The Journal of Negro History, Volume 6, 1921

It was evident that Carlile was committed to a proslavery program and that his plan, if adopted, would result in the indefinite postponement of the admission of the new State. His colleague, therefore, with an apparently sincere effort to meet the wishes of the Senate and to satisfy the objections of Mr. Carlile, read the bill which was presented in the House by Mr. Brown, of Virginia. At the same time he announced that that bill, if agreeable to the Committee and to his colleagues, would be acceptable to him as a compromise.230 This assented to, Mr. Willey withdrew his original amendment and offered the Brown bill as a substitute for the whole bill, striking out all after the word "whereas" in the preamble and substituting this measure in lieu of the Committee's bill.231 The bill as finally presented follows:

"Section 1. That the State of West Virginia be and is hereby declared to be one of the United States of America, and admitted into the Union on an equal footing with the original States in all respects, whatever, and until the next general census shall be entitled to three members in the House of Representatives of the United States: Provided always that this act shall not take effect until after the proclamation of the President of the United States hereinafter provided for.

"Section 2. It being represented to Congress that since the Convention of the 26th of November, 1861, that framed and proposed the Constitution, for the said State of West Virginia, the people thereof have expressed a wish to change the seventh section of the eleventh article of the said Constitution by striking out the same and inserting the following in its place, namely, 'The children of slaves born within the limits of this State after the fourth day of July, 1863, shall be free, and no slave shall be permitted to come into the State for permanent residence therein.' Therefore be it enacted, that whenever the people of West Virginia shall, through their said convention, and by a vote to be taken at an election to be held within the limits of the State at such time as the Convention may provide, make and ratify the change aforesaid and properly certify the same under the hand of the President of the Convention, it shall be lawful for the President of the United States to issue the proclamation stating the fact and thereupon this act shall take effect and be in force from and after sixty days from the date of said proclamation."232

It will be observed that the terms of the amendment made no provision for the subsequent freedom of those slaves in esse. It was the sense of the committee of the whole, expressed in its action on Mr. Wade's amendment, that a specified class of slaves in esse should be given their freedom upon their arrival at a designated age. In conformity with this view, Mr. Lane, of Kansas moved to amend the second section by inserting after the word free the following: "And that all slaves within the State who shall at the time aforesaid be under ten years of age shall become free when they arrive at the age of twenty-one years, and all slaves over ten years and under twenty-one years of age, shall become free when they arrive at the age of twenty-five years."233 This amendment was accepted.

After the passage of the above amendment, Mr. Carlile, persistent in his policy of opposing admission, proposed to amend Mr. Willey's last proposition. His amendment was to the effect that the proposed new State be admitted without conditions. In speaking thereupon, Mr. Willey affirmed that this amendment conformed to his personal views, but that as a matter of good faith and honor he was precluded from espousing its cause.234 The amendment was rejected.

Following the report of the bill to the Senate and the concurrence of the latter in the compromise amendment of Mr. Willey as amended by Mr. Lane, Mr. Sumner advised that he had proposed to offer to the Senate his amendment lately rejected in Committee. Referring to this proposal, Mr. Lane asserted his assurance that the insertion of the provision in question would cause the bill to fail before the House of Representatives and to merit the disapproval of the people of West Virginia. He urged, therefore, that it would be the better policy to vote for the bill as already amended and to endure slavery in the State for another generation, if need be. Despite the conformity of this view with those of a majority of his colleagues, Mr. Sumner, though declining to offer the amendment, stated his irrevocable opposition to the admission of another slave State, even though the term of slavery be for but twenty-one years. He considered it his duty, therefore, to vote against the measure as it then stood.235

