Chapter VI: Front Matter (6)

"There will be an historical pageant to-morrow night. A public meeting with the pastors of St. Mark's, Olivet, Mother, A. M. E. Zion, St. Cyprian, George Foster Peabody and James Weldon Johnson as the speakers will take place Tuesday night. Following this meeting there will be a reception and parish supper in the basement of the church. Wednesday night is set apart for a praise service, when the Rev. Dr. Manning, Dr. Stires, Dr. Grant and Dr. Bragg will deliver addresses.

"The newly organized Provincial Conference of Church Workers Among Colored People will hold its sessions Thursday and Friday, when representative ministers and lay workers will participate. The conference will be addressed Friday night by Dr. Harry T. Ward of Union Theological Seminary and Dr. Robert Russa Moton, Principal of Tuskegee Institute."

PROCEEDINGS OF THE ANNUAL MEETING, WASHINGTON, D. C., NOVEMBER 18, AND 19, 1920.

The annual meeting of the Association for the Study of Negro Life and History was called to order by Dr. C. G. Woodson, the Director of Research and Editor of the _Journal of Negro History_. After a few preliminary remarks, President John W. Davis of the West Virginia Collegiate Institute was asked to open the meeting by the invocation of divine blessing. Professor William Hansberry of Straight College was introduced to deliver a lecture on the Ancient and Mediaeval Culture of the People of Yorubuland. This was a most informing disquisition on the achievements of these people prior to the time when they came into contact with the so-called more advanced Asiatic and European races. On the whole, Professor Hansberry made a strong argument in behalf of the contention that the culture of these people was indigenous and that brought into comparison with that of the ancient Greek and Roman it does not materially suffer.

Mr. A. O. Stafford, the principal of the Lincoln School of Washington, D. C., then read a very illuminating and informing paper on African folk lore. He discussed briefly the various authorities producing works in this field and indicated sources of information which have not yet been explored. He then made a general survey of African folk lore, showing how the Negro mind from the very earliest periods of African history exhibited independent thought and philosophical tendency.

At the conclusion of these addresses there followed a general discussion in which participated Principal D. S. S. Goodloe of the Maryland State Normal and Industrial School, Mr. John W. Cromwell, President of the American Negro Academy, Mr. Monroe N. Work, Director of Research and Records, Tuskegee Institute, and President John W. Davis of the West Virginia Collegiate Institute.

At two o'clock the Association held a business session. The general routine of business was followed. There being no unfinished business or reports of special committees, the Association heard the reports of the officers of last year. The Director read his report and the report of the Secretary-Treasurer was presented by his assistant, Miss A. H. Smith. They follow:

THE REPORT OF THE DIRECTOR

During the year 1919-1920 the Association has made steady
progress in spite of the difficulties resulting from the
increasing cost of labor and supplies. There has been some
difficulty in raising additional funds adequate to the needs of
the Association and for this reason the organization is now
suffering from a deficit of about $2500. Persons of means,
however, have from time to time volunteered so as to give
sufficient relief to keep the work going. Efforts are now being
made to remove this deficit in the near future through the
increase in the contributions annually received and gifts from
other friends who will be asked to make sacrifices for the cause.

The study of Negro history has not extended by leaps and bounds
but the progress of the work is in every way encouraging. The
number of subscribers to the JOURNAL OF NEGRO HISTORY has not
increased because of the necessity to double the subscription
price in keeping with the demands of high prices, but the
influence of the work has considerably expanded. This magazine is
now being used as collateral reading in most of the leading white
and Negro institutions of the country and the number of classes
thus engaged are increasing every year. There is also a healthy
public opinion in favor of prosecuting the study of Negro history
more vigorously. Almost any book setting forth facts as to what
the Negro has thought and felt and done now has considerable
demand among persons in this country and abroad. While this
Association does not claim credit for all which has been
accomplished in this field, it has certainly given a decided
stimulus to the work.

