
could scarcely run counter to them. The Governor
advised neither a strong Unionist nor a strong Seces
sionist policy but believed that the state should throw
her fortunes with the side that made the best offer.
It is not surprising that the message met with little
approbation in either camp. The seceded states were
more convinced than ever that Virginia would never
pool issues with them, while the Unionists were uncer
tain whether to consider Letcher their friend or their
enemy. The legislature upon assembling lost no time in get
ting down to work. Only such matters as demanded
instant attention were considered. The report of a
committee appointed at the previous session to look
into the question of state defenses was listened to with
a good deal of interest, as were the reports of the state
auditors showing the condition of the finances. Statis
tics of all kinds poured in, until it seemed that the As
sembly must have resolved upon a complete stock
taking.1 The first business of any importance to be trans
acted was the appointment of a Committee on Federal
Relations. Out of this grew the Peace Conference
which met in Washington February 4th and attracted
so much attention. That none of the seceded states
"Very few laws were enacted which did not have some bear
ing upon the war question.

108 THE DISRUPTION OF VIRGINIA
sent representatives and that the conference failed to
accomplish anything was not the fault of Virginia.1
January 8th, one day after assembling, the legisla
ture went on record in favor of the right of a state
to secede from the Union and denying that the Federal
Government could lawfully make war against any state
or attempt to force it back again into the Union. There
was of course nothing new about this doctrine and
almost every state had at one time or another in its
history given expression to it; but coming as it did
at this time it has a special significance. It paved
the way for the adoption of more radical resolutions,
such as the one agreed to on January 21st, whereby
the legislature declared itself in favor of uniting its
destinies with the other Southern states in the event of
the failure of all efforts to reconcile the differences be
tween the sections.2
While providing for the Peace Conference in Wash
ington, the Assembly also appointed ex-President Tyler
and Judge Robertson as Commissioners to the United
States and to the Southern Confederacy respectively,
with instructions to keep both governments from
resorting to active hostilities. It was well understood
that they would make every effort to find out what were
* "Messages and Documents," No. 13. South Carolina in re
sponse to Virginia's invitation declared that she herself had
made a similar attempt to save the Union more than a year ago
and that Virginia had declined to join her. Now it was too
late. Steps had already been taken to form a Southern Con
federacy and the states concerned were determined "to secure
their permanent independence beyond the reach of any con
tingency." — "Messages and Documents," No. 32.
* Laws of Virginia, 1861, p. 337.

PRELIMINARIES OF THE CONVENTION 109
the intentions of the two governments; whether the
North contemplated taking up arms in its effort to
bring back the seceded states, and whether the officials
at Montgomery were making any active preparations
for war. Mr. Tyler learned little, but received the
assurance from President Buchanan that the Federal
Government would do all in its power to avoid a col
lision with the South.1 Judge Robertson was scarcely
the man to be sent on the mission to the Confederate
states; he was an avowed Secessionist and conducted
his negotiations with anything but the impartiality
which should characterize an envoy. His notes to
the state executives were entirely partisan in character
and undoubtedly gave the impression that Virginia had
almost decided to join the seceded states. Naturally
the legislature got little satisfaction from his report.
Georgia and Alabama committed themselves to the ex
tent that they promised to abstain from hostilities for
the present, but the other states would give no assur
ances of any kind.
Nothing definite resulted from Virginia's efforts at
peace, but the state lost no prestige, to say the least,
because of their failure. From January until April
the eyes of the whole country were turned upon Vir-
"The peculiar sensitiveness of Virginia is shown in a com
munication sent by Mr. Tyler to President Buchanan, calling
the attention of the latter to the fact that the guns of Fortress
Monroe were turned toward Virginia, an action which many
people were interpreting as a threat. "When Virginia is making
every effort to redeem and save the Union it is seemingly un
gracious to have cannons leveled at her bosom." Buchanan
promised to look into the matter and remove the cause of offense.
— "Messages and Documents," No. 23, p. 15.

110 THE DISRUPTION OF VIRGINIA
ginia, in the hope that her wise men would yet devise
some method of holding together the Federal Union.
From the very first there was a feeling in the legis
lature that the calling of a state convention was un
avoidable. A resolution to this effect passed the House
of Delegates by a large majority, but not before the
Union men had fought bitterly to have the matter post
poned. The question was raised whether the legislature
had the power to summon a convention without first
submitting the proposition to the voters, as had been
the unvarying rule in preceding conventions. It was
the prevailing view, however, that affairs were too press
ing to go through the accustomed formality, so the
precedent was waived. All were impressed with the
gravity of the situation.1 As one member said, "We
are standing to-day in the midst of a revolution around
the falling columns and broken arches of the mightiest
temple ever reared to the genius of Liberty. The
vandalism of fanaticism has polluted its altars; the
Spirit of Liberty has taken its flight and Ichabod is
written on its door-posts. The union of these states
1 Great excitement prevailed in Richmond while the convention
bill was under discussion. Business was almost entirely sus
pended, while on every corner people gathered • to listen to
Secessionist speeches. "Apparently there are no Union men in
the city," wrote one visitor to Richmond.
A dispatch to the Wheeling Intelligencer, Jan. 14, 1861, gives
some idea of the existing conditions: "The very air here is
charged with the electric thunders of war. In the street, at
the Capitol, in the bar-room, at the dinner table, nothing is
heard but resistance to the general government and sympathy
with the cause of South Carolina. In the legislature, the great
aim even among the western members appears to be to hurry
things and precipitate a crisis."

PRELIMINARIES OF THE CONVENTION 111
is already dissolved. . . . Great events are on the wing
and Virginia is called upon to say what part or lot
she will take in this matter. . . . Will she be longer
bound to broken covenants and violated compacts with
those of Punic — worse than Punic — Puritan faith; or
will she . . . take her cause in her own hands relying
upon God and her arms? I cannot sing paeans to a
Union that is dead." 1
Not all the members of the legislature took such
extreme ground, but the majority recognized that some
thing would have to be done; that Virginia could main
tain the status quo but little longer, and that in the
meantime there was likely to arise a situation which
would require immediate attention. So the bill calling
for a state convention passed both Senate and House
of Delegates by large majorities. February 4th was
fixed as the day for the election of delegates, although
the conservative members of the legislature protested
that not enough time would be given for a canvass.2
One important point was won by the opposition, how
ever, when they succeeded in foiling an effort of the
Secessionists to make the decisions of the convention
final without reference to the people. Those opposed
to "reference" declared that there was great prob
ability that whatever the convention did would have
to be done in a hurry, and if all its actions had to go
through the process of a general state vote before
1 Richmond Dispatch, Jan. 9, 1861.
'This was the principal point of attack upon the bill by the
western papers but they also asserted that the consent of the
people should first be obtained before any convention was called.

112 THE DISRUPTION OF VIRGINIA
becoming effective it would be impossible to provide
against any emergency. Furthermore, they declared,
the convention will come directly from the people and
will reflect their wishes.1
By a vote of seventy-seven to sixty-two it was de
cided to refer the action of the convention to a vote
of the people of the state.
The bill as finally passed on January 14th fixed the
number of delegates to the convention at one hundred
and fifty-two, the electoral districts to be the same
as those fixed for the House of Delegates. February
13th was set as the day when the convention should
assemble.2 It cannot justly be said that the bill in
question was unfair in any particular. It allowed
what was really sufficient time for canvass before the
election; it put the final responsibility for whatever
should be done upon the people themselves; and by
the method of appointment of delegates placed the
control of the convention in the hands of the western
representatives.3 But the time had passed when the
Valley and the Trans-Alleghany were bound together
by the same ties of interest; in the conventions of
1829-30 and 1850-51 all the delegates from the region
west of the Blue Ridge were aiming at a common goal
— the removal of the restrictions upon suffrage and
a more equal distribution of representation. The con-
"The Dispatch, Jan. 12th.
1 Laws of Virginia, 1861-62, p. 24.
"Seventy-nine of the one hundred and fifty-two delegates were
from that portion of Virginia lying west of the Blue Ridge
mountains.

PRELIMINARIES OF THE CONVENTION 113
stitution of 1851, by providing for what was prac
tically manhood suffrage, and by rearranging the ap
portionment of Delegates and Senators in their favor,
appeased the people of the Valley and left the Trans-
Alleghany alone to fight its battles. In the final
analysis slavery was the wedge that pried the two sec
tions apart.1
The few weeks preceding the election of February
4th were stirring ones throughout Virginia. The Seces
sionists spared no effort to have delegates chosen who
were pledged to vote for an ordinance of secession, while
the moderates endeavored to have the delegates go to
the convention untrammeled by pledges of any kind.
A great majority of the candidates refused to take a
decided stand on the issues of the day, and this was
almost universally the case in the Valley and in the
central, southern, and eastern counties of what is now
the state of West Virginia. In the northwestern coun
ties where the sentiment was overwhelmingly against
secession, the candidate who endeavored to straddle
had little show of being elected.2 Thus in Wheeling
the successful candidates had pledged themselves to
four things: first, that they would vote against an
ordinance of secession until the last ; second, that they
would use their influence in having the laws of the state
so modified that slaves would be taxed like all other
"The slave population of the Valley in 1860 numbered ap
proximately 300,000, while in the Trans-Alleghany there were
fewer than 30,000 slaves.
'A candidate of this type in Wheeling, and a very popular
man, was rejected because he refused to go on record as being
opposed to secession under any and all circumstances.

114 THE DISRUPTION OF VIRGINIA
property ; x third, that they would work for the adop
tion of the white basis of representation; fourth, that
in case the convention adopted an ordinance of seces
sion they favored the division of the state.2 In only
a few places, however, were the delegates elected on
such an uncompromising basis as this. Even in Rich
mond, the hotbed of secession, out of the men chosen
only one, Mr. Randolph, was an avowed disunionist.
The other two took no decided stand, although it was
well understood that they could not be classed as
"submissionists." John Minor Batts went down to
defeat because of his well-known Union proclivities,
while William C. Rives, certainly one of the ablest men
in the state, suffered the same fate for the same reason,
even though he had left a loophole in his platform by
declaring that "our rights must be maintained at all
hazards and I trust for one I shall be prepared to
meet every sacrifice they demand with as calm and col
lected a heart ... as the loudest patriot among us." 3
In practically all the counties the voters could
choose from three classes of candidates, namely, avowed
Secessionists, avowed Unionists, and those who would
"preserve the Union if it could be done with honor."
The last reflected the opinion of the great mass of
"Slaves under ten years of age were exempt from taxation
in Virginia, while those over that age were taxed at a fixed
valuation of $300. This was one of the sore points with the
West, which held but few slaves.
2 Wheeling Intelligencer, Jan. 22, 1861.
'National Intelligencer, Jan. 28, 1861. Also the Christian
Advocate warned the people against such men as Mr. Rives,
urging them to be as careful of their selections "as if their
eternal salvation depended upon their action."

PRELIMINARIES OF THE CONVENTION 115
people west of the Blue Ridge and south of the Little
Kanawha River. East of the Blue Ridge the prevail
ing sentiment was apparently in favor of secession, al
though this was not true of all the counties. North
of the Little Kanawha in western Virginia, especially
along the Ohio River, there was comparatively little
trend toward secession at this time. For the native
Virginians of this section not possessing slaves the
institution of slavery held only an academic interest,
while the large number of Northern settlers must neces
sarily have had a great influence in creating Union
sentiment. February 5th the news was flashed around the coun
try that Virginia had gone for the Union. Dispatches
like the following were to be found in nearly every im
portant newspaper: "Sufficient accounts from all parts
of the state have been received to warrant me in saying
that the Union ticket has swept the state by an im
mense majority. I doubt if there will be thirty Seces
sionists in the convention." x At first this was the com
mon feeling, even among those to whom the news was
unwelcome. The Unionists were exuberant. The
Christian Banner exults thus: "A thousand guns for
the Old Dominion on the result of the late election.
. . . Now if she can save the Federal Government and
cause the Stars and Stripes to continue floating over
our homes, she shall be entitled to 10,000 guns from
every prominent town and city in the state." 2 An-
1 Washington Star, Feb. 5, 1861.
•Hunnicutt, "The Conspiracy Unveiled or the Horrors of
Secession," p. 143.

116 THE DISRUPTION OF VIRGINIA
other Virginia paper rejoices that Virginia was not
"to dance crazily out of the Union to the fiddling of
South Carolina." * A strong Secessionist paper ex
plains the defeat of its candidates on three grounds:
first, the fear of secession ; second, the alarm aroused
among the foreigners relative to their oath of alle
giance; and third, the revival of the remnant of the
Douglas party. "As to the cry of secession . . . ,"
says this journal, "it was altogether unjust. Nobody
was for secession per se." 2 Editorials appeared in
papers all over the country, felicitating Virginia upon
her magnificent stand for the Union. It was the gen
eral opinion that she had definitely decided to have
no dealings with the Southern Confederacy and this
was considered equivalent to casting her lot with the
North.3 In the seceded states there was nothing but
gloom over the result. A Charleston paper declares
that Virginia would never secede now, and even though
the convention should pass an ordinance of secession
the people would vote it down. The pride felt by the
Union press of the state is well illustrated by the fol
lowing editorial:
"Nothing could be more gratifying to the pride of
a true Virginian than the respect which is felt and
manifest for the glorious old state all over the country.
Her praises come wafted to us upon every breeze. In
all places patriotic men rise up to call her blessed.
"The Norfolk Herald, Feb. 6, 1861.
"The Richmond Dispatch, Feb. 6, 1861.
'This opinion was expressed by the Philadelphia Press in an
editorial appearing Feb. 6th.

PRELIMINARIES OF THE CONVENTION 117
Everywhere men say, 'Virginia has spoken and her
voice is for the Union and peace. She has inspired
new hopes. She has given strength to the weak, and
stability to those who were almost ready to fall away.
She has arrested the mad course of secession and, if
truly understood, has shown the North that she will
demand her rights in the Union and will never abandon
them.' The noble stand she has taken will make her
friends all over the North and increase tenfold her
ability to secure concessions that will preserve the
equality of states." x
Such was the character of the articles which ap
peared in the Union papers of Virginia and little won
der is it that the North was entirely deceived as to
the real meaning of the election. A "Union man" was
one thing in Virginia and another thing in New Eng
land. The Northern conception of a Union man found
little place in the South where his prototype, the "Black
Republican Submissionist," was scarcely tolerated. The
Virginia Unionist opposed secession save as a last re
sort. He would play the role of neutral as long as
possible, and when this position became untenable he
believed that the state should either join the states
which were already out of the Union or form a border-
state confederacy.2
After the first flush of enthusiasm over the February
election had died away, a reaction set in and many
people began to ask whether they had not misinter
preted the meaning of the election. A Union paper of
'The Virginian, Feb. 6, 1861. ""*
'This was the favorite plan of Governor Letcher, who was
described as the happiest man in the state over the election.

118 THE DISRUPTION OF VIRGINIA
Richmond issued a warning to the Northerners not to
deceive themselves into thinking that Virginia would
allow matters to remain m statu quo; that she was
going to submit to the new dynasty if it attempted to
carry out the Chicago program. On the contrary, she
had determined to end her connection with the North
unless satisfactory and inviolable assurances were given
that every constitutional right would be maintained.1
A dispatch was printed in a Philadelphia paper
cautioning the North not to misunderstand the signifi
cance of the word Union.2 The real meaning is thus
explained by a Secessionist paper:
"The term Union by which the delegates-elect are
designated is calculated to convey a very erroneous
impression of the character of the convention.' More
than two thirds of the convention are resistants, who
are restrained from advocating immediate resistance
by a desire to unite the whole people of Virginia. Some
of these gentlemen are designated as Union, because
elected over gentlemen who desire immediate secession
without any effort at adjustment. The submissionists
have met with a defeat signal and overwhelming in Vir
ginia. Resistance has triumphed in Virginia and un
less a speedy adjustment is effected and the seceded
states induced to return, Virginia will strike an effec
tive blow before the 4th of March." 3
The opinion was offered that there was no real dif
ference between the Unionists and the Secessionists;
» The Whig, Feb. 11, 1861.
2 The Public Ledger, Feb. 6, 1861.
• Richmond Enquirer, Feb. 6, 1861.

PRELIMINARIES OF THE CONVENTION 119
both agreed that guarantees must be given to the South
and the only disagreement was the time which should
elapse before decided action was taken.1 In the light
of later events we must pronounce this explanation to
be substantially correct, so far at least as the eastern
delegates were concerned.
In the national House of Representatives the Vir
ginia delegation endeavored to correct the false im
pression that was spread abroad concerning the per
sonnel of the coming convention. Daniel Sickles of
New York had declared that "Virginia has spoken and
said to this demon of anarchy, 'thus far shalt thou go
and no farther.' " Mr. De Jarnette took it upon
himself to undeceive those who held this view. Vir
ginia's liberty and sovereignty must be preserved, he
said, "or every sword will leap from its scabbard and
flash defiance to a world in arms. There are no 'sub-
missionists' there; do not, I implore you, suppose that
Virginia will submit to oppression. . . . She has called
her young men and her old men together around her
council board. They have left their swords at home
because their presence sometimes engenders strife. They
want peace not war ; but if you do not acknowledge the
sovereignty of Virginia and the equality of her people
you will find them on the war path." 2 Another Vir
ginia Representative, Mr. Leake, asserted that his
state had gone for secession one hundred and twenty
to thirty unless guarantees were given her before March
1 Richmond Dispatch, Feb. 7, 1861.
'Ibid., Feb. 15, 1861.

120 THE DISRUPTION OF VIRGINIA
4th. She had solemnly determined that she would never
submit to the Union as it was now constituted.1
William C. Rives, whose devotion to the Union cause
cannot be questioned, was forced to acknowledge that
this agreed with his own diagnosis of the situation and
added that the election of so many delegates with con
servative views merely postponed for a time what was
inevitable — secession.2 Mr. Harris on the floor of the
House, in a speech full of protestation of love for the
Union, closed with these significant words: "My own
state, Virginia, has elected her delegates to deliberate
upon her welfare and her destiny ; and while her action
may be against my judgment, yet when it is taken her
lot becomes my lot ; her fate my fate ; her destiny my
destiny. Her will not mine be done." 3
» Richmond Dispatch, Feb. 15, 1861.
1 Pittsburgh Chronicle, Feb. 7, 1861.
'Congressional Globe; 36th Congress, 2nd Session; Appendix,
p. 76 et seq.
January 24th the Virginia Representatives in Congress issued
the following "Address to the People of Virginia": "At the
beginning of this session, now more than half over, committees
were appointed in both Houses of Congress to consider the
state of the Union. Neither committee has been able to agree
upon any mode of settlement of the pending issues between the
North and the South. The Republican members in both com
mittees rejected propositions acknowledging the right of prop
erty in slaves or recommending the division of the territories
between the slaveholding and the non-slaveholding states by a
geographical line. In the Senate the propositions commonly
known as Mr. Crittenden's were voted against by every Re
publican Senator. A resolution giving a pledge to sustain the
President in the use of force against seceded states was adopted
in the House by a large majority and in the Senate every
Republican voted to substitute for Mr. Crittenden's proposi
tions resolutions offered by Mr. Clarke of New Hampshire de
claring that no new concessions, guarantees, or amendments to
the Constitution were necessary; that the demands of the

PRELIMINARIES OF THE CONVENTION 121
In spite of the attempts of those who were familiar
with the situation to correct the false impressions re
garding the real meaning of the February election the
general public would not be undeceived, preferring to
believe what they wished to believe. This has been
unfortunate for Virginia. The almost universal opin
ion was, and is, that the majority of delegates went to
Richmond strong Union men and, through the force of
exterior pressure "turned traitor" and voted Virginia
out of the Union against the wishes of the majority
of her people. No opinion could be more erroneous*"
than this, for, leaving out of consideration the north
western delegates, there was scarcely a man who came
to the convention resolved to remain in the Union even
at the hazard of being compelled to fight the South.
The thought of leaving a Union in which Virginia had
played such a conspicuous and glorious part was al-
South were unreasonable and the remedy for the present danger
was simply to enforce the law ... in other words, coercion and
war. In this state of facts our duty is to warn you that it is
in vain for you to hope for any measures of conciliation or
adjustment from Congress which you could accept. We are
satisfied that the Republican party designs by civil war alone
to coerce the Southern states under the pretext of enforcing
the laws, unless it shall become speedily apparent that the
seceding states are so numerous, determined and united as to
make such attempt hopeless. . . . We have thus placed before
you the facts and conclusions which have become manifest to
us from this point of observation where you have placed us.
There is nothing to be hoped from Congress; the remedy is
with you alone when you assemble in sovereign Convention. We
conclude by expressing our solemn conviction that prompt and
decided action by the people of Virginia in Convention will
afford the surest means, under the providence of God, of avert
ing an impending civil war and preserving the hope of recon
structing the Union already dissolved." — Richmond Dispatch,
Jan. 25, 1861.

122 THE DISRUPTION OF VIRGINIA
most unbearable, but the idea of turning their arms
against their sister states of the South was altogether
unthinkable. Any reference to such men as traitors
displays a bias that was common a half century ago
and is not altogether unknown to-day.
An analysis of the one hundred and fifty-two dele
gates chosen reveals the fact that eighty of them had
voted for Bell, thirty-five for Douglas, and thirty-two
for Breckenridge in the last presidential election.1
Where the remaining five delegates stood is not known.
However, in the convention all party alignments were
shattered. In the Union ranks were to be found Breck
enridge men just as it is true that Bell and Douglas
men voted consistently for secession. Halifax, the
largest slaveholding county in the state, which had
given a decided majority for Breckenridge the pre
ceding November, elected a conservative Union man to
the convention.2 Hancock County, with only two
slaves, had returned a Union delegate by a majority of
only eleven votes.3 While these may have been excep
tional cases, it yet remains true that in choosing their
representatives to Richmond the people had had more
regard to personality than to platform, probably be
cause their own ideas at that time were undecided and
they preferred leaving the definite settlement of the
issues to the judgment of their representatives. The
greater number of delegates came to the convention
"Granville Hall, "The Rending of Virginia," p. 142.
"Philadelphia Public Ledger, Feb. 6, 1861.
"Wheeling Intelligencer, Feb. 6, 1861.

PRELIMINARIES OF THE CONVENTION 123
free to vote as their judgment dictated. A popular
estimate seemed to be that one fourth favored imme
diate secession ; one fourth would not vote for secession
under any conditions ; and the remainder took the mid
dle ground, preferring to wait for further developments
before taking a decided stand. However, the estimates
varied according to the sympathies of those who made
them, and it may truly be affirmed that when the con
vention first assembled there was no one who could do
more than approximate how the delegates would be
lined up. It is altogether likely that for the first few
weeks the delegates themselves would not have been able
to tell how they were going to vote when the time came
to make a final decision.

CHAPTER IX
THE VIRGINIA CONVENTION OF 1861
When the Virginia Convention assembled in Rich
mond on February 13, 1861, the affairs of the nation
were at a crisis. Seven states had formally withdrawn
from ±he- Union, while the Buchanan administration
looked idly on. The President had proved his inability
or his indisposition to meet the situation, and had re
solved to turn over the burden to the incoming admin
istration. The seceded states were importuning Vir
ginia to act, urging that she held the fate of the new
republic in the hollow of her hands. Virginia orators
had been going through the South, giving that section
the impression that their state was seething with the
fire of rebellion and needed but to hear the roar of
cannon and smell the smoke of gunpowder to trans
form her into an active belligerent. Roger A. Pryor
and his kind did not scruple to incite the seceded states
to some hostile action against the Federal Government,
promising that its effect would be sufficient to detach
Virginia from the North.1 Both North and South,
"Mrs. Roger A. Pryor, "Reminiscences of Peace and War,"
p. 120. 124

THE VIRGINIA CONVENTION OF 1861 125
while watching the progress of the Virginia Convention,
labored under a misapprehension regarding the true
condition of affairs. Virginia at this time inclined
neither toward the North nor the South.
An added interest was given to the affairs in Vir
ginia from the fact that the border states would be
influenced in no small degree by what she did. It was
believed that Virginia's decision would carry sufficient
weight to hold the wavering states in the Union if Vir
ginia should decide upon this course of action. Union
sentiment in Maryland, North Carolina, Tennessee,1
Kentucky, and Missouri was fully as strong as it was
in Virginia, but needed to be bolstered up. Thus if
Virginia refused to join the Southern Confederacy a
powerful impetus would be given the Union cause; one
that might be sufficient to prevent civil war and restore
the Union intact.
Richmond was not precisely the best place that could
have been selected for holding a convention of this kind.
The presence of a strong and vociferous Secessionist
party created a difficult situation for those of the dele
gates who were opposed to disunion, especially for the
uncompromising Unionists.
Of the one hundred and fifty-two delegates elected
to this convention only a few were men with national
reputations. Ex-President Tyler was there part of
the time and lifted up his voice for secession. Henry
"The counties of East Tennessee gave a majority of 18,300
for remaining in the Union. It was alleged that tie votes of
the soldiers in the camps carried the state over to the Southern
Confederacy. — "Parson Brownlow's Book," p. 223. m

126 THE DISRUPTION OF VIRGINIA
A. Wise, ex-Governor of the state,1 Lewis E. Harvie,
Robert L. Montague, and George Randolph were dis
tinguished leaders of the same side. Upholding the
Union cause were George W. Summers, John S. Carlile,
Sherrard Clemens, and Waitman T. Willey from the
Trans- Alleghany ; and Jubal A. Early, Alexander H.
H. Stuart, John Janney, John B. Baldwin, William
Ballard Preston, and Samuel McD. Moore from the
Valley. Nearly all the men above mentioned were
agreed on two things, namely, the right of a state to
secede from the Union, and the righteousness of the
institution of slavery.2 The difference between the
factions was not one of articles of faith, but of what
constituted-expediency. It was not, Have we the right
to secede? but, Is it to our best interests to secede?
The first skirmish in the convention took place in
the election of a President. Mr. Janney, the Union
candidate, defeated Mr. Southall, an avowed Seces
sionist, by a vote of seventy to fifty-four. Too much
significance was attached to this result, however. It
was taken by Union sympathizers as a confirmation of
their belief that they controlled the convention; but a
1 Governor Wise had been very unpopular in certain sections
of the state, owing to his earlier Union policy and his scathing
denunciations of the Democratic party. In a speech at Norfolk
Sept. 27, 1860, he declared that press and politicians were cry
ing, "Crucify him!" "Thank God, fellow citizens, I am at least
alive to tell the tale." — National Intelligencer, Oct. 1, 1860.
"Mr. Carlile and Mr. Willey later changed their minds as to
states' rights but not until they were engaged in the process
of making a new state out of western Virginia when to have
admitted the right of a state to secede would have rendered
their own position untenable.

THE VIRGINIA CONVENTION OF 1861 127
closer scrutiny will show that Mr. Southall's fifty-four
votes represented a distinct party, while the seventy
votes Mr. Janney received were given by men who had
but one thing in common, namely, the prevention of
hasty action.
President Janney's address was rather colorless but
perhaps all the better suited to the occasion. He
reviewed briefly the reasons which caused the General
Assembly to call the convention together; disclaimed
any idea of advising them upon the course of proceed
ings they should follow, but warned them that a tre
mendous responsibility was resting upon them — a re
sponsibility that could not be shifted. His closing
words were disquieting to both radical factions:
"Gentlemen, there is a flag which for nearly a cen
tury has been borne in triumph through the battle and
the breeze and which now floats over this Capitol, on
which there is a star representing this ancient common
wealth; and my earnest prayer ... is that it may
remain there forever, provided always that its luster
is untarnished. . . .x Is it too much to hope that we
and others who are engaged in the work of peace and
conciliation may so solve the problems which now per
plex us as to win back our sisters of the South who, for
what they deem sufficient cause, have wandered from
their orbits? May we not expect that our old sister
state Massachusetts will retrace her steps? . . . Will
she not when she remembers who it was who first drew
his sword from his scabbard on her soil at Cambridge
and never finally returned it until her liberty and in-
"The correspondent of the Wheeling Intelligencer reports
that the only applause Mr. Janney received was at this point.

128 THE DISRUPTION OF VIRGINIA
dependence were achieved . . . repeal her obnoxious
laws, which many of her wisest citizens regard a stain
upon her legislative record? Gentlemen, this is no
party convention. It is our duty on an occasion like
this to elevate ourselves into~ an atmosphere in which
party passion aud prejudice cannot exist; to conduct
all our deliberations with calmness and wisdom and to
maintain with inflexible firmness whatever position we
may find it necessary to assume." 2
February 16th a Committee on Federal Relations
was appointed consisting of twenty-one members. Ten
of these were known to be Secessionists, while the re
maining eleven held every variety of opinion. Only
four were from the Trans-Alleghany and none of these
held very decided Union views.
A flood of resolutions began to pour in, representing
all shades of belief. One offered by Mr. Morton
may be given as showing the position taken by the
moderates: "Resolved, That the people of Virginia ... do
solemnly declare that she will not submit to the coercion
of the seceded states, upon the pretext of the enforce
ment of the laws of the United States or upon any
pretext whatever. That she solemnly protests against
the use of the standing army and navy of the United
States by the general government, and the concentra
tion of troops at the Federal metropolis and at various
'Journal of the Convention, pp. 9-10.
The Richmond papers attacked Janney's speech for its non
committal tone, while all confessed their inability to determine
just what was meant by the last sentence. The Union men
openly expressed the belief that they had been deceived in their
man.

THE VIRGINIA CONVENTION OF 1861 129
forts, arsenals, etc., to coerce any state or states now
out of the Union. That this commonwealth desires
ardently to restore the Federal Union and to preserve
it upon terms of safety and honor to all its members ;
but if the efforts now being made for that purpose 1
prove unavailing she will not hesitate to unite herself
with her sister states of the South." 2
"Coercion" was the bugaboo of every true Virginian.
Firm in his doctrine of states' rights, he denied that
the Federal authorities could employ force to carry
out the Federal laws. High-spirited to the point of
touchiness, and keyed up by the excitement of the hour,
he looked for offense where none was offered. At any
time while the convention was in session the advent of a
Union army upon the soil of Virginia would have set
the state ablaze and thrown it into the arms of the
Southern Confederacy within twenty-four hours.
On the 16th the first real passage of arms occurred
when Henry A. Wise and Samuel McD. Moore engaged
in a verbal battle. The latter, in a discussion of the
general policy which the state should pursue, declared
with much emphasis that he was opposed both to run
ning away from the Yankees and to being dragged
into the personally conducted Confederacy of South
Carolina. The dignity of Virginia demanded that she
should pursue her own way regardless of outside pres
sure. Mr. Wise retorted that there would be no "drag
ging," and when the time came for Virginia to secede
1 Referring to the Peace Conference, then holding its sessions
in Washington.
"Journal, p. 45.

130 THE DISRUPTION OF VIRGINIA
she would take that step regardless of North and South.
Mr. Carlile interjected the remark that the only talk
of coercion he had heard of came from a member of the
Alabama Convention who had said that if the people
did not vote to secede they should be forced into it..
He offered a resolution that since the decision in the
case of Chisholm vs. Georgia and the adoption of the
Eleventh Amendment to the United States Constitu
tion, they were at a loss to understand how the impres
sion was obtained that the Federal Government pos
sessed the power to coerce a state.1
Monday, February 18th, the Convention, in accord
ance with a request of the Governor's, listened to ad
dresses by special commissioners from Georgia, Missis
sippi, and South Carolina. This was the first of a
series of attempts to. fire the hearts of the delegates
and constituted a mode of attack which the Unionists
were unable to meet. It may easily be calculated how
much effect the "Yancey" orations delivered by the
Southern Commissioners had upon the wavering dele
gates. Said Mr. Preston of South Carolina :
"Scarcely had the decree of our subjection been car
ried to their ears on the Northern breeze when, as if
from the very caverns of the earth, was heard the voice
of the people of South Carolina shouting back, 'Re
sistance to the death !' The legislature caught up that
spirit and with one voice only ordained, 'Resistance to
the death !' The people of the state in sovereign coun
sel, as you are now, with one voice . . . ordained 'Re
sistance to the death!' And now there is not in the
"Richmond Dispatch, Feb. 18, 1861.

THE VIRGINIA CONVENTION OF 1861 131
borders of that little state a man found from sixteen
to sixty who is not armed and ready for 'Resistance
to the death.' We are very small ; we are very weak ;
but if now or in after time that fiery storm shall fall
and consume us; if the pilgrim of liberty from the
land shall search beneath the ruins of Charleston he
shall find there the sentinel standing at the sea^gate." 1
Mr. Anderson of Mississippi devoted his time to an
exposition of the needs of the South and the benefits
which would accrue to the new Confederacy if Virginia
should join issue with them. She was still looked up
to as the leader of the South and no one doubted what
her choice would be when the crisis came. "Her sons
will bear the banner of the South aloft and their blood
will enrich every field in defence of her honor and sacred
rights. (Wild applause.) The destiny of the South
Virginia now holds in her hands. Let Virginia take her
stand by her Southern sisters and the Revolution will
be a peaceful one."
The Georgia Commissioner was more defiant and
decidedly more independent. He asserted that while
it was true that the Southern Confederacy needed the
help of the Old Dominion and was confidently counting
on her help, it was also true that Virginia would need
the aid of the other Southern states before a great
while. But even if Virginia should decline to leave the
Northern Union the cause of the South was by no
means hopeless.2
"Richmond Dispatch, Feb. 19, 1861.
'Ibid.

132 THE DISRUPTION OF VIRGINIA
That the effect of these speeches was great cannot
be disputed. Virginia pride was flattered at the oppor
tunity thus offered of regaining lost prestige. Appeals
to Southern homogeneity have seldom been in vain and
certainly in this case the martial ardor of the Vir
ginians was kindled. The Union men in the convention
complained, very justly it would seem, that they were
placed at a great disadvantage. Already compelled to
brave the displeasure of a hostile gallery,1 they were
forced to remain quiet while studied efforts were being
made to prevent the convention from considering the
questions before it with calmness and deliberation.2
There was a great deal of discussion of the probable
action of the other border states and many schemes
were submitted having for their object the formation
of a border-state confederacy. The Trans-Alleghany
delegates, at least those from the northwestern coun
ties,3 put themselves in opposition to any plan of sepa
ration from the Union, and the ardent Secessionists
"Very early in the convention it became evident that the
Union men were in a hostile country. The galleries were filled
every day with ardent Secessionists, who never failed to vent
their displeasure on anyone who spoke in opposition to seces
sion. On the third day the spectators became so enthusiastic
in their approval of the speeches advocating immediate seces
sion and so pronounced in their hostility to the men who
spoke against it that Mr. Carlile asked to have the galleries
cleared. Even though his motion did not include the ladies'
gallery, there arose such a storm of protest that he was forced
to withdraw his motion. — The Dispatch, Feb. 18, 1861.
"A resolution prevailed to print and distribute 10,000 copies
of the addresses of the Southern Commissioners.
"L. S. Hall of Wetzel County was the only delegate from
the extreme northwest who favored secession. Very early in
the session he introduced a series of resolutions affirming the
right of Virginia to secede, and declaring that, while the elec-

THE VIRGINIA CONVENTION OF 1861 133
were not satisfied with anything less than a_ union with
the Confederacy, but the real Conservatives, despairing
of obtaining any redress from the North, often turned
to their neighbors who, like themselves, were neither
altogether of the North nor altogether of the South,
in the hope that some united action might be found
feasible. On February 20th the Committee on Federal
Relations was asked to consider the advisability of call
ing a border-state convention, but action was deferred
for a time.
It was now suggested that the convention should
interrogate the Virginia Peace Commissioners at Wash
ington as to the progress of their deliberations and
request from them an opinion as to the possibility of
their arriving at some definite agreement. The Union
men saw at once what the effect of this would be. All
knewjhat the Peace Conference was a failure. When
this factwas reported to the convention, the Seces
sionists would at once seize the opportunity to point
out the futility of any further negotiations with the
North ; even though it did not result in the passage of
an ordinance of secession at once, their hands would
be strengthened after it became apparent that no com
promise could be reached. The motion failed.
Secession gained headway on the 23rd when a resolu
tion was adopted whereby a committee was to be ap
pointed to discover whether any movement of arms and
tion of Lincoln was not in itself sufficient cause for secession,
yet the state would consider itself justified in leaving the Fed
eral Union unless guarantees were given.

134 THE DISRUPTION OF VIRGINIA
men had been made by the North indicating that an
attack was contemplated. The resolution itself was
comparatively unimportant; its significance Hes in the
fact that it had been offered before on the 20th and
rejected by a vote of seventy-eight to sixty-one.
Mr. Moore of Rockbridge County, ever careless of
the disapproval of the galleries, now made a sensational
attack on South Carolina, condemning that state for
its precipitancy in leaving the Union and asserting that
it had been responsible for the election of Lincoln. He
introduced a series of resolutions to the effect that Vir
ginia would never join any confederacy where the slave
trade was not prohibited and which did not provide for
the support of the general government by some other
means than direct taxation.1 Mr. Goode replied to
Mr. Moore and so eloquently did he defend the course
of South Carolina and uphold the Southern cause that
"Mr. Moore was already a marked man in the convention. A
few days previously he had given offense to the Secessionists
by frankly avowing his intention to oppose at all times any
plan designed to take Virginia out of the Union. In the
evening a mass meeting of the citizens was called and a descent
was made upon the American Hotel where Mr. Moore was
staying. The crowd, fortunately, resorted only to groans and
hisses. — The Dispatch, Feb. 20th.
The second time he appeared on the floor of the convention
as an opponent of disunion the spectators would not allow him
to proceed and the galleries had to be cleared. The Richmond
Dispatch, commenting on this, declared that the action was
unnecessary; "that the people who frequented the convention
hall were in marked contrast to the disorderly mob that packed
the Northern capitols."
Mr. Burdette of Taylor County evidently did not agree with
this, for he offered a resolution that the convention adjourn
to Staunton or some other city where their deliberations would
not be interrupted by packed galleries. His proposition was
rejected contemptuously.

