USA > Virginia > A history of Virginia : from its discovery and settlement by Europeans to the present time. Vol. II > Part 25
Note: The text from this book was generated using artificial intelligence so there may be some errors. The full pages can be found on Archive.org (link on the Part 1 page).
Part 1 | Part 2 | Part 3 | Part 4 | Part 5 | Part 6 | Part 7 | Part 8 | Part 9 | Part 10 | Part 11 | Part 12 | Part 13 | Part 14 | Part 15 | Part 16 | Part 17 | Part 18 | Part 19 | Part 20 | Part 21 | Part 22 | Part 23 | Part 24 | Part 25 | Part 26 | Part 27 | Part 28 | Part 29 | Part 30 | Part 31 | Part 32 | Part 33
390
INSURRECTION-GABRIEL.
[CHAP. VII.
Thus slavery continued to exist within her borders, and it was attended with the dangers to which, in every age of the world, the admixture of such an ingredient has exposed society.
Not far from Richmond, at this time, lived Tho- mas Prosser, who owned a number of slaves, and among them a man named Gabriel, distinguished for his intelligence, and his influence with his class. He was twenty-four years old ; his stature was tall, and his bodily strength very great; he had "a gloomy, insidious brow," a long, stern visage, and previous conflicts had left several scars upon his person. There was, at the same time, in the neighbourhood, a slave named Jack, who, as usual, took his master's last name, and was commonly called "Jack Bowler." He was twenty-eight years old, a perfect giant in stature and strength, being six feet five inches high, and possessed of remarkable muscular power. His hair was long, and worn in a queue, in the style of the day.ª These two men combined for a conspiracy. Gabriel was the lead- ing mind, and so actively exerted himself, that in the subsequent scenes, he won the title of " Gene- ral Gabriel," which was commonly given him both by whites and negroes.
With secrecy and skill a plot was organized. It is supposed to have embraced nearly one thousand slaves, yet so well was their counsel kept, that it did not escape until the very night on which their object was to be carried out. Their plan was such as might have been expected from brutal natures,
ª Examiner, Sept. 30, 1800, Governor Monroe's Proclamation, Sept. 17.
391
PLOT DISCLOSED.
1800.]
· impelled rather by lust and cruelty, than by real wrongs. They were to attack Richmond at night, when her people were asleep and defenceless, to kill all the white males who might be dangerous, to divide the women among themselves, to seize arms, ammunition, and other spoils, and to unite with brethren through the state, in making war of exter- mination upon the whites. A plot so diabolical was happily defeated by a providential warning.
On the evening of a day near the close of August, a number of the conspirators had assembled in the country, several miles from Richmond, where they prepared for an attack during the night. A tre- mendous summer storm came on, attended by tor- rents of rain, and while it was yet raging, a slave named Pharaoh, the property of William Mosby, escaped without being observed by his fellows, and hastened to Richmond. He swam an intervening creek which was then rising, arrived safely in the city, and communicated his information, which was regarded as so important that it was carried immediately to Governor Monroe. Forthwith the alarm was given, the drums beat, volunteer com- panies were called out, the militia were under arms, and all things were made ready to give the assail- ants a proper reception.a
In the mean time, the rain poured down without ceasing, and the creek already noticed became so swollen, that it could not be crossed without danger.
a These facts, with others con- Gathright, an aged and very intelli- nected with the conspiracy, were gent citizen of Richmond. communicated to me by Mr. Obadiah
392
INSURGENTS DISPERSED.
[CHAP. VII.
A tradition, not printed, but well preserved, has told us that the chief rendezvous of the slaves was near Mr. Thomas Prosser's house. He was warned by a servant woman, and with difficulty made his es- cape by a window. As he ran through the rain, he sometimes looked back, and every flash of light- ning glanced from the bright scythe-blades, which were the principal arms of the conspirators. So eager were they to make their attack, that they marched in the midst of the storm, but coming to the creek, they found it nearly impassable. A number of the most daring plunged in, and at- tempted to swim to the other side; several were drowned in the attempt, and those who succeeded, had advanced but a little distance, before they dis- covered that their plot was known. Then the whole body of insurgents broke and dispersed in every direction; the ringleaders took refuge in places of concealment, and the private members, generally, returned to their homes.
