USA > West Virginia > Hampshire County > History of Hampshire County, West Virginia : from its earliest settlement to the present > 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 | Part 40 | Part 41 | Part 42 | Part 43 | Part 44 | Part 45 | Part 46 | Part 47 | Part 48 | Part 49 | Part 50 | Part 51 | Part 52 | Part 53 | Part 54 | Part 55 | Part 56 | Part 57 | Part 58 | Part 59
LINCOLN. Area 460 square miles; county seat Ham- lin; settled about 1799; formed in 1867 from Kanawha, Cabell Boone and Putnam; population in 1870, 5,053; in 1880, 8,739; in 1890, 11,246.
SUMMERS. Area 400 square miles; county seat Hinton, formed in 1871 from Monroe, Mercer, Greenbrier and Fayette; population in 1880, 9,033; in 1890, 13,117.
MINGO. Area about 400 square miles; formed in 1895 from Logan.
Nearly all the counties of West Virginia are named after well-known men, as follows: Barbour-James Barbour, governor of Virginia in 1812; Berkeley-William Berkeley, governor of Virginia in 1641; Boone-Daniel Boone, the pioneer of Kentucky; Braxton-Carter Braxton, signer of the Declaration of Independence; Brooke-Robert Brooke, governor of Virginia in 1794; Cabell-William H. Cabell, governor of Virginia in 1805; Calhoun-the statesman J. C. Calhoun; Clay-Henry Clay; Doddridge-Philip Dod- dridge of Virginia; Fayette-General La Fayette; Gil- mer-Thomas W. Gilmer, governor of Virginia in 1840; Grant-Ulysses S. Grant; Greenbrier-because many briers grew on the banks of the river; Hampshire-from
90
HISTORY OF HAMPSHIRE.
a shire of that name in England; Hancock-John Hancock, the first signer of the Declaration of Independence; Hardy -Samuel Hardy of Virginia; Harrison-Benjamin Harri- son, governor of Virginia in 1781; Jackson-President An- . drew Jackson; Jefferson-Thomas Jefferson; Kanawha- an Indian word meaning River of the Woods; Lewis- Charles Lewis, who was killed at Point Pleasant in 1774; Lincoln-Abraham Lincoln; Logan-an old Indian chief of the Mingoes; Marion-General Marion of the revolution; Marshall-John Marshall of Virginia, chief justice of the United States; Mason-George Mason of Virginia; Mer- cer-General Hugh Mercer, killed at the battle of Prince- ton; Mineral-named from its coal; Monongalia-an Indian name meaning a river with crumbling banks; Monroe-James Monroe of Virginia, governor in 1799, Morgan-General Daniel Morgan of the revolution; Mc- Dowell-James McDowell, governor of Virginia in 1843; Nicholas-W. C. Nicholas, governor of Virginia in 1843; Ohio-an Indian word meaning the Beautiful river: Pendle- ton-Edmund Pendleton, of Virginia; Pleasants-James Pleasants governor of Virginia in 1822; Pocahontas-an Indian girl; Preston-James P. Preston governor of Virginia in 1816; Putnam-General Israel Putnam of the revolution; Raleigh-Sir Walter Raleigh; Randolph- Edmund Randolph, governor of Virginia in 1786; Ritchie- Thomas Ritchie of Virginia; Roane-Judge Roane of Virginia; Summers-Lewis and George W. Summers of Kanawha county; Taylor-John Taylor of Virginia; Tucker-Judge St. George Tucker; Tyler-John Tyler, governor of Virginia in 1808; Upshur-Judge A. P. Upshur, secretary of state under President Tyler; Wayne-Gen- eral Anthony Wayne of the revolution; Webster-Daniel Webster; Wetzel-Lewis Wetzel the Indian fighter; Wirt --- William Wirt of Virginia; Wood-James Wood, governor of Virginia in 1796; Wyoming-supposed to be an Indian name; Mingo-a tribe of Indians.
CHAPTER VII.
-
CONSTITUTIONAL HISTORY.
