Chapter VII: Front Matter (7)

Pursuant to the call of the Governor, the general assembly met in its second extra session on the sixth of May.[74] On the thirteenth day of the same month it passed "An Act giving the assent of the Legislature of Virginia to the Formation of and Erection of a New State within the jurisdiction of this State."[75] Everything was now in readiness for the presentation of documents and credentials to Congress, by the proposed new State, in support of its application for admission into the Union.

Prior to this Mr. Battelle, in pursuance of his earnest efforts to make the proposed new State free, had prepared a masterly address on the subject of the emancipation of the slaves, to be delivered in convention to his colleagues. The sense of the convention was such that the courageous gentleman was unable to engage its attention for that purpose. Accordingly, therefore, he had printed in pamphlet form the address that he intended to deliver, and distributed it throughout the counties of Northwestern Virginia. Among the salient points therein set forth the following are noteworthy: first, that since the institution of slavery as it existed within the bounds of Western Virginia was the mere creature of law, the law was competent to remove it; and that, therefore, it was fairly and properly a subject for the consideration of those in convention assembled; second, that the gradual emancipation of the slaves was both fundamental and vital to the success of the new State, and in consequence thereof the question should be settled in the organic law. Mr. Battelle discussed the question from two points of view, that of principle, and that of expediency. It was developed that the principle of slavery was wrong and that the system, therefore, should be abolished. "While discrimination must be made between the system and the acts of individuals, the former," he said, "is always bad, is always inconsistent with the obvious requirements of either justice or morals."[76]

Considering the proposition in the light of expediency, the question was asked: "What do the best interests of the people of West Virginia require from the persons assembled to frame the organic law?" In reply thereto there was developed the theme that labor was fundamental to the material prosperity of the commonwealth; that slave labor and free had always been and would doubtless always be unharmonious and inconsistent in purpose. Since slave labor, it was pointed out, was competent to perform only the crudest work and most menial tasks, it followed that free labor was indispensable to the material progress of the new State. "Slave labor," Battelle said, "drove out free labor and tended to make all labor undignified and despised. It should, therefore, be dispensed with." In reply to the assertion that since the system was destined to die a quick and certain death no action on the part of the State was necessary, Mr. Battelle urged that "if that be true, it furnished an additional reason for the incorporation into the constitution of a provision terminating slavery." "Such action would be but just to all parties--to both the proponents and the opponents of the present system." The argument closed with an exposition, first, on slavery as the fundamental cause of the then current distress in Virginia and in the nation; and second, on the propriety of such an act at that particular time. This argument doubtless had an unexpected effect in preparing the minds of the people of the State for the acceptance of the plan of gradual emancipation, the condition on which West Virginia was finally admitted.[77]

SLAVERY AND THE ADMISSION OF WEST VIRGINIA

Waitman T. Willey, a member of the Senate from Virginia, having obtained the permission of that body to do so, presented on May 29th a certified original of the constitution together with a copy of an Act of the General Assembly of Virginia, of May 13, 1862, under the Restored Government, giving its permission for the formation of a new State within the commonwealth of Virginia. He presented at the same time the memorial of the General Assembly requesting Congress to admit the State of West Virginia into the Union. Following the receipt of these documents they were referred to the Committee on Territories, of which B. F. Wade, of Ohio, was the Chairman.[78]

On the twenty-third of June Senate Bill No. 365 providing for "the admission of the State of West Virginia into the Union" was reported, read and passed to a second reading.[79] On the twenty-sixth day of June, on motion of Mr. Wade, the bill was taken up for immediate consideration in a committee of the whole. The bill proposed to admit West Virginia into the Union on equal footing with the original States in all respects whatever, subject, among other conditions, to the following: "That the convention thereinafter provided for shall in the constitution to be framed by it, make provision that from and after the fourth day of July, 1863, the children of all slaves born within the limits of the said State shall be free."[80]

Following the action noted, Mr. Sumner, Senator from Massachusetts, quoted that provision of the bill relating to the emancipation of slaves and raised the following objections, namely: (1) that by the passage of the bill a new slave State would be admitted into the Union and (2) that the existing generation of slaves would remain such throughout the course of their lives. He was unalterably opposed to the measure so long as it contained these features; and he, therefore, sought to remove them by means of the same policy that Jefferson applied to the territories of the Northwest. Accordingly, he offered an amendment to the effect "that the convention hereinafter provided for, in the Constitution to be framed by it, make provision that from and after the fourth day of July, 1863, within the limits of said State, there shall be neither slavery nor involuntary servitude otherwise than in the punishment of crime, whereof the party shall be duly convicted."[81] A vote on the amendment was requested and ordered but not then taken.

