The Journal of Negro History, Volume 6, 1921

Numerous petitions, memorials and resolutions found their way to the Assembly. These may be divided into three classes: (1) those asking for the removal of free Negroes from the State; (2) those seeking to amend the Federal Constitution with a view to giving Congress power to appropriate money with which to purchase slaves and transport them and the free Negroes from the United States; and (3) those urging the State to devise some scheme for gradual emancipation.149 The first class of petitions came principally from the large slave-holding sections of the State; the second and third classes came from those sections of the State in which slaves were not numerous.

It was evident that this Assembly must take a definite position with reference to the question of the abolishment of slavery. Accordingly, therefore, a number of these resolutions concerning slavery were referred to a select committee composed of twenty-one members, sixteen of whom were from counties east of the Blue Ridge. After three days of conference, during which fiery discussions and motions were rampant in the legislature, the committee reported to the effect that "it is inexpedient for the present to make any legislative enactment for the abolition of slavery."150 Mr. Preston, of Montgomery, moved immediately to amend the report by substituting therefor: "It is expedient at this time to adopt some legislative enactment for the abolition of slavery."151 The amendment was defeated by a vote of seventy-three to fifty-eight. Mr. Bryce, of Goochland County, thereupon, proposed to amend the report of the select committee, already herein noted, by prefixing the following preamble: "Profoundly sensible of the great evils arising from the condition of the Colored population of the Commonwealth; induced by humanity as well as policy to an immediate effort for the removal, in the first place as well as those who are now free as of such as may hereafter become free, believing that this effort, while it is in just accordance with the sentiment of the community on the subject, will absorb all our present means; and that a further action for the removal of the slaves, should await a more definite development of public opinion."152 This preamble was adopted, despite tremendous opposition of the pro-slavery men.

The discussion of 1832 was followed by a decided reaction against the proposal for the abolition of slavery. Professor Thomas R. Dew, of William and Mary College, crystallized the pro-slavery sentiment in a masterful essay entitled: A Review of the Debates in the Virginia Legislature of 1831-32. This essay dealt with the theoretical and practical aspects of slavery in all countries and especially with the rise and development of Negro slavery in America. It pointed out the difficulties attendant upon the deportation of the free black and slave populations, and the danger to society of their emancipation without deportation. It ridiculed the idea of a successful slave uprising under the conditions then obtaining, and held that the whole discussion of so momentous a question by young and inexperienced legislators was entirely out of order.153 The forceful argument of Professor Dew was met by one from Jesse Burton Harrison, whose essay was entitled: "A Review of the Speech of Thomas Marshall in the Virginia Assembly of 1831-32." Mr. Harrison's arguments to prove that Negro slavery in Virginia was an economic evil appeared to be merely a reiteration of the arguments of Marshall.154 Former President Madison also replied briefly to Dew. His essay set forth that Dew had held too cheaply the presence of Negro slavery and emigration and ascribed too much importance to the influence of the tariff laws.155

By far the most important sectional issue in Virginia during the period 1834 to 1850 was that arising out of a movement for a united slave-holding South. The Virginia Congressmen had voted as a body against the "Wilmot Proviso," the abolition of the domestic slave trade and the abolition of slavery in the District of Columbia. In spite of these facts, leading citizens of Western Virginia were trying to devise ways and means whereby to rid that portion of the State of Negro slavery. Dr. Henry Ruffner, Henry McDowell Moore and John Letcher were prominent among those who proposed a plan whereby the gradual emancipation of all slaves in the State west of the Blue Ridge Mountains would be effected. The plan was first debated in the Franklin Society at Lexington in 1847. Later it appeared as a pamphlet entitled An Address to the People of West Virginia by a Slaveholder of West Virginia. This pamphlet proposed to show that slavery was opposed to the public welfare and that it might be gradually abolished without results detrimental to the rights and interests of the slave holders. It contained elaborate comparisons between the slave-holding States and those not holding slaves, to the disadvantage of the former, in tending to prove that slavery was an economic evil.156