THE VIRGINIA CONVENTION OF 1861 135
the galleries became uncontrollable and had to be
cleared. He declared that there was only one question
for the convention to consider and that was whether
they were to go with the North or with the South. No
middle way was now open to them, since it had become
evident to all that the Federal authorities were making
preparations to force the seceded states back into the
Union. Unless Virginia at once dissolved her connec
tion with the North, she would be put in the position of
supporting the coercive policy of that section.1 Mr.
Goggin of Bedford County argued that .^Virginia -had
everything to- gain Jby^>laying__a_wmtiiig--gaiiie. She
could not be forced into raising troops for the Northern
army and thus a continuance of the present relations
for a time at least would be wiser than to rush into an
agreement with the Confederacy, especially when it had
not yet proved its stability. Mr. Sheffey, representing
the southwestern section of the state, brought forward
the view that the personal liberty laws of the North
and the acts of secession of the South were equally un
constitutional. "But," said he, "when a state has once
seceded there is no way by which it may be brought
back again into the Union against its wishes." 2
On March 1st two new resolutions were introduced
and referred to the Committee on Federal Relations. ,
One provided that the people of the state should be <
given the opportunity of choosing between the North
and the South ; while the other was designed to recog-
"The Dispatch, Feb. 25, 1861.
'Ibid.

136 THE DISRUPTION OF VIRGINIA
nize, officially, the Southern Confederacy. If the first
had been adopted and the plan carried out there is little
doubt what the result would have been. Virginia would
never have decided for the North as against the South
at any time, but this was especially true now when
Southern spirit was running so high.
In support of secession Mr. Morton of Orange
County declared that Virginia could not be safe with a
"Black Republican" President. All the Federal offices
of the South would be filled with men who were hostile
to Southern institutions and their every action would
be inimical to the interests of the South. Secession was
the only remedy. Thus far, he declared, Virginia's
procedure had been one of timidity and vacillation, in
humiliating contrast with the decisive firmness of South
Carolina. The speaker put the responsibility for the
present crisis upon William H. Seward and said that
he (Morton) had told Mr. Seward as much, threaten
ing at the same time to take it out of him personally.1
That the personal liberty laws were state, not na
tional, laws was the point argued by Mr. Baylor of
Augusta County. The Federal Government should not
be blamed for the action of the states. The very cen
tral idea of the Secessionists was that the states could
not be forced into doing anything they did not wish to
do by the Federal authorities. In the case just cited
they were helpless. Secession, said Mr. Baylor, is not
"The Dispatch, March 2, 1861. The hostility of Virginians
toward Governpr_ Seward was equaled in intensity only by their
dislike of Lincoln. See speeches of Virginia representatives in
37th Congress, 2nd session.

THE VIRGINIA CONVENTION OF 1861 137
constitutional and can be resorted to only as an act of
revolution.1 On March 2nd Mr. Turner of Jackson County threw
a bomb into the Secessionist camp by asking for the
appointment of a committee to consider the matter of
so amending the constitution of the state as to provide
for the taxation of slaves on the same basis as other
property. This was the trump card of jthe .western
opponents _o£- secession. By_resurr£cling-ald_^ectional
disputesjheyjioped to divert the attention of jthe_con=.
vention awaxJrom^EhgLlqUestion whfcITthey. hacLieen-
called to consider, or at any rate to make it clear that
they would never consent to a union with the Southern
Confederacy while the grievances of the west remained
unredressed. A division of the state was hinted at, in i
case an ordinance of secession was passed against the
wishes of the western delegates.2 While the proposition
1 Thex Dispatch, March 2, 1861.
"The New York Tribune taunted the Secessionist leaders in
the convention with their inability to unite the various factions,
particularly the Union party of the West, and asked what they
would do if the West applied the doctrine of secession to her
own case and tried to form a new state. The Richmond Dis
patch, in reply, passed over the assumption that counties and
districts bore the same relation to the state that the state did
to the Federal Union, and declared that while it was convinced
that the western counties, with a few exceptions, were loyal
to the state, yet if the reverse should prove to be the case so
devoted was Virginia to the doctrine of individual rights that
no opposition would be offered to any attempt at the division
of the state. "If western Virginia wanted to secede from
Virginia, eastern Virginia would neither seek nor desire to
coerce her to remain; nor do we believe that if eastern Vir
ginia should wish a division western Virginia would employ
coercion toward the East. When the consent of the governed
is withdrawn from this government, it claims and will exercise
no other power."

138 THE DISRUPTION OF VIRGINIA
was quickly rejected, it was destined to cause the
Secessionists many uneasy moments.
March 3rd was taken up with the discussion of the
work of the Peace Conference. None of the speakers
expressed any hope that an agreement would be reached,
but all congratulated Virginia upon her efforts to bring
about a peaceful settlement. It seemed to be the gen
eral opinion that the Northern Abolitionists, although
a small minority, had been powerful enough to check
mate any move which had for its aim the conciliation of
the South. If the United States was cut in twain they
could thank themselves for it. In any event, Virginia
could now proceed to consider her own affairs with a
clear conscience.1
The Inauguration Day session was a stormy one.
The thought that their country was installing into of
fice the man whom they considered their bitterest enemy
provoked the Secessionists into uttering the most radi
cal statements that had yet been heard on the floor of
the convention. The trouble began when Mr. Chamb-
less introduced a series of resolutions the object of
which was to provide for immediate secession. Now
that the Union was destroyed, Virginia should lose no
time in getting from beneath the ruins. Mr. Carlile
replied for the Union men:
"It is exceedingly fortunate for the gentleman from
Greenville, exceedingly fortunate, for the people of the
state and for all posterity that he has not his way
to-day. This firing process has been going on now for
1 The Dispatch, March 4, 1861.

THE VIRGINIA CONVENTION OF 1861 139
months. It is resorted to day after day in this con
vention to effect, if possible, the purposes of gentlemen
who seem to have a perfect contempt for the will of the
people. In what state that has passed an ordinance of
secession have the people spoken or been heard?
Wherever they have been allowed to speak, whether
upon the soil of our native Virginia or upon that of her
daughter, Kentucky, or upon that of gallant Tennessee,
they have spoken in terms not to be misunderstood of
their indisposition to be dragged into this movement to
destroy their own fair, free government. And the time
has come when this firing process should be met and
promptly met, and while I have a voice to raise or an
arm to lift if no one else will meet it I will attempt it." x
1 From documents in possession of Carlile's daughter, who
has very kindly permitted the author to use them.
The Secessionists recognized in Carlile a dangerous enemy,
possibly the only man from the west they need fear much. Mr.
Willey was as able a man, but his "trimming" propensities de
tracted from the effect his excellently prepared speeches would
otherwise have had. The Richmond Enquirer singled Carlile
out as its special object of attack and devoted many columns
to this purpose. The following appeared the day after Carlile
had made his first Union speech: "When a politician stands
before the Convention of Virginia's sovereignty to justify the
coercive threats of Abraham Lincoln; to declare that Southern
rights have suffered no injury from Northern aggression; sneer-
ingly and without warrant to impute to Virginia's weakness
the accidental fact that 'fourteen Federal marines took John
Brown out of the engine-house at Harper's Ferry' we recognize
him only as a 'Black Republican,' as an enemy against whom
we warn the true men of Virginia. He has dealt unsparingly
in epithets. He has denounced the people of South Carolina
as 'rebels' and the people of Louisiana as 'thieves.' Let him
calmly consider whether his open defense of 'Black Republican'
coercion does or does not constitute treason."
Carlile made reply a few days later in the convention and
defied the Enquirer to do its worst.
That Carlile had some support in Richmond is shown by the
fact that the National Intelligencer, Mch. 29, told of the presenta
tion to Carlile of a testimonial'' from the "ladies of Richmond."

140 THE DISRUPTION OF VIRGINIA
Mr. Willey gave evidence of being in sympathy with
his colleague's views by addressing the convention in
support of the same side. He began with a review of
secession and attacked the doctrine not from the con
stitutional viewpoint but from the practical side. The
election of Lincoln following the refusal of the North
ern states to repeal their personal liberty laws was a
real grievance, but there was no certainty that Virginia
would be better out of the Union than in it. The pos
sible evils were greater than the ones they were now
facing. Speaking as a citizen of the northwest, his rea
sons for opposing disunion were especially good ones.
In the event of war that section would be absolutely
helpless in the face of a Union army. Bordered by the
great states of Ohio and Pennsylvania, a hostile army
could be thrown into western Virginia within twenty-
four hours and in less than twice that time the whole
section could be overrun. No help could be expected
from the East, said Mr. Willey, for the people there
would have their own homes to defend. Secession would
bring a train of woes upon the state such as it had
never known before.1
We shall pause for a moment in our consideration of
the work of the convention to take up the question of
the effect produced by Lincoln's Inaugural Address.
It will be; remembered that the President disclaimed any
intention of interfering with slavery where it already
existed. But he also took the position that secession
was unconstitutional and therefore the Union was un-
"The Carlile documents.

THE VIRGINIA CONVENTION OF 1861 141
broken. No offense was taken at this until it appeared
that it was more than an academic pronouncement and
that the President really intended to enforce the Fed-.
eral laws in the seceded states. This became the sto^m
center. One Virginia paper which had hitherto taken
the Union side now declared that it was clear that
coercion was intended and Virginia should voice her dis
pleasure in no uncertain terms.1 The address was de
nounced as "ill-judged, and calculated to lead to evil
results" by another former Union paper.2 A third af
firmed that Lincoln had meant to be conciliatory, but
failed to appreciate the depth of feeling in the South.
The people of Norfolk were warned that the address
had extinguished the last hope of a peaceful settlement.3
while the people of Wheeling were congratulated that
the new administration had shown itself in its true light
so early in its career.4 The conservative press went
over almost en masse to the. Secessionist side. The Ad
dress was interpreted to mean but one thing, a declara
tion of war, and the greatest indignation was expressed
that the President dared even to hint at coercion under
any circumstances.5 It must be clear to all that Vir
ginia should unite herself with the South in resistance
to Lincoln's despotism or assent to the subjugation of
the South.6 One paper could not see anything espe-
1 Fredericksburg Herald, March 7, 1861.
"Lynchburg Virginian, March 7th.
' Norfolk Herald, March 6th.
* Wheeling Press, March 6th.
6 Bedford Herald and Danville Register, March 6th.
8 Charlottesville Jeffersonian, March 6th.

142 THE DISRUPTION OF VIRGINIA
cially menacing in Lincoln's Inaugural, but recognized
the fact that under the strained condition of affairs it
would lead to trouble.1 The Richmond Enquirer de
nounced the convention for its failure to break away
from the Union after it knew what the intentions of the
President were; but, declared this journal, "it is of
little consequence what the convention does because
Virginia will have to fight anyway." 2 One local con
temporary echoes these words and adds that there was
now no reason why all the border states should not go
out in twenty-four hours ; 3 while another, heretofore a
Union paper, stated that the policy as outlined in the
Address "would meet with stern, unyielding resistance
by the solid South."4
The views of the members of the convention varied,
as was natural, according to party, but none came out
openly to defend the "coercion clause." Jubal A.
Early, a stanch Unionist, said: "I do not approve of
the Inaugural of Mr. Lincoln and I did not expect to
be able to endorse his policy; . . . but, Sir, I ask
... if it were not for the fact that six or seven states
of this Confederacy have seceded from this Union, if the
declaration of President Lincoln that he would execute
the laws in all the states would not have been hailed
throughout the country as a guarantee that he would
perform his duty and that we should have peace and
protection for our property and that the Fugitive
' Alexandria Gazette, March 8th.
' Richmond Enquirer, March 7th.
' Richmond Dispatch, March 8th.
* Richmond Whig, March 8th.

THE VIRGINIA CONVENTION OF 1861 143
Slave laws would be faithfully executed?" x Not many,
even among the Union men, took such a moderate view
of the situation created by the Inaugural Address.
The majority of them shook their heads doubtfully and
looked for the worst to happen.
With the press and the people of eastern Virginia
almost unanimously of the opinion that the Union was
irrevocably destroyed ; with the feeling almost universal
that Virginia could never continue in the Northern
confederacy after it had begun to make war on the se
ceded states ; and with the positive assurance that the
President intended to use the army and navy against
those states, the greatest wonder is that the Richmond
Convention did not pass an ordinance of secession early
in March. The Secessionists clearly saw their oppor
tunity and sought by every means to use the advantage
which they had gained.2 But the convention remained
firm against the continued assaults and while there was
quite an appreciable accession to the Secessionist
ranks, yet it was not great enough to accomplish what
the leaders wished. More resolutions poured in, most of
them aiming at a common goal — secession — and all were
"Munford, "Virginia's Attitude toward Slavery and Seces
sion," p. 267.
"Thus declares one Virginia writer: "Then was the time for
the Virginia Convention to have withdrawn from the Union, in
stead of talking two months and then withdrawing after the
policy of coercion had been determined upon. If Virginia and
the border states had then seceded it is highly probable that
there would have been no war; but the continual delay encour
aged the Federal Government to think that they would not
secede and the policy of coercion was decided upon." — Bio
graphical Sketch of M. R. H. Garnett; William and Mary
Quarterly, VoL 18, pp. 17-37; 71-89.

144 THE DISRUPTION OF VIRGINIA
referred to the Committee on Federal Relations, whose
work became so heavy that its members were excused
from attendance at the sessions of the convention. One
resolution provided for a convention of the border
states and an immediate report by a Committee on the
subject of Federal coercion.1 An amendment was of
fered by Mr. Leake that, whereas Virginia had been
foremost in the formation of the Union and the attempt
to preserve the Union, her loyalty could not be doubted ;
but since the Constitution was broken by the outrages
of a sectional majority, Virginia could not honorably
remain in the Union. Another amendment declared
that since it had become so evident to all that the Chief
Executive of the United States intended to plunge the
country into war, Virginia should take such steps as
would ensure her ability to defend herself in case of
invasion.2 On March JSth Mr. Carlile made an attack upon the
Richmond Enquirer, charging it with engineering a
scheme to force Virginia out of the Union. His ac
cusations were so general that we are forced to beheve
that Carlile's evidence of such a plot was all hearsay.
His remarks gave great offense to the Secessionists, es
pecially his characterization of secession as treason.
He denied that Virginia had any reasonable excuse for
secession; declared that since 1845 they had had the
right to increase the number of slave states, but had not
done so because "slavery was governed by soil, by cli-
1 Journal, p. 82-8.
'Ibid.

THE VIRGINIA CONVENTION OF 1861 145
mate, and by interests." x The same day was marked
by an altercation between Mr. Early and Mr. Goode^>
which nearly resulted in a duel.2 The latter had ex
pressed some doubt as to the truthfulness of a certain
statement of Mr. Early, who lost no time in taking up
the remark as an aspersion upon his character.
Friends intervened and the affair was settled amicably.3
Mr. Wysor kept up the "firing process" by submit
ting an ordinance dissolving all political connection be
tween Virginia and the United States. His bill of in
dictments against the Northern states was a long one:
They had assailed negro slavery most unscrupulously;
they had used the United States mails for the purpose
of spreading discontent among the negroes; they had
abused the freedom of the press and of speech by their
incendiary articles and speeches on slavery; they had
instigated John Brown's Raid ; they had refused obedi
ence to the United States Constitution and laws pro
viding for the rendition of escaped criminals and fugi
tive slaves; they had shut slavery up in its present
bounds, thus excluding the South from equal participa
tion in the affairs of the territories.4 Mr. Brent, a
delegate from the Alexandria district, attacked these
doctrines and expressed the belief that South Carolina
1 Richmond Dispatch, March 9th.
"This was » day of excitement. In the evening a large Union
meeting was held. The principal address was made by Mr.
Rives, the burden of whose plea was that Virginia should re
main mistress of her own destiny. The gathering broke up with
three cheers for Mr. Carlile. — The Dispatch, March 9th.
'Ibid.'Journal, pp. 91-3.

146 THE DISRUPTION OF VIRGINIA
was as much at fault as the North. For thirty years
her one object had been the breaking up of the Federal
Union; now she was going to drag Virginia doWn into
the abyss with her if they were not careful.1
March 9th the Committee on Federal Relations made
its report, which gave unmistakable proof that the
members of the committee had been much at variance.
Nothing really definite had been agreed to, although
they had endeavored to cover this defect by making
their recommendations in the boldest terms. The doc
trine of states' rights was, of course, upheld ; the right
eousness of the institution of slavery was affirmed ; while
it was asserted that all the states of the Union pos
sessed equal rights in the territories. It was agreed
that the Southern states should not submit to the ap
pointment of Federal officials in the slave states, if
these officials were known to be hostile to slavery. The
Secessionists had succeeded in inserting a clause to the
effect that in case of secession the forts and arsenals
of the United States reverted back to the states. The
other recommendations presented by the committee were
that Congress should be asked to pass a more stringent
fugitive slave law, and that a border-state convention
should be called to meet at Frankfort, Kentucky.2
Five substitutes for this report were offered. One, by
Mr. Wise, would postpone secession only until the time
when the North refused definitely to accede to the de
mands of the South. Messrs. Harvie, Montague, and
"The Dispatch, March 12th.
'Journal, pp. 85-6.

THE VIRGINIA CONVENTION OF 1861 147
Williams made their minority report a recommendation
for the immediate passage of an ordinance of secession.
Mr. Barbour would send commissioners to the Confed
eracy to confer with the authorities as to the present
state of affairs. Mr. Baldwin wished the convention
to endorse the constitutional amendments drawn up by
the Peace Conference as the most satisfactory solution
for the problems which they were called upon to solve.1
At the same time the Federal authorities should be re
quested to abstain from any effort to enforce the laws
in the seceded states, since the inevitable result would
be civil war.2 The other two substitutes suggested
nothing new and only offered additional evidence of the
lack of harmony which must have prevailed in the com
mittee. A new plan was now resorted to by the Secessionists.
Every day there would be presented a batch of resolu
tions adopted at mass meetings held in various parts of
1 The recommendations of the Peace Commissioners were al
most exactly the same as those suggested by Governor Letcher
in his message to the legislature at its initial session in January.
— The Journal of the Virginia Assembly, p. 17.
2 Journal, pp. 96-7. Resolutions adopted at a mass meeting in
Jackson County (now West Virginia) April 1, 1861, declared
that the few Union people there deserved no consideration, and
instructed their delegate at Richmond to vote for an ordinance
of secession. Meeting gave three cheers for Jeff Davis and
nine groans for Abe Lincoln. — Kamawha Valley Star, April 2,
1861. Public meetings in Guyandotte, April 20th, and Boone
County, April 30th, adopted the same resolutions. The Kanawha
Valley Star, in an editorial April 30th said: "There are no
'Black Republicans' in Virginia except in Wheeling. . . . Should
the Abolitionists of Ohio send an invading army into western
Virginia, not a soldier of them will return alive. The mountain
boys would shoot them down as dogs."

148 THE DISRUPTION OF VIRGINIA
the state, nearly all of which urged the convention to
pass an ordinance of secession at once, and "dissolve
the odious connection of Virginia with the Federal Gov
ernment." It was declared "that the time for adjust
ment had passed ; that we regard it the imperative duty
of the Virginia Convention now to pass an ordinance of
secession; that the highest respect is due South Caro
lina and the rest of the seceded states. We honor them
for their wisdom, their decisive boldness, and their
humane forbearance." x
. On the 12th two prominent delegates from the west
spoke. Mr. Summers, who had been characterized as
the ablest ^jurist inTthe state, held the floor for three
hours outlining his policy which seems to have been
nothing more than "standing pat." He declared his
inability to see that slavery was in any danger. On the
contrary, he claimed, it was gaining ground every day
in western Virginia, Mr, WjVjpy again warned the con
vention that disunion by the action of the state was
synonymous with the division of the state. With four
hundred and fifty miles of exposed border western Vir
ginia would be helpless. "Will you place us in this ex
tremity? Will you bring this desolation upon us?
Will you expose our wives and children to the sword
and to the ravages of civil war? . . . Will you make
northwestern Virginia the Flanders of America?" he
asked.2 About this time reports began to be circulated that
" Journal, p. 99.
'Wheeling Intelligencer, March 13th.

THE VIRGINIA CONVENTION OF 1861 149
great numbers of the more prominent citizens of the
state were preparing to move south unless the conven
tion passed an ordinance of secession very shortly. It
was rumored that thirty families in Amelia County
and as many as one hundred families in Mecklenburg
County were making arrangements to emigrate to some
state which had left the Union.1 The Richmond Dis
patch was very much exercised over the possibility of
losing some of its citizens and says: "If this state of
things continues the slaveholding portion of Virginia
will be impoverished. What madness, what folly and
wickedness is it in our convention to attempt to force
an unnatural and repugnant union with the Yankee
states !" The purpose of these reports was so evident
that the effect produced was slight. The Union men
refused to believe that anyone of prominence would give
up his Virginia home on such a trivial excuse. Some
claimed that even if it should turn out to be the truth,
the ultimate effect would be the abolition of slavery.
"Political demagogues make these threats to fire up
the Southern heart, to force Virginia out of the Union,"
said one writer.2
March 141^ Jelm-TyleiLisQkiiis_s£^^
tion an3*at once threw the^ weight. of his authority on-
the side" of "secessions He announced that the whole
country was watching intently to see what the conven
tion did and so powerful would be the influence if Vir
ginia left the Union that the Federal Government would
1 The Dispatch, March 13th.
2 "The Conspiracy Unveiled," p. 163 et seq.

150 THE DISRUPTION OF VHtGINIA
not dare to adopt coercive measures toward the South.
As for internal dissensions within the state, Mr. Tyler
refused to believe that the west entertained any notion
of breaking away from the east in the event of the
passage of a secession ordinance. At heart the citizens
of transmontane Virginia were as loyal to the Southern
cause as their fellows of the east.1
The end of the first month found the convention
scarcely more determined upon its policy than it had
been at the beginning. There was a general sifting
down of the less determined delegates, to be sure, but
the defection from the Union ranks was not so pro
nounced as was expected. Some of the delegates from
the southwest had gone over to the Secessionist side and,
as is usually the case with recent converts, they were
supporting the doctrines of their former opponents
with great zeal. But the mass of Union^ men held fiun
and refused, to be moved either by threatjor blandish
ment. The Secessionists were beginning to despair of
ever putting through an ordinance of secession. They
made the accusation that the western delegates were
bargaining with some of the eastern members, the agree
ment being that the questions of changing the basis of
representation and providing for the equal taxation
of slaves would not be urged if the convention did not
pass an ordinance of secession.2 A similar charge had
been made before, much to the delight of the Union men,
who considered a resort to such tactics an acknowledge-
"The Dispatch, March 16th.
' Richmond Enquirer, March 17th,

THE VIRGINIA CONVENTION OF 1861 151
ment by the Secessionists of certain defeat.1 The
western members had become marked men in Richmond,
as they discovered every time they appeared upon the
streets or spoke in the hall of the convention. At the
conclusion of an address delivered on the 15th, Mr.
Carlile was roundly hissed by the galleries.2 In the
eveningaTarge crowd gafterethflfthe market and tore
down a Union flag, which was floating there. Some
fiery speeches were made and one orator advised his
hearers to drive the convention out of the city at the
point of the bayonet.3 The convention was described
by one editorial writer as "the block and tackle that
confines Virginia in Lincoln's yard." 4 Secessionist
speakers were imported and scarcely a day passed that "
they did not address some assembly. The daily papers
were filled with letters from Southern leaders beseech
ing Virginia to assume her proper place in the new
Confederacy and holding out the most glittering al
lurements when this was accomplished.5 The state it
self did not escape abuse on account of its refusal to
leave the Union. It was declared that Virginia had lost
its ancient pride and was content with remaining a
vassal of the North. Cajolery, however, was resorted to
more frequently then denunciation by the Southern
press. The position of Virginia as the foremost state
1 Wheeling Intelligencer, March 19th.
'Ibid.
"Morgantown Star, March 16th.
4 The Dispatch, March 19th.
"The Richmond Whig on March 12th had gone over to the
Secessionist side, thus leaving the Union men without a single
newspaper in the Capitol.

152 THE DISRUPTION OF VIRGINIA
of the South was freely acknowledged. All the various
changes on Southern pride were rung in. So one ar
ticle reads : "Dear old Virginia, we love you ; we know
not how to give you up. Oh, for some voice like Patrick
Henry's to overcome the present submissive majority in
your convention! To every true son of Virginia we
say, 'Come with us and we will do you good.'" x
Northern papers exulted at the prospect of keeping
Virginia in the Union. The loyal men in the convention
were represented as refusing bribes and disregarding
threats.2 These hopeful signs were all on the surface, however.
, It cannot be doubted that a powerful secession wave
was sweeping over the eastern part of the state. By-
elections here and there show that the Union cause was
losing strength. An election at Petersburg held March
^16th resulted in a victory for the Secessionist candidate
by a vote or 829 to 762. On the previous election in
February the Union candidate had won out by the sub
stantial majority of 586 out of a total of 1,440 votes
cast. The same result is noticed all over the state,
where the people were called upon to register their
opinions. If a general election for delegates to the con
vention had been held at this time the Secessionists
would have swept the state east of the Alleghany Moun
tains. It was the realization of this fact that aroused
the advocates of secession and made them denounce the
convention for its refusal to accede to the wishes of
1 Atlanta Constitution, March 19th.
' Pittsburg Chronicle, March 20th.

THE VIRGINIA CONVENTION OF 1861 153
the majority of the people. With press and people
against them to such an extent, the great marvel is that
the Union men held together so long.1
On the 16thJ\lx^Burley, one of the very few uncom
promising Union men in the convention, presented a
series of resolutions affirming the indissolubility of the
Union ; condemning the doctrine of secession as a fal
lacy; and upholding the principle that Federal prop
erty everywhere belonged to the Federal Government.
The sixth resolution, in view of later events, has an
especial significance:
"Resolved, That the right of revolution . . . can be
exercised as well by a portion of the citizens of a state
against their state government as it can be exercised
by the whole people of a state against their federal
government; and, when the powers of a state govern
ment are used for purposes of unjust discrimination
against a portion of the citizens or a particular sec
tion of the state in imposing upon one portion or sec
tion an undue proportion of the burdens of the state
government and exempting from taxation a peculiar
species of property belonging, to a great extent, to an
other portion of the citizens and located mostly in an
other section of the state . . . the people thus op
pressed . . . would be justified in resisting the col
lection of all revenue from them until the injustice
aforesaid was remedied. And that any change of the
relation Virginia now sustains to the Federal Govern-
'A mass meeting was held on the evening of March 15th in
Richmond. While Roger A. Pryor was speaking, three hun-
, dred men from Petersburg marched in, carrying a Confederate
flag. A petition requesting the convention to pass a secession
ordinance received 1700 signatures. — The Dispatch, March 16th.

154 THE DISRUPTION OF VIRGINIA
ment against the wishes of even a respectable minority
of her people would be such an act of injustice as to
justify them in changing their relations to the state
government by separating themselves from that section
of the state that had thus wantonly disregarded their
interests and defied their will." x
Mi\_Willgy followed this up with four resolutions
^-providing for the reform of taxation and the adoption
of the white basis of representation. The eastern mem
bers refused to be diverted from their main purpose, but
feared to alienate the west beyond hope of reconcilia-
.tion if they rejected without consideration the proposi
tion of amending the constitution. A motion to lay the
resolutions on the table went over until the next day
when they were taken up as unfinished business. The
motion to table being withdrawn, a long and heated dis
cussion took place. Mr. Brown of Kanawha County
declared that the west, while not an abolition country
by any means, was united in its endeavors to secure
more equitable taxation laws. Mr. Fisher of Northamp
ton appealed to the western members not to raise old
sectional questions at that time and claimed that they
were under a pledge not to do so before the year 1865.
Speaking for the Secessionists he said: "If he (Willey)
will give us an ordinance of secession and go before the
people pledging himself in good faith to make the effort
to induce them to ratify it, I will go into a considera
tion of the question of taxation and representation."
This proposal was attacked by Mr. Early as subversive
"Journal, pp. 103-4.

THE VIRGINIA CONVENTION OF 1861 155
of the principles of a convention. Mr. Wilsnn declared
that the east could blame itself if the state was split
asunder. Its shortsighted policy of refusing to make
internal improvements in the west had been the causey.
of all the disputes and misunderstandings. It was too
late to change conditions now.1 The general feeling
was that Willey's resolutions were introduced only for
the purpose of drawing the fire of the Secessionists
toward them and diverting it away from secession ; but
the western delegates were none the less zealous in their
advocacy of a revision of the constitution of the state.
Mr. Hayrnondj_speaking on the 19th and 20th, denied
that there had been any agreement not to make any
alterations in the organic law of the state before 1865
and challenged anyone to prove such assertions. Times
had changed since 1851, said Mr. Haymond, and the
state was now facing a tremendous problem. Secession
would mean that the west would bear the brunt of the
attack from the North and at the same time continue
to pay more than her share for the defense of untaxed
slave property in the east. Nothing could be more
inequitable. Speaking as a slaveholder and one who
firmly believed in slavery as an institution, he was
nevertheless ready to affirm his belief that negro slavery
was at the bottom of all their troubles, state and na
tional.2 Mr. Holcombe of Albemarle County declared
that if the South were invaded from Ohio, the patriotic
citizens of West Virginia would rise as a body and repel
"Pittsburgh Chronicle, March 17th.
'Wheeling Intelligencer, March 21st.

156 THE DISRUPTION OF VIRGINIA
the attack. He made a passionate appeal to the
western delegates to come to the aid of the state and
painted the glories of an independent Virginia in the
most glowing colors.1
The east, however, was not content to rest under the
imputation that it was being supported by the west
and the dispute was carried on by the newspapers and
on the floor of the convention in a manner that reminds
one of the earlier constitutional conventions. Figures
were given, in rebuttal of the claim of Mr. Haymond
that the west paid annually into the state treasury
$690,000 and received almost nothing in return, which
showed that the burden of taxation fell upon the east
in the proportion of two to one. The Tidewater and
Piedmont contributed each year $2,104,386, while the
Valley and Trans-Alleghany paid but $1,216,899. Gen
eral taxes were raised largely in the east. Thus it
became evident that the west in its advocacy of further
taxation revision had in view the object of taxing
slavery out of existence. The convention should pro
ceed to the consideration of the main business without
regard to the "western demagogues." 2 The debates
dragged on without any kind of agreement being
reached. The western members were divided into two
groups, one favoring immediate adjournment, and the
other desiring to remain until their grievances had been
* At the conclusion of Holcombe's address the galleries went
wild with enthusiasm and it became necessary to clear them;
/but as usual the order was rescinded upon the solicitation of
some of the Secessionist leaders. — The Dispatch, March 21st.
" The Dispatch, March 21st.

THE VIRGINIA CONVENTION OF 1861 157
redressed. Some of the Secessionists professed them
selves willing to do anything to preserve the unity of
the state, even to burdening themselves still more with
taxes; but others declared their willingness to let the
west go if it so desired. That section had never dis
played the proper spirit and in case of war would likely
prove a hindrance instead of a help.1
March 27th Mr^jjijrgsjnade a notable speech which
showed that he had still a good claim to the title
"Union man." So fairly did he present his side of the
questions that it evoked applause from the spectators.2
He boldly denounced the Virginia Senators, Hunter
and Mason, for their misrepresentation of the state.
Taking up the great issues, he declared that the South
had no real interest in extending slavery; the scarcity
of slaves in western Virginia was proof that the insti
tution would never exist where economic conditions were
unfavorable. As for the escape of slaves, the masters
could blame themselves and not the Northern states.
Virginia should play a waiting game until it appeared
beyond the shadow of a doubt that the general govern
ment was resolved upon coercion. Then they might
say, "Come on ; we are ready for you." 3 Another mod-
"The Dispatch, March 22nd.
'Ibid., March 28th.
"In the evening of the day when Rives delivered this speech,
which was pronounced the best Union effort of the session, a
Union mass meeting was held. It would not, however, have
been designated as "Union" anywhere but in the South, for if
any of those present were "submissionists" they did not make
their presence known. All agreed with Rives that Virginia
should remain in the Union only if it could be done with honor.
The Dispatch unwillingly pronounced the meeting a great success.

158 THE DISRUPTION OF VIRGINIA
erate Union man, McFarland of Richmond, denied that
Virginia was a sovereign state and declared that so
long as it remained in the Union it must obey the Fed
eral laws. This doctrine was denounced by Mr. Wise
as "the impudence of old federalism." 1
On the 20th the Secessionists had won what appeared
to be a decisive victory by having adopted a resolution,
instructing the Committee on Federal Relations to in
quire into the expediency of submitting to the people
of the state two ordinances, one providing for immedi
ate secession, and the other for a series of amendments
to the United States Constitution which should be Vir
ginia's ultimatum to the Federal Government.2 It will
thus be seen that no vote on the straight issue of seces
sion was to be permitted. The only question would be,
How will you have your secession? The committee,
however, on the 30th reported the resolution adversely,
expressing their conviction that the convention should
first decide as to the general policy of the state and
then allow the people to confirm or reject it.
Going back to the consideration of the majority re
port, a number of new propositions were brought in.
Mr. Hall moved to substitute for the committee report
the constitution of the Confederate states.3 The mo
tion was quickly laid on the table. Turner, another
1 The Dispatch, March 28th.
2 Journal, p. 112.
"Journal, p. 109. Mr. Hall was denounced by his western asso
ciates as a renegade but he was lionized by the people of Rich
mond, who presented him with a cane in token of their apprecia
tion of his stand for the "honor of Virginia."

THE VIRGINIA CONVENTION OF 1861 159
westerner, offered the Crittenden proposals as a sub
stitute. Mr. Wise wished the convention to go on rec
ord as favoring the appointment of Federal judges by
the United States Senate. Mr. Scott advocated send
ing a final proposal to the non-slaveholding states, upon
the rejection of which Virginia should leave the Union.
Mi\ E arly again . jspoke n^fayox--o£»a. J3order=s±a.te-con^
v^ntion.1 Apparently no one was capable of suggest
ing anything which met with the approval of a ma
jority of the delegates.
April_5tha vote was taken on the adojgtion of an
ordinance. 0||_sec^ssion.__Itjja_d£featedJbait the result
indicated that the cause of disunion was steadily gain
ing. The following day some real progress was made
when the first eight resolutions of the committee report
were adopted. By this action the convention affirmed
its belief in the following principles : states-rights ; non
interference with slavery; the exclusion from the slave
states of Fe/ieral officials known to be hostile to slavery ;
equal rights in the territories ; state ownership of Fed
eral forts and arsenals. The intention was avowed to
use every effort to preserve the Union but the Federal
Government should agree to three things; namely, the
better enforcement of the Fugitive Slave Law; the re
duction of government expenditures ; and the repeal by
the Northern states of any laws hostile to slavery. The
last resolution denied that the Federal Government
could use the army and the navy for the purpose of
bringing back any state which had seceded. Mr. Car-
1 Wheeling Intelligencer, April 2d.

160 THE DISRUPTION OF VEBGINIA
lile made an effort to have the report of the Peace
Conference substituted for the committee report but
the convention refused to rescind its action.1
The majority of the Secessionists were displeased
with the moderate character of the resolutions. Some
of them despaired of ever persuading the convention to
adopt more drastic measures and pretended to be will
ing to vote for an adjournment sine die. The Dispatch
of April 6th thus gives vent to its feelings :
"We have never been able to feel that interest in the
proceedings of the convention which should have at
tached to that body if we could believe that its deci
sions would have the slightest weight upon the future
of Virginia. . . . We would not, however, disturb the
innocent official complacency which takes it for granted
that what the convention says Virginia will do. No
well-regulated mind will desire to deprive children in
the larger or the smaller growth of any harmless means
of entertainment."
No better proof is desired that the Secessionists
themselves failed to perceive that the tide had turned
in their favor, and that the convention which they .so
roundly denounced was in a state of transition just
preceding the complete overthrow of the Union forces.
On April 8th it was agreed that the convention should
send a delegation of three men to Washington, for the
purpose of getting from the President a statement of
what course he intended to pursue toward the seceded
states. The Unionists saw clearly that the purpose in
1 Wheeling Intelligencer, April 6th.

THE VIRGINIA CONVENTION OF 1861 161
adopting this resolution was an ulterior one ; they fore
saw what the effect would be when the committee re
turned from Washington with an unsatisfactory answer
from Lincoln, who could not be expected to give out
any positive information. "When the committee re
turns," said Mr. Jackson, "we shall be expected to rush
off like a flock of sheep right into the arms of the
Southern Confederacy ; where, so help me God, I do not
mean to go under any circumstances." x Carlile, al
ways fertile in suggestions, moved an amendment
whereby another delegation should be sent to the South
ern Confederacy to discover what policy the authorities
intended to pursue toward the North.2 It was re
jected. Mr. Montague expressed the opinion that the
three factions in the convention should be represented
on the committee : the Secessionists, the moderates, and
"the third, a little lower down." As for himself he
would refuse to serve unless he was permitted to use his
own method with Lincoln. The latter, "ignoramus as
he was, did not understand the sentiments of this peo
ple." 3 By a unanimous vote Alexander H. H. Stuart,
George W. Randolph and William Ballard Preston
were chosen to constitute the committee. Mr. Stuart
was, presumably, the representative of the faction "a
"The Intelligencer, April 9th.
'Mr. Wise remarked ominously, that if Carlile's amendment
carried and he (Carlile) served on the committee it would "be
the last of him." — Private correspondence of Carlile.
Carlile was scoffed at in the convention; laughed at and in
sulted on the streets, and once was threatened with hanging by
a mob which surrounded his boarding house — so he afterwards
claimed. * Richmond Enquirer, April 9th.

