USA > Virginia > The history of the Virginia federal convention of 1788, with some account of eminent Virginians of that era who were members of the body, Vol. II > Part 31
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 | Part 34 | Part 35 | Part 36 | Part 37 | Part 38 | Part 39
Many grave questions were decided during the session, a view of some of which may be seen elsewhere; 26 but I have confined myself to those topics in the settlement of which the votes of Nicholas are recorded. From the number of select committees to which he was assigned it is evident that he was gradually taking his place in the front rank of his political associates; and it is probable that, in the troubled state of domestic and Federal relations existing during his apprenticeship in the Assembly and in the Convention, he imperceptibly acquired that knowledge of the world, and that intuitive tact in composing feuds or in twist- ing them to his purposes, which the good-natured part of his opponents were wont, at a subsequent day and in a wider scene, to attribute such wondrous effects.297
Before we follow Nicholas beyond the limits of the Common- wealth we must trace him in a memorable session of the House of Delegates, in which he held a conspicuous position. It is difficult, at the present day, to estimate the intensity of the excitement which raged during the administration of the elder Adams. Brother was estranged from brother, father from son; the courtesies of life were disregarded, and the stamp of worth was looked for not in the moral qualities that compose a vir- tuous and honorable character, but in the color of the flag under which an individual fought. There was a strong majority of the. Federal party in both houses of Congress; and the administra- tion, having the Legislature in its hands, unwisely determined to use it as a means of curbing the spirit of the people. The sedition law was passed, and it is a known fact in Virginia that every man who made a speech to his neighbors was watched, and his words were weighed by his opponents, in the hope of finding some expression which could be tortured by the Federal courts into an offence to be visited with fine and imprisonment
296 Review of the session, ante.
297 Nicholas held a seat in the House of Delegates from 1794 to 1798, but our limits will not allow us to trace him at length.
325
WILSON CARY NICHOLAS.
in a common jail. The alien law was deemed harsh and unjust, especially on the seaboard; but in the interior, where aliens were comparatively unknown, there were no subjects on which it could operate, and it was discussed on grounds of general policy. Had the counsels of such pure and able statesmen as John Marshall prevailed, the sedition law would not have dis- graced the statute-book of a free country.298 But madness ruled the hour, and the majority in Congress resolved to appeal to the fears rather than to the affections of the people. The minority in both houses was outvoted, but not cast down; and, as all opposition on the floor was of no avail upon legislation, it was determined to transfer the contest from the Federal Capitol to the Legislatures of the several States. Some leading members of Congress vacated their seats and entered the House of Dele- gates; and resolutions, drawn with eminent skill, and embodying what was deemed the true view of the nature of the Federal compact, as well as a severe analysis of some of the obnoxious measures of the administration, embraced the chart of the cam- paign. Those adopted by Kentucky were from the pen of Jefferson, and those which produced the memorable debate in the House of Delegates-of which we shall proceed to give an account-though offered by John Taylor (of Caroline), were drafted by Mr. Madison.
It was on the 13th day of December, 1798, that the House of Delegates of Virginia went into Committee of the Whole on the resolutions of John Taylor. James Breckenridge, whose life, protracted almost to our own day, has made his venerable figure known to many now living, and who belonged to the Federal party, was called to the chair.299 John Taylor then rose and spoke for several hours in support of the resolutions, which were believed to be his own. When he ended George Keith Taylor, an able and excellent man, too soon snatched away from the bar which he adorned by his genius and learning, and from society, of which he was a shining light, moved that the com- mittee rise; but upon an inquiry from Nicholas whether he
298 " He gave his vote to repeal the obnoxious clause of the sedition act." (Flander's Lives of the Chief Justices, Vol. II, 395.
299 In my early youth while travelling on horseback to the West I saw General Breckenridge as I was passing his beautiful seat in Botetourt. I remember his courteous salutation to an unknown lad, covered with the dust of travel. [He died in August, 1846 .- EDITOR.]