Dr. Ruffner, later speaking of the movement, said: "No one so far as I can remember took the abolitionist ground that slave holding was a sin and ought to be abolished. With us, it was merely a question of expediency and was argued with special reference to the interests of West Virginia." Speaking of the reception of the pamphlet in Western Virginia, he said that the editors in the Valley, doubting the success of the scheme, hesitated to endorse his efforts; but that west of the Alleghenies it met with a most encouraging reception.157

There began during the two decades from 1830 to 1850 a period of internal improvements because of a rapid increase in the population and wealth of Western Virginia. The construction of turnpikes and local railroads in the trans-Allegheny country and the projection of other improvements attracted there immigrants, and served also to interest speculation in its cheap lands and natural resources. English and eastern capitalists purchased large tracts of land and sold them in small parcels to settlers who occupied them.158 Capitalists from the Middle West and New England States established small manufactories there, and immigrants coming thither chose between working therein and becoming farmers or teachers. A considerable German population was numbered among these immigrants. The census of 1850 showed an excess of 90,372 white population in the West over that in the East. The lands in the transmontane country had risen to a value of only fifteen million dollars less than the cash value of the lands east of the Blue Ridge.159

It is significant that the improvements during this period had tended, altogether, to connect the commercial interests of Western Virginia more definitely with those of the Free States to the north and west. Not a single railroad connected the western part of the State with the Tidewater. The proceeds of bond issues floated to promote internal improvements in the State had not been used to effect commercial ties between the two sections of the State, nor had any considerable portion thereof been used to improve the western districts. On the other hand, the interest of the people at the foot hills of the Piedmont had become more definitely aligned with those of the other eastern sections of the State. The chief grievance of the former had been remedied by the compromise convention of 1829-30, which gave them a larger representation in the House of Delegates. Likewise, the pursuit of intensive agriculture in the Valley had led to the introduction of many slaves there, thus tending to create a bond of interest between this region and the slave-holding east. In the Constitutional Convention of 1850, therefore, the people of the transmontane country found themselves arrayed against the three other sections of the State.160

It has been herein noted that the Convention of 1829-30 settled nothing. A compromise had been effected which relieved somewhat the tension that existed over the matter of representation. The constitutional provision that gave to the Assembly the power, after 1841 and thereafter at intervals of not less than ten years, and under prescribed conditions, to make re-apportionments of representation had never been availed of. In view of its phenomenal growth in wealth and population, the west keenly resented this failure to act on the part of the Assembly of 1841-42.161 The questions, therefore, that confronted the Convention of 1829-30 were again brought forward in 1850.

The Convention of 1850 met at Richmond in October, but shortly adjourned until January 6, 1851. In February the question of the basis of representation was taken up. The Committee appointed to determine the proper basis could reach no agreement; thereupon, many plans were submitted by delegates from each section of the State. The western delegates proposed that the House of Delegates should consist of one hundred and fifty-six members, should be elected biennially, and that the Senate should consist of fifty members chosen for four years; both Houses should be elected upon the suffrage basis; and in 1862 and every ten years thereafter, a re-apportionment should be made on that basis. The eastern delegates proposed a House of Delegates of one hundred and fifty-six members and a Senate of thirty-six; both Houses should be elected on the mixed basis and re-apportionments should be made on that basis in 1855 and every ten years thereafter.162

Neither of these plans was adopted. Consequently various plans of compromise were brought forward. Botts, of Richmond, and George W. Summers, of Kanawha, were among those who suggested propositions. On the motion of Mr. Martin, of Henry County, it was decided that a committee of eight, four from each section, be elected by the convention to provide a compromise. On the fifteenth day of May, this committee reported in favor of a House of Delegates of one hundred and fifty members; eighty-two from the west and sixty-eight from the east; and a Senate of fifty; thirty from the east and twenty from the west. It provided further for a re-apportionment in 1865 and for submitting both the mixed and suffrage bases to the people should the Assembly, at that time, fail to agree.163 The plan was rejected. Following the failure of several other compromise plans, Chilton presented with modifications the report of the committee of eight.164 This report provided that the numbers therein indicated for each house remain unchanged; but should the legislature of 1865 fail to re-apportion representation, the governor would be "required to submit to the vote of the people four propositions, namely; (1) the suffrage basis, (2) the mixed basis, (3) the white population basis, and (4) the taxation basis." This plan was carried in committee of the whole and later, with slight modifications, was adopted by the Convention.