Measures were promptly taken to arrest those who had been engaged in this plot, and bring them to trial. As fast as they were brought in, they were tried by a court of "Oyer and Terminer," composed of the justices of Henrico County. Se- veral were acquitted for want of evidence; but many were found guilty, condemned, and succes- sively executed by hanging. a A reward of three hundred dollars each, was offered by the Governor for the apprehension of Gabriel and Jack ; for seve-
a MS. Order Book, No. 9, Henrico of the trials will there be found. County Court Office. The records
393
PUBLIC GUARD ESTABLISHED.
1801.]
ral weeks they could not be found, but at length they were apprehended, and met the fate they de- served. Gabriel was tried on the 6th of October, convicted and condemned.ª He is said to have lost all firmness as death approached, and to have shown, at the final scene, nothing but abject fear. To provide against danger, the volunteer compa- nies under arms were ordered to attend the execu- tions. As the number of victims gradually in- creased, public feeling reacted, and a merciful arrest of justice occurred, long before all the guilty had been punished.
(1801.) One of the most important results of this insurrection was the establishment of the pub- lic guard at Richmond. On the last day of the year 1800, the House of Delegates resolved that this step was expedient, and on the 22d of January succeeding, an act was passed for the purpose." It said that, "in the present crisis of affairs," it was proper to have an armed guard, and provided for the enlistment of sixty-eight privates, who were to be under a captain, a lieutenant, and an ensign. They were to have quarters at the armory, and their service and pay were all properly defined. Subsequent years have more and more confirmed Virginia in the policy of keeping up this guard; from time to time it has been reconsidered and im- proved ; its numbers have not been much increased, but it has been rendered more efficient,d and has
ª MS. Order Book, No. 9, 400-401.
b Journal, H. of D. for 1800, 47-
48.
Stat. at Large (N.S.), ii.295, 296.
d See remarks in the " Virginian" for January 1, 1808.
-
394
ACT OF 1799.
[CHAP. VII.
probably never been higher in public esteem, both as regards its officers and men, than it is at present. Intimations have sometimes been made, that this corps is in fact " a standing army" on a small scale, and that therefore it contravenes the letter and spirit of the Federal Constitution. But its origin, its design, its character, and duties, alike repel such construction. It has never yet drawn a disap- proving look from the General Government, and Virginia would not yield it without a struggle.
We now approach. a measure adopted by the General Assembly, which has been the subject of severe scrutiny and animadversion ; but which, when fully understood, will be found to be the acting out of the principles of the Bill of Rights, and of religious freedom, and the final step neces- sary to sever Church and State in Virginia. That this subject might be at once, and clearly presented, we have reserved for this place, notice of an Act of Assembly, passed in 1799, and having an impor- tant bearing upon their subsequent action.
The act was passed on the 24th of January.ª It recited that the Constitution of the State had pro- nounced the government of the King of England to be dissolved by the Revolution ; had substituted for it a new civil government, and that the Bill of Rights had excepted from the powers of the go- vernment, any authority to revive any species of church government, by referring the subject of re- ligion to conscience. It farther recited, that several Acts of Assembly had admitted the Established
a Statutes at Large, (N. S.) ii. 149 ; 1 R. C. 78, 79.
395
ITS OBJECT.
1801.] .
Church to have continued so subsequently to the Constitution ; had bestowed property upon that church; had asserted a right to establish any re- ligious sect, and had incorporated religious sects, " all of which is inconsistent with the principles of the Constitution, and of religious freedom, and manifestly tends to the re-establishment of a national church." Therefore, to prevent these evils, this act first repealed several prior acts, viz., the act passed in 1776, for exempting Dissenters from contri- buting to the Established Church, and for other purposes ; the act in relation to the payment of the salaries of the ministers of the Church of England ; the act for incorporating the Protestant Episcopal Church; the act to authorize the election of ves- tries ; the act repealing the incorporation of the Protestant Episcopal Church ; and the act giving powers to the Trustees of that Church; and then this sweeping enactment declares, that the " Act for establishing religious freedom" is a true exposi- tion of the principles of the Bill of Rights, and Constitution.
That the reader may not be confused by this complicated law, which seems to repeal some prior legislation which, when adopted, was regarded as highly liberal, he must be reminded of the object and the effect of this act of 1799. Its object was to strike down and cut away at once, every statute, which in any form, either expressly or impliedly, recognised a connexion between Church and State. It was a process like that of taking down a con- fused mass of architecture, some good, some bad,
.
396
MEMORIALS-GLEBES.