162 THE DISRUPTION OF VIRGINIA
little lower down," but if by that was meant uncondi
tional Unionist the convention chose the wrong man.
There was really little difference in the opinions of
Preston and Stuart, and since Randolph was an avowed
Secessionist it left the real Union men, like Carlile,
Willey and Burley unrepresented. The Trans-AUe-
//ghany was ignored as usual.
Lincoln received the delegation "courteously but
rather coldly." It was too late for him to alter the
program decided upon and Sumter even then was under
fire. To guard against such mistakes as were likely to
be made in a verbal reply he wrote out his answer care
fully and read it to the commissioners on the morning
of April 13th. It was little more than a reaffirmation
of the policy outlined in his Inaugural Address, ex
pressed in more positive terms :
"If," said he, "as now appears to be true, in pursuit
of a purpose to drive the United States authorities from
these places, an unprovoked assault has been made upon
Fort Sumter, I shall hold myself at liberty to repos
sess, if I can, like places which had been seized before
the government was devolved upon me. And in every
event I shall to the extent of my ability repel force by
force. In case it proves true that Fort Sumter has
been assaulted, as is reported, I shall perhaps cause the
United States mails to be withdrawn from all the states
which claim to have seceded, believing that the com
mencement of actual war against the government jus
tifies and possibly demands this. I scarcely need to
say that I consider the military posts and property
situated within the states which claim to have seceded,
as yet belonging to the government of the United States

THE VIRGINIA CONVENTION OF 1861 163
as much as they did before the supposed secession.
Whatever else I may now do for the purpose, I shall not
attempt to collect the duties and imposts by any armed
invasion of any part of the country; not meaning by
this, however, that I may not land a force deemed nec
essary to relieve a fort upon a border of the country.
From the fact that I have quoted a part of the Inaug
ural Address it must not be inferred that I repudiated
any other part, the whole of which I reaffirm, except
so far as what I now say of the mails may be regarded
as a modification." 1
The committee made its report to the convention
without comment, but their silence was more eloquent
than anything they could have said. It was freely pre
dicted even among the Union men that upon the first
hostile move by Lincoln, Virginia would be out of the
Union so far as the action of the convention could take
her out.2
Before proceeding further in narrating the course of
events in the convention after secession became an as
sured fact, it may assist in a clearer understanding of
" "The Life, Public Services, and State Papers of Abraham
Lincoln," pp. 179-80. (N. Y., 1865.)
'The Dispatch still failed to read the signs aright, for on
April 15, after Lincoln's answer had been received and the con
vention still did not pass the act of secession it says: "What the
convention does or what it does not do is no longer a matter of
the slightest importance or interest. It may refuse to the
people the right to elect their own delegates to the border con
vention; it may pass a measure for a border convention, or a
national convention, or a world's convention; it may order the
millenium to occur forthwith or command the sun and moon to
stand still; it may monopolize the sovereignty of the state or
establish an elective monarchy and elect one of its members
king; or it may do nothing and go home. Thank goodness for
that"

164 THE DISRUPTION OF VIRGINIA
subsequent events to give an account of several inci
dents which undoubtedly influenced the convention to a
greater or less degree.
In the early part of April Lincoln, feeling that the
Richmond Convention was a standing menace to the
country because of the position of Virginia among the
^/border states, made an effort to have it adjourned. To
accomplish this purpose he was willing to make im
portant sacrifices, because he believed that the war, if
it must come, could be confined to the gulf states. That
great numbers of Virginians would enlist in the South
ern army he well knew, but the effect of this would be
less important than the passage of a formal act of se
cession. Reasoning thus, he sent for George W. Sum
mers to come to Washington. Why the latter refused
to go we are unable to say, but in his stead he sent
John B. Baldwin, whose Unionism was equally unques
tioned. Baldwin was not a "submissionist," but Lin
coln did not want a man of this type, knowing very
well that such a person would be without influence. The
affair was carried on sub rosa and the whole story was
not revealed until 1866, when the Joint Committee on
Reconstruction was holding its sessions. Then, through
the testimony of Mr. Baldwin, John F. Lewis, and John
Minor Botts the truth was brought to light. Baldwin
testified that he had gone to Washington at the request
of Mr. Summers and had presented himself before the
President on the morning of April 4th. Lincoln's first
words were, "You have come too late." He then asked
Baldwin why the convention could not be adjourned

THE VIRGINIA CONVENTION OF 1861 165
sine die. Baldwin replied that such a course would be
a mistake, for the Union men were controlling the con
vention three to one. "We are controlling it for con
servative results," said he ; "we can do it with perfect
certainty if you will uphold our hands by a conservative
policy here. I do not understand why you want a body
thus in the hands of Union men to be dispersed or why
you should look upon the sessions as in any respect a
menace to you; we regard ourselves as cooperating
with you in the object which you express to seek; be
sides if we were to adjourn the convention sine die,
leaving these questions unsettled in the midst of all the
trouble that is ours, it would place the Union men of
Virginia in the attitude of confessing an inability to
meet the occasion. The result would be that another
convention would be called." He went on to state his
belief that in any new convention the Union men would
be outnumbered and an ordinance of secession would
be passed. His advice was for Lincoln to withdraw the
troops from Fort Sumter in order to avoid a collision,
because forty-eight hours after the first gun was fired
Virginia would be out of the Union. According to
Baldwin the incident closed there.1
But the testimony of Mr. Botts, who had remained
a Union man throughout the war in spite of social os
tracism and loss of property, contradicted Baldwin's.
He was given an interview with Lincoln on April 7th.
The President stated that he had put this proposition
to Baldwin: That if he would go back to Richmond
"Report of the Joint Committee on Reconstruction, pp. 69-73.

166 THE DISRUPTION OF VIRGINIA
and have the convention adjourned without passing an
act of secession, "so anxious am I for the preservation
of the peace of the country and to save Virginia and
the other border states from going out that I will take
the responsibility of evacuating Fort Sumter and take
the chance of negotiating with the cotton states which
have already gone out." Baldwin was told that the
time was short as Governor Pickens had been warned
that a fleet would be sent to Charleston if an effort was
made to starve out Major Anderson, and the fleet was
ready to sail at five o'clock that day. Lincoln told
Botts that Baldwin had treated the offer with scorn and
thus the interview ended. Botts then asked that the
same offer be made to him, promising that he would
have the convention adjourned in a few days. But it
was too late, as the fleet had sailed and there was no
way of communicating with it. The opportunity was
thus gone, and Botts returned to Richmond under
promise that he would not make the incident generally
known.1 Botts was corroborated at every point by
Mr. Lewis, whom Botts had let in on the secret. Lewis
had gone to Baldwin and asked why he had kept back
the offer from the Union men of the convention. No
answer to this was made as Baldwin became confused
and left the house.2
It is a. matter of conjecture what would have been
the result had Lincoln's alleged offer been made to the
Union men of the convention. Possibly an adjourn-
1 Report of the Joint Committee on Reconstruction, pp. 102-109.
'Ibid., pp. 114-123.

THE VIRGINIA CONVENTION OF 1861 167
ment would have been taken, in which case' the legisla
ture could have called another convention (which surely
would have been controlled by the Secessionists), or it
might have proceeded to act on its own responsibility
and passed an act of secession. That Virginia could
have been kept in the Union after Lincoln's call for
volunteers is difficult to believe.
The other incident referred to has a more direct
bearing on the action of the convention.
On April 6th the Richmond Whig published the fol
lowing circular letter which, it stated, had been sent all
through the state: „„ ,7. . .
"Richmond, Virginia. "1861.
"Your presence is particularly requested at Rich
mond on the  day of ¦ — — to consult with the
friends of Southern rights as to the course which Vir
ginia should pursue in the present emergency. Please
bring with you or send a full delegation of true and reli
able men from your county; and, if convenient, aid
the same object in the surrounding counties.
"On arriving at Richmond report yourself and com
panions immediately to  at  .
(Signed) "Samuel Woods of Barbour
John R. Chambliss of Greenville
Chas. F. Collier of Petersburg
John A. Harman of Augusta
H. A. Wise of Princess Anne
John T. Anderson of Botetourt
Wm. F. Gordon of Albemarle
Thos. Jefferson Randolph of Albemarle
James A. Sheffey of Smythe." x
""The Conspiracy Unveiled," p. 242.

168 THE DISRUPTION OF VIRGINIA
To the Union men this letter meant that "intimida
tion and mob terror were to take the place of manly
argument." 1 That it had a sinister signification is
beyond denial and no one will contend that the cry of
"coercion" by the Union delegates was without founda
tion. The actual work accomplished by these "true
and reliable men" will be recounted later. John F.
Lewis, who has the distinction of being the only eastern
delegate who did not sign the ordinance of secession,
declared that if it had not been for the fear of this
self-constituted convention the ordinance would not
/have been passed, as the people of Virginia at that time
were utterly opposed to secession.2
Onthe^9th of April the secession j;ause made a dis
tinct _gain_jghen the convention adopted a resolution
recognizing the^ Confederate States atud. puttJng-ihem -
on the Jfooting of an independent power.3 When the
fact is remembered that the convention had time and
again gone on record in affirmation of the doctrine of
states' rights and declared that the seven seceded states
had merely acted in accordance with this doctrine, it
seems strange that the convention had postponed for
mal recognition of the Confederacy until the second
week in April. There were two reasons for this : One
was that not all persons who professed to believe in the
right of a state to secede were willing for the states to
put that right into operation. They upheld it fervently
1 The Wheeling Intelligencer, April 9th.
' Report of the Joint Committee on Reconstruction, p. 71.
'Journal, p. 145.

THE VIRGINIA CONVENTION OF 1861 169
as an abstract proposition, hoping thereby to check
the progress of centralization ; but when the Union was
actually in danger of being destroyed their ardor
cooled. The other reason for the hesitancy of the con
vention was that its recognition of the Confederacy
before that government had really established itself
would be a departure from the traditional conservatism
of Virginia. The western members had made a strong
effort to prevent the passage of the resolution, but
their opposition had been borne down in the swelling
tide of secession.1 Failing in this, they attempted to
have a committee appointed which should inquire into
the expediency of amending the state constitution in
such a manner that the existing inequalities should be
remedied. The debate became quite bitter, the eastern
members charging that the purpose of the west was to
tax slavery out of existence, while the delegates from
the west hinted at a division of the state unless their
demands were complied with.2
The fight went on although the Union cause was now
hopeless. Henry A. Wise, quite the most incompre
hensible man on the floor of the convention, still upheld
his doctrine of "fighting in the Union." 3 His words
are strangely in contrast with his actions :
r "One of the western members, Mr. Turner, complained that
during the course of this debate he had been spit upon by the
spectators in the gallery. — The Dispatch, April 10th.
'Ibid. ' Governor Wise in a letter to a friend explained what he
meant by "fighting in the Union": "If a sovereign state is judge
of the infractions, as well as the mode and measure of redress,
she may remain in the Union to resent or resist wrongs as well
as to do so out of the Union. . . . The Union is not an abstrac-

170 THE DISRUPTION OF VIRGINIA
"As to parting from the Union in my affections/'
said he, "I shall never do that. As to leaving its flag,
whenever I leave this Confederacy, this north star Con
federacy, which makes the needle tremble northward, I
shall carry the flag of the old Union out with me ; and
even if I have to fight, so help me God, I will fight with
the Star-Spangled Banner in one hand and my musket
in the other. I will never take the Southern Cross or
any palmetto for my flag. I will never admit that a
Yankee can drive me from the Union and take from
me our Capitol. I will take from him forts ; I will take
from him flags; I will take from him our Capitol. I
will take from him, if I can, my whole country and save
the whole." x
Wise proposed that the convention should postpone
action until the North was given time to accept or re
ject certain amendments to the United States Consti
tution. If no satisfactory reply was received by Oc
tober 1st Virginia should resume her sovereignty and
unite with any new Union which would guarantee equal
tion; it is a real substantial thing, embracing many essential and
vital political rights and properties. Is it not cowardly to re
nounce one right to save another? ... If you secede, you not
only renounce the Union and its possessions but you fail to
unite your own people because you do renounce these rights.
Wake a man up to destroy the Union and the Constitution, and
he will stare at you and turn away. But tell him that the Con
stitution is infracted and the Union threatened by Black Re
publicans, and call him to aid you in defending both against
those who would destroy both, and he will heartily agree with
you. — Philadelphia Public Ledger, Dec. 12, 1860.
"Wise, "Life of Henry A. Wise," p. 273.
After the war Wise claimed that he had never fought under
the Confederate flag, but had always carried under his coat a
Virginia button which he said was his banner. — "The Rending
of Virginia," p. 192.

THE VIRGINIA CONVENTION OF 1861 171
rights. In the meantime the United States should be
requested to withdraw from the seceded states and
reduce her forces in the other Southern forts. In case
the United States made any attempt to enforce juris
diction over the people of the seceded states, Virginia
was to institute armed resistance. This plan being
rejected Wise offered as an alternative an ordinance of
secession which was referred to the Committee of the
Whole.1 On the l^thJJi£^iaJLJ2f_a-^^esjQf_±elegi,^yG-jiis-
patches from Governor Pickens of South Carolina was
read. It came in response to an inquiry sent by Letcher
asking if it was true that Fort Sumter had been fired
upon. Pickens replied : "It is true and still continues.
No damage done to anyone on our side or to our works.
Great damage to Fort Sumter." 2 The Virginia Se
cessionists were jubilant, for it was becoming apparent
that the Virginia heart was being "fired" at last. Jubal
A. Earjy, made a touching appeal to the convention
not to rush out of the Union at the bidding of South
Carolina. He said that he had never expected to see
the day when Virginians would rejoice at hearing that
their country's flag had been fired upon. Wise replied
in a typical "fire-eating" speech, upon the conclusion
of which another telegram from Governor Pickens was
read. This time he went into details of the attempt
that had been made to relieve Fort Sumter and of its
failure. He says, "We can sink the fleet if they at-
1 Appendix of the Journal, p. 78.
'Ibid., p. 153.

172 THE DISRUPTION OF VIRGINIA
tempt the channel. If they land elsewhere we can whip
them. I have here now near 7,000 of the best troops
in the world and a reserve of 10,000 on our railroads.
The war has commenced and we will .triumph or perish.
This is my answer to you. Please let me know what
Virginia will do." 1
Tuesday the 16th the convention went into secret
session, ostensibly for the purpose of considering the
report of the committee sent to interview Lincoln. No
one was deceived by this and the Union men, feehng that
it was the beginning of the end, made a desperate ef
fort to keep the sessions as they had been. The Gov
ernor was informed of what the convention was doing
and was requested to communicate to the convention
any information he might receive. On motion of Mr.
Tyler he was asked to transmit at once any official
dispatches from Washington calling upon Virginia for
volunteers.2 All propositions looking toward compromise were
now decisively rejected; even the one having for its ob
ject the calling of a border-state convention. WiUiain
Ballard Preston, a former Union man, brought_jn an
ordinance of secession, and the Union men, now a
minority, made their last stand. Just what took place
while the convention met in secret session has never
been made public. Such accounts as have been given
vary according to the sympathies of the narrator.
Waitman T. Willey thus says:
1 Appendix of the Journal, p. 155.
'Ibid., pp. 158, 160.

THE VIRGINIA CONVENTION OF 1861 173
"The scenes witnessed within the walls of that room
. . . have no parallel in the annals of ancient or mod
ern times. On the morning of the 17th Mr. Wise rose
in his seat and drawing a large Virginia horse-pistol
from his bosom laid it before him and proceeded to
harangue the body in the most violent and denunciatory
manner. He concluded by taking his watch from his
pocket and, with glaring eyes and bated breath, de
clared that events were now transpiring which caused
a hush to come over his soul. ... It was then that the
Union members saw the object of the other assemblage
which had sat with closed doors from its beginning and
whose concealed hand, seizing the reins of government,
had left the form without the power to resist." J
The story of this "other assemblage" was afterwards
told by one of its members, John D. Imboden. He re
lates that Wise, the prime mover, had despaired of get
ting the convention to act promptly. One day he met
Wise on the street and the latter had reminded him of a
promise he had made when Wise was Governor that if
he was permitted to have the use of some field-pieces for
a company of artillery at Staunton he would consider
himself bound to use them as Wise desired. The latter
replied: "What was then a joke is earnest now. I
want those guns with which to aid in the immediate cap
ture of the United States arsenal at Harper's Ferry.
Can they be had with all the men you can raise ?" Im
boden pledged himself to get the guns and men. A
meeting was arranged for and a delegation was sent
to Governor Letcher, asking him for permission to take
""The Rending of Virginia," p. 183.

174 THE DISRUPTION OF VIRGINIA
the arsenal in the name of Virginia. The Governor
quickly replied that he could not sanction such an
enterprise, as he was under pledge not to take any hos
tile steps without consulting the convention. The
"allies" then agreed to act without any official author
ity and Wise assumed charge. He ordered the super
intendent of the arsenal, who was present, to go back to
his post and do his duty there. Three other men were
sent to set troops in motion. The President of the Cen
tral Railroad agreed to arrange for their transporta
tion. A dispatch from Norfolk was received which
read as follows: "The powder magazine here can be
taken and the Yankee vessels can be captured and sunk
so as to obstruct the harbor. Shall we do it?" Wise
answered, "Yes." All this arranged for, he returned to
the convention and made the speech which Willey de
scribes above. He told the convention what had been
going on and asked if it would support the movement.
Great excitement ensued, but the Governor was induced
to acquiesce and the coup was successful.
Imboden's description of subsequent events is as fol
lows: "After a very short conference Wise returned to his
seat in the convention. Mr. Robert Y. Conrad was on
the floor protesting warmly against the movement as
unauthorized and illegal, involving, in fact, all the con
sequences of treason, and the whole people in a war to
which the most of them were opposed. Mr. John B.
Baldwin and others, but especially Mr. Baldwin, fol
lowed in a strain of awful lamentation and foreboding,

THE VIRGINIA CONVENTION OF 1861 175
denouncing the act as a usurpation, as revolutionary
and disturbing to peaceful measures and interfering
with the labors of the convention toward compromise
and conciliation. He asked who had assumed to in
stigate and organize so rash a folly. Whoever they
were he could not, for one, sanction or countenance
their disastrous and unauthorized action. Wise arose
and announced that he and he alone had originated and
ordered the movement and assumed its whole responsi
bility; and he inquired of Mr. Baldwin whether he
would or not, now that the movement was on the march,
aid the people who had waited on the convention too
long in vain, in seizing arms for their own defense. Mr.
Baldwin said he could not and he hoped the convention
would not partake in such a fearful responsibility. It
was not the act of the people, and those who had as
sumed to act for the whole state must ... lie upon it
and take all the consequences, which he apprehended
would be sad and fatal. They should not have his
sanction, aid, or countenance. As yet it was not knowu
to him or the convention of what portion of the people
the volunteers were composed. Wise then rose and said,
'Mr. President, I have often heard old Augusta (Bald
win's county) boasted of as the heart of Virginia. . . .
Let me tell the gentleman from Augusta that the patri
otic volunteer revolutionists are his constituents of
Augusta, his friends and neighbors of Staunton. They
are the men who are marching under my orders to take
their own arms for their own defense. . . . Shall they
be doomed unsupported to bloody beds?' This appeal
silenced Mr. Baldwin; he looked aghast; he dropped his
mien of reprehension at the movement and the whole
body . . . was thrown into bewildering excitement by
Mr. Baylor, Baldwin's colleague, rushing by, almost
over seats and down aisles, making his way to Wise. It

176 THE DISRUPTION OF VIRGINIA
might be to assail him ; but no, it was to grasp his hand,
with tears streaming down his cheeks and exclaiming,
'Let me grasp your hand; I don't agree with you; I
don't approve your acts ; but I love you ; I love you.' " J
Amid such hysterical scenes the ordinance of seces>
sion was finall_y__passed in secret session .on_April 17th,
just after word had beenjceceiyed from the Governor
that the President had called upon Virginia for her
quota of volunteers. The vote was given as eighty-
eigEFto" fifty-fiver Of the Trans-Alleghany delegates
eleven went with the majority of the convention in favor
of the ordinance, and five others later changed their
votes to the affirmative. To put it another way, the
representatives of twenty-one counties in what is now
West Virginia cast their lot with the South ; while the
delegates from nineteen other western counties remained
firm to the last in their support of the Union cause.1
Twenty-two eastern delegates, including President Jan
ney, voted against the ordinance; all but one later
obtained permission to change their vote to the af
firmative. It is a peculiar fact that the Valley of Virginia
which was destined to suffer the most terrible ravages
of war, by the action of its representatives in this con
vention was ranged on the side of the Union; while
across the mountains in West Virginia a majority of
"The account of this remarkable scene is found in Wise's
"Life of Henry A. Wise," beginning on p. 274v
'These nineteen counties, however, represented the greater part
of the population and wealth of western Virginia.

THE VIRGINIA CONVENTION OF 1861 177
those counties which Congress later recognized as
Union counties were placed by their representatives ,in
the convention in the secession column.
After the passage of the ordinance events moved
fast.1 One hundred thousand dollars was appropriated^
for the defense of the state. An act was passed sus
pending the authority of the Federal Government until
the ratification of the secession ordinance. Another
act authorized the Governor to inform the President
of the Confederate States of Virginia's desire to enter
the Confederacy.2 A proclamation was issued ordering
all volunteer companies in the state to prepare for im
mediate action. Harper's Ferry was seized; the chan- |
nel of Elizabeth River was obstructed and many other
steps toward the actual commencement of hostilities
were taken. The state authorities were severely criti
cized for doing these things before the people of the
state had ratified the ordinance of secession; but it is
difficult to see how Virginia could have marked time for
a month, while events of such tremendous significance
were in progress. The-feeliiig^was general that the sub
mission of the ordinance to the_people was a mere for

mality.3 At any rate, when the day should "come for
the vote of the people the state would be engaged in

1 The ordinance was entitled, "An Act to repeal the ratifica
tion of the Constitution of the United States of America by
the State of Virginia and to resume all the rights and powers
granted under the said Constitution." — Journal, Ordinance No. 1.
'Ibid., pp. 4-5.
'Two papers with such divergent views as the Richmond
Enquirer and the Wheeling Intelligencer agreed on this point.

178 THE DISRUPTION OF VIRGINIA
war and it mattered little whether they approved or
rejected the ordinance.1
The convention passed a resolution providing that an
address to the people of Virginia should be drawn up
setting forth the reasons why they should ratify the
ordinance of secession. Jubal A. Early gathered
around him a few remnants of the old Union party and
fought desperately to have the resolution tabled, urg
ing that it was not proper for the convention to pre
sume to tell the people how they should act. This
fading, he made a motion that the soldiers in camp
should not be permitted to vote. But the convention
was not going to run any risk of having the ordinance
rejected, so all conservative proposals were turned
down. jApril 25th the convention ratified a temporary agree-
rment which had been made with Alexander Stephens,
Commissioner of the Confederate States. The next step
was the adoption of the Constitution of the Confederate
States. April 29th the convention appointed a com
mission consisting of Messrs. Hunter, Rives, Brocken-
brough, Staples, Camden, and Russell to proceed to
"Thus Mr. Botts says: "Notwithstanding that the people had
decided by a majority of 56,000 to make this a convention of
^limited powers . . . the authorities . . . proceeded next day after
the passage of the ordinance by the convention to involve the
state of Virginia in actual war with the United States. . . .
They then turned to the people . . . and said, 'Now we are in
volved in war and the rejection of the ordinance . . . will not
stop the progress of the war; so you can vote for the ordinance
or against it as you like. But, in the language of the Emperor
Napoleon's friends, 'We advise you to vote for the Emperor.'"—
Report of the Joint Committee on Reconstruction, p. 114 et seq.

THE VIRGINIA CONVENTION OF 1861 179
Montgomery and act as delegates from Virginia to the
Confederacy. WedBgsdayr-Mary_Ld^_the convention adjourned.
The question is often asked, vVhat were the immedi
ate causes which threw Virginia into the arms of the
Confederacy? The usual reply has been, the news of
the fall of Fort Sumter and the receipt of Lincoln's
call for volunteers. The older idea was that the con
vention stampeded when the telegrams from Charleston
were read. But General Imboden declares that it was
common knowledge that the telegrams had been sent for
effect and soon became objects of derision. As soon as
it was announced that one had been received the cry
would go up, "Another Democratic alarm," and the
reading of it would be greeted with laughter." -1 Thus
the promise of Roger A. Pryor that Virginia would
secede when the first gun was fired failed of fulfillment.2
But from the moment it became plain that Lincoln
intended to use the military forces of the United States
in his effort to bring the seceded states back into the
Union and expected Virginia to contribute her quota,
the future course of the state was decided. No one
who is in any degree familiar with the situation will
"Wise, "Life of Henry A. Wise," p. 277.
' It was alleged that Pryor had been sent south for the pur
pose of hastening the attack upon Fort Sumter and some of his
speeches sound as though the charge were true. For instance, at
Charleston on April 10th he said: "I do not mean to say any
thing for effect upon military operations, but the very moment
that blood is shed Old Virginia will make common cause with
her sisters of the South." — Pittsburgh Chronicle, April 11th,
Christian Advocate, April 12th.

180 THE DISRUPTION OF VIRGINIA
affirm now that Virginia could have been held in the
?Union while her sister-states of the South were engaged
in a desperate struggle with the North.
On May 23rd the ordinance of secession was ratified
by the people of the state by the decisive vote of 125,-
950 to 205373.1 The vima voce method of voting made
intimidation easy and there seems to be no doubt that
many persons voted for the ordinance under pressure.2
But we cannot believe that the number was large enough
to have had any effect on the final result. In the north
ern Panhandle, where the fear of war was so strong, it
was not safe to vote for the ordinance just as in other
parts of the state it required some courage to vote
against it.3 The four counties of the northern Pan
handle voted against ratification twenty to one. The
"No official canvass of the vote was ever made and consider
able doubt has been cast on the correctness of the returns as
announced by Governor Letcher. The National Intelligencer
accused him of concealing the returns from the thirty-four
northwestern counties, in order that it might not become known
how strongly these counties were opposed to secession.
'Mr. C. D. Gray, testifying before the Joint Committee on
Reconstruction, declared that he had been compelled to vote for
the ordinance. Report, p. 64
James Hunnicutt, Editor of the Christian Banner, in the con
vention of 1867 asserted that it was a. matter of common knowl
edge that the vote taken May 23rd was a farce. Hundreds and
thousands of armed men were sent around to tell every man
that he could vote as he pleased; but if "you vote the Union
ticket you are an abolitionist, a traitor to your state; you shall
be tarred and feathered and driven out of the country or
you shall be hung." — Journal of the Convention of 1867; p. 328.
* Says the Wheeling Intelligencer, editorially, May 24th:
"There was great curiosity to see who voted for secession. . . .
As time went along there came in an occasional stray vote for
the infamous ordinance. Nobody said much, but nearly everybody
looked volumes."

THE VIRGINIA CONVENTION OF 1861 181
majority in Ohio County alone was 3,30c.1 But in the
other counties of western Virginia the vote was more
evenly divided, while in the east the ordinance was rati
fied by overwhelming majorities. We are forced to the
conclusion that by May 23, 1861, the people of Vir
ginia were ready for war; their hearts had been fired
at last.
1 "The Rending of Virginia," p. 285.

CHAPTER X
THE BEGINNING OF THE NEW-STATE MOVEMENT
The passage of the ordinance of secession left the
delegates from the northwest in a peculiarly embar
rassing position. While not the only ones who had
voted against the ordinance, they alone represented
districts where a real preponderance of Union senti
ment existed and they knew well that their constituents
would visit their severest displeasure upon any man who
should dare change his vote from the negative to the
affirmative and thereby put his stamp of approval upon
an act which would surely expose the northwest to the
ravages of an invading army.1
There remained but one alternative — to leave the
convention and return home. This was only a degree
less distasteful, for such an action could be interpreted
but as the beginning of an open break between the sec
tions of the state, and for this they were not yet pre
pared. If they remained in the convention they would
be regarded as members of a body whose deliberations
"Leonard Hall of Wetzel County and Samuel Woods of Bar
bour County who had signed the ordinance of secession met
with rough treatment on returning home and both went to Rich
mond, where they remained during the greater part of the war.
182

BEGINNING OF THE NEW-STATE MOVEMENT 183
were all concerned with the breaking up of the Union.
They knew that the convention was determined to leg
islate the state out of the Union and no power on earth
could prevent it. The number of Union sympathizers
was decreasing every day and the little handful of loyal
delegates from the upper Ohio and Monongahela now
stood almost alone.
On the 19th of April John S. Carlile departed from
Richmond. Standing out conspicuously as the leader
of the Union men he had never wavered, like Mr. Willey
and Mr. Summers, in his support of the cause. Threats
against him had been made at various times ; one evening
a mob had gone so far as to surround his boarding
house and throw a halter over a limb of a tree.1 How
ever, no actual violence was offered to any of the dele
gates, and there is good reason for doubting some of
the stories which reached the loyal sections of the state
regarding the dangerous situation of the Union dele
gates. The day after Carlile's departure the remaining
Unionists held a meeting at the Powhatan Hotel in the
room of Sherrard Clemens. Here the state of West
Virginia may be said to have had its birth, for the
course was decided upon of returning to their homes
across the mountains and calling for a convention, the
ultimate object of which should be the formation of a
" James C. McGrew, one of the loyal delegates, declares that
Carlile was very reluctant to leave Richmond and his friends
were compelled to escort him to the train. — Second Biennial Re
port, West Va. Archives and History, p. 159. "The Rending of
Virginia," p. 528.

184 THE DISRUPTION OF VIRGINIA
new state out of the loyal counties.1 In accordance
with this plan the Union delegates, with the permission
of Governor Letcher, left Richmond April 21st. By the
24th most of the delegates were back among their con
stituents, urging them to take immediate action against
the scheme of the Secessionist leaders. Though bound
by oath not to reveal the fact that the secession ordi
nance had been passed, they disregarded their promise
and long before the fact was formally announced that
their state had broken with the Federal Government the
western Virginians knew that so far as the convention
could accomplish it, Virginia was now a sovereign state.
The danger was felt to be imminent, for it was a matter
of common knowledge that the state authorities could
not afford to remain idle until the people had time to
pass upon the ordinance of secession.2 Richmond had
already become the scene of war preparations, and it
would be but a short time before the entire state was
involved. The eastern portion of the state was already
engaged in actual rebellion but it seemed quite likely
that the west, which had taken no hostile steps, would be
the first section to suffer and the people here were not
" Those present at this meeting were Messrs. Burley, Clemens,
Dent, E. B. Hall, Hubbard, Jackson, McGrew, Patrick, C. J.
Stewart, Porter, Tarr, and one or two others not named. — 2nd
Biennial Report, West Va. Archives and History, p. 159.
'The Cincinnati Commercial, April 23rd, made a bitter attack
upon the Virginia authorities for not waiting until the ratifica
tion of the ordinance by the people before taking action. "Vir
ginia has not legally seceded. Her people have not passed upon
the act of secession. A mob in Virginia is making war upon
the Federal Government."

BEGINNING OF THE NEW-STATE MOVEMENT 185
willing thus to be offered up vicariously.1 They rea
lized that their position was a most unenviable one. By
preference they were in the Union, but by proclamation
of the Governor they would be out of the Union.
There was too much Pennsylvania north and too much
Ohio west to make secession practicable even if they
desired it.2 The Southern Confederacy, they felt, was
formed to protect slavery, an institution in which west
ern Virginia had little material interest. To be expected
to offer up their lives and their fortunes for the sake
of an institution in which they had little concern was
demanding too much.3
Union meetings were held in all portions of the
northwest. The people of Monongalia County re
solved, first, that to obey the behests of the state au
thorities and take part in the secession movement would
result in the utter ruin and bankruptcy of the state;
second, that the idea of seceding from the general gov
ernment and attaching Virginia to the so-called cotton
states was repulsive, especially as it was necessary to
follow in the wake of South Carolina, "the hotbed of
political heresies and secession" ; third, that West Vir
ginia had submitted to the domineering rule of the east
for over half a century, had been denied equal repre-
1 Kingwood Chronicle, April 27th. Quoted in National Intel
ligencer, May 2.
'Letter to the Pittsburgh Chronicle signed by a citizen of
Wheeling, April 29th.
' The Western Virginian, April 22nd. The citizens of Taylor
and Wetzel counties resolved in mass meetings that West Vir
ginia had no interest in common with the government estab
lished for the sole purpose of protecting African slavery.

186 THE DISRUPTION OF VIRGINIA
sentation while the east had refused to bear her share
of the burdens of taxation; fourth, that now the mea
sure of eastern oppression was full and since secession
had been determined upon the time was at hand for
West Virginia to dissolve her civil and political con
nection with the east and remain under the protection
of the Federal Government.1 This was the tenor of
nearly all the Union meetings. Separation from the
state was usually hinted at rather than openly advo
cated. The action of the Washington authorities call
ing out troops for the purpose of subjugating the se
ceded states was freely criticized. An editor of one of
the western papers supporting the Union wrote that
he had traveled all over western Virginia, and while the
people generally did not see any reason for Virginia's
secession, at the same time they were far from approv
ing Lincoln's course.2 On several occasions their dis
approval broke out in Union meetings, although the
fact was not generally known.3
The movement for a loyal convention to be called at
Wheeling had its inception in a meeting held at Clarks
burg April 22nd. Under the leadership of Carlile a
declaration was adopted to the effect that the loyal
'National Intelligencer, April 24th.
' Western Virginian, April 22nd.
•The Parkersburg Gazette, April 25th, declared that "the
people of northwestern Virginia, heretofore honest Union men,
after the exposure of the treachery of Lincoln will indignantly
repudiate Unionism. No people are more patriotic than ours
but when "Black Republicanism looks for encouragement and
support in its crusade against the South it will look in vain in
West Virginia."

BEGINNING OF THE NEW-STATE MOVEMENT 187
citizens of West Virginia should come together for the
purpose of securing their position in the Union.
Wheeling was recommended as the best place to meet,
not because of its geographical position but for the rea
son that it was the only town where there was an as
sured Union majority. Had Parkersburg, Clarksburg,
Morgantown, or Fairmont been anything like as loyal
as they have usually been considered, one of them would
have been chosen as the meeting-place and the state
of West Virginia could never have had its birth in
Wheeling. Thus the history of West Virginia from
1861 to 1865 appears properly as a part of the history
of the city of Wheeling. Here was published the one
paper which took up the anti-slavery cause, which con
sistently urged the division of the state, and supported
unwaveringly the Republican administration in its ef
forts to put down the rebellion.1 In Wheeling there was
a large group of prominent men willing to take upon
themselves the uncertain task of setting up a new state
government. With local, state, and national officials
generally favorable to the Union, with nearly one third
of its population foreign-born and altogether out of
sympathy with the Southern cause, and with its prox-
1 The Intelligencer. Archibald Campbell, the editor, was an
uncompromising Union man, whose courage was commensurate
with his ability. His writings received wide notice outside of
the state, and to this fact may be ascribed the failure of many
northern journals to appreciate the real situation in West Vir
ginia. Mr. Campbell's zeal for the Union outran his judgment,
and his optimistic editorials were copied far and wide, producing
an entirely false impression as to the sentiment in the counties
of West Virginia.

188 THE DISRUPTION OF VIRGINIA
imity to Ohio and Pennsylvania, Wheeling logically
became the soul of the new state movement. As such it
was recognized throughout the North and the new gov
ernment was commonly spoken of as the Wheeling gov
ernment.1 The formal call for a convention appeared in the
Intelligencer on April 27th. It was a long and stirring
appeal for the citizens of the northwest to take some
action before the Federal Government made the mis
take of considering Virginia as a unit in desiring sep
aration from the United States. The article reviewed
the history of events since the calling of the special ses
sion of the legislature in January. It professed to see
a deep-laid plot on the part of the eastern leaders be
ginning before the legislature met and not ending until
the ordinance of secession was passed. Western inter
ests were not considered in the slightest degree. What
did the east care if the Trans-Alleghany became the
Flanders of the war? West Virginia had always been
a feudal possession of eastern Virginia, and would now
continue her usefulness to the east by acting as a buffer
to ward off attacks on the cismontane portion of the
state. The secession ordinance had been passed secretly
and the lips of the delegates had been sealed in order to
give the state authorities time to take possession of the
United States arsenals, navy yards, etc.
1 The counties outside the Panhandle recognized the primacy
of Wheeling only as a matter of expediency. They had not
forgotten that in various state conventions the delegates from
Ohio County had opposed such internal improvements as had for
their object the opening up of the central sections of the state.

BEGINNING OF THE NEW-STATE MOVEMENT 189
"Men of the northwest, this is where Virginia stands
to-day ; this is how you stand ; this has been your treat
ment; these the indignities you have suffered. Will
you submit to a repetition of them? Will you consent
and are you willing to have them doubled, quadrupled,
carried beyond all power of endurance? Are you a free
people and would you retain your liberties? Are you
agreed that the degradation, wrongs, and insults of the
last few months shall be continued, repeated, and inten
sified by a petty but most absolute tyranny for all time
to come? Your position, if you have the nerve to sus
tain it, is one of moral sublimity. . . . We conjure you
as free men who must secure their own enfranchisement,
by all that you hold dear ... by your duty as a citi
zen of the best government on earth . . . that you will
forget past differences . . . and unite in this hour
of common danger." 1
The various state newspapers were urged to take up
the call and scatter the appeal throughout the length
and breadth of northwestern Virginia. The response
was satisfactory in the Union counties.2 In two thirds
of the counties now constituting the state of West Vir
ginia the press and the people held sullenly aloof from
the movement and at no time showed a desire to act in
unison with those who were trying to create a new state.
Just how spontaneous the Union sentiment was can
" Wheeling Intelligencer, April 27th.
"A letter to the National Intelligencer, April 25th, says:
"There are many counties of West Virginia where the Union
feeling is predominant. Wheeling will not respond to the Gov
ernor's call but stands by the government of the United States.
The press of Hancock, Brooke, Ohio, Marshall, Wood, Monon
galia and other northwestern counties still keep the Union flag
flying." — Also Philadelphia Press, April 25th.

