Cyclopædia of Political Science, Political Economy, and the Political History of the United States

Edited by: Lalor, John J.
(?-1899)
BIO
Display paragraphs in this book containing:
Editor/Trans.
First Pub. Date
1881
Publisher/Edition
New York: Maynard, Merrill, and Co.
Pub. Date
1899
Comments
Includes articles by Frédéric Bastiat, Gustave de Molinari, Henry George, J. B. Say, Francis A. Walker, and more.
Start PREVIOUS
1066 of 1105
NEXT End

VIRGINIA

III.293.1

VIRGINIA, one of the thirteen original states of the American Union. Its area formed part of a general grant of James I., April 10, 1606, to two companies, controlled by a general council appointed by the king, the whole grant covering the Atlantic coast from north latitude 34° to north latitude 45°. The special grant to the "London company," with which we have to do, included the mainland and islands between latitude 34° and latitude 41°, or from about Cape Fear to Long Island sound; and the special grant to the "Plymouth company" extended from latitude 38° to latitude 45°, or from the mouth of the Potomac to the northern boundary of Vermont. Between latitude 38° and latitude 41°, where the grants conflicted, neither company was to plant a colony within 100 miles of a colony previously planted by the other. Under this grant settlement was begun at Jamestown, May 13, 1607, May 23, 1609, a supplementary charter defined the limits of the colony, as stated below. March 12, 1611-12, a further charter gave power to convene a colonial assembly, or "great and general court," with power to legislate, provided the laws were not contrary to the laws and statutes of England; and under this charter the first legislative assembly in America met at Jamestown, June 30, 1619, being composed of a council named by the company, and a house of burgesses (see ASSEMBLY) elected by the towns. In 1624 the company was suppressed by a writ of quo warranto, its powers were assumed by the king, and Virginia remained a royal province until 1776. During the commonwealth period, it remained loyal to the crown, and for three years after the death of Charles I. his son was acknowledged as king of Virginia, so that at the restoration this colony claimed to be the new king's "Old Dominion." Its loyalty availed it little. A charter was refused it; the quit rents and the control of the church of England, its established church, were lavished upon court favorites; and in 1676 the tyranny of Gov. Berkeley drove the colonists into a rebellion, headed by Nathaniel Bacon, which was suppressed with vindictive punishment. "The old fool [Berkeley]," said Charles, "has taken away more lives in that naked country, than I for the murder of my father." With the exception of this episode, the colony grew quietly, but strongly, into a populous, rich, slaveholding, Episcopalian commonwealth, with a strong desire for self-government; and at the outbreak of the American revolution it was unquestionably the leading state. Its lower house was dissolved by Gov. Dunmore, May 25, 1775, while preparing a protest against the Boston port bill; but the members met the next day and inaugurated the revolution by proposing a congress. (See CONGRESS, CONTINENTAL.) In the following year, May 6, they again met as usual; but, as the governor had run away, and the regular government was suspended, they organized as a "provincial congress," and framed the first constitution of the state of Virginia.

III.293.2

—BOUNDARIES. The charter of 1609 defined the colony's limits thus: from point Comfort, all along the seacoast to the northward 200 miles, and all along the seacoast to the southward 200 miles, "and all that space and circuit of land lying from the seacoast of the precinct aforesaid, up into the land throughout from sea to sea, west and northwest." The boundary lines were evidently not to be parallel lines: one was to be a westward line, and the other northwesterly. If the new colony was to have any limits whatever on the west it would seem most natural that the northerly boundary should be the westward line, and the southerly boundary the northwestward line, to intersect it. Virginia would thus have been a comparatively small colony, of a triangular shape. But the colony, resting on the words "from sea to sea," and interpreting them to mean "from the Atlantic to the Pacific," instead of from the Atlantic around the compound boundary line to the Atlantic again, made the southern boundary the westward line, and the northern boundary the northwestward line, thus making her territory grow constantly wider as it went westward. She was compelled, indeed, to yield to the royal prerogative of taking back presents, and her 200-mile limits were interfered with on the south by the grant of Carolina (see NORTH CAROLINA), and on the north by the grant of Pennsylvania and Maryland. (See those states.) To these encroachments she submitted patiently, conscious that her charter, as she interpreted it, contained an abundant reward for her patience. A line drawn northwest from the western boundary of Maryland will show the extent of Virginia's claims to the western part of Pennsylvania, and to the whole territory northwest of the Ohio-indeed, her "northwest line" might have stretched on and included Alaska, but for the subsequent (1762) fixing of the Mississippi as the western boundary of the colonies. Her claims to the northwestern territory were finally abandoned. (See TERRITORIES.) Her Pennsylvania boundary was finally arranged by mutual consent in 1780, by continuing Mason and Dixon's line five degrees to the west, and thence due north, thus giving Virginia the "pan-handle" in the northwest. For her boundaries with North Carolina, Tennessee, Kentucky, West Virginia and Maryland, see those states.

