University of Virginia Library

IV. PART IV.

CHAPTER VI.

In the progress of this work, we have kept steadily
in view the design of presenting Virginia
alone to the thoughts of the reader. Now that she
has become united with the General Government,
it will be more difficult to follow her fortunes as a
state with distinctness, but this very difficulty will
make the task more important. Intimately connected
as she was with her sisters, she yet retained
her identity, and continued in her new relations,

to act out the same principles that had been announced
by her statesmen early in the Revolution.
Whenever her course was coincident with that of
the Federal Government, the history, of the two
may be considered as so interwoven, that no attempt
should be made to separate them. But this
was not always the case. There were to be times
of conflict, verging even to dissolution. Therefore
our office in continuing the history of the state, will
be to tell, not merely of her internal interests and
changes, but of the seasons when she was obliged
to reassert her sovereignty, and remind the Congress
that their powers were limited. In these aspects,
she will still appear in bold relief.

The opening events, under which the new government
commenced its career, could not but be
interesting to Virginia. She saw, with pride, her
best and greatest son raised to the head of the
Union, by the vote of his country, and in the first
years of his administration, several Virginians of
eminent talents, were successively assigned to offices
of honour and responsibility. Neither could
she be indifferent to the change which stilled discord,
restored public credit, and raised America to
her proper dignity in the eyes of the world.

(1792.) Among the earliest acts of the Government,
was the admission of Kentucky as a state, to
the privileges of the Union. She was the daughter
of Virginia. We have already noted her birth and
infancy. As she budded into girlhood, her mother
took special delight in looking upon her charms,
and developing them to greatest advantage. Unlike

the jealous matrons of artificial society, Virginia
never sought to keep back her fair child for fear
she should eclipse her in beauty. Whether she
was too proudly conscious of her own attractions to
shrink from comparison, or too generous even to
think of competition, we do not know, but it is certain
that she introduced Kentucky to her friends of
the Union, while the daughter was yet very young.
In 1785, the Legislature passed an act declaring
on what terms, and in what mode, the "District"
might be erected into a state.[1] In 1788, another
act was passed on the subject, but it having been
found that its provisions were incompatible with
the real views of Virginia, and injurious to the district,
a final bill became law on the 18th December,
1789.[2] This gave to the free male inhabitants of
Kentucky, who were over twenty-one years of age,
a right to elect from their respective counties, members,
to meet in a convention at Danville, and decide
upon the terms offered by Virginia. They
were, in substance, that the boundaries between
the states should remain as before; that the new
state should take upon herself a due proportion of
the public debt, and the payment of sums expended
for her defence against the Indians; that private
rights and interest in lands should be secured;
that the navigation of the river Ohio should be free
to all the citizens of the Union, and that the authority
and jurisdiction of Virginia might be determined
for ever, at any time subsequent to the 1st
November, 1791, as to the Convention might appear
expedient. Under these arrangements, Kentucky
gradually assumed all the incidents of a
sovereign state, and in 1792, she was admitted to
the Federal Union.

In the same year we note, as a fact illustrating
the manners and spirit of the times, a petition to
the Assembly from sundry societies of Quakers
through the state. It seems that for many sessions
past, the House of Delegates had adopted the
praiseworthy practice of having a chaplain to conduct
morning prayers, and invoke Divine favours
in behalf of their proceedings. It is hard to conceive
a valid argument against this practice. It
infringed not religious liberty, for each member
voted for whom he pleased; and the duties of the
minister were too humble, too purely spiritual, to
gratify a worldly ambition. But the Quakers protested
against this rule, and urged its repeal;[3] at
the same time demanding full freedom in religion,
they asked that they might not be compelled to
take off their hats before men in authority! How
far these petitions immediately acted we do not
know, but it is certain that for nearly half a century,
the Legislature of Virginia have discarded a
chaplain, and that Quakers, within her borders,
may wear their hats when and where they please.

While the early years of the new government
were passing away, Virginia was often an actor in,
and always an attentive witness of, its most exciting
scenes. The germ of party spirit had been
planted in America a very short time after the

Revolution, but it did not develope itself in might
until the governing policy of the first administration
began to appear. Then the names of "Federalist"
and of "Republican," became familiar; the
first was the distinctive title of those who thought
most favourably of the General Government, and
who were willing so to construe its charter as to
extend rather than restrict its powers. Believing
that upon this government would depend the real
permanency and success of American interests,
they viewed it with sincere admiration, and supported
it with patriotic zeal. Whatever may have
been their errors, the Federalists of old embraced
in their ranks some of the purest and most intellectual
men the world has ever known. The other
title of "Republican," was applied to those who
looked with jealousy upon the Federal Government,
who confined its powers by the most rigid construction
of the Constitution, of which the words
would admit, and who sought to repress it by a
frequent recurrence to the "reserved rights" of the
state governments, and the people. This party
was generally predominant in Virginia. It was
led by men of splendid talents, of warm feelings,
popular in debate, and high in the confidence of
masses of the social system.

Had the spirit of party operated merely on the
questions springing from the politics of America,
it might not have produced the effect exhibited at
the close of the eighteenth century; but there were
foreign elements intermingling with the domestic
views of the parties, and adding intense bitterness

to their feuds. This subject has a bearing upon
the fortunes of Virginia so direct that it will be
proper to unfold it.

In the very year in which the United States
assumed a stable government, France commenced
her Revolution. Heated minds within her bosom
had watched eagerly the progress of liberty in the
New World. Centuries of pressure had prepared
her people for an outburst of feeling when first it
could come forth. A luxurious court, which had
fed its own pleasures on the property of its subjects;
taxes, accumulated until they could no
longer be borne; a vast ecclesiastical system living
in ease, and holding the richest possessions of the
land; and a government responsible only to itself
for its measures; these had been the continued
causes urging to rebellion. The final success of
America was an example too tempting to be resisted.
How much her teachings and her sympathy
affected France, history has long since conceded.
On the 14th of July, 1789, the Bastile
was torn down, its governor fell a victim to the
rage of the populace, and sovereign and nobles
were finally awakened to know the power of the
"third estate."