190 THE DISRUPTION OF VIRGINIA
never be determined. Some of the letters and articles
circulating at this time have rather a hollow ring, their
authors evidently being under the necessity of whistling
in order to keep up their courage. The readers of the
National Intelligencer were told that there were not
one hundred Secessionists in Monongalia County, but
almost in the same breath fear is expressed that the
apathy of the people will be as difficult to overcome as
active opposition.
Interest in the new state movement centered around
six towns — Wheeling, Morgantown, Fairmont, Grafton,
Parkersburg, and Clarksburg. Morgantown was the
home of Waitman T. Willey and was reputed to be
strongly in favor of going to the extreme.1 Fairmont,
in Marion County, should have been second only to
Wheeling in its support of the Union because of its
situation on the Baltimore and Ohio Railroad, but it
was openly admitted that active Secessionist feeling
was plentiful and Union sentiment scarce. , Grafton, in
Taylor County, was in the position of Fairmont.
Parkersburg, the county seat of Wood County, and the
second largest city in West Virginia, seems to have
1 The Morgantown Star at this time declared that after "mature
and painful deliberation ... it had come to the conclusion that
the one thing left to do was to set up a separate and independent
state. And why not divide the state? Should not the people of a
state be homogeneous people, a people with like interests and
institutions and requiring the same laws? What interest have
we in eastern Virginia? . . . All our trade is with Pennsylvania,
Ohio, and Maryland. . . . When we talk about dividing the
state they cry out, 'Remember the graves of Washington, the
shades of Monticello.' These . . . neither buy bread nor improve
the country."

BEGINNING OF THE NEW-STATE MOVEMENT 191
contained a Union majority. Judge Jackson, the most
prominent citizen and one of the leading Unionists in the
Richmond Convention, was prepared to encourage any
steps leading to the establishment of a provisional gov
ernment, but did not favor breaking away from the old
state. Clarksburg, in Harrison County, was the home
of John S. Carlile, who was able to draw over with him
a number of the best citizens, but around the outlying
districts Southern sympathizers were in force. Union
men complained that they were being subjected to all
kinds of annoyance by their disloyal neighbors. One
man writes that he hopes the report is true that a com
pany of Secessionists was being raised in his district,
for the county would then be relieved of "a large amount
of the offscouring of humanity." 1
1 "The Rending of Virginia," pp. 218-19.

CHAPTER XI
THE MAT CONVENTION
The delegates to the first Wheeling Convention were
chosen in such an irregular manner that a description
of the methods is impossible. In the larger towns in
formal mass meetings were held and representatives
elected. The rural districts, where three fourths of the
people resided, had no opportunity to take part in
the movement and many indeed were unaware that any
organized effort was being made to neutralize the effect
of the ordinance of secession. Since the convention was
not called by any authority recognized by the state
constitution, each county was a law unto itself. The
feeling prevailed that the more delegates there were
present the more impressive would be the effect, not so
much in West Virginia as throughout the North. Thus
the four hundred and twenty-nine men who assembled in
Wheeling May 13, 1861, made an effective appearance
and deceived the newspaper correspondents as to the
real situation in the interior of the state. The counties
represented were as follows : Hancock, Brooke, Ohio,
Marshall, Marion, Monongalia, Preston, Harrison,
Wood, Ritchie, Lewis, Upshur, Gilmer, Wirt, Jackson,
Mason, Wetzel, Pleasants, Barbour, Hampshire, Berke-
192

THE MAY CONVENTION 193
ley, Taylor, Tyler, Doddridge, and Roane. A closer
analysis shows that more than one third of the total
number of delegates were from the district immediately
around Wheeling. Hancock County with a total popu
lation of 4,445 was represented by thirty-two dele
gates; Brooke County, scarcely larger than Hancock,
sent sixteen; Marshall County with a population of
12,997 sent seventy men as her quota. The farther
the county was away from Wheeling, the fewer the dele
gates, with few exceptions. Thirty men came from
Mason County, yet Cabell County just below was not
represented. Marion County, connected with Wheel
ing by the Baltimore and Ohio Railroad, was satisfied
with sixteen delegates while her neighbor, Monongalia,
had thirty-eight. From the eastern Panhandle came
eight representatives. Jefferson, Morgan, Hardy,
Pendleton, Randolph, Tucker, Webster, Pocahontas,
Greenbrier, Nicholas, Fayette, Monroe, Mercer, Mc
Dowell, Wyoming, Raleigh, Boone, Logan, Kanawha,
Putnam, Clay, Braxton, Calhoun, Wayne, Gilmer, and
Cabell counties sent no delegates.
From the first day of the first loyal convention to
the final act of admission of West Virginia into the
Union the leaders of the movement racked their brains
in the attempt to justify their proceedings and make
them harmonize with the constitutions of the state and
the United States.1 It was asserted that the May
1 Carlile declared that all parliamentary customs should be
followed out to the last detail, because it was essential that the
regularity of their proceedings be recognized all over the land. —
"The Rending of Virginia," p. 238.

194 THE DISRUPTION OF VIRGINIA
convention was a regular body organized under the
Virginia constitution, although it was recognized to
be a fact that only the General Assembly could sum
mon the people to meet in convention. In discussing
this point, Judge Jackson, whose frankness is rather
refreshing, made a motion that any man present from
any northwestern county be received as a delegate. He
stated that he did not believe their gathering was any
thing more than a large and imposing mass meeting,
called irregularly and informally for the purpose of
consulting the United States authorities as to the best
means of procedure.1 Carlile, always theatrical, re
plied that the convention was a sovereign body and as
such could do anything the sovereign people could do.
Jackson had expressed the opinion that they had come
together to deliberate, not to form a new state. To this
Carlile replied that if he had so understood the pur
pose of the meeting he would have stayed at home.
The people, he said, expected them to remain in session
until their safety was secured beyond a doubt; but "if
we temporize now and consult and adjourn to come
back here again, before that day arrives you will have
sworn allegiance to the rattlesnake flag." 2
To make their deliberations appear more regular a
committee on credentials was appointed. On the after
noon of the first day the final organization was effected
1 Wheeling Intelligencer, May 14th.
'Ibid. This admission of the wavering sentiment of the people
is illuminating. It is only occasionally (and then always inad
vertently) that the leaders of the movement reveal the true in
wardness of the situation.

THE MAY CONVENTION 195
with Dr. John Moss of Wood County as president.
Before the meeting had progressed far, Judge Jack
son obtained the floor and spoke in favor of an ad
journment until a more thorough canvass of the coun
ties could be made. He did not believe that the con
vention represented the people of the northwest and,
if it acted at all, would act without their consent. The
interior counties, said he, had not shown the slightest
desire or inclination to enter into the movement. Talk
of a separation of the state was premature. Carlile
answered that only prompt action could save them now.
The Federal Government should be called upon for aid,
which would be furnished only if their measures were
decisive. "Let us repudiate these monstrous usurpa
tions; let us show our loyalty to Virginia and the
Union; and let us maintain ourselves in the Union at
every hazard. It is useless to cry peace when there is
no peace." 1 Mr. Willey, whose lukewarmness was al
ready apparent, supported Jackson's position at this
time, and attacked Carlile's radical program. The
next day, however, he retracted most of what he had
said.2 May 14th Mr. Wheat, of Ohio County, introduced a
series of resolutions to the effect first, that the ordi
nance of secession was null and void; second, that the
prohibition of the election of representatives to Con
gress was a usurpation of power ; 3 third, that the
"Wheeling Intelligencer, May 14th.
'Willey's trimming propensities detracted greatly from the
reputation which his natural gifts would have won for him.
'The ordinance of secession provided that the election for

196 THE DISRUPTION OF VIRGINIA
action putting the military power of the state in the
hands of the seceding states was a violation of the con
stitution; fourth, that all citizens were urged to vote
against the ordinance of secession. Carlile, who ob
jected on principle to all resolutions but his own, came
forward with a proposition to sever at once the tenth
and eleventh congressional districts, with the addition
of Wayne County, from the rest of Virginia and to
form a free and independent state in the Union. He
would have a committee appointed to draw up a con
stitution for the new state which should be called
New Virginia. A storm of protest arose. Mr. Wheat
protested that Carlile was going too fast even for him,
while Jackson declared that if any such proposition
was given serious consideration he would go home and
take the whole Wood County delegation with him. Car
lile denied that the action proposed was either hasty
or revolutionary, but asserted that it was the only
alternative left if the people declined to abide by the
action of the Richmond Convention. The United States
Constitution was also the constitution of Virginia; it
was still the supreme law of the land; it provided for
the separation of a state and the erection of a
new state. The method that he proposed was constitu
tional. The next day debate was resumed and again Willey
revealed his unfitness to be regarded as a strong Union
members of Congress usually held on the fourth Thursday of
May was suspended and prohibited until further notice. — Laws
of Virginia, 1861-62, Appendix, p. 33.

THE MAY CONVENTION 197
man by characterizing the plan of procedure proposed
by Carlile as "treason against the state government,
the government of the United States and the govern
ment of the Confederate States of America." x It is
surprising that the members of the convention did not
rise en masse to repudiate the idea that there could
be any such thing as treason to the Confederate states.
If the Confederacy had a legal existence, the Wheeling
Convention and government certainly did not have, for
the latter was founded on the assumption that states
could not legally secede from the Union. Grant that
Virginia's action in uniting with the Southern Con
federacy was legal, and the whole movement in the,
northwest must be considered as absolutely without
legal justification.
For some reason that is not now clear it was sug
gested that the convention go into secret session. F. H.
Pierpoint, afterward Governor, spoke of attempts being
made to exercise pressure over the delegates and pre
vent free speech. Now Pierpoint was a "new state
man" from the first; any demonstration from the
spectators to which Pierpoint would object must have
expressed disapproval of what the convention was doing
— something we should not expect to find in Wheeling
where, according to the newspaper correspondents, the
people were loyal to a man. The delegates voted to re
main in open session. Carlile modified his original prop
osition to provide for the calling of a convention in
" Granville HaU, "The Rending of Virginia," p. 262.

198 THE DISRUPTION OF VIRGINIA
June, in the event of the ratification of the ordinance
of secession.1
On the evening of the third day the committee on
Federal Relations made its report. It declared first,
that the ordinance of secession was null and void;
second, that the prohibition of the regular congres
sional election was a usurpation of power. All citizens
were urged to act as though the Richmond Convention
had never met and in case the ordinance was ratified
the people were requested to send delegates to another
convention to be held on June 11th; each county was
to be entitled to twice as many delegates as it had
representatives in the House of Delegates. The recom
mendation was made that the senatorial delegates to
be chosen at the regular time in May be given seats as
delegates in the convention. No justification can be
found for this provision, which was absolutely without
precedent and whose only merit was that of assuring
a certain number of members in the next convention.
The report expressed the hope that the state authori
ties could be brought to see that their course was
utterly subversive of the interests of West Virginia and
could be induced to agree to a division of the state.
The public authorities were assured that the people
would do their utmost to preserve peace but it was
1 Carlile admitted that in most of the counties of western
Virginia the Secessionists held the balance of power and over
awed the Union men. He declared that if the convention con
tented itself with paper resolves "there would not be a county
in the state which would not give a majority for the ordinance of
secession." — Pittsburgh Chronicle, May 15th.

THE MAY CONVENTION 199
urged that no Confederate troops be sent into the
region of the northwest. A Central Committee should
be appointed to act until June.
The report was adopted with but two dissenting
votes ; the committee was appointed and the convention
adjourned.1 The first Wheeling Convention had attracted a great
deal of attention all over the country, as is shown by
the fact that a number of the great metropolitan news
papers sent special correspondents.2 Their reports
are conflicting and confusing. On one point they were
all agreed and that was, the Union sentiment in West
Virginia had been greatly exaggerated. When the
northern counties first exhibited an unwillingness to
follow the Secessionist flag by calling the loyal conven
tion at Wheeling, the tone of the Northern press was
one of sympathy. The New York World predicted
great results from it ; the New York Herald congratu
lated the western Virginians on their loyalty; the New
York Times asserted that with one half of Virginia
gravitating by kindred attraction to the North, a terri
tory equal in area to a first-class state was thrown
off by the mere force of repulsion. The Philadelphia
Press carried a long letter on the subject signed
"The committee consisted of Messrs. Carlile, Wheat, Pier
point, Carr, Latham, Wilson, Woodward and Paxton. Four
of these men lived in Wheeling. The committee was certainly
not "central" in the sense that it represented the loyal counties.
'Among these were representatives of the New York Herald,
the New York Times, Cincinnati Commercial, Cincinnati Gazette,
Pittsburgh Chronicle, Pittsburgh Dispatch, Cleveland Leader,
Chicago Press and Tribune.

200 THE DISRUPTION OF VIRGINIA
X. Y. Z., calling attention to the unusual geographical
features of Virginia; how the northwest was naturally
separated from the east. Here was a people neither
blest nor cursed with wealth or slavery; whose lands
were now so fertile as to absolve them from the need of
working with their own hands; whose mountain hfe
had filled them with an intense love of liberty. These
were the people who should be aided in their attempt
to remain faithful to the Union.1 The Cincinnati
Gazette pledged the state of Ohio to the support of
West Virginia. The New York Post and Chicago
Press urged the people to act with decision, being as
sured that the Federal Government would back up their
efforts. The New York Times asked if Virginia would
try to coerce the rebellious section.2 In such an event
the West Virginians need but ask and an army would
be sent down which would drive every Secessionist be
yond the Alleghanies and "a new Virginia bright and
fresh as the morning star will rise among the mountains
of the west to shine with luster and glory for genera
tions to come in a constellation of the Union. The
thirteenth of May will be the beginning of grief to
the revolutionists of Richmond, for then will their
kingdom be parted and a mangled remnant of a once
" Philadelphia Press, May 12, 1861.
'The Richmond Whig replied to this: "We are so entirely
devoted to the great American principle that government should
be by the consent of the governed that if the Panhandle should
feel able and desirous to set up as an independent community
it should have our vote. Acting upon this principle, if the peo
ple of the whole northwest sought to make a state of them
selves they should certainly meet with no opposition from this
journal." Quoted in National Intelligencer, May. 2, 1861.

THE MAY CONVENTION 201
proud state be all that will be left to them to carry
their offering to the selfish hierarchs of Montgomery." x
Possibly the best commentaries on the May conven
tion are to be found in the Pittsburgh Chronicle. Its
correspondent reported on his first day spent in Wheel
ing that northwestern Virginia was as loyal to the
Union as Pennsylvania herself, although the feeling
predominated that the state should not be divided if
it could be avoided. One very discouraging fact was
noticeable — the people were not willing to enlist in
the army.2 After remaining in Wheeling forty-eight
hours the correspondent writes back that he was con
vinced that the Union element was far from being as
strong as had been reported. There were a great many
in Wheeling who were going to follow the state out
of the Union, and while these people were not making
any noise, their opposition to the Union cause was felt
none the less plainly. Out of eleven militia companies
in Wheeling the United States recruiting officer had
been able to persuade only two to enlist and these re
fused to leave the city. In the convention itself the
greatest difference of opinion could be observed. The
advocates for the new state included a number of the
most prominent men, but the vast maj ority of the dele
gates were opposed to the division of Virginia. The
leaders could not agree on any course of action and
the bitterest jealousies were cropping out every day.3
1 New York Times, May 10th.
" Pittsburgh Chronicle, May 15th.
3 In an article by H. J. Eckenrode entitled "The Political Recon
struction of Virginia," published in the Johns Hopkins University

202 THE DISRUPTION OF VIRGINIA
Northern people who were following the convention in
the newspapers were being deceived, declared the writer
from whom we have been quoting. They did not know
that on the evening of the 13th of May a meeting of
citizens and delegates was held where it was urged that
West Virginia should stand neutral in the coming con
flict, as the North could not expect West Virginians to
slaughter their Virginia brethren. With such feeling
existing, remarks the correspondent, it could scarcely
be the duty of the Federal Government to protect this
section from the Secessionists, and unless there was a
sudden change of heart the fate of West Virginia was
sealed and the country would be overrun with Union
troops.1 The adjournment of the convention without taking
decisive measures to insure West Virginia's place in
the Union was the source of much dissatisfaction in
the North. The press supporting the administration
agreed that a more disappointing gathering could
scarcely have been held. Since not even a provisional
government had been formed, Virginia would have to
be considered a unit in carrying out its hostile program
and West Virginia would suffer with the rest. It was
a common criticism that a disproportionate amount of
Studies, Vol. 22, pp. 295-414, the author states that the May
convention adjourned because of dissatisfaction with the unequal
method of representation employed, which was inadequate for
the election of responsible men. This may possibly have con
tributed to the lack of a spirit of cooperation among the members,
but there were many other and far more potent reasons for
discontent. 1 Pittsburgh Chronicle, May 16th.

THE MAY CONVENTION 203
time had been spent in making speeches ; even the most
loyal of the delegates seemed to be willing to give little
more than lip service to the Union cause. Moreover
it was a rude shock to those who had been informed
that the western Virginians were loyal to a man to
discover that this loyalty was inspired by the fear of
what would happen to them in case they acquiesced
in the course of the state authorities at Richmond.
There were many allusions to "hanging as the prob
able reward of exercising the bold resolve of recurring
to their original rights and showing off an allegiancei
to the state government." x
There was a marked difference of opinion in the
North as to the course which the western counties
should pursue. Conservative papers agreed that the
United States Constitution could not be stretched
enough to allow a new state to be formed in Virginia.
Besides, the loyalty of the west was far from assured,
as the presence of Secessionists in the convention
showed. The feeling which did exist in West Virginia
favoring the division of the state was inspired not by
love of the Union but by the remembrance of old sec
tional difficulties.2 The admission of a new state
' New York Times, World, Cincinnati Commercial.
'The New York World, May 14, 1861, discussed the con
stitutional question at some length. "The Constitution of the
United States Article 4 Section 4 expressly provides that no
new state shall be formed or erected within the jurisdiction of
any other state. The state legislature having affirmed the right
of secession, might indeed be consistent enough to allow the
western counties to cut loose, but the admission in the Constitu
tion of a right to divide a state or the exercise by the western
counties of the privilege of secession to the North if conceded

204 THE DISRUPTION OF VIRGINIA
formed out of Virginia at this time would be a tacit
recognition of the actual secession of the Southern
states and this was exactly what the Lincoln govern
ment wished to avoid. So long as Virginia was offi
cially recognized as still being a state of the Federal
Union, her legislature must be the only legislature that
could be recognized under the Constitution. A legisla
tive body could not commit treason, although its mem
bers might. If the legislature of Virginia in session at
Richmond could be induced to give its consent to the
separation of the western counties, everything would
be regular and constitutional. But until that very im
probable event occurred there was no way by which
West Virginia could have anything but a provisional
government of her own.1
to them would be an admission of the principle of secession.
For the government to admit it now would be to admit both the
principle and its ridiculous consequences; for if a state may
secede why not part of a state? If part of a state, why not a
county, city, or village? We do not suppose that a new state
government will actually be erected in West Virginia and if not,
the question of its recognition by Congress is of no practical
consequence. The course of proceeding proper to be adopted
by the Federal Government in case West Virginia should at
tempt to organize a state government does not involve the ques
tion of erecting a new state within the territorial limits of an
other state. During the pendency of the contest we should
hold it by the laws of war as a conquest from the enemy and either
govern it or permit it to govern itself as a territory. ... If
the war terminates in the maintenance of the Union Virginia will
retain her territorial limits unimpaired. If the rebellion should
prevail, we might hold West Virginia as a conquest made during
the war."
"Pittsburgh Gazette; Providence (R. I.) Journal. The Buf
falo Express dissented from this opinion and held that the only
loyal legislature would be one composed of western members.
This body could legally give its consent to the division of the
state. The New York Herald agreed with this opinion. In his

THE MAY CONVENTION 205

charge to the Grand Jury at Wheeling, May 10th, Judge Thomp
son declared that "it would be . . . unseasonable and the most
guilty ambition ... to permit . . . the division of the state by
lawless insurrectionary movements; to break the constitution to
save the constitution. . . . Whoever attempts and makes any
overt acts toward establishing without authority of the state
legislature any government within the limits of the state sepa
rate from the existing government, or shall hold or execute any
office in such usurped government, or shall profess allegiance or
fidelity to it, or shall resist the execution of the laws ... is,
guilty of treason. No man can strike at the sovereignty of
the state without striking at the welfare of and sovereignty of
the Union." — Wheeling Intelligencer, May 11, 1861.

CHAPTER XII

THE JUNE CONVENTION

From the adjournment of the May convention to
the assembling of the convention in June the Central
Committee engaged in a strenuous publicity campaign.
Addresses, written by Carlile in his most fervid style,
were scattered broadcast throughout the northwestern
counties. It is significant to observe that the question
of separation from Virginia was not even hinted at.
The action of the Richmond Secessionists was de
nounced and the loyal people were urged to repudiate
their treasonable proceedings. We seek in vain for
any reference to the movement on foot looking toward
the setting up of a new state. Carlile had evidently
learned a lesson in the meeting which had just closed.
Never again did he heartily espouse the cause.
The months of May and June were stirring ones in
western Virginia. Realizing that the region was de
batable ground, both the Northern and the Southern
governments sent in troops. The Confederates were
on the ground first, but their companies were composed
for the most part of native Virginians. Grafton was
held for several days by a Confederate force, while all
206

THE JUNE CONVENTION 207
the country to the south was overrun by Southern
troops. The contest over the occupation of West Virginia
had scarcely begun when the day came around for the
meeting of the June convention. On the afternoon of
June 11th eighty- two men presented their credentials
as members of the convention. Of these, twenty-five
were entitled to seats as state Senators or members of
the House of Delegates. Twenty-seven counties of
West Virginia were represented — not a very good show
ing when the work of the Central Committee is. consid
ered. How the delegates were elected remains a mys
tery. The organization which provided for the elec
tion was of course an extra-legal one, and it is certain
that in many cases not even the form of an election
was gone through with. No one believes that the peo
ple of Alexandria or of Fairfax County held an open
election for representatives to a Union convention.
The documents submitted to the committee on creden
tials would make interesting reading if they could be
found. Who conducted the election? In the extreme
northwestern counties the county officials attested to
the genuineness of the election, but we know that in the
great majority of cases the local officers were the sup
porters of the regular state government, and would
not countenance any revolutionary proceeding like the
Wheeling conventions.1 It is not necessary for us at
"There is abundant testimony in support of this. A number
of speakers in the convention bore witness to the fact that the
civil officials of the counties were Secessionists almost to a man.
One representative from Randolph County declared that "before

208 THE DISRUPTION OF VIRGINIA
this day to condemn the irregularity of the proceed
ings which we have been discussing, but we must, never
theless, recognize the fact that they were irregular and
had their justification in expediency alone.
The course to be followed by the convention was not
easily determined. It could organize a temporary
government and call upon the United States authori
ties for protection, but the leaders feared that by so
doing their plan of forming a new state would receive
a setback. Once a majority of the delegates were
brought over to their side and the first steps toward a
division of the state were taken, Congress would not
dare refuse them admission and enough loyal people
could be found to ratify the action.
Advice was plentiful.1 The Boston Post warned the
members that the North was opposed to any talk of a
division of the state so long as the loyalty of the peo
ple in the proposed new state was in doubt. Their
chief aim should be to keep Virginia in the Union if
possible. The present situation, the leaders were re-
the advance of the Union troops nearly every judge of our
courts, nearly every prosecuting attorney, many of the justices
of the peace, the majority of our sheriffs, many of the com
missioners of the revenue, and all classes and grades of civil
officers had fled to Richmond." Mr. West of Wetzel County
admitted that in his county, where a majority of seven hundred
had been given against the ordinance of secession, all the officers
were Secessionists.
"The general impression seemed to be that the convention
would take no steps toward forming a new state. Even the
Wheeling Intelligencer was opposed to it, declaring that too
many counties were overrun by Secessionists. Another difficulty
was the desire of the Federal Government to restore every state
government to what it had been before the war broke out.

THE JUNE CONVENTION 209
minded, was like that existing in Virginia in 1775 when
the Governor abdicated. Just as soon as a provisional
government was established in West Virginia, the case
would be the same as the one in Rhode Island in 1844
when there were two governors. At that time Presi
dent Tyler recognized the minority government of King
and the Supreme Court upheld this decision, declaring
that the President of the United States had power to
decide which government should be recognized. Conse
quently the President could use his discretion in the
present situation. In this manner the state of Virginia
might be kept in the Union by her own people. The
New York World advised the convention to declare it
self the government of Virginia. No violence or sum
mary action would be necessary if this were done.
While it was probable that Virginia would at some time
be divided, such a course was not to be thought of
now. The Wheeling Intelligencer outlined a plan which be
came the one adopted by the convention. All state
offices were to be declared vacant and then filled with
loyal men. The Federal authorities should be asked to
recognize these new officers; the convention should re
main in session for three or four weeks and the mem
bers be paid out of the funds belonging to the state.1
After the permanent organization of the convention
was effected, with Arthur I. Boreman as President,
"On July 1st Pierpoint, who had been elected provisional gov
ernor, sent a company of soldiers to Weston to take possession
of $30,000 of state money lying there in a bank. — Wheeling Intel
ligencer, July 3rd.

210 THE DISRUPTION OF VIRGINIA
Gibson L. Cranmer as Secretary, and Thomas Horn-
brook as Sergeant-at-Arms, all members were required
to take an oath to "support the Constitution of the
United States and the laws made in pursuance thereof
as the supreme law of the land, anything in the ordi
nances of the convention which assembled in Richmond
on the 13th of February last to the contrary notwith
standing." 1 With the appointment of a business com
mittee the preliminary work was completed and the
convention applied itself to the problems at hand.
The first resolution offered, by Dr. Dorsey of Monon
galia County, was one committing the convention to
a course which would culminate in the erection of a
new state. Any county which gave the shghtest indi
cation of a desire to join the movement was to be ad
mitted. The loyal legislature should be asked to give
its consent, and this done, Congress was to be requested
to admit this loyal group of counties as a new state in
the Union. It was claimed that this mode of procedure
was preferable to that of reconstructing the old state
government, because it did not "impose upon them the
calamity of an overburdened state debt, no part of
which we owe in equity, or the scarcely less disastrous
calamity of repudiating that debt and thus ruining
the credit of the state," Just how the new state, if
admitted, would be relieved of any obligation to pay
her share of the state debt contracted when the state
was undivided, does not seem clear. As a part of the
1 Mr. Laidley of Cabell County refused to take the oath and
left the convention.

THE JUNE CONVENTION 211
state of Virginia or as a separate state formed, as it
could only be with the consent of Virginia, her liability
was the same. The holders of the bonds were not in
terested in the question of how or where the money
was spent. They had bought them in good faith and
for their redemption trusted to the honor of Virginia.1
June 13th the business committee reported a "Dec
laration of the People of Virginia," which was made
the order for the next day. It stated that when any
form of government was found to be inadequate for
the true purpose of government, it was the right and
duty of the people to alter or abolish it. The Virginia
Bill of Rights reserved this power to a majority of the
people, which, said Carlile, was the sacred right of
revolution. The scheme as outlined provided that the
"The New York Commercial Advertiser, representing Wall
Street holders of Virginia bonds, was very much concerned over
the prospect of having Virginia bisected. Constitutionally the
western counties had no right to secede and the people should
not furnish Charleston and Richmond with an argument which
might be employed with fatal effect against the Federal Govern
ment. Only two sevenths of the delegates were in favor of
dividing the state, declares the Advertiser, basing this estimate
upon a vote taken tabling a resolution that separation from
Virginia was one of the leading objects of the convention.
It was the general feeling that Wall Street was lobbying in
Wheeling against the new state project. The Morgantown Star,
July 1st, came out with the charge that the members of the
Wheeling Convention had been unduly influenced by emissaries
of the New York capitalists holding Virginia bonds. These
bondholders knew that if the west broke away and repudiated
the old debt, their bonds were worthless.
To this the Wheeling Intelligencer replied, July 3rd: "The debt
belongs geographically to both what is and what would have been
Virginia, had we divided — and the people of no county or section
could rid themselves of their liability for it any more than A
could escape the incurred debts of the firm of A and B simply
by withdrawing from the partnership."

212 THE DISRUPTION OF VIRGINIA
convention should declare all state offices vacant and
then proceed to the reconstruction of the state. Dr.
Dorsey took the floor against this plan and advocated
calling together the loyal members of the legislature
and asking them to give their consent to the division of
the state. Both plans were revolutionary, the speaker
declared, but this plan had the merit of directness
while the other, if adopted, would give the opponents
of the new state a chance to organize and check further
action. As for the general government, it could recog
nize a provisional government no more easily than it
could admit West Virginia as a state. Carlile, who was
gradually turning away from the new state proposi
tion, suggested that the matter be hushed up for the
present, because the New York capitalists might use
their influence at Washington to obstruct the progress
of the measure in Congress. "Two great objects," said
Carlile, "influence and govern my actions. The first
I am free to say — the dearest and nearest my heart —
is the perpetuity of the Union." The Declaration was
passed by unanimous vote.1
On the 18th a discussion was precipitated by Mr.
Farnsworth of Upshur County, who desired that the
convention inform the President and the Cabinet that
it was the object of the convention to form a new state
in the Union. Carlile and Dorsey, who had previously
railed against the delegates for not taking radical
action, now took the opposite ground and advised their
" Wheeling Intelligencer, June 14th. When this vote was taken
there were only fifty-six delegates present.

THE JUNE CONVENTION 213
colleagues to proceed slowly. Dorsey had become con
vinced over night that the time was not ripe for a sepa
ration. Such a step would only embarrass the general
government at a time when it had enough problems to
face, declared Carlile. "If we could divide the state to
day who would do so under existing circumstances?
When we are trying now to resist this attempt at trans
ferring us to a rebellious government, shall we be dis
tracted with matters of secondary importance, as all
must admit this question of separation to be at this
hour?" 1 A resolution was tabled by a vote of fifty to
seventeen, and the subject of dividing Virginia was not
discussed further in the June convention.2
On the 19th of June, 1861, just two years before
West Virginia was formally admitted into the Union,
the ordinance for the reorganization of the state gov
ernment was adopted by the unanimous vote of the
seventy-six delegates present.3 It assumed to speak
"Granville Hall, "The Rending of Virginia," p. 323. Com
pare this with Carlile's speech in the earlier convention: "It is
represented that a proposition looking to a separate state gov
ernment is revolutionary. I deny it. It is the only legal, con
stitutional remedy left this people if they do not approve the
action of the Virginia Convention. ... It is said we are not
prepared for such action. When will we be better prepared?
If this action be our constitutional right, who will dare to say
that anywhere within the limits of this Union any man is au
thorized to resist such action? Who dare to say that this remedy
can be exercised only by virtue of force? We will never be in
a state of preparation if we are not now." — Wheeling Intelli
gencer, May 15th.
'Ibid.
* A proposition was rejected to make ineligible for office under
the new government any person who had voted for the ratifica
tion of the ordinance of secession.

214 THE DISRUPTION OF VIRGINIA
for the people of Virginia J by whom, it was declared,
the convention had been called.2 A Governor, Lieu
tenant Governor and Attorney General were to be ap
pointed by the convention, to continue in office for six
months. At the end of that time the General Assembly
should provide for a regular election. An Executive
Council of five was to be chosen to consult with the
Governor.3 The most important provision was that
constituting a General Assembly consisting of the Sena
tors and delegates elected at the regular time in May,
together with any who might be chosen under the ordi
nances of the convention. This body was to assemble
in Wheeling July 1st and proceed to organize as pre
scribed by the existing laws. That the proceeding was
altogether irregular is brought out clearly in the fol
lowing clause: "A majority of the members of each
branch thus qualified . . . shall be competent to pass
any act specified in the twenty-seventh section of the
fourth article of the constitution." (This section pro
vides for the creation or discharge of any state debt.)
It is difficult to understand why any such authoriza
tion was necessary. If, as the convention assumed,
the General Assembly thus constituted was the only
legal legislative body of Virginia, why specify what
powers it could exercise when such powers were clearly
"The delegates represented approximately 200,000 people, about
one-fifth of the white population of the state.
' The state constitution, which is still in force, vested the power
of calling conventions in the General Assembly.
3 The creation of such office was in disregard of the constitu
tion of 1851, which had abolished the Governor's Council.

THE JUNE CONVENTION 215
enumerated in the constitution of the state? How
could the constitution of Virginia be acknowledged as
the law of the state under one set of conditions and
repudiated in another? Grant that West Virginia was
exercising her right of revolution and the difficulty
still remained. If the government of Virginia had been
overturned, the makers of the new state must begin
with a clean slate and construct a government from
the ground up. The fact that the convention thought
it essential specifically to authorize the assembly to
create a state debt is a virtual admission of the weak
ness of its position.
All county and state officers were to take the oath
of allegiance to the United States Government. If
any refused to do this the Governor should provide
for a special election to fill the vacancy. Where no
officers could be found to conduct the election, the
Governor was given the power to make permanent ap
pointments.1 Acting under this ordinance, the con
vention proceeded to the election of officers which re
sulted as follows: Governor, F. H. Pierpoint; Lieu
tenant Governor, Daniel Polsley; Governor's Council,
Messrs. Van Winkle, Harrison, Leasure, Lamb, and
Paxton.2 On the 25th the convention adjourned to meet Au
gust 6th. A long address had been drawn up and was
now sent throughout the state. In part it is important
"A more arbitrary measure could scarcely have been conceived.
'On the following Saturday James S. Wheat was elected At
torney-General.

216 THE DISRUPTION OF VIRGINIA
enough to be repeated: "The delegates now assembled
in convention at Wheeling deem it proper to address
their fellow citizens throughout the commonwealth in
explanation and vindication of the course they have
unanimously felt it incumbent upon them to pursue."
Then follows a review of the events in the Richmond
Convention and the excitement of the ensuing weeks.
"In this state of things the day arrived when the people
were to vote for or against the secession ordinance.
Threats of personal injury ... or other intimida
tions were used in every county in the state. Judges,
charged the Grand Juries that opposition to tiikATiiioB
would be punished as treason and the armed partisans
of the conspirators arrested, plundered, and exiled
peaceable citizens for no other crime than their adher
ence to the Union." The question of the May and
June conventions was discussed and it was asserted
that while the first gathering was irregular the June
convention was legal.1 "The number of counties repre
sented is thirty-four and we have assurance that sev
eral which are now with us in spirit will ere long be
present by their regularly appointed delegates. Sev
eral of the delegates present escaped from their coun
ties at the risk of their lives while others are still de
tained at home by force or menace.2 Two courses of
1 It would seem that since the second convention had been
called together by the first, they would be equally irregular.
2 If the counties where such things occurred were so strongly
in sympathy with the Southern cause, they did not deserve to
take part in the Wheeling movement. In no sense of the word
could the delegates from these counties be said to represent the
counties at all, since the people were opposed to the convention.

THE JUNE CONVENTION 217
action were presented. . . . The first was the imme
diate separation of the western or northwestern counties
from the residue of the state. This was the result
rather of a previous and growing conviction . . . that
diversity, almost opposition of interests, different di
rections of the channels of trade, and the want of legis
lation adapted to their needs rendered the separation
desirable under any and all circumstances." It is con
fessed that the state of war prevented the exact ful
fillment of constitutional requirements, but precedents
existed for the assumption by the people of those powers
entrusted to the state officers and now surrendered by
them. The members of this convention "have in the
name and 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 demand the organization of the government
of the commonwealth." The process of reconstruction
was described and the promise made to assume their
share of the state debt. All loyal citizens should arm
themselves against the Richmond conspirators:
"The reorganized government appeals to the great
body of people for support in this hour of anxiety and
trial. . . . Your own experience has taught you the
great benefits of the Union and you recognize the prin
ciple that a government so beneficial in its operations
should not be changed for light or transient causes.
Persevere then in your most holy war against the cor
rupt oligarchy who have usurped your government." x
"The address is printed in full in the National Intelligencer,
July 26, 1861.

218 THE DISRUPTION OF VIRGINIA
The June convention cleared the ground for the erec
tion of the new state. Just what proportion of its
members were opposed to the disruption of Virginia
cannot be determined. That they were inclined to more
radical actions than the delegates in the May conven
tion is undoubted, although Carlile's defection was a
serious loss. The ultra-conservatives of the first
gathering, men like Willey and Jackson, were not pres
ent in the June convention and they had no prominent
successors. The moderate course pursued was directed
by motives of policy and not from a conviction that
the separation from Virginia was undesirable. Many
people were deceived into believing that all thought of
breaking away from the east had been given up.1 This
was far from being the truth for, as a matter of fact,
the ruling clique had laid out a definite plan of cam
paign. The precipitant course so strongly urged by
Carlile in the first convention and by Dorsey in the
second convention was not taken up because it was
felt that to pursue openly a plan of this kind would
only serve to arouse the opponents of the new state in
Wall Street, in Congress, and in the state itself. The
oligarchical nature of the new provisional government
made it possible for the leaders to carry on their work
with the utmost secrecy, and the absolute indifference
of the northwestern counties to what the Pierpoint
government was doing made it easy for the self-ap-
"The Pittsburgh Chronicle, June 10th, stated that it had re
ceived reliable information to the effect that the idea of dividing
Virginia had been abandoned.

THE JUNE CONVENTION 219
pointed officials to remain in undisputed possession
of the government.1
On July 2, 1861, there assembled in Wheeling a non
descript body calling itself the legislature of Virginia.
No record of its proceedings has ever come to light
and only the vaguest information is obtainable regard
ing its actions. According to the laws of Virginia, elec
tions for Senators and delegates to the General As
sembly were to occur on the fourth Thursday of May
every second year. The ordinance passed by the Rich
mond Convention April 17, 1861, while forbidding the
election of representatives to Congress, said nothing
regarding the election of members to the state legis
lature. Thus on the 23rd of May, while the people
were ratifying the ordinance of secession, they also
elected a new Assembly. Then came the establishment
of the Wheeling government and the call by "Gover
nor" Pierpoint for the assembling of the legislature.
Richmond was the place designated by the constitution
for the holding of legislative sessions, and while the
1 The Morgantown Star became a strong opponent of the pro
visional government and declared that the members of the con
vention had been bought off by New York brokers backed up
by the Secessionists. West Virginia had always been cursed with
conventions, whether held in Richmond or Wheeling.
The provisional government was not recognized in many of the
western counties. A circular letter from Lewis County was sent
around June 13th, urging a counter-convention to be held at
Lewisburg for the purpose of checkmating the Wheeling govern
ment. The Wheeling Intelligencer reports on July 30th that the
counties were taking up the work of reorganization very slowly.
It comments sorrowfully on the fact that the defeat of the
North at Bull Run was being wildly celebrated throughout the
central and southern parts of West Virginia.

