USA > West Virginia > Barbour County > The history of Barbour County, West Virginia, from its earliest exploration and settlement to the present time > Part 12
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
The work of the convention was brought to a close in 1830, and a new constitution was given to the voters of the State for their approval or rejec- tion, The western members had failed to strike out the distasteful prop- erty qualification. They had all voted against it except Doddridge, who was unable to attend that session on account of sickness, 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 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 west- ern district in the constitutional 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 replied to the old State's long years of oppression and tyranny.
93
CONSTITUTIONAL HISTORY.
The constitution of 1830 adopted the Bill of Rights of 1776 without amendment or change. Then followed a long preamble reciting the wrongs under which Virginia suffered, prior to the Revolutionary War, before inde- pendence was secured. Under this constitution the Virginia House of Del- egates consisted of one hundred and thirty-four members, of whichi twenty- six were chosen by the counties lying west of the Alleghenies; twenty-five by the counties between the Blue Ridge and the Alleghanies; forty-two by the counties between the Blue Ridge and tidewater, and thirty-six by the tidewater counties. The Senate consisted 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 forbidden 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 Delegates. 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 appointed 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 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 principle of Government has been gradual. It was not all grasped at once; nor has it reached its fullest developement yet. The Bill of Rights and the first constitution of Virginia were a great step forward from the bad Government under England's Colonial system; but the gathered wisdom 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 Vir- ginia 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 tò 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 Vir- ginia. The following additional states in 1857 had more children attending common schools than Virginia had in proportion to their population: Maine, Vermont, Rhode Island, Connecticut, New York, Pennsylvania, New Jersey, Delaware, Indiana, Michigan, Iowa, Wisconsin, Missouri, Kentucky,
94
CONSTITUTIONAL HISTORY.
Maryland, Louisiana, Tennessee, North Carolina, Georgia, Alabama. The states with a smaller percentage of children in the common schools than Virginia's were South Carolina, California 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 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 completing 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 8, against 1,112; Jefferson, for 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 prevail. 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 elec- tion on the subject of a constitutional convention. 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 moun- tains, were John Kenny, A. M. Newman, 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. Faulk- ner, 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,
95
CONSTITUTIONAL HISTORY.
Samuel Price, George W. Summers, Joseph Johnson, 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. Carlile, Thomas Bland, Elisha W. McComas, Henry J. Fisher, and James H. Ferguson.
One of these delegates, Joseph Johnson, of Harrison County, was the only man up to that time ever chosen Governor from the district west of the Alleghanies; and in the three-quarters of a century since the adoption of Virginia's first constitution, no man from west of the Alleghanies had ever been sent to the United States Senate; and only one had been elected from the country west of the Blue Ridge. Eastern property had out-voted western men. Still the people west of the mountains sought their remedy in a new constitution, just as they had sought in vain nearly a generation before.
The constitutional convention met and organized for work. The dele- gates from the eastern part of the State at once showed their hand. They insisted from the start that there should be a property qualification for suf- frage. This was the chief point against which the western people had been so long contending, and the members from west of the Alleghanies were there to resist such a provision in the new constitution and to fight it to the last. Lines were drawn upon this issue. The contending forces were at once arrayed for the fight. It was seen that the western members and the members who took sides with them were not in as hopeless a minority as they had been in the convention of 1830. Still they were not so strong as to assure victory, and the battle was to be long and hard-fought. If there was one man among the western members more conspicuous as a leader than the others, that man was Waitman T. Willey, of Monongalia County. An unswerving advocate of liberty in its widest interpretation, and with an un- compromising hatred of tyranny and oppression, he had prepared himself to fight in the front when the question of restriction of suffrage should come up. The eastern members forced the issue, and he met it. He denied that property is the true source of political power; but, rather, that the true source should be sought in wisdom, virtue, patriotism; and tbat wealth, while not bad in itself, frequently becomes a source of political weakness. Tbe rights of persons are above the rights of property. Mr. Scott, a dele- gate from Fauquier County, declared that this movement by the western members was simply an effort to get their hands on the pocket books of the wealthy east. Mr. Willey repelled this impeachment of the integrity of the west. Other members in sympathy with the property qualification took up the cue and the assault upon the motives of the people of the west became severe and unjust. But the members from that part of the State defended the honor of its people with a vigor and a success which defeated the prop- erty qualification in the constitution.