It will be interesting to report, moreover, the number of
institutions closely cooperating with the Association in
prosecuting the study of the Negro. Among these may be mentioned
special classes in this work at Howard University, conducted by
the Director himself last year, and at the West Virginia
Collegiate Institute, where he is now engaged. In Lincoln
Institute, Missouri, considerable good has been accomplished
among students even of a high school grade, whereas at the State
Normal and Industrial Institute at Frankfort, Kentucky, the work
has interested a larger number of more advanced students.
Institutions like Straight College, Fisk, Atlanta, Morehouse,
Wilberforce, and Lincoln are laying a good foundation in this
field.

REPORT OF THE SECRETARY-TREASURER.

_The Association for the Study of Negro Life and History,
Incorporated, Washington, D. C._

_Gentlemen_: I hereby submit to you a report of the amount of
money received and expended by the Association for the Study of
Negro Life and History, Incorporated, from September 30, 1919 to
September 30, 1920, inclusive:

RECEIPTS EXPENDITURES

Subscriptions $ 778.32 Printing and Stationery $2,733.54
Memberships 160.00 Petty Cash Expenses 551.26
Contributions 3,331.00 Rent and Light 250.30
News Agents 69.47 Stenographic Service 901.80
Advertisements 264.05 Miscellaneous Expenses 269.98
Books 19.63 Total Expenditures $4,706.88
Rent 15.00 Balance September 30, 1920. 48.86
------- ---------
Total Receipts, Sept. 30, $4,755.74
1919, to Sept. 30,
1920 $4,637.47
Balance Sept. 30, 1919 118.27
--------
$4,755.74

Respectfully submitted,
ALETHE H. SMITH,
_Assist. to the Secretary-Treasurer._

After a brief discussion these reports were accepted and approved. The Association then spent some time in discussing the advisability of holding annual meetings at strategic points and there prevailed a motion to the effect that the Executive Council be requested to hold the next annual meeting of the Association in Atlanta, Georgia. The meeting adjourned after electing the following as officers: Robert E. Park, President, Jesse E. Moorland, Secretary-Treasurer, Carter G. Woodson, Director of Research and Editor; who with Julius Rosenwald, George Foster Peabody, James H. Dillard, John R. Hawkins, Emmett J. Scott, William G. Willcox, Bishop John Hurst, Albert Bushnell Hart, Thomas Jesse Jones, A. L. Jackson, Moorfield Storey, and Bishop R. E. Jones, were made members of the Executive Council.

At the evening session at the John Wesley A. M. E. Z. Church, the Association was addressed by three men of distinction. The first speaker was Professor Kelly Miller of Howard University who briefly discussed the Limits of Philanthropy in Negro Education, endeavoring to show that helpful as has been the program of the whites to educate the Negroes, their work must be a failure, if it does not ultimately result in equipping the Negro to take over his own school systems that the direction, hitherto in the hands of whites, may be dispensed with.

Professor Robert T. Kerlin of the Virginia Military Institute, having misunderstood his place on the program appeared at this meeting and, as one of the persons scheduled to address the session did not present himself, he was permitted to speak. His discourse was an extensive discussion of the role played by poetry in the civilization of a people and how the Negro poet is rendering his race and the country service in singing of his woes and clamoring for a new opportunity.

The meeting was closed with an address by Mr. Oswald Garrison Villard, the Editor of the _Nation_, discussing the subject, The Economic Bases of the Race Question. His discourse was a political and sociological treatise based upon facts of history and economics to show the hopelessness of a program to right the wrongs of the Negroes unless that program has its foundation in things economic, in as much as the present day situation offers no hope that politics will play any particular part in the solution. All three speakers made a very favorable impression upon the audience and so enlightened it by the masterful array of facts presenting their point of view as to make this one of the most interesting sessions ever held by the Association.

The first session of the second day consisted of a conference on the Negro in America. In the absence of Dr. R. E. Park, Dr. C. G. Woodson spent most of the time discussing the achievements in the writing of history of the Negro in America, especially in the United States. He discussed the various motives actuating persons to enter this field, showing that in most cases these were propagandists and for that reason a non-partisan and unbiased history of the Negro has not yet been written. He then discussed the possibility of producing interesting, comprehensive and valuable works by the proper use of the various materials. These materials, however, contended he, would have to be given scientific treatment that the whole truth might be extracted therefrom. He then showed the possibility of error in accepting as evidence the opinions of the proslavery element about the antislavery element, the opinions of the abolitionists about the colonizationists and vice versa. These will have to be scientifically examined and after all the actual facts of Negro history must be determined from such sources as letters, diaries, books of travel, and unconscious evidence in the current publications of the times.

