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 7
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
A glimmering of a more wholesome public opinion on the sub- ject of debts was seen on the 20th of June. The House postponed indefinitely a bill for the relief of debtors, by the decided vote of sixty-six to twenty-three; White, George Nicholas, Johnston, Stephen, and William Watkins voting in the affirmative, and Archibald Stuart and Strother in the negative.63 The last topic of general interest during the May session of 1783 was one which at a later day produced much excitement in the public councils-the removal of the seat of government from Richmond. A committee of the House had been appointed to hold a con- ference with the directors of the public buildings in Richmond, 64
63 Patrick Henry and Stevens T. Mason were absent when the ayes and noes were called. I wish Henry's name had been forthcoming, but we may judge by White's vote what his would have been, as they rarely separated. That such a cool, clear-headed man as White always upheld Henry, is greatly to the honor of Henry.
64 On the 24th of June, 1779, when the Assembly determined to remove the seat of government from Williamsburg, they appointed a board of directors of the public buildings to make arrangements for the accommodation of the members of Assembly and the public officers in Richmond. The board was composed of Turner Southall, Archibald Cary, William Watkins, Robert Goode, James Buchanan, and Robert Carter Nicholas. They had accordingly purchased certain lots and tenements, which are specified in the report of the committee of the House of Delegates, and may be learned from the Journal.
75
ALEXANDER WHITE.
and made a report of what had occurred between them, con- cluding with a recommendation that it was most expedient for the progress of the settlements on Shockoe Hill that the House declare its determination to adhere to the site already chosen on that hill in preference to any other place within the limits of Richmond. When the question of concurring in the resolution of the committee came up, it was moved to amend it by striking out all after the word " Resolved," and by inserting the words "that the seat of government ought to be removed from the city of Richmond to the city of Williamsburg." After an animated discussion the vote was taken by ayes and noes, and resulted in the rejection of the proposed amendment by a majority of six- teen; Stephen, Thomas Smith, Joseph Jones, Stevens Thomson Mason, Robert Lawson, and Edmund Ruffin voting in the affirmative, and George Nicholas, Cabell (of "Union Hill "), Archibald Stuart, French Strother, William Watkins, Alexander White, William Ronald, and Andrew Moore in the negative. The vote was mainly founded on geographical views, but not in strict relation to East and West. This was the last effort made to return to Williamsburg. The large appropriations for public buildings, which soon followed, put an end to the contest between the ancient and the new metropolis.
There was a vote of the House on a subject connected with the church establishment, which, though not final, shows the views of the members on that topic, and claims a passing notice. The House, on the 24th of June, resolved itself into Com- mittee of the Whole on the bill to amend the several acts concerning vestries, and the bill was reported without amend- ment. A motion was then made to postpone the further con- sideration of the bill to the second .Monday in October next, and was carried by a vote of fifty-two to twenty-eight; John Tyler (Speaker), Zachariah Johnston, Adam Stephen, William Watkins, Alexander White, Isaac Coles, Joseph Jones, Stevens Thomson Mason, and Edmund Ruffin voting in the affirmative, and George Nicholas, Cabell (of Union Hill), Archibald Stuart, French Strother, Robert Lawson, and Andrew Moore in the negative. 65
65 This was not equivalent to a vote for the indefinite postponement of the bill. as the House was really in session in October.
.W
76
VIRGINIA CONVENTION OF 1788.