III.293.3

—CONSTITUTIONS. 1. The provincial congress, June 12, 1776, adopted a bill of rights, which has been retained in subsequent constitutions, but modified in 1867. Its most important sections were the third, which declared the right of the people to alter, reform or abolish their government at their own wills and the fourteenth, that no government separate from or independent of the government of Virginia should be erected or established within the limits thereof. The two were in effect a declaration of independence. (See STATE SOVEREIGNTY.) June 29, the first state constitution was adopted, without a reference to popular vote. It provided for a general assembly, consisting of a senate of twenty-four members, chosen by districts, to serve four years, and a house of delegates (see ASSEMBLY), chosen by counties and towns, to serve one year, for a governor and council of eight, chosen annually by joint ballot of the two houses; and for a judiciary, to be appointed by the legislature during good behavior. This constitution remained in force for half a century, until the growth of the western part of the state, and its unfairly small representation in the legislature, compelled a general revision. 2. A new constitution was framed by a convention at Richmond, Oct. 5, 1829-Jan. 15, 1830, and ratified by a popular vote of 26,055 to 15,563. It fixed the number of the house of delegates at 134, 31 to the twenty-six counties west of the Alleghanies, 25 to the fourteen counties between the Alleghanies and the Blue Ridge, 42 to the twenty-nine counties between the Blue Ridge and tide water, and 36 to the counties, cities, towns and boroughs on tide water; and the number of the senate at 32, thirteen of the districts being west and nineteen east of the Blue Ridge. The proportional representation of the great divisions was not to be changed by the legislature. The governor was now to hold office for three years, and the judges were to be removable by a two-thirds vote of both houses. 3. A new constitution was framed by a convention at Richmond, Oct. 14, 1850-Aug. 1, 1851, and ratified by a popular vote of 67,562 to 9,938. Its principal changes were, that the governor was to be elected by the people for four years; the judiciary was to be elected by popular vote for terms of twelve and eight years, and removable by a vote of a majority of the members elected to both houses; the number of the house of delegates was fixed at 152, chosen for two years, and apportioned among the counties, and the number of senators at 50, chosen by districts for four years; and, in default of the adoption of an equitable principle of apportionment by the legislature, a very complicated scheme was drawn up for reapportionment in 1865, which the course of events overruled. The principle of an obsolete statute of 1805 in regard to slavery was thus transferred to the new constitution: "Slaves hereafter emancipated shall forfeit their freedom by remaining in the commonwealth more than twelve months after they become actually free, and shall be reduced to slavery under such regulation as may be prescribed by law"; and "The general assembly may impose such restrictions and conditions as they shall deem proper on the power of slave owners to emancipate their slaves." 4. After the separation of West Virginia (see that title), the state government which had consented to it was transferred to Alexandria, where a convention from the counties within the federal lines, Feb. 13-April 7, 1864, framed a new constitution, which was not submitted to popular vote. It abolished slavery, fixed the number of the house at not less than 80 nor more than 104, to serve two years, and the number of the senate at not less than one-fourth nor more than one-third the number of the house; and disfranchised those who had held office under the confederate government, or been members of the confederate congress or of rebellious legislatures. 5. The fifth constitution was framed by a convention at Richmond, Dec. 3, 1867-April 17, 1868. It added four new clauses to the original bill of rights, providing that the state should ever remain a member of the United States of America; that the people thereof are part of the American nation; that their paramount allegiance is due to the constitution of the United States and laws of congress passed in pursuance thereof; that slavery shall never exist in the state; and that all its citizens have equal civil and political rights and public privileges. It gave the right of suffrage to "male citizens" over twenty-one on twelve months' residence in the state; made disfranchisement a penalty for dueling; gave the veto power to the governor, and the election of judges to the legislature; and regulated the government of cities. The constitution was ratified by a popular vote of 210,585 to 9,136, July 6, 1869. At the same election the disfranchisement clauses, which had caused the long delay in ratification, and which were submitted to separate vote under an act of congress of April 10, 1869, were rejected. In 1876 an amendment was adopted requiring the payment of a capitation tax before voting, disfranchising for petit larceny, and empowering the legislature to remove dueling disabilities by a two-thirds vote. The capitation tax was subsequently abolished by another amendment.