The engrossment of the bill for a third reading found its opponents still unweary in their efforts to obstruct or defeat its passage. Senator Trumbull, of Illinois, summed up his opposition to the bill in two objections, namely: (1) since all persons over twenty-one years of age were thereby doomed to perpetual slavery, the new State would be in theory and in practice a slave State; and (2) he failed to see the necessity for or wisdom in dividing any of the old States until the situation could be seen as a whole. He let it be known, however, that this statement should not be construed to commit him to the position of opposing the admission of a slave State under all circumstances whatever. In conformity with his conviction, he moved that all consideration of the bill be postponed until the first Monday of December next. The Senator from Illinois was ably supported by Mr. Carlile, who, failing in his last attempt to amend the bill to the effect that the State should come in without conditions, affirmed his opposition to any proceedings whereby the organic law of a State is framed by Congress and asserted that he would support the Trumbull motion at the risk of misconstruction.236

Those Senators who favored the immediate passage of the bill were not unprepared for the most determined attacks of its opponents. Mr. Howard, of Michigan, requested of the Senators from Virginia, whether the Wheeling Legislature had taken any action on the "Joint Resolution passed by Congress suggesting that the so-called border slave States take some action in reference to the final emancipation of their slaves." Replying thereto, Mr. Willey asserted that the Legislature was entirely favorable to a program involving final emancipation. He took occasion, moreover, to add that "his colleague, Mr. Carlile, was misrepresenting the attitude of the legislature that sent him there in interposing the objection that was calculated to thwart the whole movement."237

Agreeing with the remarks of Mr. Willey, Mr. Wade, while opposing the motion of Senator Trumbull, explained that Mr. Carlile had penned all the bills and drawn them up; that he was the hardest worker and the most cheerful of them all, that he was the most forceful among them in pressing his views upon the Committee. "Whence," asked he, "came this change of heart? For indeed his conversion was greater than that of St. Paul." "Now," said Mr. Wade, "is the time for West Virginia to be admitted into the Union." "Let us not postpone the action for the next session, but let us reject the motion of the gentleman from Illinois and pass the bill."238

Continuing the debate, Mr. Ten Eyck affirmed the legality and the expediency of admitting the new State. His arguments were substantially as follows: (1) that the legal question, that is, the right of the legislature to give assent to the division of the State, was settled when the Senate accepted as members the two men appointed by the said legislature; (2) as a matter of policy he urged that the people of Western Virginia should not be forced to run the risk of having the whole State, because of the collapse of the rebellion, repeal the act of the legislature and thereby continue a domination of tyranny over them. The vote was taken and the motion to postpone was rejected.239

The final objection prior to the passage of the bill, came from Mr. Powell, of Kentucky. Asserting, in substance, that since ten of the forty-eight counties to be included in West Virginia were unrepresented in the Convention and in the Legislature, and since less than one-fourth of the people gave their consent to the formation of a new State, he held that there was no constitutional right to act. He was, therefore, unalterably opposed to the admission of the new State. Unswerved from his position, by the assurances of Mr. Willey, that (1) the absence of ten thousand men under arms, and (2) the foregone conclusion that separation would be effected jointly accounted for the small number of nearly nineteen thousand votes, Mr. Powell called for the yeas and nays. The motion was put and the bill to admit was passed.240

Even the passage of the bill did not cause Mr. Carlile's opposition to cease. Determined in his efforts to make a final plea for the slave-holding interests, he introduced Senate Bill No. 531241 supplemental to the act for the admission of West Virginia into the Union and for other purposes. This bill sought, of course, to make effective his plan that the whole work of the Constitutional Convention be reenacted. The bill was reported with amendments and adversely from the Judiciary Committee, whereupon Mr. Carlile sought to have it considered in the Senate. This effort, like his previous ones, was wholly unsuccessful.242

While this battle was in progress in the Senate the House also was considering the question. The debate in the Senate on the admission of the proposed new State of West Virginia into the Union hinged largely upon the consideration of the question of slavery. Was the new State to be admitted as a slave State, providing for gradual emancipation? Was it to be admitted on a program of immediate emancipation, or was it to come in with no conditions relating to the disposition of this all-absorbing matter? These were the questions to be determined. They were not altogether the chief considerations in the House.