-1
326
VIRGINIA CONVENTION OF 1788.
designed to prevent any one from speaking who might be dis- posed to take the floor, withdrew his motion. But, as no mem- ber seemed inclined to speak, the committee rose and the House adjourned. On the following day (14th) George Keith Taylor replied at great length and with all his accustomed ability to the speech of his namesake from Caroline. Having spoken for · several hours he took his seat, and was followed by William Ruffin in support of the resolutions. He was succeeded on the same side by John Pope (of Prince William), who indulged in some humorous remarks. John Allen (of James City) then spoke in favor of the resolutions until the adjournment. On the 17th James Barbour (of Orange), then a very young man, and destined in after life to serve with distinction in the office of Governor at an eventful crisis, of Senator of the United States, of Secretary at War, and of Minister at the Court of St. James, addressed the committee, replying in detail to the arguments of the gentleman from Prince George and in review of the policy of the administration of Adams. His speech was prepared with care, and made a favorable impression upon the House. At its close the House adjourned. Next morning (18th) Archi- bald Magill (of Frederick) spoke in opposition to the resolu . tions and in reply to Barbour, and was in turn replied to by Foushee (of the city of Richmond), who was followed by Edmund Brooke (of Prince William) in opposition until the adjournment. On the following day (19th) Pope replied to his colleague Brooke, and was followed by William Daniel, Jr. (of Cumberland), afterwards known as a distinguished judge of the General Court, in an exceedingly able speech, which displayed those characteristics of his mind to which he owed his reputa- tion. He examined in minute detail and with consummate tact and research the arguments of Taylor (of Prince George), and showed an ability in debate that must have led to the highest political preferment. When he concluded his speech, after some conversation between General Henry Lee and Nicholas, William Cowan (of Lunenburg) addressed the committee in opposition to the resolutions until the adjournment.300
300 William Cowan is the "Billie Cowan" who was "to show Patrick Henry the law" in the famous beef case at New London. He was an able lawyer, a man of pure morals, and, indeed of eminent piety. but his manner and the tones of his voice were ludicrously solemn ; so that when he spoke he always appeared to be preaching a funeral sermon.
1
327
WILSON CARY NICHOLAS.
On the 20th General Henry Lee took the floor and spoke with much ingenuity and with sober earnestness in defence of the alien and sedition laws and against the resolutions; and was fol- lowed by Peter Johnston,301 who had fought gallantly in the war of the South under the standard of Legion Harry, whom he now rose to answer, and who was afterwards a judge of the General Court. He was followed by John Taylor (of Caroline), in reply to the arguments which had been urged by him when last up; and when he concluded, after a short speech from Thomas M. Bayley (of Accomac), against the resolutions, the committee rose, and the House adjourned.
On the 21st George Keith Taylor replied to his namesake of Caroline, and to other speakers who had sustained the resolu- tions, in a, speech of several hours, which was marked by great ability of argumentation and by splendid eloquence, and which closed in the following words: "May He who rules the hearts of men still dispose us to yield obedience to the constitutional acts of the majority; may He avert the mischiefs which these resolu- tions are calculated to produce; may He increase the love of union among our citizens; may no precipitate acts of the Legis- lature of Virginia convulse or destroy it; and, to sum up all in one word, may it be perpetual."
When Taylor finished his speech there was a solemn pause for a few moments in the proceedings of the House, when a member rose in his place, who seemed to be in the prime of manhood, and who, elegantly dressed in blue and buff, booted and spurred, and with a riding-whip in his hand, had entered the House just as Taylor rose to speak. He placed his hat upon his knee, and would now and then use the top of it as a resting- place for a small slip of paper, on which he would scribble a note. He had entered Congress in 1790, but, until the present session, had never been a member of the Assembly; and though his fame was diffused throughout the Union, he had never spoken
He was requested to become a minister of one of the churches, but he wisely declined to change his profession so late in life. See the Life of Dr. A. Alexander by his son, James Waddell Alexander, whose recent death I deeply deplore as I trace these lines.
301 [Father of General Joseph Eggleston Johnston, late Confederate States Army .- EDITOR.]