Could France have been content to stop when
it was in her power to obtain a limited government,
and every guarantee for rational freedom, she might
have secured her own welfare, and spared the world
the most horrible page of its history. But a spirit
of wild innovation had arisen,—the bonds of
society had been loosened by pernicious doctrines

of which Voltaire was the chief author. Men
learned to deny their duty to the Supreme, and by
necessary consequence, they forgot their duty to
one another. The stream of revolution, which,
at first, had been but slightly tinged, grew
darker in hue, until it was all blood. King and
queen, guards of the palace, prisoners of state, the
titled, the obscure, the innocent, the guilty, the
philosophic Girondist and the brutal Jacobin, bled
in succession to supply this stream. From a
despotic but brilliant monarchy, France passed
into a democracy of madmen; and from convulsions
which would have ended in death, she was
only relieved by the stern rule of the Man of
Destiny.

When her struggle for freedom commenced, there
were few in America who did not look on her with
solicitude. All wished that she should be free, and
many thought that for this purpose violence must
be used. Through the states, enthusiasm was
kindled in her favour; meetings were held; addresses
were delivered; toasts were drunk expressive
of popular opinion. We have yet on record a
series of sentiments uttered on the fourth anniversary
of the day when the Bastile was destroyed,
and one bore special reference to that event: "May
the Bastile of Despotism throughout the earth be
crumbled into dust, and the Phœnix of Freedom
grow out of its ashes."[4]
France was still regarded
as the ally of America. But as the appalling phenomena

of her Revolution succeeded one another,—
each rising in horror above its predecessor,—a great
change occurred in public feeling in the United
States. The prudent doubted; the moderate censured;
the virtuous recoiled. There was nothing
in her course that assimilated it to the steady adherence
to principle which had gained rational freedom
for the republics of the New World. None
were more firm in reproving her conduct, than the
men who had been first in achieving American
Independence. Washington, as chief magistrate
of his country, resisted all attempts to involve her
in French interests. Louis, the sovereign who had
aided America in the critical hour, had been put to
death, and with him fell many of the generous men
who had advised his policy. Washington saw in
the misshapen thing called a "Directory," no responsibility
to trust, and no virtue to respect. He
treated Genet, the French minister, with decision;
and, finding him persevering in efforts to tamper
with the people, and destroy the neutrality of the
United States, he demanded his recall.

Yet, even to the last, there were many in the
Union who sympathized with France, and thought
her entitled to full countenance from their country.
In Virginia, nearly all of the Republican party held
these views; they believed that the revolution of
the new republic was founded on a firm basis, and
though they blamed her excesses, they thought
them but the throes of a moment, which would
pass and leave her safe. There were not wanting
men of great mental strength in the state, who had

imbibed some of the religious, or rather irreligious
philosophy of France. Atheism indeed they rejected;
but simple Deism had charms for minds
that loved not the humbling doctrines of Christ.
These men would naturally see all the vices of the
new régime with lenient eyes, would defend her
course, and would denounce, as a British spirit,
every disposition to check her influence in America.

(1797.) Thus had a foreign element intermingled
with the politics of the Union, when on the 4th of
March of this year, John Adams of Massachusetts
was raised to the presidential chair. He was a
tried friend of liberty; he had been among the first
to speak for independence; he was an honest man;
in the language of his great political opponent, "A
man more perfectly honest never issued from the
hands of his Creator."[5] But his manner was not
gracious, his temper not compromising. He was a
Federalist of the straitest sect; a living embodiment
of the principles of his party, when urged to
their extreme results. In no point did he more
heartily concur in the policy of the preceding administration,
than in its views of French politics, and
when he became chief magistrate, he was ready to
go beyond all before him on this subject. He had
served his country in Europe, in several high
offices, and all that he had there seen and heard
confirmed his judgments against France. There
can be little doubt that he carried his opposition to

an unreasonable extent;[6] it caused him to see other
subjects of national interest through a deceptive
medium, and finally led him to assent to measures
which shook the Union to its centre.

In Virginia, the Republican party were ever
active, and many circumstances now concurred to
draw into its ranks the learning, the talent, and
much of the patriotism of the state. Some of the
earliest supporters of the Constitution saw with regret
that this sacred instrument was in danger of
being made subservient to purposes fatal to freedom.
Taking advantage of certain general expressions
and clauses in the eighth section of the first
article, Congress had exercised powers which, by
no sound exegesis, could be claimed, and the President
had approved. There was a virulence of
feeling entertained towards the chief magistrate of
the country, which was much to be deplored; but
he had, unhappily, given some occasion for it by
words used in his published letters, in which he
had expressed preference for aristocracy, and had
spoken of a "faction" in Virginia which ought to
be "ground into dust and ashes"[7] His leading
measures were regarded with alarm, and though
good in themselves, they were then considered as
part of a system destructive of the independence of
the states. He increased the "standing army,"
gave it compactness, and earnestly sought to organize
its officers and men; he expanded the policy

of Washington as to the navy; built sloops, corvettes,
frigates, and made strong this arm of national
power.

(1798.) When all the causes operating upon
the public mind in Virginia are weighed, we may
be prepared to understand the course she pursued
in the memorable events of '98 and '99. The first
measure she adopted is one around which a cloud
of mystery has been thrown that is not dispelled by
cotemporary records. But the ominous silence observed
at the time will, in itself, furnish evidence
tending to solve the mystery. On the 23d of January
the Legislature, after a preamble studiously
brief, enacted a law greatly extending the means
for state defence. Two arsenals were to be provided
in addition to that already existing at the Point
of Fork. An armory was to be speedily built at
Richmond, and vigorous means were to be used
for the manufacture of arms. The building was
itself to be large enough for storing in safety ten
thousand stand of muskets; and pistols, holsters,
and swords were to be prepared for troops of cavalry.[8] No delay occurred in carrying out these
provisions. The building arose, which has ever
since excited the interest of visiters to the metropolis
of the Old Dominion. Artificers were soon
at work, and the result of their labours has been
apparent.