On the twenty-fifth day of June, 1862, Mr. Brown, of Virginia, by unanimous consent, introduced before the House a bill for the "Admission of West Virginia into the Union and for other purposes." After the first and second readings it was referred to the Committee on Territories.243 On the sixteenth of July the bill as passed by the Senate was read a first and second time. Mr. Bingham demanded previous question on the passage of the bill; whereupon Mr. Segar, representing a district in Eastern Virginia, objected to a third reading and moved that the bill be laid on the table. On a call for the vote the motion was defeated. On the motion of Roscoe Conkling the consideration of the bill was postponed until the second Tuesday in December, 1862.244

The bill came up again for consideration in the House at the time designated, December 9, 1862. Mr. Conway, of Kansas, obtaining the floor through the courtesy of Mr. Bingham, remarked that he had no objection to the erection of a new State in Western Virginia; that he understood that the inhabitants were thoroughly loyal; that they were opposed to slavery; and that they would make a powerful and prosperous State. Despite these considerations, he was not prepared to adhere to the program of admission. He objected, therefore, that the application had not come up in the proper constitutional form. The commonwealth was not organized into a territorial form of government, and so, said he, no enabling act could be passed. The constitutional provision that no State may be divided without the assent of the legislature thereof was not, in his opinion, adhered to. He questioned the legitimacy of the so-called "Restored Government of Virginia" after a part of the State had seceded from the Union.245 It was his contention that the failure of the State government caused the sovereignty of the State to accrue to the Federal Government. Any application for admission into the Union, on the part of West Virginia, should proceed on this theory.246

Replying to these arguments, Mr. Brown, of Virginia, claimed constitutional regularity of procedure in forming the new State and in seeking to have it admitted into the Union. He referred to the case of Kentucky as a precedent, attempting thereby to show the competency of Congress to admit a State formed within the jurisdiction of another. He pointed out that the Senate, the House, the Executive Department of the United States Government and a State Court in Ohio had, all, by their several acts and relationships with the Wheeling Legislature recognized it to be the legal legislature of Virginia. Discussing the original powers of the people, Mr. Brown asserted "that the principle was laid down in the Declaration of Independence that the legislative powers of the people cannot be annihilated; that when the functionaries to whom they are entrusted become incapable of exercising them, they revert to the people, who have the right to exercise them in their primitive and original capacity." "When, therefore, the government of old Virginia capitulated to the Confederacy," said he, "the loyal people of Western Virginia acted in accordance with the directing principle of the Declaration of Independence."247

Conforming to the opinion of Mr. Brown, Mr. Colfax urged the admission of the proposed new State, "because in their constitution, the people provided for the ultimate extinction of slavery."248 Among other speakers urging the admission of the new State were Edwards, Blair, Stevens, and Bingham. Edwards asserted that the two questions presented had to do with (1) the constitutional power of Congress to admit the State and (2) the question of expediency. Blair, while urging the admission of the new State, took occasion to inform Mr. Crittenden, of Kentucky, that the people of the proposed new State of West Virginia had bound themselves to pay a just proportion of the public debt owed by the State of Virginia, prior to the passage of the Ordinance of Secession. Thaddeus Stevens held that the act of the legislature of Virginia assenting to the division of the State was invalid as such, but that West Virginia might be admitted under the absolute power that the laws of war give to Congress under such circumstances. "The Union," he said, "can never be restored under the Constitution as it was," and with his consent, it could never be restored with slavery to be protected by it. He was in favor of admitting West Virginia because he "found in her constitution a provision which would make her a free state."249

Perhaps no man in the House opposed more vigorously the admission of the State under the bill being considered than did Mr. Segar. According to his point of view, the people of the proposed new State had made a pro-slavery constitution; they had retained their former slave status, merely prohibiting the coming in for permanent residence of additional slaves and free Negroes. The bill presented here, he argued, requires them to strike out the provision that they have seen fit to make with reference to slavery; Congress has made for them a constitution of fast emancipation, one of virtual anti-slavery variety. "This," said he, "is nothing less than a flagrant departure from the doctrine that the States may of right manage their domestic affairs and fashion their institutions as they will."250 During the course of his remarks, he found occasion to deny the constitutionality of the legislature, by whose authority he held his seat in Congress.