220 THE DISRUPTION OF VIRGINIA
Governor was empowered to call extra sessions he could
not change the capital from one city to another. How
ever the new-state officials could leap over this consti
tutional barrier as easily as they had brushed aside
| others. To act first and discuss later was their very
effective mode of procedure, and to their strict adher
ence to this plan can the formation of the state of
West Virginia be attributed.
The Wheeling newspapers are strangely silent as
to the doings of the rump legislature. They do not
give even the names of the Senators and delegates who
were present or what districts were represented.1
Granville Hall,2 the great apologist for the whole move
ment, passes over the subject in a most summary
fashion. Judging from the number of votes cast in the
election of United States Senators it seems probable
that the largest number of Senators and delegates in
the first session of the loyal legislature never exceeded
thirty-eight.3 " At the opening session three Senators were present : Joseph
Gist, representing the Panhandle district; James Carskardon
from the district composed of Hampshire, Hardy and Morgan
counties; and C. J. Stuart, representing Ritchie, Doddridge,
Harrison, Pleasants, and Wood counties. Twelve members of
the House of Delegates answered the roll call the opening day.
On the second day it was announced that a quorum was present.
On the 26th of July the Wheeling Intelligencer says, editorially:
"We would be glad if they would settle the question among
themselves down there as to whether or not they really are the
Legislature of Virginia. This little question has been up in
nearly all the discussions of the House and we hope some con
clusion may be reached before adjournment."
'Author of "The Rending of Virginia."
"The constitutional number was 206, so the unrepresentative
character of this body is apparent.

THE JUNE CONVENTION 221
In the House of Delegates organization was effected
after the manner of revolutionary, not constitutional,
bodies. One of the members called the meeting to order ;
a temporary chairman was chosen, and finally perma
nent officers were selected. In the Senate "Lieutenant
Governor" Polsley presided. It is not known how many
Senators were present at this time but it is not likely
that more than eight ever appeared. On the opening
day the Governor's message was read. It was merely
a re-hash of preceding documents. The late executive
of the state and a large part of the state officials had
declared war on the loyal people of Virginia and on
the United States Government. This, so the message
ran, was the result of the hammering process which
had been carried on in the South for many years.
Slavery was only the pretext and not the cause of the
war. Virginia had been betrayed in Richmond and the
loyal voters of the state were not able to make their
votes count, because of the practice of intimidation
which had been carried on so openly. The fate of West
Virginia had been hanging in the balance and only
prompt action would save her from invasion.1 The
legislature was urged to elect United States Senators
and circuit judges, for it was essential that the gov
ernment should be represented in Congress and that
judicial officers should be holding court in the loyal
"June 21st Pierpoint had written to Lincoln asking for a
military force to protect the loyal people of the section. Cam
eron, Secretary of War, was directed by the President to assure
the Wheeling government that sufficient troops would be sent. —
The Wheeling Intelligencer, June 23rd and 24th.

222 THE DISRUPTION OF VIRGINIA
counties.1 The question of forming a new state was
not even hinted at — proof enough that it had been re
solved upon.2
The first real business of the legislature was the elec
tion of John S. Carlile and Waitman T. Willey as
United States Senators. There was little opposition.
to Carlile, who had played a prominent part in the
reorganization movement. Willey, however, had been
an obstructionist in the May convention and had dis
played his disapproval of the second convention by
remaining away altogether. Why he should have been
chosen over other men no less able and assuredly more
loyal is difficult to understand. It is probable that his
"There were few if any loyal judges left in Virginia. Judge
Thompson sent a protest to the Senate and to the Supreme Court
of the United States denouncing the actions of the usurped
government in declaring his office vacant, notwithstanding the
fact that he had at all times on the bench and in public ad
dresses upheld the Constitution of the United States and had
pronounced the ordinance of secession null and void. The
Wheeling government, he declared, was illegal in its origin and
proceedings. Any recognition of it by the Federal Government
would violate the spirit of the United States Constitution by
interfering in the internal affairs of the state. "It is protecting
them in the violation of the constitution of the state in taking
from the people the right to elect their Governor and Lieutenant
Governor, sustaining a fragment of a legislature without con
stitutional quorum; in protecting and enforcing the laws of a
legislature which does not in a legal or constitutional manner
embrace one-twentieth of the . . . legislative jurisdiction of the
state. . . . Venality, profligacy, and the ambition of a few men
in political combination . . . have led us far onward to destruc
tion." Judge Thompson was a most unsuccessful straddler. In
Wheeling he was treated as a Secessionist sympathizer while the
Richmond legislature refused to pay him his salary because he
had pronounced the ordinance of secession null and void. —
Documents of Virginia 1861-62, Part 5, No. 52.
'Wheeling Intelligencer, July 3, 1861.

THE JUNE CONVENTION 223
cooperation was desired and that the senatorship was
handed to him as a sort of bribe. Furthermore, it is
likely that Willey's conservative opinions found a re
sponse in the legislature, which preferred to have as its
representatives men with moderate ideas.

CHAPTER XIII
WEST VIRGINIA BEFORE CONGBESS
July 4, 1861, Congress assembled in special session.
The President's message received more than usual at
tention, for it was felt that the administration pohcy
would be clearly defined. Mr. Lincoln condemned in
unmeasured terms the action of the Richmond Conven
tion in passing an ordinance of secession, but the subse
quent proceedings of the Virginia leaders, their seizure
of the United States arsenal at Harper's Ferry and
the navy yard at Gosport he denounced even more
severely. His closing words on this subject are signifi
cant: "The people of Virginia have thus allowed this
great insurrection to make its nest within her borders,
and this government has no choice left but to deal with
it wherever it finds it . . . and it has the less regret
as the loyal citizens have in due form claimed its pro
tection. These loyal citizens this government is bound
to recognize and protect as being Virginia." x
In the House of Representatives while the roll was
being called Mr. Burnett gave notice that he was going
to move to strike from the roll of the House the names
of the five representatives from Virginia.2 These men,
1 "Messages and Papers of the Presidents," Vol. VI, p. 24.
' These were Messrs. Upton, Brown, Whaley, Carlile, and
Pendleton. 224

WEST VIRGINIA BEFORE CONGRESS 225
he declared, had been elected the preceding May 23rd,
which was all right if Virginia was still in the Union.
Otherwise they should be recognized as delegates. Car
lile x explained that he had been elected regularly as
prescribed by law and the only possible question which
could arise was whether the ordinance annulling the
election was to be considered valid. Mr. Burnett
affirmed that it was because a state could prescribe
the mode, manner, and time of holding elections that
he had brought the present matter up. Carlile granted
that the state had this power, but raised the point that
no action of the Richmond Convention was to be bind
ing until ratified by the people. Since the vote on
ratification and the election of representatives to Con
gress fell on the same day, it was obviously impossible
for the people to have consented to the abrogation of
the regular election laws. Burnett's motion failed
and the Virginia delegates thereupon took their seats
in the House.2
In the Senate a more serious conflict took place. The
admission by the House of the five Virginia representa
tives did not commit that body to anything more than
the refusal to recognize the legality of a certain act
passed by the Richmond Convention. The Senate faced
a different problem. Carlile and Willey had been sent
to the Senate by a body which called itself the legis
lature of Virginia, but whose right to do so not many
"Carlile had been elected to the House at the regular time
in May before the meeting of the Wheeling legislature.
'Congressional Globe; 1st Session, 37th Congress, Appendix,
pp. 5-6.

226 THE DISRUPTION OF VIRGINIA
people would uphold. Even granting that it contained
the only part of the legislature which could be recog
nized by the Federal Government as loyal, there^still
remained the question whether thirty-eight men could
legally constitute an assembly in a state where the con
stitution required seventy-nine for a quorum in one
house and twenty-six in the other. If the state con
stitution was still in force the delegates and Senators
sitting at Wheeling could not rightfully designate them
selves the General Assembly of Virginia. If Virginia's
secession from the Union was legal, then the state as a
whole had severed its relation with the United States
and the western section was bound by the act. Ac
cording to Lincoln's announced pohcy, none of the
Confederate states had seceded because secession was
unconstitutional. This being the case, the constitu
tion of Virginia must still be in force and the General
Assembly at Richmond was the only true legislative
body in the state. The Wheeling government could be
recognized as the de facto government, but it had been
set up by an original act of revolution and the handful
of Senators and delegates it called together composed
merely a provisional legislature deriving its power from
the loyal people of the northwestern counties. This
assembly might send delegates to Congress in the same
manner that people in an unorganized territory sent
delegates, for the purpose of obtaining recognition from
the central government. Carlile and Willey, however,
presented their credentials as Senators from Virginia
elected by the legislature in the ordinary manner and

WEST VIRGINIA BEFORE CONGRESS 227
certified to by a man who called himself Governor of
Virginia.1 Senator Bayard of Delaware protested that the ques
tion of recognition involved a constitutional point which
was worthy of slow deliberation and asked that the mat
ter be referred to the Committee on Judiciary. Sauls-
bury of Maryland supported this motion and said,
furthermore, that at the time the Wheeling legislature
had elected Carlile and Willey no vacancies existed,
since Hunter and Mason had not been expelled from
the Senate until the 11th of July, whereas Carlile and
Willey had been elected on the 9th. Andrew Johnson,
who stood sponsor for the new Senators from Virginia,
wished to brush aside all legal questions and admit them
on the evidence of their credentials. He argued that
Hunter and Mason had vacated their seats before the
9th of July and thus actual vacancies did exist. Sena
tor Trumbull said that they should not "stick in the
bark" when such vital issues were presented. Besides,
it was customary for the legislature to elect Senators
before vacancies existed.2 The new Senators were here
"The credentials read as follows: "The legislature of this
state having on the ninth day of July, 1861, in pursuance of the
Constitution of the United States, chosen Waitman T. Willey
a Senator of this state to fill the vacancy which has happened
by the withdrawal and abdication of James M. Mason, Esq., I,
Francis H. Pierpoint, being Governor of the Commonwealth, do
hereby certify the same to the Senate of the United States. —
Given under my hand and seal of the Commonwealth this 9th
day of July, 1861."
The June convention had taken upon itself to adopt a new
seal for Virginia.
"The sophistry of this argument is easily perceived. The
terms of Hunter and Mason did not expire for some time, and

228 THE DISRUPTION OF VIRGINIA
representing the loyal people of a disloyal state, and
why look beneath the surface?
Senator Hale was equally desirous of disregarding
precedents, while Senator Collamer held that the recog
nition of the new government of Virginia by the Presi
dent gave it legal existence as the de facto government.
It was no part of the duty of the Senate to enquire
into the internal affairs of a state unless called upon
to do so by contesting claimants.
Bayard summed up the arguments against the ad
mission of Carlile and Willey. A Senator of the United
States was elected for six years and no state authority
could shorten his term of office. Though elected by
the legislature, he was not under its control when it
came to the conduct of the office. The Senate, acting
within its rights, expelled Messrs. Mason and Hunter,
but the legislature of Virginia, even supposing it to
be a legal legislature, could not anticipate the action
of the Senate, which was sole judge of the qualifica
tions of its own members. The Executive had held that
Virginia was still in the Union, since no state had the
right to secede. It then followed that the state con
stitution was still in force; Letcher was the Governor
of Virginia, and any credentials presented to be valid
must be signed by him. Mr. Bayard and those who
supported him realized that their opposition would
be of no avail, because the administration had laid out
no legislature could recognize a vacancy which only existed
prospectively. The Senate, not the legislature, has the right
to expel. For any legislature so to act would be assuming to
itself the right of recall.

WEST VIRGINIA BEFORE CONGRESS 229
a course of action regarding the seceded states and
would not be swerved from that action by mere force
of argument. Constitutionality must be sacrified to
expediency. The motion to refer the case was lost five to thirty-
five 2 and the new Senators were sworn in as the suc
cessors of Mason and Hunter.
The Wheeling government had now been officially
recognized by the President and Congress as the gov
ernment of the whole state of Virginia. There were
doubtless some persons among those sustaining the
President's course who feared that a precedent might
have been established which set aside the Constitution
of the United States and interfered in the internal
affairs of a state. But it seemed to be the general feel
ing, in Congress at least, that it was indeed no time
to "stick in the bark." If the constitution could be
preserved by liberal interpretation of its provisions,
that was infinitely better than running the risk of hav
ing the Union destroyed altogether by adherence to a
narrow construction. To gain a foothold in Virginia
would give the North a decided advantage, especially
as the occupied portion was supposedly loyal to the
North. The situation in Tennessee and North Caro
hna might at some time be similar to the one existing
in Virginia, and if the loyal citizens in these states
should act as did the western Virginians and claim
"Those voting aye were Bayard of Delaware, Bright of
Indiana, Polk of Missouri, Howell of Kentucky, and Saulsbury
of Maryland.

230 THE DISRUPTION OF VIRGINIA
recognition and protection it would be a very short
sighted policy on the part of the administration to
refuse to take advantage of the opportunity thus
offered. While we may sympathize with the Repub
lican leaders in Congress in their treatment of the West
Virginia question in its earlier stages, their later
actions are of even more doubtful legality and are in
a sense deserving of condemnation. The recognition
of the provisional government at Wheeling and the
admission of West Virginia as a separate state are two
very different matters.

CHAPTER XIV
THE WEST VIRGINIA ORDINANCE
The second Wheeling Convention had adjourned to
meet August 6th and it soon became apparent that the
only business which would occupy the attention of the
adjourned meeting would be that of dividing the state.
Opposition had been crystallizing and the element which
had before opposed hasty action on the new-state prop
osition now opposed it altogether.1 July 22nd the
matter was debated in the House of Delegates. A bill
giving the consent of the General Assembly in advance
was brought in. It declared that the people of the
western counties desired to break away from Virginia.
Congress had shown a willingness to favor the loyal
people of Virginia and would throw no obstacles in the
path of the new state. The act, if passed, would give
the convention power to erect a new state, providing
certain boundaries were adhered to. It was further
stipulated that provision should be made for the as
sumption by the new state of a share of the state debt
contracted before May 23, 1861, and that other coun
ties not included in the original draft should be per-
"The Wheeling Intelligencer made the accusation that the
officers of the reorganized state were working against the set
ting-up of a state separate from Virginia.
231

232 THE DISRUPTION OF VIRGINIA
mitted to vote on the question of uniting with their
sister counties of the west.1 The convention was to
make necessary arrangements for drawing up a con
stitution which should be submitted to the people of
the proposed state.
Mr. West, who had hitherto been in the front rank
of the West Virginia advocates, disclosed the fact that
he had undergone a change in opinion. He declared
that the Assembly was the place where such a move
ment should originate, especially as every member of
the legislature was a member of ihe convention. Most
important of all is his statement that the people of
West Virginia were changing their minds in the matter
of cutting loose from Virginia and now there was grave
doubt if the majority in any county was in favor of
separation. This view was sustained by another mem
ber, who was frank enough to admit that he was in
doubt as to whether or not their body could legally
give its consent to the formation of a new state. Pass-
"The boundary of the new state was to run from Tug Fork
of the Big Sandy River on the Kentucky line to the dividing
line between Buckhannan and Laban counties; then from the
dividing line between Wyoming and McDowell to the Great
Flat Mountains along the boundaries of Raleigh, Mercer, Fayette,
Nicholas, Greenbrier, Webster, Pocahontas, Randolph, Pendleton,
and Highland counties to the Shenandoah Mountains. The line
then ran between the counties of Pendleton and Rockingham,
Hardy and Shenandoah, Hampshire and Frederick, Morgan and
Berkeley to the state line of Maryland. — Wheeling Intelligencer,
July 23rd.
The editor of this paper argued against the inclusion of
known Secessionist counties. "If their people are hostile, the
new state would perhaps be worth more without than with them.
. . . Coercion is necessary in suppressing a rebellion, but forcing
people into a new government is not suppressing rebellion." —
Aug. 14, 1861.

THE WEST VIRGINIA ORDINANCE 233
ing by the legal question, there was still remaining
that of expediency. Not more than one fifth of the
people of Virginia were represented and not more than
one half of the one fifth desired the division of the
state. One of the advocates of separation, Mr. Snyder
of Vt'Jn ongalia County, retorted that if he represented
no more of a constituency than did some of the other
gentlemen on the floor he could sit down and write to
every one of them vn fifteen minutes asking their opinion
on the point under discussion. The people who had
sent him desired immediate separation. If the present
legislature could do one thing it could do another.
Mr. Snyder closed with the declaration that some of
the members had been bought up.
No further action was taken at this session and the
legislature adjourned July 26th.
On August 6th the convention reassembled. Dele
gates from thirty-one counties were present.1 After
the preliminary business had been disposed of, a com
mittee consisting of one member from each county rep
resented was appointed to take up the questions of
the division of the state and the confiscation of rebel
property. The latter proposition caused many heart
burnings for, while many held that the action would be
entirely justifiable, there were some who believed that

"The counties represented were Hancock, Ohio, Brooke, Mar
shall, Wetzel, Marion, Monongalia, Wayne, Mason, Jackson,
Wood, Tyler, Doddridge, Pleasants, Ritchie, Jefferson, Taylor,
Hardy, Preston, Fairfax, Tucker, Hampshire, Randolph,
Kanawha, Barbour, Wirt, Upshur, Harrison, Gilmer, and Lewis.
The town of Alexandria was represented by Mr. Miner.

234 THE DISRUPTION OF VIRGINIA
its ultimate effect would be unfortunate. The outlook
for the Confederacy was bright and it seemed more than
likely that the South might make good its position, a
result which might prove a source of embarrassment to
West Virginia.
Farnsworth, another new-state man, astonished the
convention by making a motion to adjourn sine die.
The legislature, said he, had gone on record as opposed
to the division of the state and nothing could be done
without its consent. The motion was lost, for the
legislature itself was now sitting as a convention and
the delegates had explained satisfactorily their reasons
for refusing assent in advance. A resolution was offered
providing for the formation of a new state from
Tennessee to the top of the Alleghany Mountains to
the Maryland border. Carlile, whose prestige was en
hanced by his senatorial toga, took the position that
it would be a mistake to include any county where the
people were opposed to a division. Under the pro
vision of the above proposal, a number of such counties
would become part of a state with which they were
entirely out of sympathy. Far better would it be to
make the new state smaller and more united in opinion.
His views were embodied in a resolution presented Au
gust 9th, whereby the new state should consist of
thirty-eight counties all lying west of the Alleghanies.
Any county contiguous to the enumerated counties
could by a popular vote annex itself to the new state.1
1 Wheeling Intelligencer, Aug. 7th. The Intelligencer endorsed
Carlile's views, declaring that a voluntary association of thirty

THE WEST VIRGINIA ORDINANCE 235
Some of the delegates were skeptical of any scheme
which included the taking of a vote of the people. The
legislature and the convention, said Mr. Stewart of
Doddridge County, were for all practical purposes
the people, and if they had gone thus far with no popu
lar sanction they could proceed just as far as was
necessary in order to carry out their plan. He chal
lenged any person to point to a solitary act that had
even authorized them to assemble for the purpose of
breaking away from Virginia. It was true that this
idea had been in the minds of many people, but no one
present could present instructions from his con
stituents urging him to work for separation. As for
himself, he did not believe the matter had ever been
thought of by the people who elected him. If the con
vention was resolved to form a new state, let it do so
without the farce of a popular election.1
The ordinance presented by the Committee on Di
vision showed that the large-state advocates had tri
umphed in the committee. The boundary line was to
be drawn from the Tennessee line through the valley
of Virginia to the boundary between Frederick County
and Prince William County on the Potomac River. A
more arbitrary line of division could scarcely have been
conceived. No real natural boundaries existed between
the proposed new state and old Virginia under the ordi
nance outlined. To provide against certain rejection
counties was far better than an association of sixty unwilling
counties. "Wheeling Intelligencer, Aug. 8th.

236 THE DISRUPTION OF VIRGINIA
in at least two thirds of the counties the vote was to
be taken as a whole, no county being allowed to vote
as a unit. This would ensure the acceptance of the
plan, for it was well understood that in few counties
outside the northern Panhandle would the people take
the matter seriously enough to vote even where a poll
was permitted. The Secessionists controlled all but a
few of the western counties, and it was unthinkable
that they would permit a vote to be taken in those
counties. The delegates favoring the above plan were
frankly opportunists. It was felt that a httle further
stretching of the constitution and a httle more disre
gard of popular opinion would do no harm, especially
as they had the assurance that their actions would be
sustained by the Federal Government. The chance to
break away from Virginia might never come again and
western Virginia would be compelled to endure indefi
nitely the oppression of the East.1
The opponents of division attacked vigorously the
weak spots of the ordinance, asserting that not only
had there been no popular uprising in favor of separa
tion from Virginia but there was every reason for be
lieving that pubhc opinion was strongly against it.
Furthermore, the consent of the whole people of the
state had to be obtained, which, of course, was im-
" Mr. West was the leader of the opportunists. He favored
taking in the counties whether they wished it or not; professed
to be absolutely indifferent as to the fate of Virginia; and de
clared his opposition to any plan which did not include a large
number of counties. The ordinance under consideration suited
him, he said, "because it contained the grave of Washington."—
Wheeling Intelligencer, Aug. 8th.

THE WEST VIRGINIA ORDINANCE 237
possible. Congress undoubtedly had the power to
admit the proposed new state, but to do so it would
have to disregard constitutions and establish prece
dents and recognize, virtually, an act of secession.1
August 14th Farnsworth brought in a substitute for
the committee's plan.2 It proposed to make the Alle-
ghanies the eastern boundary of the state, thus exclud
ing those counties which were known to be in sympathy
with the Southern cause. Boreman of Tyler County
urged that it would be premature to take any action
at this time since the counties were in such a disturbed
condition that a full, free vote was impossible.3 Mr.
Ritchie took the position that the convention was ex
ceeding its powers and instructions in even considering
a division of the old state at this time. It had been
called to reorganize the government of Virginia, an
act which had been accomplished. Further proceedings
would embarrass the general government and start a'
discussion of the slavery question. To enforce his
views, Mr. Ritchie read a letter from Attorney General
Bates, who said that he had talked over the situation
in western Virginia with a number of officials and all
agreed that the division of Virginia would be an origi
nal act of revolution. The reorganization of the state
government was a strictly legal proceeding, but there
the matter should rest.4 This opinion was concurred
" Barnes of Marion County expressed this view, which was
supported by a number of the ablest men of the convention.
"Wheeling Intelligencer, Aug. 8th.
•Wheeling Press, Aug. 8th.
' Wheeling Intelligencer, Aug. 9th.

238 THE DISRUPTION OF VIRGINIA
in by many who were not opponents of division per se
but who doubted the expediency of the action under
existing conditions. No one seriously beheved, they
said, that division could be accomplished constitu
tionally while Virginia was in rebellion against the Fed
eral Government, and to attempt it would put up to
the administration one more difficult problem to solve.
More than this, it would be a cowardly act to desert
the Union men in the eastern counties. While not con
stituting a majority in any county, the number of loyal
citizens was sufficiently large to deserve consideration.
As for the state debt, there was no honorable way open
whereby the proposed new state could be relieved from
the necessity of saddling itself with a heavy burden.
If repudiation were attempted, the bondholders would
check any further progress of the movement in Con
gress.1 Lieutenant Governor Polsley spoke in opposition to
division. With the example of the Richmond Conven
tion before them, they should take warning and limit
themselves to the consideration of the questions which
they had been called together to settle. When the ordi
nance of secession was adopted, the formality of a vote
at least had been allowed, but even that would be prac
tically denied if the ardent new-state men had their.
way. All knew that under existing conditions not one
fourth of the counties could or would vote.2 Hubbard

1 Speech of Fontaine Smith of Marion County. — Intelligencer,
Aug. 9th.
'Ibid.

THE WEST VIRGINIA ORDINANCE 239
of Ohio County agreed that it would be selfish to con
sider local interests while the United States Government
was in such grave peril. All loyal western Virginians
should be willing to remain in the old state just as long
as they could thereby benefit the general government.
Senator Carlile, in answer to this, denied that thf
administration would be embarrassed in any way by
being called upon to decide the status of the western
counties. As for local sentiment, if they waited for a
full representation from every county the state would
never be formed. Interest was the base of all political
action and was justification enough for their purpose.1
Daniel Lamb of Ohio County presented the case of
the opposition in its clearest form. He was in favor
of division just as soon as it could be accomplished in
the proper manner, when a full and free expression of
opinion could be obtained. It was less than two months
since the reorganized government had been set up and
already there were many who were not satisfied. Such
haste seemed suspicious in view of the fact that there
was now no danger of threatening them. Mr. Lamb
was proceeding on the assumption that the reorganized
government would go out of existence when the new
state was admitted. He thought that after the Federal
authorities had taken possession of the eastern part of
" Carlile had previously suggested a scheme that might be
termed sharp practice. The new state was to issue bonds and
with part of the proceeds buy at thirty or forty cents on the
dollar enough Virginia bonds to make up their share of the
indebtedness. — Granville Hall, "The Rending of Virginia," pp.
363-4.

240 THE DISRUPTION OF VIRGINIA
the state, it would be necessary to set up a government
there and a clash between the two sets of officials in
Virginia was inevitable.1 It is evident that Lamb was
ignorant of the fact that there was no intention to do
away with the provisional government.2 It had served
a useful purpose in western Virginia, and could still
be of service in reconstructing the east.
Carlile now proposed a compromise, which provided
for the inclusion of the counties under the Farnsworth
plan and the submission of the question to the counties
individually. An amendment to this was adopted, sub
stituting the boundaries of the original committee
recommendation. The debate became heated. Carlile
overstepped parliamentary bounds in referring to other
members and the convention adjourned in disorder.3
Monday the 19th a new committee of six was ap
pointed to agree upon some compromise measure.4 The
ordinance presented by them on the 20th became the
one upon which the present state of West Virginia
was founded. Thirty-nine counties were to be included
and the new state should be called Kanawha. On Oc
tober 24th there was to be an election, at which dele
gates were to be chosen to a constitutional convention
and at the same time the people of Greenbrier, Poca
hontas, Hardy, Hampshire, Morgan, Berkeley, and
" Granville Hall, "The Rending of Virginia," p. 369.
"Lamb objected to the word provisional. The convention had
acted irregularly, but its work was a permanent one.
•Granville Hall, "The Rending of Virginia," p. 372.
*The committee was composed of Messrs. Farnsworth, Carlile,
Paxton, Van Winkle, Ruffner, and Lamb.

THE WEST VIRGINIA ORDINANCE 241
Jefferson counties were to be permitted to vote on the
question of annexation to the new state. The state
was to assume a fair proportion of that part of the
Virginia debt which had been created prior to January
1, 1861. x Mr. Van Winkle in supporting the report.
of the committee explained that he himself was a recent
convert to the small state plan, having been brought
to see that it would be unwise to include any portion
of the Valley where the people were so strongly in favor
of secession.
Those favoring the large state were dissatisfied with
the committee's report as were, of course, the oppo
nents of separation under any circumstances. Neither
of these factions could be brought to see that the in
clusion of the Valley counties was desirable at all, al
though they admitted that there was some truth in the
statement that the feeling against separation in some
of the counties taken in by the committee's plan was
no less strong than that in the counties east of the
Alleghanies. Mr. Tarr succeeded in having passed a
motion to include Hampshire, Hardy, Morgan, Berke
ley, and Jefferson counties unconditionally. Its adop
tion gave rise to a bitter discussion. Carlile asserted
"This section reads as follows: "The new state shall take
upon itself a just proportion of the public debt of the com
monwealth of Virginia prior to the first day of January, 1861,
to be ascertained by charging to it all state expenditures within
the limits thereof and a just proportion of the ordinary ex
penses of the state government since any part of said debt was
contracted; and deducting therefrom the monies paid into the
treasury of the commonwealth from the counties included within
the said new state during the same period." — Wheeling Intelli
gencer, Aug. 21st.

242 THE DISRUPTION OF VIRGINIA
that the people of these counties would be denied any
choice in the matter. Hampshire and Jefferson had
even voted in favor of the ratification of the ordinance
of secession, and there was every reason for beheving
that the pro-Southern feeling was stronger now. The
thirty-nine counties first included in the committee re
port contained few slaves, but this number would be
raised by eight thousand if the resolution just adopted
was not rejected. Carlile's views prevailed and Tarr's
motion was reconsidered and voted down.1 The ordi
nance was then adopted, fifty to twenty-eight. A num
ber of the members voting aye explained and apolo
gized for their action, saying that their only reason
for agreeing to the ordinance was the conviction that
it was the best that could be obtained at the time.2
The business of the convention was now over and
it adjourned to meet at the call of the Governor or of
the presiding officer, if such call should be made before
the first Thursday of January, 1862. After that time
the convention was to go out of existence automatically.
1 Wheeling Intelligencer, Aug. 21st. In a letter of Carlile's to
a man in Fairview, Virginia, he declares that the only West
Virginia was northwestern Virginia. The remainder of the sec
tion west of the mountains was in sympathy with the east. The
two western divisions of Virginia had little in common. He adds
that he was surprised to find in Wheeling a strong sentiment
against the division of the state. — Ibid., Aug. 22nd.
'Ibid. The sections providing for the holding of the election
contained some curious features. One of them states that if
the county officials refused to open the polls, any two freemen
could do so anywhere in the county and constitute themselves
the election commissioners. The possibilities of fraud in an
election conducted after this manner are too evident to require
comment.

THE WEST VIRGINIA ORDINANCE 243
The inside history of the convention which framed
the ordinance for the state of Kanawha, as it was then
called, can never be written. Only the leaders could
give an intelligible explanation of the devious course
pursued by them. Now that they are all gone, it seems
unlikely that any light will ever be thrown upon the
questions in doubt. The most astonishing thing is the
rapidity with which the members were able to change
their minds on propositions of the utmost importance.
A delegate would offer a resolution one morning to the
effect that the state should be immediately divided; in
the afternoon he would have a new set of resolutions
ready, the sense of which was that division was unwise
and the convention should at once adjourn. There
was scarcely a prominent member of the body who pur
sued an unwavering course. As a rule the officers of
the reorganized government opposed the new state until
they found that they would be provided for after the
state was divided. In the convention no sectional align
ment was maintained. The Panhandle counties were
just as likely to be found in opposition to division as
the delegates from the counties farther south. In such
a confused state of affairs it is impossible to make any
generalizations which would hold true for the entire
session. It is the fact that the convention did provide
for the organization of a new state in the Union, after
having given the best reasons for believing that it
would do nothing of the kind. What influences and
arguments were brought to bear upon the delegates will
never be known.

CHAPTER XV

WAS. SENTIMENT

The Federal recruiting officers found it difficult to
raise troops anywhere in Virginia, even in the sup
posedly loyal northwestern counties. The people of
the west preferred being let alone by both contending
parties, but it was especially repugnant to them to be
pitted in battle against their own fellow-citizens of
Virginia. In Wheeling by May 23d there were five
hundred and forty-one soldiers in camp and the officers
reported that the work of raising troops was a slow
process.1 On the same day thirty-two Confederate
sympathizers left the city for Harper's Ferry, vowing
never to return until "the Goths and Vandals had been
driven out." 2 Large numbers of Southern troops
gathered in Clarksburg, Fairmont, and Grafton and
remained until the arrival of a Union army.3
A little later the correspondent of the Indianapolis
"Pittsburgh Chronicle, May 24. June 10, the Intelligencer re
ported that two companies from the interior of the state came
to Wheeling to enlist but refused to do so when they found they
might be compelled to leave the state and fight
• Ibid.
' It was reported that on May 22nd there were a thousand
Secessionists at Clarksburg, three thousand at Grafton and one
thousand at Fairmont. This was denied in a letter to the
Chronicle written by a man who had just returned from the
district. 244

WAR SENTIMENT 245
Journal wrote back that while West Virginia was sup
posed to have three regiments in the field, out of one
thousand men one hundred and fifty were from Vir
ginia, the remainder being from western Pennsylvania
and eastern Ohio. This was true of all the regiments.
"You will see lying around country towns scores of
great big, ugly, awkward, stand-up-and-call-your-
mother-a-liar fellows who are Virginians, but not in
the army." At the very least one half of the people
were out-and-out Secessionists and those professing to
be Union men showed their love for the Union by
charging five prices for provisions.1 The Cincinnati
Gazette expressed its disappointment at the evident
apathy of West Virginia in the matter of enlisting in
the Union army. It declared that there was good
reason to suppose that the attachment of the section
to the Union was not as strong as had been supposed.2
It may be stated with some degree of positiveness that
the false impressions which had gotten out regarding
"Quoted in the Wheeling Intelligencer, Aug. 10, 1861.
'Ibid. An editorial in the Wellsburg Herald, Aug. 3, takes the
western Virginians severely to task for their reluctance to enlist
in the Union army. Referring to the fact that most of the
troops guarding the section were from Ohio and Pennsylvania,
the editor says: "We would not be surprised if the patriotic
Ohioans would have such a high opinion of the amiability of their
Virginia brethren of the Union persuasion that they may be
induced to settle down and become a permanent guard over their
lives and property. A pretty condition Northwestern Virginia
is in to establish herself into a separate state . . . after all the
drumming and all the gas about a separate state she has actually
organized in the field four not entire regiments of soldiers and
one of these hails almost entirely from the Panhandle. In a
white population of over a quarter of a million, 3000 men to
stand up for the Union is truly a heavy draft upon the patriotism
of our section." The editor of the Wheeling Intelligencer, Aug.

246 THE DISRUPTION OF VIRGINIA
the Union feeling in West Virginia were a direct result
of the articles appearing in newspapers like the Wheel
ing Intelligencer in which the wish was father to the
thought. In professing to speak for the whole western
region, they persuaded the North that West Virginia
was thoroughly loyal and would respond unflinchingly
at the call of the Federal Government. The discovery
was soon made that the loyalty of the people was in
inverse proportion to their distance from the Northern
states. If correspondents in Wheeling were convinced
that the people of the northern Panhandle were in
different what would they expect to find in the interior
counties, where the danger of invasion was compara
tively small?
Just as the large body of western Virginians were
neutral in the conflict that was pending, so were they
indifferent as to the actions of the Wheeling govern
ment, showing their disapproval by staying away from
the polls. There was a general feeling that the new
state if formed would be the result of a secret, restless
desire on the part of aspiring politicians to obtain
offices.1 Under the old regime West Virginia had fared
13th, stated authoritatively that there were in western Virginia
14 regiments of Ohio volunteers, 3 of Indiana, 2 of Kentucky, 3
of Virginia, two of the latter being part full. Many Pennsyl-
vanians enlisted in Virginia regiments.
1 Intelligencer, Sept. 2nd. Letter from Ironton, Ohio, Nov. 2,
1861, to Adjutant General Samuels: "The provisional govern
ment of Virginia seems to be more popular with a majority of
our people than our own state government, for we have only about
two hundred men from this county enlisted in Ohio regiments."
The writer stated that there were eleven full companies from his
county enlisted "as Virginians."
Letter from C. F. Ritchie, Farmington, to General Samuels:

WAR SENTIMENT 247
badly in the distribution of state offices, but it must be
admitted that the west had produced few able men. In
1860 Carlile, Boreman, Pierpoint, and Willey were only
local celebrities. George W. Summers, easily the most
distinguished western Virginian, held aloof from the
new-state movement. The people were suspicious of a
ruling clique which destroyed old constitutions and en
acted new ones with such ease and with so little regard
to public sentiment. The same group of men organized
the May convention, summoned the June convention,
called together and sat as members of the rump legis
lature; met one day as a convention and passed an
ordinance setting up a new state ; met the next day
as the General Assembly of Virginia and gave their
"The largest company in the Regiment are all Secesh save three.
I made it elect a good Union Captain, but few of them turned
out." Letter to General Samuels, Kanawha Court House, April 14,
1862: "Almost all the old officers are rebels. . . . How are we
to deal with Secessionists? . . . Please understand we are just
about as though the Regiment had never been organized."
Letter to Governor Pierpoint from Fairmont, March 10, 1862,
signed John Coogle, Company I, 18th Regiment. They had
elected "a most vile Secessionist as Captain. A majority are
rebels and would like nothing better than to hand over the
organization to the South."
Letter to Governor Pierpoint from Colonel Harris, 10th Regi
ment, located at Harrisville, March 27, 1862: "The election of
officers in the Gilmer County Company was a farce. The
men elected were rebels and bush-whackers. The election of
these men was intended, no doubt, as a burlesque on the reor
ganization of the militia."
Letter to General Samuels from Glenville, Gilmer County,
March 19, 1862, from Captain Hall: "The election of officers
resulted in a perfect burlesque. They were all secession leaders
of guerrilla parties."
Note. — All the above letters were found by the author of this
monograph in the Department of Archives and History, Charles
ton, W. Va.

248 THE DISRUPTION OF VIRGINIA
consent to the very act which they had agreed to the
day before ; created offices for themselves and fixed their
own salaries. Then, to cap the climax, a free vote
was made impossible and no one but known adherents
of the new state were permitted to go to the polls. It
was admitted that even in the Panhandle there was no
enthusiasm for the new state. June 31, 1861, George
McC. Porter attempted to arouse the spirit of a Wheel
ing audience by asserting that "he was born in Virginia
and hoped to die — in West Virginia." This statement
instead of being applauded was received in silence.1
As strange as it may seem, when the much-longed-for
opportunity arrived, the people of West Virginia dis
covered that their Virginia pride was stronger than
they had imagined. At the final moment sentiment
seemed to triumph over reason.2
Across the mountains Richmond observed the prog
ress of affairs in northwestern Virginia with mingled
anger and alarm. In his message to the Virginia As
sembly, December 2, 1861, Governor Letcher denounced
the unpatriotic spirit exhibited by a portion of the
people in the northwest and characterized their acts
aimed at the dismemberment of the state as disloyal
and revolutionary. Their conduct, said the Governor,
was without justification or excuse, especially as their
leaders had pledged themselves to abide by and acquiesce
in this popular expression of sentiment. "But instead
1 Wheeling Intelligencer, July 1, 1861.
" The editor of the Wellsburg Herald declared that he was sur
prised to find so much sentiment for Virginia in his county.