Sixty thousand muskets have been committed to
the hands of the state militia, or else are retained in

condition to make them serviceable at short notice.[9]
Two hundred and twelve pieces of cannon are
ranged around the upper and lower platforms of
the armory yard, most of them are of small calibre,
but some are very heavy. With these, have been
placed six beautiful brass siege-pieces, and two
mortars, concerning which a singular obscurity
prevails in our records. The opinion best sustained
is that they were landed from a French ship
of war during the siege of Yorktown, and that they
were a gift from the sovereign of France to the
"unterrified commonwealth."[10]

Why this warlike preparation, these bright bayonets,
this formidable array of cannon? We will
not pretend to answer by referring to the printed
witnesses of the times; they are cautious, more
than cautious,—they are silent. But, in subsequent
years, gray-haired citizens have had the seal taken
from their lips, and have told us that surrounding
events had much to do with this war spirit. And
her own instructions soon afterwards delivered to
her senators and delegates in Congress, will show
how much the state apprehended from the standing
army, the growing navy, the gradual advances of
the General Government.[11] Had she been compelled

to fight for her sovereignty, Virginia would have
been prepared. But the Constitution and its guarantees
were stronger for good than she had supposed.
Happy indeed was the change which accomplished
her object by the ballot-box and not by
the sword!

Her fears of federal usurpation were not premature.
There was every thing in the aspect of
America, at this period, to provoke the President
and his friends into precipitate action. Foreigners,
chiefly French, in numbers, pervaded the country,
canvassing the course of government, promulging
ultra doctrines as to the social system, and urging
to extreme the "propagandism" which was the
great lever of the Directory. And the press, in its
daily issues, then exhibited a bitterness, a concentrated
rancour, to which nothing of subsequent
years can be compared. But these were evils
which, in time, would either work their own cure,
or be checked by the conservative powers of the
state governments. And whether they were checked
or not, they could never justify Congress and the
President in violating the charter of the Union.
To this point they were now approaching.

At the summer session of 1798, were enacted the
celebrated "Alien and Sedition Laws." The first
was entitled "An Act concerning Aliens," and was
approved on the 25th of June. It provided that it
should be lawful for the President of the United
States "to order all such aliens as he shall judge
dangerous to the peace and safety of the United
States, or shall have reasonable grounds to suspect

are concerned in any treasonable or secret machinations
against the government thereof, to depart
out of the territory of the United States, within
such time as shall be expressed in such order."
Under certain circumstances and conditions, the
President was authorized to grant a license enabling
an alien to remain; but if any alien, not having
such license, was found in the country after having
been ordered to depart, he was, on conviction, to
be imprisoned for a term not exceeding three years.
And the President was empowered, if in his opinion
the public safety required a speedy removal,
to cause any alien ordered to depart, to be arrested
and sent out of the country. Other clauses of the
same tendency completed the act, and it was to be
in force for two years from its passage.[12] The Sedition
Act was approved on the 14th of July. It first forbade
any combination or conspiracy to oppose or impede
the government of the United States, or to intimidate
its officers. But the principal clause was one providing
that if any person should write, print, utter,
or publish, or cause to be written, printed, uttered,
or published, any "false, scandalous, and malicious"
writing against the General Government or
Congress, or the President, with intent to defame
them, or to bring them into contempt or disrepute,
or to excite against them the hatred of the "good
people" of the United States, or to stir up sedition,
such person, on conviction in a United States
Court, should be punished by a fine not exceeding
two thousand dollars, and by imprisonment not exceeding
two years. On the trial, however, the defendant
might give in evidence as a defence, the
truth of the matter in his publication. The act was
to continue in force until the 3d of March, 1801.[13]

Hardly had these laws gone into force, ere they
roused high excitement throughout America
While many approved, and believed them required
by the events of the times, a great body of the
people considered them as involving a breach of
the Constitution, and as opening the way to despotism.
In Virginia, the Republicans were aghast!
They had, indeed, listened for sounds of deep-toned
federalism from the government, but they were not
prepared for such trumpet notes as these. With
one accord they rallied for battle, and the real
emergency of the case drew into their ranks some
great men who had been strenuous advocates for
the adoption of the Federal Sovereignty. The
same scenes of popular debate occurred which had
preceded the meeting of the Convention in 1788,
and it was easily foreseen that at the next session
of the Legislature, the storm would open.

These expectations were not groundless. A
short time after the Assembly met, John Taylor, of
Caroline, introduced nine resolutions,[14] having reference
to the course of the Federal Government,
and particularly to the passage of the Alien and

Sedition Laws. These well-known resolutions
were from the pen of James Madison, but they
expressed Mr. Taylor's sentiments, and were most
ably supported by him in the debate that ensued.
On the 13th of December, the House of Delegates
resolved itself into a committee of the whole on
the state of the Commonwealth, and Mr. Brackenridge
took the chair. Then John Taylor opened
his subject; he believed that liberty was in danger,
and that the occasion was "an awful one." He
considered the obnoxious laws, first as to their constitutionality,
secondly, as to their correspondence
with natural rights. That they were not constitutional
he contended, because power was nowhere
delegated to Congress to make such laws as to
alien friends; because aliens had rights under the
common law which these acts took away; because
they were deprived of trial by jury; because the
"three powers" of government were by these acts
united in one hand, the President being authorized
to make the rule, to judge the accused, and to execute
the sentence; and because the Sedition Law
took away the freedom of the press, which Congress
had not only no power, but was expressly
prohibited to do. In proving that the laws were
against natural right, Mr. Taylor had a wide field,
in which he exercised himself at pleasure.[15]

