Rogue State (10 page)

It would have been as absurd as it would have been impolitic to deny the large loyal population of Virginia the powers of a State Government, because men whom they had clothed with Executive or Legislative or Judicial powers had betrayed their trusts and joined in rebellion against their country. It does not admit of doubt, therefore, as it seems to me that the Legislature which gave its consent to the formation and erection of the State of West Virginia was the true and only lawful Legislature of the State of Virginia.
The Madison Papers clearly show that the consent of the Legislature of the original State was the only consent required to the erection and formation of a new State within its jurisdiction
. (Author's italics).

That consent having been given, the consent of the new State, if required, is proved by her application for admission. Nothing required by the Constitution to the formation and admission of West Virginia into the United States, is, therefore, wanting; and the Act of admission must necessarily be constitutional. Nor is this conclusion technical as some may think.

The Legislature of Virginia, it may be admitted, did not contain many members from the Eastern Counties. It contained, however, Representatives from all counties whose inhabitants were not either rebels themselves or dominated by greater numbers of rebels. It was the only Legislature of the State known to the Union
. If its consent was not valid, no consent could be. If its consent was not valid, the Constitution as to the People of West Virginia has been so suspended by the rebellion that a most important right under it is utterly lost. It is safer, in my opinion to follow plain principles to plain conclusions than to turn aside from consequences clearly logical because not exactly agreeable to our views of expediency. (Author's italics).

And this brings me to the second question. Is the Act of admission expedient? The Act is almost universally regarded as of vital importance to their welfare by the loyal people most immediately interested, and it has received the sanction of large majorities in both Houses of Congress. These facts afford strong presumptions of expediency. It is, moreover, well known that for many years, the people of West Virginia have desired separation on good and substantial grounds; nor do I perceive any good reason to believe that consent to such separation would now be withheld by a Legislature actually elected from all the Counties of the State and untouched by rebel sympathies.

However this may be, much-very much-is due to the desires and Convictions of the loyal people of West Virginia. To them, admission is an object of intense interest; and their conviction is strongly expressed that the veto of the Act and its consequent failure would result in the profound discouragement of all loyal men and the proportionate elation and joy of every sympathizer with rebellion. Nor is it to be forgotten that such a veto will be regarded by many as an abandonment of the views which have hitherto guided the action of the Government in relation to Virginia; will operate as a sort of disavowal of the loyal Government; and may be followed by its disorganization.

No act not imperatively demanded by Constitutional duty should be performed by the Executive, if likely to be attended by consequences like these. It may be said, indeed, that the
admission of West Virginia will draw after it the necessity of admitting other States under the consent of extemporized Legislatures assuming to act for whole States, though really representing no important part of their territory. I think this necessity imaginary. There is no such Legislature, nor is there likely to be. No such Legislature, if extemporized, is likely to receive the recognition of Congress or the Executive
. (Author's italics).

The case of West Virginia will form no evil precedent. Far otherwise. It will encourage the loyal by the assurance it will give the national recognition and support; but it will inspire no hopes that the National Government will countenance needless and unreasonable attempts to break up or impair the integrity of States.
If a case parallel to that of West Virginia shall present itself, it will, doubtless, be entitled to like consideration; but the contingency of such a case is surely too remote to countervail all the considerations of expediency which sustain the Act
. My answer to both questions, therefore, is affirmative. (Author's italics).

Salmon P. Chase,
Secretary of the Treasury.

Many of the primary source archival materials, whether in collections or print versions, are presented in chronological order, regardless of the varying forms, formats, or pagination schemes of the material. Therefore, references to the dates of various events, statements, debates, or other developments chronicled in those documents usually are made in
Rogue State's
notes to the dates and document[s] related to specific activities, rather than to specific page numbers in the documents themselves.

