Chapter VIII: Part 8

William Lloyd Garrison, while insisting that he himself was a "peace man" and opposed to the use of "carnal weapons," proclaimed: "I am prepared to say, success to every slave insurrection at the South and in every slave country,"[324] and Theodore Parker re-affirmed the sentiment in the declaration: "I should like, of all things, to see an insurrection of slaves. It must be tried many times before it succeeds, as at last it must."[325]

ABOLITIONISTS AIDED JOHN BROWN

Wendell Phillips speaking at the grave of John Brown said: "Insurrection was a harsh, horrid word to millions a month ago. John Brown went a whole generation beyond it, claiming the right for white men to help the slave to freedom by arms. And now men run up and down not disputing his principles."[326]

Admiral Chadwick in his recent work, _The Causes of the Civil War_, thus presents the position of prominent Abolitionists with respect to servile insurrections and especially the efforts to precipitate one at Harper's Ferry:

"Parker was also one who could say, 'I should like of all things to
see an insurrection of slaves. It must be tried many times before it
succeeds, as at last it must,' an expression which was the outcome of
his own full knowledge of what was brewing. Of this the others of the
Boston Secret Committee, Stearns, Higginson, Howe, and Sanborn, as
already shown on the authority of the last, also had full information,
as had Gerrit Smith, with the exception, perhaps, of the exact place
at which Brown was to strike. Brown's funds were supplied by these
men, who were accessories before the fact in the fullest meaning of
the phrase. It is impossible to justify such actions.

"Stearns and his fellows were not martyrs; they did not risk their
lives; they were not in open warfare; they were simply in secret
conspiracy to carry by bolder instruments throughout the South the
horrors of Hayti, still vivid in the recollection of many then yet
living."[327]

THE UNION PROTECTS SLAVEHOLDERS

But the Abolitionists appreciated that it was the Union and its power that stood as the strongest barrier against the success of their instigations to servile insurrection, and held in leash the giant form, Slavery, with its pike and brand. Long ago Mr. Garrison had said:

"What protects the South from instant destruction? Our physical force.
Break the chain which binds her to the Union and the scenes of St.
Domingo would be witnessed throughout her borders. She may affect to
laugh at this prophecy but she knows her security lies in Northern
bayonets. Nay, she has repeatedly taunted the free states with being
pledged to protect her."[328]

-----

Footnote 307:

_William Lloyd Garrison_, by his children, Vol. III, p. 88.

Footnote 308:

_Idem_, p. 100.

Footnote 309:

_Idem_, p. 414.

Footnote 310:

_Wendell Phillips_, Martin, p. 207.

Footnote 311:

_History of United States_, Schouler, Vol. V, p. 319.

Footnote 312:

_William Lloyd Garrison_, by his children, Vol. III, p. 457.

Footnote 313:

_Idem_, p. 463.

Footnote 314:

_Idem_, pp. 456-7.

Footnote 315:

_Idem_, p. 412.

Footnote 316:

_Idem_, p. 184.

Footnote 317:

_Speeches, Lectures and Letters_, Wendell Phillips, Lee & Shepard,
1892, p. 48.

Footnote 318:

_William Lloyd Garrison_, by his children, Vol. III, p. 503.

Footnote 319:

_Theodore Parker, A Biography_, Frothingham, p. 431.

Footnote 320:

_William Lloyd Garrison_, by his children, Vol. III, p. 280.

Footnote 321:

_Idem_, Vol. III, pp. 489-491.

Footnote 322:

_Theodore Parker, A Biography_, Frothingham, p. 463.

Footnote 323:

_Speeches, Lectures and Letters_, Wendell Phillips, Lee & Shepard,
1892, p. 279.

Footnote 324:

_William Lloyd Garrison_, by his children, Vol. III, p. 489-491.

Footnote 325:

_Theodore Parker, A Biography_, Frothingham, p. 475.

Footnote 326:

_Speeches, Lectures and Letters_, Wendell Phillips, Lee & Shepard,
1892, p. 291.

Footnote 327:

_Causes of the Civil War_, Chadwick, p. 84.

Footnote 328:

_William Lloyd Garrison_, by his children, Vol. I, p. 309.

XXXII

THE ABOLITIONISTS AND DISUNION (Concluded)

These citations from the deliverances of the great leaders of the Abolitionists will give some idea of the motives and methods which pervaded that fellowship. With tireless insistence they went forward with their labors for the abolition of slavery and the dissolution of the Union, the latter being deemed a condition precedent to the complete accomplishment of the former. Only the action of South Carolina, which brought the nation face to face with a practical attempt at disunion, served to suspend the efforts of the Abolitionists to effect a like result. This momentous step on the part of South Carolina was received with exultant satisfaction—William Lloyd Garrison declaring, "All Union-saving efforts are simply idiotic. At last 'the covenant with Death' is annulled, and the 'agreement with Hell' broken, at least by the action of South Carolina, and ere long by all the slaveholding states, for their doom is one."[329] And Wendell Phillips re-echoed the sentiment: "Let the South march off with flags and trumpets, and we will speed the parting guest. Let her not stand upon the order of her going, but go at once: Give her jewels of silver and gold, and rejoice that she has departed. All hail, Disunion!"[330]

THE UNION THWARTS EFFORTS OF ABOLITIONISTS

Such was the condition of affairs with respect to the controversy over slavery in Virginia in the fateful winter of 1860-61. For the maintenance of the institution stood the constitution and laws of the Union and the pledges of the Republican Party dominant in their administration. For the destruction of the institution stood the Abolitionists, a great fellowship, earnest and aggressive, but without official power in the National Government and relying upon disunion or a condition of civil war as the essential prerequisite to the accomplishment of their plans.

