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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Numerous petitions, memorials and resolutions found their way to the Assembly. These may be divided into three classes: (1) those asking for the removal of free Negroes from the State; (2) those seeking to amend the Federal Constitution with a view to giving Congress power to appropriate money with which to purchase slaves and transport them and the free Negroes from the United States; and (3) those urging the State to devise some scheme for gradual emancipation.[17] The first class of petitions came principally from the large slave-holding sections of the State; the second and third classes came from those sections of the State in which slaves were not numerous.

It was evident that this Assembly must take a definite position with reference to the question of the abolishment of slavery. Accordingly, therefore, a number of these resolutions concerning slavery were referred to a select committee composed of twenty-one members, sixteen of whom were from counties east of the Blue Ridge. After three days of conference, during which fiery discussions and motions were rampant in the legislature, the committee reported to the effect that "it is inexpedient for the present to make any legislative enactment for the abolition of slavery."[18] Mr. Preston, of Montgomery, moved immediately to amend the report by substituting therefor: "It is expedient at this time to adopt some legislative enactment for the abolition of slavery."[19] The amendment was defeated by a vote of seventy-three to fifty-eight. Mr. Bryce, of Goochland County, thereupon, proposed to amend the report of the select committee, already herein noted, by prefixing the following preamble: "Profoundly sensible of the great evils arising from the condition of the Colored population of the Commonwealth; induced by humanity as well as policy to an immediate effort for the removal, in the first place as well as those who are now free as of such as may hereafter become free, believing that this effort, while it is in just accordance with the sentiment of the community on the subject, will absorb all our present means; and that a further action for the removal of the slaves, should await a more definite development of public opinion."[20] This preamble was adopted, despite tremendous opposition of the pro-slavery men.

The discussion of 1832 was followed by a decided reaction against the proposal for the abolition of slavery. Professor Thomas R. Dew, of William and Mary College, crystallized the pro-slavery sentiment in a masterful essay entitled: A Review of the Debates in the Virginia Legislature of 1831-32. This essay dealt with the theoretical and practical aspects of slavery in all countries and especially with the rise and development of Negro slavery in America. It pointed out the difficulties attendant upon the deportation of the free black and slave populations, and the danger to society of their emancipation without deportation. It ridiculed the idea of a successful slave uprising under the conditions then obtaining, and held that the whole discussion of so momentous a question by young and inexperienced legislators was entirely out of order.[21] The forceful argument of Professor Dew was met by one from Jesse Burton Harrison, whose essay was entitled: "A Review of the Speech of Thomas Marshall in the Virginia Assembly of 1831-32." Mr. Harrison's arguments to prove that Negro slavery in Virginia was an economic evil appeared to be merely a reiteration of the arguments of Marshall.[22] Former President Madison also replied briefly to Dew. His essay set forth that Dew had held too cheaply the presence of Negro slavery and emigration and ascribed too much importance to the influence of the tariff laws.[23]

By far the most important sectional issue in Virginia during the period 1834 to 1850 was that arising out of a movement for a united slave-holding South. The Virginia Congressmen had voted as a body against the "Wilmot Proviso," the abolition of the domestic slave trade and the abolition of slavery in the District of Columbia. In spite of these facts, leading citizens of Western Virginia were trying to devise ways and means whereby to rid that portion of the State of Negro slavery. Dr. Henry Ruffner, Henry McDowell Moore and John Letcher were prominent among those who proposed a plan whereby the gradual emancipation of all slaves in the State west of the Blue Ridge Mountains would be effected. The plan was first debated in the Franklin Society at Lexington in 1847. Later it appeared as a pamphlet entitled An Address to the People of West Virginia by a Slaveholder of West Virginia. This pamphlet proposed to show that slavery was opposed to the public welfare and that it might be gradually abolished without results detrimental to the rights and interests of the slave holders. It contained elaborate comparisons between the slave-holding States and those not holding slaves, to the disadvantage of the former, in tending to prove that slavery was an economic evil.[24]

Dr. Ruffner, later speaking of the movement, said: "No one so far as I can remember took the abolitionist ground that slave holding was a sin and ought to be abolished. With us, it was merely a question of expediency and was argued with special reference to the interests of West Virginia." Speaking of the reception of the pamphlet in Western Virginia, he said that the editors in the Valley, doubting the success of the scheme, hesitated to endorse his efforts; but that west of the Alleghenies it met with a most encouraging reception.[25]

