Part 1

VIRGINIA'S ATTITUDE TOWARD SLAVERY AND SECESSION

VIRGINIA'S ATTITUDE

TOWARD

SLAVERY AND SECESSION

BY

BEVERLEY B. MUNFORD

HUMANITATEM AMOREMQUE PATRIAE COLITE

NEGRO UNIVERSITIES PRESS NEW YORK

Originally published in 1909 by Longmans, Green, and Co.

Reprinted 1969 by Negro Universities Press A DIVISION OF GREENWOOD PUBLISHING CORP. NEW YORK

Library of Congress Catalogue Card Number 69-16579

PRINTED IN UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

_TO_

MY WIFE

PREFACE

This work is designed as a contribution to the volume of information from which the historian of the future will be able to prepare an impartial and comprehensive narrative of the American Civil War, or to speak more accurately—The American War of Secession.

No attempt has been made to present the causes which precipitated the secession of the Cotton States, nor the states which subsequently adopted the same policy, except Virginia. Even in regard to that commonwealth the effort has been limited to the consideration of two features prominent in the public mind as constituting the most potent factors in determining her action—namely, devotion to slavery and hostility to the Union. That the people of Virginia were moved to secession by a selfish desire to extend or maintain the institution of slavery, or from hostility to the Union, are propositions seemingly at variance with their whole history and the interests which might naturally have controlled them in the hour of separation. Yet how widespread the impression and how frequent the suggestion from the pen of historian and publicist that the great and compelling motives which led Virginia to secede were a desire to extend slavery into the territories and to safeguard the institution within her own borders, coupled with a spirit of hostility to the Union and the ideals of liberty proclaimed by its founders. To present the true attitude of the dominant element of the Virginia people with respect to these subjects is the work which the author has taken in hand.

As cognate to this purpose the effort has been made to show what was the proximate cause which influenced the great body of the Virginia people in the hour of final decision. There were unquestionably many and widely severed causes—some remote in origin and some immediate to the hour, yet it may be safely asserted that but for the adoption by the Federal Government of the policy of coercion towards the Cotton States, Virginia would not have seceded. That was the crucial and determining factor, which impelled her secession. She denied the right of the Federal Government to defeat by force of arms the aspiration of a people as numerous and united as those of the Cotton States to achieve in peace their independence. She believed that such a course and the exercise of such a power on the part of the Federal Government, if not actually beyond the scope of its powers as fixed in the constitution, were clearly repugnant to the ideals of the Republic, and subversive of the principles for which their Fathers had fought and won the battles of the Revolution. Upon the question, shall the Cotton States be permitted to withdraw in peace, or shall their aspirations be defeated by force of arms, Virginia assumed no new position. She simply in the hour of danger and sacrifice held faithful to the principles which she had ofttimes declared and which have ever found sturdy defenders in every part of the Republic.

In the preparation of this volume the author has been the grateful recipient of the labors of many historians and publicists, accredited citations from whose works will be found throughout its pages.

In addition, he desires to acknowledge his indebtedness to the following gentlemen:

First and foremost, to Dr. Philip Alexander Bruce of Virginia, for his generous sympathy and invaluable assistance, with respect to every feature of the book; also to Edward M. Shepard, Esquire, and Reverend Samuel H. Bishop of New York and to Colonel Archer Anderson and Henry W. Anderson, Esquire, of Richmond, for their kindness in reading his manuscript and making many helpful suggestions.

For none of the errors of the book, nor for any expression of opinion, are these gentlemen responsible.

Thanks are due and tendered to Dr. Herbert Putnam, Librarian of Congress, Dr. H. R. McIlwaine, State Librarian of Virginia, and Mr. W. G. Stanard, Corresponding Secretary of the Virginia Historical Society, and to their courteous assistants, for the generous use accorded the author of the wealth of historical data in the custody of those institutions.

In addition to the foregoing, acknowledgments are gratefully made to a great company of librarians, lawyers, antiquarians, clerks of courts, custodians of private manuscripts and others who have assisted the author in collecting from widely separated sections of the Union the mass of information from which he has drawn, in the preparation of this work. In many instances, the facts so kindly furnished do not appear, but have been of service to the author, in enabling him to form more accurate conclusions. The willingness exhibited by citizens of states, other than Virginia, to furnish information with respect to the subject under consideration, is indicative of a growing desire throughout the Union to know the facts and appreciate the viewpoint of our once separated but now united people. If this book, in presenting the attitude of Virginia, shall contribute to this result, it will afford the author the sincerest gratification.