________________________________________

1. Virginia.
Constitutional Convention, 1829-1830. Proceedings
.

2. Richard H. Owens.
The Neutrality Imperative
. Lanham, Maryland: University Press of America, 2008. The terms SQ or SQ's refer to the
status quo
and those who seek to maintain it. Common SQ characteristics include keeping the current economic, social and power structures and leadership in place. The SQ perspective [as opposed to a progressive perspective] places self-interest over community interest; values material goals over ideals; supports opposition to change and preference for the established; shows lack of or less tolerance of differences; favors the haves [themselves] over the have-nots [others]; has an aversion to taxes and tends to share or donate less in relation to wealth than progressive sorts; and a tendency to employ unilateralism and use of force in foreign affairs, as opposed to collective action and -or more peaceful strategies to achieve security for the U.S.

3. Virginia.
Constitutional Convention, 1829-1830. Proceedings
.

4. Ibid.

5. Virginia.
Reform Convention, 1850-1851. Proceedings
.

6. Ibid.

7. William Freehling.
Road to Disunion. Vol. One: Secessionists at Bay
. New York: Oxford, 1990, p. 512. [Also see
Vol. Two: Secessionists Triumphant
. New York, Oxford, 2007].

8. Virginia.
Reform Convention, 1850-1851. Proceedings
.

9. Richard O. Curry, “A Reappraisal of Statehood Politics in West Virginia.”
Journal of Southern History
. 28. 4 (1962), p. 406.

10. Henry Dering (Morgantown) to Waitman T. Willey; March 16, 1861.

11. One can make a case in the 21st century that many West Virginia Democrats are often only nominally so. Presidential voting patterns and attitudes on a number of national issues leaning strongly toward Republican, perhaps even libertarian, views, values, and votes.

12. Otis Rice and Stephen Brown.
West Virginia: A History
. Lexington: University of Kentucky Press, 1985, 1993, p. 112. Rice and Brown suggest that western Virginians believed that Breckinridge supported both the Union and the South, and thus supported him in 1860 (p. 112). Such a contention again raises the issue: Did Western Virginians truly lean to the Union, or to states' rights and the South?

13. Virginia.
Ordinance of Secession; Votes
.

14. Clarksburg [Virginia] Convention of 1861.
Resolutions
. Also, see Rice and Brown, pp. 113-117 for details regarding some of the various other gatherings in Western Virginia.

15. First Wheeling Convention.
Proceedings
.

16. Roy Zinn, DVM.
Zinn Family Chronology and Genealogy
. Tiffin, Ohio. Unpublished manuscript, 2011. According to Dr. Zinn, one of William Zinn's descendants who has studied the Zinn family intensely for decades, there was no doubt that William B. Zinn was a Union man. In fact, he was typical of many local community leaders caught up in the geographic, moral, social, and political issues and dissensions of the Civil War era in western Virginia.

William's grandfather emigrated from Germany in the 1760s. He was a farmer, ultimately owning 1,100 acres, and mill owner in Preston County, VA. Zinn was well read and especially knowledgeable in foreign affairs. He had owned about a dozen slaves but sold them at some point before the Civil War. The slaves had originally come through his wife's family (the Franklins) along with $8,000 in gold and other property.

William Zinn was sixty five years old in 1861 when he became a delegate to the first Constitutional Convention in Wheeling. He had been a member of the Virginia Legislature for eight years between 1823 and 1853, so he knew the state and the political arena well. He was a Major in the militia. Later, William Zinn served as a member of the “Restored” Virginia legislature in 1863, and in the West Virginia legislature from 1866 to1868.

17. First Wheeling Convention.
Proceedings
.

18. Ibid. Carlile ironically quoted Patrick Henry, a fervent states-righter and defender of both slavery and the socio-political status quo in the state.

19. Ibid.

20. Ibid.

21. However, a detailed study by historian Richard O. Curry,
A House Divided: A Study of Statehood Politics and the Copperhead Movement in West Virginia
(Pittsburgh: University of Pittsburgh, 1964), concluded that a sizeable minority in western Virginia voted for the Ordinance of Secession. The war that was splitting the nation also permanently divided the state of Virginia, and even caused great dissention in its western counties.