In favour of the laws, George Keith Taylor, of
Prince George, was most prominent. He was
a member of the Federal party, and much attached
to John Marshall, whose sister he married. He

was a man of high character, acute in argument,
and powerful in declamation. Virginia owes to
him her penitentiary system, and his efforts to
ameliorate her criminal code made him a public
benefactor. In the first part of the debate he confined
himself to the defence of the Alien Law, urging
that the admission of aliens into a country was
matter of favour, and not of right; that the country
must protect herself against dangers arising from
them; that Congress had power under the Constitution
to insure domestic tranquillity; to define
and punish offences against the laws of nations;
to protect against invasion, and to pass all laws
"necessary and proper" for these purposes; that
this law was required by the state of the country;
and he concluded his first speech by depicting in
eloquent terms the horrors of the French dominion,
and the hazard that they might be extended to
America.[16] In his next effort he defended the Sedition
Law, on the ground that the common law
punished the licentiousness of the press, but did
not stop its issues by a "censorship;" that this
was really what was meant by the freedom of the
press, and that Congress had done nothing more
than this in their late action.[17]

General Henry Lee aided Mr. Taylor in defending
the course of the Federal Government. He
insisted that the Constitution was a compact, not
of the states, but of the people; that therefore the
proposed resolutions were "radically erroneous;"
that the Alien Law was intended to prevent injury,

not to punish offenders; that Congress had this
power; that the Sedition Law was sanctioned by
high authority, for in 1776, the General Assembly
of Virginia had itself passed a similar enactment,
punishing any one who by word, deed, or publication,
should maintain and defend the authority of
the King and Parliament; and that no man in his
senses could consider the "freedom of speech" as
abridged, by the punishment of false, scandalous,
and malicious libels.[18]

The Laws were farther upheld with ability and
research, by Mr. Magill, Mr. Cowan, and Mr.
Cureton. Edmund Brooke, of Prince William,
opposed the resolutions, because they interfered
with the legitimate powers of the General Government.
He said the people had two organs, the
Federal Government and the State Legislature;
and that the first was certainly to be preferred, because
its representation was purest. He declared
that if his constituents should instruct him to vote
for resolutions "having so alarming and dangerous
a tendency, he would go in mourning for them; he
would bid adieu to legislation, and seek an asylum
in some other region of the globe, among a race of
men who had more respect for peace and order, and
who set a higher value upon the blessings of good
government!"[19]

All who supported the "Laws" opposed the
"Resolutions;" and on the other hand, all favourable
to the latter, made war upon the first. The

issues involved in the two, were so complete, and
so sharply defined, that neutrality was impossible.

To aid John Taylor, of Caroline, many brilliant
debaters came forward. Mr. Mercer and Mr. Daniel
argued against the Laws, urging that though the
admission of aliens might be matter of favour,
yet after they were admitted, they acquired rights
which these laws violated; that if there was any
power to send them out of the country, it was in
the state Legislatures; that the sacred trial by jury
must be given to them; that Congress had no more
power over the freedom of speech than of conscience:
that is, had no right to touch either;[20] that
to punish opinions, as to public men and measures,
was the very worst form of violating the freedom
of the press, and that this was done by the Sedition
Law.[21] Wilson Carey Nicholas spoke but little,
yet always with effect. In answer to General Lee's
argument, that the Alien Law was preventive only,
he insisted that it was punitive. For could there
be a more severe punishment than to banish a man
from the country; to order him to depart; to arrest
him violently if he refused, and to tear him
from ties which he might have formed in the home
of his adoption?[22]

William Pope, from Prince William, was a singular
character. Although possessed of the soundest
practical sense, he had a vein of humour in his composition,
which was continually flowing out in keen

repartee and ludicrous remarks. He replied to
George Keith Taylor's views upon the danger of
French influence, and in ridiculous style, rang the
changes on Volney and Talleyrand, Genet, Porcupine,
and Goodloe Harper. He said, "the gentleman
from Prince George has introduced a damsel,
and that is the damsel of liberty. When he had
done so, I confess I was seized with an ecstacy;
but when, at the same time, that gentleman would
not permit her to remain within these walls, I acknowledge
my feelings were very much wounded.
For I am fond of all damsels, but particularly so
of the damsel of liberty." He was willing to modify
the resolutions, provided it was still clearly
declared that the Laws were unconstitutional.[23]

In this debate, James Barbour, of Orange, made
his first appearance in the arena of public life. He
was but twenty-two years of age. His mind was
capacious, and stored with liberal learning. He
rose, in the committee, on the 17th December, and
spoke several hours amid deep interest from all
who heard. He was full of thought, and poured it
forth without a moment's hesitation, in words sonorous
and expressive. From time to time, his enthusiasm
betrayed him into forms of language,
which would not bear the test of a refined criticism,
as when he said, "the thirteen United States,
then the Colonies of America, after having been
lacerated to the midriff by the vulture fangs of British
persecution, threw off their colonial subjugation."[24] And occasionally a more unhappy error

was shown, in expressions proving that he had
tasted, with high relish, the infidel philosophy of
France: "As to Mr. Volney, the cause of truth and
virtue required he should speak more at large. He
had the pleasure of seeing that meritorious character
whilst in America, but he knew him better
by history than from personal acquaintance. He
from maturity had been influenced by the benevolent
desire of ameliorating the condition of mankind,
by illuminating the mind and dispelling superstition.
It was for this sublime purpose we saw
him traversing Asia, and sitting in meditative
silence amidst the ruins of Palmyra, drawing wisdom
from experience, and developing the causes
which contribute to the dissolution of the elements
of society, and the overthrow of empires;" and (the
orator might have added) thus preparing to hurl
"The Ruins" at Christianity. Mr. Barbour attacked
John Adams and his government with vigour, and
argued against the "laws" in a strain of mingled
reasoning and declamation, which strongly moved
his hearers.[25] No speech, during the debate, produced
a more manifest effect.