328
VIRGINIA CONVENTION OF 1788.
on a great public question in his native State. But on this, as on all subsequent occasions to the end of a long life, when he was called_upon to address a public body, his simple and sensible narrative, his clear and plausible reasoning, the tact with which he either spiked the artillery of his opponents or turned its thunders against them, and his familiar knowledge of life and manners in Virginia, from which he mainly drew his illustrations, produced a great sensation in the House, and abated at once and by the force of magic the grave argument and the impressive declamation of Keith Taylor. Such were the victories William Branch Giles was wont to win in the pride of his extraordinary powers. He was, more than any man of his generation, a natu- ral debater, attaining almost by intuition to the rank which he soon reached; relied upon as a forlorn hope implicitly by his friends, wresting victory where victory was not hopeless, and more dreaded by his ablest opponents than was any other of his distinguished contemporaries. 302
At the close of Giles's speech a motion was made by General Henry Lee to strike out a part of one of the resolutions, when Nicholas rose and opposed the amendment. After demonstrating in some detail the bad effect of the measures of the administra- tion of Adams, he repelled the charge of disunion made by Keith Taylor, and closed his remarks by declaring "that he had been a member of the Convention that adopted the Constitution; that he had been uniformly a friend to it; that he considered himself as now acting in support of it; that he knew it was the artifice of those on the other side to endeavor to attach a sus- picion of hostility to the Federal Government to those who dif- fered with them in opinion. For his part, he despised such insinuations, as far as they might be levelled at him. He appealed to his past life for his justification. The friends of the resolu- tions yield to none in disinterested attachment to their country, to the Constitution of the United States, to union, and to liberty. He said he had full confidence that the amendment would be rejected, and that the resolutions, without further alteration,
302 Governor Tazewell, who was a member of the House, informed me of the appearance of Giles in this debate. By the way, these two eminent men never came in collision. Randolph, in the Convention of 1829, playfully alluded to Giles in debate ; but they never met in a fair fight, though.opposed to each other in Congress in high party times.
القائد له
329
WILSON CARY NICHOLAS.
would meet the approbation of a great majority of that House." Lee replied, and was followed by Samuel Tyler-afterwards Chancellor-in opposition to the amendment (which was rejected) and in a general defence of the resolutions. The main question was then put, and the resolutions were carried by a vote of one hundred to sixty-three. They were immediately sent to the Senate, and passed that body on the 24th by a vote of fourteen to three. The eighth resolution required the Governor to trans- mit a copy of the series to the executive authority of each of the other States, with a request that the same may be communicated to the Legislature thereof. 303
The House of Delegates at its present session contained a large number of men then eminent, or who subsequently attained to distinction in the public service. Besides such as John Tay- lor (of Caroline), George Keith Taylor, Giles, Breckenridge, Samuel Tyler, Henry Lee, and others of that stamp, there were Littleton Waller Tazewell, James Barbour, William Henry Cabell (afterwards Governor and president of the Court of Appeals), William Daniel, Thomas Newton, Archibald Magill, James Pleasants (afterwards Governor, senator, and judge), Peter Johnston, William McCoy (long a member of Congress), and others of great respectability. A representation of the Con- vention of 1788 still appeared in both houses of the Assembly. In the Senate were Archibald Stuart, Richard Kennon, French Strother, George Carrington, and Benjamin Temple, all of whom sustained the resolutions; and in the House were Wilson Cary Nicholas, Worlich Westwood, John Prunty, James Johnson (of Isle of Wight, the survivor of the Convention), William O. Callis, Willis Riddick, Henry Lee, and Robert Andrews, all of whom, except the two last named, voted in favor of the resolu- tions. 1
While the friends of the resolutions were rejoicing at their triumphant passage through the Assembly, their feelings were shocked by the intelligence of the death of an illustrious states- man, who was regarded as one of the ablest champions of their
303 The resolutions were slightly amended during the discussion. The student who wishes to examine the subject in detail will refer to the valuable little work containing the speeches and proceedings of the sessions on Federal matters, issued in 1850 by J. W. Randolph, of Richmond.
330
VIRGINIA CONVENTION OF 1788.
party in the Senate of the United States, and whose ability was , greatly relied on to uphold the doctrines of the resolutions on the floor of that body. Judge Henry Tazewell had been exposed during his journey in mid-winter to Philadelphia, where Congress then held its sessions, but was able to take his seat on the 21st of January, 1799. His disease, however, resisted the efforts of his physicians, and he died on the morning of the 24th. When the Assembly proceeded to fill the vacancy caused by his death, Wilson Cary Nicholas was chosen to fill the unexpired
term. When we count over the names of the distinguished men who either had been or were subsequently candidates for a seat in the Senate-when we recollect that Madison, Giles, Tay- lor (of Caroline), Andrew Moore, and others of equal celebrity were within the range of selection-it plainly shows the estima- tion in which Nicholas was held that he was chosen to execute such an important trust at that extraordinary epoch in the state of parties.