At the conclusion of the address remarks were made by Mr. A. H. Grimke, Mr. T. C. Williams, Mr. G. C. Wilkinson, Mr. A. C. Newman, Professor A. H. Locke, Professor Walter Dyson, and Professor William L. Hansberry. Professor Hansberry discussed for a few minutes the value of the sources in African history making his talk very illuminating and instructive.

The afternoon was devoted to a meeting of the Executive Council to which the public was not invited but in the evening a large number of members and friends of the cause attended the session, at the John Wesley A. M. E. Z. Church. The speakers of the occasion were Mr. Charles E. Russell of Washington, D. C., and Professor Albert Bushnell Hart of Harvard University. Mr. Russell discussed the _Negro's Right to Justice_ taking the record of the Negro as a worthy one and the fallacy of discrimination against him in the midst of the struggle for democracy. The address was both illuminating and convincing. Then followed the address of Professor Hart on _Free Men by Choice_. He endeavored to show that no person is actually free. That all elements of the population and all classes are more or less restricted. This discussion was both legal and historical, presenting in its various ramifications the social order in the country and the legislation underlying the same. He finally brought out the important fact that although the institution of slavery imprisoned the body of the Negroes, it could not control their minds.

THE JOURNAL

OF

NEGRO HISTORY

VOL. VI--APRIL, 1921--NO. 2

MAKING WEST VIRGINIA A FREE STATE

THE HISTORIC BACKGROUND

In 1763 the Peace of Paris definitely fixed the boundaries of Virginia, giving as its western line, the Mississippi River from the Ohio River to the Lake of Woods.[1] As time and settlement progressed, the other colonies, growing fearful of Virginia's commanding position, protested against her retention of this vast territory. Finally, in 1784, Virginia ceded to the Congress of the Confederation all lands lying north and west of the Ohio River. She wanted it stipulated, however, that the territory between the Ohio River and the Allegheny Mountains comprising what is now West Virginia should remain forever hers. Although the Congress did not make this stipulation, for the reason that Virginia was unable to show title; Virginia was, nevertheless, permitted to retain possession of the said territory.[2]

"The surface of Virginia of that day is divided into two unequally inclined planes and a centrally located valley. The eastern plane is subdivided into the Piedmont and the Tidewater; the western into the Allegheny Highlands, the Cumberland Plateau, and the Ohio Valley section; the area between was designated the Valley." The eastern part of the State abounds in rich fertile soil, well adapted to agriculture, while the western portion, especially the trans-Allegheny region possesses in large quantities such natural resources as bituminous coal, building stone, natural gas and petroleum.[3] The "Valley," a part of the great Appalachian range of valleys, is a depressed surface, several hundred feet below the top of the Blue Ridge Mountains on the one side, and the Alleghenies on the other. It is the dividing line of the two sections of the State then known as eastern and western Virginia.

The earlier settlements west of the mountains were made by the more adventurous persons of the east, who had no property or other ties to attach them to the soil whence they came. At a later date, a more substantial class, Germans and Scotch-Irish Presbyterians, made settlements in this western country. They brought few slaves with them but engaged in agriculture. A new type of people from the free States to the north and west, next, came to Western Virginia.[4]

Slavery did not become a flourishing institution there, and in the decades between the years of 1840 and 1860, the demand for slave labor in the Gulf States caused the bulk of the slave population to go to that market. The commercial and industrial interests developed there found their outlets west and north. There was little intercourse of any kind and practically no commerce with Eastern Virginia. No railroad connected the west with the east. Burning political differences manifested themselves, and these, with the lack of commercial and social intercourse already noted, accentuated strife between the two sections,[5] as was manifested in every State constitutional convention held prior to the Civil War.