Dissatisfied with the purport of the proposed amendment, Senator Willey expressed his intention to amend the same; whereupon the presiding officer of the Senate proposed that he offer an amendment to the bill rather than to the proposed amendment of Senator Sumner. In the meanwhile, Mr. Hale, of New Hampshire, a member of the committee that framed the bill, affirmed his intention to sustain it. His remarks were suspended by order of the chair for the purpose of considering another matter which had priority to the one then being discussed.

On the motion of Senator Willey the bill was again considered on the first day of July, the question pending being the amendment of Mr. Sumner.[82] In support thereof, Mr. Sumner asserted that from statistics of Mr. Willey it appeared that twelve thousand bondsmen in Western Virginia were doomed to continue as such for the remainder of their lives, and that consequently the Senate must, for a generation, be afflicted with two additional slave-holding members. He quoted from Webster's speech of December 22, 1845, on the admission of Texas into the Union and rested his case on its arguments. Briefly stated, Mr. Webster opposed the admission of other States into the Union as slave States, and at the same time granting to them the inequalities arising from the mode of apportioning representation to Congress, as granted by the Constitution to the original slave-holding States. He held that the free States have the right to demand the abolition of slavery by a commonwealth seeking admission with a slave-holding constitution.[83]

During the continuation of the debate, Mr. Hale asserted that Mr. Webster abandoned the position just attributed to him when in 1850 he voted against any restrictions upon any territory coming into the Union with a slave-holding constitution and when he voted exclusively against applying the "Wilmot Proviso" to these States. Mr. Hale added tersely that since Congress had consistently admitted States with slave-holding constitutions providing for perpetual slavery, it would be the merest folly to refuse to admit the first State whose constitution provided for gradual emancipation.[84]

A new issue was injected into the debate when Mr. Collamer, of Vermont, while reviewing what is implied in being a sovereign State and a State in the Union, argued that the imposition by Congress of any condition precedent to the entrance, whether or not that condition be the abolition of slavery, is an unwarranted interference with the internal affairs of that State. Under such circumstances the proposed new State would not come into the Union on equal footing with other States. He did not wish, however, to be understood as saying that he would not vote against a State desiring to come in as a perpetual slave-holding State; but he failed to see the wisdom or justice in making the abolition of slavery a condition precedent to entrance. On the other hand, he saw no difference, in principle, between the provision in the bill as reported and the amendment offered by Mr. Sumner, since both of them failed to reflect the will of the Convention that framed the State's constitution.[85]

Thereupon Mr. Willey announced that he would offer the following amendment: "That after the fourth day of July, 1863, the children born of slave mothers within the limits of the said State shall be free, and that no law shall be passed by the said State by which any citizen of either of the States of this Union shall be excluded from the enjoyment of the privileges and immunities to which such citizen is entitled under the Constitution of the United States; provided that the convention that ordained the constitution aforesaid, to be reconvened in the manner prescribed in the schedule thereto annexed, shall by a solemn public ordinance declare the assent of the said State to the said fundamental condition, and shall transmit to the President of the United States on or before the 15th of November, 1862, an authentic copy of the said ordinance; upon receipt whereof the President by proclamation shall announce the fact; whereupon and without any further procedure on the part of Congress the admission of the said State into the Union shall be considered as complete."[86]

Throughout the debate that followed there were found many supporters of the program of gradual emancipation for the proposed new State. Chairman Wade, of the Committee of Territories, made thereupon the following important remarks: (1) that the proposed new State had voluntarily fixed the marks of extermination of the institution of slavery; (2) that the principal men of the commonwealth had told him that the first legislature to convene would do away with the whole institution, as fast as the nature of the case would permit; (3) that he believed the efforts of West Virginia were constitutional; (4) that it was just and expedient to admit her; (5) that he did not favor the inclusion in the commonwealth of the pro-slavery counties of the Valley; (6) that he did not want a provision saying that a person born one day should be a slave forever, and that one born the next day should be free; and finally (7) that he would like to see an amendment, providing that "all children who, at the time this constitution takes effect, are fifteen or sixteen years of age, shall be free upon arriving at the age of twenty-one or thirty-five years," i.e., a provision for gradual emancipation that will enable some of those born before as well as all of those born July fourth, 1863, to obtain their freedom.[87]