III.293.4

—GOVERNORS. Patrick Henry, 1776-9; Thos. Jefferson, 1779-81; Thos. Nelson, 1781; Benjamin Harrison, 1781-4; Patrick Henry, 1784-6; Edmund Randolph, 1786-8; Beverley Randolph, 1788-91; Henry Lee, 1791-4; Robert Brooke, 1794-6; James Wood, 1796-9; James Monroe, 1799-1802; John Page, 1802-5; Wm. H. Cabell, 1805-8; John Tyler, 1808-11; James Monroe, 1811; George W. Smith, 1811-12; James Barbour, 1812-14; Wilson C. Nicholas, 1814-16; James P. Preston, 1816-19; Thos. Mann Randolph, 1819-22; James Pleasant, 1822-5; John Tyler, 1825-7; William B. Giles, 1827-30; John Floyd, 1830-34; Littleton W. Tazewell, 1834-6; Windham Robertson, 1836-7; David Campbell, 1837-40; Thos. W. Gilmer, 1840-41; John Rutherford, 1841-2; John M. Gregory, 1842-3; James McDowell, 1843-6; Wm. Smith, 1846-9; John B. Floyd, 1849-52; Joseph Johnson, 1852-6; Henry A. Wise, 1856-60; John Letcher, 1860-64; William Smith, 1864-5; Francis H. Pierpont, 1865-8; Henry H. Wills, 1868-70; Gilbert C. Walker, 1870-74; James L. Kemper, 1874-8; F. W. M. Holladay, 1878-82; Wm. E. Cameron, 1882-6.

III.293.5

—POLITICAL HISTORY. For the century succeeding the opening of the conflict with the mother country, 1760-1860, the whole policy of Virginia is expressed in the declaration of her bill of rights, "that no government separate from or independent of the government of Virginia should be erected or established within the limits thereof." Under the colonial system the resistance to encroachment was directed against the king's governors, and under the constitution against the federal government; and the only period during which the Virginia policy ever had full and free play was that of the confederation and the few years of loose alliance that preceded it, 1775-89. Size, population, wealth and concurrence of sentiment among leading men made Virginia the great exponent of "state sovereignty." (See that title.) For such a rôle her colonial history went far to prepare her. The character of her immigration, its sympathy in blood, breeding and prejudices with the English royalist party of 1620-80, and the final impress given to the mould by the establishment of a state church, were all calculated to make Virginians fully conscious of their own importance, and ready to maintain their individual opinions. Further, the necessarily backwoods character of Virginia life, the absence of any such object of loyalty as a personally present king, and the introduction of negro slavery, tended to exaggerate in the Virginian the personal characteristics of his English prototype, while it took away the checks which had operated upon the latter: and the English royalist was metamorphosed into the Virginia democrat. Virginia democracy was thus not based on any Calvinistic view of the universal equality of men in their infinite inferiority to their Maker; nor in any theoretical love for humanity: it was rather a general agreement by all white Virginians to recognize one another's feeling of individual importance, and to support the state government under which that feeling found the safest shelter. John Randolph's exclusive application of the expression "my country" to Virginia, only voiced the conscious or unconscious feeling of all Virginia democrats.