The Constitutional Convention of 1829 at Richmond was one of the most important conventions in the history of the Virginia dissension. The transmontane people, the people of the Valley and some of those of the Piedmont were arrayed against the aristocratic land owners of the Tidewater, demanding a greater share in the government of the Commonwealth. The leading issues before the convention were: (1) the question of extension of suffrage, (2) a more equitable basis of representation in the legislature, and (3) the question of taxation as a minor problem.

The right of suffrage was then conditioned upon the ownership of land. The law regulating this matter had remained the same since 1776, except that the number of acres of improved land, the possession of which entitled one to vote, had been reduced from 50 to 25.[6] Thus all those persons who were not attached to land or who did not possess land in sufficient quantities were denied the ballot. The west, whose white population, in 1829, was 319,516, argued and fought for citizen-suffrage, while the east, whose white population was 362,745 at this time, representing a fifteen per cent increase since 1790, as compared with one of 150 per cent for the west, opposed this measure.[7]

The question of the reapportionment of representation was one of the greatest importance. Here again, just as suffrage was based upon the ownership of land, representation was based upon interests. In 1828 the House of Delegates consisted of two hundred and fourteen members; the Senate of twenty-four." Of these numbers the transmontane country had but eighty delegates and nine senators.[8] This section, then proposed that the basis of apportionment should be the white population. The cismontane people opposed this, since any change in this direction would tend to place too much political power in the hands of the westerners.

After a discussion on the white and mixed bases proposals, which lasted three weeks, the convention finally turned to a consideration of the various plans of compromise. Mr. Gordon, of Albemarle County, presented a plan which was finally accepted with slight modifications. He ignored completely the basis question and attempted an equitable distribution of representation. "It provided for a Senate of twenty-four, of which ten would come from the West; and a House of one hundred and twenty; of which twenty-six would come from the trans-Allegheny, twenty-four from the Valley, thirty-seven from the Piedmont and thirty-three from the Tidewater."[9] Incidentally this plan was quite acceptable to the populous counties of the Piedmont foothills and the Valley, for it tended to increase their representation.

As a constitutional basis for future reapportionments of representation, the following provision was made a part of the constitution:

"That the General Assembly, after the year of 1841 and at
intervals of not less than ten years, shall have authority,
two-thirds of each House concurring, to make re-apportionments of
Delegates and Senators throughout the Commonwealth, so that the
number of Delegates shall not at any time exceed one hundred and
fifty, nor of Senators thirty-six."[10]

The question of taxation was one of some importance. Prior to 1829, the west had drawn annually for administrative purposes more than it had contributed to the treasury. Real estate values in the west were low because of the lack of speculative spirit there, and, consequently, taxes were not collected in great amounts. The west now desired (1) greater revenues to construct roads and canals and to maintain free schools and (2) the power to tax the slave property of the east. There were at this time east of the Blue Ridge Mountains 397,000 Negro slaves subject to taxation and nearly 50,000 in the west. The slave property contributed one-third of the revenue of the State. The east, therefore, determined not to give to the west the desired power to tax her property.[11]

Although the question of reapportionment of representation, the question of taxation and the suffrage question were among the foremost considerations of the Convention, the underlying and basic cause of all this strife was the slavery issue.[12] Those who advocated and supported the institution of slavery were loath to surrender to the people of the west any of the power and privileges that they possessed. Some of Eastern Virginia and a great majority of the people in Western Virginia were opposed to slavery. They believed still in the principles advocated by the fathers of the country as set by George Mason, who, while deploring the institution, had formerly said: "Slavery discourages arts and manufactures. The poor despise labor when performed by slaves. They prevent the immigration of whites, who really enrich and strengthen a country. They produce the most pernicious effect on manners. Every master of slaves is born a petty tyrant. They bring the judgment of Heaven on a country. By an inevitable chain of causes and effects, Providence punishes national sins by national calamities."[13]

A memorial presented to the convention in October in 1829, said that Virginia was in a state of "moral and political retrogression" and proceeded to specify:

