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 8
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
. NOES-John Cropper, Jr., Thomas Parramore, Samuel Sherwin, John Booker, Jr., William Meredith, Michael Bowyer, John Trigg. Robert Clarke, George Hancock, Thomas Claiborne, Samuel Hawes, Jr., Thomas Collier, Matthew Cheatham, Carter Henry Harrison, French Strother, Joseph Jones (of Dinwiddie), Spencer Roane, William Gate- wood, Alexander Henderson, John Mosby, Thomas Smith, Batte Peter- son, Isaac Vanmeter, Garland Anderson, Turner Southall, Nathaniel Wilkinson, Patrick Henry, Peter Saunders, William Walker, John S. Wills, Edmund Byne, John Heath, John Berryman, William White, Anthony Street, John Glenn, John Logan, William Randolph, Benja- min Wilson, Francis Worman, Willis Riddick, Kinchen Godwin, John Kearnes, Ebenezer Zane, Charles Porter, Benjamin Lankford, William Dire, Richard Bibb, Edmund Ruffin, Edward Bland, John Ackiss, John Bowyer, Gawin Hamilton, Thomas Edmunds (of Sussex), William Russell, James Montgomery, and Thomas Matthews.
11 For repeated instances of the gross violation of the treaty by Gene- ral Carleton, see House Journal, June 14, 1784.
n
85
ALEXANDER WHITE.
necessary for the use of government, and except also the lands and houses in and adjacent to the city of Williamsburg, which ought to be given to the masters and professors of William and Mary University for the use of that seminary forever, ought to be sold for money or military certificates; and the other recom- mended that the lands known by the name of Gosport ought to be laid off into lots and annexed to the town of Portsmouth. A select committee was appointed to draft the bills in pursuance of the resolutions, of which White was chairman and Patrick Henry and William Grayson were members.
The public mind had not yet become reconciled to the removal of the seat of government from Williamsburg to the town of Richmond. The associations connected with the ancient metropolis, with the old House of Burgesses, and with the vene- rable college, and the delightful society and pleasant accommo- dations, which did not exist in such a rude settlement as the Richmond of that day was, long exerted an influence on the members of Assembly generally, while a sense of interest - impelled the immediate representatives of Williamsburg and of the adjacent counties to make every effort to revoke the pre- cipitate action of the Assembly of 1779. The attention of the House of Delegates had already been drawn to the public lands, as just stated, and a select committee had been appointed to bring in a bill on the subject. But on the IIth of June the House went into committee on the public lands, and a resolution was reported requiring all the public lands in and near Rich- mond, not necessary for the purposes of the government, to be sold, and the proceeds of the sales applied to the erection of the public buildings in Richmond, in pursuance of the act for the removal of the seat of government. As soon as the resolution was read in the House, a motion was made to strike out all after the word "Resolved," and insert "that proper measures ought to be adopted to obtain the opinion of the citizens of the Com- monwealth as to the place that ought to be fixed on for the seat of government." An animated discussion arose; but the ancient city, though sustained by a strong party, was destined to suc- cumb once more. The amendment was lost, and the bill passed by a majority of six votes only in a full House; Wilson C. Nicholas, Trigg, Archibald Stuart, Strother, Joseph Jones (of Dinwiddie), John Marshall, Richardson, Isaac Coles, Vanmeter, Patrick Henry, William White, Wilson, James Madison, Ronald,
1
合格
86
VIRGINIA CONVENTION OF 1788.
William Grayson, and Briggs voting in the affirmative, and Miles King, Alexander White, Thomas Smith, Clendenin, Thornton, Temple, Francis Corbin, Riddick, Littleton Eyre, Gaskins, Ebenezer Zane, Edmund Ruffin, Thomas Walke, Allen, Edmunds (of Sussex), and Thomas Matthews voting in the negative.