III.293.6

—The political history of the state until 1881 was therefore that of the democratic party. Its electoral votes and its state government were steadily of one party, and only an occasional congressman among the opposition varied the general rule. The state's ratification of the constitution in 1788 was only accomplished by a meagre majority of ten votes (see CONSTITUTION, II.); and it is safe to say that the majority was only obtained by a sense of the insecurity of Virginia's title to western lands if a general scramble for the territories should be brought on by a failure to organize national government. (See TERRITORIES.) The inauguration of the new government marked Virginia's importance. Washington's presidency was due only to himself: the positions of Jefferson and Randolph in the cabinet, and of Madison as leader in the house, were due to Virginia's leadership among the states. There was thus developed at once the seed of what soon came to be known as the "Virginia influence," hard to define exactly, and yet very apparent in the politics of the time. Throughout the controlling tide-water counties of the state, where genealogy was a science held in the highest esteem, where immigration had almost ceased to bring new and confusing strains of blood into the established stocks, and where exhaustion of tobacco lands had not yet begun to banish the old families, nearly every leading man was related more or less distantly to most of his competitors; the different congeries of families were just far enough removed to deaden any ambitious struggles for clan supremacy; the opinions of Jefferson, Madison, Monroe, Page, Giles, Bland, Taylor, Tazewell, the Nicholases, the Randolphs, and other democratic leaders, came to subordinate leaders with the force of family as well as political sympathy; and the whole formed the shadowy but powerful "Virginia influence," which made or destroyed presidents until 1825. From the beginning of Hamilton's centralizing policy (see FEDERAL PARTY, I.), the Virginia influence stood stiffly against it, and thus became the corner-stone of the new democratic party. From Virginia proceeded most of the efforts which gradually gave the new party control of the south and a "fighting chance" in the middle states. When federalist partisanship in 1798 threatened what Hamilton considered "a tyranny," the half-uttered counter-threat of forcible resistance came from Virginia and her daughter, Kentucky. (See KENTUCKY RESOLUTIONS.) When the federal party was finally overthrown, in 1800-1, Virginia and New York took the same places in the dominant democratic party that Virginia and Massachusetts had held in the revolutionary struggle. The former state was still able, from its pre-eminence in the country and party, to name the president, while the vice-president was generally given to the latter. The "Old Dominion" of colonial times thus became the "Mother of Presidents" under the constitution.

III.293.7

—The Virginia influence was not altogether undisputed, even in its own state. The greatest of Virginians, Washington, was a federalist, and so were John Marshall, Charles Lee, Henry Lee, and (after parties had fairly developed) Patrick Henry. The general prevalence of the Virginia influence in national affairs after 1800 soon wiped out the last trace of federalism in Virginia, but at the same time it prepared the way for a Virginia schism. As the leaders, Jefferson and Madison, became more absorbed in national politics, more dependent on northern democrats, and more neglectful of their state, an ultra Virginian faction, "republicans of the old school," or "quids," appeared, headed by John Randolph, and including also Tazewell and John Taylor. Their public defection took place in March, 1806, and from that time they spared no effort to secure the presidency in 1809 for Monroe, a candidate of far less ability than Madison, but recommended by his long absence from national politics and his supposed devotion to his state. But the defection was a failure. In January, 1808, the Virginia legislature nominated Madison for the presidency, and the nomination was repeated, two days afterward, by the congressional caucus. (See CAUCUS, CONGRESSIONAL.) A caucus of Monroe members of the legislature nominated him, and the federalists supported him in the state; but the Monroe ticket was badly defeated in Virginia, and unheard of elsewhere. The Virginia influence was thus still triumphant: Monroe himself submitted in 1811 by entering the cabinet of Madison; and his former supporters either followed him, or kept up a filibustering opposition to the war of 1812.