Mr. Fessenden, of Maine, prefacing his remarks with the statement that he had not examined the question, proceeded to make the following observations: (1) that he wished to be assured that the State could be admitted constitutionally; (2) that considering the position of the State, the feeling of the people about the matter, the small number of slaves there at the present time, he believed it not only the duty, but the entire right of the body (Congress) to prescribe before the State comes in that she shall put herself in a proper and irreversible position on the subject of the gradual abolition of slavery; (3) that when a definite and fixed date is given for the termination of slavery, the State becomes in point of fact a free State; (4) that he was glad to know (according to Mr. Wade) that the people of West Virginia concurred in opinion with the principles sponsored by himself; and (5) that the interests of the State itself and those of all of the States in the Union demanded an irreversible agreement on the whole matter.[88] Further consideration of the bill was then postponed.

Shortly after an unsuccessful attempt on the part of Mr. Willey to have the consideration of the bill continue,[89] it was brought up again on the fourteenth of July by Senator Wade. The pending question was the amendment of Mr. Sumner. The vote was taken and the amendment was rejected.[90] Mr. Willey then offered the amendment already herein noted. He was followed by Mr. Wade, who, expecting the State to be admitted, if at all, under the amendment of Mr. Willey, moved to amend the amendment by inserting at the proper place the words: "And that all slaves within the State who shall at the aforesaid time be under twenty-one years, shall be free when they arrive at the age of twenty-one years."[91] Despite the anti-slavery principle here involved, Mr. Wade was convinced that some provision was necessary to facilitate the running of the bill in the Senate and in the House. He thought, too, that the harshness and abruptness of the bill would be thereby smoothed down, softened and rendered harmonious.[92]

It was no easy task, however, that the Senator from Ohio had essayed to accomplish. His proposal brought from Mr. Willey the personal conviction of the man. Mr. Willey preferred that the State be admitted under the constitution precisely as submitted by the people. That not being possible, he wished that his amendment (which was not to his personal tastes) be carried. He deplored the situation that would follow should the amendment of Mr. Wade be passed. He pointed out: (1) that the majority of slaves were in counties contiguous to what would be the borders of the old State of Virginia; (2) that many of them ranged in age from one to twenty-one years; (3) that when they should arrive at a convenient age for sale, they would be silently transferred across the border into Kentucky or Virginia or the further South, if needs be, and there sold into the cotton fields of the South or the tobacco plantations of the East, where slavery was admittedly at its worst; (4) that many of the slaves were females, the offspring of whom would be free, were the mothers allowed to remain in the State, but upon the passage of the amendment even those would be doomed to the perpetual slavery of the far South. Replying to an inquiry made by Mr. Lane, of Kansas, as to whether or not public sentiment would condone such action, he asked if public sentiment would be likely to influence those slave owners who lived in territory contiguous to Virginia. The loyalty and fidelity of West Virginia should, in Mr. Willey's opinion, guarantee the safe manner in which the commonwealth would handle the question. Never before in similar situations, he argued, had slaves _in esse_ been freed; freedom extended only to those unborn at the passage of the constitution or to those born on or after a date therein designated.[93]

Again joining issue with Senator Willey, Mr. Lane pointed out that the same situation arose in Kansas when in February, 1856, the people adopted a constitution providing for the emancipation of the slaves on the fourth of the following July. The slaves, however, handled the situation. They told their masters that since they should become free after the date designated, they would not permit themselves to be taken out of the State prior to that date.[94] Mr. Lane did not doubt the capacity to do likewise on the part of the slaves then being considered.

An interesting spectacle presented itself when the two Senators from Virginia engaged in spirited debate. Mr. Carlile desired that the State be admitted under the terms of the constitution framed at Wheeling, the alternative being that the people of the State should have the new terms submitted to them for approval. He believed that Mr. Willey's amendment was incomplete as it stood, and that an amendment in conformity with the one presented by Mr. Wade was necessary, providing, of course, that it was the sense of the Senate to admit the State only upon conditions. He took issue with Mr. Willey's assertion that the passage of Mr. Wade's amendment would be followed by a wholesale delivery of slaves to purchasers further South.[95] In the meanwhile Mr. Wade's amendment was agreed to.