Concluding the debate, Mr. Bingham, who had advocated the admission of the State throughout the course of its consideration by the House, summed up in succinct form, first, the positions taken by the preceding speakers; and second, citations and arguments to show the constitutionality of the proceedings. Continuing, he urged the expediency of admission; he asserted that the chief objection to admission on the part of most of the gentlemen opposed was that, thereby, a new slave State would be admitted into the Union; and finally he trusted that the bill would pass, because his confidence in the people of Western Virginia had convinced him that they would not only ratify the provision for gradual emancipation, but would avail themselves of the opportunity afforded by the President's proclamation to bring about the immediate or ultimate emancipation of every slave within the State. On motion, the roll was called and the bill was passed by a vote of 96 to 55.251

On the twenty-third day of December, President Lincoln requested the written opinion of the members of his cabinet on the Act for the admission of West Virginia into the Union, first, as252 to its constitutionality and second, as to its expediency. Of the six members who replied, Messrs. Seward, Chase and Stanton decided that the measure was both constitutional and expedient; whereas Welles, Blair and Bates decided that it was neither constitutional nor expedient.253 In the meanwhile, Governor Pierpont of the Restored Government of Virginia sent to the President a message urging upon him the absolute and complete necessity for his assent to the measure.254

The decision of the President was awaited with anxiety. Without underestimating the importance attaching to the opinions of his advisors, it was evident that Mr. Lincoln's opinion was all-important. Characteristic of the President, and despite the wealth of opinion and advice at his command, he found his own reasons for concluding that the act was both constitutional and expedient. Not the least important one among these reasons was the fact that "the admission of the new State would turn just that much slave soil to free."255

After the signing of the bill by the President and in conformity with the requirements of the amended constitution, the constitutional convention reassembled for the purpose of approving the gradual emancipation amendment inserted by Congress. Completing its work in a session of eight days, the Convention adjourned on the twentieth day of February. On the twenty-sixth day of March the people adopted the amendment; 27,749 voted for ratification and 572 for rejection. Certification of the election results was made to Governor Pierpont, who forthwith communicated the fact to the President of the United States. On the twentieth day of April, President Lincoln issued his proclamation relating to the admission of the State of West Virginia into the Union, the same to take effect sixty days from date thereof. Accordingly, therefore, on the twentieth day of June, 1863, the commonwealth of West Virginia formally entered into the Union as a State, the first one to do so with a constitution providing for the gradual emancipation of any class of slaves within the limits of its territory.256

Alrutheus A. Taylor.

CANADIAN NEGROES AND THE JOHN BROWN RAID

Canada and Canadians were intimately connected with the most dramatic incident in the slavery struggle prior to the opening of the Civil War, the attack of John Brown and his men on the federal arsenal at Harper's Ferry, Virginia, on the night of Sunday, October 16, 1859. The blow that Brown struck at slavery in this attack had been planned on broad lines in Canada more than a year before at a convention held in Chatham, Ontario, May 8-10, 1858. In calling this convention in Canada, Brown doubtless had two objects in view: to escape observation and to interest the Canadian Negroes in his plans for freeing their enslaved race on a scale never before dreamed of and in a manner altogether new. It was Brown's idea to gather a band of determined and resourceful men, to plant them somewhere in the Appalachian mountains near slave territory and from their mountain fastness to run off the slaves, ever extending the area of operations and eventually settling the Negroes in the territory that they had long tilled for others. He believed that operations of this kind would soon demoralize slavery in the South and he counted upon getting enough help from Canada to give the initial impetus.