There began during the two decades from 1830 to 1850 a period of internal improvements because of a rapid increase in the population and wealth of Western Virginia. The construction of turnpikes and local railroads in the trans-Allegheny country and the projection of other improvements attracted there immigrants, and served also to interest speculation in its cheap lands and natural resources. English and eastern capitalists purchased large tracts of land and sold them in small parcels to settlers who occupied them.[26] Capitalists from the Middle West and New England States established small manufactories there, and immigrants coming thither chose between working therein and becoming farmers or teachers. A considerable German population was numbered among these immigrants. The census of 1850 showed an excess of 90,372 white population in the West over that in the East. The lands in the transmontane country had risen to a value of only fifteen million dollars less than the cash value of the lands east of the Blue Ridge.[27]

It is significant that the improvements during this period had tended, altogether, to connect the commercial interests of Western Virginia more definitely with those of the Free States to the north and west. Not a single railroad connected the western part of the State with the Tidewater. The proceeds of bond issues floated to promote internal improvements in the State had not been used to effect commercial ties between the two sections of the State, nor had any considerable portion thereof been used to improve the western districts. On the other hand, the interest of the people at the foot hills of the Piedmont had become more definitely aligned with those of the other eastern sections of the State. The chief grievance of the former had been remedied by the compromise convention of 1829-30, which gave them a larger representation in the House of Delegates. Likewise, the pursuit of intensive agriculture in the Valley had led to the introduction of many slaves there, thus tending to create a bond of interest between this region and the slave-holding east. In the Constitutional Convention of 1850, therefore, the people of the transmontane country found themselves arrayed against the three other sections of the State.[28]

It has been herein noted that the Convention of 1829-30 settled nothing. A compromise had been effected which relieved somewhat the tension that existed over the matter of representation. The constitutional provision that gave to the Assembly the power, after 1841 and thereafter at intervals of not less than ten years, and under prescribed conditions, to make re-apportionments of representation had never been availed of. In view of its phenomenal growth in wealth and population, the west keenly resented this failure to act on the part of the Assembly of 1841-42.[29] The questions, therefore, that confronted the Convention of 1829-30 were again brought forward in 1850.

The Convention of 1850 met at Richmond in October, but shortly adjourned until January 6, 1851. In February the question of the basis of representation was taken up. The Committee appointed to determine the proper basis could reach no agreement; thereupon, many plans were submitted by delegates from each section of the State. The western delegates proposed that the House of Delegates should consist of one hundred and fifty-six members, should be elected biennially, and that the Senate should consist of fifty members chosen for four years; both Houses should be elected upon the suffrage basis; and in 1862 and every ten years thereafter, a re-apportionment should be made on that basis. The eastern delegates proposed a House of Delegates of one hundred and fifty-six members and a Senate of thirty-six; both Houses should be elected on the mixed basis and re-apportionments should be made on that basis in 1855 and every ten years thereafter.[30]

Neither of these plans was adopted. Consequently various plans of compromise were brought forward. Botts, of Richmond, and George W. Summers, of Kanawha, were among those who suggested propositions. On the motion of Mr. Martin, of Henry County, it was decided that a committee of eight, four from each section, be elected by the convention to provide a compromise. On the fifteenth day of May, this committee reported in favor of a House of Delegates of one hundred and fifty members; eighty-two from the west and sixty-eight from the east; and a Senate of fifty; thirty from the east and twenty from the west. It provided further for a re-apportionment in 1865 and for submitting both the mixed and suffrage bases to the people should the Assembly, at that time, fail to agree.[31] The plan was rejected. Following the failure of several other compromise plans, Chilton presented with modifications the report of the committee of eight.[32] This report provided that the numbers therein indicated for each house remain unchanged; but should the legislature of 1865 fail to re-apportion representation, the governor would be "required to submit to the vote of the people four propositions, namely; (1) the suffrage basis, (2) the mixed basis, (3) the white population basis, and (4) the taxation basis." This plan was carried in committee of the whole and later, with slight modifications, was adopted by the Convention.