At the October session of 1783 White was late in his attend- ance. Indeed, from the necessity of travelling on horseback, and in the absence of those helps for protection in bad weather which we now possess, the members of Assembly frequently failed to make a quorum on the first days of the session. Those who were punctual met and adjourned from day to day, and on the organization of the House held the absentees to a strict accountability. The roll was called, the names of the absent were noted, and the sergeant-at arms was ordered to take them into custody. Nor was this a mere farce. No absent member was then allowed to take his seat without the payment of the fees, unless he could render a substantial excuse for his delin- quency. On one occasion the sergeant-at-arms dispatched a messenger to a distant member, who grumbled when called upon to pay fifteen pounds for the adventure. The calling of the roll of absentees had an effect which neither the House nor the absentees dreamed of at the time. It has preserved to posterity the full names of some individuals whose connection with the Assembly could not otherwise have been proved from the Jour- nals. In ordinary times the only appearance of the name of a member was on a regular committee appointed at the beginning of a session, when the Christian name was almost always omitted, or on the list of ayes and noes, where a similar omission fre- quently occurs. Indeed, the ayes and noes were rarely called from the Declaration of Independence to the peace with Great Britain; and when they were called the members were often absent. To ascertain who were members of our early Assem- blies is one of the most laborious offices of the annalist. In many cases it is impracticable. In the case of the House of Burgesses it is impossible. 66
66 It is impossible to ascertain who were members of the House of Burgesses from the Journals; but the fact can be learned from the clerks' offices, and from the old almanacs. From the absence of a list of the names of members, from the constant omission of Christian names, and from the number of persons of the same surname, it requires great caution in perusing our early records not to confound individuals and even generations. Thus there are Burwells, Carters, Cabells, Bassetts, Harrisons, Carys, Diggeses, Mayos, Carringtons, Masons, Moores, Randolphs, Lees, Taylors, without number. At the present session, and at several previous ones, there was a Benjamin Har-
77
ALEXANDER WHITE.
The first vote which White gave at the October session of 1783 was on one of the most perplexing topics of those days. We have heretofore said that, as there was no coin in the Com - monwealth, and hardly a circulating medium of any kind apart from the public securities, the taxes, if paid at all, must be paid in kind. To fix upon the articles which might be taken in pay- ment of taxes was often difficult; but it was also difficult to determine the sections of country to which the act should apply. A man living on tide-water would have a fairer chance of getting money than a man living in the interior at a time when, from many parts of the State to the seat of government, there was no public road at all, when wagons were unknown, and when a man was deemed fortunate who had succeeded in rolling a hogshead of tobacco undamaged to tide. But at the session of 1783 there was the dawn of a new policy, which, at all times admitted to be theoretically sound, might with proper caution be gradually introduced into practice; and that was the payment of taxes in money. Consequently, when on the 19th of November an engrossed bill "to amend the laws of revenue, and declaring tobacco, hemp, flour, and deerskins a payment of certain taxes," there was a most animated discussion in the House of Dele- gates. It was necessary to determine what taxes should be payable in either of the articles, and the sections of country to which the provisions of the bill should extend. It should seem that all were agreed that the bill should include the country west of the Blue Ridge, but should it also include the counties of the East? Should an Eastern nabob be allowed to pay his taxes in skins ? Accordingly, when the bill was on its passage, a rider was offered "to admit payments of hemp in counties on the eastern side of the Blue Ridge in certain cases," which was duly read three times and adopted by the House. The question then
rison from Rockingham, while another of the same name was either Speaker of the House, member of Congress, or Governor, and yet another who was a member of the Council or of the House The indispensable necessity of tracing the history of each member of the one hundred and seventy of the present Convention for twenty or thirty years through volumes of Journals that have no regular list of names or indices of subjects, has cost me as much labor as would have sufficed to acquire any European language. Hence I may have made some mistakes, but I trust they are few and unimportant.
78
VIRGINIA CONVENTION OF 1788.
recurred on the passage of the bill with the rider, and was decided in the affirmative by a vote of sixty-one to twenty-three (ascertained by ayes and noes). Some of the ablest statesmen of the East were opposed to the mode of paying taxes in kind, now that the war was over; and it appears that nearly every negative vote was given by the members from that section of country. The names of those of the present Convention who then voted in the affirmative were Zachariah Johnston, Archibald Stuart, Thomas Smith, George Clendenin, Patrick Henry, Joseph Jones, and William Ronald; and of those who voted in the negative were George Nicholas, Alexander White, Isaac Coles, and Edmund Ruffin. The vote of White, which was almost the only one from the West, bespeaks his courage in opposing a policy which, in one shape or other, had always prevailed in Virginia, and which, however inconsistent with correct notions of political economy, seemed peculiarly applicable to the condi- tion of the people of the West. 67
Few questions excited keener debates and roused to a higher pitch the passions of the members who composed the General Assemblies immediately after the peace with Great Britain than those relating to citizenship. At the beginning of the Revolu- tion many persons went abroad and continued to be loyal sub- jects of England. Such persons on their return to Virginia were plainly not entitled to any other privileges than those which the laws offered to the subjects of any other foreign potentate. There were, however, numerous individuals who remained at home and took no open interest in public affairs, but whose secret wishes, it was well known, were in favor of the success of the British arms. There was a strong desire mani- fested by others, who were nominally on the side of the Com- monwealth, to save their lives and estates in the event of the subjection of the States by Great Britain. These sent a son, a brother, or an aged relative to some British port or colony as an earnest of their own good will towards the mother country, and as a means of procuring immunity from future punishment;
67 In the minority was Henry Tazewell, who was particularly distin- guished by his efforts to inaugurate the new system of taxation, until he withdrew from the Assembly on his election to the bench of the General Court.