WAR SENTIMENT 249
of this they had given aid to an army composed of
the reckless and the abandoned, the dissolute and the
depraved, gathered from the purlieus of the cities and
villages of the north and the floating scum of western
population." The section should not be abandoned
to the traitor residents and the mercenary soldiery, said
Mr. Letcher. Many loyal Virginians had been driven
from their homes while their property was confiscated ;
it was the sacred duty of the state to repossess them
of their lost goods. "The commonwealth must not be
dismembered. When the war ends she must be what
she was when it was inaugurated. The Ohio River was
the western boundary then and it must continue to
be her boundary." x
Eastern Virginia had only the vaguest notion of
what was taking place in the western portion of the
state. Refugees brought wild stories of the acts of
cruelty and oppression perpetrated by the Union men.
But for the presence of Union troops, it was asserted,
""Documents of Virginia, 1861-62," Part I, p. 13. June 14th
the Governor had issued a proclamation to the people of north
western Virginia, informing them that the state had ratified
the ordinance of secession by a majority of nearly 100,000.
Good citizens should yield to the will of the state as expressed
by this vote. "Men of the northwest, I appeal to you by all the
considerations which have drawn us together as one people
heretofore to rally to the standard of the Old Dominion. By
all the sacred ties of consanguinity ... by memories of the past,
by the relics of the great men of other days, come to Virginia's
banner and drive the invaders from your soil. There may be
traitors in the midst of you who, for selfish ends, have turned
against their mother and would permit her to be ignominiously
oppressed and degraded. But I cannot, will not, believe that a
majority of you are not true sons who will give your blood and
your treasure for Virginia's defense." — "Documents of Vir
ginia," p. 9.

250 THE DISRUPTION OF VIRGINIA
the whole country would be aroused for secession. No
rumor was too absurd to obtain credence. It was com
monly reported that the Pierpoint government had
passed an ordinance divorcing all refugee husbands
from their wives, declaring that no citizen of Virginia
could remain in lawful matrimony with a citizen of the
restored state, but that the mere act of flight from the
loyal counties to the seceded portion of the state dis
solved the marriage tie.1 According to one writer,
newspapers not in sympathy with the prosecution of
the war were not allowed to circulate in the part of
West Virginia under Federal supervision.2 One cal
culating genius figured out that West Virginia had
really given a majority of 3,400 for the ordinance of
secession, which majority would have been greatly in
creased but for the fact that coercion was resorted to.3
It was a common belief that the only Union sym
pathizers in West Virginia were foreigners and recent
settlers from free states. "The native West Virginians,
with a few dishonorable exceptions, are true to the
South," one paper stated.4 This impression was con
firmed by all the refugees from western Virginia who
exaggerated the number of Secessionists as much as
"The Memphis Appeal copied this item and scattered it
throughout the South as an illustration of what was taking place
under the Lincoln government.
"Letter to the Richmond Whig Aug. 10, 1861. As a matter
of fact, the very reverse was true. The Wheeling Intelligencer,
as strong a Union paper as there was in the United States, was
not allowed circulation in most of the western counties by the
action of the citizens themselves.
3 Ibid.
1 Ibid.

WAR SENTIMENT 251
the North underestimated them. A memorial to the
General Assembly in the fall of 1861 discloses the
source of Richmond's misapprehension of the state of
affairs in the Trans-Alleghany. Drawn up by some
prominent western Secessionists who had been forced
to leave their homes, it exhibited all the bias one should
expect to find in a document composed under such
circumstances.1 They absolved from blame the large
majority of their western compatriots and not only
gave as proof of their loyalty to the South the per
sonal observance of the situation by the signers of the
memorial, but also pointed to the result of a number
of polls taken in the very sections supposed to be most
loyal. Not more than one fourth of the qualified voters
had participated in any election held by the Pierpoint
government. Upon the question of dividing Virginia
not one third of the ordinary vote was polled in Wheel
ing, the strongest Union community in the state.
Trans-Alleghany Virginia had furnished a large num
ber of troops to the Confederate army, yet the people
had little interest in the original subject of controversy
between the North and the South. Thus all the more
credit should be given them for sinking their own good
in the good of the state. Hemmed in by powerful
Northern states, their hands were tied if they remained
at home. If they enlisted in the Confederate service,
their property was confiscated.2
"This memorial was signed by C. W. Russell, A. F. Hay-
mond, G. D. Camden, W. L. Jackson, and R. Johnson.
2 "Documents of Virginia," Part V, No. 33.

252 THE DISRUPTION OF VIRGINIA
As the success of the Southern cause in West Vir
ginia became less probable, the bitterness of the East
increased. Letcher found his chief diversion in railing
at the Pierpoint government. Lincoln he indicted for
permitting Pierpoint to plunder the state treasury
of $40,000, for subjecting Virginia to the jurisdiction
of foreign laws, for quartering large bodies of troops
in the state, etc.1 The report of the United States
Secretary of War in December, 1861, awakened great
resentment in Virginia. Cameron had recommended the
reconstruction of Maryland, Delaware, and Virginia,
with the purpose in view of making the city of Wash
ington less accessible to attack. He suggested that
the boundary of Virginia should be altered, so that she
would be shut in on the north and east by Pennsylvania
and the Blue Ridge Mountains. Two counties of Mary
land were to be annexed to Virginia, and all of the
state lying between the Blue Ridge and Chesapeake Bay
was to become part of Maryland. A portion of the
peninsula between Chesapeake Bay and the Atlantic
Ocean, held by Virginia and Maryland, was to be in
corporated into Delaware. Finally, it was urged that
the part of the District of Columbia retroceded to Vir
ginia should be taken back.2 To this a Richmond
paper responds: "There can be no Virginia unless it
includes both eastern and western Virginia. Cameron,
the execrable Secretary of War of the Lincoln des-
" "Documents of Virginia 1861-62," Part V, No. 42.
"Senate Documents, 37th Congress, 2nd Session, Vol. II, pp.
13-14.

WAR SENTIMENT 253
potism, has presented the servile Congress of that
loathsome tyranny with a map in which eastern Virginia
is attached to Maryland. . . . We say that if we
cannot hold West Virginia we can hardly defend the
South."1 January, 1862, the General Assembly at Richmond
passed a joint resolution on the subject of the division
of the state. It read as follows:
"Whereas the public enemy, invited by domestic foes,
being in power within some of the counties in Virginia,
where they are confiscating the property of loyal citi
zens and otherwise oppressing them in a cruel man
ner; and whereas the traitors there, contemplating a
division of this time-honored commonwealth with the
aid of this public enemy have set up a pretended govern
ment over the same, which under the force of circum
stances could not be prevented by the timely sending of
an adequate military force ; and whereas the legislature
desires to reassure all loyal citizens throughout the
commonwealth of their desire and intention to protect
them, therefore, Resolved by the Senate and House of
Delegates that in no event will the state of Virginia sub
mit to or consent to the loss of a foot of her soil; that
it is the firm determination of the state ... to assert
and maintain the jurisdiction and sovereignty of Vir
ginia to the utmost limits of her ancient boundaries at
any and every cost." 2
There was a noticeable indisposition on the part of
the authorities of Virginia to pass retaliatory acts
against the people of the western section. Pierpoint and
1 Richmond Dispatch, Dec. 9, 1861.
2 "Documents of Virginia, 1861-62," No. 46.

254 THE DISRUPTION OF VIRGINIA
his colleagues were excoriated in the severest terms, but
it was thoroughly believed that the great mass of peo
ple disapproved of the Wheeling government, and there
fore should not be punished for something which was
more their misfortune than their fault.1
October 21, 1861, was the day designated for the
vote on the question of dividing the state and the elec
tion of delegates to the constitutional convention. Few
people beyond the borders of the northwestern counties
took the slightest interest in the affair although the
editors of the loyal newspapers did their best to arouse
the people to the importance of the occasion. The
editor of the Wheeling Intelligencer devoted many col
umns in his efforts to awaken the citizens from their
apathy which, he predicted, would prevent West Vir
ginia from becoming a reality. What the people really
needed, he said, was a more intense love for the Union
and a greater hatred of secession. In many of the
western counties rebel soldiers had returned to their
homes and were living there undisturbed by their loyal
neighbors.2 Moreover, it was safer to be a Secessionist
in these counties than to be known as a Northern sup
porter, for the latter as a class had no pluck or
stamina.3 1 It is the fact that several acts appropriating money for
improvements in the west were repealed, but this was only a
part of the general policy to concentrate the financial resources
of the state on the military. — "Laws of Virginia," 1861-2, p. 61.
' Wheeling Intelligencer, Oct. 15, 1861.
"The correspondent of the Cincinnati Commercial wrote: "The
most curious, miserly set of beings I ever saw are the Union
men of West Virginia. I have never seen but one who would

WAR SENTIMENT 255
It was well understood that there would be almost no
votes cast on the question of division outside the north
west, and the necessity was plain of rolling up as large
a majority for separation as possible. Here someone
blundered. Instead of allowing a free vote, the election
was so manipulated that it was difficult for the oppon
ents of the ordinance to register their protests.1 As a
result, the vote proves too much. We have presented
evidence showing the strength of secession in all por
tions of West Virginia. What then is to be inferred
when we find the official vote reported as follows : Put
nam County, 209 for, none against division; Cabell,
200 to nothing; Gilmer, unanimous (no vote given) ;
Clay, 96 to 0; Raleigh, 32 to 0; Harrison, 1,148 to 2;
Marion, 760 to 38; Monongalia, 1,591 to 18; Upshur,
614 to 0 ; Randolph, 171 to 2, etc. The official vote
was announced to be 18,408 for division and 781
against it.2
No one will seriously believe that this vote repre
sented the sentiment of the people of West Virginia. It
is more than doubtful if 18,000 votes were cast alto
gether, for with one faction controlling the election it
would be a miracle if wholesale frauds were not perpe
trated. The whole matter was treated with derision
and contempt in the southern and eastern counties.
expend a dime towards the preservation of the Union." Quoted
in Wheeling Intelligencer, Oct. 31, 1861.
1 The newspapers of the district hint at the methods used to
exclude voters. The Ritchie County Democrat, for example, sug
gested that no one should be allowed to vote but known Union
men. 2 Wheeling Intelligencer, Oct 26, 1861.

256 THE DISRUPTION OF VIRGINIA
Described by Union writers as "the wilderness of seces
sion," one cannot imagine that election notices were
posted and the polls opened October 24th, as was pro
vided for in the ordinance. The two men undertaking
the task of election commissioners in the "rebel" coun
ties would have to bear charmed lives. When it is re
membered that by this vote the thirty-nine counties of
the new state were supposed to express their approval
of a division of Virginia and of the appeal to Congress
to admit them as a new state, the farcical nature of
West Virginia's origin may be perceived.

CHAPTER XVI x
THE CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION
The delegates to the Constitutional Convention as
sembled in Wheeling November 26, 1861, "in pursuance
of elections held on the fourth Thursday of October,
1861, under authority of 'an ordinance to provide for
the formation of a new state out of a portion of the
territory of this state' passed August 20th of that year
by the convention which reorganized the government of
Virginia, the convention to frame a constitution for
the proposed state of Kanawha."
Thirty-seven of the seventy-five delegates elected
were present, representing thirty-one counties.2 Com
mittees on Credentials and on Constitutional Provisions
were appointed, but not until after the delegates had
given good evidence of their disposition to fall afoul
"This chapter is based on the original manuscript of the pro
ceedings of the Convention, heretofore never used, and to be
found in the office of the State Historian and Archivist, Charles
ton, W. Va. Page references will not be given for the reason
that the manuscript will soon be printed as a state document
and is at present unedited.
2 Randolph, Tucker, Preston, Marion, Taylor, Barbour, Upshur,
Harrison, Lewis, Kanawha, Wayne, Cabell, Putnam, Mason,
Jackson, Roane, Wirt, Gilmer, Ritchie, Wood, Pleasants, Tyler,
Doddridge, Wetzel, Marshall, Hancock, Ohio, Hampshire, Hardy,
Boone, Brooke. No returns reported from Logan, Nicholas,
Webster, Calhoun. 257

258 THE DISRUPTION OF VIRGINIA
of one another on the least provocation. Before the
convention was formally organized, a contest arose
over the representation of Wyoming and Fayette coun
ties, which had not held elections, "owing to the hostile
state of the county," but from which certain delegates
presented credentials in the form of petitions signed by
residents of the counties. Final action was deferred,
but the bearers of these petitions were permitted to
remain on the floor and vote.
For the office of president of the convention the
"radicals" nominated John Hall of Mason County,
while the "conservatives" put forward as their candi
date J. H. Brown of Kanawha County. The latter
withdrew and Mr. Hall was chosen. E. R. Hall of Tay
lor County was nominated for secretary, his election
being urged on the ground of his having been persecuted
at home on account of his politics.1
A difference of opinion arose over the question of
taking an oath to support the reorganized government
of Virginia. According to Mr. Willey, it was merely
a test of loyalty. "It can have no other object, be
cause it is extra-official, and it is a matter entirely at
the option of any member of this body whether he will
take it or not. There is no law that requires it. Be
sides, Sir, this body has received a higher sanction from
the voluntary suffrage of a generous constituency."
Mr. Van Winkle was of the opinion that since they were
1 It is evident from the discussion that quite a number of the
delegates had been driven from their counties and needed finan
cial assistance.

THE CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION 259
paid and upheld by the government in question they
should not object to the oath. Mr. Hall, of Marion,
thought that the taking of such an oath would exhibit
a lack of faith in one another; and Mr. Stevenson, of
Wood, opposed it because they were sent to destroy the
old constitution to which they would swear allegiance.
It is clear that the conservatives looked upon the pro
posed oath as a method devised by their opponents to
test the loyalty of the opposition. "There is a fitness
in every man taking the oath every morning," said Mr.
Hall, "where we see treason all around us in the quar
ters where we have been startled to find it. There is
propriety in a man distrusting himself, though he may
be indorsed by his whole people." He concluded by
declaring that there had been too much oath breaking,
a statement affirmed by Mr. Willey, who recalled the
fact that in his county seventy citizens had broken
their oath after they had gone so far as to have them
(the oaths) recorded.
A Business Committee of nine was appointed, com
posed of Messrs. Van Winkle, Brown (of Kanawha),
Hall (of Marion), Irvine, Sheets, Parker, Chapman,
Caldwell, and Hagar. This became the "steering com
mittee" of the convention.
The question of seating Messrs. Cassady and Walker
now arose. According to Mr. Stuart it was the only
way by which the counties not sending regularly ac
credited representatives could get a hearing. A slight
irregularity was not worth noticing, with which remark
Mr. Willey agreed, adding that "these are revolution-

260 THE DISRUPTION OF VIRGINIA
ary times. The house is on fire and we cannot be very
technical." He said he would vote to admit them "on
a venture," remembering, probably, his own irregular
beginnings as a United States Senator. The claimants
were seated without further discussion.1
On the following day eight standing committees were
appointed — Fundamental and General Provisions;
County Organization ; Legislative Department ; Execu
tive Department ; Judiciary ; Taxation and Finance ;
Education; Schedule. The convention transacted no
more business this day, but adjourned to meet Friday,
the 29th.
By this time it had become apparent that the dele
gates were in real earnest in their attempt to make the
new constitution more liberal than the one under which
they had hved as Virginians. Such matters as popu
lar education, universal white male suffrage, voting by
ballot, and internal improvements were given much
attention. On November 30th Brown, of Kanawha, introduced
the following resolution : "Resolved, That the state of
Kanawha ought to assume a just and equitable pro-
" Later in the convention the delegate from Fayette County
resigned and appointed his successor. In the discussion Mr.
Pomeroy said: "Now, it is a singular thing, with a lot of Union
soldiers in the county, a man comes here and claims to be »
representative on this floor, endorsed by a single baker's dozen;
but of the whole population of the county not « solitary man
but thirteen on that paper."
Mr. Dering: "Are we a regularly constituted deliberative
body, regulated by law, or are we a mass meeting that any
gentleman can come into and take a seat and draw pay from
the treasury?"

THE CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION 261
portion of the state debt of Virginia; and in doing so,
to discriminate between its friends and foes, by first
paying the bonds now held bona fide by her own loyal
citizens ; next, the bonds held bona fide by other loyal
citizens of the United States not residents of the state
of Kanawha ; and the excess, if any, to the other bond
holders, pro rata. Also, that it is unwise and impolitic
to introduce the discussion of the slavery question into
the deliberations of this convention."
Monday, December 2nd, the Committee on Boun
daries reported. To the thirty-nine original counties
had been added Pocahontas, Greenbrier, Monroe, Mer
cer, McDowell, Buchanan and Wise. Craig, Giles,
Bland, Tazewell, Russell, Lee, Scott, Jefferson, Berke
ley, Morgan, Hampshire, Hardy, Pendleton, Highland,
Bath, Alleghany, Clark, Warren, Shenandoah, Page,
Rockingham, Augusta, Rockbridge, and Botetourt
were to be given the opportunity of voting for annexa
tion to the new state April, 1862.
The report was taken up and discussed section by
section. Mr. Sensel moved that "Kanawha" be
stricken out, stating, as his reason, that he was a Vir
ginian and proud of the name. Mr. Parker agreed and
added that Kanawha would be confused with the county.
A number of members testified to the unpopularity of
the name with their constituents. Mass meetings had
been held in many counties, protesting against it.
With these objections Mr. Lamb, of Ohio County, had
little sympathy, although he had lived in Virginia for
thirty years. "During that time what have we received

262 THE DISRUPTION OF VIRGINIA
here but oppression and outrage from the state of Vir
ginia? What has been the policy of Virginia through
out? Are we going to keep that policy along with the
name, when we came here for the very purpose of revo
lutionizing that policy in every respect almost in which
it is possible for us to do so? No, gentlemen, no, I
want to cut loose from these recollections. I have no
hesitation in proclaiming to this convention and my
constituents that there is nothing in the conduct of the
state of Virginia to the people of western Virginia that
entitles her or the name to our attachment."
Mr. Caldwell remarked that western Virginia had
been a distinct name for years. Mr. Willey said his
people objected to "Kanawha" because it was hard to
spell, while Mr. Lauck startled the other delegates by
asserting that his constituents were not willing to have
the new state at all if "Virginia" was stricken out. To
this Mr. Van Winkle retorted that what he feared was
that some of the gentlemen "intend to be Virginians
after we have separated from Virginia. If we are so
servile to old Virginia now that we are about casting
off the fetters, if we cannot forget our servile habits,
but must cringe and bow to old Virginia, I think, Sir,
this movement had better stop precisely where it is
now." The speaker concluded by suggesting that there
was a "suspiciously strong affection for the flesh-pots
of Egypt."
Mr. Stuart replied to Mr. Van Winkle, displaying
considerable warmth of feeling. His position was that
Van Winkle and the others born outside the state of

THE CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION 263
Virginia should not arrogate to themselves the respon
sibility of deciding the name of the new state.1 "It is
a familiar name. It is a name to speak, that of West
Virginia." Mr. Willey was confident the new convention could
adopt a new name if it saw fit, as it had already changed
the previous ordinance so as to include some additional
counties. His attitude toward "West Virginia" was
dictated solely by the wishes of his constituents.
On the final vote the name "West Virginia" received
thirty votes; "Kanawha," nine; "Western Virginia,"
two; "Alleghany," two; "Augusta," one.
An argument now arose over the length of time a
person should have to live in the state in order to qual
ify for voting. So liberal were the views of some of
the members that Mr. Brown protested, alleging that
the object seemed to be that of alluring voters from
other states. He opposed such liberality because he
"wanted people to come here to live, not merely to
vote." His ideas did not prevail, however, and the
length of residence was fixed at thirty days.
On Wednesday, December 4th, the important ques
tion of the electoral franchise was discussed. At the
outset it was evident that there was a strong movement
on foot to disqualify all but known Union men. Said
Mr. Caldwell, of Marshall County : "In my own county,
"Mr. Van Winkle was a native of the state of New York, and
attorney for the Baltimore & Ohio Railroad. It is evident that
he was distrusted by the other members, for an undercurrent
of hostility was apparent at all times when Mr. Van Winkle
had the floor.

264 THE DISRUPTION OF VIRGINIA
in several counties that I think I could name, where the
Secessionist element prevails, what will be the result in
the formation of the new state? Why, Sir, where that
element prevails, the Secessionists will override the
Union party. They may go to the polls and elect
officers, while the result will be that those persons so
elected will refuse to qualify ; and thus the organization
in these counties will be defeated."
Mr. Willey stated that "the brave boys who are now
standing up for these rights in the Union were of the
poorer classes." Mr. Hagar brought out the informa
tion that in his county the people had been ordered to
join the Confederacy — and did so. Mr. Parker de
clared roundly that men were "committing treason with
as little compunction as they have in shooting squir
rels." Again Mr. Brown took the opposing view, by
affirming that the proposed act would disfranchise a
large number of Union men, and, "I dare say, many in
this very house; for I have no doubt there are those in
this house who have 'given aid and comfort to the re
bellion' by furnishing provisions and shelter to their
friends and relatives in the rebel army."
The following day the delegates debated the report
of a committee which had advocated the viva voce
method of voting. Mr. Stuart said he had never seen
any good result from voting by ballot; that how a
man voted was known anyhow. "I like this independent
way of voting — coming up and declaring how we vote.
It seems to me it inculcates principles of independence."
He reminded his audience of the vote in May on seces-

THE CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION 265
sion, and asked if there would not have been a different
showing if voting by ballot had prevailed.1
Mr. Hagar declared that in his county only one vote
out of one hundred and fifty had been against seces
sion.2 Union men had been overawed by the stronger
rebels. If the citizens had been able to cast their bal
lots in secret, both Logan and Boone counties might
have voted against secession.
It may be remarked in passing that all speakers from
Secessionist counties told the same story, apparently
with the idea of winning the good will of the other dele
gates. However, either the Union majority was a fig
ment of their imagination or it was composed of a very
pusillanimous set of men. Otherwise, the numerically
weaker Secessionists would have been the ones intimi
dated. The question was dropped for the present, while the
convention proceeded to consider the inclusion of Wise
and Buchanan counties. Mr. Brown thought it a good
thing, because no one desired to have a "little picayune
state." They should adhere to "the good old American
principle, which was to hold on to all the territory we
get." And Mr. Stuart reminded the delegates that if
"Mr. Stuart's meaning is puzzling, in view of the fact that
he was speaking in opposition to the secret ballot. If he had
been arguing in its favor, we might assume he meant to suggest
that the open method of voting prevented Union men from
voting against secession, where the Secessionists predominated.
The sole inference remaining is that if the secret ballot had been
used, more votes in the western counties would have been cast
for secession.
"The official returns from Boone County do not confirm this
statement.

266 THE DISRUPTION OF VIRGINIA
these counties were cut off the state would lose one
representative in Congress. Mr. Pomeroy could not
understand why they wanted to annex counties in which
Secessionism ran rampant, to which Mr. Brown replied,
meaningly, that "to cut off counties because they were
for secession was a very dangerous game; and if you
attempt to play it on principle I do not see where it
would stop." x The motion to include was lost.
The same question arose over McDowell County.
Mr. Walker, with no apparent intention of being hu
morous, remarked that he had been there in June, and
"had found quite a number of men who were Union in
their hearts although they dared not say so." Quite
the frankest man on the floor was Mr. Hall, of Marion
County, who boldly spoke for the inclusion of all bor
der counties, in order to get a line with natural boun
daries. It was of no great importance whether they
wanted to come in or not. This convention was the
sovereign people of West Virginia, and was bound by
no previous act.
Mr. Carskadon stated that while only between sixty
and seventy men had voted for representatives to the
convention he felt sure that there were more Union
men than that in the county. Mr. Stevenson said : "If
I could be satisfied that these counties of Mercer, Mon
roe, Greenbrier, and Pocahontas were made up of any
considerable number of loyal people, I would favor it.
* A plain admission that the great maj ority of the counties
in the proposed new state were Southern in their sympathies,
and, consequently, opposed to cutting loose from Virginia.

THE CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION 267
But I have not been, and I am not, satisfied of the
fact." Mr. Parker, to ease Mr. Stevenson's conscience.
remarked that the convention as a whole represented
but a small faction of the state; and Mr. Brown ad
duced the further information that they were including
counties that had given large majorities for secession.
The Union men in these counties were being protected
by, a Union army, composed of men from other states.
In Logan, Boone and Wayne Counties a man who spoke
in favor of the Union was taken to Richmond and tried
for treason, said Mr. Brown. Yet thus far there had
been no objection to including these counties.
Mr. Willey was of the opinion that the convention
had no right to add more counties, to which Mr. Hall
retorted that the convention could do anything "because
the whole proceedings were irregular. It has not been
very long since some gentlemen who are here could not
have come here, and the time is even yet that some gen
tlemen within counties included here are not here ; and
we know very well the reason why the counties, in refer
ence to which we are now proposing to take action,
could not be represented here, are represented by very
few votes, or by some means that is not exactly a vote
at all." The convention, at any rate, said Mr. Hall,
represented the people more closely than the legislature
did. "At the time a certain portion of the citizens of
the state of Virginia were enabled to congregate them
selves at the city of Wheeling and at a time when those
in rebellion against the government held other parts,
and being very impatient they went to work to form

268 THE DISRUPTION OF VIRGINIA
themselves into a new state including a few counties.
Let me say a fact that is known, — that this thing com
menced at a time when some of the most prominent
movers in the matter dared not go to their homes. As
I before remarked, our necessity requires that if they
are not with us in sentiment, in all events their terri
tory must be with us." Mr. Brown hereupon stated
that before the people of the border counties could
vote it would be necessary to station a Union Army
there. The discussion as to the wisdom of absorbing Seces
sionist counties continued the following day. The
large-state advocates were now in the saddle, and rode
triumphantly through the opposition, who desired a
small, compact state, composed of counties where there
was at least a considerable Union minority. Said Mr.
Willey : "The county of Calhoun spurns our invitation,
it is said. The county of Nicholas spurns our invita
tion. That is her own fault, sir. She might have been
represented here ; and if she sees proper to stay at home
and allow us to fix it for her, she has no right to com
plain." An interesting sidelight is turned on the events of
the preceding months by the remarks of Mr. Hagar:
"I am informed by the delegate from Wayne, not
withstanding Ziegler had a regiment there, that all the
elections had to be guarded by his regiment. I do not
know how many elections were held in Cabell County.
However, they held one somewhere, and the county is
represented. Boone, which has eight places of holding

THE CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION 269
elections, by a detachment being sent from Kanawha
held an election at two precincts. The returns are not
here; the man I sent may have been captured. If it
required a military force to hold an election, if Cabell
County, which borders on the Ohio River, had to have a
military force to hold an election there; if Boone had
to have a military force to hold an election at two
points; if a detachment went up and held an election
there, and got into a corner of Raleigh and held an
election there, with what difficulty areA the counties
represented !"
The speaker closed by saying that he knew person
ally the people of those counties were opposed to the
new state. Mr. Soper confirmed this, and added that
the earlier conventions were all irregular bodies; that
the members of the so-called legislature were not legally
chosen, and that they violated their instructions when
they provided for the formation of a new state instead
of merely reconstructing the old state. The people,
thus far, had never indicated that they wished to sep
arate from old Virginia. Mr. Soper seemed to think
that although most of the counties included in the
boundaries of the proposed new state were full of Se
cessionists, these persons would finally become recon
ciled to the new state — certainly, if the South lost.1
Mr. Van Winkle stated that he doubted "if there
were any counties this side of the Alleghanies where
there were nothing but Secessionists." 2 Mr. Stuart, of
"Mr. Soper was referred to by the chairman as "the gentle
man from New York now representing Tyler County."
"The North had been led to believe that there were nothing

270 THE DISRUPTION OF VIRGINIA
Doddridge County, said that his was one of the strong
est Union counties in the state; Union regiments were
in complete control; yet it was impossible to get a
majority of the voters to go to the polls and vote on
the question of endorsing the new state movement.
Mr. Simmons, of Randolph County, was positive that
there were some Union men in his county, and also in
Pendleton and Hardy. An election had been held, he
stated, in one corner of Tucker County, by a Union
company, and a member had been chosen to the state
legislature. Mr. Carskadon frankly admitted that "at
the precinct at which I was elected (they did not know
at the time I was a candidate) there were but thirty-
nine votes cast."
Mr. Lamb, of Ohio County, whose Unionism could
not be doubted, declared that out of two thousand
voters in Hampshire County, one hundred and ninety-
five votes had been cast and he had heard that of these
one hundred were cast by soldiers. Mr. Carskadon
confirmed this and added that only thirty-nine were
the votes of citizens of the state.
So frank were these admissions that the people of
the western portion of Virginia were Southern in their
sympathies that the convention felt it necessary to
reject a motion to have the debates published. It may
be added that they remain unpublished to this day.
January 7, 1862, a petition from Calhoun County
was read as follows :
but Unionists this side of the Alleghanies. Mr. Van Winkle
nere admits that the Unionists were few in number.

THE CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION 271
"The humble memorial of the undersigned qualified
voters in and for the County of Calhoun, respectfully
represent that they were unable to hold an election for
a delegate to your convention, as they desired to do
and would have done, but for the following reasons:
There is no sheriff, clerk or justices in our county, and
no court has been held in said county since June last ;
all the county officers are or have been engaged in the
rebellion, so that there was no one to hold an election.
The undersigned compose nearly the whole loyal voters
in the said county, for, in fact, at the election upon
the ordinance of secession, there were but fifty votes
cast in said county against it."
The petition was unanimously granted, Mr. Van
Winkle remarking that it would not do to hold too
strictly to the law.
A similar proceeding was enacted the following day,
when the convention seated a delegate from Logan
County, whose credentials consisted of a petition signed
by fifteen persons representing six families. After this
there could be no pretense of legality, for in this case
the delegate lived in Kanawha, not Logan County,
where, according to his own statement, there was to be
found no one who was willing to run the risk of repre
senting Logan County.
January 13th Mr. Sinsel made some extremely illu
minating admissions, while the subject of the apportion
ment of representatives was under discussion. He re
ferred to the border counties as "deadly Secessionist in
sentiment and feeling," and predicted that after the
rebellion only Secessionists would be elected to public

272 THE DISRUPTION OF VIRGINIA
office.1 "Who denies that McDowell, Wyoming, Ral
eigh, Calhoun, Gilmer, Braxton, Clay, Tucker, Ran
dolph, Webster, Nicholas, Boone, Logan, Pocahontas,
Roane, Wirt, Monroe, and Greenbrier — add to that
Barbour and many others — are all dominated by the
spirit of the rebellion?"
It is interesting to observe that the manuscript
record of the debates contains no answer or denial of
this very serious allegation. Had it been otherwise
than true, had there been the slightest doubt of the sen
timent of the people of these and other unnamed coun
ties, Mr. Sinsel would have discovered that he had dis
turbed a hornet's nest. The strong Union men in the
convention would have accepted the challenge, had
there been any tenable premises upon which to base
their argument. That Mr. Sinsel's charges were recog
nized as correct is proven by the fact that after his
speech the discussion narrows down to the question of
how the apportionment of representatives in the legis
lature could be arranged so as to give the larger Seces
sionist counties as little power as possible.
The slavery question, as was anticipated, aroused
heated discussion. Mr. Battelle, a Methodist minister
and a native of Ohio, introduced a series of resolutions
providing, first, that no slaves should come into the
state for permanent residence after the adoption of the
1 His prediction was verified. The immediate effect of the
successive Amnesty Proclamations of President Johnson, 1865,
1867, 1868, was the establishment of the Democrats in power,
and this power they held almost without interruption for thirty
years. ,

THE CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION 273
constitution; second, that the legislature should pro
vide for the mitigation of the evils of slavery until July
4, 1862, when the institution should be abolished. The
author of these resolutions later modified his first prop
osition so that all children born of slave parents after
July 4, 1865, should be free, and that the people
of the state, when they voted on the constitution, should
also vote on the question of gradual emancipation.
There was, however, plenty of feeling in the conven
tion against the abolition of slavery in any form, and
the body declined to go on record as favoring such leg
islation. They did incorporate into the constitution a
clause whereby slaves and free negroes should not be
permitted to enter the state.
The first draft of the first constitution of West Vir
ginia resembled very much the organic law of the old
state, but there are some notable points of divergence,
all in the direction of democratic progress. Voting by
ballot took the place of the viva voce method, the reg
istration of voters was provided for, and the legislature
was instructed to establish a system of free common
schools. The fourth Thursday in April, 1862, was designated
as the day upon which the constitution was to be sub
mitted to the voters of the state, and commissioners
were appointed to make the necessary arrangements.
In the event of the ratification of the constitution, the
returns were to be reported to the legislature and its
consent obtained to the separation. This done, Con
gress was to be asked to admit the new state.

274 THE DISRUPTION OF VIRGINIA
The constitution was adopted by the suspiciously
large majority of 20,622 to 440. In order to make,
the result more imposing, commissioners were sent out
to the various camps so that the soldiers would be
permitted to vote. In this manner citizens of Penn
sylvania, Ohio, and Indiana were enabled to assist the
framers of the new constitution.1 The vote in some
of the counties was reported as follows: Ohio, 1,805
to 8 ; Marshall, 1,433 to 56 ; Hancock, 373 to 5 ; Hardy,
76 to 0 ; Morgan, 362 to 0 ; Pendleton, 181 to 0 ; Pleas
ants, 253 to 0 ; Randolph, 167 to 13 ; Roane, 159 to 0 ;
Tucker, 45 to 1 ; Wayne, 85 to 2 ; Marion, 965 to 3 ;
Lewis, 596 to 4 ; Wood, 1,222 to 1 ; Harrison, 1,074 to
7; Monongalia, 1,415 to 128; Taylor, 716 to 5; Bar
bour, 471 to 0; Brooke, 448 to 1; Cabell, 106 to 0;
Gilmer, 383 to 1 ; Hampshire, 75 to 9. No returns
were ever received from Calhoun, Greenbrier, Logan,
McDowell, Mercer, Monroe, Preston, Raleigh and
Wyoming counties. The four northern Panhandle
counties furnished more than one third of the entire
civilian vote for the constitution. The eastern Pan
handle cast a total of five hundred and thirty votes.
Along the border of Virginia only one county, Hardy,
reported that a poll had been taken. The measure was
practically adopted by a vote of six counties and the
silent protests of more than twenty other counties were
passed unheeded. It is a poor argument to say that
many of these counties were in possession of the Con
federates at the time of the election, for this is equiva-
" The soldiers' vote was announced as 7,579 to 131.

THE CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION 275
lent to saying that they were controlled by a majority
of their own citizens. Yet if four hundred and seventy-
one persons in Barbour County were permitted to vote,
why were not the other qualified voters permitted to do
the same ? Why did the poll show the curious anomaly
of a practically unanimous vote in the strongest Seces
sionist counties? All these questions and others pre
sent themselves for serious consideration, and the more
they are studied the more convinced must one become
that the present state of West Virginia is composed of
counties a majority of which were opposed to the
division of the state.1
An extra session of the legislature was called for
May 5, 1862, and on that day thirty-one delegates and
ten Senators came together, for the purpose of carry
ing out that section of the United States Constitution
which says that no new state shall be formed out of an
"A letter to the Intelligencer, Apr. 30, from Braxton County
reads: "The election was a mere farce, a thing done in the corner
by those who feared the light and wished to possess themselves of
power not for the sake of being useful to their country and
fellow-citizens but for selfish ends alone. . . . Not more than one
hundred votes were polled in a county of some 1,100 voters and
our legislature was elected by a still smaller number of votes."
The Intelligencer, the same day, prints a letter from »
Colonel in the Union army stationed in one of the interior coun
ties, to the effect that he had been instructed to prevent people
from voting against the new-state constitution. A letter to the
Wheeling Press, Nov. 27, 1862, declares that there had not been
a free election in West Virginia since the delegates had been
elected to the Richmond Convention. Not one fifth of the
normal vote of the county had been cast at any election. The
writer asserts that it was dangerous to vote against any measure
in which the new state was interested. "Could there be a fair
expression of the people within the bounds of the new state, I
do not doubt that the vote would be overwhelmingly against it."

276 THE DISRUPTION OF VIRGINIA
existing state without the consent of the latter. These
forty-one men were held to be capable of acting for a
million white people of Virginia.1
The Governor in his message made no effort to dic
tate the course which should be pursued by the legisla
ture, although he did attempt to give reasons why their
assent should be given. He attacked the position of
those who pronounced the whole affair to be a revolu
tionary proceeding. His attempt to show that all con
stitutional and legal forms had been and would in the
future be complied with led him into a maze of twisted
thoughts and illogical reasoning. Answering the
charge that the new state would be estabhshed on an
act of revolution, he says: "Those who urge this ob
jection do not understand the history, geography, and
social relations of the state." 2 The reader may well
ask what these things had to do with an abstract ques
tion of political theory. However, the situation did not
call for close reasoning and clea^ thinking, for the leg
islature had made up its mind long before. After going
through the formality of appointing a committee to
consider the question, it gave its consent to the forma-
" Horace Greeley in his "American Conflict" makes a typical
defense of the action of the legislature in assenting to the division
of Virginia. He says: "This action was taken throughout on the
assumption that the loyal people of a state constitute the state;
that traitors and rebels who repudiate all respect for and loyalty
to the constitution and government of the country have no right
to control that government and that those people of any state
who heartily recognize and faithfully discharge their obligations
. . . have a right to full and perfect protection from the Re
public." P. 519.
"Wheeling Intelligencer, May 6, 1862.

THE CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION 277
tion of a new state in the name of and as the represen
tatives of the sovereign people of Virginia.1
1 The act reads : "Be it enacted by the General Assembly, That
the consent of the legislature of Virginia be and the same is
hereby given to the formation and erection of the state of West
Virginia within the jurisdiction of this state to include the
counties of  , according to the boundaries and under the
provisions set forth in the constitution for the said state of
West Virginia and the schedule thereto annexed, proposed by
the convention which assembled at Wheeling on the 26th day of
November, 1861. Second, Be it further enacted, That the con
sent of the legislature be and the same is hereby given that
the counties of Berkeley, Jefferson, and Frederick shall be in
cluded in and form part of the state of West Virginia, when
ever the voters of said counties shall ratify and assent to the
said constitution at an election held for the purpose at such
time and under such regulations as the commissioners named in
the said schedule may prescribe. Third, Be it further enacted,
That this act shall be transmitted by the Executive to the Sena
tors and Representatives of this Commonwealth in Congress,
together with a certified original of the said constitution and
schedule, and the said Senators and Representatives are hereby
requested to use their endeavors to obtain the consent of Con
gress to the admission of the state of West Virginia into the
Union. Fourth, This act shall be enforced from and after its
passage." — Congressional Globe, 37th Congress, 3rd Session, Part
I, p. 39.