A remarkable incident occurred on the 14th of June, which stands alone in our annals, and, as it has been most grossly though facetiously mistated, it may be proper to state the facts of the case as they appear on the Journals of the House of Dele- gates. It was reported to the House that Mr. John Warden had spoken most disrespectfully of the members who had voted against the repeal of the laws in conflict with the definitive treaty with Great Britain, and the matter was referred to the Committee on Privileges and Elections. The committee reported that Warden had appeared before them, and, waiving the necessity of examining any witnesses as to the charge against him, deliv- ered in the following written acknowledgment signed with his name: " I do acknowledge that, in a mistaken opinion that the House of Delegates had voted against the payment of British debts, agreeable to the treaty of peace between America and Great Britain, I said that, if it had done so, some of them had voted against paying for the coats on their backs. A committee of the House judging this expression derogatory to the honor and justice of the House, I am sorry for the offence I have given, and assure the committee that it never was my intention to affront the dignity of the House or insult any member of it." The House immediately resolved that the acknowledgment was satisfactory, and that John Warden be discharged out of the custody of the sergeant-at-arms. This was the end of the whole affair. He was not personally before the House at all, and could have made no remark about the dust on his knees as he rose from the floor; and the blessed mother of us all has been for more than seventy years laughing herself, and making her children laugh, at a joke as utterly destitute of a solid foun- dation as the currency she supplied us with during the Revo- lution. 72
72 Warden was a Scotchman, a prominent lawyer, a good classical scholar, and had some generous qualities as an individual, but was classed among "the tainted " during the Revolution. As some of my
87
ALEXANDER WHITE.
Among the difficulties that beset the path of the young Com- monwealth was the proper regulation of commerce. To lay uniform duties upon our own and foreign vessels and their car- goes was a simple office-on paper; but there were territorial obstacles which tended greatly to diminish the amount of reve- nue derived from the customs, and to prevent this easy and effectual mode of taxation from being as profitable to the State as it ought to be. In one aspect the numerous rivers of Vir- ginia, trending from the Northwest and West to the Chesapeake, should seem to afford extraordinary facilities for agricultural success. . Most of the products of our soil are bulky, and are difficult to be conveyed by land carriage to market; and the accessibility to water must exert a wonderful influence on the productive capacities of the State. In a purely agricultural view, then, nothing can well exceed the advantages of our posi- tion in this respect, and such a natural arrangement unquestion- ably develops the resources of the State in a greater degree than any improvement that could be contrived by the wit of man. Unfortunately each large stream has its distinctive interests, and its inhabitants are not only anxious to retain their own trade, but seek the trade of the other rivers of the Commonwealth. Hence a rivalry is excited which is fatal to the concentration of com- merce in a single mart, and prevents a cheap and speedy collec- tion of the revenue for customs. When we regard Virginia as an independent Commonwealth, such as she then was (1784), it is obvious that she could not derive that profit from the trade which was indispensably necessary for her prosperity and her safety. Commerce, to produce its full effect upon a country, must be concentrated in a single mart. For the sake of economy
young readers may not have heard the joke in question, and as I am inclined to indulge them with a spice of the fun that tickled their fathers, I may as well put it down. The story goes that Warden was summoned before the House in full session, and was required to beg its pardon on his knees, which he is said to have done. As soon, how- ever, as he rose from his knees, pretending to brush the dust from his knees, though really pointing his hands toward the House, he uttered audibly in broad Scotch, and evidently with a double meaning : "Upon my word, a dommed DIRTY House it is indeed." For a humorous pas- sage between Warden and William Wirt, see Virginia Historical Reg- ister, Vol. II, 58.
1
88
VIRGINIA CONVENTION OF 1788.
alone, such a concentration was expedient. If the State was compelled to follow the ancient custom, and establish ports of entry and custom· houses at every plantation on the banks of our numerous rivers, the expenses of collecting the revenue from customs might exceed the amount of the revenue itself and involve the public in loss. Moreover, by the multiplicity of offices, the chances of smuggling would be too numerous to be controlled by any police which the State could maintain; and those merchants who were too honest to cheat the revenue, and who deserved the aid of the State, would suffer a loss of their legitimate profits and be involved in ruin. Thus one of the most difficult problems which our early statesmen were com- pelled to solve was, how they could most effectually concentrate the commerce of the State with the least inconvenience to the people. Unless commercial capital could be fixed in a single mart, the State would not only fail to derive a fair revenue from the customs, but she could form no seamen; and as Virginia then was, a navy was necessary to protect her ships in peace as well as in war. It was also seen that, with the concentration of capital, the arts would prosper, and that we might be able ere long to manufacture common articles for ourselves.