£
79
ALEXANDER WHITE.
while they remained themselves at home, showing just so much fidelity to the State as was necessary to exempt them from the penalty of treason, or, entering the public councils, they sought to embarrass by the tricks of Parliament or by specious maneuver- ing the measures of the patriots.68 As for those emigrants who were not subjects of Great Britain, and who came with the honest intention of taking up their abode in the Commonwealth, there was a very slight difference of opinion respecting them. But the element of British influence entered very generally into all the discussions on the subject of citizenship, and in no debate more than the one which occurred on the bill which we shall now proceed to notice.
On the 2d day of December, 1783, an engrossed bill "for repealing a former law, and declaring who shall be deemed citi- zens of this Commonwealth," was read the third time, and after a protracted discussion, which consumed nearly the whole day, was rejected by a vote of fifty-five to thirty one-ascertained by ayes and noes. The vote on the bill affords a curious study to the political anatomist. East and West were blended together in beautiful confusion. Some Eastern men had constituents of great influence at home, who were eager for the return of friends, and these they were unwilling to disoblige; while other Eastern men, remembering the trouble which the Tories had caused during the Revolution, were not indisposed to hold the rod of terror over the heads of the returning recreants. Opposing sentiments were also visible in the Western vote. There had been few or no Tories in the West; but Western men had seen with the deepest indignation in the public councils the policy of those whom they regarded as the friends of the Tories, and were not inclined to hold out to emigrants from Great Britain a too
68 I have all needful respect for those Virginians who, at the outbreak of the Revolution, elected to remain subjects of Great Britain and withdrew from our territory. Such a determination was altogether legitimate. But for those miscreants who pretended to adhere to the cause of Virginia, and sought by private letters or advices to entice the enemy to visit our borders, or who perplexed our early councils with their treacherous wiles, I have no respect, but rather an unutter- able abhorrence. The private papers of Cornwallis, of Tarleton, of Arnold, and of Matthews ought to be examined for evidences of the guilt of such wretches.
-pull
T
80
VIRGINIA CONVENTION OF 1788.
welcome hand, even on the return of peace; while Western men generally, and especially the holders of vast tracts of land, were eager for the prompt settlement of the country, which could hardly be effected in a single generation without the aid of emi- grants from abroad. Hence these were inclined, for the most part, to favor a liberal policy in respect of citizenship. Those who voted for the rejection of the bill were George Nicholas, Zachariah Johnston, French Strother, Alexander White, Isaac Coles, Patrick Henry, Benjamin Wilson, and William Ronald, and those who voted against the rejection were John Tyler (Speaker), Cabell (of "Union Hill"), Archibald Stuart, Thomas Smith, George Clendenin, Joseph Jones, and Stevens Thomson Mason. A few days after leave was given to bring in a new bill on the subject, and George Nicholas, Patrick Henry, Alexander White, and Joseph Jones were placed on the committee to pre- pare it.