It was not silenced however. It was put forward and carried in another form, by a proviso that members of the Assembly and Senate should be elected on an arbitrary basis until the year 1865, and at that time the ques- tion should be submitted to a vote of the people whether their delegates in the Legislature should be apportioned on what was called the "white basis" or the "mixed basis." The first provided that members of the Legisla- ture should be apportioned according to the number of white inhabitants; the second, that they should be apportioned according to both property and inhabitants. The eastern members believed that in 1865 the vote of
96
CONSTITUTIONAL HISTORY.
the State would favor the mixed basis, and thus the property qualification would again be in force, although not in exactly the same form as before.
The proceedings of the convention had not advanced far when it be- came apparent that a sentiment in that body was in favor of electing many or all of the County and State officers. The sentiment favoring electing judges was particularly strong. Prior to that time the judges in Virginia had been chosen by the Legislature or appointed by the Governor, who was a creature of the Legislature. The members from Western Virginia, under the leadership of Mr. Willey, were in favor of electing the judges. It was more in conformity with the principles of republican government that the power which selected the makers of laws should also select the interpreters of those laws, and also those whose duty it is to execute the laws. The power of the people was thus increased, and with increase of power there was an increase also in their responsibility. Both are wholesome stimu- lants for the citizens of a commonwealth who are rising to new ideas and higher principles. The constitution of 1850 is remarkable for the general advance embodied in it. The experience of nearly half a century has shown that many improvements could be made, but at the time it was adopted its landmarks were set on higher ground. But as yet the idea that the State is the greatest beneficiary from the education of the people, and that it is the duty of the State to provide free schools for this purpose, had not gained sufficient footing to secure so much as an expression in its favor in the constitution of 1850.
The work of the convention was completed, and at an election held for the purpose in 1852 it was ratified and became the foundation for State gov- ernment in Virginia. The Bill of Rights, passed in 1776 and adopted with- out change as a preamble or introduction to the constitution of 1830, was amended in several particulars and prefixed to the constitution of 1850. The constitution of 1830 required voting by viva voce, without exception. That of 1850 made an exception in favor of deaf and dumb persons. But for all other persons the ballot was forbidden. The property qualification for suf- frage was not placed in the constitution. Although a provision was made to foist a property clause on the State to take effect in 1865, the great and unexpected change made by the Civil War before the year 1865 rendered this provision of no force. The leading features of the "mixed basis " and "white basis," as contemplated by the constitution, were: In 1865 the peo- ple, by vote, were to decide whether the members of the State Senate and Lower House should be apportioned in accordance with the number of voters, without regard to property, or whether, in such apportionment, property should be represented. The former was called the white basis or suffrage basis; the latter mixed basis. Under the mixed basis the appor- tionment would be based on a ratio of the white inhabitants and of the amount of State taxes paid. Provision was made for the apportionment of Senators on one basis and members of the Lower House on the other, if the voters should so decide. The members of the convention from West Vir- ginia did not like the mixed basis, but the clause making the provision for it went into the constitution in spite of them. They feared that the popu- lous and wealthy eastern counties would out-vote the counties beyond the Alleghanies and fasten the mixed basis upon the whole State. But West Virginia had separated from the old State before 1865 and never voted on that measure. There was a clause which went so far as to provide that the
97
CONSTITUTIONAL HISTORY.
members of the Senate might be apportioned solely on the basis of taxa- tion, if the people so decided by vote.
Under the constitution free negroes were not permitted to reside in Vir- ginia unless free at the time the constitution went into effect. Slaves there- after manumitted forfeited their freedom by remaining twelve months in the State. Provision was made for enslaving them again.