To accomplish such desirable objects, a bill was presented in the House of Delegates which "restricted foreign vessels to cer- tain ports within this Commonwealth." On the 17th of June it came up on its final passage, and was discussed with all the zeal that public and private interests could inspire by the ablest men in the body. Its provisions were closely scrutinized, and it is evident that they must have interfered sensibly with the profit and convenience of many members. Its preamble declared that our foreign commerce would be placed upon a more equal foundation; that expedition and dispatch would be better pro- moted if foreign vessels in loading and unloading were restricted to certain ports, and that the revenue arising from commerce would also thereby be more certainly collected. The bill then enacted that all foreign vessels shall enter, clear out, load, and unload at Norfolk, Portsmouth, Tappahannock, Yorktown, or Alexandria; and it further enacted that, as the navigating small county craft by slaves tended to discourage free white seamen, and to increase the number of free white seamen would produce public good, not more than one-third part of the persons
89
ALEXANDER WHITE.
employed in the navigation of any bay or river craft shall con- sist of slaves; and if the owner of slaves shall put a greater proportion on board of such craft, he shall forfeit and pay one hundred pounds for each offence. The act was not to take effect until the 10th of June, 1786. The principle on which it was based was sound, and it was a step in advance to reduce the number of ports of entry to five; but even this reduction could not suffice to attain what was practicable. The trade of that day could easily have been managed at a single office, but, divided among five, would enrich neither, and many of the advantages flowing from a concentration of trade would be lost. We should have no controlling mart of trade and money; there would be but a small gathering of people around either of the five commercial centres; the domestic arts and manufactures could not be sustained, and a sickly languor would still pervade our commercial system.
The bill passed in a full House by a majority of six; Patrick Henry, James Madison, Archibald Stuart, Patteson, Strother, King, Thomas Smith, Clendenin, Isaac Coles, Thornton, Temple, John Logan, Francis Corbin, Riddick, Eyre, Gaskins, Ebenezer Zane, Ronald, Thomas Walke, Allen, Edmunds (of Sussex), and Matthews voting in the affirmative, and John Marshall, Alexander White, Wilson C. Nicholas, John Trigg, Watkins, Joseph Jones (of Dinwiddie), Richardson, William White, Wilson, Edmund Ruffin, William Grayson, and Briggs in the negative.
As an illustration of the importance attached to the bill, it was ordered to be inserted at full length on the Journal, and, together with a copy of the Journal of the proceedings of the House thereupon, printed in handbills, and four copies thereof delivered to each member. We have already recorded a solitary instance of the publication of the ayes and noes in the public prints by order of the House of Delegates; but, so far as our researches have extended, we cannot recall an instance in which the bill itself was printed entire by a vote of the body on the face of the Journal.13
It is not an uninstructive office to trace the early stages of
73 I have heard old men who had served in the Assembly about the period of the passage of this bill speak of it as "Madison's bill," and " Madison's scheme of building up towns."
e
W
1
7
-
90
VIRGINIA CONVENTION OF 1788.
great measures which engaged the attention of our fathers, and which, discussed at long subsequent periods, were finally deter- mined in our own time. One such measure is that which has been familiar to the present generation as the Convention ques- tion. The first Constitution of the State was formed simultane- ously with the adoption of the resolution instructing the delegates of Virginia in Congress to propose independence. It was indeed formed at a perilous time; but it was unquestionably formed with all the deliberation which so grave a subject demanded. The Federal Constitution, which effected the most thorough change in our Government that ever was made in the institutions of a free people, was summarily settled during a discussion of twenty- five days; while the Constitution of the State was deliberately examined and discussed for nearly two months by the ablest and wisest men whom Virginia had then or, perhaps, has since produced. Of the practical workings of the Constitution there was no foundation for just complaint, at least on the part of the West. Severe complaints had been made by the residents of the extreme Eastern counties that the rapid creation of new coun- ties before the Declaration of Independence would subject the property of the State to the control of those who owned but a small proportion of it;" and the statutes show that after the adoption of the Constitution in 1776 the multiplication of new counties continued with accelerated rapidity. Still there was a dissatisfaction with the existing form of government in the Assembly, both among the Eastern and Western members; and a serious design was entertained at the close of the war of form- . ing a new scheme of government by the authority of the ordi- nary Legislature. 15 The reasons of this extraordinary movement
14 Letter of Carter to Washington, dated August or September, 1775, in the American archives. I have mislaid the exact reference.