From the position and wants of Virginia, as well as from the variety of her products, a trade with the West Indies on princi- ples of reciprocity has been for nearly two centuries and a half a favorite object. While the States were colonies of Great Britain the commerce between the different settlements of the same empire was comparatively unrestricted. The most friendly rela - tions existed between the West Indies and our ancestors; visits were interchanged, which resulted in marriages; and some names most honorably distinguished during the Revolution, and con- tinuously to this day, were borne either by the original emigrants from the West Indies or by their immediate descendants.63 Nor
69 General Matthews, who bore arms during the Revolution, was long Speaker of the House of Delegates, a member of the present Conven- tion, and from whom the county of Mathews has been named, was a native of St. Kitts. Howe states that the county was named after Governor Mathews, of Georgia, which is a mistake, as I, who am a townsman of Matthews, have always heard to the contrary; and I find in the chart of the Commonwealth of Virginia, compiled in the year 1790 by William Marshall, clerk of the district of Virginia, the very year of the birth of the county, that it was called after " Mr. Speaker Matthews." I take pleasure in vindicating the just fame of my towns- man from the misrepresentations of careless compilers. The Mayos and the Carringtons came from Barbadoes. Farley, a West Indian, visited Colonel Byrd at Westover, and bought from him the vast area of the Saura Town-lands at a nominal price. Byrd had previously sold
81
ALEXANDER WHITE.
when peace was secured with England, reverted eagerly to their old trade, but found it crippled with limitations and restrictions. The subject was immediately brought before the Assembly. It should seem that a British order in Council, passed on the 2d of July previous, prohibited American ships from carrying the products of this country to any of the West India islands belong- ing to England, and the Virginia merchant was compelled to ship his merchandise in British bottoms, or to give up the trade altogether. The House of Delegates, on the 4th of December, took the matter in hand, and having discussed it at length in Committee of the Whole, came to a resolution which was reported by White as chairman of the committee. This resolu- tion recommended "that Congress be empowered to prohibit British vessels from being the carriers of the growth or produce of the British West India islands to these United States as long as the restriction aforesaid shall be continued on the part of Great Britain, or to concert any other mode to be adopted by the States which shall be thought effectual to counteract the designs of Great Britain with respect to American commerce." It was unanimously adopted, and a select committee, consisting of White, Jones, Henry, Cabell, Ronald, and Tazewell, was appointed to bring in a bill in pursuance of the same. It is creditable to the standing of White-a Western man as he was-that, in a matter referring to the seabord and to the interests of commerce, he should hold such a prominent place on a committee composed of the ablest men of the East. He reported the bill on the 5th, and on the 6th it was discussed and referred back to the com- mittee, and was again reported, when it passed unanimously both houses of the Assembly.
On the 5th of December White reported a bill "to regulate elections, and to enforce the attendance of the members of
the lands to a Mr. Maxwell, who visited them during a pest, and was so dispirited that he begged to be excused from his bargain. Some time after the sale to Farley, Byrd's eyes were opened to their great value, and it is said that he grew sick from vexation and took to his bed. In the course of time Farley sent his son from the West Indies to inspect his lands, and the young man, calling at Colonel Byrd's, fell in love with his daughter, married her, and brought the lands, for a third time, into the family. See Smith's Tour in America, Volume I, printed in London about 1780. 6
- 1
82
VIRGINIA CONVENTION OF 1788.
Assembly," and was placed on a select committee, of which George Nicholas was chairman and Patrick Henry a member, for granting pardons, with certain exceptions. On the 8th he was appointed a member of the select committee to bring in a bill "instructing the delegates of Virginia in Congress to convey, by proper instrument in writing, on the part of Virginia, to the Congress of the United States, all right, title, and claim which the said Commonwealth hath to the lands northward of the river Ohio, and upon the terms contained in the act of Congress of the 13th of September last, with certain restrictions." On the 13th a bill prohibiting the migration of certain persons to the Commonwealth, and for other purposes, was read a third time, and passed the House by a vote of sixty-nine to eleven; Alex- ander White, Cabell (of "Union Hill"), Adam Stephen, Strother, William Watkins, Thomas Smith, Patrick Henry, Joseph Jones, Benjamin Wilson, William Ronald, and Andrew Moore voting in the affirmative, and Johnston, Archibald Stuart, and George Clendenin in the negative.