Nicholas took his seat in the Senate of the United States on the 3d day of January, 1800, just after Henry Lee, his associate in the House of Delegates, had delivered his eloquent eulogy on the death of Washington before both houses of Congress. The first vote which he gave was to strike out from a bill to regulate disputed presidential elections part of the first clause, which assigned certain duties in the premises to the Chief Justice, or, in his absence, to the next oldest judge. The motion to strike out failed by a vote of eleven to nineteen; and Nicholas had an opportunity of knowing, for the first time, how men feel who vote in a minority. The next subject he was called to vote upon was a resolution, offered by Tracy (of Connecticut), instructing the Committee of Privileges and Elections to inquire who was the editor of the Aurora newspaper, how he came in possession of a copy of the bill prescribing the mode of deciding disputed presidential elections, published in one of the numbers of his · paper, and how he knew this and how he knew that; and to report the answers to the Senate. Cocke (of Tennessee) made a strong, common-sense speech against it, and was followed in a very elaborate harangue by Charles Pinckney, who showed the utter futility and inexpediency of making war upon the press. When several members had spoken, it was moved to postpone the resolution till the following Tuesday; but the motion failed
السعر
331
WILSON CARY NICHOLAS.
by a vote of nine to nineteen; Nicholas and his colleague, Stevens Thomson Mason, in the minority. Nicholas then rose and asked for information. Was it intended by this resolution to charge the committee with inquiring into a breach of privilege, as it respected a majority of this body ? For the resolution itself fur- nished no correct idea on this point. He wished also to know whether it was intended that the Senate should declare that the publication was a breach of privilege. Tracy, the author of the resolution, made an evasive reply. Humphrey Marshall then proposed to amend it by instructing the committee to make similar inquiries about a publication in a Federal paper, which he pronounced a hundred-fold more outrageous than the article in the Aurora ; but his amendment was voted down-Nicholas sustaining it.
On the 8th of March the original resolution passed, unamended, by a vote of nineteen to eight-Nicholas and Mason in the minority. The report of the committee was made on the 18th, and concluded with a resolution that pronounced the article in the Aurora to be false, defamatory, and scandalous, and tending to defame the Senate and excite against them the hatred of the people of the United States. The resolution was agreed to by a vote of twenty to eight-Nicholas and Mason opposing it. The report in full was adopted on the 20th by a vote of eighteen to ten-Nicholas and Mason in the minority. 304 Then a commit- tee was appointed to prepare a form of proceedings for the trial of Duane, the editor of the Aurora; but, as I have already detailed these miserable proceedings in another place,305 it is only necessary to say that Nicholas voted throughout on the side of the freedom of the press. Indeed, he must have con- trasted painfully the freedom of the press and of speech, with . which he had been familiar in Virginia, with the odious tyranny which was sought to be visited upon an editor by so grave a body as the Senate of the United States.
The next question which the Senate discussed was the amend- ment of the judicial system of the Union. A bill to amend the act to establish the judicial courts of the United States was
304 For the report and resolution, and the subsequent proceedings in the case, see Benton's Debates, Vol. II, 422.
305 In the sketch of Stevens Thomson Mason.
1
1
332
VIRGINIA CONVENTION OF 1788.
brought in by Charles Pinckney on the 5th of March, was explained and enforced by that gentleman with much plausibility and at considerable length, and referred to a committee, which reported certain amendments. Nicholas in vain strove to modify its details, and the bill passed to its third reading. It ultimately passed both houses, became a law, and was repealed in 1802, when Nicholas was present and voted for the repeal. But I must not anticipate.