James G. Blaine wrote:

"But for the constant presence of National power and its constant
exercise under the provisions of the constitution, the South would
have no protection against anti-slavery assaults of the civilized
world. Abolitionists from the very beginning of their energetic
crusade against slavery had seen the constitution standing in their
way, and with the unsparing severity of their logic had denounced it
as 'a league with Hell and a covenant with Death.'"[331]

VIEWS OF PROMINENT VIRGINIANS

The people of Virginia in like manner appreciated the situation. "What madness," wrote Madison, "in the South to look for greater safety in disunion! It would be worse than jumping out of the frying pan into the fire. It would be jumping into the fire from fear of the frying pan, i.e., Northern meddling with slavery."[332]

Governor McDowell, referring to slavery and disunion, said:

"If gentlemen do not see or feel the evil of slavery whilst the
Federal Union lasts, they will see and feel it when it is gone; they
will see and suffer it then in a magnitude of desolating power to
which 'the pestilence that walketh in darkness' would be a blessing."

Referring to the protection afforded slavery by the Federal Constitution, he said:

"Withdraw but the protecting energies of that instrument and be the
associations into which we shall be thrown what they may—whether
directed by judgment or caprice—our distinct character as a
slaveholding people will still be left—we shall still hold a separate
and adversary interest but hold it under circumstances of aggravated
evil, as the existence of it will disqualify us for defense in the
very degree in which it will expose us to foreign hostility and
wrong."[333]

Robert E. Lee, referring to the same subject, wrote,

"The South, in my opinion, has been aggrieved by the acts of the
North, as you say. I feel the aggression and am willing to take every
proper step for redress.... But I can anticipate no greater calamity
than a dissolution of the Union. It would be an accumulation of all
the evils we complain of, and I am willing to sacrifice everything,
but honor, for its preservation."[334]

George W. Summers, speaking in the Virginia Convention of 1861, said:

"What has Virginia to gain by secession and separate action? Nothing
on the territorial question but lose everything. On the fugitive slave
question, she could make no treaties with the North or with England.
In relation to the institution of slavery, which I consider morally,
socially and politically right, she will lose the present protection
and be exposed to border incursions from a foreign government."[335]

John S. Carlile, speaking in the same convention, said:

"I have been a slaveholder from the time I've been able to buy a
slave. I have been a slaveholder not by inheritance but by purchase;
and I believe that slavery is a social, political and religious
blessing.... How long, if you were to dissolve this Union—if you were
to separate the slaveholding from the non-slaveholding states, would
African slavery have a foothold in this portion of the land? I venture
the assertion that it would not exist in Virginia five years after the
separation; and nowhere in the Southern States twenty years after. How
could it maintain itself, with the whole civilized world, backed by
what they call their international law, arrayed for its ultimate
extinction with this North, which is now bound to stand by us and to
protect slavery, opposed to us?... And now, Mr. President! in the name
of our illustrious dead, in the name of all the living, in the name of
millions yet unborn, I protest against this wicked effort to destroy
the fairest and freest government on the earth."[336]

CIVIL WAR WOULD AID EMANCIPATION

It was under the reign of law and with the forces of the Union as its allies that the institution of slavery could meet with success, all assaults coming from beyond the states where it existed. Amid the clash of arms and with the Federal Government no longer protecting their rights, slaveholders were most open to successful attack and slavery most likely to receive its mortal blow.

Wendell Phillips expressed the idea when he declared:

"The storm which rocked the vessel of state almost to foundering
snapped forever the chain of the French slave. Look, too, at the
history of the Mexican and South America emancipation and you will
find that it was in every instance, I think, the child of convulsion.
The hour will come—God hasten it!—when the American people shall so
stand on the deck of their Union—'built i' th' eclipse, and rigged
with curses dark.' If I live to see the hour I shall say to every
slave, 'Strike now for Freedom.'"[337]

SECESSION NOT LOGICAL DEFENSE

It would seem most unreasonable and illogical to suppose that the people of Virginia turned to secession and civil war from a selfish desire to safeguard slavery from the attacks of the Abolitionists. Such a course augmented rather than lessened the dangers which beset the institution.

If, however, worn out with the assaults upon their constitutional rights and wounded in their pride by the fierce arraignments of their character and civilization, they turned to separation as a means of preserving their self-respect and as showing a determination to live no longer in political association with their enemies, then their action becomes intelligible—whatever may be the judgment as to the just proportion between the wrongs complained of and the remedy proposed.

-----

Footnote 329:

_William Lloyd Garrison_, by his children, Vol. III, p. 508.

Footnote 330:

_Thurlow Weed_, Barnes, Vol. II, p. 305.

Footnote 331:

_Twenty Years of Congress_, Blaine, Vol. I, 176.

Footnote 332:

_Madison to Clay, Private Correspondence of Henry Clay_, Colton, p.
365.

Footnote 333:

_Virginia Slavery Debate_, 1832, Speech of James McDowell, pp. 23-24.

Footnote 334:

_Memoirs of Robert E. Lee_, Long, p. 88.

Footnote 335:

_Richmond Dispatch_, March 13, 1861.

Footnote 336:

See _Richmond Enquirer_, March 11th, 1861.

Footnote 337:

_Speeches, Lectures and Letters_, Wendell Phillips, Lee & Shepard,
1892, p. 85.