Near the close of the discussion, William B.
Giles spoke against the obnoxious laws. He too
was severe upon the government; commented upon
the President's letter to the people of Bath, in
which he had spoken of the faction in Virginia
which ought to be crushed; and opposed his leading
measures.[26] It is to be feared, that at this time,
scepticism in religion, and admiration of all that

was French, were closely united with the character
of leader in the Republican party of Virginia.
There were indeed bright exceptions, and to these
the state is chiefly indebted for the triumph of
order and peace within her bosom.

Before the resolutions were reported by the committee,
two amendments were adopted. The third
resolution said the powers of the Federal Government
resulted from the compact "to which the
states alone are parties." On motion of Mr. Giles,
the word "alone" was stricken out. The accuracy
of this amendment is to be determined by the definition
we apply to the word "state." If, as we
have preferred to use it in this work, it includes
both the people and the government within certain
geographical bounds, then the amendment was
hardly necessary; but if "state" means "state government"
alone, then the amendment was proper.
The other change was in the seventh resolution;
it declared that the Alien and Sedition Laws, "the
acts aforesaid, are unconstitutional, and not law, but
utterly null, void, and of no force or effect." On
motion of John Taylor himself, the words in
italics were stricken out.[27] Then the resolutions as
amended were reported to the House, and after
several abortive efforts to vary them, on Friday the
21st of December, they were adopted by a vote of
one hundred in the affirmative, and sixty-three in
the negative. On the succeeding Monday, the
Senate concurred by a vote of fourteen to three.[28]

A more searching ordeal has seldom been applied

to any work of the human mind than to the "Resolutions
of '98-'99," passed by the Virginia Assembly;
and it may be added, few compositions have
stood the test so well. They were penned by
James Madison, and exhibit in perfection the peculiarities
of his style. The first expresses the resolve
of the Assembly to maintain and defend the
Constitution of the United States, and of the State,
against all aggression; the second declares their
warm attachment to the Union, and hence their
duty to watch over and oppose any infraction of its
principles; the third declares that the powers of
the Federal Government result from the compact
to which the states are parties, and are limited by
the plain sense and intention of the instrument constituting
that compact, and to that extent only, are
valid, and that in case of a "deliberate, palpable, and
dangerous," exercise of other powers, the states
have the right, and are bound to interpose; the
fourth expresses the regret of the Assembly that
the Federal Government had shown a willingness
to enlarge its powers by forced constructions, and
by so interpreting general clauses, as to destroy
the meaning and effect of the particular enumeration,
the obvious tendency of which course was to
consolidation, and at last to monarchy; the fifth
particularly assails the "Alien and Sedition Laws,"
of which the former involved a power not delegated,
and also blended legislative and judicial
functions with executive, and the latter involved a
power not only not delegated, but expressly forbidden,
and was also the more alarming, because it
was "levelled against the right of freely examining
public characters and measures, and of free communication
among the people thereon;" the sixth
referred to the terms in which Virginia had ratified
the Constitution, to her care in guarding liberty of
conscience, and of the press, and to her efforts in
gaining an amendment for the purpose, and said it
would "mark a reproachful inconsistency and criminal
degeneracy" if she were now indifferent; the
seventh made a solemn appeal to their brethren of
the other states, "in confidence that they will concur
with this Commonwealth in declaring, as it
does hereby declare, that the acts aforesaid are unconstitutional,
and that the necessary and proper
measures will be taken by each, for co-operating
with this state, in maintaining unimpaired the authorities,
rights, and liberties reserved to the states
respectively, or to the people;" the eighth and
ninth provided simply for transmitting a copy of
these resolutions to the Legislature of each of the
other states, and to the Virginia senators and
representatives in Congress.[29]

Kentucky had preceded her mother by adopting,
during the month of November, resolutions penned
by Thomas Jefferson, which went beyond those
afterwards approved by Virginia. For one of Mr.
Jefferson's protests declared that the Sedition Act,
"which does abridge the freedom of the press, is not
law, but is altogether void and of no effect."[30] And in

this form it was adopted by Kentucky. But, besides
the "Old Dominion" and her daughter, no
other state spoke openly against the Federal Government.
And there were many citizens of America,
unblemished in character and high in public
confidence, who regarded the "resolutions" with
unmingled regret.

(1799.) George Washington had retired to
Mount Vernon, to enjoy the repose to which long
years of faithful service had entitled him. Yet he
could not view unmoved the crisis of his country.
He believed he saw in the Republican party of
Virginia, materials which threatened to rend asunder
the bonds of the Union. And there was another
patriot then in retirement who looked with
equal fear upon the progress of French influence
in America. Patrick Henry had opposed the adoption
of the Constitution, but after it was adopted,
he was its steady friend. He thought that most of
the individuals composing the contending factions
might be sincere, but that some leaders meditated
a change in the government.[31] He recoiled from
contact with France. "Her conduct has made it
the interest of the great family of mankind to wish
the downfall of her present government." He was
alarmed lest she should destroy the pillars of national
welfare, "virtue, morality, and religion;"
"this is the armour, and this alone, that renders us
invincible; these are the tactics we should study; if
we lose these, we are fallen indeed." He wished

to see John Marshall elected to Congress from Virginia,
believing that "he felt and acted as a republican,
as an American."[32]