Richmond, Virginia, June, 1909

ERRATA

Page 142, line 8, for "stately," read "noble."

Page 142, line 10, for "over," read "above."

Page 162, line 7, for "MacMaster," read "McMaster."

Page 162, footnote, for "MacMaster," read "McMaster."

Page 214, line 12, for "_Cathargo,_" read "_Carthago._"

Page 242, footnote, for "Vol. IV." read "Vol. VI."

CONTENTS

THE AUTHOR'S PREFACE

_Part I_

VIRGINIA'S ATTITUDE TOWARD SLAVERY AND SECESSION DEFINED

I. Introduction 1 II. Virginia—Slavery and Secession 10

_Part II_

VIRGINIA DID NOT SECEDE IN ORDER TO EXTEND SLAVERY INTO THE TERRITORIES, OR TO PREVENT ITS THREATENED DESTRUCTION WITHIN HER OWN BORDERS

III. Virginia's Colonial Record with Respect to Slavery 15

IV. Virginia's Statute Abolishing the African Slave Trade and Her Part in Enacting the Ordinance of 1787 25

V. Slavery and the Federal Constitution— Virginia's Position 29

VI. The Foreign Slave Trade— Virginia's Efforts to Abolish It 33

VII. Some Virginia Statutes with Respect to Slavery 41

VIII. The Movement in the Virginia Legislature of 1832 to Abolish Slavery in the State 45

IX. The Northern Abolitionists and Their Reactionary Influence upon Anti-Slavery Sentiment in Virginia 51

X. Negro Colonization—State and National 60

XI. Instances of Colonization by Individual Slaveholders 66

XII. Emancipation and Colonization—Views of Jefferson, Clay and Lincoln 75

XIII. Anti-Slavery Sentiments of Prominent Virginians 82

XIV. Anti-Slavery Sentiments of Prominent Virginians. Continued 91

XV. Anti-Slavery Sentiments of Prominent Virginians. Concluded 96

XVI. Specimens of Deeds and Wills Emancipating Slaves 104

XVII. Specimens of Deeds and Wills Emancipating Slaves. Concluded 114

XVIII. The Small Number of Slaveholders in Virginia, as Compared with Her Whole White Population 125

XIX. The Injurious Effects of Slavery upon the Prosperity of Virginia 128

XX. The Custom of Buying and Selling Slaves— Virginia's Attitude 139

XXI. The Custom of Buying and Selling Slaves— Virginia's Attitude. Concluded 147

XXII. Small Proportion of Slaveholders among Virginia Soldiers 154

XXIII. Some of the Almost Insuperable Difficulties which Embarrassed Every Plan of Emancipation 159

XXIV. Some of the Almost Insuperable Difficulties which Embarrassed Every Plan of Emancipation. Continued 164

XXV. Some of the Almost Insuperable Difficulties which Embarrassed Every Plan of Emancipation. Concluded 175

XXVI. The Status of the Controversy Regarding Slavery at the Time Virginia Seceded from the Union 185

XXVII. The Status of the Controversy Regarding Slavery at the Time Virginia Seceded from the Union. Concluded 193

XXVIII. The Attitude of Certain Northern States 201

XXIX. The Attitude of Certain Northern States. Concluded 206

XXX. The Abolitionists 214

XXXI. The Abolitionists and Disunion 217

XXXII. The Abolitionists and Disunion. Concluded 225

XXXIII. The Emancipation Proclamations and the Virginia People 230

_Part III_

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

XXXIV. Virginia's Part in the Revolution 237

XXXV. Virginia's Part in Making the Union under the Constitution 242

XXXVI. Virginia's Efforts to Promote Reconciliation and Union in 1861 248

XXXVII. The People of Virginia Declare for Union 255

_Part IV_

THE ATTEMPT OF THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT TO COERCE THE COTTON STATES—THE PROXIMATE CAUSE OF VIRGINIA'S SECESSION

XXXVIII. The Coercion of the Cotton States— Virginia's Position 263

XXXIX. The Contest in the Virginia Convention for and against Secession 269

XL. The Contest in the Virginia Convention for and against Secession. Concluded 277

XLI. The Attempted Reinforcement of Fort Sumter and its Significance 284

XLII. The Attempt to Coerce the Cotton States Impels Virginia to Secede 290

XLIII. Conclusion 301

Bibliography 305

Index 313

_PART I_

VIRGINIA'S ATTITUDE TOWARD SLAVERY AND SECESSION DEFINED

I

INTRODUCTION

The story of the American Civil War presents a subject fraught with interest, not destined to die with the passing years. Even the finality of the verdict then rendered on the issues joined will not abate the desire of men to fix with precision the political and ethical questions involved and the motives which impelled the participants in that deplorable tragedy. The sword may determine the boundaries of empire or the political destinies of a people, but the great assize of the world's thought and conscience tries again and again the merits of controversies and brings victor and vanquished to the bar of its increasingly fair and discriminating judgment.