"That the causes heretofore frequently assigned are the true ones
we do not believe.... We humbly suggest our belief that the
slavery that exists and which with gigantic strides is gaining
ground among us, is, in truth, the great efficient cause of the
multiplied evils we deplore. We cannot conceive that there is any
other cause sufficiently operative to paralyze the energies of a
people so magnanimous, to neutralize the blessings of Providence
included in the gift of a land so happy in its soil, its climate,
its minerals and its waters; and to annul the manifold advantages
of our republican system and geographical position. If Virginia
has already fallen from her high estate, and if we have assigned
a true cause for her fall, it is with the utmost anxiety that we
look to the future to the fatal termination of the scene. As we
value our domestic happiness, as our hearts yearn for the
prosperity of our offspring, as we pray for the guardian care of
the Almighty over our Country--we earnestly inquire what shall be
done to avert the impending ruin. The efficient cause of our
calamities is vigorously increasing in magnitude and potency,
while we wake and while we sleep."[14]

The able men in the convention saw that no permanent agreement could be reached between the two sections until the basic cause of the whole conflict had been settled. The power of the big planters, however, was too great and there was made no constitutional provision having the purpose to abolish slavery. The Convention of 1829-30, therefore, settled nothing. A compromise was effected on the question of re-apportionment of representation; a constitutional provision set forth a program of future apportionments; but the permanent settlement of this and other important questions was left for the Convention of 1850.

The Assembly of 1831-32 was the scene of an intense debate on the issue of slavery. Because of a turn of events, a more definite cleavage had come between the east and the west. The domestic slave trade, improved methods of agriculture, internal improvements, better means of communication, the consequent increase of capital which helped to restore the impoverished lands and to bring into use the uncultivated areas of the east, brought about in that section a marked revival of interest in the economic possibilities of slavery.[15] The west took a step in the opposite direction.

It must be remembered, however, that there were but few abolitionists of the extreme type in the western sections of Virginia. The responsible leaders in this movement against slavery were not concerned with any moral or religious theories on the subject, but rather, were acting because of their conviction that slavery was an economic evil. These men saw that the States to the north and west of them had outstripped them in the race for material prosperity. They saw, too, the gradual but unrelenting impoverishment of the east. They concluded, therefore, that their lack of prosperity was due to their proximity to the slave-holding section of the State. The belief became current that the natural resources of the west would attract capital and population, if the objectional slaves were removed. In consequence, therefore, they favored a gradual emancipation and deportation of the slaves.[16]

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.[17] 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."[18] 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."[19] 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."[20] 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.[21] 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.[22] 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.[23]

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.[24]

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.[25]

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.[26] 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.[27]

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.[28]

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.[29] 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.[30]

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.[31] The plan was rejected. Following the failure of several other compromise plans, Chilton presented with modifications the report of the committee of eight.[32] 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";[33] 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.[34] 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.[35] The inhabitants of the west never became reconciled to this discriminating arrangement and it was especially irritating during the years immediately preceding the war,[36] when the price of slaves often ranged from sixteen hundred to eighteen hundred dollars.[37]

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.[38] 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.[39] 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 Wise[40] 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 Richmond[41] 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.[42]

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.[43] 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.[44] 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.[45]

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.[46] 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."[47] 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,[48] 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 Clarksburg[49] 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.[50] 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."[51] Significant among the numerous resolutions presented was one by John S. Carlile calling for a new Virginia,[52] 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.[53] 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.[54]

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.[55] 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."[56] 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;[57] (2) the adoption of an Ordinance for the Reorganization of the State[58] and (3) the election of State Officers.[59] 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.[60] 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.[61]

The Constitutional Convention met at the scheduled time in the United States Court room at Wheeling.[62] 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.[63] 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."[64] 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:[65]

(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:[66]

(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."[67]

That this prophetic message from the _Intelligencer_ reflected the opinion of the people of Western Virginia and the state of mind of the Congress, was clearly shown by subsequent events. On the nineteenth day of the Convention an adroit attempt was made to have West Virginia become a slave State.[68] Thomas Harrison, of Harrison county, offered a resolution providing that the making of a new constitution be dispensed with for the present, and that the Virginia Constitution be referred to a Committee of Five with instructions to modify it to suit the needs of the proposed new State. Significant among the provisions of the Virginia Constitution was one altered at the Richmond Secession Convention to the effect that the General Assembly should have power to prohibit the future emancipation of slaves. By its provisions, therefore, the slave could never become free during his residence in the State. On motion of Mr. Van Winkle, the Convention voted that action on the resolution be indefinitely postponed.[69]