XXXIII

THE EMANCIPATION PROCLAMATIONS AND THE
VIRGINIA PEOPLE

Our review of the record of the Federal Government with respect to slavery and the attitude of the Republican Party, which had just assumed control of its Executive and Legislative Departments, in regard thereto, is sufficient to demonstrate that, at the time Virginia seceded, she could not have been actuated by a selfish desire to defend the institution against the hostile power of the Nation. There was no rallying of the people of Virginia to resist a threatened edict of emancipation because no such proclamation had ever been suggested. As we shall see, the proclamation which aroused them to arms was the call of President Lincoln for seventy-five thousand men to re-establish the authority of the National Government in the Southern Confederacy and the demand that Virginia should furnish her quota of soldiers for the momentous undertaking. Virginia, denying the right of the Federal Government to enter upon this policy of armed coercion, withdrew from the Union along with North Carolina, Tennessee and Arkansas. On this great issue the battle was joined and men by the thousands gave their lives to the rival claims of Home Rule versus National Supremacy. The war thus precipitated went onward with its terrible fruitage of death and destruction for nearly a year and a half when President Lincoln issued his first Proclamation of Emancipation. Could any change or attempted change, by the Federal Government, of the motives for the struggle on the part of the Northern people change the motives which actuated the people of Virginia and shift for them the gage of battle? That the proclamations did not in fact convert the contest on the part of the Southern States from a war waged for their independence into one for the maintenance of slavery is manifest from the terms of the proclamations themselves and the unchanged attitude of the Southern people. The first proclamation threatened the emancipation of the slaves in states, or portions of states, which might still be found in arms against the Union one hundred days thereafter, and exempted from emancipation slaves in states and portions of states which would surrender their battle for independence. Had the Federal Government offered to accord the Southern States their independence provided they would abolish slavery then their rejection of such an offer and their continuance to do battle might have rendered them liable to the charge of fighting to maintain the institution. But the offer and threat presented just the other alternative and were alike unavailing to stop the struggle on the part of the Southern people. To quote the language of Mr. Lincoln:

"After the commencement of hostilities, I struggled nearly a year and
a half to get along without touching the institution, and when finally
I conditionally determined to touch it, I gave a hundred days fair
notice of my purpose to all the states and people within which time
they could have turned it wholly aside by simply again becoming good
citizens of the United States."[338]

EFFECTS OF PROCLAMATIONS

In neither portion of Virginia—that in which emancipation was decreed nor that in which slavery was to remain unaffected(_a_) did President Lincoln's proclamations produce any change in the attitude of her people and this was so because, as they protested, slavery was neither the interest nor the issue which had impelled them to draw the sword.

(_a_) Note: The reader will recall that the proclamation did not
emancipate the slaves in "the Counties of Berkeley, Accomac,
Northampton, Elizabeth City, York, Princess Anne and Norfolk,
including the cities of Norfolk and Portsmouth," nor those in the
States of Delaware, Maryland, West Virginia, Kentucky, Missouri,
Tennessee and portions of Louisiana.

CONDITIONS WHICH PRECIPITATED WAR

We would not, however, be understood as maintaining that slavery did not constitute the most potential factor in developing the conditions which finally precipitated the Civil War. The acrimonious discussions of thirty years, the conflicts over legislation, state and Federal, the criminations and recriminations from pulpit, press and platform, found at length their baneful fruit in the destruction of tolerance, confidence and fraternity between the people of the two great sections. With hearts dissevered, the bonds of union were strained to the utmost, and when at length a sectional propaganda inaugurated by one great element of the Northern people scored a triumph at the polls, the people of the Cotton States sought in secession release from a political association which they regarded as repugnant to their feelings and subversive of their rights. But upon the issues thus made up Virginia refused to secede. It was after the secession of the Cotton States that the people of Virginia at their election February 4th, 1861, by a great majority still declared for union. Other and more fundamental causes for secession and conflict had to arise before Virginia could be driven to abandon the Union.

Nor would we seek to maintain that an unconstitutional assault by the Federal Government or the Northern States upon the institution of slavery in Virginia would not have provoked and justified resistance. Such resistance, however, could not fairly be imputed to a sordid and selfish desire to protect the institution. To repel invasion of constitutional rights is the highest duty of a free people. It is the right and principle involved, and not the incident or interest which occasioned the invasion, that determines the motive and character of the resistance.

John Hampden and his compatriots resisted with arms what they regarded as the unconstitutional effort of their Sovereign to collect the "Ship Money" and yet it would be a most superficial and untruthful conception of their position to declare that they fought for the sum involved in the King's attempt. In the language of Edmund Burke in his great speech on taxing the American Colonies, "Would twenty shillings have ruined Mr. Hampden's fortune? No! But the payment of half twenty shillings on the principle it was demanded would have made him a slave."

-----

Footnote 338:

Letter of Lincoln to General McClernand, January 8_th_, 1863. _Abraham
Lincoln, Speeches, Letters and State Papers_, N. & H., Vol. II, p.
296.

------------------------------------------------------------------------

_PART III_

VIRGINIA DID NOT SECEDE FROM A WANTON
DESIRE TO DESTROY THE UNION OR
FROM HOSTILITY TO THE IDEALS
OF ITS FOUNDERS

------------------------------------------------------------------------

XXXIV

VIRGINIA'S PART IN THE REVOLUTION

In considering the question whether Virginia, in transferring her allegiance to the Southern Confederacy, was animated by a wanton desire to destroy the Union and defeat the ideals of its founders, it will assist to a more accurate conclusion if we review her part in the making of the Republic and the spirit which moved her people in the day of separation. If she had been conspicuous in the work of establishing the Union and in promoting its growth and glory, then it were more reasonable to ascribe her desire to terminate the association to convictions of duty than to motives capricious or selfish in their origin. If in the day of sectional strife, she pleaded for union and reconciliation, then her presence in the battle which followed was more justly attributed to the inexorable logic of events than to causes of her own initiation.

It is well within the bounds of historic truth to say that Virginia had been pre-eminent among her sister states in fixing the ideals and founding the Republic; that, with unsurpassed devotion, she had contributed of men and treasure to promote its growth and enhance its glory; and that amid the strife and conflicts which preceded the Civil War, she stood a mediator between the hostile sections and an unwearied advocate of reconciliation and peace.