The question of suffrage was settled amicably since the delegates from neither section opposed an extension thereof. The privilege of the ballot, therefore, was extended to "Every white male citizen of the commonwealth of the age of twenty-one years";165 paupers and others usually excepted, not to be included.

The question of taxation was one of the important issues to be settled. The eastern delegates opposed the white basis of representation, chiefly through the fear that westerners would use their newly gained political power to tax slave property to secure funds for internal improvements.166 The eastern members insisted, therefore, that all property taxes should be ad valorem and that no one species should be taxed higher than another. They were unwilling, too, that Negro slaves under twelve years of age should be taxed at all. It was finally provided that an ad valorem tax be placed on all property according to its value, but that Negro slaves under twelve years of age be exempt and slaves twelve years and over be taxed per capita at not more than the tax on land worth three hundred dollars.167 The inhabitants of the west never became reconciled to this discriminating arrangement and it was especially irritating during the years immediately preceding the war,168 when the price of slaves often ranged from sixteen hundred to eighteen hundred dollars.169

In this Convention the men of the west were less bent upon obtaining a constitutional provision declaring for the gradual emancipation of slaves than they were in 1829-30. Their efforts were directed towards shifting the political balance of power from east to west, whereby this purpose might be accomplished with less difficulty.170 In this they were not successful. Likewise the east was dissatisfied over the apportionment of representation and the west did not want to accept the principle of taxation.171 The question of the extension of suffrage was the only leading issue settled. This convention, like that of 1829-30, was essentially a compromise convention; for no permanent settlement of the great problems could be effected with the State virtually half slave and half free.

The Virginia policy during the period of 1850 to 1861 was influenced largely by the nation-wide idea that the question of slavery could be settled only by civil strife. Accordingly the Virginia politicians, and especially Governor Wise172 during his term of office, were at great pains to connect Eastern Virginia in thought and in purpose with the slave-holding South. This was a period of great internal improvements in Virginia. The State incurred a bonded debt of thirty-six million dollars. Many of the loans constituting this debt were used to promote and facilitate the building of railroads and canals. The railroads in question, almost without exception, tended to connect Eastern Virginia socially, industrially and commercially with her neighbors to the south. On the other hand, the only large railroad of Western Virginia, the Baltimore and Ohio, was constantly discriminated against at Richmond173 and in every session of the legislature restrictions were aimed at its activities. It is significant that the hostility to railroad facilities for the Northwest persisted down to the beginning of the Civil War.174

While Western Virginia was denied railroad facilities out of deference to southern and slave-holding interests, liberal appropriations were made for the building of turnpike roads in that territory.175 This consideration tended to some extent to alleviate the feeling of dissatisfaction. The fact remained, however, that Western Virginia had become one in thought and in purpose with the people of Pennsylvania and Ohio, and she was influenced considerably by her intercourse with Baltimore. It was to these places that she had easy access. It followed, therefore, that in 1861 when Eastern Virginia seceded from the Union and went with the slave-holding States of the South, the western part of the State had little choice save to remain loyal to the Union.

