USA > West Virginia > Randolph County > The history of Randolph County, West Virginia. From its earliest settlement to the present, embracing records of all the leading families, reminiscences and traditions > Part 11
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 | Part 60 | Part 61
Messengers and other persons on business for the State were not required to pay toll, and they must be carried across immediately, at any hour of the day or night. But, as a precaution against being imposed upon by persons falsely claiming to be in the service of the State, the ferryman was authorized to demand proof, which the applicant was obliged to fur- nish. This proof consisted of a letter, on the back of which must be writ- ten "public service," and must be signed by some officer, either in the civil or military service of the State. Inasmuch as the punishment for forgery at that time was death, it is improbable that any person would present forged documents to the ferryman in order to save a few cents toll. The men who kept the ferries enjoyed some immunities and privileges denied to the masses. They were exempt from work on the public roads. They were not required to pay county taxes, but whether this privilege was ex- tended only to poll tax, or whether it applied also to personal property and real estate, is not clear from the reading of the regulations governing the business. They were exempt from military service due the State, and they were excused from holding the office of Constable.
FIRST COURT-HOUSE IN WEST VIRGINIA, Hampshire County.
CHAPTER X,
CONSTITUTIONAL HISTORY,
The territory now embraced in the State of West Virginia has been governed under five State constitutions, three of Virginia's and two of West Virginia's. The first was adopted in 1776, the second in 1830, the third in 1851, the fourth in 1863, the fifth in 1872. The first constitution was passed. by the Virginia Convention, June 29, 1776, five days before the signing of the Declaration of Independence. 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 government for itself. The consti- tution passed by its convention 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 simple. It was the foundation on which nearly all the State constitutions have been based. It was in force nearly fifty years, and not until experience had shown wherein it was defective 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 features seen in it which do not conform to the ideas of statesmen of today. But it was so much better, at the time of its adoption, than anything gone before that it was entirely satisfactory.
A Bill of Rights preceded the first constitution. On May 15, 1776, the Virginia Convention instructed its delegates in Congress to propose to that body to declare the United Colonies independent, and at the same time the Convention 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 com- mittee. This state paper is of interest, not only as being one of the earliest of the kind in America, but because it contains inconsistencies which in after years clung to the laws of Virginia, carrying injustice with them, un- til 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 inconsis- tencies is found in the just 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 man. 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 combated by the people of the territory now forming West
90
CONSTITUTIONAL HISTORY.
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 government 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 governors, who solemnly declared, "I thank God we have not free schools or printing, and I hope we will not have these hundred years, for learning has brought disobedience and 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 Massa- chusetts. It has been sometimes cited as an illustration of the difference between the Puritan civilization in Massachusetts and the Cavalier civiliza- tion of Virginia. But the comparison is unfair. It was no test of Virginia's civilization, for the Governor was carrying 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 protec- tion against schools and printing, ventured 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 Virgin- ians 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 for a' 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 backwoodsmen 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 govern- ment which they were fighting to establish. It was for no other reason than that they were not assessed with enough property to give "sufficient evidence of permanent common interest with and attachment to the com- munity." This notion had been brought from England, and had been fast- ened upon the colony of Virginia so firmly that it could not be shaken off when that State severed the political ties 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 consti- tution when the State of West Virginia came into separate existence.
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 inter- vening between the adoption of the constitution of 1776 and the second war with England had not sufficed to do so, it might be supposed that the new
91
CONSTITUTIONAL HISTORY.
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 city of Washington, just across the Potomac from Virginia, was captured and burned. An ex-President of the United States was com- pelled 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 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 come to a close when the subject of a new constitution began to be spoken of. It was agi- tated 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 inhabitants 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 improve- ments 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 encour- agement 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 convention called, At the election there were 38,542 votes cast, of which 21,896 were in favor of a constitutional convention. 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.
The delegates from what is now West Virginia elected to this convenl- tion were: E. M. Wilson and Charles S. Morgan, of Monongalia County; William McCoy, of Pendleton County; Alexander Campbell and Philip Dod- dridge, 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 qualifi- cation clause omitted from the new constitution.
92 .
CONSTITUTIONAL HISTORY.
The convention met at Richmond, October 5, 1829. From the very first meeting the western members were slighted. No western man was named 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 qualifica- tion 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 property-owner. One of Doddridge's colleagues was Alexander 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, Doddridge and Campbell, and they championed the cause of liberty in a form more ad- vanced than was then allowed in Virginia. Doddridge himself had followed the plow, and he felt that the honest man does not need a certain number of acres before he can be trusted with the right of suffrage. He had served in the Virginia Legislature and knew from observation 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 Indian 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 conspic- uous 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 result was seen in later years.
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 which 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 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 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. Samnels, 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 that wealth, while not bad in itself, frequently becomes a source of political weakness. The 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.
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.