RESISTANCE TO STAMP TAX

In 1764, when the liberties of the American people were menaced by a Stamp Tax, Virginia was among the first of the colonies to memorialize the King in opposition, and the only one to address to the House of Commons a remonstrance against the right of that body to enact such legislation.[339]

The Stamp Act caused great opposition throughout America. "But," says John Fiske, "formal defiance came first from Virginia."[340] "The Assembly of Virginia," says J. R. Green, "was the first to formally deny the right of the British Parliament to meddle with internal taxation and to demand the repeal of the act."[341]

In 1765, her House of Burgesses, under the leadership of Patrick Henry, adopted her celebrated resolutions against the Stamp Tax. Only less important than the resolutions themselves was the thrilling arraignment of British usurpation and assaults upon the liberties of America with which the great orator aroused his countrymen. "Thus," says Mr. Bancroft, "Virginia rang the alarm bell for the continent."

CO-OPERATION BETWEEN THE COLONIES

In 1768, Virginia applauded Massachusetts for her stand; re-affirmed the position that Parliament had no right to tax the colonies; and directed that these resolutions of her House of Burgesses be communicated to all the colonies with the insistence that they should unite in opposition to every attempt of Great Britain to levy taxes upon the American people.

In 1769, her House of Burgesses again asserted its position in a series of resolutions which Mr. Bancroft declares were "so calm in manner and so perfect in substance that time finds no omission to regret, no improvement to suggest. The menace of arresting patriots lost its terror and Virginia's declaration and action consolidated union."[342] Though dissolved by the Royal Governor because of this action, the members of the body immediately assembled, and under the leadership of Washington, an agreement was entered into providing against the importation of goods from Great Britain until all unconstitutional acts should be repealed.

Resistance to British tyranny continuing unabated, a yearning for union sprang up among all the colonies. "Whether that great idea," says Mr. Bancroft, "should become a reality, rested on Virginia."[343] Her House of Burgesses assembled in March, 1773, when, under the leadership of Dabney Carr, Richard Henry Lee, and Patrick Henry, resolutions were adopted providing for a system of inter-colonial committees of correspondence. "Carr's plan," says Mr. Bancroft, "included a thorough union council throughout the land. If it should succeed and be adopted by the other colonies, America would stand before the world as a confederacy." Copies of these resolutions were sent to every colony, with the request that each would appoint a committee to communicate from time to time with that of Virginia. "In this manner," says Mr. Bancroft, "Virginia laid the foundation of our Union."[344]

In May, 1774, the Virginia House of Burgesses by a resolution called upon their fellow-citizens to set apart the day on which the act closing the port of Boston was to take effect:

"As a day of fasting and prayer, devoutly to implore the divine
interposition for averting the dreadful calamity which threatened
destruction to their civil rights and the evils of a civil war, and to
give to the American people one heart and one mind firmly to oppose,
by all just and proper means, every injury to American rights."

Upon the adoption of this resolution, the Royal Governor dissolved the Assembly, but the members immediately met and resolved "that an attack made on one of our sister colonies to compel submission to arbitrary taxes is an attack made on all British America, and threatens ruin to the rights of all unless the united wisdom of the whole be applied."[345] These sentiments of fraternity and union were re-echoed in the words of Washington: "I will raise one thousand men, subsist them at my own expense, and march at their head for the relief of Boston," a declaration soon followed by the march of Virginians under Daniel Morgan to the succor of that besieged city.

THE CONTINENTAL CONGRESS

Largely as a result of the committees of correspondence created under the Virginia resolutions, the Continental Congress assembled in Philadelphia in September, 1774. Virginia gave to that body its first president, in the person of Peyton Randolph, while Patrick Henry fired the hearts of its members with the spirit of nationalism by the declaration: "British oppression has effaced the boundaries of the several colonies. The distinctions between Virginians, Pennsylvanians, New Yorkers and New Englanders are no more. I am not a Virginian, but an American."

Thus was launched the Revolution—a movement in which, Mr. Bancroft declares: "Virginia rose with as much unanimity as Connecticut or Massachusetts, and with more commanding resolution."[346]

It was Virginia that first, by formal resolution of her Constitutional Convention, called on the Continental Congress to declare the colonies "free and independent states," absolved from all allegiance to the British crown. Richard Henry Lee submitted the motion to the Congress, and following its adoption, Thomas Jefferson wrote the Declaration of Independence. In the war which followed, Washington commanded the armies of the Revolution and by his incomparable qualities of leadership brought success to the cause.

VIRGINIA AND THE NORTHWEST TERRITORY

While bearing her part in maintaining the cause of the colonies in their struggle with the Mother Country, Virginia commissioned and equipped the expedition which under the leadership of her son, George Rogers Clark, conquered the empire of the northwest, an achievement the very romance of daring and valor. Even more important to the cause of union than the conquest was Virginia's action in dedicating the territory to the new confederation, thus cementing the ties and interests of the separate colonies in a vast domain, the common property of the whole.

-----

Footnote 339:

_History of the United States_, Bancroft, Vol. III, p. 93.

Footnote 340:

_The American Revolution_, Fiske, Vol. I, p. 18.

Footnote 341:

_A Short History of the English People_, J. R. Green, 1883, p. 35.

Footnote 342:

_History of United States_, Bancroft, Vol. III, p. 347.

Footnote 343:

_History of United States_, Bancroft, Vol. III, p. 436.

Footnote 344:

_Idem_, p. 437.

Footnote 345:

_Idem_, Vol. IV, p. 17.

Footnote 346:

_History of United States_, Bancroft, Vol. IV, p. 413.

XXXV

VIRGINIA'S PART IN MAKING THE UNION UNDER THE
CONSTITUTION

When the Revolution had finally triumphed in the battle fought out on her soil, Virginia statesmen were the first to realize the infirmities of the existing government and the need of a system more National in its ideals and powers.