CHAPTER XVII
IXEEGULAK CONGRESSIONAL ELECTIONS
In the early part of 1862, before the West Virginia
bill was ready to be introduced into Congress, the
House of Representatives, after quite a contest, refused
to seat two men claiming to have been elected to the
house from the first and seventh congressional districts
of Virginia. The western part of the state had disre
garded that section of the ordinance of secession which
forbade the election of representatives to Congress and
had elected its Congressmen in the regular manner.
These men had been seated without contest.1 The cases
of Charles H. Upton and Joseph Segar were different.
The latter claimed to have been elected from the first
district under the proclamation issued by Pierpoint, ap
pointing the fourth Tuesday in October as the day
when special elections should be held for the purpose
of filling the vacancies that existed in the Virginia dele
gation to Congress.2 It was admitted that the Seces
sionists controlled all but the two northwestern dis-
"They were Messrs. Brown, Whalley, and Carlile. After
Carlile's election to the Senate, Jacob Blair was chosen to fill
the vacancy.
" Congressional Globe, 37th Congress, 2nd Session, Part I,
p. 728. 278

IRREGULAR CONGRESSIONAL ELECTIONS 279
tricts, but according to the prevailing theory the loyal
citizens, no matter how small their number might be,
constituted the electorate. Mr. Segar's election had
been unanimous. The case was referred to the Com
mittee of Elections, which made its report Feb. 10,
1862. 2 After reviewing the events in West Virginia
leading up to the establishment of a provisional gov
ernment, the committee presented the election returns
and showed that Mr. Segar had received twenty-five
votes, while none had been cast for his opponent. The
poll had been taken at Hampton, Virginia, and was cer
tified to by the clerk and two freeholders. Pierpoint
thereupon signed the certificate of election. The com
mittee expressed the opinion that the Wheeling con
vention had exceeded its power in continuing to act as
a legislative body coordinate with the legislature. Its
functions ceased the moment the new government took
on form and life. Thus the act of the convention pro
viding for a special election was a usurpation of the
duties of the legislature. Even assuming that up to this
point the proceedings were regular, what followed was
clearly irregular. Instead of calling upon the sheriffs
to conduct the election as prescribed by law, the Gov
ernor in his proclamation "entreated the loyal voters to
hold an election." Mr. Segar admitted that there was
no poll taken anywhere but at Hampton, and frankly
confessed that he would not have known of the Gov
ernor's proclamation had it not been that a certain
man, stopping over in Hampton, had read it in the
" Congressional Globe, 37th Congress, pp. 727-728.

280 THE DISRUPTION OF VIRGINIA
National Intelligencer. He informed Mr. Segar of the
fact and the latter decided to become a candidate. The
committee held that under the circumstances the con
testant could have no claim to a seat in the House.
Segar's defense of his claim deserves to rank as a
great piece of congressional humor. The issue, he said,
was not whether he should be seated; that was of no
importance whatsoever. The real question involved the
right of a loyal citizen to sit in the House of Repre
sentatives. It was true that some of the petty forms
were not complied with, but they were swept away by
the old maxim de minimis non curat lex. The Wheeling
Convention, in his opinion, could do anything the sov
ereign people could do, but even if it could not the sit
uation would not be altered, for Governor Pierpoint
had signed his election certificate, and all people knew
that Pierpoint was the lawful Governor of Virginia. As
for the smallness of the vote cast, the House could not
take this into consideration while it had officially recog
nized the Wheeling government which had been set up
by a very small minority of the people. Mr. Dawes, of
Massachusetts, effectually disposed of any further ar
guments the petitioner might have presented by stating
that the only pertinent question was the legality of the
election. The convention organized the loyal legisla
ture and put it under the constitution and laws of Vir
ginia ; then it proceeded to act as though no legisla
ture existed. In the case at hand twenty-five men hving
near a hotel kept by the claimant cast their votes with
out form of law. "It is a mockery to representation it-

IRREGULAR CONGRESSIONAL ELECTIONS 281
self," said Mr. Dawes. "It is a mockery to the free
dom of election." The committee's report was adopted
and Mr. Segar was refused a seat in the House.1
Upton's case was reported from the committee Jan.
30, 1862, with adverse recommendation. The contes
tant had presented his credentials at the opening of the
special session in July, as representative of the seventh
district of Virginia. No objection had been raised until
December 9, 1861, when a Mr. S. F. Beach appeared,
contesting Mr. Upton's right to the seat. February
26th the House took up the consideration of the com
mittee's report. Beach, in his petition, alleged that on
May 23rd not a single poll had been opened, owing
partly to the presence of a large military force. Thus
Upton could not have been legally elected, even though
he had been a citizen of Virginia which, the petitioner
said, he was not. Upon the 24th of October an election
was held in accordance with Pierpoint's proclamation
and a small vote was cast, all for the petitioner. Up
ton should be unseated — first, because no regular elec
tion had been conducted on May 23rd, and second, be
cause Upton was a citizen of Ohio and could not repre
sent the state of Virginia.
Mr. Worcester brushed aside the second objection
" Congressional Globe, 37th Congress, 2nd Session, Part I. On
Feb. 19, 1862, Mr. Segar wrote a letter to Governor Pierpoint in
which he made the following suggestion, to be acted upon in case
the legislature did not prescribe a time and place for elections
to Congress: "I suggest that in the writ you name the place for
the meeting at Old Point Comfort and make the day the 21st of
March. ... As soon as received I shall proceed to . . ." This
was de minimis non curat lex with a vengeance.

282 THE DISRUPTION OF VIRGINIA
and declared that the real question was one of fact,
not whether a legal election could have taken place at
the time, but whether it was physically possible under
the circumstances. No one doubted that the act an
nulling the election laws was a usurpation but it was
effective at any rate. There was no evidence to show
that any attempt had been made to comply with the
laws of Virginia prescribing the mode of conducting
elections in the present case. The contestant brought
no certificate from the Governor or from any election
board. He had not shown that a single legal vote had
been cast for him, although there were documents ex
hibiting the fact that Mr, Beach had declared his
candidacy and that ninety-five persons had cast their
votes for him. These documents were not attested to
in legal form. Mr. Upton, however, rested his claim
upon a poll of ten votes taken in Ball's Cross Road,
Alexandria County, and certified to by a justice of the
peace. This was of no more value, said Mr. Worcester,
than the other alleged poll. The committee had unani
mously agreed that Upton was not entitled to a seat in
the House.
Although some of the Representatives, fearing for
their own seats, opposed the committee's report, Mr.
Dawes bore down their objections by stating that
Upton had come there "without the certificate of the
Governor, without a certificate of an election board,
and without the certificate of any man touching his
right to his seat. He came here and induced the Clerk
of the House to put his name upon the hst of members.

IRREGUXAR CONGRESSIONAL ELECTIONS 283
He was sworn in without so much as a vote of the
House upon the question." The last word for the de
fense was the reply of Mr. Sedgwick, who brought out
the fact that none of the Virginia Representatives then
in Congress had been elected according to the laws of
the state. They had been admitted on the ground that
full compliance was impossible, and that at such a time
technicalities should be passed over. The chief point
of difference between the case of the Representatives
from western Virginia and that of Mr. Upton was that
the latter had received fewer votes. But no law could
be found anywhere prescribing the minimum number of
votes a candidate must receive. To this Mr. Dawes
retorted that the essential thing was not the number
of votes but how they had been cast. The crux of the
whole situation was that no legal election had taken
place or could take place under existing circumstances.
In this opinion the House concurred and the action of
the committee unseating Mr. Upton was sustained.1
Two similar contests took place in the third session
of the Thirty-seventh Congress when J. B. McCloud
and W. W. Wing appeared, claiming to have been
elected from the second congressional district of Vir
ginia. The election was conducted under the authority
of three proclamations, one by General Dix command
ing the department of Virginia, another by General
Vielie had permitted all males over twenty-one years
of age to vote regardless of residence. McCloud and
Wing, together with a Mr. McKenzie claiming a seat as
1 Congressional Globe, 37th Congress, Part II, p. 1010.

284 THE DISRUPTION OF VIRGINIA
representative from the seventh district of Virginia,
were refused seats in the House.1
It was unfortunate for the Federal Government that
such a confused situation existed in Virginia. The ac
tion of the loyal citizens in the west had to be sustained,
and yet it would not do openly to disregard the state
constitution. As far as possible the letter of the law
must be complied with, as it would be inconsistent on
the part of the central authorities to uphold any breach
of the organic law while engaged in a contest against
a portion of the United States which, according to the
theory, had violated the United States Constitution.
Trouble began when the rump legislature was recog
nized as the legislature of Virginia and the Senators it
elected were accepted. Congress was thus put under
the obligation of recognizing the Pierpoint govern
ment as the real and not the provisional government of
Virginia. While not admitting it, everyone knew that
the proceedings in West Virginia were justifiable only
on the ground of expediency and at any other time
would have been quickly disposed of. Reviewed to-day,
the arguments in support of the Wheeling government
sound singularly hollow and insincere, very much as
though they were brought out not for the purpose of
convincing the opposition but with the idea of making
an outward show of defense. Had the administration
pursued a straight course and erected a military gov
ernment in West Virginia, that section might never
have been able to set up a separate state, but the Fed-
" Congressional Globe, 37th Congress, Part II, p. 1037.

IRREGULAR CONGRESSIONAL ELECTIONS 285
eral Government could not now be accused of aiding and
abetting one section of a state in disregarding all con
stitutions and precedents in breaking away from that
state without its consent.

CHAPTER XVIII
THE WEST VIRGINIA BILL IN THE U. S. SENATE
May 29, 1862, Congress received its first official in
timation that West Virginia would apply for admis
sion into the Union. On that day Senator Willey
brought the matter to the attention of the Senate by
presenting a memorial from the so-called legislature of
Virginia, asking that its consent be given to the forma
tion of a new state within the boundaries of Virginia.1
The legislature not only gave its consent to the divi
sion of the state, but urged the Senators and Represen
tatives from Virginia to make every effort to over
come the opposition in Congress.2 Never before in our
history has the country witnessed the spectacle of a
state legislature petitioning Congress to agree to the
cutting up of the dominion for which it was supposed
to make laws.3 Another memorial presented purported
to come from the people of West Virginia. It recited
" Congressional Globe, 37th Congress, Part III, p. 2415.
"Laws of West Virginia 1861-66. Acts of the General Assem
bly passed at the extra session held May 6, 1862.
8 When the legislature passed the act giving its consent to the
erection of a new state, it organized itself into a committee to
arouse greater general interest in the matter. Representatives
from Braxton, Preston, Clay, Nicholas, and Morgan counties
pledged that their districts would give a unanimous vote for
the new state. — Wheeling Intelligencer, May 16, 1862.
286

WEST VIRGINIA BILL IN THE U. S. SENATE 287
the wrongs that West Virginia had endured for forty
years ; enlarged on the good effect which the admission
of West Virginia would have on the country as a whole ;
and declared finally that some "wolves in sheep's cloth
ing" had gotten into the convention and prevented the
passage of a free-state constitution. This was unfor
tunate, but unless Congress admitted West Virginia at
once there was grave danger that by the time the legis
lature reassembled there would be sufficient representa
tion from the eastern counties and the Valley to rescind
the former action consenting to division. The peti
tioners frankly admitted that the entire state outside
the immediate portion concerned was opposed to separa
tion, even in those districts where the Union feeling was
strong. As for the constitutional objections, Letcher
and the disloyal members of the assembly had abdicated
and the reorganizers had exercised their rights as the
sovereign people to form a government. While it was
true that the convention did not represent the whole
state, that was not the fault of the loyal people. All
were given an opportunity to respond. The question
of the right of one portion of a state to secede from
the rest did not arise. Congress simply had to decide
whether or not it would recognize and protect a loyal
community which needed protection.1
" Wheeling Intelligencer, May 30, 1862. This paper asked for
the admission of West Virginia, first, because it was a right
the people were entitled to from the natural situation of their
territory; second, a government was needed to develop the re
sources of the west; third, the two sections of the state could
not get along together; fourth, the west would receive even
worse treatment after the war if the state was not divided;

288 THE DISRUPTION OF VIRGINIA
Senator Willey in presenting the matter sketched the
course of events since the Richmond Convention. He
denounced the action of the Richmond leaders in not
waiting for the ratification of the ordinance of seces
sion before putting the state on a war footing, and
lauded the zeal of the western Virginians in refusing to
go out of the Union. His remark that the delegates to
the May convention were risking their hves in sitting
in the Wheeling assembly was rather disingenuous, since
Wheeling was in entire control of the Union men.
Willey's attempt to make heroes out of the delegates
was a bold misrepresentation of facts, for none knew
any better than Willey that any danger which threat
ened the members came from within their body and not
from without. The speaker entered into an explana
tion of the actions of the restored government, quoting
Governor Pierpoint to the effect that they had made
only one change in the state constitution.1 The Senate
was told that the government organized by the June
convention was for the whole state of Virginia and as
such was recognized by the Federal authorities. In
August an adjourned session of the convention passed
fifth, it would be saddled with a. war debt; sixth, "because we
have complied with all the formalities required by the Consti
tution of the United States."
"Willey did not think it necessary to explain that this one
change which had been so blithely made was that of reducing
the number of members in the General Assembly necessary to
constitute a quorum. This was the only change needed in order.
to give a show of legality to the actions of the legislature. If
the constitution could be changed in this one particular, it could
be just as easily altered in any way the Wheeling government
saw fit.

WEST VIRGINIA BILL IN THE U. S. SENATE 289
an ordinance, providing for the formation of a new
state and the submission of the question to the voters.
The latter had given their consent almost unanimously ;
the legislature was persuaded to agree to the division
of the state; the constitution had been drawn up, and
the question was now before Congress. Mr. Willey
gave an exhaustive list of reasons why the two sections
of Virginia could never live in harmony, but when he
declared that the passage of the West Virginia bill
through Congress would "send a thrill of joy through
300,000 hearts" he was making a statement which he
knew to be absolutely false.
Upon request of Mr. Sumner the question of the
admission of West Virginia was referred to the Terri
torial Committee, of which Mr. Wade of Ohio was
chairman. On June 23rd the bill was reported and
advanced to a second reading. Three days later it was
read a second time and taken up in Committee of the
Whole.1 An analysis of the Senate bill shows that
some one had taken advantage of the committee's un-
familiarity with the situation in West Virginia, for not
only were the forty-eight counties included, as had been
provided for in the original act of the legislature, but
there were added the counties of Berkeley, Jefferson,
Clark, Warren, Frederick, Page, Shenandoah, Rock
ingham, Augusta, Highland, Bath, Rockbridge, Bote
tourt, Craig, and Alleghany. The reported bill in
cluded a provision that after the fourth day of July,
'Congressional Globe, 37th Congress, 2nd session, Part IV,
p. 2942.

290 THE DISRUPTION OF VIRGINIA
1863, children born of slaves were to be free. The vari
ous counties were to elect representatives to a consti
tutional convention, which should not have the power to
change the boundaries of the state as outlined in the
Senate bill. It has been asserted that the purpose of
the restrictions placed upon the framers of the consti
tution was to insure its rejection by the people,1 but
judging from the poll taken on the first constitution it
seems almost certain that at the time any constitution
would have been declared adopted. It is beyond ques
tion that the people of the Valley counties would have
refused to take any part in the matter, even if they
had been permitted to do so. John S. Carhle is pre
sumed to have been the author of the first Senate bill.2
His pubhc career since the May convention had been
full of surprises. Elected to the United States Senate
as the ablest Union man in the section, he first exhibited
a change of heart in the August session of the conven
tion, although at that time he had been opposed to the
inclusion of the Valley counties.3 Now he proposed
taking in more than the most ardent large-state advo
cates had dreamed of. In view of his former actions in
support of the new state, it is not easy to beheve that
Carlile was designing to prevent the passage of the
bill in the Senate; but what other conclusion can be
arrived at when the facts of the case are presented? In
'Granville Hall, "The Rending of Virginia," p. 460.
" Carlile was a member of the Committee on Territories.
3 He had been opposed even to the admittance of the eastern
Panhandle counties on the ground that they held too many
slaves.

WEST VIRGINIA BILL IN THE U. S. SENATE 291
a speech at Wheeling some time later he declared that
he would have voted for the original bill had it not been
for the abolition provision, to which he had always
been opposed.1 But if this were true, why did his own
bill in the Senate committee contain an emancipation
clause? Senator Sumner, after the bill had been read, at once
served notice that he would fight the measure so long
as it did not contain a clause abolishing slavery at some
time in the near future. He then made a motion to
insert a clause by which slavery was to be abolished
altogether after July 4, 1863. Mr. Hale remarked
that it would be a singular thing if the Senate, after
admitting many states whose constitutions made slavery
perpetual, should decline to admit the first state which
had provided for the ultimate extinction of slavery.
Mr. Willey declared that the Senator from Massachu
setts was not familiar with the situation in West Vir
ginia. The 8,000 slaves were mainly house servants,
who would be the very ones to suffer by immediate eman
cipation. The speaker now revealed the fact that he
had not been consulted when the West Virginia bill was
being drawn up, for he expressed surprise that the fif
teen counties of the Valley were to be taken in, after
a convention of the people of West Virginia had de
clared that the Alleghanies should constitute the divid
ing line. The new counties contained 140,409 white
"The Intelligencer, which reported Carlile's speech in defense
of his action, said: "No man ever seemed more conscious of the
bad part which he had played."

292 THE DISRUPTION OF VIRGINIA
inhabitants and 31,937 slaves. The former were a unit
against the new state and the latter would only add to
its difficulties. To unite the Trans-Alleghany with the
Valley would be like tying two cats by the tail. They
would be forever fighting each other. Mr. Wade ad
mitted that the bill was open to much criticism, but
averred that it had not been approved by the commit
tee; it would serve their purpose of bringing up some
thing which could be used as the basis of discussion.
He objected to the emancipation clause as it stood, be
cause it would make free a person born one day after
July 4, 1863, and make slave one born the day before.
A graduated system of emancipation was, in his opin
ion, far better. The present bill should not be passed,
but the Senate would do wrong in imposing severe and
unprecedented conditions upon the proposed new state.
Further consideration was postponed until July 7th,
when Willey attempted to have the Senate defer all
prior orders and take up the bill. He declared that the
state stood "with her heart bleeding; with all her in
dustrial and commercial interests prostrate," and that
unless some rehef were given the Union men must take
their families and find homes in the west. The Senate
refused to believe that West Virginia was bleed
ing to death, and Mr. Willey's appeal went un
heeded. July 14th Mr. Wade persuaded his colleagues to
take up the West Virginia bill again. Recurring to Mr.
Sumner's amendment, the yeas and nays were ordered,
with the result that the amendment was rejected by a

WEST VIRGINIA BILL IN THE U. S. SENATE 293
vote of eleven to twenty-four.1 The debate now cen
tered around Mr. Wade's proposal that not only should
slave children born after July 4, 1863, be free, but that
all slaves under twenty-one at the time aforesaid should
be free when they reached twenty-one years of age. Mr.
Willey urged with some show of reason that the chief
effect of such a clause would be the transference of all
slaves under twenty-one to the far south. Slaveholders
would not stand idly by and permit their property to be
taken away by process of law when they could prevent
it. Moreover, the Secessionists in the state would use
the abolition clause as a means to prevent the ratifica
tion of the constitution, which could only mean that the
new state would never be formed. Carlile gave unmis
takable evidence of his opposition to the proposed bill
by proposing an amendment, whereby the ordinance to
be effective must be ratified by a vote of the majority of
the voters of West Virginia. Mr. Willey at once at
tacked the suggestion as one calculated to destroy all
hope of forming a new state, since under the circum
stances it would be impossible to get out anything like
a full vote. Carlile answered that all he desired was
the assurance that the people of West Virginia really
did wish to break away from the old state. So far there
had been no vote to indicate that such was their pref
erence.2 A majority of the voting population within
'Congressional Globe, 37th Congress, 2nd session, Part IV,
p. 3308.
'Carlile had no doubt of the feeling of the people when he
was a member of the Wheeling conventions. No one was louder
in his assertion that the people of the state were eager for
separation.

294 THE DISRUPTION OF VIRGINIA
the boundaries of West Virginia had never assented di
rectly to any proposition put up to them so far. The
erection of imaginary lines between the sections of Vir
ginia would serve no purpose in itself. Replying to Mr.
Pomeroy, who remarked that Carlile's evident purpose
was to put off the measure until another session and
added that if the people of West Virginia did not send
Senators favorable to it they could not expect to have
the bill passed, Carlile returned that they would lose
no time, since the new state could not be admitted be
fore the following January and Congress would meet
in December. If by that time the people of West Vir
ginia had drawn up a new constitution more in accord
with the ideas of the Senate, why could not the measure
be acted upon and the state admitted? No time need
be lost. In a moment of candor Carlile informed his
colleagues that eleven of the counties west of the Alle
ghanies had never been represented in any of the Wheel
ing conventions or in the reorganized legislature.
Three other counties had sent but one man ; so it could
truly be said that at least one third of the proposed
new state had expressed no desire to leave Virginia.
Carhle was asked if he meant to assert that the con
vention did not represent the whole people of West
Virginia. To this he replied that, while the chaotic
condition of some of the counties has something to do
with the light vote cast, even in the counties free from
rebel troops little interest had been taken in any of the
elections. Mr. Wade expressed his surprise that these things

WEST VIRGINIA BILL IN THE U. S. SENATE 295
were not brought out by Carlile in committee. For
the first time the Senate was being told that the Wheel
ing Convention did not represent the people of West
Virginia. Mr. Willey now offered as an amendment the bill
introduced into the House by Mr. Brown, containing
the original gradual emancipation clause and providing
that no slaves should be brought into the state for per
manent residence. Mr. Lane moved an amendment to
the amendment that all slaves under ten years of age
on the 4th day of July, 1863 should be free on reaching
the age of twenty-one years, and all between the ages
of ten and twenty-one should be free when they became
twenty-five years old. Both amendments were ac
cepted.1 Senator Trumbull, who had consistently op
posed the whole proposition, now recapitulated the
case of the opposition. The general government had
need of the present organization calling itself the gov
ernment of Virginia, which state, if it was further re
claimed, would need the provisional government of
Wheeling. Again, there was no getting away from the
fact that a state was being admitted in which slavery
would exist for several generations. The formation of
a new state would be of no assistance to the loyal citi
zens of West Virginia, since their arms could not there
by be made more effective against the rebels. Internal
war would not cease necessarily after the admission of
'Congressional Globe, 37th Congress, 2nd session, Part IV,
p. 3316.
Carlile and Willey both voted in the negative.

296 THE DISRUPTION OF VIRGINIA
West Virginia to statehood. "When this war shall
have subsided and we shall have a settlement of the
controversies which are now pending, who can tell the
embarrassments that will arise out of our having divided
Virginia at this time? It will be too late then to put
Virginia together again. The Constitution of the
United States makes provision for dividing the state;
it makes no provision for uniting two states into one." 2
Trumbull then moved that action on the bill be deferred
until the first Monday in December. While the vote
was being taken Carhle and Willey engaged in a wordy
battle, the latter accusing his colleague of having be
trayed the people of West Virginia. Mr. Wade came
to Willey's assistance and made some illuminating
statements regarding the part which Carlile had taken
in framing the original bill.
"He, of all the men in the committee, is the man who
penned these bills and drew them up. He is the man
who has investigated all the precedents to see how far
you could go in this direction. It was to his lucid mind
that we were indebted for the fact that there were no
legal or constitutional barriers in the way of this prop
osition. . . . He is the gentleman who impressed his
opinions upon the committee as strongly as anybody
else, and what change has come over the spirit of his
dream I know not. His conversion is greater than that
of St. Paul's. . . . Why did he persuade us that there
was scarcely a dissenting vote in all that part of Vir
ginia, if now he has discovered that he was wrong?"
1 Congressional Globe, 37th Congress, Part IV, p. 3318.

WEST VIRGINIA BILL IN THE U. S. SENATE 297
The speaker urged the passage of the bill at once,
because there was no good reason why action should be
deferred. Trumbull's motion to postpone was defeated ;
the bill was ordered to be engrossed for the third read
ing and was then passed by a vote of twenty-three to
seventeen.1 In the House Mr. Brown stood sponsor for the West
Virginia bill. On June 25, 1862, he introduced the bill,
which was read a first and a second time and referred to
the Committee on Territories. The committee made its
report July 16th. Upon motion of Mr. Conkling, con
sideration was postponed until the second Tuesday in
December.2 The West Virginia question possesses many interest
ing and surprising features. In reviewing the course
of events one cannot but be struck by the fact that it
was the unexpected which generally turned up. No
one would have predicted in May, 1861, that John S.
Carlile, the real leader in the reorganized government
and the first man to propose the division of the state,
would be branded as a Judas Iscariot in 1862. Like
wise, no one expected to see Waitman T. Willey, known
in the early part of 1861 as a pro-slavery man and
thoroughly out of sympathy with the Wheeling gov-
1 Those recorded in the negative are Trumbull, Chandler, Mc
Dougall, Sumner, Wilson, King, Cowan, Bayard, Saulsbury,
Carlile, Powell, Davis, Wright, and Browning.
"Speeches of Mr. Whalley and Mr. Blair delivered at this
time will be found in the Globe, 37th Congress, 2nd session, Part
IV, p. 3269, and p. 327 of the Appendix.

298 THE DISRUPTION OF VIRGINIA
ernment, take up the burden thrown off by Carlile and
battle with all his might for a cause toward which he
had formerly exhibited entire indifference.1 Carlile's
most clever apologist could scarcely make out a good
case for him, although he cannot be condemned solely
on the ground that he changed his opinion. Much had
occurred in the year following the May convention.
Careful and impartial observers of the situation knew
that men with strong Union principles were hard to
find in any place in the state. Enlistments in the Union
army were provokingly slow and it was only through
the assistance of men from Ohio and Pennsylvania that
the state was able to furnish anything like her quota of
troops.2 All newspaper correspondents testified to the
unmistakable hostility of the western Virginians and
some advised that the section be left to shift for it
self.3 It has been stated that in no election was
there more than a small minority of votes cast. The
feeling became general that this was a bad augury for
1 In the fall of 1861 Mr. Willey had openly expressed his doubt
as to the constitutionality of any bill designed to form a new
state in Virginia. His support of the project was so luke
warm that he was openly accused of working against it. —
Wheeling Intelligencer, Oct. 14, 1861.
'Mr. M. Dent of Morgantown declared that he had been told
by Colonel Evans of the 7th Virginia regiment that there were
not over 1,000 Virginians in the whole Union army.
The Wheeling Intelligencer, on Sept. 6, 1861, printed a letter
signed "Western Virginian," asserting that most of the men
protecting West Virginia were from Ohio and Indiana. "Of
the tens of thousands of able-bodied young and middle-aged
men, how many have responded to the call?"
* The Cincinnati papers were especially severe upon West Vir
ginia, probably because they were in such close touch with the
situation and saw so clearly that the people had no desire to
take part in the struggle.

WEST VIRGINIA BILL IN THE U. S. SENATE 299
the new government. As time went on and new matters
presented themselves for consideration by the elector
ate, the apathy became dense. In special elections the
returns invariably showed that the voters were deliber
ately staying away from the polls. The greatest num
ber of votes cast was in the election for state officers
which occurred May 23, 1862, when 14,824 persons
were reported to have taken part in the election.1
Mass meetings held for the purpose of nominating dele
gates to the various conventions were attended so
poorly that in many instances they adjourned without
taking any action.2
If Carlile had been influenced by his observation of
these facts, and had honestly come to believe that there
was no demand for the division of the state outside of
a small group of interested men, his action opposing
the West Virginia bill might be defended. But the
underhand methods to which he resorted in order to
defeat the plan cannot be justified. He deliberately
chose to pursue a tortuous policy: posed as a friend
of the new state while covertly doing his best to check
the movement by veiled insinuations. The Wheeling
authorities were amazed at Carlile's transformation.
He had been counted on to put the measure through
Congress, as Willey was known to be only lukewarm in
his advocacy of the plan. When the first bill was re
ported in the Senate and it became evident that Carlile
"Wheeling Intelligencer, May 24, 1862. Braxton cast forty-
one votes; Clay, twenty-seven; Roane, seventy-nine; Randolph,
seventy-eight, etc.
'This was true even in Ohio County.

300 THE DISRUPTION OF VIRGINIA
had betrayed the state, the indignation of the Wheel
ing leaders knew no bounds. The "General Assembly" x
passed a resolution denouncing in the severest terms
Carlile's traitorous actions and calling upon him to
resign his seat in the Senate. He was accused further
of having opposed measures designed to preserve the
Union and to suppress the rebellion.2 Northern news
papers spared no epithets in describing Carlile's
conduct. His "sudden somersault" was explained, said
one, by the fact that he had been associating with the
Vallandinghammers.3 In the summer of 1862 Willey
made an expose of the methods Carlile had used to de
feat the West Virginia bill.4 As a member of the Com
mittee on Territories, Carlile had succeeded in prevent
ing a report being made until nearly the end of the ses
sion. At that time Mr. Willey went to Mr. Wade, the
chairman, and asked him how such a bill had ever come
out of the committee. The latter replied that Carlile had
assumed charge of the whole affair and the other mem
bers, not being familiar wdth the situation, had been
content to allow the one informed person to make up
his own bill. Upon this, said Mr. Willey, a meeting of
the West Virginia representatives, together with Pier
point, Porter, and others, was held and it was agreed
" This body was composed of thirty members. Governor Pier
point in his message made a general attack upon slavery with
the result that the Assembly refused to have the message printed.
" Carlile had joined the border-state Senators in opposing
Lincoln's policies. He pronounced the confiscation bill uncon
stitutional; opposed the bill drafting volunteers, etc.
8 Cincinnati Times, Feb. 8, 1862.
« Morgantown Star, July 29, 1862.

WEST VIRGINIA BILL IN THE U. S. SENATE 301
that they should oppose any bill which aimed at taking
in the Valley counties. The fact stood out as clear
as the light of day that Carlile was alone responsible
for whatever check the new-state bill had received.
There the matter has rested. The present genera
tion of West Virginians know little of Carlile. If they
have heard of him at all, it is as the man who almost
succeeded in preventing their state from being formed
when he was expected to play the most prominent part
in having it made one of the states of the Union.

CHAPTER XIX
WEST VIRGINIA THE THIRTY-SIXTH STATE IN THE UNION
Congress adjourned July 17, 1862. The debates in
the Senate on the West Virginia question had aroused
much interest in the subject throughout the North.
The press and people were divided along partisan lines,
the anti-administration papers lining up solidly against
the bill. A New York financial paper detected a dispo
sition on the part of Congress to legislate from impulse
rather than from a deep conviction founded upon close
study. "If members of Congress examine their own
hearts, can they not detect a lurking desire to punish
the Old Dominion for her infidelity by stripping her of
those outlying possessions which she abandoned to
neglect? . . . We would be loth to see the principle
established that because the constituted authorities of
a state may have acted criminally, therefore the state
itself may be cut into shreds and patches." x Abolition
papers agreed with Senator Sumner that West Virginia
was desirable only as a free state.2 If slavery had such
an extraordinary hold upon the people that they would
not consent to its abolition, then the North would be
"The Commercial Advertiser, July 20, 1862.
'National Republican, Aug. 2, 1862.
302

WEST VIRGINIA THE THIRTY-SIXTH STATE 303
justified in rejecting their petition, especially as the
legality of the procedure was questionable.1 Some were
unable to see any good at all that could be brought
about by the admission of West Virginia, even with
an abolition constitution.2
As a rule, however, newspapers throughout the North
were favorable to the West Virginia bill. Many of them
had opposed the measure in 1861, but had changed their
tone and now gave it hearty support.3 It was the gen
eral feeling that the hands of the Federal Government
should be strengthened as much as possible, and the
rather vague idea prevailed that the Union cause would
be aided if West Virginia was admitted. Constitutional
objections were now lost sight of in the greater ques
tion of expediency.4 The New York World declared
that the people of West Virginia deserved some reward
for their heroic defense of the Union. The Tribune was
in favor of admission, even though the constitution of
the new state was silent on the slavery question, while
the Post made its support of the bill contingent upon
the passage of a gradual emancipation clause. The
Times was inchned to be non-committal, but feared that
innocent holders of Virginia bonds would suffer if the
state were divided. The Washington Chronicle ex-
1 Pittsburgh Gazette, Aug. 22nd.
'The Anti^Slavery Standard, Aug. 10th.
"This was especially true of the papers of New York City.
•The Philadelphia Press at first warned the people of West
Virginia that Congress would not recognize secession by listen
ing to their petitions for admission. In June, 1862, this journal
had come around to the other side and now declared that it
could not see a single objection to the act of admission.

304 THE DISRUPTION OF VIRGINIA
pressed its inability to perceive any good reason why
Congress should refuse admission. The whole ques
tion simply was whether Congress would recognize and
protect a certain loyal community which needed its
protection. The Cincinnati Commercial agreed with
this, and added that no attention should be paid to
those who held out for immediate emancipation. The
Utica Herald said : "The consent of the legislature of
eastern Virginia has not been secured, but they are
traitors and their consent may be dispensed with. The
consent of the people of the east, however, is vitally
necessary. Many of them are loyahsts and it is not
just to cut up the state while they are tied hand and
foot to the rebellion."
The New York Tribune took upon itself the difficult
task of showing why the admission of West Virginia
was constitutional. There were two rival hypotheses:
first, that which regarded the insurgent states as having
committed suicide by their treason and being now
merely Federal territory subject to reorganization and
readmission; second, that which regarded the states
as still existing in the persons and acts of the loyal
citizens. The Democrats in the North held the sec
ond view, but now that the administration was acting
in accordance with it they changed their opinion. The
West Virginia which forms the new state, said the
Tribune, was totally distinct from the old Virginia that
assented to it, though it happened that most of the
members of the legislature were chosen from the coun
ties which formed the new state of West Virginia. The

WEST VIRGINIA THE THIRTY-SIXTH STATE 305
National Intelligencer took the opposite view and
claimed that the act of admission would be a violation
both of the United States Constitution and the state
constitution. It would have to be consummated on the
assumption that the secession of Virginia was an accom
plished fact, so far as it regarded that portion of the
state which was in rebellion against the Federal Govern
ment. The Wheeling Intelligencer criticized its north
ern contemporaries for not familiarizing themselves
with the local situation. One half did not know that the
question of separation was submitted to all the people
of Virginia, and about the same proportion were under
the impression that the legislature which gave its con
sent to the formation of the new state did not represent
the whole state of Virginia. The Intelligencer far over
shot the mark in its zeal for the new state. For it to
assert that the people of Virginia approved the divi
sion of the new state was a palpable falsehood, the chief
effect of which was to mislead outside observers of the
situation.

Tuesday, December 9, 1862, the House of Repre
sentatives took up the consideration of the Senate bill
providing for the admission of West Virginia into the
Union. Mr. Conway of Kansas made the first speech
in opposition, urging that while West Virginia deserved
all the good fortune that could come to it, its admission
involved too many moot questions of constitutionality.
All depended upon the consent of the Virginia legis-

306 THE DISRUPTION OF VIRGINIA
lature, and while a liberal construction of the United
States Constitution was necessary sometimes, it was
not possible to stretch that document far enough to
cover the case before them. The Pierpoint government
was put in operation without any legal sanction other
than its recognition by the President and the Senate.
This was not binding upon the House. The Wheeling
government assumed authority on the ground that the
treason of the regular state officials left vacancies.
These they had filled. All this was unsatisfactory, said
Mr. Conway, because a state could commit no treason
and because the Pierpoint clique had no right to arro
gate to themselves the vacant offices. The real impor
tance of the situation lay in the fact that the Federal
authorities might soon be called upon to take some
action in eleven states whose position was hke that of
Virginia. A policy designed to put all the authority
of a state in the hands of a few individuals calhng
themselves the loyal citizens of the state was a wrong
one. Its effect would be to consolidate all the powers
of the government in the hands of the Executive. If
the West Virginia bill passed, four Senators would be
created and the President could be sure of the electoral
votes of Virginia and West Virginia. Thus he could
build up a political machine of unparalleled strength.
As for the constitutional points at issue, Virginia was
either out of the Union and to be regarded as a foreign
state, or else she was still a member of the Union and
to be respected as such. The latter view now prevailed.
A state could not commit treason, since treason was a

WEST VIRGINIA THE THIRTY-SIXTH STATE 307
crime and only individuals could commit crimes. If
the whole personnel of the state abandon its functions,
it becomes United States territory subject only to
Federal authority. The regularly elected officers of
Virginia had vacated their positions by virtue of their
treason, but no man or set of men could legally take
up these offices without being chosen according to law.1
Mr. Brown, one of the authors of the bill, assailed
vigorously Conway's4 arguments. He defended the
legitimacy of the Wheeling government, but touched
lightly upon the constitutional principles involved.
Not only had the President and the Senate recognized
the Wheeling government, but the Attorney General
of the United States had made a formal decision de
claring that the Wheeling authorities had lawfully as
sumed the power surrendered by Letcher and the other
eastern Virginia officials.2 Since the legislative powers
of the people could not be annihilated, the treason of
the Richmond conspirators had simply caused such
powers to revert back to the people. The Wheeling
conventions were organized upon the principle that the
people could assume their original rights when it be-
1 Congressional Globe, 37th Congress, 3rd session, Part I, pp.
37-8. 'The case referred to was one involving the question of the
distribution from the sale of public lands. Virginia had pre
viously refused to accept her share. The Wheeling government,
being in sore need of money, applied to the Federal authorities
for the $40,000 due the state. The matter was referred to
Attorney General Bates, who decided that the loyal legislature
of Virginia had the right to make such a request. The money
was turned over to the Wheeling government. — "Laws of West
Virginia," Acts of the General Assembly; Joint Res. No. 2.