[CHAP. VII.
and preparing to erect a graceful edifice, in which nothing should be found to offend an exact taste. It sought to repeal every enactment which spoke of an "Established Church" as still existing ; which made mention of Dissenters, which talked of Toleration. Where all were free, there should be no such thing as an Established Church ; no such persons as Dissenters ; no such word as tolera- tion. Its effect was to refer the religious rights of the people of Virginia to four sources of decision : first, the principles of the Revolution itself; se- condly, the Bill of Rights ; thirdly, the Constitu- tion ; fourthly, the Bill of Religious Freedom. Upon this fourfold base, liberty would be firm.
The exclusive claim of the Protestant Episcopal Church to the property which had accumulated during the Colonial period, under the laws support- ing an Establishment, was not quietly acquiesced in by other denominations, or by the people at large. Every year, memorials poured in upon the Assembly, praying that this property might be restored to the public, from whom it had so long been diverted, and might be applied to purposes of general good. The Baptists were chiefly active in this work ; the Presbyterians lent their aid ; and in the struggles on the one side and on the other, it is to be feared the spirit of genuine piety suffered harm.ª But the friends of freedom in the Legisla- ture could not be blind to the justice of a claim which sought to remove the last legal advantage enjoyed by one church over the others. They
* Semple, 73 ; Evan, and Lit. Mag. 36-47 ; Hawks, 225-227.
397
ACT FOR SELLING GLEBES.
1802.]
acted not precipitately ; they had heretofore de- layed to reclaim the glebe lands for the public, be- cause such a step might have borne the appearance of rigour to incumbent ministers; but at length the time seemed to have arrived when they might proceed without even the semblance of wrong.
(1802.) On the 12th of January was passed the law concerning glebe lands and churches in the Commonwealth of Virginia.a The preamble re- cites the law of 1799, under operation of which the principle was recognised, that all property for- merly belonging to the " late Protestant Episcopal Church," devolved on the people of the Common- wealth, on the dissolution of the British Govern- ment here, " in the same degree in which the right and interest of the said church was derived therein from them." It farther recites, that although the Assembly might direct a sale of such property in- discriminately, yet wishing to reconcile "all the good people" of the Commonwealth, they deemed it inexpedient to disturb the existing incumbents. The act then authorizes the overseers of the poor, in any county where there were glebe lands vacant, or which should become vacant by the death or re- moval of the incumbent, to sell such lands and ap- purtenances, and all property incident thereto. If there were incumbents on any glebes, they were to be restrained by a proper legal process, from committing waste, and removing personal property. Out of the proceeds of the sales, the overseers were first to pay the debts of the parish, if any there were; they were then to appropriate the balance
a Rev. Code, i. 79-81.
398
ITS LEADING PROVISIONS.
[CHAP. VII.
of money to the poor of the parish, or to any other objects that a majority of the freeholders and house- keepers therein might direct, provided that no ap- propriation should be made "to any religious pur- pose whatsoever." But it was expressly provided that this law should not authorize the sale of any church edifice, or of the property in it, or of any churchyard, and should not affect any property or money which, by private donation or subscription, should have been acquired by the Church since the first day of January, 1777.
In considering this act, the reader will specially observe the care with which the Assembly pro- tected the feelings of the living, and the memory of the dead. No incumbent minister could by possibility be disturbed. No sacred building, hal- lowed by the recollections of the past, could be violated ; no property within such building could be taken ; no churchyard could be sold ; no pri- vate gift, made within a quarter of a century, could be diverted from the end designed by the donor. Virginia introduced the innovations made neces- sary by the progress of free principles, with a cau- tion, a ceaseless regard for human sympathies and frailties, which might furnish a model for the world. There was none of that horrible rending of hearts which accompanied the revolutionary measures of France, when the possessions of the Gallican Church were at one fell swoop, torn from her clergy.ª If ever the feelings of the worthy were
a Read W. C. Rives's Discourse on but particularly on pages 42-47; the Uses and Importance of History, Alison's Europe, Am. edit. i. 95, 96. delivered 20th June, 1847, passim,
1
1802.]
ITS EFFECT AND ABUSES.