At the May session of 1784, White again appeared in the House of Delegates as a member from Frederick. He was required on the 7th of June to vote on a question, which, how- ever simple it may now appear, involved considerations, public and private, of so grave a caste as might well account for the reception it then met with from the Assembly. We allude to the definitive treaty with Great Britain. A motion was made in the House of Delegates " that so much of all and every act or acts of Assembly, now in force in this Commonwealth, as pre- vents a due compliance with the stipulations contained in the definitive treaty entered into between Great Britain and America, ought to be repealed." This motion appeared in a questionable shape, and probably came from a questionable source. It had not passed through the hands of a committee. It was absolute. It made no exceptions or reservations whatsoever. If it passed the House in its present shape, and a bill in pursuance of its spirit became a law, the entire financial system of the Common- wealth for the past ten years would be involved in inextricable confusion. Great trouble would fall upon the people. Every man who had paid a British debt into the treasury in obedience to the enactments of good and constitutional laws would be compelled to pay the same debt a second time, and to pay it in
:
-
83
ALEXANDER WHITE.
coin. To make suitable arrangements for encountering such an extraordinary stipulation of the treaty would require great deliberation and consummate judgment, and delay was abso- lutely indispensable for the purpose. Nor did the British Gov- ernment show any haste in carrying into effect those parts of the treaty which depended upon itself. There was hardly a member present from the country west of the Blue Ridge who had not seen some individual of his own household, some friend or neighbor, slain by the Indians, who had been supplied with arms and ammunition by the British forts on the frontier, and who were paid by British officers for the scalps of Virginia men, women, and children. Yet, though a year and more had elapsed since the date of the treaty, there was no movement made towards withdrawing from those forts their garrisons and their arms. On the contrary, they were kept in the highest state of preparation for immediate action. It was plain that England regarded the treaty as a mere truce that would separate us from our European allies, and that she held the Western forts in reserve as a part of her insiduous scheme. So long as those forts were retained by Great Britain, the Indians would annoy our frontiers and deluge the cabins of the settlers in blood. Did the treaty absolutely require that the British debts should be paid a second time? And if it did, had not Congress clearly exceeded its powers in acceding to such a provision? To confis- cate a debt was as perfect a belligerent right as to burn a house or a ship, to take a negro from his owner, or to pocket the ancient silver flagon of a host who was dispensing to his foes the hospitalities of his house; and yet, there was no mention made of the rebuilding of our homesteads, or a restitution of our negroes, one-fifth of whom had been enticed or forced away, or of that flagon which found its way into the pocket of Corn- wallis. Even the negroes on board the British ships at York, who were carried off in the face of the articles of capitulation, were not to be restored or paid for.70 There was no reciprocity
10 Mr. Jefferson, in his correspondence with Hammond, held that Congress had performed its duty when it recommended to the States the payment of the British debts. That Cornwallis took a piece of plate from the table of Mr. Bates may be seen in Randall's Life of Jefferson, Vol. I, 344. As the ayes and noes on the subject of complying with the
7
84
VIRGINIA CONVENTION OF 1788.
in such a provision; and until it was evident that Great Britain was disposed to withdraw her garrisons from a position which threatened our Northwestern frontier, it was the dictate of com- mon sense, as well as of patriotism, to deliberate well while deliberation was possible. The result was that the motion to repeal the acts of Assembly in conflict with the definitive treaty prevailed by a majority of twenty-ascertained by ayes and noes; White voting with the minority.71
On the 10th of June the House of Delegates went into Com- mittee of the Whole on the subject of the public lands, White in the chair; and two resolutions were reported and agreed to, one of which ordered all the public lands, except such as were
British treaty have never been published from the Journals, I annex the full vote, the names of the members of the present Convention being in italics :
AYES-Wilson Cary Nicholas, Archibald Stuart, John Marshall (Chief Justice), Alexander White, James Wood. Moses Hunter, Thomas Edmunds (of Brunswick), Edward Carrington, George Wray, Bartlett Anderson, William Norvell, Philip Barbour, Larkin Smith, William Thornton, Richard Bland Lee, Francis Corbin, John Brecken- ridge, William Armistead, John Watkins, Littleton Eyre, Bennet Tompkins, James Madison, William Mayo, Jr., William Ronald, Thomas Walke, John Taylor (of Southampton), Bailey Washington. William Brent, John Allen, John Howell Briggs, Wilson Miles Cary, John Langhorne, Richard Henry Lee, Joseph Prentis, Nathaniel Nelson, and Henry Tazewell.
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.