The Valley Virginian. [volume] (Staunton, Va.) 1865-1895, 1884-07-03
No. IA

which they hailed.n:
Mr.. Thaddeus Stevens said he did not
9 desire to be understood as ''sharing the de.
D fusion that we are admitting West Vir.
: glnia In pursuance of any provision of the
! constitution" He could find no provis-
Ion Justlfylng 1T, and the argument in
favor OF it originates with those who
either honestly entertain an erroneous
: opinion, or who desire to justify by a
: forced construction an act which they
have predetermined to dO.n He main
7 tanned that it was but a mOckery to say
! that the legislature of Virginia has ever
{ consented to the division. Only two hun
: dred thousand out of million and quar-.
} ter OF people have participated in the pro.
ceedlngs." He contended that 1.-THE state
OF Virginia has regular organization, and
: by large majority of the people it has
! changed its relations to the federal gov
} eminent" He knew that this was trea-
! son IN the individuals who participated in
, it but so far as the state was concerned,
, 1t was valid act. Our government, he
argued, ''d0eS not act upon state, The
state, as separate distinct body, is the
! state OF majority of the people of Vir-
!, ginia, whether rebel or loyal, whether con-
vict or free man. The majority of the
people of Virginia is the state of Virginia,
although individuals have committed
treason" 'Gov. Pierpont," continued
Mr.. Stevens, lis an excellent man, and /
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 Vir-
g1nia without computations Of conscience
I-only with some doubt about the policy
OF 1t. None Of the states now in rebellion
are entitled to the protection of the con-
Stltutlon. These proceedings are in vir-
tue OF the laws of war. We may admit
West Virginia as a new state, not by vir-
tue OF any provision of the constitution,
but under our absolute power which the
laws of war give us in the circumstances
| in which we are placed. shallVote for this
bill upon that theory, and upon that alone.
l will not Stultify myself by SuppOSing that
we have any warrant in the constitution
for this proceeding"
Mr.. Bingham, of Ohio, made an able
argument principally devoted to rebutting
the somewhat mischievous ground assum-
| ed by Mr.. Stevens. He affirmed that ssthe
minority of thepeople of the state cannot be
| deprived of their right because the major
| lty have committed treason" He argued
that the majority of the people of Vir-
ginia having become rebels, the state was
| in the hands of the loyal minority, who in
| that event had right to administer the
| laws, maintain the authority of the state
government, and elect a state legislature
and governor, through whom they might
call upon the federal government for pro-
lection against domestic violence, accord
ing to the express guarantee of the consti-
tuition. ITO deny this proposition, con-
tlnued Mr.. Bingham, lis to say that when
the majority in any state revolt against
the laws, the state government can never
| be reOrganized nor the rights of minor
| ity protected so long as the majority are
in revolt" He commended that the doc
| trine he advocated was not new one;
| that it was as old as the constitution, and
he called attention to the remarkable let
| ter of 1.-THE Federalist," addressed by Mr..
| Madison to the American. people in which
| ''he who is called the author Of the eonsti-
| tuition" asked ''Why may not Illicit com
| blnatiOnS for purposes of violence be
| formed as well by a majority of state as
| by majority Of a county or a district of
| the same state? And if the authority of
state ought in the latter case to protect
the local magistracy, ought not the federal
authority in the former case to support
the state authority ?"
Mr.. Segar, who represented the district
| including Fortress Monroe, pleaded very
| earnestly against the ACKNOWLEDGMENT of
| his state, and he urged, as Mr.. Powell had
argued in the senate, that there was no
evidence that majority of the people
within the counties which were to COM
pose the new state had ever given their
| assent to its formation. The ordinary
vote of these counties, he said, was As, 900,
while on the new state question the entire
vote cast was only $4,000. He named ten
counties included in the new state organi-
zation in which not a single vote had been
| cast on either side of the question at the
special election. Though loyal to the
| union and grieving over the rsbelliOus
| course Of Virginia, he begged that this
humiliation might be spared her. "Let
there not be two Virginias let US remain
| one and united. Do not break up the rich
cluster of glorious memories and associa-
tions which gather over the name and the
| history Of this ancient and once glorious
| commonwealth.
On the passage of the bill the ayes were
VI and the noes were SIS. The ayes were
wholly from the republican party, though
several prominent republicans opposed the
measure. Almost the entire Massachu-
setts delegation voted in the negative, as
did also Mr.. Roscoe Conkling, Mr.. Con-
way of Kansas, and Mr.. Francis Thomas
of Maryland. The wide difference of opin-
ion concerning this act was not unnatural.
But the cause of the union was aided by
the addition of another loyal common
l
to the brave people of the new state who
by their loyalty had earned the right to be
freed from the domination which had
fretted them and from the association
winch was uncOngenial to them.
| To the old state of Virginia the blow
was a heavy one. In the years following
the war it added seriously to her financial
embarrassment, and it has in many ways
INSTRUCTED her prosperity. AS punitive
measure, for the Christening of Virginia,
1t cannot be defended. Assuredly there
was no ground for distressing Virginia
by penal enactments that did not apply
equally to every other state of the confed-
eracy. Common Justice reVoltS at the
selection of one man for punishment from
eleven who have all been guilty, of the
same offenSe. If punishment had been
designed there was equal reason for strip
ping Texas of her vast domain and for
withdrawing the numerous land. grants
Which had been generously made by the
national government to many of the States
in rebellion. But Texas was allowed to
emerge from the contest without the for
felture OF an acre, and congress, so far
from withdrawing the land grants by
which other southern states were to be
enriched, took pains to renew them in the
years succeeding the war. The autonomy
OF Virginia alone was disturbed. Upon
Virginia alone fell the penalty which,
it due to any one, was due to all.
Another consideration is of great weight.
An innocent third party was involved.
Virginia owed a large debt, held in great
part by lowal citizens of the north and by
subjects of foreign countries. The bur
den was already as heavy as she could
bear in her entirety, and ACKNOWLEDGMENT
so crippled her that she could not meet her
obligations. The United States might
we'll have relieved Virginia and have done
justice to her creditors by making an al
lowance for the division Of her territory.
Regarding her only as entitled to the
rights of public enemy as long as she
warred upon the union, we may confident
ly maintain that she is entitled at least to
as just and magnanimous treatment as the
national government extends to foreign
foe. In our war with Mexico it became
our interest to acquire a large part of the
territory owned by that republic. We had
conquered her armies and were In possess
sion of her capital. She was helpless in
our hands. But the high sense Of justice
which has always distinguished the United
States in her public policies would not
permit the despoilment OF Mexico. We