Battelle, persistent in his efforts to make some provision in reference to the freedom of the slaves, decided to submit emancipation to the people. Accordingly, therefore, on the twelfth of February, 1862, he offered the following:[70]

(1) "Resolved. That at the same time when this Constitution is
submitted to the qualified voters of the proposed new state to be
voted for or against, an additional section to article----, in
the words following: 'No slave shall be brought or free person of
color come into this state for permanent residence after this
constitution goes into operation, and all children, born of slave
mothers after the year 1870 shall be free, the males at the age
of twenty-eight years, and the females at the age of eighteen
years; and the children of such females shall be free at birth'.
Shall be separately submitted to the qualified voters of the
proposed new state for their adoption or rejection, and if the
majority of the votes cast for and against said additional
section are in favor of its adoption, it shall be made a part of
article--of this constitution and not otherwise."

(2) "Resolved that the committee on schedule be and they are
hereby instructed to report the necessary provisions for carrying
the foregoing resolution into effect."

Mr. Sinsel moved that the resolutions be made the order of the next morning at ten o'clock; Mr. Hall, of Marion county, moved to amend the motion to the effect that it be laid on the table. Mr. Battelle deplored the application of the gag rule. The question not being a debatable one, the vote was taken. By a majority of one vote of the forty-seven cast, the resolutions were indefinitely laid on the table.[71]

On the thirteenth day of February, after the disposition of other important business, Mr. Pomeroy, of Hancock county, suggested that the questions raised by the resolutions offered the day before by Mr. Battelle might be compromised, either by adopting one of the propositions already presented, or by referring the whole matter to a representative committee of conference. Many members of the convention shared the views of Mr. Pomeroy and so stated their convictions to the body. Indeed they favored the settlement of the question then and there, without reference to a committee. Mr. Hall, of Marion, was of the opinion that its reference to a committee might carry abroad the idea that a division existed there; that that which was done, was accomplished only through a committee of compromise. Mr. Hervey was convinced that the new State must be a free State and therefore desired to vote the proposition as it stood, without the committee. Mr. Dille was of the opinion that there would be no objection to a constitutional provision forbidding the entrance into the State for permanent residence, of free Negroes or slaves, after the adoption of the Constitution. Mr. Brown, of Kanawha, sustained the view of Mr. Dille. Mr. Pomeroy made a motion to the effect that the first clause of Mr. Battelle's resolution be acted upon by the body. Mr. Battelle favored the reference of the question to a committee, thus opposing a vote that morning because he had assured a colleague of the opposite side that the question would not be brought up that morning and he wanted that all the proponents and opponents of the measure be present at the taking of the vote.

Mr. Stewart, of Doddridge, the gentleman to whom Mr. Battelle referred, having just entered, stated that he understood the motion before the House to be a compromise measure that would settle the question. Thereupon, Mr. Battelle served notice that while he would support the pending motion, he had entered into no compromise. It was his plan, therefore, to prosecute the case before the public forum. The question was put and it was agreed with one dissenting vote that there should be incorporated into the Constitution the first clause of Mr. Battelle's resolution; namely: "No slave shall be brought or free person of color come into this State for permanent residence after this constitution goes into effect."[72]

On the third day of April the vote on the question of the adoption of the constitution was taken; 18,862 votes were cast for adoption and 514 for rejection. A significant incident to the general election was the informal vote taken, at the suggestion of _The Wheeling Intelligencer_, on Mr. Battelle's emancipation proposition which had been rejected by the Convention. Despite the irregular and unauthorized manner in which this was done, by the several counties holding such extra election, the count showed that six thousand votes were cast for emancipation and six hundred against.[73] It is not improbable, therefore, that the constitution would have been adopted without difficulty had the emancipation clause been included. The politicians and not the people were on the wrong side of the issue.