(January 15.) It was at this juncture that Washington
addressed to Mr. Henry a confidential letter,
urging him to come forward as a candidate for the
General Assembly. He reminds him of the "endeavours
of a certain party among us to disquiet
the public mind with unfounded alarms, to arraign
every act of the administration, to set the people at
variance with the government, and to embarrass
all its measures." He deeply regrets that in this
course the State of Virginia had taken the lead, for
her Legislature had acted, and the chief leaders of
the opposition dwelt within her bosom. He expresses
his conviction that the great mass of the
people of the state were well affected towards the
government, and believes that one reason why this
did not appear, was that "the most respectable and
best qualified characters among us, will not come
forward." He speaks of a party that hung "upon
the wheels of government as a dead weight, opposing
every measure that is calculated for defence
and self-preservation," and "abetting the nefarious
views of another nation upon our rights," and
makes a serious appeal to Mr. Henry to throw his
weight into the scale of the national government,
by acting in the Assembly of Virginia.[33]

The effect of this appeal and of his own views of
duty upon Patrick Henry is well known. He appeared
before the people of Charlotte as a candidate

for their suffrages. He gained the hearts of all by
the "setting splendours" of a sun of eloquence
which in its zenith, had burned with intolerable
glory. He was elected "by his usual commanding
majority," and prepared at the next session of the
Legislature, to defend the Alien and Sedition Laws.
But Providence did not design that his generous
heart should be torn by a contest in which his
powers would not have made good his cause, and
his efforts would only have added bitterness to the
opposition. He died on the 6th day of June.[34]
Simple in manner, pure in morals, dignified in
public, affable in private, the great orator of the
world, the friend of liberty, the humble Christian,
passed away from strife to a land "where the
wicked cease from troubling, and the weary are at
rest."

And even a greater than he was destined to fall
during the same year. At half past eleven o'clock,
on the night of Saturday, the 14th of December,
George Washington breathed his last. When
this event became known, for a time the hearts of
all men were still,—passion grew calm, prejudice
confessed her guilt, party spirit seemed extinguished.
All felt that the world had lost her best inhabitant.
A despotic sovereign, and a historian in
love with privileged order, have alike rejoiced to do
honour to the memory of the Liberator of the
human race.[35]

But the progress of other events soon recalled the

minds of men from mourning to conflict. When
the Resolutions of the Virginia Assembly were
made known to the other states, they excited varied
action. Some may have approved them, but
none took open measures to co-operate. Some decidedly
disapproved, and taking up the matter seriously,
sent their views in solemn form to the intractable
Commonwealth. Massachusetts adopted a
dignified remonstrance, arguing that if the Constitution
was violated, the remedy was in the Supreme
Court, or in amendments; that the states were not
judges in the matter; that the Alien and Sedition
Laws were both constitutional and expedient, and
that therefore she must oppose Virginia.[36] New
Hampshire, Vermont, Connecticut, and Rhode
Island and Providence Plantations, all adopted the
same general course, with varieties of manner and
skill; the Senate of New York, in a preamble and
two resolutions, rebuked Virginia and Kentucky,
and little Delaware declared that the conduct of
her eldest sister was "a very unjustifiable interference
with the General Government and constituted
authorities of the United States, and of dangerous
tendency, and therefore not a fit subject for
the further consideration of" the said little Delaware.[37] During the legislative session of Virginia
for 1799-1800, these several remonstrances were
read, and were referred to a committee, together with
the resolutions which had called them forth.[38]

(1800.) This gave rise to the celebrated "Report"

of Mr. Madison. It was prepared, offered,
amended in committee, and finally presented to the
House. Here, on the 7th of January, it was approved
by a vote of one hundred in the affirmative,
to sixty in the negative.[39] This paper has ever
since been regarded with marked reverence by the
people of Virginia. It is clear and searching: its
eloquence (for it has eloquence) is not that of feeling,
but of reason; it shows a power of analysis
which has seldom been equalled: it takes up the
Resolutions of '98 one by one; it puts each section,
each clause, even each word, into the crucible, and
tries it with fire. And in doing this, it reviews the
powers of the Federal Government with the mind
of a master. Taken in union with subsequent commentaries
and restrictions, which Mr. Madison himself
applied to it, this Report may still be regarded
as a repository of safe principles; a faithful guide
for the citizen and the constitutional lawyer.

Instead of giving an extended review of a work
which ought to be in the hands of every American,
it will be proper that an attempt shall here be made
to extract from this Report, and the commentaries
that have followed it, the rules that may be applicable
to Virginia and to the United States, in the
contingencies of their being. These will not be
mere "abstractions," for if the opinions of men concerning
a written instrument, have been so controlling
as to stop the course of law on the one side,
and to send armed ships and soldiers to enforce it
on the other, these opinions have a practical weight

that may justify every candid attempt to guide
them.

First, then, as to the powers of Congress. These
are expressed in a particular enumeration, and in
certain general clauses. In one or the other of
these, every power must be found, and if it be
found in neither, it does not exist. The general
clauses are: "The Congress shall have power to
lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts, and excises,
to pay the debts, and provide for the common defence
and general welfare of the United States,"[40]
and "to make all laws which shall be necessary
and proper for carrying into execution the foregoing
powers, and all other powers vested by this Constitution
in the Government of the United States,
or any department or officer thereof."[41] By some
it had been contended, that the first of these clauses
gave Congress indefinite powers of legislation;
whatever they might regard as for the common defence
and general welfare, that might they do. By
others, a meaning somewhat more restricted was
approved; in whatever subject an appropriation
of money was required, in that subject Congress
had indefinite power of legislation for the common
defence and general welfare. But Mr. Madison
showed that each of these modes of construction
was false; that the clause had been copied from a
similar one in the old "Articles of Confederation,"
and must be construed as that had been; and that
the expressions "common defence and general welfare,"
were to be limited and explained by the particular

enumeration that followed. For if not, why
was that particular enumeration made at all? and
how was the Government limited at all in its
powers? This reasoning seems too cogent to be
resisted. To tell what measures for the common
defence and general welfare they may adopt, and
to what they may appropriate money, Congress
must look to the "enumerated powers."