The territory now embraced in the state of West Vir- ginia has been governed under five state constitutions, three of Virginia and two of West Virginia. The first was adopted in 1776,, the second in 1830, the third in 1851, the fourth in 1863, the fifth in 1872. The first constitu- tion was passed by the Virginia convention, June 29, 1776. five days before the signing of the Declaration of Indepen- dence. Virginia had taken the lead in declaring the United States independent and capable of self government; and it also took the lead in preparing a system of govern- ment for itself. The constitution passed by its conven- tion in 1776 was one of the first documents of the kind in the world, and absolutely the first in America. Its aim was lofty. It had in view greater liberty than men had ever before enjoyed. The document is a masterpiece of statesmanship; yet its terms are extremely simple. It was the foundation on which nearly all the state constitu- tions have been based. It was in force nearly fifty years, and not until experience had shown wherein it was defec- tive was there any disposition to change it or form a new constitution. Viewed now in the light of nearly a century and a quarter of progressive government, there are fea- tures seen in it which do not conform to the ideas of states- men of today. But it was so much better, at the time of its adoption, than anything gone before, that it was en- tirely satisfactory.
A Bill of Rights preceded the first constitution. On May 15, 1776, the Virginia convention instructed its dele-
92
HISTORY OF HAMPSHIRE.
gates in congress to propose to that body to declare the united colonies independent; and at the same time the con- vention appointed a committee to prepare a declaration of rights and a plan of government for Virginia. On June 12 · the Bill of Rights was passed. The document was written by George Mason, member of the committee. This state paper is of interest, not only as being one of the earliest of the kind in America, but because it contains inconsisten- cies which in after years clung to the laws of Virginia, carrying injustice with them, until West Virginia, when it became a state, refused to allow them to become part of the laws of the new commonwealth. The chief of these inconsistencies is found in the declaration at the outset of the Bill of Rights "that all men are by nature equally free and independent;" and yet further on it paves the way for restricting the privilege of suffrage to those who own property, thereby declaring in terms, if not in words, that a poor man is not as free and independent as a rich one. Here was the beginning of the doctrine so long held in Virginia by its law makers that a man without property should not have a voice in the government. In after years this doctrine was combatted by the people of the territory now forming West Virginia. The inhabitants west of the Blue Ridge, and especially west of the Alleghanies, were the champions of universal suffrage; and they labored to attain that end, but with little success, until they were able to set up a government for themselves, in which gov- ernment men were placed above property. Further on in this chapter something more will be found on this subject.
The Bill of Rights declares that the freedom of the press is one of the chief bulwarks of liberty. This is in marked contrast with and a noticeable advance beyond the doctrine held by Sir William Berkeley, one of Virginia's royal gov- ernors, who solemly declared: "I thank God we have not free schools or printing, and I hope we shall not have these hundred years; for learning has brought disobedience and
93
CONSTITUTIONAL HISTORY.
heresy and sects into the world, and printing has divulged them and libels against the government. God keep us from both." This solemn protest of Virginia's governor was made nearly forty years after the founding of Harvard university in Massachusetts. It has been sometimes cited as an illustration of the difference between the Puritan civilization in Massachusetts and the cavalier civilization of Virginia. But the comparison is unfair. It was no test of Virginia's civilization, because the governor was carry- ing out instructions from England to suppress printing, and he did not consult the people of the colony whether they wanted printing presses or not. But when a printer, John Buckner by name, ten years after Governor Berkeley asked divine protection against schools and printing, ven- tured into Virginia with a press, he was promptly brought before the governor and was compelled to give bond that he would print nothing until the king of England gave consent.
In view of this experience it is not to be wondered at that the Virginians were prompt in declaring in their Bill of Rights, that the press should be free. But they did not embrace that excellent opportunity to say a word in favor of schools. Nor could they, at one sweep, bring themselves to the broad doctrine that property does not round off and complete the man, but that "a man's a man a' for that," and capable, competent and trustworthy to take full part in the affairs of government. This Bill of Rights was brought into existence in the early part of the Revolutionary war; and at that very time the bold, patient, patriotic and poor back woodsmen from the frontiers were in the American armies, fighting and dying in the cause of liberty, and equal rights; and yet, by laws then being enacted, these same men were denied the right to take part in the management of the government which they were fighting to establish. It was for no other reason than that they were not assessed with enough property to
94
HISTORY OF HAMPSHIRE.
give "sufficient evidence of permanent common interest . with and attachment to the community." This notion had been brought from England, and had been fastened upon the colony of Virginia so firmly that in could not be shaken off when that state severed the political bonds which bound it to the mother country. The idea clung to the constitution passed in 1776; to that of 1830; to that of 1851; but sentiment against the property qualification for suffrage constantly grew, and particularly among the people of Western Virginia, until it manifested itself in striking the obnoxious clause from the constitution when the new state of West Virginia came ints separate exist- ence.