For the first time in the history of the State the Governor was to be elected by the people. He had before been appointed by the Legislature. County officers, clerks, sheriff, prosecuting attorney and surveyor, were now to be elected by the people. The county court, composed of not less than three or more than five justices of the peace, held sessions monthly, and had enlarged jurisdiction. This arrangement was not consistent with the advance made in other branches of County and State government as pro- vided for in the constitution. That county court was not satisfactory, and even after West Virginia became a State, it did not at first rid itself of the tribunal which had out-lived its usefulness. But after a number of years a satisfactory change was made by the new State. Under Virginia's consti- tution of 1850 the Auditor, Treasurer and Secretary were selected by the Legislature.
The first constitution of West Virginia was a growth rather than a crea- tion by a body of men in one convention. The history of that constitution is a part of the history of the causes leading up to and the events attending the creation of a new State from the counties in the western part of Vir- ginia, which had refused to follow the old State when it seceded from the Union. Elsewhere in this volume will be found a narrative of the acts by which the new State was formed. The present chapter will consider only those movements and events directly related to the first constitution.
The efforts of the Northern States to keep slavery from spreading to new territory, and the attempts of the South to introduce it into the West; the passage of laws by the Northern States by which they refused to deliver runaway slaves to their masters; decisions of courts in conflict with the wishes of one or the other of the great parties to the controversy; and other acts or doctrines favorable to one or the other, all entered into the presi- dential campaign of 1860 and gave that contest a bitterness unknown before or since in the history of American politics. For many years the South had been able to carry its points by the ballot-box or by statesmanship, but in 1860 the power was slipping away, and the North was in the ascendancy with its doctrines of no further extension of slavery. There were four can- didates in the field, and the Republicans elected Abraham Lincoln. Had the Southern States accepted the result, acquiesced in the limitation of slavery within those States wherein it already had an undisputed foothold, the Civil War would not have occurred at that time, and perhaps never. Slavery would have continued years longer. But the rashness of the South- ern States hastened the crisis, and in its result slavery was stamped out. South Carolina led the revolt by a resolution December 20, 1860, by which that State seceded from the Union. Other Southern States followed, formed "The Confederate States of America," and elected Jefferson Davis President.
Virginia, as a State, went with the South, but the people of the western part, when confronted with the momentous question, "Choose ye this day whom ye will serve," chose to remain citizens of the United States. Gov- ernor Letcher, of Virginia, called an extra session of the Legislature to 7
98
CONSTITUTIONAL HISTORY.
meet January 7, 1861, to consider public affairs. The Legislature passed a bill calling a convenion of the people of Virginia, whose delegates were to be elected February 4, to meet in Richmond, February 13, 1861. A substi- tute for this bill, offered in the Lower House of the Legislature, providing that a vote of the people of the State should be taken on the question of calling the convention, was defeated. The convention was thus convened without the consent of the people, a thing which had never before been done in Virginia.
Delegates were chosen for Western Virginia. They were nearly all opposed to secession and worked to defeat it in the convention. Finding their efforts in vain, they returned home, some of them escaping many dangers and overcoming much difficulty on the way. The action of the Virginia Convention was kept secret for some time, while State troops and troops from other States were seizing United States arsenals and other government property in Virginia. But when the delegates returned to their homes in Western Virginia with the news that Virginia had joined the Southern Confederacy there was much excitement and a widespread deter- mination among the people not to be transferred to the Confederacy. Meetings were held, delegates were chosen to a convention in Wheeling to meet June 11 for the purpose of re-organizing the government of Virginia.
Owing to the peculiar circumstances in which the State of Virginia was placed, part in and part out of the Southern Confederacy, the constitution of 1850 did not apply to the case, and certainly did not authorize the re-or- ganization of the State Government in the manner in which it was about to be done. No constitution and no statute had ever been framed to meet such an emergency. The proceeding undertaken by the Wheeling convention was authorized by no written law, and so far as the statutes of the State contemplated such a condition, they forbade it. But, as the gold which sanctified the Temple was greater than the Temple, so men who make the law are greater than the law. The principle is dangerous when acted upon by bad men, but patriots may. in a crisis which admits of no delay, be a law unto themselves. The people of Western Virginia saw the storm, saw the only salvation, and with promptness they seized the helm and made for the harbor.