The question of suffrage was settled amicably since the delegates from neither section opposed an extension thereof. The privilege of the ballot, therefore, was extended to "Every white male citizen of the commonwealth of the age of twenty-one years";[33] paupers and others usually excepted, not to be included.

The question of taxation was one of the important issues to be settled. The eastern delegates opposed the white basis of representation, chiefly through the fear that westerners would use their newly gained political power to tax slave property to secure funds for internal improvements.[34] The eastern members insisted, therefore, that all property taxes should be ad valorem and that no one species should be taxed higher than another. They were unwilling, too, that Negro slaves under twelve years of age should be taxed at all. It was finally provided that an ad valorem tax be placed on all property according to its value, but that Negro slaves under twelve years of age be exempt and slaves twelve years and over be taxed per capita at not more than the tax on land worth three hundred dollars.[35] The inhabitants of the west never became reconciled to this discriminating arrangement and it was especially irritating during the years immediately preceding the war,[36] when the price of slaves often ranged from sixteen hundred to eighteen hundred dollars.[37]

In this Convention the men of the west were less bent upon obtaining a constitutional provision declaring for the gradual emancipation of slaves than they were in 1829-30. Their efforts were directed towards shifting the political balance of power from east to west, whereby this purpose might be accomplished with less difficulty.[38] In this they were not successful. Likewise the east was dissatisfied over the apportionment of representation and the west did not want to accept the principle of taxation.[39] The question of the extension of suffrage was the only leading issue settled. This convention, like that of 1829-30, was essentially a compromise convention; for no permanent settlement of the great problems could be effected with the State virtually half slave and half free.

The Virginia policy during the period of 1850 to 1861 was influenced largely by the nation-wide idea that the question of slavery could be settled only by civil strife. Accordingly the Virginia politicians, and especially Governor Wise[40] during his term of office, were at great pains to connect Eastern Virginia in thought and in purpose with the slave-holding South. This was a period of great internal improvements in Virginia. The State incurred a bonded debt of thirty-six million dollars. Many of the loans constituting this debt were used to promote and facilitate the building of railroads and canals. The railroads in question, almost without exception, tended to connect Eastern Virginia socially, industrially and commercially with her neighbors to the south. On the other hand, the only large railroad of Western Virginia, the Baltimore and Ohio, was constantly discriminated against at Richmond[41] and in every session of the legislature restrictions were aimed at its activities. It is significant that the hostility to railroad facilities for the Northwest persisted down to the beginning of the Civil War.[42]

While Western Virginia was denied railroad facilities out of deference to southern and slave-holding interests, liberal appropriations were made for the building of turnpike roads in that territory.[43] This consideration tended to some extent to alleviate the feeling of dissatisfaction. The fact remained, however, that Western Virginia had become one in thought and in purpose with the people of Pennsylvania and Ohio, and she was influenced considerably by her intercourse with Baltimore. It was to these places that she had easy access. It followed, therefore, that in 1861 when Eastern Virginia seceded from the Union and went with the slave-holding States of the South, the western part of the State had little choice save to remain loyal to the Union.

SECESSION AND ITS RESULTS

In 1860 there were in all Virginia 498,887 slaves, of whom 12,771 were in the forty-eight counties originally constituting the State of West Virginia.[44] With an overwhelming majority of all the slaves in the State located in the East, the people of this section were, naturally enough, profoundly interested in the events then occurring in other pro-slavery commonwealths. Influenced by the secession of six States from the Union and their subsequent formation of the Confederate States of America, Governor Letcher issued a proclamation convening the General Assembly in extra session on the seventh day of January, 1861.[45]

According to the act of the Assembly, a state convention was assembled at Richmond on the thirteenth day of February. Forty-seven of the one hundred and fifty-two delegates present represented counties now included in the State of West Virginia.[46] On the sixteenth of April the Convention met in secret session and the chairman of the Committee on Federal Relations appointed early in February reported a measure entitled "An Ordinance to Repeal the Ratification of the Constitution of the United States."[47] The ordinance recited the reasons for the repeal of the ratification of the Federal Constitution, dissolved the union between Virginia and the other States, asserted the complete sovereignty of the State of Virginia, released her citizens from responsibility to the Federal Constitution, noted the date upon which and provided the conditions under which the said ordinance would become effective. It was adopted the next day by a vote of eighty-eight to fifty-five. Immediate steps were then taken to form an alliance with the Confederate States,[48] the same being effected on the twenty-fifth day of April. Meanwhile some of the delegates from Western Virginia withdrew from the Convention.

