Part 18

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

James G. Blaine wrote:

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

VIEWS OF PROMINENT VIRGINIANS

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

Governor McDowell, referring to slavery and disunion, said:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

CIVIL WAR WOULD AID EMANCIPATION

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

Wendell Phillips expressed the idea when he declared:

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

SECESSION NOT LOGICAL DEFENSE

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

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

Footnote 329:

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

Footnote 330:

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

Footnote 331:

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

Footnote 332:

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

Footnote 333:

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

Footnote 334:

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

Footnote 335:

_Richmond Dispatch_, March 13, 1861.

Footnote 336:

See _Richmond Enquirer_, March 11th, 1861.

Footnote 337:

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

XXXIII

THE EMANCIPATION PROCLAMATIONS AND THE VIRGINIA PEOPLE

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

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

EFFECTS OF PROCLAMATIONS

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

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

CONDITIONS WHICH PRECIPITATED WAR

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

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

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

Footnote 338:

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

_PART III_

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

XXXIV

VIRGINIA'S PART IN THE REVOLUTION

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

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

RESISTANCE TO STAMP TAX

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

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

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

CO-OPERATION BETWEEN THE COLONIES

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

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

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

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

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

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

THE CONTINENTAL CONGRESS

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

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

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

VIRGINIA AND THE NORTHWEST TERRITORY

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

Footnote 339:

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

Footnote 340:

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

Footnote 341:

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

Footnote 342:

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

Footnote 343:

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

Footnote 344:

_Idem_, p. 437.

Footnote 345:

_Idem_, Vol. IV, p. 17.

Footnote 346:

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

XXXV

VIRGINIA'S PART IN MAKING THE UNION UNDER THE CONSTITUTION

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

EFFORTS TO STRENGTHEN UNION

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

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

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