If the war of the revolution did not teach the statesmen of Virginia that the poor man can be a patriot; and if the thirty-five or more years intervening between the adop- tion of the constitution of 1776 and the second war with England had not sufficed to do so, it might be supposed that the new experience of the war of 1812 would have made the fact clear. But it did not convince the law maker. Virginia was speedily invaded by the British after the declaration of war, and some of the most valuable property in the state was destroyed, and some of the best territory was overrun by the enemy. The capital at Washington, just across the Potomac from Virginia, was captured and burned. An ex-president of the United States was compelled to hide in the woods to avoid capture by the enemy. In this critical time no soldiers fought more valiantly, none did more to drive back the invader, than the men from Western Virginia, where lived most of those who were classed too poor to take part in the affairs of government. It is said that sometimes half the men in a company of soldiers had never been permitted to vote because they did not own enough property.
The people of Western Virginia felt the injustice keenly. They never failed to respond promptly to a call
95
CONSTITUTIONAL HISTORY.
when their services were needed in the field; but in time of peace they sought in a lawful and decent manner the redress of their grievances. They could not obtain this redress under the constitution then in force; and the war of 1812 had scarcely came to a close when the subject of a new constitution began to be spoken of. It was agitated long in vain. Nor was the restriction of suffrage the only wrong the people of Western Virginia endured, somewhat impatiently, but always with full respect for the laws then in force.
The eastern part of Virginia had the majority of in- habitants and the largest part of the property, and this gave that portion of the state the majority in the assembly. This power was used with small respect for the rights of the people in the western part of the state. Internal im- provements were made on a large scale in the east; but none were made west of the mountains, or very few. Men in the western counties had little encouragement to aspire to political distinction. The door was shut on them. The state offices were filled by men from the wealthy eastern districts. At length the agitation of the question of a new constitution ripened into results. The assembly of Virginia in 1828 passed a bill submitting to a vote of the people whether they would have a constitutional conven- tion called. At the election there were 38,542 votes cast, of which 21,896 were in favor of a constitutional conven- tion. By far the heaviest vote favoring the convention was cast west of the Blue Ridge. The wealthy slave owners of the lower counties wanted no change. The constitution had been framed to suit them, and they wanted nothing better. They feared that any change would give them something less suitable. Nevertheless, when the votes were counted and it was ascertained that a new constitution was inevitable, the representatives of the wealth of the state set to work to guard against any invasion of the privileges they had so long enjoyed.
96
HISTORY OF HAMPSHIRE.
The delegates from what is now West Virginia elected to this convention were: E. M. Wilson and Charles S. Morgan of Monongalia county; William McCoy, of Pendle- ton county; Alexander Campbell and Philip Doddridge of Brooke county; Andrew Beirne of Monroe county; William Smith of Greenbrier county; John Baxter of Pocahontas; H. L. Opie and Thomas Griggs of Jefferson; William Naylor and William Donaldson of Hampshire; Philip Pendleton and Elisha Boyd of Berkeley; E. S. Duncan of Harrison; John Laidley of Cabell; Lewis Summers of Kanawha; Adam See of Randolph. The leader of the western delegates in the convention was Philip Doddridge who did all in his power to have the property quantifica- tion clause omitted from the new constitution.
The convention met at Richmond, October 5, 1829. From the very first meeting the western members were slighted. No western man was na nel in the selection of officers of the convention. It was seen at the outset that the property qualification for suffrage would not be given up by the eastern members without a struggle, and it was soon made plain that this qualification would have a majority. It was during the debates in this convention that Philip Doddridge, one of West Virginia's greatest men, came to the front in his full stature. His opponents were Randolph. Leigh, Upshur, Tazewell. Standard and others, who supported the doctrine that a voter should be a prop- erty owner. One of Doddridge's colleagues was Alexan- der Campbell, the founder of the church of the Disciples of Christ, sometimes known as the Christian church, and again called, from its founder, the Campbellite church. Here were two powerful intellects, Dollridge and Camp- bell, and they championed the cause of liberty in a form more advanced than was then allowed in Virginia. Dod- dridge himself had followed the plow, and he felt that the honest man does not need a certain number of acres be- fore he can be trusted with the right of suffrage. He had
97
CONSTITUTIONAL HISTORY.