When news of the action taken by the Richmond convention reached Northwestern Virginia a storm of protest arose. A vast majority of the citizens of this region were not in accord with the action of the State in seceding to the Confederacy. They were determined, therefore, that the part of the State known as the trans-Allegheny region should be saved to the Union. Resolutions emanating from the meetings held in the several counties joined with the press to denounce the action taken by the aforesaid convention. The Clarksburg[49] meeting, assembled for this purpose on the twenty-second of April, sounded the call for united action and proposed that a convention composed of the twenty-seven counties of Western Virginia should assemble at Wheeling on the thirteenth of May.

The May Convention assembled at the time and place indicated and proceeded straightway to the business of the hour. The permanent President, John W. Moss, of Wood county, outlined the purpose of the Convention.[50] His remarks were followed by a resolution of Mr. Tarr, of Brooke County, to the effect that "a Committee, to be known as the Committee on Federal and State Relations and to comprise one member from each County, be appointed by the President to consider all resolutions of the body looking to action by the Convention."[51] Significant among the numerous resolutions presented was one by John S. Carlile calling for a new Virginia,[52] but the sense of the Convention was that such action was premature.

Out of the maze of resolutions offered, the committee finally made its report. Among other provisions, the report recommended that in the event of the ratification, by vote, of the Ordinance of Secession, the counties there represented and all others disposed to co-operate with them, should appoint delegates on the fourth day of June to meet in general convention on the eleventh day of June at such place as thereinafter provided, with a view to devising such measures and taking such action as the people they represent might demand.[53] It was further recommended that a central committee be appointed to attend to all matters connected with the objects of the convention, to assemble it at their discretion and to prepare an address to the people of Virginia in conformity with the resolution there made.[54]

The passage, on the twenty-third day of May, of the Ordinance of Secession, necessitated the meeting of the second convention. It assembled on the eleventh of June at Wheeling. Upon the effecting of a permanent organization, Mr. Dorsey, of Monongalia, offered a resolution to the effect that immediate steps be taken to form a new State from the counties represented.[55] Mr. Carlile endeavored to show a lack of wisdom in such a course, saying: "Let us organize a legislature, swearing allegiance to the Federal Government, and let that legislature be recognized by the government of the United States as the legislature of the State of Virginia."[56] He urged that under that condition they would be under the protecting care of the Federal Government and would be in position to effect a constitutional separation from Virginia. His judgment prevailed.

The important acts of this Convention were: (1) the Declaration of Rights of the People of Virginia and its adoption;[57] (2) the adoption of an Ordinance for the Reorganization of the State[58] and (3) the election of State Officers.[59] The Convention then adjourned.

On the sixth of August, the adjourned Convention reassembled, as provided, at Wheeling. The principal work of this convention was the adoption of an ordinance to provide for the formation of a new State out of a portion of the State of Virginia.[60] It provided also for an election to be held on the twenty-fourth of October (1) to ratify the ordinance there adopted and (2) to select delegates to a convention to frame a constitution for the new State, in case a majority of the voters should decide in favor of formation. The vote at this election was 18,408 for ratification and 481 for rejection. Accordingly, upon certification of the same to the governor, he issued his proclamation, calling the delegates elected to a constitutional convention to meet in Wheeling on the twenty-sixth of November.[61]

The Constitutional Convention met at the scheduled time in the United States Court room at Wheeling.[62] Thirty-four delegates of the forty chosen were present. No time was lost in effecting a permanent organization of the Convention, in order that the momentous problems to be solved might be brought before that august body. Not the least important one of these questions was that of the disposal of slavery. The questions of the hour were these: Was the new State to be a free or a slave State? Would the Union admit another slave State?