III.293.8

—But the general spread of democratic ideas, and the decrease of the state's comparative importance, had already doomed the influence of Virginia. In 1817 it was hardly able to nominate Monroe for the presidency, and its lame success in that year, as well as in 1821, was due mainly to the influence of tradition upon the new men and new states in politics. Republics are not always ungrateful, and it was not until the last Virginia leader had been duly honored that the field was field to be fairly open for others. From that time Virginia was no longer to be the "Mother of Presidents." With one accidental exception, the sceptre was to be transferred to other states. In 1790 she was the first of the states in population: in 1830 she was third, New York and Pennsylvania having outstripped her. Changes had also been taking place within the state. The western part of the state (now West Virginia) had more than three times as much population in 1830 as in 1790, while the eastern part of the state had increased very little; and yet the apportionment of representation remained fixed as in 1776. The crying need of a reform in this respect brought about the convention of 1829, one of the most distinguished assemblages of able men that ever met in any state. The desire of each section to be well represented sent to the convention Madison, Monroe, Marshall, John Randolph, Giles, Mercer, Tazewell, John Taylor, Garnett, Leigh, and all the ablest men of the state. The object of the delegates of the western and middle sections was to base representation on white population only for both houses; the eastern delegates wished for the "federal basis," including three-fifths of the slaves. The former plan, as in South Carolina (see that state) would have given the taxing power to the western and middle sections, while the east held the taxable property. At first the convention inclined toward compromising by giving a white basis of representation to the house, and a federal basis to the senate; but in the end the eastern delegates succeeded in establishing the artificial apportionment already detailed, which deprived their section of comparatively little political power. Slavery had been the secret of the difficulty. East and west of the Blue Ridge the white population was not far from equal; but the latter section had comparatively few negroes, while the blacks outnumbered the whites in the former, and three-fifths of them counted under the federal basis, which governed quite closely the apportionment as it was settled. The constitution had hardly been adopted when Virginia was startled by an unsuccessful negro insurrection in Southamption county, near Norfolk, in August, 1831, under the lead of one Nat Turner. When the legislature met, the western delegates at once took the insurrection as a text, and an animated debate followed for several weeks, in which every plan for abolition was proposed and advocated. At last this extraordinary discussion, the only one of its kind ever held in a southern legislature before 1865, was stifled, and never revived—Until about 1835 democratic control of the state was hardly disputed: the popular vote for Jackson in 1832 was 75 per cent. of the total vote. During Jackson's second term the whig party of the state was developed, and, though it never fully controlled the state, it was able to give its opponent battle on even terms for nearly twenty years. It contested every county of the state: in the eastern part it gained votes through the desire of many slave-holders for a system of internal improvements which should offset the exhaustion of land, and check emigration; in the western and middle sections it was aided to some extent by the traditional opposition to the usually democratic tidewater counties; and the nullification element, John Tyler being its best known exponent, gave it some assistance. At first it was strong enough to elect Tyler and B. W. Leigh to the United States senate, and to make Gilmer governor; and in 1840 its presidential electors were defeated by only 1,392 votes out of 86,394. Thereafter it remained an opposition party, with about 47 per cent. of the total vote. Its best known leaders were Tyler, Leigh, John Minor Botts, Preston, Stuart and Faulkner, those of the democrats being W. C. Rives, Dromgoole, Mason, Hunter, Bocock, Letcher and Wise. After 1849 the whig vote decreased, and after 1853 most of its former leaders became democrats. But some, not choosing to take that course, adopted the "know-nothing" organization (see AMERICAN PARTY), and contested the state with about the former whig vote. The proportionate popular vote may be seen by the results of the elections for governor: (1855) Henry A. Wise, democrat, 83,424, Thos. S. Flournoy, "American," 73,244; (1859) John Letcher, democrat, 77,112, Wm. L. Goggin, "American," 71,543. In spite of the large minority vote, the democrats continued to control the legislature and all but one or two of the congressmen.

III.293.9

—As the sectional disputes of 1850-60 began to verge evidently toward war, Virginia strove hardest to avert that calamity. (See BORDER STATES) The struggle for the state's electoral vote in 1860 was won by the old whig element (see CONSTITUTIONAL UNION PARTY), the popular vote standing 74,681 for Bell, 74,323 for Breckinridge, 16,290 for Douglas, and 1,929 (in western Virginia) for Lincoln. The special session of the legislature in January, 1831, called a peace convention of all the states (see CONGRESS, PEACE); appointed commissioners to ask the president of the United States and the governor of South Carolina to keep the peace for sixty days; and, in calling a state convention, provided that its action should be submitted to the people for ratification or rejection. These pacific measures were due solely to the general dislike of secession by the people, who knew that in case of war their state must be the battle ground; and the real feeling of the state politicians was better shown by the passage of numerous resolutions of a covertly warlike nature—appropriating money to arm the state, and threatening forcible resistance to any attempt by the federal government to coerce any seceding state. The convention met Feb. 13, and for two months debated the various propositions offered. It was so divided that any resolution asserting the abstract right of secession was sure of a small majority in favor of it, while any resolution looking to the practical exercise of the right was equally sure of a slight majority against it. April 17, the deliberations were brought to a crisis by President Lincoln's call for troops. (See INSURRECTION.) Under the excitement of the moment, and the stimulus of still greater mob excitement in Richmond, an ordinance of secession was passed, by a vote of 88 to 55, to take effect when ratified by the people, May 23. But the new order of Virginia politicians, unsafe guides in any such crisis, had no great confidence in the popular vote, and proceeded in a course which no one has ever attempted to defend on any constitutional theory. The convention, April 25, ratified the constitution of the confederate states, and, by its commissioners and A. H. Stephens, commissioner from the confederate states, formed a "temporary convention," placing the state's whole military force under the president of the confederate states. Both measures were to be void if the popular vote in May should be against secession; but the irruption of confederate troops made the election a farce. In this lawless fashion the secession of Virginia was accomplished. It was followed by a counter-revolution, which permanently deprived the state of its western section. (See WEST VIRGINIA.) When West Virginia had been admitted as a state, its original revolutionary government was transferred to Alexandria, where it remained until the close of the war, claiming to be the government of Virginia, but receiving obedience only from the counties within the federal lines.