served in the Virginia legislature and knew from observa- tion and experience the needs of the people in his part of the state. He was born on the bank of the Ohio river two years before the backwoodsmen of Virginia annulled the Quebec Act, passed by the parliament of England; and he had grown to manhood in the dangers and vicissitudes of the frontiers. He was but five years old at the first siege of Fort Henry; and was ten years old at the second siege; and the shot which brought down the last British flag that floated above the soil of Virginia during the Revolutionary war, was fired almost within hearing of his home. Among his neighbors were Lewis Wetzel, Ebenezer Zane, Samuel Brady and the men who fought to save the homes of the frontier settlers during the long and anxious years of In- dian warfare. Although Doddridge died two years after this convention, while serving in congress, he had done enough to give West Virginia reason for remembering him. The work of Campbell does not stand out in so con- spicuous a manner in the proceedings of the convention; but his influence for good was great; and if the delegates from west of the mountains labored in vain for that time, the re- sult was seen in later years.
The work of the convention was brought to close in 1830, and a new constitution was given to the voters of the state for their approval or rejection. The western members had failed to strike out the distasteful property qualifica- tion. They had all voted against it, except Doddridge, who was unable to attend that session on account of sick- ness, no doubt due to overwork. His vote, however, would have changed nothing, as the eastern members had a large majority and carried every measure they wanted. In the dissatisfaction consequent upon the failure of the western counties to secure what they considered justice, began the movement for a new state. More than thirty years elapsed before the object was attained; and it was brought about by means and from causes which not the wisest statesman
98
HISTORY OF HAMPSHIRE.
foresaw in 1830; yet the sentiment had been growing all · the years. The old state of Virginia was never forgiven the offense and injury done the western district in the con- stitutional convention of 1829-1830. If the injustice was partly removed by the enlarged suffrage granted in the constitution adopted twenty years after, it was then too late for the atonement to be accepted as a blotting out of past wrongs; and in 1861 the people of West Virginia re- plied to the old state's long years of oppression and tyranny.
The constitution of 1830 adopted the Bill of Rights of 1776 without amendmentor change. Then followed a long pream- ble reciting the wrongs under which Virginia suffered, prior to the Revolutionary war, before independence was se- cured. Under this constitution the Virginia house of del- gates consisted of one hundred and thirty-four members, of which twenty-six were chosen by the counties lying west of the Alleghenies; twenty-five by the counties be- tween the Blue Ridge and the Alleghanies; forty-two by the counties between the Blue Ridge and tidewater, nad thirty-six by the tidewater counties. The senate con- sisted of thirty-two members, of which thirteen were from the counties west of the Blue Ridge. No priest or preacher was eligible to the legislature. The right of suffrage was based on a property qualification. The ballot was forbid- den and all voting was viva voce. Judges of the supreme court and of the superior courts were not elected by the people, but by the joint vote of the senate and house of del- egates. The attorney general was chosen in the same way. Sheriffs and coroners were nominated by the county courts and appointed by the governor. Justices of the peace were appointed by the governor, and the constables were ap- pointed by the justices. Clerks were appointed by the courts. The state treasurer was elected by the joint vote of the senate and house of delegates. It is thus seen that the only state officers for which people could vote directly
99
CONSTITUTIONAL HISTORY.
were senators and members of the house of delegates. Such an arrangement would be very unsatisfactory at the present day among people who have become accustomed to select their officers, almost without exception, from the highest to the lowest. The growth of the republican prin- ciple of government has been gradual. It was not all grasped at once; nor has it reached its fullest development yet. The Bill of Rights and the first constitution of Vir- ginia were a great step forward from the bad government under England's colonial system; but the gathered wis- dom of more than a century has discovered and corrected many imperfections.
It is noticable that the constitution of 1830 contains no provisions for public schools. It may be stated generally that the early history of Virginia shows little development of the common school idea. The state which was satisfied for seventy-five years with suffrage denied the poor would not be likely to become famous for its zeal in the cause of popular education. The rich, who voted, could afford schools for their children; and the father who was poor could neither take part in the government nor educate his children. Virginia was behind most of the old states in free schools. At the very time that Governor Berkeley thanked God that there were neither free schools nor printing presses in Virginia, Connecticut was devoting to education one fourth of its revenue from taxation. As late as 1857 Virginia with a population of nearly a million and a half, had only 41,608 children in common schools. When this is compared with other states, the contrast is striking. Massachusetts with a smaller population had five times as many children in the free schools; New Hampshire with one-fifth the population had twice as many; Illinois had nearly eight times as many, yet a smaller population; Ohio with a population a little larger had more than fourteen times as many children in public schools as Virginia. The following additional states in
305789A
100
HISTORY OF HAMPSHIRE.