75 George Mason, in a letter to Cabell (of " Union Hill"), dated May 6, 1783, thus writes : "We are told here that the present Assembly intend to dissolve themselves to make way for a General Convention to new- model the Constitution. Will such a measure be proper without a requisition from a majority of the people? If it can be done without such a requisition, may not the caprice of future Assemblies repeat it from time to time until the Constitution shall have totally lost all sta- bility, and anarchy introduced in its stead ?" And on the subject of the definitive treaty with Great Britain, he writes in the same letter :
91
ALEXANDER WHITE.
were mainly theoretical, and may be seen in the Notes on Vir- ginia.16 It was promptly opposed by George Mason, who was not then a member of Assembly, in letters to the leading men in public life, and by others, and finally defeated. The contest was renewed at the present session by a petition from the county of Augusta praying that further time be allowed for paying hemp in discharge of taxes, and that the government of the Common- wealth be reformed.
On the 13th of June, 1784, Mr. Carter Henry Harrison, from the Committee of Propositions and Grievances, reported that so much of the Augusta petition as prayed farther time for paying hemp in discharge of taxes ought to be rejected; but "that the prayer for the reformation of the government was reasonable; that the ordinance of government, commonly called the Consti- tution, does not rest upon an authentic basis, and was no more than a temporary organization of government for preventing anarchy, and pointing our efforts to the two important objects of war against our then invaders, and peace and happiness among ourselves; that this, like all other acts of legislation, being sub- ject to change by subsequent legislatures possessing equal power with themselves, should now receive those amendments which time and trial have suggested, and be rendered permanent by a power superior to that of an ordinary legislature." The report concluded with a resolution that "an ordinance pass, recom- mending to the good people of this Commonwealth the choice of delegates to meet in General Convention, with powers to form a Constitution of government to which all laws, present and future, should be subordinate," and providing that the existing Constitution remain in force until duły superseded by the new system. The House rejected the prayer for farther delay in paying hemp in discharge of taxes; but it referred the subject of the Convention to a Committee of the Whole.
"We are very much alarmed in this part of the country lest the Assembly should pass some laws infringing the articles of the peace, and thereby involve us in a fresh quarrel with Great Britain, who might make reprisals on our shipping or coasts, without much danger of offending the late belligerent Powers in Europe, or even the other American States; but I trust more prudent and dispassionate counsels will prevail."
16 Query XIII, page 128, et seq. (Randolph's edition.)
92
VIRGINIA CONVENTION OF 1788.
On the 21st of June the House resolved itself into committee to consider the subject-Henry Tazewell in the chair-and a reso- lution was reported "that so much of the petition from Augusta county as relates to an alteration of the Constitution or form of government ought to be rejected, such a measure not being within the province of the House of Delegates to assume; but, on the contrary, it is the express duty of the representatives of the people, at all times and on all occasions, io preserve the same inviolate until a majority of all the free people shall direct a reform thereof."" A motion was made to strike out the words in italics, and, after an animated discussion, passed in the negative by a majority of fifteen votes; Wilson C. Nicholas, John Marshall, Archibald Stuart. Patteson, Watkins, Clendenin, Thornton, Temple, William White, Logan, Gaskins, Madison, Ronald, and Edmunds (of Sussex) voting in the affirmative, and Patrick Henry, Alexander White, Trigg, Strother, Joseph Jones, Richardson, Thomas Smith, King, Wilson, Eyre, Ruffin, Thomas Walke, Allen, and Matthews in the negative. A motion was then made to strike out the words "a majority of all the free people shall direct a reform thereof," and insert "it shall be constitutionally reformed," which was rejected by six votes.
The main resolution was then agreed to without a division. The next most prominent movement on the subject of calling a Convention was in 1816, when the measure would have suc- ceeded but for a compromise, which resulted in the re arrange- ment of the representation in the Senate on the basis of white population, according to the census of 1810; and it was finally determined, in 1827, to take the votes of the freeholders on the
17 As the vote on striking out the words in italics was a test vote, and some of my young readers may he curious to know how certain prominent men voted who were not members of the present Conven- tion, I may as well state that among the ayes were John Taylor (of Caroline), Henry Tazewell, Larkin Smith, Jones (of King George), John Breckenridge, and Joseph Prentis, and among the noes were Spencer Roane, Edmunds (of Brunswick), Turner Southall, Edward Bland, William G. Munford, John Bowyer, and William Russell. The ayes were forty-two, the noes fifty-seven ; and this was a full vote, the members being very lax in their attendance thoughout the session, and a bill was accordingly passed at the present session to force their attendance.