III.293.10

—Throughout the war, Richmond was the capital of both the state and the confederacy, and all the political feeling of the state was concentrated upon the prosecution of the war, with very little friction between the two authorities. In May, 1865, President Johnson refused to recognize Gov. Smith, and the Pierpoint administration took its place without dispute, and held it for two years. During this time the state's idea of reconstruction was fully carried out; the constitution of 1864, with its prohibition of slavery, was accepted, but the test oath was abolished, the proposed amendment to the constitution of the United States was voted down, and stringent vagrant acts were passed for the control of the freedmen. In March, 1867, the state government came under the reconstruction laws. (See RECONSTRUCTION.) The reconstruction convention, in framing a new constitution, disfranchised all persons who had held office of even the lowest grades under the state or confederacy until 1865, and enforced the disfranchisement by providing for a stringent test oath and registry law. In a large part of the state it would thus have been impossible to find qualified office-holders, and no attempt was made to put the constitution to vote until a new act of congress allowed a separate vote on the objectionable clauses. They were rejected, and the state was readmitted, Jan. 26, 1870.

III.293.11

—For nearly ten years the state remained democratic in all elections, the dominant party taking the name "conservative." The republican vote was at first large, but was continually in the minority, except in the election of four of the nine congressmen. In 1874 the democrats secured eight of the nine congressmen, and thereafter the republican vote was of little importance. The most troublesome problem for the successive legislatures was that of the state debt. It amounted, Jan. 1, 1871, to $47,390,840.93, of which about $37,200,000 was for debt contracted before April, 1861, and for lapsed interest thereon. March 30, 1871, a bill was passed to fund two-thirds of this amount (leaving one-third as the proportion of West Virginia) into bonds whose coupons should be receivable for state taxes. The popular objections to this seem to have been mainly as follows: that the receipts from state taxation, at the rate of fifty cents on $100, were regularly about $2,500,000 per annum; that the expenses of government and public schools were about $1,600,000; that the interest on the funded debt would be about $1,800,000; and that the state was absolutely unable to increase the rate of taxation so as to make up the deficit. The whole question evidently hinges on this last assertion, whose truth can not well be proved or disproved: it is only certain that no such assertion would have been made by the ancient commonwealth. The passage of the funding bill at once went into politics, and the next legislature, March 7, 1872, repealed the "tax coupon" feature of the law. But, before the repeal, about $17,000,000 had been funded in tax coupon bonds, and the state court of appeals decided that a repeal as to them would be a breach of contract and unconstitutional. Still, the legislature was unable or unwilling to lay taxes sufficient to pay the interest, and the constant receipt of coupons for taxes kept the treasury in a state of chronic bankruptcy. In 1873 an act was passed to pay one-third of the interest, after government expenses should have been paid—a proviso which effectually nullified the law. In 1877 a final effort was made to increase revenue by a liquor law (the Moffett act), which compelled liquor sellers to register sales by means of a mechanical register upon the counter: but this only produced about $500,000 annually, insufficient to make up the deficit. In March, 1878, a bill was passed offering to the bondholders refunding bonds with interest at 3 per cent. for eighteen years, and 4 per cent. for thirty-two years thereafter. The probability of a settlement on some such basis crystallized the opposition into a "readjuster" party, led by William Mahone. It made some little effort in the election of 1878, though Gov. Holliday, the debt-paying candidate, was elected by 101,940 out of a total vote of 106,329. In the following February the "readjuster movement" took complete shape, as the final "McCulloch bill" was being perfected. This act, passed March 28, 1879, and accepted by the bondholders, provided for forty-year refunding bonds, with interest at 3 per cent. for ten years, 4 per cent. for twenty years, and 5 per cent for ten years, coupons receivable for taxes. The interest would thus have been about $900,000 annually for ten years, and there would have been little danger of a deficit. But the readjusters, in addition to the standing claim of inability to levy a higher rate of taxation than fifty cents on $100, denounced the tax coupon feature of the act as "against public policy, and degrading to the state and people." On this issue they obtained a popular majority in the election of November, 1879; and by a coalition of their forty delegates with the seventeen republican members they obtained a majority in the lower house of the legislature. They have since controlled the state, though the "debt-paying" electoral ticket, recognized by the national democratic committee, was successful in the presidential election of 1880. In December, 1879, Mahone was elected United States senator, and when his term began, in March, 1881, he at once ranged himself with the republicans, declaring that he had been elected as a readjuster, not as a democrat. Since that time, the fusion of the readjusters and republicans has been complete, and has controlled the state. In November, 1881, it elected Governor Cameron by a vote of 111,473 to 99,757 for the "funder" candidate, Daniel, and obtained a majority in both branches of the legislature. Riddleberger, who was the framer of the bill passed in 1873, was sent to the United States senate for the term beginning in 1883. But the defection of a few of their number during the session prevented the readjusters from carrying out their debt programme, and the future of the party is very uncertain. Its leaders are supported by the national administration, which is republican, and yet the fusion between readjusters and republicans has never been more than a mechanical mixture, and there are many signs of its breaking asunder. While it lasts it at least secures the free exercise of the right of suffrage to the negro voters of the state.