1857 had more children attending common schools than Virginia had in proportion to their population: Maine, Vermont, Rhode Island, Connecticut, New York, Pennsyl- vania, New Jersey, Delaware, Indiana, Michigan, Iowa, Wisconsin, Missouri, Kentucky, Maryland, Louisiana, Tennessee, North Carolina, Georgia, Alabama. The states with a smaller percentage of children in the com- mon schools than Virginia's, were South Carolina, Cali- fornia and Mississippi. For the remainder of the states, the statistics for that year were not compiled.
The showing is bad for Virginia. Although the lack of provision for popular education in the convention of 1830 does not appear to have caused opposition from the western members, yet the promptness with which the new state of West Virginia provided for public schools as soon as it had a chance, is evidence that the sentiment west of the Alleghanies was strong in favor of popular education.
When the western delegates returned home after com- pleting their labors in the convention of 1829-1830, they found that their constituents were much dissatisfied with the constitution. The chief thing contended for, less restriction on suffrage, had been refused; and the new constitution, while in some respects better than the old, retained the most objectionable feature of the old. At the election held early in 1830 for ratifying or rejecting the new constitution, 41,618 votes were cast, of which 26,055 were for ratification and 15,563 against. The eastern part of the state voted strongly for ratification; the western part against it. Only two counties in what is now West Virginia gave a majority for it; and only one east of the Blue Ridge voted against it. The vote by counties in West Virginia was as follows: Berkeley, for 95, against 161; Brooke, the home of Doddridge and Campbell, for 0, against 371; Cabell, for 5, against 334; Greenbrier, for 34, against 464; Hampshire, for 241, against 211; Hardy, for 63, against 120; Harrison, for S, against 1.112; Jefferson, for
101
CONSTITUTIONAL HISTORY.
243, against 53; Kanawha, for 42, against 266; Lewis, for 10, against 546; Logan, for 2, against 255; Mason, for 31, against 369; Monongalia, for 305, against 460; Monroe, for 19, against 451; Morgan, for 29, against 156; Nicholas, for 28, against 325; Ohio, for 3, against 643; Pendleton, for 58, against 219; Pocahontas, for 9, against 288; Preston, for 121, against 357; Randolph, for 4, against 567; Tyler, for 5, against 299; Wood, for 28, against 410. Total, for 1,383, against 8,375.
Although the constitution of 1830 was unsatisfactory to the people of the western counties, and they had voted to reject it, it had been fastened upon them by the vote of the eastern counties. However, the matter was not to end there. In a republican government the way to reach a redress of grievances is to keep the proposed reform constantly before the people. If right, it will finally pre- vail. In all reform movements or questions, the right is nearly always in the minority at first; perhaps it is always so. The western Virginians had been voted down, but they at once began to agitate the question of calling another constitutional convention. They kept at it for twenty years. Finally a legislature was chosen which called an election on the subject of a constitutional con- vention. The majority of the legislature was in favor of the convention, and in May, 1850, an election was held to choose delegates. Those elected from the country west of the Alleghanies, and from districts partly east and partly west of those mountains, were John Kenney, A. M. New- man, John Lionberger, George E. Deneale, G. B. Samuels, William Seymour, Giles Cook, Samuel C. Williams, Allen T. Caperton, Albert G. Pendleton, A. A. Chapman, Charles J. Faulkner, William Lucas, Dennis Murphy, Andrew Hunter, Thomas Sloan, James E. Stewart, Richard E. Byrd, Charles Blue, Jefferson T. Martin, Zachariah Jacob, . John Knote, Thomas Gally, Benjamin H. Smith, William Smith, Samuel Price, George W. Summers, Joseph John-
102
HISTORY OF HAMPSHIRE.
son, John F. Snodgrass, Gideon D. Camden, Peter G. Van Winkle, William G. Brown, Waitman T. Willey, Edward J. Armstrong, James Neeson, Samuel L. Hayes, Joseph Smith, John S. Carlisle, Thomas Bland, Elisha W. Mc- Comas, Henry J. Fisher, and James H. Ferguson.
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.