The constitution of Virginia did not apply. The Wheeling Convention passed an ordinance for the government of the re-organized State. This ordinance could scarcely be called a constitution, yet it was a good tempo- rary substitute for one. Itauthorized the convention to appoint a Governor and Lieutenant Governor to serve until their successors were elected and qualified. They were to administer the existing laws of Virginia. The General Assembly was called to meet in Wheeling, where it was to provide for the election of a Governor and Lieutenant Governor. The capital of Virginia was thus changed from Richmond to Wheeling, so far as that con- vention could change it. The Senators and Assemblymen who had been chosen at the preceding election were to constitute the Legislature. A Council of Five was appointed by the convention to assist the Governor in the discharge of his duties. An allusion to the State Constitution, made in this ordinance, shows that the convention considered the Virginia Consti- tution of 1850 still in force, so far as it was applicable to the changed condi- tions. There was no general and immediate change of county and district officers provided for, but an oath was required of them that they would sup- port the Constitution of the United States. Provision was made for remov-
99
CONSTITUTIONAL HISTORY.
ing from office such as refused to take the oath, and for appointing others in their stead.
Under and by virtue of this ordinance the convention elected Francis H. Pierpont Governor of Virginia, Daniel Polsley Lieutenant Governor, and James S. Wheat Attorney General. Provision having been made by the General Assembly which met in Wheeling for an election of delegates to frame a constitution for the State of West Virginia, provided a vote of the people should be in favor of a new State, and the election having shown that a new State was desired, the delegates to the Constitutional Conven- tion assembled in Wheeling November 26, 1861. The purpose at first had not been to form a new State, but to re-organize and administer the govern- ment of Virginia. But the sentiment in favor of a new State was strong, and resulted in the assemblimg of a convention to frame a constitution. The list of delegates were, Gordon Batelle, Ohio County; Richard L. Brooks, Upshur: James H. Brown, Kanawha; John J. Brown, Preston; John Boggs, Pendleton; W. W. Brumfield, Wayne; E. H. Caldwell, Marshall; Thomas R. Carskadon, Hampshire; James S. Cassady, Fayette; H. D. Chapman, Roane; Richard M. Cooke, Mercer; Henry Dering, Monongalia; John A. Dille, Pres- ton; Abijah Dolly, Hardy; D. W. Gibson, Pocahontas; S. F. Griffith, Mason; Stephen M. Hansley, Raleigh; Robert Hogar, Boone; Ephraim B. Hall, Marion; John Hall, Mason; Thomas W. Harrison, Harrison; Hiram Hay- mond, Marion; James Hervey, Brooke; J. P. Hoback, McDowell; Joseph Hubbs, Pleasants; Robert Irvine, Lewis; Daniel Lamb, Ohio; R. W. Lauck, Wetzel; E. S. Mahon, Jackson; A. W. Mann, Greenbrier; John R. McCutch- eon, Nicholas; Dudley S. Montague, Putnam; Emmett J. O'Brien, Barbour; Granville Parker, Cabell; James W. Parsons, Tucker; J. W. Paxton, Ohio; David S. Pinnell, Upshur; Joseph S. Pomeroy, Hancock; John M. Powell, Harrison; Job Robinson, Calhoun; A. F. Ross, Ohio; Lewis Ruffner, Kana- wha; Edward W. Ryan, Fayette; George W. Sheets, Hampshire; Josiah Simmons, Randolph; Harmon Sinsel, Taylor; Benjamin H. Smith, Logan; Abraham D. Soper, Tyler; Benjamin L. Stephenson, Clay; William E. Steven- son, Wood; Benjamin F. Stewart, Wirt; Chapman J. Stewart, Doddridge; G. F. Taylor, Braxton: M. Titchenell, Marion; Thomas H. Trainer, Mar- shall; Peter G. Van Winkle, Wood; William Walker, Wyoming; William W. Warder, Gilmer; Joseph S. Wheat, Morgan; Waitman T. Willey, Mononga- lia; A. J. Wilson, Ritchie; Samuel Young, Pocahontas.
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.