CHARACTER OF WAR

What was the character of the War? Though one of the greatest wars of modern times, having its rise and fall before the eyes of all the world, yet men are to-day in doubt as to the true term by which to describe it.

Was it a Civil War? Such a conception omits the claim of the North that the Federal Government as such fought to maintain its constitutional supremacy, and the claim of the South that the seceding states but exercised their constitutional rights in seceding, and as states fought to maintain that principle. A civil war betokens one people, in the same country, subjects of the same power, at war among themselves. Here, though afore-time countrymen, when the battle was joined, there were two rival governments, and the territories of the contending parties were distinguished, not by shibboleths and banners, but by rivers and mountain ranges. It was a sectional rather than a community war, a conflict between governments rather than between citizens of the same government.

Was it a Rebellion? Such a conflict indicates a revolt of citizens or subjects against their acknowledged sovereign. Whether in the United States the citizen owed allegiance to the Federal Government as against his State Government was a question upon which men had divided since the birth of the Republic. The men of the North responded to the call of the sovereign to whose allegiance they acknowledged fealty—the men of the South did the same. It was a battle between rival conceptions of sovereignty rather than one between a sovereign and its acknowledged citizens.

Was it a Revolution? A revolution is a successful movement of citizens or subjects against their sovereign. Here the identity of the Sovereign was in dispute, and the effort, though of unexampled magnitude, was unsuccessful. In addition the parties to the conflict held irreconcilable conceptions as to what constituted the right of revolution—one insisting that it was a God-given right inherent in any people sufficiently numerous to maintain a National existence; the other, that it was a mere power to strike, dependent upon success to prove the legitimacy of the claim.

PARTIES TO CONFLICT

The parties to the Conflict were not rival nations, but compatriots of the same flag; joint inheritors of the English Common Law and the ideals of liberty consecrated by centuries of heroic struggle; descendants of an ancestry knit in political sympathy by their successful battle for independence from the Mother Country, and the achievements by which they made their new-born nation great; children of Puritan and Cavalier, Quaker and Huguenot; Dutchman and Catholic-Frenchman; men of strong individual and community traits, accustomed to rule and untutored in the art of surrender.

CAUSES OF WAR

The causes of the War were deep-seated and complex. They were Old-World antagonisms, religious and political, antedating, and yet surviving, the settlements at Jamestown and Plymouth Rock, New Amsterdam, and New Orleans;—

The early development in the two great divisions of the country, of diverse economic conditions—a land of small farms and multiplied industrial activities confronting one of large plantations and agricultural supremacy;—

The Protective Tariff, at first enacted to secure for American manufactures a chance to compete successfully with those of the Old World, but, in its results, a burdensome system, under which the agriculturists of the South paid onerous tribute to the manufacturers of the North;—

Slavery—an institution which specialized more and more the interests of the South in the great exporting staples of cotton, rice and tobacco, driving manufactures and mining into the more hospitable regions of the North;—an institution whose life or death was within the exclusive power of the separate states where it was legalized, and yet the manifold incidents of whose existence were the subject of frequent National legislation, and hence ever recurring occasions of sectional strife;—an institution which quickened in time among the people of the non-slaveholding states the conviction that it was a sin, with the consequent charge that all responsible for its existence were parties to a crime, thus arousing the bitter resentment of devout men in the slaveholding states, who, protesting their innocence of wrong, challenged the right of their Northern brethren to sit in judgment upon them;—

The Annexation of Texas: A new cause and occasion for sectional jealousy, precipitating the war with Mexico, and bringing additional territory into the Union with fresh disputes over the powers of Congress in regard thereto;—

The Immense Foreign Immigration into the North and West;—thus developing in those sections the strongest sentiments of Nationalism, while the South, unaffected by any such forces, adhered to the early ideals of state pride and state supremacy;—

State Sovereignty versus National Supremacy;—the first, the shield behind which aggrieved minorities sought to curb arrogant majorities and safeguard the rights and interests of community life; the second, the ideal by which the preservation of the Union was to be assured and its dignity and power at home and abroad vindicated;—

The Missouri Compromise—its enactment and repeal, the controversies as to the power of Congress to prohibit slaveholders from migrating with their slaves into the territories, the enactment by Congress of the Fugitive Slave Law of 1850 and the attitude of certain Northern States in attempting to defeat its execution, the Underground Railroad, the decision in the Dred Scott case, the armed conflicts in Kansas, the John Brown Raid and the sympathy evinced at the North for the man and his venture; and finally:

The asserted right of the Cotton States to withdraw from the Union, and the declared purpose of the Federal Government to defeat their aspiration by force of arms.

