National Republican., 1884-06-19


not comply with tho spirit OF the constitu-
tion. IL tho remaining portions Of Virginia
are undor duress while this consent Is given,
IL Is more mookery of the constitution" !"
Mr.. Brown, of Virginia, from that part wh
was to bo included in tho now state, corrected
Mr. Dawes, but tho latter maintained that
while q member Of tho legislature Twas
picked up In Fairfax, and two or three gem
tlomen In other parts of tho state, they
protested themselves that they did not pro-
tend to represent tho counties from which
they hailed"
Mr. Thaddeus Stevens said he did not
desire to bo understood as Sharing tho delu =
sion that we are admitting West Virginia in
pursuance of any provision of the constitu-
tion." He could find no provision Justify
ing IT, and tho argument in favor of it
originates with those who either honestly
entertain an erroneous opinion, or who desire
TO Justify by forced construction m act
which they have predetermined to do" lie
maintained that It was "but mockory to
say that the legislature Of Virginia has ever
consented to the division. Only two hum
dred thousand out of q million and q
quarter of people have participated in tho
proceedings" He contended that "tho state
of Virginia has regular organization, and
by largo majority Of tho people IL has
changed its relations to the federal govern =
ment." lilo knew that this was treason in
iuuiNluuhlS WuO pdTLlClpaLcu III Dup
so far as the state was concerned, IL was q
valid act. Our government. he argued, docs
not act upon state. The state as sepa-
rate distinct body, is tho state Of a majority
of tho people of Virginia, whether rebel
or loyal, whether convict or free mon. The
majority Of the people of Virginia is the
state of Virginia, although individuals have
committed treason" "Gov. Pierpont," con-
tinued Mr.. Stevens, "is an excellent man, and
l wish he were the governor elected by the
people Of Virginia. But according TO my
principles operating at the present time can
vote for the admission of West Virginia
without any compunctions of Conscience
only with some doubt about the policy of It..
None of the states now in rebellion are enti-
tied to the protection of tho constitution.
Those proceedings nre in virtue of the laws
Of war. We may admit West Virginia as q
now state, not by virtue of any provision OF
the constitution, but under our absolute
power which tho laws Of war give us in the
circumstances in which we are placed.
shall vote for this bill upon that theory and
upon that alone. / will not stultify myself
by supposing that we have any warrant in
the constitution for this proceeding"
Mr.. Bingham, of Ohio, made an able argu-
ment principally devoted to rebutting the
somewhat mischevious ground assumed by
MIR. Stevens. He affirmed that ''the minority
of the people of the state cannot bo deprived
of their right because tho majority have
committed treason" He argued that the
majority Of the people Of Virginia having
sbecome rebels, tho state was in the hands OF
the loyal minority, who in that event had a
right to administer the laws, maintain the
authority of the state government
and elect state legislature aud q
governor, through whom they might
call upon the federal government fol
protection against domestic violence, accord
ing TO the express guarantee of the constitu-
tion. "To deny this proposition" continued
Nr. Bingham, "is to say that whom the
majority in any state revolt against the laws
the state government can never be re.
organized nor tho rights of q minority pro
tected SO long as tho majority are in revolt
He contended that the doctrine no advocated
was not n now one; that it was rs old as the
constitution, and he called attention to the
remarkable letter of "The Federalist," ad.
dressed by Mr.. Madison to tho American
people in which "he who Is called the author
of tho constitution" asked: "Why may moi
Illicit combinations for purposes of violence
be formed as we'll by q majority of a state aI
by majority of county or district of tn,
samo state? And If the authority of the statt
ought in the latter case to protect the loca
magstracy, ought not tho federal authority
il ity p" farmer case to suOH"fi tho to
Mr.. Segar, who represented the district in
cluding Fortress Monroe, pleaded very earn
estly against the ACKNOWLEDGMENT of his state
and he argued, as Mr.. Powell had argued il
the senate, that there was no evidence tina
q majority Of the people within the counties
which were to compose the new state hat
ever given their assent to its formation
The ordinary vote of those counties, he said
was $4,000, while on tho new state question
the entire vote cast was only 10000
He named ten counties included in the new
state organization in which not o single vot,
had been cast on either side of tho question
at the special election. Though loyal to th,
union and grioving over tho rebellious cours,
of Virginia, he begged that this humiliation
might be spared her. Let there not be tive
Virginias; let US remain one and united. Dc
not break up tho rich cluster of glorious
memories and associations which gather over
tho name and the history of this ancient ant
once glorious commonwealth"
On the passage of tho bill tho ayes were
96 and the noes were 55, The ayes were
wholly from tho republican party, though
several prominent republicans opposed the
measure. Almost the entire Massachusetts
delegation voted in tho negative, as did also
Mr. Roscoe Conkling, Mr. Conway, of Kansas
and Mr.. Francis Thomas, of Maryland. The
wide difference of opinion concerning thii
act was not unnatural. But the cause of the
union was aided by the addition of another
loyal common wealth, and substantial justice
was done to tho brave people of the new state
who by their loyalty had earned the right tC
be freed from tho domination which had
fretted them and from the association which
was uncongenial to them.
To the old state of Virginia tho blow was
heavy one. In the years following the wa
it added seriously to her financial embsrrass
ment, and IL has in many ways obstructed hel
prosperity. As punitive measure, for tht
Christening of Virginia, 1t cannot be defended
Assuredly there was no ground for distressing
Virginia by penal enactments that did no
apply equally to every other state of the
confederacy. Common justice revolts a
the selection of one man for punishment
from eleven who have all been guilty
of tho same oifense. II punishment
had been designed there was equa
reason for stripping Texas of her vast domain
and for withdrawing tho numerous lanC
grants which had been generously made by
the national government to many of the state
in rebellion. But Texas was allowed t
emerge from the contest without the forfeit
ure of an acre, and congress, SO far from
withdrawing the land grants by which othel
southern Btates were to be enriched, TOOK
pains to renew them in the years succeeding
tho war. Tho autonomy of Virginia alon,
was disturbed. Upon Virginia alone fell tn,
penalty which, If duo to any one, was due tC
all
Another consideration is OF great weight
An innocent third party was involved, Vir
ginia owed q large debt, held in great part by
loyal citizens of the north and by subjects oil
foreign countries. Tho burden was already
as heavy us she could bear in her entirety
and dismemberment so crippled her that she
at,Il .,nt,, ln,. oh nln T.,sA 80