EFFORTS TO STRENGTHEN UNION

In 1786, her General Assembly adopted resolutions calling for a meeting of representatives from all the states to prepare such amendments to the Articles of Confederation as would enlarge the powers of Congress over commerce,—foreign and domestic. A delegation, with James Madison at its head, was appointed and the first Monday in September, 1786, fixed as the time, and Annapolis as the place, for the assembling of the convention. Representatives from only five states responded to Virginia's appeal, but they issued an address calling for a convention to assemble in Philadelphia on the second Monday in May, 1787, to devise such provisions as would "render the constitution of the Federal Government adequate to the exigencies of the Union." Despite the imminence of the dangers which threatened the country, and the manifest need of a stronger union, the Continental Congress at first refused its sanction to the movement; the Governor of New York denied the need of any action; and the Legislature of Massachusetts formally declined to appoint delegates to the convention.[347]

"From this state of despair," says Mr. Bancroft, "the country was
lifted by Madison and Virginia. The recommendation of a
plenipotentiary convention was well received by the Assembly of
Virginia.... On the motion of Madison the Assembly gave its unanimous
sanction to the recommendation from Annapolis."[348]

Continuing, Mr. Bancroft says: "We come now upon the week glorious for Virginia beyond any event in its annals or in the history of any former republic."[349] Without a dissenting voice, the General Assembly adopted a memorial approving the plan for the Philadelphia Convention, the spirit and purpose of which will appear from the following extract:

"The General Assembly of this commonwealth, taking into view the
situation of the confederacy as well as reflecting on the alarming
representations made from time to time by the United States in
Congress, particularly in their act of the 15th day of February last,
can no longer doubt that the crisis is arrived at which the people of
America are to decide the solemn question whether they will by wise
and magnanimous efforts reap the fruits of independence and of union,
or whether by giving way to unmanly jealousies and prejudices or to
partial and transitory interests they will renounce the blessings
prepared for them by the Revolution. The same noble and extended
policy, and the same fraternal and affectionate sentiments which
originally determined the citizens of this commonwealth to unite with
their brethren of the other states in establishing a Federal
Government cannot but be felt with equal force now as motives to lay
aside every inferior consideration, and to concur in such further
concessions and provisions as may be necessary to secure the objects
for which that Government was instituted, and render the United States
as happy in peace as they have been glorious in war."[350]

WORK OF PHILADELPHIA CONVENTION

Following the adoption of the foregoing resolution, Virginia commissioned a delegation of her foremost men to represent her at Philadelphia; among them, George Washington, James Madison, George Mason, George Wythe, and Edmund Randolph. Under such inspiring leadership, opposition was allayed, and in the convention which followed, representatives finally gathered from every state except Rhode Island.

Over this convention, George Washington was called to preside. Hesitancy and weakness were banished by his words:

"It is too probable that no plan we propose will be adopted. Perhaps
another dreadful conflict is to be sustained. If, to please the
people, we are for what we ourselves disapprove, how can we afterward
defend our work? Let us raise a standard to which the wise and honest
can repair; the event is in the hand of God."[351]

To the convention, Edmund Randolph, then Governor of the commonwealth, presented the "Virginia Plan," which, though amended in many important particulars, was the basis of our present constitution. The scheme of government offered by Governor Randolph was the work of James Madison, and because of his authorship and his great labors in connection with its final preparation and adoption by the several states, he earned the high appellation of "Father of the Constitution."

"The great mind of Madison," says John Fiske, "was one of the first to
entertain distinctly the noble conception of two kinds of government,
operating at one and the same time, upon the same individuals,
harmonious with each other, but each supreme in its own sphere. Such
is the fundamental conception of our partly Federal, partly National
Government, which appears throughout the Virginia Plan, as well as in
the constitution which grew out of it."[352]

ACHIEVEMENTS UNDER VIRGINIANS

Upon the adoption of the constitution and the creation of the office of President, George Washington was called to the discharge of its novel and important duties, and under his leadership, the Republic successfully met the difficulties and dangers of its new career.

Only less important to the National life than the administration of Washington, was that of Jefferson who demonstrated by his rule that the ideals of liberty were not incompatible with the reign of law. Under his leadership the empire of Louisiana extending from the Gulf to the Canadian line was acquired, and the muniments of our title established by the explorations of Meriwether Lewis and William Clark, two more of Virginia's sons.

Under President Madison, the second war with Great Britain was fought, which established the independence of America upon the seas. Under President Monroe, the territory of the Floridas was acquired, and the Doctrine promulgated under which two continents were dedicated to democratic development unawed by the governments of the Old World.

Virginia gave to the Union John Marshall, "second to none among the most illustrious jurists of the English race," according to John Fiske. For thirty-five years, the great Chief Justice presided over the Supreme Court, and by his decisions performed a work of incomparable importance in establishing the position and power of that tribunal, and in welding in more indissoluble bonds the Union itself.

Under President Tyler, the empire of Texas was brought into the Union. Scott and Taylor led the armies of the Republic in the war with Mexico, while associated with them was a brilliant group of younger Virginians,—Lee, Jackson, Johnston, Thomas, and others who, by their bravery and leadership, added fresh lustre to American arms.

Where shall we look for the ideals of the Republic if not to the Declaration of Independence, the Ordinance of 1787, and the Constitution, great canons of liberty and union—with which the names of Virginia statesmen are pre-eminently associated? To these may be added Virginia's epoch-making Statute for Religious Freedom and her Bill of Rights, which latter is declared by Mr. Bancroft to be, "the groundwork of American institutions."[353]

VIRGINIA'S DEVOTION TO THE UNION

While many of her sister states had surpassed Virginia in contributions to art, literature, and science, in commercial and industrial development, her triumphs had been in the realm of statecraft and jurisprudence, on the field of battle, and amid the dangers of the frontier. The achievements of her statesmen, jurists, soldiers and pioneers marked the measure of her pride and the summit of her fame. The making of the Union, maintaining its ideals, and extending its limits, were the noblest monuments of their labors. By statues and memorials, by song and story, by the lawmaker's work and the orator's appeal, Virginians of every generation were stimulated to revere the principles and safeguard the achievements of these illustrious men.