Add to all the foregoing the vision of mighty armies struggling for mastery, the terrors and miseries of war—contrasted with the heroism and devotion which it aroused, and there results a combination of causes which will continue to make their compelling appeal to the hearts and imaginations of men.

THE ISSUES INVOLVED

If the causes of the war were manifold and perplexing, the exact object for which each of the contending parties did battle is only less difficult of precise definition. A brief consideration of some of the many forms in which the popular voice has sought to express the conception will serve to illustrate the truth of this suggestion.

"The North fought to preserve the Union—the South, to destroy it."

That one great element of the Northern people took up arms at the call of the Federal Government to prevent a dismemberment of the Union is undoubtedly true. That another element regarded the maintenance of the Union under the existing constitution as unworthy of effort is equally true. The first went forth at the earliest call to preserve the Union under the old constitution; the second came later to the battle to fight for a Union with a constitution which should decree the abolition of slavery. That the Southern people sought to establish the independence of their new Confederacy and to that extent a dismemberment of the Union is true, but that they desired the destruction of the Union and the principles of liberty and law which its establishment was designed to assure are conclusions not easily deducible from their aspirations or necessities.

"The North fought for empire, the South for independence."

That the North fought to keep within the limits of the Union the domain stretching from the Potomac to the Rio Grande is true, but that the great mass of her people were actuated by a desire to hold the land as tributary and its people as subjects is not true. The splendid ideal of a Republic, stretching from ocean to ocean, and securing to its growing millions the dual blessings which spring from National integrity and home rule, we may well believe was ever before them. That one great element of the Southern people fought for independence and all the inspiring ideals which the term implies is true, though it is equally true that joined with them in the battle were states the dominant elements of whose people cherished no primal desire for separation from the Union, but resisted the authorities of the latter because of their convictions that its policy of coercion was illegal and destructive of the principle upon which the Republic had been founded.

"The North fought to destroy slavery; the South, to extend and maintain it."

That slavery was the most potent factor in developing the conditions which finally precipitated war is true. That the two parties to the conflict joined battle upon the issue of its maintenance or destruction seems inconsistent with their solemnly declared purposes and promises, made at the time. President Lincoln at his inauguration proclaimed: "I have no purpose directly or indirectly to interfere with the institution of slavery in the states where it exists. I believe I have no lawful right to do so, and I have no inclination to do so." This pledge of the President was but a reaffirmation of the platform of his party, and both were, in turn, confirmed by the declaration of Congress that the war was fought, "to defend and maintain the supremacy of the constitution and to preserve the Union with all the dignity, equality and rights of the several states unimpaired."

President Davis presented the attitude of his people and government when he declared: "All we ask is to be let alone—that those who never held power over us shall not now attempt our subjugation by arms." And after three years of desperate war, he declared to the representatives of President Lincoln:—

"We are not fighting for slavery. We are fighting for independence.... Say to Mr. Lincoln for me that I shall at any time be pleased to receive proposals for peace, on the basis of our independence. It will be useless to approach me with any other."[1]

That the people of America in the nineteenth century of the Christian era should have resorted to war in order to settle questions of constitutional and moral right must forever constitute an impeachment of the capacity for self-government and the ethical standards of the men responsible for its occurrence.

The charge that the people of twenty-three states in four of which slavery was legalized arose in arms against their fellow-citizens of the remaining eleven and, despite the constitutional safeguards with which the institution in the latter states was confessedly surrounded, invaded their land, burnt thousands of their homes and killed tens of thousands of their citizens in a desperate determination to destroy slavery, is as compromising to American character as the counter accusation that the people of eleven states, with no existing menace to their constitutional rights in regard to slavery, resorted to secession and aggressive war in order to secure new guarantees for the safety of the institution. Charges so dishonoring to the American people should not be made and above all should not be accepted as true—unless compelled by the inexorable facts of history.

STATE RIGHTS vs. FEDERAL RIGHTS

"The South fought for States' Rights—Home Rule; the North, for Federal rights—National Supremacy."