399
outraged in Virginia, under pretext of this law, it was the work of private ruffians, for which neither the Legislature nor the people should be held responsible. It has been said that after this act, not only glebes, but church edifices, and even communion-plate, were sold; that a case has occurred in which a silver cup, often used to dispense the sacred emblem of a Redeemer's blood, became the instrument from which a pro- fligate wretch supplied his guests for a morning debauch ! and that a marble baptismal font was converted into a watering-trough for horses.ª These may be facts, and they may well cause human nature to blush for shame, but it will not be pre- tended that they find the slightest sanction in the law of 1802, which we have just detailed.
And if the clause forbidding money to be appro- priated "to any religious purpose whatsoever," shall, to any reader, seem singular, almost infidel in its tendency, it will be easy to vindicate it. For to what religious purpose could it have been applied unconnected with some sectarian view ? Should it be appropriated under the guidance of the Epis- copal Church, or of the Baptist, or of the Presby- terian, or of the Methodist? Any such application of the fund would have defeated the very object of the law. And could any union of purpose be ex- pected, even among the sects called Christian ? No such union has occurred ; probably none such ever will occur; and even if it did, it would not satisfy the demands of religious freedom. The Jew, the Mahommedan, even the Pagan, all had a
ª Hawks, 235, 236.
400
SUIT CONCERNING GLEBES. [CHAP. VII.
right to be heard; all had their " religious pur- poses." The policy of the clause was perfect.
But this law for the sale of the glebe lands was not to operate without resistance. The body known as the Protestant Episcopal Church, considered it as an invasion of their rights, and prepared to test the question by an appeal to the courts. In Man- chester Parish, Chesterfield County, the Overseers of the Poor, were proceeding to sell glebe lands under the late act; the churchwardens and vestry- men of the parish sought to restrain the sale by a bill in chancery for an injunction. Chancellor Wythe heard the case, and dismissed the bill, and then the plaintiffs took an appeal to the highest civil tribunal, the Court of Appeals of Virginia.ª
Here we are called to note a marked intervention of Providence, but whether for unmingled good or for chastisement we will not attempt to decide. The Judges of the Court of Appeals at this time were Pendleton, President; Carrington, Lyons, · Roane, and Flemming,-but Judge Flemming, con- sidering himself interested in the case, did not sit. Judge Roane thought the law of 1802 constitutional, and would therefore have sustained the decision of the chancellor. Judges Carrington and Lyons were in favour of the claims of the Church, and the venerable Pendleton, true to the views he had always held as to the Establishment, had prepared an opinion supporting the appellants. Thus, had judgment been rendered, the Episcopal Church would have gained its object. But the very night
a Turpin et al. v. Locket et al., 6 Call, 113; Hawks, 237.
401
ARGUMENT.
1804.]
before the judgment was to have been given, Judge Pendleton died.ª The court was left without its head, and without all the members who had heard the argument. A reorganization became neces- sary ; Judge St. George Tucker was appointed to succeed Judge Pendleton, and at the May Term, 1804, the whole cause was reconsidered.
In behalf of the appellants, who represented the Church, appeared Daniel Call, John Wickham, and Edmund Randolph. On the part of the over- seers, appeared P. N. Nicholas, the Attorney-Ge- neral, and George Hay. The case had excited much interest, and was argued with remarkable ability and research on both sides. The highly- wrought zeal of one of the counsel for the appel- lants, may be inferred from the words he used in argument, " Freedom of religion requires only tole- ration, and may exist with an Established Church."b Such doctrine, uttered in the nineteenth century, must have startled the ear of Virginia.
The principal arguments urged for the appel- lants were, that the law of 1802 was unconstitu- tional, because it destroyed the vested rights of the Protestant Episcopal Church; that the Church of England was the prototype of, but not identical with the Church of the Colony; that the laws of the Colony themselves had fixed the rights of its church; that these laws were valid when passed; that they vested the property in the glebes and their appurtenances, in the Church; that the Revolution did not destroy the Church,
ª 6 Call, 187. ৳ Mr. Wickham, 6 Call, 124.
VOL. II. 26
402
ARGUMENT.
[CHAP. VII.
or divest its property ; that an act of Assembly, passed the year after the Revolution commenced, had expressly confirmed to the Church its pro- perty in the glebes and their incidents "in all time coming ;"ª that several acts thereafter had re- cognised the same rights; that the Protestant Episcopal Church was identical with the Church of England, or with that modification of the Church of England which had existed in the Colony, and therefore held all the rights of the ancient Church unimpaired ; and that the repeal (in 1799) of the prior laws recognising the rights of the Church in the property, could not destroy or affect those rights, because they were vested. It was farther argued that the " Bill of Rights" did not touch this case at all; its fourth clause, which declares that no man or set of men are entitled to exclusive emoluments or privileges from the community, referred only to the office of magistrate, legislator, or judge, after- wards mentioned ; and its last clause, which refers religion to conscience, was not violated, because conscience was not affected by the claims of the Church to what she regarded as her property.