As to the other general clause, it had been greatly
feared in the Virginia debate on the Constitution,
and it had been much handled in the attempts to
justify the Sedition Law. But a proper caution
taught that it was not intended to increase the
number of the positive powers of Congress; it was
only intended to furnish "all the incidental and instrumental
powers" required for carrying into effect
the express powers. When a question should arise,
have Congress a certain power, it was to be answered
by inquiring: is the power expressly given?
and if not, then is it "properly an incident to an
express power, and necessary to its exercise?"[42] If
it be, Congress may exercise it; if it be not, Congress
should not claim it.

But while these rules of limited construction
seem safe and reasonable, they are not to be urged
to excess; the cords of the Constitution must not
be drawn so tightly as to strangle the government.
"The letter killeth" in politics as well as in religion.[43] "Qui hæret in literâ hæret in cortice,"
is a maxim as applicable to constitutional as to
statute law. In this subject as in others, there is a

medium,—a golden mean,—between the extremes
of a rigour which would compress the Constitution
to its dead letter, and deprive it of health, and the
licentiousness of interpretation, which would find
all powers in its general clauses. This golden
mean may not be stationary, but where it shall be
found may be safely decided by caution, patriotism,
statesmanship.[44] Language is imperfect; something
must be confided to the discretion of lawmakers
whom a free people would choose; and it is
believed that against abuses of this confidence, the
Constitution of the United States has as many
safeguards as a human system can erect. Even
the word "necessary" itself has a plastic meaning,
that will expand from the "physical necessity,"
made absolute by the laws of matter, to the "moral
necessity" controlled by the varied passions, appetites
and motives, which go to determine the human
will. And thus the powers of Congress have,
without violence, been held to include subjects not
within the letter of the charter. Mr. Madison
himself approved the view which extended them
to a bank.[45] Subsequently, a great mind, that was
ever watchful for state rights, has found power to
authorize Congress to improve the navigation of
the Mississippi River, and another lover of strict
construction has drawn out of the clause making
the President commander-in-chief of the army of
the United States, power to enable that high functionary
to establish provisional governments in a
conquered territory. Whether or not these two
last views be approved in all their length and
breadth, it will remain certain, that men who have
loved their country, and loved liberty, and loved
the Union, and loved the states, have held that
Congress have power, under the Constitution, to
charter a bank for national purposes, to improve
rivers, roads, and harbours, for the good of commerce
between the several states, and so to adjust
customs on imports, as to foster domestic industry.

Next, as to real and palpable violations of the
Constitution by Congress, what is the remedy?
Congress may go beyond their powers, may infringe
the charter which gives them being, and
may do this so evidently, that doubt would be unreasonable.
But there are remedies; first, the
federal judiciary will review the laws, and if they
be unconstitutional, will pronounce them void.
This is the office of the judiciary under the state
governments, and there are higher guarantees for a
pure administration of fundamental law under the
general, than under the state governments. The
judges are selected with more care, and are less
liable to local influences. Secondly, free elections
will remedy the evil; the delinquent Congress will
be displaced; better men will be substituted; the
obnoxious laws will be repealed. Thirdly, the
states may secure amendments; two-thirds may
propose, and three-fourths consummate an amendment
which would cut up spurious powers by the
roots. And beyond these three constitutional remedies,

it is not reasonable to suppose that any
illegal action of the Federal Government can generally
extend.

But there may be mischief beyond them all. It
may happen under the influence of polluting
causes, not lightly to be anticipated, that Congress
shall exercise unconstitutional powers oppressive to
a state, and at the same time the federal judiciary
shall be so corrupted that they will not declare
these powers void, and at the same time the ballot-box
shall be so prostituted that it will not displace
the authors of these powers, and at the same time
a majority of the states shall be so degraded by
self-interest or fanaticism, that they will not provide
amendments to destroy these powers: is there
then any remedy for the suffering state? There
is, but it is not under the Constitution. It does
not consist in declaring the law null and void
within her limits, and in refusing to permit it to be
enforced until three fourths of the states shall pronounce
in its favour, while all the time the nullifying
state shall remain in the Union, claiming its
protection, sharing its benefits, and sending representatives
to its government.[46] In the Constitution
there is absolutely nothing from which, either by
expression or implication, such power could be
derived, and its exercise would run counter to the
principles on which government is founded. It
would enable one state "to give the law and even the
Constitution" to nineteen states;[47] for the one state,

while yet enjoying the benefits of the Union, would
be exempt from an act of Congress to which the
others would be subjected; and the very necessity
for nullifying, presupposes that nineteen states
would not consent to the remedy by amendment.
Therefore, the nineteen must either submit their
judgments to the decision of the one, or else must
allow her to enjoy an exemption from which they
are themselves wholly debarred. Virginia has
never held a doctrine so inconsistent with the
principles of government. In 1798, she pretended
not to nullify. She struck out of her seventh resolution
words which would have had that tendency.
She expressed only her opinion, and invited
her sister states to join with her in adopting
necessary and proper measures for "maintaining
unimpaired the authorities, rights, and liberties
reserved to the states respectively, or to the
people."[48]

The remedy for the aggravated mischief of
which we have spoken, is found in the sacred right
of revolution. It is not under but above the
charter of government. When any people shall
be able no longer to bear the tyranny of their
rulers, they have a right given by the law of
nature, to overthrow the government, and re-establish
it on a basis that shall secure their welfare.
And the same doctrine will apply to a state
under the federal system of America. If the
Constitution be so long and so deliberately violated

that all ordinary remedies are found to be ineffective,
then the state will be released from her fealty
to the government. She will have the revolutionary
right to throw off all remaining shackles,
and, rejecting alike the privileges and the claims
of the Union, to arrest its laws within her territory,
and declare herself perfectly independent. If the
other states shall assent, and shall permit her
quietly to withdraw, then a peaceful revolution will
have been effected; but if they shall attempt to
force her to submit to the federal dominion, she
will have no alternative except an appeal to arms,
and to the God of battles.