Mr. Carlile now began overtly his campaign of obstruction and opposition to the admission of the State into the Union. He offered as an amendment to that of his colleague to be inserted at the end of the sixteenth line, the following words: "After the said ordinance shall be submitted to the vote of the people in the said State of West Virginia and be ratified by the vote of the majority of the people thereof." The sinister motive underlying his proposal was clearly perceived and ably met by Mr. Willey. He opposed the measure: first, because of the unusual requirement of the majority vote of the people, and, second, because of the new convention that would be required to assent to the fundamental proposition, and the consequent new election and additional costs to the people. The constitutional convention, he argued, was still in existence, was still a legal body, and that, therefore, there was no sufficient reason for the reference of the matter beyond the jurisdiction thereof.[96]

Dissatisfied but not discouraged, Mr. Carlile explained away the objection to the words "majority of the people." He maintained, however, that the changes contemplated would affect the fundamental law and that they should, therefore, be ratified by the people subsequent to being assented to by the Convention. It was, he argued, a departure from and in derogation of the customs and ideas of Virginia to change the organic law without first submitting the proposed new law to the people. Setting forth more clearly his position on the whole matter Carlile said: "Supposing--as I suppose, I will see when I move this test amendment, which I shall, to this proposition--that the Senate is unwilling to admit us without conditions, I shall vote against any bill, if it is pressed, exacting conditions, for the purpose of going home to my people asking them to assemble a Convention between this and the first Monday in December, and act upon the suggestion which we have received here from the Senate, if they desire to do so and come here with a constitution that will enable Congress, without such arbitrary stretch of power to admit us at once without delay."[97]

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.[98] 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.[99] 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."[100]

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."[101] 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.[102] 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.[103]

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.[104]

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."[105]

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."[106]

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.[107]

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.[108]

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. 531[109] 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.[110]

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.[111] 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.[112]

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.[113] 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.[114]

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."[115]

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."[116] 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."[117]

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."[118] 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.[119]

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, as[120] 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.[121] 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.[122]

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."[123]

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.[124]

ALRUTHEUS A. TAYLOR.

FOOTNOTES:

[1] Hall, _The Rending of Virginia_, 13.

[2] _Ibid._, 13.

[3] Ambler, _Sectionalism in Virginia_, 1776-1861, 1-3.

[4] Hall, _The Rending of Virginia_, 30.

[5] _Ibid._, 30.

[6] Ambler, _Sectionalism in Virginia_, 1776-1861, 137.

[7] Hall, _The Rending of Virginia_, 42.

[8] Ambler, _Sectionalism in Virginia_, 1776-1861, 137.

[9] Ambler, _Sectionalism in Virginia_, 1776-1861.

[10] _Ibid._, 169.

[11] _Ibid._, 140, 141.

[12] Hall, _The Rending of Virginia_, 38.

[13] _Ibid._, 47.

[14] Hall, _The Rending of Virginia_, 45.

[15] Ambler, _Sectionalism in Virginia_, 187.

[16] Ambler, _Sectionalism in Virginia_, 186.

[17] _Ibid._, 189.

[18] _Ibid._, 192.

[19] _Ibid._, 1776-1861, 192.

[20] Ambler, _Sectionalism in Virginia_, 200.

[21] _Ibid._, 201.

[22] Ambler, _Sectionalism in Virginia_, 202.

[23] _Ibid._, 202.

[24] _Ibid._, 244.

[25] Ambler, _Sectionalism in Virginia_, 245.

[26] _Ibid._, 1776-1861, 251.

[27] _Ibid._, 251-252.

[28] Ambler, _Sectionalism in Virginia_, 253.

[29] _Ibid._, 253.

[30] Ambler, _Sectionalism in Virginia_, 262.

[31] _Ibid._, 264.

[32] _Ibid._, 265.

[33] _Ibid._, 1776-1861, 266.

[34] Ambler, _Sectionalism in Virginia_, 266.

[35] _Ibid._, 267.

[36] _Ibid._, 268.

[37] Hall, _The Rending of Virginia_, 62.

[38] Ambler, _Sectionalism in Virginia_, 1776-1861, 269.

[39] _Ibid._, 269.

[40] Ambler, _Sectionalism in Virginia_, 311.

[41] Hall, _The Rending of Va._, 60.