On the part of the appellees, and the law of 1802, the arguments were that the Church of England was, in fact, the Church of the Colony, having been established by the King's Articles of Instruc- tion in 1606 ;' that the King was the head, and an integral part of the Church of England; that the Revolution destroyed the authority of the King in Virginia, and with it dissolved the Church which
" Act of 1776, Hening, ix. 164, 165.
b See vol. i. 84; Stith, 36-39.
403
ARGUMENT.
1804.]
previously existed ; that, admitting the Church of the Colony to have been separate from, and inde- pendent of the Church of England, yet it had never been made a corporation, and, therefore, could not take and hold property, except as the Colonial laws directed ; that, under those laws, induction by the Governor, of some minister recommended by the Bishop of London, was indispensable to vest a freehold right to the property ; that without this induction, the minister would have only an estate from year to year, the full property being in the public; that induction was now, of course, impos- sible, the authority of Colonial Governors, and of the Bishop of London, having been alike swept away ; that all the laws of the Colony, under which this property had accumulated, had been unjust, and against natural right, because they compelled all persons to contribute, whatever might be their religious preferences, or their opposition to esta- blishments; that the fourth clause of the "Bill of Rights" forbade that any set of men should enjoy separate and exclusive emoluments and privileges, yet such would certainly be the case if the Epis- copal Church should continue to enjoy this pro- perty ; that the clause was too broad to be re- stricted to magistrates, legislators, and judges, as was contended on the other side; that the Episco- pal Church rendered no such " public services" as gave them a right, under this clause, because other churches rendered as many, and more; that the last clause of the " Bill" referred religion to con- science, and it was against conscience that one Church should be preferred by law to others; that
404
JUDGES EQUALLY DIVIDED. [CHAP. VII.
if the act of 1776, and other acts, did confirm this property to the Episcopal Church, they were based on false principles, were contrary to the Bill of Rights, and had been properly repealed in 1799; that even admitting that the Church of England, or the ancient Colonial Church, had once a right to this property, the Protestant Episcopal Church could have none, because it was distinct and diffe- rent from those churches; that it was distinct and different, both in its creed and its forms,ª and that this difference had been recognised by the Pro- testant Episcopal Church itself, when it applied for incorporation in 1784, for why ask to be incorpo- rated, if it was already a Church, having vested rights ? And, therefore, on the whole, the law of 1802 violated no principle of justice, was moderate and generous in its provisions, constitutional and valid in its basis.
When the opinions of the judges were delivered, it was found that Judges Tucker and Roane thought the law constitutional, and sustained the appellees; Judges Carrington and Lyons thought the law void, and supported the appellants. Thus, the court being equally divided, the Chancellor's decision stood confirmed. From this time, for a long tract of years, the question was regarded as settled, and all parties, in general, acquiesced in · the view which held the law to be.constitutional ; but as this point had never been determined by a
a See Hawks, 179-194. The first Convention of the same Church in Convention of the Protestant Episco- America, was held in Philadelphia, pal Church in Virginia, was held during the month of September, May, 18, 1785. The first General 1785.
405
PERFECT RELIGIOUS LIBERTY.
1804.]
majority of the Court of Appeals, it was thought worthy of another struggle. This actually took place in 1830. The overseers of the poor in Loudon County, were proceeding to sell glebe lands and property, and vestrymen of the parish The sought to restrain the sale by injunction.
cause was heard by Chancellor Henry St. George Tucker, who delivered an elaborate and searching opinion, on the 27th May, 1830, and sustaining the law of 1802, dismissed the bill, with costs.ª The case was carried to the Court of Appeals, and, in April, 1840, it was admirably argued by Chapman Johnson, for the vestrymen, (the appellants,) and John Robertson,b for the overseers of the poor. The court consisted of five judges, Tucker, Presi- dent, Brooke, Cabell, Parker and Stanard, and they were unanimously of opinion that the law of 1802 must be sustained. Thus the Chancellor's deci- sion was affirmed.
Need help finding more records? Try our genealogical records directory which has more than 1 million sources to help you more easily locate the available records.