It was on the fourteenth day of the Convention that Robert Hagar, a Methodist preacher from Boone county, offered a resolution to the effect that the convention inquire into the propriety of making the new State free, by incorporating into the Constitution a clause for gradual emancipation.[63] A counter proposal was offered on the same day by Mr. Brown, an ardent pro-slavery advocate, from Kanawha. His resolution asserted that it was "unwise and impolitic to introduce the question of slavery into the Convention."[64] Despite the fact that the organic law of the new State was then being framed, this pro-slavery champion deplored any attempt of the body to discuss or decide upon the question of slavery, the most vital question of economic policy with which the people would be concerned. There were present, however, other men who were determined to champion the cause of freedom.

On the sixteenth day of the convention the courageous Mr. Gordon Battelle, a delegate from Ohio county, offered for reference the following proposition:[65]

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

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

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

On the twenty-seventh day of January, Mr. Battelle offered the following:[66]

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

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

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

In line with the proposals of Mr. Battelle was the pertinent and clear-sighted editorial of The Wheeling Intelligencer under date of December ninth, 1861. It said: "We have endeavored to show how entirely adverse to the best interests of Western Virginia it would be for the present convention to adjourn without first engrafting a free State provision on our constitution in shape of a three, five or ten years emancipation clause. We should esteem it far better that the Convention had never assembled than that it should omit to take action of this character.... Congress would hesitate long before it will consent to the subdivision of a slave State simply that two slave States may be made out of it. The evil which has so nearly destroyed not only Western Virginia, but the whole country, will find that its tug-of-war is yet to come, when it has run the gauntlet of our Convention and our Legislature. We believe that when it reaches Congress, it will reach its hitherto and that it will never pass. It will avail very little for this convention to remain in debate on this subject for a month at a heavy expense and consummate a work which will only last end in a defeat and entail upon its framers the cold distrust of the only friends they have in the world. The loyal masses of the free States who are fighting the great battle of Constitutional freedom, who are endeavoring to stay the absorbing and consuming demands of slavery upon this continent, will never consent that in the very midst of them it shall burst out, in a new place, with the extraordinary demands that its present representation of a state in their Senate shall be doubled.... We say then to the members of our convention that before you waste your time and money on a constitution you look to its probable fate."[67]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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.

In the actual events at Harper's Ferry the assistance given by Canada was small. Of the men who marched out with Brown on that fateful October night only one could in any way be described as a Canadian. This was Osborn Perry Anderson, a Negro born free in Pennsylvania. He was working as a printer in Chatham at the time of the convention and threw in his lot with Brown. He was one of those who escaped at Harper's Ferry. He later wrote an account of the affair, served during the latter part of the Civil War in the northern army and died at Washington in 1871. He is described by Hinton as "well educated, a man of natural dignity, modest, simple in character and manners."[15]

There naturally arises the question, why was the aid given John Brown by the Canadian Negroes so meagre? That Brown had counted on considerable help in his enterprise from the men who joined with him in drafting the "provisional constitution" is certain. John Edwin Cook, one of Brown's close associates, declared in his confession made after Harper's Ferry, that "men and money had both been promised from Chatham and other parts of Canada."[16] Yet, apart from Anderson, a Negro, only one other Canadian of either color seems to have had any share in the raid. Dr. Alexander Milton Ross went to Richmond, Virginia, before the blow was struck, as he had promised Brown he would do, and was there when word came of its unhappy ending. Brown evidently counted on Ross being able to keep him in touch with developments at the capital of Virginia.

Chatham had been chosen as the place of meeting with special reference to the effect it might have on the large Negro population resident in the immediate vicinity. There were more Negroes within fifty miles of Chatham than in any other section of Canadian territory and among them were men of intelligence, education and daring, some of them experienced in slave raiding. Brown was justified in expecting help from them. There is also evidence that among the Negroes themselves there existed a secret organization, known under various names, having as its object to assist fugitives and resist their masters. Help from this organization was also expected.[17] Hinton says that Brown "never expected any more aid from them than that which would give a good impetus."[18] John Brown himself is quoted by Realf, one of his associates, as saying that he expected aid from the Negroes generally, both in Canada and the United States,[19] but it must be remembered that his plans called for quality rather than quantity of assistance. A few daring men, planted in the mountains of Virginia, would have accomplished his initial purpose better than a thousand.