With such a past, and with such a part in making the Union, will it be supposed that the Virginians of 1861 pressed forward with wanton hands to destroy the fabric of the Republic and thwart the ideals of its founders? May we not believe that the true sentiments of the dominant element of the state were voiced in the words of John Janney, who, on assuming the Presidency of the Virginia Convention, in 1861, said:

"Causes which have passed, and are daily passing into history, which
will set its seal upon them, but which I do not mean to review, have
brought the constitution and the Union into imminent peril, and
Virginia has come to the rescue. It is what the whole country expected
of her—her pride as well as her patriotism, her interest as well as
her honor, called upon her with an emphasis she could not disregard to
save the monuments of her own glory."[354]

-----

Footnote 347:

_History of United States_, Bancroft, Vol. VI, p. 196.

Footnote 348:

_Idem_, p. 197.

Footnote 349:

_History of United States_, Bancroft, Vol. IV, p. 197.

Footnote 350:

_Idem_, p. 198.

Footnote 351:

_History of United States_, Bancroft, Vol. IV, p. 210.

Footnote 352:

_Critical Period of American History_, Fiske, p. 239.

Footnote 353:

_History of United States_, Bancroft, Vol. IV, p. 416.

Footnote 354:

_Journal of Virginia Convention of 1861_, p. 8.

XXXVI

EFFORTS TO PROMOTE RECONCILIATION AND UNION

As Virginia had borne a conspicuous part in founding the Union, so, when civil dissensions arose and its integrity was threatened, she was foremost in mediation. At no time were her efforts more earnest than in the troublous days of 1860-61. James Ford Rhodes says: "Virginia, whose share in forming the Union had been greater than that of any other one state, was loath to see that great work shattered, and now made a supreme effort to save it."[355]

Following the announcement of Mr. Lincoln's election, South Carolina seceded and in all the other Cotton States the manifestations of popular sentiment foreshadowed like action. The people of Virginia, though profoundly moved by the considerations which influenced their brethren of the far South, were yet opposed to secession, and proceeded to put forth every effort to avert war, and bring back the Cotton States to their former allegiance.

GOVERNOR LETCHER'S MESSAGE, 1861

On the 7th of January, 1861, her General Assembly was called in extra session. Governor Letcher's message set forth the dangers and problems which confronted the state and nation. "The condition of our country at this time," he declared, "excites the most serious fears for the perpetuation of the Union.... Surely no people have been blessed as we have been, and it is melancholy to think that all is now about to be sacrificed on the Altar of Passion. If the judgments of men were consulted, if the admonitions of their consciences were respected, the Union would yet be saved from overthrow."

While thus expressing devotion to the Union, he yet proclaimed his belief in the legal right of secession. He deplored the precipitate action of South Carolina, declaring that in a movement "involving consequences so serious to all the slaveholding states, no one state should have ventured to move without first having given timely notice to the others of her purpose." He reviewed at length the action of that great element of the Northern people, which, for years, had been unceasing in their assaults upon the constitutional rights of the South on the questions growing out of the existence of slavery. He alluded to the recent messages of the Governors of South Carolina and Mississippi in which the Border States were referred to in no over-friendly terms, and with suggestions of legislative enactments hostile to their interests. "While disavowing," he declared, "any unkind feeling toward South Carolina and Mississippi, I must still say that I will resist the coercion of Virginia in the adoption of a line of policy whenever the attempt is made by Northern or Southern States." He expressed his opposition to the plan for calling a state convention at that time, suggesting that instead the General Assembly should appoint commissioners to visit the Legislatures of such Northern States as had passed laws repugnant to the Federal Constitution, and respectfully urge their immediate repeal; and that in like manner commissioners be sent to the Legislatures of the slaveholding states to ascertain the extent and character of their demands and the action deemed necessary for the protection of their rights and interests.[356]

ACTION OF VIRGINIA LEGISLATURE, 1861

The General Assembly thereupon adopted a series of resolutions inviting all such states of the Union "as are willing to unite with Virginia in an earnest effort to adjust the present unhappy controversies ... to appoint commissioners to meet on the fourth day of February next, in the City of Washington, similar commissioners appointed by Virginia." The resolutions also provided for the immediate appointment of Ex-President John Tyler as a Commissioner to the President of the United States, and Judge John Robertson as a Commissioner to the State of South Carolina and to any other state that had seceded or might secede, to urge upon them to abstain from any and all acts calculated to produce a collision of arms between such states and the government of the United States, pending the proceedings contemplated by the General Assembly of Virginia.

Ex-President John Tyler, William C. Rives, Judge John W. Brokenbrough, George W. Summers and James A. Seddon were appointed Commissioners from Virginia to the Washington Conference—which became known in history as the Peace Conference.

The sentiments which prompted this movement are doubtless truly expressed in the preamble to the resolutions which declares:

"Whereas, it is the deliberate opinion of the General Assembly of
Virginia that unless the unhappy controversy which now divides the
states of this Confederacy shall be satisfactorily adjusted, a
permanent dissolution of the Union is inevitable, and the General
Assembly is desirous of employing every reasonable means to avert so
dire a calamity," etc.