22. Virginia.
Ordinance of Secession; Votes
.

23. Ibid.

24. Ibid.

25. First Wheeling Convention.
Proceedings
.

26. First Wheeling Convention.
Delegates List
.

27. First Wheeling Convention.
Proceedings
.

28. Ibid.

29. Ibid. Most references in the documents cite the term “Reconstituted” Government of Virginia, but the term “Restored” Government of Virginia also was used now and then. hey are virtually interchangeable.

30. Ibid.

31. Ibid.

32. Ibid.

33. Ibid.

34. Ibid.

35. Ibid.

36. Reorganized Government of Virginia. General Assembly.
Proceedings
.

37. Ibid.

38. Ibid.

39. Ibid.

40. Ibid.

41. United States Senate.
Debate on the Acceptance of [WV] Senators Carlile and Willey
.

42. Reorganized Government of Virginia. General Assembly.
Proceedings
.

43. Ibid.

44. Second Wheeling Convention.
First Session. Proceedings
.

45. Ibid.

46. Ibid.

47. Ibid.

48. Ibid.

49. Ibid.

50. West Virginia
First Statehood Referendum
.

51. Ibid.

52. West Virginia. First Constitutional Convention.
Debates and Proceedings
.

53. Ibid.

54. Ibid.

55. The term “Radical Republicans” was a disparaging name directed against Republicans who demanded some punishment of the South for the war, and also required full acceptance of the 13th, 14th, and 15th Amendments by former Confederate states and citizens. The “Radical” agenda included abolition o f slavery and racial equality. Those were truly “radical” notions to Southerners and to most West Virginians.

The “Radical Republicans” also supported emergence of modern industrial-finance-capitalism in the U.S. That agenda was similar to the other “radical” [to Southerners] economic visions for America that had been espoused in the 1790's by Alexander Hamilton and the Federalists, and later under the Whig “American System” advocated by Henry Clay and John Quincy Adams. To Southern and Northern S.Q.'s [see Note 1], those were “radical” notions. But not so to millions in the North and over four million emancipated slaves.

56. West Virginia. First Constitutional Convention.
Debates and Proceedings
.

57. Ibid.

58. Ibid.

59. Reorganized Government of Virginia. General Assembly.
Proceedings
.

60. United States Senate.
Debate on the Admission of West Virginia
.

61. Ibid.

62. Ibid.

63. United States House of Representatives.
Debate on the Admission of West Virginia
.

64. See Appendix for these documents.

65. See Note 55.

66. Abraham Lincoln.
The President's Opinion on the Admission of West Virginia
.

67. Ibid.

68. United States House of Representatives.
Debate on the Admission of West Virginia
.

69. West Virginia. First Constitutional Convention.
Debates and Proceedings
.

70. Ibid.

71. Ibid.

72. United States Congress.
Congressional Recognition and Consent to the Transfer of Berkeley and Jefferson Counties to West Virginia
.

73. See Appendix for full text.

74. See Appendix for full text.

75. Chase's argument is highly inaccurate and disingenuous. Most northern political leaders abhorred the idea of five potential new states emerging from Texas. His reference to the composition of the WV legislature contradicts his contention that the Wheeling Convention represented the entire state. That the issue never was resolved by the Supreme Court may be in part related to the fact that Mr. Chase served as Chief Justice from 1864 to 1873, the time during the crucial post-war era when such a case would have most likely been presented.

The essential argument was and remains one of fair representation. Did the legislature of Virginia ever consent to the Commonwealth's division and the creation of a new state?

76. Reorganized Government of Virginia.
An Act Granting Permission for Creation of A New State;
and, Reorganized Government of Virginia.
Ordinance for the Reorganization of the State Government [of Virginia]
, 1863.