Secession and its Results

In 1860 there were in all Virginia 498,887 slaves, of whom 12,771 were in the forty-eight counties originally constituting the State of West Virginia.176 With an overwhelming majority of all the slaves in the State located in the East, the people of this section were, naturally enough, profoundly interested in the events then occurring in other pro-slavery commonwealths. Influenced by the secession of six States from the Union and their subsequent formation of the Confederate States of America, Governor Letcher issued a proclamation convening the General Assembly in extra session on the seventh day of January, 1861.177

According to the act of the Assembly, a state convention was assembled at Richmond on the thirteenth day of February. Forty-seven of the one hundred and fifty-two delegates present represented counties now included in the State of West Virginia.178 On the sixteenth of April the Convention met in secret session and the chairman of the Committee on Federal Relations appointed early in February reported a measure entitled "An Ordinance to Repeal the Ratification of the Constitution of the United States."179 The ordinance recited the reasons for the repeal of the ratification of the Federal Constitution, dissolved the union between Virginia and the other States, asserted the complete sovereignty of the State of Virginia, released her citizens from responsibility to the Federal Constitution, noted the date upon which and provided the conditions under which the said ordinance would become effective. It was adopted the next day by a vote of eighty-eight to fifty-five. Immediate steps were then taken to form an alliance with the Confederate States,180 the same being effected on the twenty-fifth day of April. Meanwhile some of the delegates from Western Virginia withdrew from the Convention.

When news of the action taken by the Richmond convention reached Northwestern Virginia a storm of protest arose. A vast majority of the citizens of this region were not in accord with the action of the State in seceding to the Confederacy. They were determined, therefore, that the part of the State known as the trans-Allegheny region should be saved to the Union. Resolutions emanating from the meetings held in the several counties joined with the press to denounce the action taken by the aforesaid convention. The Clarksburg181 meeting, assembled for this purpose on the twenty-second of April, sounded the call for united action and proposed that a convention composed of the twenty-seven counties of Western Virginia should assemble at Wheeling on the thirteenth of May.

The May Convention assembled at the time and place indicated and proceeded straightway to the business of the hour. The permanent President, John W. Moss, of Wood county, outlined the purpose of the Convention.182 His remarks were followed by a resolution of Mr. Tarr, of Brooke County, to the effect that "a Committee, to be known as the Committee on Federal and State Relations and to comprise one member from each County, be appointed by the President to consider all resolutions of the body looking to action by the Convention."183 Significant among the numerous resolutions presented was one by John S. Carlile calling for a new Virginia,184 but the sense of the Convention was that such action was premature.

Out of the maze of resolutions offered, the committee finally made its report. Among other provisions, the report recommended that in the event of the ratification, by vote, of the Ordinance of Secession, the counties there represented and all others disposed to co-operate with them, should appoint delegates on the fourth day of June to meet in general convention on the eleventh day of June at such place as thereinafter provided, with a view to devising such measures and taking such action as the people they represent might demand.185 It was further recommended that a central committee be appointed to attend to all matters connected with the objects of the convention, to assemble it at their discretion and to prepare an address to the people of Virginia in conformity with the resolution there made.186

The passage, on the twenty-third day of May, of the Ordinance of Secession, necessitated the meeting of the second convention. It assembled on the eleventh of June at Wheeling. Upon the effecting of a permanent organization, Mr. Dorsey, of Monongalia, offered a resolution to the effect that immediate steps be taken to form a new State from the counties represented.187 Mr. Carlile endeavored to show a lack of wisdom in such a course, saying: "Let us organize a legislature, swearing allegiance to the Federal Government, and let that legislature be recognized by the government of the United States as the legislature of the State of Virginia."188 He urged that under that condition they would be under the protecting care of the Federal Government and would be in position to effect a constitutional separation from Virginia. His judgment prevailed.

The important acts of this Convention were: (1) the Declaration of Rights of the People of Virginia and its adoption;189 (2) the adoption of an Ordinance for the Reorganization of the State190 and (3) the election of State Officers.191 The Convention then adjourned.