Both Houses of the General Assembly, however, adopted by practically unanimous votes resolutions declaring that the Union, having been formed by the consent of the states, it was repugnant to Republican institutions to maintain it by force; that the government of the Union had no right to make war upon "any of the states which had been its constituent members"; and that with respect to states which have withdrawn or may withdraw from the Union, "we are unalterably opposed to any attempt on the part of the Federal Government to coerce the same into reunion or submission and that we will resist the same by all means in our power."[357]

THE PEACE CONFERENCE AT WASHINGTON

To the call of Virginia, twenty states responded; and their representatives met on the 4th day of February, 1861, in the City of Washington. It was a notable gathering. Among the prominent members were William P. Fessenden and Lot M. Morrill, of Maine; George S. Boutwell and Charles Allen, of Massachusetts; David Dudley Field, Erastus Corning, William E. Dodge and General John E. Wool, of New York; Robert F. Stockton and Frederick T. Frelinghuysen, of New Jersey; David Wilmot and A. W. Loomis of Pennsylvania; Reverdy Johnson, of Maryland; Thomas Ruffin and J. M. Morehead, of North Carolina; James Guthrie and Charles A. Wicliffe, of Kentucky; Salmon P. Chase, William S. Groesbeck and Thomas Ewing, of Ohio; Caleb B. Smith, of Indiana, and James Harlan, of Iowa.

Mr. Rhodes says: "The historical significance of the Peace Convention consists in the evidence it affords of the attachment of the Border Slave States to the Union."[358]

VIEWS OF TYLER AND RIVES

Some evidence of the spirit which animated the people of Virginia may be gathered from the speeches of her delegates. John Tyler, on assuming the Presidency of the body, spoke in part as follows:

"The voice of Virginia has invited her co-states to meet her in
council. In the initiation of this Government that same voice was
heard and complied with, and the resulting seventy-odd years have
fully attested the wisdom of the decision then adopted. Is the urgency
of her call less great than it was then? Our God-like fathers created!
We have to preserve. They have built up through their wisdom and
patriotism monuments which have eternized their names. You have before
you, gentlemen, a task equally grand, equally sublime, quite as full
of glory and immortality; you have to snatch from ruin a grand and
glorious Confederation, to preserve the Government and to renew and
invigorate the constitution. If you reach the height of this great
occasion your children's children will rise up and call you
blessed."[359]

In the course of one of his speeches, Ex-Senator Rives said:

"Mr. President, the position of Virginia must be understood and
appreciated. She is just now the neutral ground between two embattled
legions—between two angry, excited and hostile portions of the Union.
Something must be done to save the country, to allay these
apprehensions, to restore a broken confidence. Virginia steps in to
arrest the progress of the country on its way to ruin.... Sir, I have
had some experience in revolutions in another hemisphere, in
revolutions produced by the same causes that are now operating among
us.... I have seen the pavements of Paris covered and the gutters
running with fraternal blood. God forbid I should see this horrid
picture repeated in my own country—and yet it will be, sir! if we
listen to the counsel urged here."[360]

George W. Summers, another of the Virginia delegates, opened his speech to the conference in these words:

"Mr. President! my heart is full! I cannot approach the great issues
with which we are dealing, with becoming coolness and deliberation!
Sir! I love this Union. The man does not live who entertains a higher
respect for this government than I do. I know its history—I know how
it was established. There is not an incident in its history that is
not precious to me. I do not wish to survive its dissolution."[361]

OPPOSITION TO PEACE CONFERENCE

In contrast to these pathetic appeals of Virginia's representatives were expressions coming from many of her sister states North and South. None of the seven Cotton States sent delegates to the convention. South Carolina declared that "the separation of that state was final and that she had no further interest in the constitution of the United States."[362]

The well-known letter of Senator Zachariah Chandler, of Michigan, written from Washington during the session of the convention to the Governor of his state, is representative of the spirit which dominated one element of the Northern people.

Washington, February 11, 1861.

_My dear Governor:_

Governor Bingham and myself telegraphed you on Saturday, at the
request of Massachusetts and New York, to send delegates to the Peace,
or Compromise Congress. They admit that we were right and that they
were wrong; that no Republican state should have sent delegates; but
they are here and cannot get away. Ohio, Indiana, Rhode Island are
caving in and there is danger of Illinois; and now they beg us, for
God's sake, to come to their rescue and save the Republican Party from
rupture. The whole thing was gotten up against my judgment and advice
and will end in thin smoke. Still, I hope as a matter of courtesy to
some of our erring brethren that you will send the delegates.

Truly your friend,

Z. CHANDLER.

His Excellency, Austin Blair.

P. S. Some of the manufacturing states think that a fight would be
awful. Without a little blood-letting this Union will not, in my
estimation, be worth a rush."[363]

The fact that the deliberations of the Peace Conference proved unavailing to arrest the movement towards disunion and civil war is no indication that the motives which impelled the people of Virginia to call their countrymen to council were not those of the highest patriotism.

-----

Footnote 355:

_History of United States_, Rhodes, Vol. III, p. 290.

Footnote 356:

_Journal of Virginia House of Delegates_, Extra Session, 1861,
Document No. 1.

Footnote 357:

These resolutions were adopted in the House of Delegates by a vote of
one hundred and twelve ayes to five noes. See _Journal Virginia House
of Delegates_, Extra Session, 1861, p. 10. In the Senate only one vote
was recorded against their adoption.

Footnote 358:

_History of United States_, Rhodes, Vol. III, p. 307.

Footnote 359:

_Proceedings of Peace Convention_, Crittenden, p. 14.

Footnote 360:

_Proceedings of Peace Convention_, Crittenden, p. 135.

Footnote 361:

_Idem_, p. 15.

Footnote 362:

_Causes of Civil War_, Chadwick, p. 270.

Footnote 363:

_Proceedings of Peace Convention_, 1861, p. 468, Crittenden.

XXXVII

THE PEOPLE OF VIRGINIA DECLARE FOR UNION

The General Assembly which issued the call for the Peace Conference also adopted a joint resolution providing for a convention in Virginia to take under consideration the problems and dangers of the hour. By the terms of this act, the people of Virginia were to select delegates to the convention, and were to declare by a separate vote whether the action of that body should be binding upon the commonwealth, or whether it should be referred back to them for ratification or rejection.