III.293.12

—In addition to the names of Jefferson, Madison, Marshall, Monroe, John Randolph, Tyler, Wirt and Washington (see those names), the following have been among the more prominent of the state's political leaders: William S. Archer, whig congressman 1820-35, and United States senator 1841-7; Philip P. Barbour, democratic congressman 1814-25 and 1827-30, and supreme court justice 1836-41; Theodorick Bland, anti-federal delegate to congress 1780-83, and congressman 1789-90; Thomas S. Bocock, democratic congressman 1847-61, confederate congressman and speaker of the house 1862-5; Alexander R. Boteler, whig and "American" congressman 1859-61, confederate congressman 1862-4; John Minor Botts, whig congressman 1830-43 and 1847-9, and an open opponent of secession throughout the rebellion; James Breckinridge, federalist congressman 1809-17; Matthew Clay, democratic congressman 1797-1815; George C. Dromgoole, democratic congressman 1835-41 and 1843-7; John W. Eppes, democratic congressman 1803-11 and 1813-15, and United States senator 1817-19; Charles J. Faulkner, whig and democratic congressman 1851-9, and minister to France 1859-61 (see WEST VIRGINIA); John Floyd, democratic congressman 1817-29, governor 1830-34, and a leading nullificationist; John B. Floyd (son of the preceding), governor 1849-52, secretary of war under Buchanan, and brigadier general in the confederate army; William B. Giles, democratic congressman 1790-99 and 1801-3, United States senator 1804-15, and governor 1827-30; Thomas W. Gilmer, governor 1840-41, congressman 1841-4 ("Tylerized" whig, afterward a democrat), and secretary of the navy under Tyler; Wm. L. Goggin, whig congressman 1839-43, 1844-5, and 1847-9; John Goode, confederate congressman 1862-5; democratic congressman 1875-81; Benjamin Harrison (father of Pres. Harrison), delegate to congress 1774-8, and governor 1782-4; Patrick Henry, the state's popular leader in the revolution, delegate to congress 1774-6, governor 1776-9 and 1784-6, leader of the antifederalists in the Virginia convention of 1788 (see CONSTITUTION, II.), and afterward a federalist; Robert M. T. Hunter, democratic congressman 1837-43 and 1845-7, United States senator 1847-61, confederate senator 1862 (see CONFEDERATE STATES); Eppa Hunton, confederate brigadier general, democratic congressman 1873-9 (see ELECTORAL COMMISSION); Arthur Lee, congressional commissioner to France and Spain 1776-80, and delegate to congress 1782-5; Henry Lee, a cavalry officer in the revolution, delegate to congress in 1786, federalist governor 1792-5, and congressman 1799-1801; Richard Henry Lee, delegate to congress (see DECLARATION OF INDEPENDENCE) 1774-80 and 1784-7, and United States senator 1789-92; Benjamin Watkins Leigh, whig United States senator 1834-6, then resigning rather than obey "instructions" from the legislature; William Mahone, confederate major general, organizer of the "readjuster" party, and United States senator 1881-7; George Mason, a revolutionary and anti-federal leader (see CONSTITUTION, II.); James M. Mason, democratic congressman 1837-9, United States senator 1847-61, and confederate commissioner to Great Britain; John Y. Mason, democratic congressman 1831-7, secretary of the navy under Tyler and Polk 1844-9, and minister to Great Britain 1854-9; Charles F. Mercer, democratic congressman 1817-39; Wilson