U
93
ALEXANDER WHITE.
question, a majority of which was cast in favor of calling a Con- vention. That Convention was called by an act passed during the session of 1828-'29, and on the first Monday in October, 1829, assembled in the city of Richmond.
There was one act of this session which posterity will ever appreciate, and which was passed with entire unanimity. It was the just and beautiful tribute paid to Washington, in acknow- ledgment of his services during the Revolution, in the form of an address from both houses of Assembly, and by the adoption of a resolution "requesting the Executive to take measures for procuring a statue of General Washington, to be of the finest · marble and of the best workmanship," with the inscription from the pen of Madison upon it, which is now so familiar to us all, and which, we fondly hope and believe, will be as familiar to posterity for generations and ages to come. Thirteen years before, in sadness and in sorrow, Virginia had voted a statue in commemoration of the patriotism of a noble Briton, who had fallen suddenly in our midst while honestly seeking to avert that storm which seemed to threaten the Colony with ruin; and now, when that storm had spent its force, with joy and gladness again she voted a statue in honor of her own son, whose valor and wisdom had defended her from peril and had given her a place among the nations of the earth. 78
78 The statue to Lord Botetourt was voted by the Assembly July 20, 1771, and, when completed, occupied a position in the old Capitol at Williamsburg very similar to that now held by the statue of Washing- ton-between the two houses. On the removal of the seat of govern- ment the statue of Botetourt was presented to William and Mary, and was then unfortunately placed in the open air, which in our climate will soon destroy the finest work of the chisel. Exposure more than violence has marred the beauty of this admirable statue. We need not add that the address and the statue to Washington passed unani- mously, though we wish the ayes had been recorded as a memorial for posterity. The committee appointed by the House of Delegates to present the address were Joseph Jones (of King George), William Grayson, Brent, Henderson, and West. From the geographical caste of the committee it is probable that the address was presented to Washington at Mount Vernon. We may add that the Executive was unrestricted in its discretion as to money in procuring the statue ; and a resolution was passed on the 30th of June instructing the Treasurer to pay to the order of the Executive, out of the first money that shall
الاعلى
94
VIRGINIA CONVENTION OF 1788.
We have alluded already to the report of the committee appointed to inquire into the infraction on the part of Great Britain of the seventh article of the definitive treaty of peace with that Power-a report that shows conclusively that General Carleton had repeatedly refused to deliver to citizens of Virginia and Maryland their slaves and other property under his control in the city of New York, though the application was made by our citizens in persons. On the 23d of June the report, which had been referred to the Committee of the Whole, was debated at length, and three resolutions were reported, the first of which instructed the delegates of Virginia in Congress to lay before that body the subject-matter of the preceding report and resolu- tion, and to request from them a remonstrance to the British Court, complaining of the aforesaid infraction of the treaty of peace, and desiring a proper reparation for the injuries conse- quent thereupon; that the said delegates be instructed to inform Congress that the General Assembly have no intention to inter- fere with the power of making treaties with foreign nations, which the Confederation has wisely vested in Congress; but it is conceived that a just regard to the national honor and interests of the citizens of this Commonwealth obliges the Assembly to withhold their co-operation in the complete fulfilment of the said treaty until the success of the aforesaid remonstrance is known, or Congress shall signify their sentiments touching the premises. The second resolution declares that so soon as reparation is made for the aforesaid infraction, or Congress shall judge it indis- pensably necessary, such acts of the Legislature passed during the late war as inhibit the recovery of British debts ought to be repealed, and payment made thereof in such time and manner as shall consist with the exhausted situation of this Common- wealth. And the third resolution declares, in a spirit of peace, that the further operation of all and every act or acts of Assem- bly concerning escheats and forfeitures from British subjects ought to be prevented. The first resolution having been read a second time, an amendment was offered to strike out from the word "thereupon " to the end of the resolution, and insert "and
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.