The Senate resumed its session on the 17th of November, 1799, but Nicholas did not appear until the 25th. One of the first duties to be performed by the Senate was to examine the electoral votes for President and Vice- President. A resolution, which was strongly characteristic of the temper of a majority of the body, that had spent a large part of its last session in perse- cuting a poor printer, was offered February 10, 1800, to pro- hibit any person from being admitted into the gallery when the two houses shall proceed to count the electoral votes for Presi- dent and Vice-President. Why the few people who might hap- pen to be in Washington, in which the session of Congress was now held for the first time, and which was a sheer wilderness, should not be allowed the gratification of overlooking from the gallery so interesting a procedure, can only be explained on the ground that the Federal majority, which was conscious that the sceptre was about to pass from its hands, were fearful of a shout, or a smile, or a sneer from the victors. The proceeding was the more disreputable, as the two houses were to assemble in the Senate chamber, and each had a right to be consulted in the premises. The resolution was carried by a vote of sixteen to ten-Nicholas and Mason voting in the minority, and in favor of that policy which prevails with universal acceptance in our times. The House of Representatives on the same day notified . the Senate that they would attend on Wednesday next for the purpose of being present at the opening and counting of the votes, and that they had appointed Rutledge and John Nicholas tellers on their part. The Senate then appointed Wells (of Delaware) their teller. On the 11th the votes were counted, and the result was that Thomas Jefferson and Aaron Burr had received seventy-three each; that John Adams had received sixty-five; that Charles Cotesworth Pinckney had received sixty- four; and that John Jay had received one.
1
IT
W
333
WILSON CARY NICHOLAS.
As the number of votes received by Jefferson and Burr was the same, the office of the Senate was performed, and the decision devolved on the House of Representatives. On the 18th that House informed the Senate that Thomas Jefferson had been chosen by them as President of the United States for the term commencing on the 4th of March next. In this decision Nicho- las saw the triumph of the party to which he was attached, and in the conduct of which he was to lend his influence till the close of his life.
Though ruled by a stern majority, Nicholas was occasionally placed on important committees that were raised during the session. He was one of the committee to which was referred the bill to prohibit the Secretary of the Navy from carrying on any business of trade, commerce, or navigation. He also reported the bill providing for a naval peace establishment, with amend- ments, which were concurred in by the Senate. The bill passed unanimously. On the 3d the session terminated, but the Senate was immediately convoked by the new President in its executive capacity, and sat for two days.
When the Seventh Congress assembled in the city of Wash- ington, on the 7th day of December, 1801, Nicholas appeared in his seat on the first day of the session. Heretofore neither him- self nor his colleague had been very punctual in their attendance, as it was known that no vote of a Republican member was likely to affect the fate of any question before the Senate; but the case was now altered, and every Democratic vote was needed to sus- tain the Government. The first reform of the new administration was a personal one, affecting the President as an individual. Up to this period it had been customary for that officer to deliver his opening speech before the two houses in joint session. The speech was responded to by an address from the houses. This address called forth a letter of acknowledgment from the Presi- dent. But the good sense of Jefferson impelled him to put an end to a custom which, however appropriate in a strictly parlia- mentary government like that of England, was inconvenient and often embarrassing here, and he accordingly accompanied his message 306 to the heads of the two houses with an explanatory
305 Though the first message to Congress was delivered orally, all other communications from the President during the session were in writing.
334
VIRGINIA CONVENTION OF 1788.
note. Henceforth all the communications between the Execu- tive and the legislative departments were to be in writing.
The first regular skirmish between the rival parties occurred on a resolution to admit stenographers within the area of the Senate, at the discretion of the President in respect of the place in which they should sit. The resolution passed at first without a division, but a motion was made to reconsider, which prevailed by a vote of seventeen to nine; all the Federal members, in the hope of curtailing the privilege, and some of the Republicans, in the hope of enlarging it, voting in the affirmative. Nicholas, however, opposed the motion, fearing lest, in the nicely-balanced state of parties, the liberal purpose of the resolution might be trenched upon. Nor were his suspicions vain; for a motion was immediately made by a Federal member to exact from each stenographer a bond in a certain sum, with two sureties for a certain sum, as a pledge for his good conduct. The amendment was lost-nearly all the Federal and wavering members voting for it. The resolution was then amended to include note-takers as well as stenographers, by a vote of sixteen to twelve, and ulti- mately passed without division.
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.