C. Nicholas, democratic United States senator 1800-4, congressman 1807-9, and governor 1814-16; Edmund Pendleton, delegate to congress 1774-5 and president of the Virginia convention of 1788; William B. Preston, whig congressman 1847-9, secretary of the navy under Taylor, confederate senator in 1862; Edmund Randolph, delegate to congress 1779-82, governor 1786-8 (see CONVENTION of 1787; CONSTITUTION, II.), attorney general and secretary of state under Washington, who requested him to resign in 1795 for official misconduct; Peyton Randolph, delegate to congress and president of that body 1774-5; Thomas Mann Randolph, democratic congressman 1803-7, and governor 1819-22; William C. Rives, democratic congressman 1823-9, minister to France 1829-32 and 1849-53. United States senator 1833-4 and 1836-45, and confederate congressman 1861-4; James A. Seddon, democratic congressman 1845-7 and 1849-51 (see CONFEDERATE STATES); Andrew Stevenson, democratic congressman 1823-34, speaker of the house 1827-34, and minister to Great Britain 1836-41; Alexander H. H. Stuart, whig congressman 1841-3, secretary of the interior under Fillmore; John Taylor, democratic United States senator 1792-4, and 1803, and 1822-4 (see authorities under CONSTITUTION, IV. c); Littleton W. Tazewell, democratic congressman 1800-1, and United states senator 1824-32; Abel P. Upshur, state judge 1826-41, and secretary of the navy and of state under Tyler; George Tucker, democratic congressman 1819-25, professor of political economy in the state university 1825-45, and a standard historian; Henry St. George Tucker, democratic congressman 1815-19, thereafter chancellor of the Winchester district, president of the court of appeals, and professor of law in the university until 1845; John Randolph Tucker, state attorney general 1857-65, and democratic congressman 1875-83; and Henry A. Wise, democratic congressman 1833-44, minister to Brazil 1844-7, governor 1856-60, and confederate brigadier general.

III.293.13

—See 2 Poore's Federal and State Constitutions; 2 Hough's American Constitutions; Neill's History of the Virginia Company (1869); H. B. Adams' Influence of Maryland (boundary of Virginia); Stith's Early Settlement of Virginia (1747); De Haas' Early Settlement of Virginia; 1 Force's Tracts (Bacon's rebellion); 3 Sparks' American Biography, 2d series (Life of Bacon); C. Campbell's [Early] History of Virginia; Beverley's History of Virginia (to 1706); Keith's History of Virginia (1738); Burk's History of Virginia (continued by Jones and Girardin to 1781); J. W. Campbell's History of Virginia (to 1781); Jefferson's Notes on Virginia; Howe's Historical Collections of Virginia; Meade's Old Churches and Families of Virginia (1857); Grigsby's Convention of 1776; Debates and Proceedings of Conventions (1788, 1829-30, 1850, and 1867); Nicolson's Debates in the Virginia Legislature (1798); Dew's Review of Debates in Virginia Legislature of 1831-2; Foote's Historical and Biographical Sketches of Virginia; Virginia Historical Register (1848-53); Howison's History of Virginia (to 1847); Carpenter's History of Virginia (to 1852); Dabney's Defense of Virginia; Botts' History of the Great Rebellion; Virginia: A. Geographical and Political Summary (1876); Appleton's Annual Cyclopœdia (1861-81).

ALEXANDER JOHNSTON.

Start PREVIOUS
1066 of 1105
NEXT End

Return to top