[42] _Ibid._, 61.

[43] Ambler, _Sectionalism in Va._, 1776-1861, 301.

[44] Hall, _The Rending of Va._, 60.

[45] Lewis, _How W. Va. Was Made_, 8.

[46] _Ibid._, 10.

[47] _Ibid._, 14.

[48] _Ibid._, 19.

[49] Lewis, _How W. Va. Was Made_, 63.

[50] _Ibid._, 41.

[51] _Ibid._, 45.

[52] _Ibid._, 48.

[53] Lewis, _How W. Va. Was Made_, 63.

[54] _Ibid._, 64.

[55] _Ibid._, 83.

[56] _Ibid._, 108.

[57] _Ibid._, 86.

[58] _Ibid._, 92.

[59] _Ibid._, 139.

[60] Lewis, _How W. Va. Was Made_, 284.

[61] _Ibid._, 318.

[62] _Ibid._, 318.

[63] Hall, _The Rending of Va._, 396.

[64] _Ibid._, 396.

[65] Hall, _The Rending of Va._, 416.

[66] _Ibid._, 416.

[67] Hall, _The Rending of Virginia_, 417.

[68] _Ibid._, 418.

[69] Hall, _The Rending of Va._, 418.

[70] _Ibid._, 419.

[71] Hall, _The Rending of Virginia_, 421.

[72] Hall, _The Rending of Virginia_, 421-429.

[73] _Ibid._, 439.

[74] Lewis, _How W. Va. Was Made_, 322.

[75] _Ibid._, 323.

[76] Hall, _Rending of Va._, p. 440.

[77] Hall, _The Rending of Virginia_, 440-456.

[78] Lewis, _How W. Va. Was Made_, 325.

[79] _Congressional Globe_, Pt. 3, 2nd Session, 37th Congress, 1861-62, 2864.

[80] _Ibid._, Pt. 4 and App. 2nd Session, 37th Congress, 1861-62, 2941.

[81] _Ibid._, Pt. 4 and App. 37th Cong., 2nd Session, 1861-62, 2941.

[82] _Congressional Globe_, 2942.

[83] _Ibid._, 3034.

[84] _Ibid._, 3034.

[85] _Congressional Globe_, 3035.

[86] _Ibid._, 3036.

[87] _Congressional Globe_, Pt. 4 and App. 2nd Session of 37th Congress, 1861-62, 3038.

[88] _Congressional Globe_, 3038.

[89] _Ibid._, 3134-3135.

[90] _Ibid._, 3308.

[91] _Ibid._, 3308.

[92] _Ibid._, 3308.

[93] _Congressional Globe_, Pt. 4 and App. 2nd Session, 37th Cong., 1861-62, 3308.

[94] _Ibid._, 3309.

[95] _Congressional Globe_, 3309.

[96] _Ibid._, 3310.

[97] _Congressional Globe_, 3311.

[98] _Ibid._, Pt. 4 and App. 2nd Sess., 37th Cong., 1861-62, 3314.

[99] _Ibid._, 3315.

[100] _Congressional Globe_, 3316.

[101] _Congressional Globe_, 3316.

[102] _Ibid._, 3316.

[103] _Ibid._, 3316.

[104] _Congressional Globe_, Pt. 4 and App. 2nd Session, 37th Cong., 1861-62, 3317.

[105] _Ibid._, 3317-3320.

[106] _Congressional Globe_, 3317-3320.

[107] _Ibid._, 3320.

[108] _Ibid._, 3320.

[109] _Congressional Globe_, Pt. 2, 3rd Session, 37th Cong., 1862-63, 952.

[110] _Ibid._, 1302.

[111] _Ibid._, Pt. 4 and App. 2nd Session, 37th Cong., 1861-62, 2933.

[112] _Congressional Globe_, 3397.

[113] _Ibid._, Pt. 1, 3rd Session, 37th Cong., 37.

[114] Hall, _The Rending of Va._, 474.

[115] Hall, _The Rending of Virginia_, 475.

[116] _Cong. Globe_, Pt. 1, 3rd Session, 37th Congress, 43.

[117] _Congressional Globe_, 47-57.

[118] _Ibid._, 54.

[119] _Congressional Globe_, Pt. 1, 3rd Session, 37th Cong., 1862-63, 58.

[120] Hall, _The Rending of Virginia_, 485.