308 THE DISRUPTION OF VIRGINIA
came necessary to do so. The legislature which gave
its consent to the division of the state was composed
of the only loyal representatives of the state. The
counties included in the bill contained about 24,000
square miles and had a population of nearly 330,000.
Virginia had never been a united state and never could
be, because of geographical reasons. The hatred be
tween the sections had been greatly intensified by the
war. At the time the first Wheeling convention was in
session Southern troops were only fifty or sixty miles
away, marching with all possible speed to disperse the
gathering.1 The proposed new state had raised six
teen regiments for the Union army, more than her
quota. In his own county, said Mr. Brown, nearly
every fighting man was in the army.2
It was fortunate for West Virginia that its fate did
not depend upon the efforts of its representatives in
the House. The case was weak enough to begin with,
but the crude attempts of Mr. Brown and his colleagues
to justify their position would have been laughable had
the Representatives really understood the situation.
Opposition in the House was more determined than
it had been in the Senate, in spite of the fact that the
measure was free from the slavery features of the first
bill. The case for the new state was best brought out
"Where Mr. Brown got his authority for this statement we do
not know. No organized body of Confederates ever approached
nearer to Wheeling than Grafton, 100 miles away, and their
number was too small to contemplate a march on Wheeling.
" Kanawha was one of the strongest Secessionist counties in
the state, so Brown's reference must have been to the Southern
army.

WEST VIRGINIA THE THIRTY-SIXTH STATE 309
by Mr. Colfax, of Indiana, whose reasons for support
ing the act were the most logical that could have been
given : First, the Wheeling government had been recog
nized by the President,1 by the Senate,2 by the Secre
tary of the Treasury,3 by the Secretary of War,4 by
the Secretary of the Interior,5 and by the House of
Representatives ; e secondly, the expediency of the act
was beyond question ; thirdly, the bill was drawn up to
include the erection of a state out of loyal counties
only. Mr. Olin, of New York, declared his intention of
voting for the bill, but would do so mainly because the
Executive Department had given the West Virginians
reason to believe that their requests would meet with
the approval of all departments of the government.
"But," said he, "I confess I do not fully understand
upon what principles of constitutional law this measure
can be justified. It cannot be done, I fear, at all. It
can be justified only as a measure of policy and of
necessity." The speaker ridiculed the idea that either
the spirit or the letter of the law had been complied
with. Mr. Crittenden of Kentucky was even more im
pressed by the constitutional obstacles in the way of
the division of Virginia at that time. All knew that
"In dealing directly with the Wheeling authorities.
'By admitting Carlile and Willey.
¦By paying over the $40,000 due Virginia from the sale of
public lands. . .
1 By communicating with Pierpoint as the Governor of Virginia.
6 By recognizing Pierpoint.
"By admitting Mr. Segar, who was elected under a proclama
tion issued by Pierpoint. Segar had presented himself a second
time for admission and had been accepted. See pp. 278-84.

310 THE DISRUPTION OF VIRGINIA
Virginia was in a state of rebellion, but was still a
member of the Union. When she was fully restored
to her original position, her first demand would be that
the sections so illegally taken from her should be given
back. She would say: "I gave no consent, and there
is the Constitution which says that without my consent
you shall not do what you have done, and now you
cannot deprive me of my rights by any such unconstitu
tional course of procedure." No one really believed
that the government at Wheeling was the government
of Virginia. This might be inferred from the fact that
the body which drew up the petition for admission was
the same body which gave its consent as the Virginia
legislature. "It is the party applying for admission
consenting to the admission."
Mr. Dawes, of Massachusetts, exhibited not merely
a knowledge of the legal questions involved, but also
a most disconcerting familiarity with some of the
points not enlarged upon by the friends of the new
state. He showed that the first Wheeling convention
was deterred from taking steps toward separation from
Virginia only by the suggestion of some unknown per
sons in Washington, that the act could better be accom
plished by first setting up a reorganized government.1
The speaker stated most emphatically that no person
residing in any portion of the state but the part con
templating separation had given his consent to the act.
"The western Virginia Representatives in Congress had always
claimed that the only purpose for which this convention was
called was the reestablishment of the government of Virginia.

WEST VIRGINIA THE THIRTY-SIXTH STATE 311
Two or three representatives had been "picked up" in
various counties of the east, but they did not claim to
represent their counties officially. "It is trifling with
the spirit of the constitution to say that any portion
of the state of Virginia which is left has consented in
any way, in any form and substance to the dismember
ment of the state." As for the invitation sent out to
all the counties to join in the movement, it was like
commanding a man bound hand and foot in prison to
come forth.
Mr. Stevens, of Pennsylvania, said he would vote for
the bill, while knowing it to be unconstitutional. No
provision could be found to justify it on constitutional
grounds. It was mockery to say that the Virginia legis
lature had ever consented to the division of the state.
The body which met in Richmond was still the legisla
ture of Virginia, although disloyal and traitorous. The
state as a state was bound by its act, but not the in
dividuals who were responsible to the general govern
ment. "I say then that we may admit West Virginia
as a new state, not by virtue of any provision of the
Constitution but under our absolute power which the
laws of war give us. I shall vote for this bill upon that
theory and upon that alone, for I will not stultify my
self by supposing that we have any warrant in the
Constitution for this proceeding."
Mr. Noell, of Missouri, who also announced his in
tention of voting for the bill while doubting its con
stitutionality, asserted that they were living in revolu
tionary times, when they could not afford to split hairs

312 THE DISRUPTION OF VIRGINIA
on technical questions. Mr. Segar undertook to show
that the bill should not be passed even if it was con
stitutional. The new-state proposition did not derive
its power from the people of Virginia, not even from
the people of the section of the state directly concerned.
The consent of the West Virginians had never been ob
tained. There were 55,400 people in the eleven south
ern counties who had never indicated their desire to
join in the movement, and 27,509 citizens of three other
counties had had practically no representation at any
of the Wheeling meetings. Ten counties with a popu
lation of 50,000 did not cast a vote either on the ques
tion of dividing the state or on the new constitution.
Three counties at least — Greenbrier, Mercer, and Mon
roe — were connected with eastern Virginia by every pos
sible tie. It was wrong to force the people of these
counties to transfer their allegiance to a government
in which they had no interest and in whose formation
they had no part. The passage of the bill, finally,
would turn adrift the reclaimed portions of Virginia
not included in the new state and would render more
difficult the reconstruction of Virginia.
Mr. Bingham, of Ohio, as the chief supporter of the
bill closed the debate with a long speech in which he
attempted to answer every objection that had been
raised. To the theory that West Virginia was a terri
tory and could not be admitted because there had been
no enabling act passed by Congress, he replied that
such an act had not been necessary when Michigan
was admitted and was not necessary now. The neglect

WEST VIRGINIA THE THIRTY-SIXTH STATE 313
or the refusal of a maj ority of the qualified voters to
go to the polls had no effect upon the election. While
it was undoubtedly true that the majority in any state
constituted the state, yet this majority must be com
posed of loyal citizens. The loyal minority of Vir
ginia were the state and had the right to administer
the laws and maintain the state government. Those
members of the Virginia Assembly who subscribed to
the act of secession thereby disqualified themselves from
serving as Senators or Representatives. Only those
who took the oath to support the Constitution of the
United States were ever members of any legislature
of any state in the United States.
The remainder of Mr. Bingham's address was a
summary of the ground already covered by previous
speakers on the same side. His closing words are
significant. Referring to the emancipation policy of
the President, he urged that the final recognition of
the Wheeling government would give an impetus to
anti-slavery :
"Declare that the legislature of the state and then
upon that hypothesis admit the state; and of course
once admitted its own legislative assembly will be be
yond question; and when the new legislature under the
new state of Virginia shall accept the President's prop
osition ... all doubters about the constitutionality
of the act will be silent; and, whether silent or not,
there will stand the record of the majority of this
House to give validity to their act and from which there
can be no appeal." x
1 Congressional Globe, 37th Congress, 4th session, Part I, p. 59.

314 THE DISRUPTION OF VIRGINIA
On December 10, 1862, the bill was passed by a
strictly party vote of ninety-six to fifty-five.1 The
final responsibility was now thrown upon President
Lincoln, whose sympathies were well known to be with
the new state. He realized, nevertheless, that grave
constitutional questions were involved, and that a
precedent might be established which was calculated at
some future time to embarrass the Government. So
an expedient was decided upon which was intended to
show that his mind was open to conviction. On De
cember 23 he addressed a letter to the Cabinet which
ran as follows: "A bill for an act entitled 'An Act
for the Admission of the State of West Virginia into
the Union and for other purposes' has passed the House
of Representatives and the Senate and has been duly
presented to me for my action. I respectfuUy ask of
each of you an opinion in writing on the following
questions, to-wit: First, Is the said act constitutional?
Second, Is the said act expedient?" 2
Six of the Cabinet members replied to Lincoln's re
quest 3 and their opinions were equally divided. Seward,
Chase, and Stanton answered both questions in the
affirmative, while Welles, Blair, and Bates replied in
" Gideon Welles makes the following comment in his diary:
"The House has voted to create and admit western Virginia as
a state. This is not the time to divide the old Commonwealth.
The requirements of the Constitution are not complied with, as
they in good faith should be, by Virginia, by the proposed new
state, or by the United States," p. 188.
' Nicolay and Hay, "Abraham Lincoln," Vol. VI, p. 300.
8 Caleb B. Smith, Secretary of the Interior, had just retired
from the Cabinet and his successor had not yet been appointed.

WEST VIRGINIA THE THIRTY-SIXTH STATE 315
the negative. Attorney General Bates declared that
the measure was both unconstitutional and inexpedient.
Congress could admit new states but could not form
new states. A free American state could be made only
by its component members — the people. The state must
exist as a separate independent body before admission.
In the case of West Virginia the legislature of the
whole state had not given its consent as required by
the Constitution and furthermore the consent of both
legislatures was necessary. No one claimed that there
was any legislature of West Virginia to give its con
sent. The reorganized government owed its origin to
necessity, not to law, and was clearly a revolutionary
proceeding justified by the exigencies of the situation.
It was a provisional government, whose object was not
to divide but to restore the state. Coming to the more
practical side of the question, Mr. Bates asserted that
the restored government never represented more than
one fourth of the people of Virginia. The act of con
sent was less in the nature of a law than of a contract.
It was a grant of power, an agreement to be divided.
In the present instance the representatives of the coun
ties included in the bill made an agreement with them
selves. "Is that fair dealing?" asked Mr. Bates. "Is
that honest legislation? Is that a legitimate exercise
of a constitutional power by the legislature of Vir
ginia? It seems to me . . . that that is nothing less
than attempted secession, hardly covered under the
flimsy forms of law." x
" Opinions of Attorney Generals of the United States," Vol. 10,

316 THE DISRUPTION OF VIRGINIA
Mr. Seward upheld the constitutionality of the act
on the ground that the United States does not recog
nize secession and since Virginia must be deemed as
existing in the Union, the loyal portion must be the
government of Virginia. "If the United States allow
to that organization any of these rights, powers, and
privileges it must be allowed to possess and enjoy them
all. If it be a state competent to be represented in
Congress and bound to pay taxes, it is a state com
petent to give the required consent of the state to the
formation and erection of the new state of West Vir
ginia within the jurisdiction of Virginia." The act
was expedient, said Mr. Seward, first, because it would
serve to give the people of West Virginia better pro
tection, and, second, because the United States Gov
ernment would derive much benefit thereby.1
Mr. Chase, Secretary of the Treasury, agreed with
Seward in every particular. Mr. Stanton dismissed
the whole question with a few words. He could not per
ceive that the act was in conflict with the Constitution
of the United States, and the admission of the new
state would establish a new boundary between the free
and the slave states. Mr. Welles argued that the new
organization in Virginia lacked all the symbols of a
state — records, traditions, capitol, etc. It did not
assume any of the debts and liabilities of the old state
and acted in all respects like a mere provisional govern-
p. 426. The fact that Mr. Bates was a native of Virginia may
have been responsible for his feeling on the subject.
"Nicolay and Hay, "Abraham Lincoln," Vol. VI, p. 301.

WEST VIRGINIA THE THIRTY-SIXTH STATE 317
ment. Now it proposed to detach itself from the east
ern section, something which could not be done in a
regular, legal manner conformable to the letter and
spirit of the Constitution. Even though the act had
been constitutional it would be inexpedient at such a
period of civil commotion. Postmaster General Blair,
in recording himself as opposed to the bill, stressed the
point that the actual consent of the old state had never
been given. Moreover, it was injurious to cut off the
loyal people of Virginia in the counties not included
in the Act, especially as their number far exceeded the
20,000 West Virginians who had consented to the sepa
ration.1 President Lincoln read these opinions carefully be
fore attaching his signature to the bill. His reasons
for signing the Act were given as follows :
"The consent of the legislature of Virginia is con
stitutionally necessary to the bill for the admission of
West Virginia becoming a law. A body claiming to be
such legislature has given its consent. We cannot well
deny that it is such, unless we do so upon the outside
knowledge that the body was chosen at elections in
which a majority of the qualified voters of Virginia did
not participate. But it is a universal practice . . .
to give no legal consideration whatever to those who
'do not choose to vote, as against the effect of the votes
of those who do choose to vote. Hence it is not the
qualified voters, but the qualified voters who choose to
vote, that constitute the political power of the state.
Much less than to non-voters should any consideration
"Nicolay and Hay, "Abraham Lincoln," Vol. VI, p. 301.

318 THE DISRUPTION OF VIRGINIA
be given to those who did not vote in this case, because
it is also matter of outside knowledge that they were not
merely neglectful of their rights under and duty to
this government, but were also engaged in open rebel
lion against it. Doubtless among these non-voters were
some Union men whose voices were smothered by the
more numerous Secessionists ; but we know too little of
their number to assign them any appreciable value.
Can this government stand if it indulges constitutional
constructions by which men in open rebellion against
it are to be accounted, man for man, the equals of those
who maintain their loyalty to it? Are they to be ac
counted even better citizens and more worthy of con
sideration than those who neglect to vote? If so, their
treason against the Constitution enhances their con
stitutional value. Without braving these absurd con
clusions, we cannot deny that the body which consents
to the admission of West Virginia is the legislature of
Virginia. I do not think the plural form of the words
'legislatures' and 'states' in the phrase of the Con
stitution 'without the consent of the legislatures of
the states concerned,' etc., has any reference to the new
state concerned. That plural form sprang from the
contemplation of two or more old states contributing
to form a new one. The idea that the new state was
in danger of being admitted without its own consent
was not provided for because it was not thought of, as
I conceive. . . . But is the admission into the Union
of West Virginia expedient? . . . More than on any
thing else, it depends on whether the admission or rejec
tion of the new state would, under all circumstances,
tend the more strongly to the restoration of the na
tional authority throughout the Union. That which
helps most in this direction is the most expedient at
this time. Doubtless those in remaining Virginia would

WEST VIRGINIA THE THIRTY-SIXTH STATE 319
return to the Union, so to speak, less reluctantly with
out the division of the old state than with it, but I think
we could not save as much in this quarter by rejecting
the new state, as we should lose by it in West Virginia.
We can scarcely dispense with the aid of West Virginia
in this trouble; much less can we afford to have her
against us, in Congress and in the field. Her brave
and good men regard her admission into the Union
as a matter of life and death. They have been true to
the Union under very severe trials. We have so acted
as to justify their hopes and we cannot fully retain
their confidence and cooperation if we seem to break
faith with them. In fact, they could not do so much
for us, if they would. Again, the admission of the new
state turns that much slave soil to free, and thus is a
certain and irrevocable encroachment upon the cause of
the rebellion. The division of a state is dreaded as a
precedent. But a measure made expedient by a war
is no precedent for times of peace. It is said that the
admission of West Virginia is secession and tolerated
only because it is our secession. Well, if we call it by
that name, there is still difference enough between seces
sion against the Constitution and secession in favor of
the Constitution. I believe the admission of West Vir
ginia into the Union is expedient." x
After the President's signature had been attached
to the West Virginia bill there yet remained one step
to be taken before a proclamation could be issued de
claring the new state formally admitted into the Union.
The people must first ratify the gradual emancipation
clause; and while it was a foregone conclusion that
such would be done a considerable spirit of opposition
" Nicolay and Hay, "Abraham Lincoln, " Vol. VI, pp. 309-11.

320 THE DISRUPTION OF VIRGINIA
developed among those who professed to fear negro
domination. January 14th, 1863, the Schedule Com
missioners recalled the constitutional convention and
issued a proclamation ordering elections in five counties
not heretofore represented.1 In obedience to this
call the convention reassembled in Wheeling February
the 12th, 1863, with fifty-four members present repre
senting forty-four of the forty-eight counties.2 A
committee known to be favorable to emancipation was
appointed to consider the insertion of the necessary
clause in the constitution.3 February 17th an elec
tion ordinance was passed submitting the revised con
stitution to the people of the state. The act provided
that the names of the voters should be permanently
enrolled in the registration book according to their
votes for or against the constitution.4
March 26th the constitution as amended was rati
fied by a vote of 18,862 to 514; a copy was sent to
President Lincoln and on April the 19th he issued a
proclamation declaring the admission of West Vir
ginia completed to take effect sixty days from that
time. June the 20th, 1863, West Virginia formally took
her place in the Union as the thirty-fifth state and
Virginia, the mother of states and of statesmen, had
been dispossessed of one-third her territory.
" Rending of Virginia, page 499.
' Wheeling Intelligencer, Oct. 13, 1863.
"Messrs. Van Winkle, Willey, Brown, Lamb and Parker com
posed the Committee.
'Wheeling Intelligencer, Feb. 18, 1863.

INDEX

Albemarle, County, 102, 167.
Alexandria, 233.
Alexandria, Loudoun, and
Hampshire R.R., 24.
Alexandria Gazette, 63, 76, 93,
101, 142.
Alexandria Sentinel, 97.
Alleghany Mountains, 1, 2, 7,
36, 47, 68, 94.
Alleghany, County, 261, 289.
Ambler, Chas. H., quoted, 1,
33, 56, 65, 67.
Amelia, County, 149.
American R. R. Journal, 24.
Anderson, Major, 166.
Anderson, J. F., 167.
Augusta, County, 167, 175, 261,

Baldwin, John B., 126; inter
view with Lincoln, 164, 165,
166, 174, 175.
Baltimore, 4, 22, 23, 53, 54.
Baltimore & Ohio R.R., 19;
effect on eastern Virginia,
22, 23, 53, 190, 193.
Barbour, County, 6, 167, 192,
233, 257, 274, 275.
Barbour, P. P., rep. in Cong.,
35.
Bates, Edward, Att'y Gen. of
U. S., 237; opinion on W.
Va. case, 313, 314.

Bath, County, 46, 102, 146, 289.
Bayard, James A., U. S. Sena
tor, 227, 228.
Bedford, County, 135.
Beach, S. F., 281, 282.
Bedford Herald, 141.
Bell, John, candidate for Pres.,
66, 95, 122.
Belleville, County, 10.
Berkeley, County, 12, 14, 31,
192, 240, 241, 261, 289.
Blue Ridge Mountains, 2, 6, 7,
10, 30, 36, 51, 55, 56, 84, 101,
115, 252.
Boone, County, 5, 31, 147, 193,
257, 265, 266, 267.
Boreman, Arthur I., 209.
Boston Post, 208.
Botetourt, County, 10, 11, 161,
167, 289.
Botts, John M., in Richmond
Conv., 58, 61, 114, 164, 166,
178.
Braxton, County, 193, 272, 286.
Breckenridge, John C, candi
date for Pres., 66, 95, 122.
Brooke, County, 4, 35, 72, 189,
192, 193, 233, 257, 274.
Brown, John, 87, 88.
Brown, J. H., in first W. Va.
Const. Conv. 258, 260, 263,
264, 265, 268.
Buchanan, County, 261.
Buchanan, Jas., Pres. of U. S.,
109.
Buffalo Express, 204.
Burley, Jas., 153.

321

322

INDEX

Cabell, County, 5, 193, 255, 257,
268, 270.
Calhoun, County, 6, 193, 257,
268, 270, 272, 274.
Camden, G. D., 251.
Campbell, Alex., in Const.
Conv. of 1830, 35, 41.
Cameron, Simon, Sec'y of War,
252.
Carlile, John S., in Const.
Conv. of 1850, 58, 86; in
Richmond Conv., 126, 130,
138, 144, 151, 159, 160, 162,
183, 191; in Wheeling Conv.,
193, 194, 195, 196, 197, 206,
211, 212, 213; in House of
Rep., 225; in U. S. Senate,
226, 227, 228; in August
Conv., 234, 239, 240, 242;
action on W. Va. bill, 290,
291, 293-301.
Carskardon, James, 220.
Catholic Church, 16.
Chambliss, J. R., 167.
Chandler, J. A. C, "History of
Suffrage in Virginia," 56.
Charleston, W. Va., 24.
Charleston (S. C.) Mercury,
92.
Charlottesville, 20.
Charlottesville Jeffersonian,
141.
Chase, Salmon P., U. S. Sec'y
of Treas., 316.
Christian Banner, 93, 115.
Chesapeake & Ohio Canal Co.,
19, 20.
Chesterfield, County, 39.
Cincinnati, river traffic, 23.
Cincinnati Commercial, 184,
199, 202, 254, 304.
Cincinnati Gazette, 199, 245.
Clark, County, 261, 289.
Clarksburg, 53, 75, 83, 186, 191,
244.
Clay, County, 6, 193, 255, 272,
286.

Cleveland Leader, 199.
Clemens, Sherrard, 126, 183.
Collier, C. F., 167.
Confederate States, 178, 196.
Congress of U. S., 23; W. Va.
question, 224-230, 278-300,
305-314.
Congressional Globe, 100, 120,
225, 278, 283, 284, 286, 289;
293, 295, 297, 307, 313.
Conrad, R. Y., 174.
Covington & Ohio R.R., 24, 25.
Craig, County, 261, 289.
Cranmer, Gibson L., 210.
D
Dandridge, "Historic Shep-
herdstown," 8.
De Bow's Review, 18, 21, 25,
48.
Delaware, 252.
Disciples' Church, 16, 35.
Doddridge, County, 6, 193, 233,
257, 270.
Doddridge, Philip, in Const.
Conv. of 1830, 35, 38, 44, 46.
Douglas, Stephen A., candidate
for Pres., 66, 122.
E
Early, Jubal A., in Richmond
Conv., 126, 142, 145, 154, 159,
171, 178.
Eckenrode, H. J., "The Politi
cal Reconstruction of Va.,"
201.
Episcopal Church, 16.

Fairfax, Lord, 8.
Fairfax, County, 233.
Fairmont, 22, 190, 244.
Faulkner, C. J., 58.
Fauquier, County, 63.
Fayette, County, 5, 14, 193, 258.

INDEX

323

Fincastle, County, 10.
Florida, 85.
Floyd, Benj. R., 58.
Fort Sumter, 162, 166, 171,
179.
Frederick, County, 45, 235,
289.
Fredericksburg Herald, 141.
Fredericksburg, Richmond &
Petersburg R. R., 2.
French Protestants, in Va., 8.
Fugitive Slave Law, 159.
G
Garnett, M. R. H., 58, 143.
Georgia, 130.
German inhabitants of Va., 1,
7, 8, 9, 11.
German Reformed Church, 16.
Giles, County, 46, 261.
Gilmer, County, 192, 193, 233,
255, 257, 274.
Gist, Joseph, 220.
Goggin, W. L., candidate for
Gov., 88; in Richmond Conv.,
134.
Gosport Navy Yard, 101, 224.
Grafton, 80, 190, 206, 244.
Gray, C. D., testimony before
Joint Com. on Reconstruc
tion, 180.
Grayson, County, 46.
Great Kanawha River, 5, 10,
13, 20, 70, 79.
Greeley, Horace, "The Ameri
can Conflict," 176.
Greenville, County, ¦ 167.
Greenbrier, County, 4, 5, 10, 11,
13, 14, 193, 240, 261, 266,
274.
Greenbrier, River, 10, 14.
Grigsby, Hugh, 40.
H
Hale, John P., U. S. Senator,
228.
Halifax, County, 122.

Hall, E. R., 258.
Hall, Granville D., "The Rend
ing of Virginia," 122, 170,
173, 181, 183, 191, 193, 213,
220, 239, 240, 290.
Hall, John, 258.
Hall, Leonard S., 132, 158, 182.
Hampshire, County, 10, 12, 14,
46, 192, 220, 233, 255, 257,
274.
Hampton, 279.
Hancock, County, 5, 122, 189.
192, 193, 233, 257, 274.
Hardy, County, 4, 12, 193, 220.
233, 240, 241, 257, 261, 270,
274.
Harmon, J. A., 167.
Harrison, County, 6, 28, 50,
191, 192, 220, 233, 255, 257,
274.
Harvie, Lewis E., 126, 146.
Harper's Ferry, 101, 173, 224,
244.
HayiAond, A. F., 155, 156, 251.
Highland, County, 26l, 289.
Hornbrook, Thos., 210.
House of Rep., U. S., 100, 119,
278-284, 297, 305-314.
Hubbard, C. D., 238.
Hunnicutt, Jas., "The Conspir
acy Unveiled," 93, 115, 149,
167, 180.
Hunter, R. M. T., U. S. Sen
ator, 100, 227.

Illinois, 70.
Imboden, John D., 173, 179.
Indiana, 70, 274.
Irish, in Va., 8, 11, 12.

Jackson, County, 14, 137, 192,
233, 257.
Jackson, John, 191, 194, 196.

324

INDEX

James River & Kanawha Ca
nal Co., 2, 3, 20, 53, 104, 106.
Janney, John, in Richmond
Conv., 58, 126.
Jefferson, County, 12, 14, 46,
193, 233, 240, 241, 242, 261,
289.
Jefferson, Thos., 10, 29, 32.
Jewish Churches, in Va., 16.
Johns Hopkins Studies, 22, 201.
Johnson, Andrew, sponsors W.
Va. bill, 227.
Johnson, Joseph, 63.
K
Kanawha, County, 5, 193, 233,
257, 258, 271.
Kanawha, name proposed for
new state, 240, 243, 257, 261,
263.
Kanawha Valley Star, 68, 88,
94, 103, 147.
Kentucky, County, 10, 14.
Kentucky, 68, 125, 138.
Kingwood Chronicle, 71.

Lamb, Daniel, in Wheeling
Conv., 239, 261, 270.
Lancaster, County, 46.
Lee, County, 261.
Letcher, John, Wheeling
speech, 54; in Conv. of 1850,
58; elected Gov., 88; part in
secession movement, 89, 99,
103, 104, 107, 117, 147, 173,
184, 248, 252, 287.
Lewis, County, 5, 53, 192, 233,
257, 274.
Lewis, J. F., 164, 168.
Lewisburg, 51.
Lincoln, Abraham, Pres. elec
tion of 1860, 66, 67, 95, 97,
98, 99; Inaugural Address,
139, 140, 141, 142, 143; inter
view with delegation from

Richmond Conv., 160, 161,
162, 163; attempt to have
Richmond Conv. adjourned,
164, 165, 166; message on Va.
secession, 224; signs W. Va.
bill, 317, 318.
Lincoln, Abraham, Life, Pub
lic Services, and State Pa
pers, 163.
Little Kanawha River, 3, 10.
70, 115.
Logan, County, 5, 193, 257, 265,
266, 271, 274.
Louisiana, 78.
Loudoun, County, 32, 102.
Louisville, 17, 23.
Lutheran Church, in Va., 16.
Lynchburg, 24.
Lynchburg Virginian, 92, 96,
141. M
Madison, Jas., in Conv. of
1830, 35, 42.
McCloud, J. B., 283.
McDowell, County, 5, 193, 251,
266, 272, 274.
McGrew, J. C, 183.
McGregor, H. P., 79.
Marion, County, 6, 190, 192,
193, 233, 255, 257, 266, 274.
Marshall, County, 189, 192, 193,
233, 257, 274.
Marshall, John, in Conv. of
1830, 35, 42.
Maryland, 4, 10, 11, 68, 85, 101,
125, 252.
Mason, Jas. M., U. S. Senator,
227.
Mason, John Y., 58, 77.
Mason & Dixon Line, 10.
Mason, County, 192, 193, 233,
257, 258.
Memphis, 17.
Mercer, County, 5, 14, 193, 261,
266, 274.
Millson, J. S., 100.
Mississippi, state, 105, 130, 131.

INDEX

325

Missouri, state, 125.
Monongahela, River, 3, 6, 9, 19,
41, 50, 69, 70.
Monongalia, County, 5, 10, 80,
185, 189, 190, 192, 193, 233.
255, 274.
Monroe, County, 4, 5, 12, 14.
193, 266, 274.
Monroe, Jas., in Conv. of 1830,
35, 36, 40, 42.
Montague, R. L., 126, 146, 161.
Montgomery, County, 10, 46.
Montgomery, Ala., 91.
Moore, S. M., 126, 129, 134.
Morgan, County, 12, 193, 220,
240, 241, 261, 274, 286.
Morgantown, 75, 190.
Morgantown Star, 75, 81, 151,
190, 219, 300.
Moss, John, 195.
Munford, B., "Va.'s Attitude
Toward Slavery and Seces
sion," 143.

N
National Intelligencer, 69, 71,
76, 77, 79, 82, 86, 89, 90, 91,
93, 96, 98, 100, 114, 126, 139,
180, 185, 186, 189, 190, 200.
217, 305.
National Republican, 302.
New York Commercial Adver
tiser, 210, 302.
New York Herald, 199, 204.
New York Times, 72, 137, 199,
200, 202, 303.
New York Tribune, 62, 303,
304.
New York World, 199, 202,
209 303.
Nicholas, County, 6, 193, 257,
268, 286.
Niles Register, 28, 29, 30, 32,
50, 51, 53, 53, 55.
Norfolk, 36, 40, 141, 174.
Norfolk Herald, 116, 141.
North Carohna, 68, 125, 229.

O
Ohio, County, 5, 10, 12, 28, 181,
189, 192, 233, 257, 261, 274.
Ohio, River, 3, 5, 9, 12, 68, 70,
84, 115.
Ohio, state, 11, 18, 72, 85, 245,
274, 298.
Opinions of Attorney Generals
of the U. S., 315.
Orange, County, 136.

Page, County, 261, 289.
Palmer, Captain, 23.
Parkersburg, 190.
Parkersburg Gazette, 186.
Parson Brownlow's Book, 123
Peace Conference, at Washing
ton, D. C, 107, 108, 133, 138.
160.
Pendleton, County, 4, 28, 193,
261, 270, 274.
Pennsylvania, 4, 9, 11, 18, 68,
72, 85, 245, 252, 270, 298.
Petersburg, 152, 167.
Philadelphia North American,
85.
Philadelphia Press, 116, 189,
199, 303.
Philadelphia Public Ledger,
98, 99, 118, 122, 170.
Pickens, Francis, Gov. S. G.
171.
Pierpoint, Francis H., address
at Wheeling, 73, 74, 197, 209;
provisional Gov., 215, 219,
220; attacked by Va. author
ities, 253, 254, 288.
Pittsburgh Chronicle, 82, 83,
120, 152, 155, 179, 185, 198,
199, 200, 202, 218, 244.
Pittsburgh Dispatch, 189.
Pittsburgh Gazette, 204.
Pittsburgh city, 23, 69, 70.
Pleasants, County, 5, 192, 220,
233, 257, 274.

326

Pocahontas, County, 3,
240, 261, 266.
Polsley, Daniel, 215, 220, 235.
Poore's Manual of R. R., 24.
Porter, George McC, 248.
Potomac River, 2, 3, 8, 19, 235.
Presbyterian Church in Va.,
16.
Preston, County, 4, 192, 233,
274, 286.
Preston, W. B., 126, 161, 162,
172, 257.
Princess Anne, County, 167.
Prince William, County, 235.
Proclamation of 1763, 9.
Providence Journal, 214.
Pryor, Roger A., 91, 124, 153.
Putnam, County, 14, 193, 255.
257.

Q
Quaker Churches in Va., 16.

INDEX
193,

149, 150, 153, 156, 158, 160,
163, 169, 253.
Richmond Enquirer, 101, 104,
118, 139, 142, 144, 150, 161,
177 (25, 56, 62, 63, 76, 90,
95, 97).
Richmond Times, 53.
Richmond Whig, 95, 96, 100,
103, 118, 142, 151, 167, 200,
250.
Richmond, Whig Conv., 89.
Ritchie, County, 192, 220, 233.
257
Rives', W. C, 89, 91, 114, 120,
145, 157.
Roane, County, 6, 193, 257, 274.
Roanoke, 2.
Rockingham, County, 96, 134.
261, 289.
Ruffin, Edmund, 91.
Russell, County, 46, 261.
Russell, G W., 251.

R
Raleigh, County, 5, 193, 255.
269, 272, 274.
Randolph, County, 4, 28, 193,
233, 257, 270, 274.
Randolph, George, 126, 161.
Randolph, John, 35, 41, 44.
Randolph, Thos., 167.
Reform Bill of 1832, 28.
Reizenstein, Milton, "Economic
Hist, of the B. & O. R. R.,"
22.
Report of the Joint Com. on
Reconstruction, 165, 168, 178.
Revolutionary War, 7, 8, 11,
26.
Richmond, city, 19, 32, 33, 53,
75.
Richmond Convention, 124-177.
Richmond Dispatch, 111, 112,
116, 119, 121, 130, 132, 134,
135, 136, 138, 142, 145, 146,

Scotch Covenanters, in Va.,
17.
Scotch-Irish, in Va., 1, 7, 8, 9.
Scott, Robert, 97, 159.
Scott, County, 46, 261.
Seagar, Joseph, 278, 279, 280.
Senate, U. S., W. Va. bill, 286-
297.
Senate Documents, 252.
Seward, William H., 136, 316.
Sheffey, J. A., 167.
Shenandoah, County, 261, 289.
Sickles, Daniel, 119.
Smythe, County, 167.
Spottsylvania, County, 45.
South Carolina, 76, 78, 91, 105,
110, 116, 130, 134, 145, 148,
171, 185.
Southern Confederacy, 90, 102,
125, 133, 161.
Staunton Conv., 29, 30.
Stephens, Alex., 178.
Stevens, Thaddeus, 311.

INDEX

327

Stuart, A. H., 126, 161.
Stuart, C. J., 269.
Summers, Geo. W., 126, 148,
164, 247.

Taylor, County, 6, 185, 190,
193, 233, 257, 258, 274.
Taylor, Robert B., 40.
Tazewell, County, 261.
Tennessee, 125, 138, 229, 235.
Tucker, County, 4, 193, 233,
257.
Tyler, County, 3, 5, 193, 233.
257.
Tyler County Plaindealer, 84.
Tyler, John, in Const. Conv.
of 1830, 35; interview with
Pres. Buchanan, 108, 109; in
Richmond Conv. 125, 149.
172, 209.
Tucker, County, 4, 193, 233,
257. U
Underground R. R., 88.
Upton, C. H., 278, 281.
Upshur, County, 6, 192, 212,
233, 255, 257.

Vicksburg Whig, 92.
Virginia, Const. Conv. of 1830,
35-46; Const. Conv., 1850,
58-65; Richmond Conv., 124-
177; General Assembly, 22.
24, 28, 31, 33, 50, 104, 219,
251, 253, 277; Documents of
1861-2, 249, 251, 252, 253:
Journal of Conv. of 186T,
180; Messages and Docu
ments, 106, 108, 109; Laws of
1861-2, 196, 254; "Rump
Legis.," 219-223, 275-277.
Virginia Plaindealer, 82.

W
Warren, County, 261, 289.
Warwick, County, 32, 46.
Washington, D. C, 4, 101.
Washington, George, 6, 8.
Washington, County, 10.
Wayne, County, 5, 75, 193, 196.
233, 257, 266.
Webster, County, 6, 193, 257.
Webster, Daniel, 68.
Welles, Gideon, 314.
Wellsburg, 72.
Wellsburg Herald, 72, 77, 86,
245, 248.
Welsh, inhabitants of Va., 9.
Western Virginian, 80, 186.
Weston, 53.
West Virginia, 11, 13, 46, 51.
70, 84, 85, 113, 186; organi
zation, 193, 198, 220, 250;
lack of war sentiment, 253;
in Cong., 286-300, 302; Const.
Conv., Nov., 1861, 257-277;
Laws of 1861-66, 286, 302.
Wetzel, County, 5, 185, 192, 233,
257.
Wheat, Jas. S., 195, 196.
Wheeling, city, 10, 22, 23, 53,
54, 69, 73, 141, 186, 187, 190,
193, 200, 244, 257.
Wheeling Intelligencer, 55, 72,
74, 75, 78, 81, 82, 84, 85, 90,
102, 110, 114, 122, 127, 148,
151, 155, 159, 161, 168, 177,
180, 187, 189, 194, 205, 208,
209, 210, 213, 219, 220, 221,
222, 231, 234, 236, 237, 241,
244, 245, 248, 251, 254, 275,
276, 286, 287, 291, 295, 297,
299, 305.
Wheeling, May Conv., 192-205;
June Conv. 206-218.
Wheeling Press, 141, 237, 275.
Whig, party, 89.
Winchester, 8.
Willey, Waitman T., in Const.
Conv. of 1850, 58, 71; in
Richmond Conv., 126, 140,

328

INDEX

148, 154, 162, 173; part in
new-state movement, 190, 195,
221; U. S. Senator, 226, 228;
Const. Conv., 258, 259, 263,
264, 268; supports W. Va.
bill in Senate, 286, 287, 289,
291, 293, 300.
Wing, W. W., 283.
Wirt, County, 6, 192, 233,
257.
Wise, County, 261.
Wise, Henry A., address, 18,
47, 48; Const. Conv. of 1850,
57, 58, 60, 61, 97; in Rich

mond Conv., 126, 129, 146,
158, 159, 161, 170, 171, 172,
176, 179.
Wood, County, 79, 189, 192,
195, 196, 220, 233, 257, 274.
Woods, Samuel, 167, 182.
Wyoming, County, 5, 193, 258,
272, 274.
Wythe, County, 46.

Yancey, William A., 91, 103.
Yohogania, 10

3 9002 00554 7808