On the sixth of August, the adjourned Convention reassembled, as provided, at Wheeling. The principal work of this convention was the adoption of an ordinance to provide for the formation of a new State out of a portion of the State of Virginia.192 It provided also for an election to be held on the twenty-fourth of October (1) to ratify the ordinance there adopted and (2) to select delegates to a convention to frame a constitution for the new State, in case a majority of the voters should decide in favor of formation. The vote at this election was 18,408 for ratification and 481 for rejection. Accordingly, upon certification of the same to the governor, he issued his proclamation, calling the delegates elected to a constitutional convention to meet in Wheeling on the twenty-sixth of November.193

The Constitutional Convention met at the scheduled time in the United States Court room at Wheeling.194 Thirty-four delegates of the forty chosen were present. No time was lost in effecting a permanent organization of the Convention, in order that the momentous problems to be solved might be brought before that august body. Not the least important one of these questions was that of the disposal of slavery. The questions of the hour were these: Was the new State to be a free or a slave State? Would the Union admit another slave State?

It was on the fourteenth day of the Convention that Robert Hagar, a Methodist preacher from Boone county, offered a resolution to the effect that the convention inquire into the propriety of making the new State free, by incorporating into the Constitution a clause for gradual emancipation.195 A counter proposal was offered on the same day by Mr. Brown, an ardent pro-slavery advocate, from Kanawha. His resolution asserted that it was "unwise and impolitic to introduce the question of slavery into the Convention."196 Despite the fact that the organic law of the new State was then being framed, this pro-slavery champion deplored any attempt of the body to discuss or decide upon the question of slavery, the most vital question of economic policy with which the people would be concerned. There were present, however, other men who were determined to champion the cause of freedom.

On the sixteenth day of the convention the courageous Mr. Gordon Battelle, a delegate from Ohio county, offered for reference the following proposition:197

(1) "No slave shall be brought into the State for permanent residence after the adoption of this constitution.

(2) "The legislature shall have full power to make such just and humane provisions as may be needful for the better regulation and security of the marriage and family relations between slaves, for their proper instruction, and for the gradual and equitable removal of slaves from the State.

(3) "On and after the fourth day of July 18—, slavery or involuntary servitude, except for crime, shall cease within the limits of this State."

On the twenty-seventh day of January, Mr. Battelle offered the following:198

(1) "No slave shall be brought into the state for permanent residence after the adoption of this constitution.

(2) "All children born of slave parents in this state on and after the fourth day of July 1865 shall be free; and the Legislature may provide by general law for the apprenticeship of such children during their minority and for their subsequent colonization."

It is obvious that the first set of propositions provided for the total abolition of slavery, the date undetermined; whereas the second, while providing for the freedom of the children, born of slave parents on and after a specified date, condemned to perpetual slavery all other persons who prior to that date were slaves.

In line with the proposals of Mr. Battelle was the pertinent and clear-sighted editorial of The Wheeling Intelligencer under date of December ninth, 1861. It said: "We have endeavored to show how entirely adverse to the best interests of Western Virginia it would be for the present convention to adjourn without first engrafting a free State provision on our constitution in shape of a three, five or ten years emancipation clause. We should esteem it far better that the Convention had never assembled than that it should omit to take action of this character.... Congress would hesitate long before it will consent to the subdivision of a slave State simply that two slave States may be made out of it. The evil which has so nearly destroyed not only Western Virginia, but the whole country, will find that its tug-of-war is yet to come, when it has run the gauntlet of our Convention and our Legislature. We believe that when it reaches Congress, it will reach its hitherto and that it will never pass. It will avail very little for this convention to remain in debate on this subject for a month at a heavy expense and consummate a work which will only last end in a defeat and entail upon its framers the cold distrust of the only friends they have in the world. The loyal masses of the free States who are fighting the great battle of Constitutional freedom, who are endeavoring to stay the absorbing and consuming demands of slavery upon this continent, will never consent that in the very midst of them it shall burst out, in a new place, with the extraordinary demands that its present representation of a state in their Senate shall be doubled.... We say then to the members of our convention that before you waste your time and money on a constitution you look to its probable fate."199