[121] _Ibid._, 490-494.

[122] _Ibid._, 488.

[123] _Ibid._, 496.

[124] Lewis, _How W. Va. Was Made_, 330-334.

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."[1] 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."[2]

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."[3] 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."[4] 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).

The special interest taken by _The Globe_ in American affairs and its sane comment on the developments in the slavery struggle were due to George Brown's understanding of the situation, resulting from his residence for a time under the stars and stripes before coming to Canada. The feeling of the public in Toronto over the execution of John Brown was shown by the large memorial service held in St. Lawrence Hall on Dec. 11, 1859, at which the chief speaker was Rev. Thomas M. Kinnaird, who had himself attended the Chatham convention.[5] In his address Mr. Kinnaird referred to a talk he had had with Brown, in which the latter said that he intended to do something definite for the liberation of the slaves or perish in the attempt. The collection that was taken up at this meeting was forwarded to Mrs. Brown. At Montreal a great mass meeting was held in St. Bonaventure Hall, attended by over one thousand people, at which resolutions of sympathy were passed. Among those on the platform at this meeting were L. H. Holton, afterwards a member of the Brown-Dorion and Macdonald-Dorion administrations, and John Dougall, founder of _The Montreal Witness_. At Chatham and other places in the western part of the province similar meetings were held.

The slave-holding States were by no means blind to the amount of support and encouragement that was coming from Canada for the abolitionists.[6] They were quite aware that Canada itself had an active abolitionist group. They probably had heard of the Chatham convention; they knew of it, at least, as soon as the raid was over. In his message to the legislature of Virginia immediately after the Harper's Ferry incident Governor Wise made direct reference to the anti-slavery activity in Canada. "This was no result of ordinary crimes," he declared. "... It was an extraordinary and actual invasion, by a sectional organization, specially upon slaveholders and upon their property in negro slaves.... A provisional government was attempted in a British province, by our own countrymen, united to us in the faith of confederacy, combined with Canadians, to invade the slave-holding states ... for the purpose of stirring up universal insurrection of slaves throughout the whole south."[7]

Speaking further of what he conceived to be the spirit of the North he said: "It has organized in Canada and traversed and corresponded thence to New Orleans and from Boston to Iowa. It has established spies everywhere, and has secret agents in the heart of every slave state, and has secret associations and 'underground railroads' in every free state."[8]

Speaking on December 22, 1859, to a gathering of medical students who had left Philadelphia, Governor Wise is quoted as saying: "With God's help we will drive all the disunionists together back into Canada. Let the compact of fanaticism and intolerance be confined to British soil."[9] _The New York Herald_ quoted Governor Wise as calling upon the President to notify the British Government that Canada should no longer be allowed, by affording an asylum to fugitive slaves, to foster disunion and dissension in the United States. Wise even seems to have had the idea that the President might be bullied into provoking trouble with Great Britain over this question. "The war shall be carried into Canada," he said in one of his outbursts.[10]

Sympathy for the South was shown in the comment of a part of the Tory press in Canada, _The Leader_ declaring that Brown's attack on Harper's Ferry was an "insane raid" and predicting that the South would sacrifice the union before submitting to such spoliation.[11] The viewpoint of _The Leader_ and its readers may be further illustrated by its declaration that the election campaign of 1860 was dominated by a "small section of ultra-abolitionists who make anti-slavery the beginning, middle and end of their creed." As for Lincoln he was characterized as "a mediocre man and a fourth-rate lawyer,"[12] but then some of the prominent American newspapers made quite as mistaken an estimate of Lincoln at that time.

The collapse of John Brown's great adventure at Harper's Ferry furnished complete proof to the South of Canada's relation to that event. The seizure of his papers and all that they told, the evidence at the trial at Charlestown and the evidence secured by the Senatorial Committee which investigated the affair, all confirmed the suspicion that in the British provinces to the north there was extensive plotting against the slavery system. The Senatorial Committee declared in its findings that the proceedings at Chatham had had as their object "to subvert the government of one or more of the States, and, of course, to that extent the government of the United States."[13] Questions were asked of the witnesses before the investigating committee which showed that in the minds of the members of that committee there was a distinctly Canadian end to the Harper's Ferry tragedy.[14] Their suspicions may have been further confirmed by the fact that Brown's New England confederates, Sanborn, Stearns and Howe, all fled to Canada immediately after the raid.