What went on at Chatham in May, 1858, is fairly definitely known. Brown came to Chatham on April 30 and sent out invitations to what he termed "a quiet convention … of true friends of freedom," requesting attendance on May 10. The sessions were held on May 8th and 10th, Saturday and Monday, and were attended by twelve white men and thirty-three Negroes. William C. Munroe, a colored preacher, acted as chairman. Brown himself made the opening and principal speech of the convention, outlining plans for carrying on a guerilla warfare against the whites, which would free the slaves, who might afterwards be settled in the more mountainous districts. He expected that many of the free Negroes in the Northern States would flock to his standard, that slaves in the South would do the same, and that some of the free Negroes in Canada would also accompany him.

The main business before the convention was the adoption of a constitution for the government of Brown's black followers in the carrying out of his weird plan of forcible emancipation. Copies of the constitution were printed after the close of the Chatham gathering and furnished evidence against Brown and his companions when their plans came to ground and they were tried in the courts of Virginia. Brown himself was elected commander-in-chief, J. H. Kagi was named secretary of war, George B. Gill, secretary of the treasury, Owen Brown, one of his sons, treasurer, Richard Realf, secretary of state, and Alfred M. Ellsworth and Osborn Anderson, colored, were named members of Congress.

It was more than a year before Brown could proceed to the execution of his plan. Delays of various kinds had upset his original plans, but early in June, 1859, he went to Harper's Ferry with three companions and rented a farm near that town. Others joined them at intervals until at the time of their raid he had eighteen followers, four of whom were Negroes. The story of the attack and its failure need not be told here. It is sufficient to say that when the fighting ended on Tuesday morning, October 18, John Brown himself was wounded and a prisoner; ten of his party, including two of his sons, were dead, and the others were fugitives from justice. Brown was given a preliminary examination on October 25th and on the following day was brought to trial at Charlestown. Public sentiment in Virginia undoubtedly called for a speedy trial, but there was evidence of panicky feeling in the speed with which John Brown was rushed to punishment. On Monday, October 31, the jury, after 45 minutes' deliberation, returned a verdict of guilty of treason, conspiracy with slaves to rebel and murder in the first degree. On November 2nd, sentence was pronounced, that Brown should be hanged on December 2nd. As the trap dropped under him that day, Col. Preston, who commanded the military escort, pronounced the words: "So perish all such enemies of Virginia. All such enemies of the Union. All such foes of the human race." That was the unanimous sentiment of Virginia. But in the North Longfellow wrote in his journal: "This will be a great date in our history; the date of a new revolution, quite as much needed as the old one."257 And Thoreau declared: "Some 1800 years ago Christ was crucified; this morning, perchance, Captain Brown was hung. These are the two ends of a chain that is not without its links."258

John Brown's raid on Harper's Ferry made a profound impression in Canada. Although the Chatham convention had been secret there were some Canadians who knew that Brown was meditating a bold stroke and could see at once the connection between Chatham and Harper's Ferry. The raid was reported in detail in the Canadian press and widely commented upon editorially. In a leading article extending over more than one column of its issue of November 4, 1859, The Globe, of Toronto, points out that the execution of Brown will but serve to make him remembered as "a brave man who perilled property, family, life itself, for an alien race." His death, continued the editor, would make the raid valueless as political capital for the South, which might expect other Browns to arise. References in this article to the Chatham convention indicate that George Brown, editor of The Globe, knew what had been going on in Canada in May, 1858. Three weeks later, The Globe, with fine discernment, declared that if the tension between north and south continued, civil war would be inevitable and "no force that the south can raise can hold the slaves if the north wills that they be free."259 On the day of Brown's execution The Globe said: "His death will aid in awakening the north to that earnest spirit which can alone bring the south to understand its true position," and added that it was a "rare sight to witness the ascent of this fine spirit out of the money-hunting, cotton-worshipping American world."260 Once again, with insight into American affairs it predicted that "if a Republican president is elected next year, nothing short of a dissolution of the union will satisfy them" (the cotton States).