UNION VICTORY IN VIRGINIA

Under this call, the people of Virginia repaired to the polls on the 4th of February, 1861. Seldom, if ever, in her history had they been summoned to an election so fraught with importance to the state and the Union. The seven Cotton States had already seceded, and in not one where the question had been formally acted upon had there been a decision against secession. Only two days before, February 2d, the great State of Texas had withdrawn from the Union. Had Virginia at that critical moment declared for a like policy, it is almost certain that the remaining Southern States would have followed her example. In such an event, President Lincoln would on the day of his inauguration have found the Capital of the Union encompassed by the States of Virginia and Maryland, both members of the new Confederation.

With results so important and far reaching to the Union dependent upon her action, the election in Virginia was held. Opposing candidates presented themselves for the suffrages of the people in each of the one hundred and fifty-two districts; unconditional Secessionists, unconditional Union men and men opposed to secession and favorable to the Union, provided the authorities of the latter did not resort to force to bring back the states which had seceded. From the Ohio River to the sea, from North Carolina to the Pennsylvania line, the people of the commonwealth were stirred by the fervor of the campaign and the magnitude of the issues upon which they were called to pass.

The returns from the ballot box showed that a large majority of the delegates elected were opposed to Virginia's secession, and by a vote of 100,536 to 45,161, the people commanded that the findings of the Convention should be submitted to them for ratification or rejection.

EFFECTS OF UNION VICTORY IN VIRGINIA

The result of this election was not only of the greatest importance to the Union, but it was a formal declaration to the world that Virginia, on the issues as then made up, refused to secede.

"Thus be it always remembered," says Charles Francis Adams, "Virginia
did not take its place in the secession movement because of the
election of an anti-slavery President. It did not raise its hand
against the National Government from mere love of any peculiar
institution, or a wish to protect or perpetuate it. It refused to be
precipitated into a civil convulsion; and its refusal was of vital
moment. The ground of Virginia's final action was of wholly another
nature, and of a nature far more creditable."[364]

The importance of Virginia's position was well appreciated, both by the friends of the Union and by the advocates of secession. On the day before the election, William H. Seward wrote from Washington: "The election to-morrow probably determines whether all the slave states will take the attitude of disunion. Everybody around me thinks that that will make the separation irretrievable and involve us in a flagrant civil war. Practically everybody will despair." A day or two later, he wrote that the result of the Virginia election had come "like a gleam of sunshine in a storm," and that "at least the danger of conflict, here or elsewhere, before the 4th of March has been averted."[365]

Charles Francis Adams has placed upon record the impressions of the hour.

"Though over forty years ago, I well remember that day—gray,
overcast, wintry—which succeeded the Virginia election. Then living
in Boston, a young man of twenty-five, I shared—as who did not—in
the common deep depression and intense anxiety."

After describing the first receipt of news from the election, Mr. Adams adds: "Virginia, speaking against secession, had emitted no uncertain sound. It was as if a weight had been taken off the mind of every one. The tide seemed turned at last."[366]

James Ford Rhodes says:

"The election in Virginia for members of her State Convention had much
significance. The one hundred and fifty-two delegates chosen were,
with substantial correctness, classed as thirty so-called
Secessionists, twenty Douglas men and one hundred and two Whigs, which
proves, asserted the _Richmond Whig_, a journal which argued
strenuously for delay, that 'the Conservative victory in Virginia is
perfectly overwhelming,' the precipitators having sustained 'a
Waterloo defeat.'"[367]

LEADERS IN VIRGINIA CONVENTION OF 1861

The Convention assembled the 13th of February, and the friends of the Union elected to its presidency the venerable John Janney. The spirit and purpose of this dominant element may be gathered from a few extracts in the speech of President Janney, on assuming his position:

"It is now seventy-three years since a convention of the people of
Virginia was assembled in this hall to ratify the constitution of the
United States, one of the chief objects of which was to
consolidate—not the government but the union of the states. Causes
which have passed, and are daily passing, into history which will set
its seal upon them, but which I do not mean to review, have brought
the constitution and the Union into imminent peril, and Virginia has
come to the rescue. It is what the whole country expected of her. Her
pride, as well as her patriotism; her interest, as well as her honor,
called upon her with an emphasis she could not disregard, to save the
monuments of her own glory....

"Gentlemen, there is a flag which for nearly a century has been borne
in triumph through the battle and the breeze and which now floats over
this Capitol, on which there is a star representing this ancient
commonwealth, and my earnest prayer, in which I know every member of
this body will cordially unite, is that it may remain there forever,
provided always that its lustre is untarnished.... Is it too much to
hope that we, and others who are engaged in the work of peace and
conciliation, may so solve the problems which now perplex us as to win
back our sisters of the South, who, for what they deem sufficient
cause, have wandered from their old orbits?"[368]

From the day of its opening session down to the 17th of April, the advocates of secession and union confronted each other in debate. Prominent among the Secessionists were Robert L. Montague, Lewis E. Harvie, James P. Holcombe, John Goode and Jeremiah Morton. To this number should be added Ex-President John Tyler, who, upon the failure of the Peace Conference to accomplish its mission, advocated the secession of Virginia.

Foremost among the Union men were John B. Baldwin, George W. Summers, Jubal A. Early, Alexander H. H. Stuart, John S. Carlile, Williams C. Wickham, and the President, John Janney. Among other prominent members of the Convention were William Ballard Preston, Henry A. Wise, Robert Y. Conrad, James C. Bruce, Eppa Hunton, Robert E. Scott, Allen T. Caperton, John Echols, Waitman T. Willey, George W. Randolph and William L. Goggin.

QUESTION OF COERCING COTTON STATES