But while this final resort is left to every state,
the highest reason will suggest that its exercise is
not even to be thought of, except in the last necessity.
Nothing has ever yet occurred in America
that would approach to its justification; and as the
patriot watches the workings of the federal system
in the light of the nineteenth century, he finds
growing evidences that its remedies are more potent
than its abuses, and that its most dangerous
trials have been borne. During the past two hundred
and ten years, the examples of England, of
France, and of America, have, to some extent, furnished
rules for construing the doctrine of revolution.
The violations of the federal charter which
would justify a state in armed resistance, must be
not merely "deliberate, palpable, and dangerous,"
but long-continued and tyrannical. They must
attain a point at which the evils of submission
would be worse than the horrors of civil war.

When this point shall be attained, the principles
of the charter of American freedom[49] will apply,
and resistance will become duty. It is believed
that there is but one subject connected with the
interests of the United States, which, by any
proximate possibility, can lead to such result.

From this attempt to explain the principles by
which, we believe, Virginia is guided in her contact
with the Federal Government, we turn again
to her history, and find, within the compass of a
single year, beautiful illustrations of their soundness.
A law which she then believed to be, and
which a vast majority of American statesmen have
since believed to have been, unconstitutional, was
actually to be enforced on her soil; an effort was to
be made to interpose the remedy of the federal judiciary,
and it was to fail; Virginia was to submit,
and then by the operation of the ballot-box, the
law, its authors and its progeny were to be swept
from power.

At this time there lived in Petersburg, one
James Thompson Callender, whose name would
merit no notice in history, had he not been the
occasion of drawing forth one of her most instructive
lessons. He seems to have been a man in
whose breast vindictive passion raged without
control. He was not a native of America, but had
for some time resided in Virginia, where his
warmth of party feeling, and real talent, had procured
for him employment in various capacities.
That he was degraded in character and in public

esteem, may be inferred from the fact that he was
once apprehended under the Vagrant Law.[50] But
he was capable of expressing bitter thought in
bitter words, and this made him a fit actor for the
part he was to play in the contest between the two
factions.

He wrote a pamphlet, which he entitled "The
Prospect before Us," and caused it to be published
in Richmond, on the 1st of February. Had he
carefully studied to violate the letter and the spirit
of the Sedition Law in as many points as possible,
he could hardly have effected his object more completely
than by this pamphlet. It was an attack
upon the administration, coarse, virulent, profligate.
The author rioted in abuse; and not content with
assailing Mr. Adams, he sought to desecrate the
tomb which had but just closed over the remains
of Washington. That we may form a correct idea
of this libel, it will be necessary to give extracts
from it, although it would be more grateful to let
it rest for ever in the oblivion of infamy to which
it has been consigned.

He says, "the reign of Mr. Adams has hitherto
been one continued tempest of malignant passions.
As President, he has never opened his lips or lifted
his pen, without threatening and scolding." "The
grand object of his administration has been to exasperate
the rage of contending parties, to calumniate
and destroy every man who differs from his
opinions." "Mr. Adams has laboured, and with
melancholy success, to break up the bonds of social

affection, and under the ruins of confidence and
friendship to extinguish the only beam of happiness
that glimmers through the dark and despicable
farce of life." He speaks of the "presidential system,
that is, a French war, an American navy, a
large standing army, an additional load of taxes,
and all the other symptoms and consequences of
debt and despotism;" "the same system of persecution
has been extended all over the continent.
Every person holding an office must either quit it, or
think and vote exactly with Mr. Adams." "Adams
and Washington have since been shaping a series
of these paper-jobbers into judges and ambassadors.
As their whole courage lies in want of shame, these
poltroons, without risking a manly and intelligible
defence of their own measures, raise an affected
yelp against the corruption of the French Directory,
as if any corruption could be more venal,
more notorious, more execrated than their own."[51]
He attributes to Mr. Adams measures used "for
the sake of yoking us into an alliance with the
British tyrant." "While such numbers of the
effective agents of the Revolution languish in obscurity
or shiver in want, ask Mr. Adams whether
it was proper to heap so many myriads of dollars
upon * * *; upon a paper-jobber, who, next
to Hamilton and himself, is perhaps the most detested
character on the continent." He addresses
the people: "You will choose between that man
whose life is unspotted by a crime, and that man
whose hands are reeking with the blood of the
poor, friendless Connecticut sailor![52] I see the tear
of indignation starting on your cheeks. You anticipate
the name of John Adams!" "Mr. Adams
has only completed the scene of ignominy which
Mr. Washington began." Alluding to one of Mr.
Adams's public letters, he says, "In that paper,
with all the cowardly insolence arising from his
assurance of personal safety, with all the fury, but
without the propriety or sublimity of Homer's
Achilles, this hoary-headed incendiary, this libeller
of the Governor of Virginia, bawls out, To arms!
then, to arms! It was floating upon the same
bladder of popularity that Mr. Adams threatened
to make this city the centrical point of a bonfire!"

We need not go farther. Enough has been given
to show the character of "The Prospect before Us."
Libellous as were the extracts copied into the
papers of the day, they were exceeded by the
general tenor of the pamphlet itself,[53] and it contained
some assaults upon Washington, which are
so infamous, that American types would now recoil
from printing them.[54] The time seemed to have
come when the Sedition Law might take its course,
sustained by the public conscience.

Not long after its publication, Luther Martin of
Maryland, found some copies for sale at Greenleaf's
printing office, in New York, bought one, read it, underscored
the striking passages, and carried it with
him to Annapolis. Here he met Samuel Chase, one
of the Associate Justices of the Supreme Court of the
United States. Judge Chase is well known as one
of the immortal signers of the Declaration of Independence.
He loved his country, and enjoyed the
confidence of Washington, who appointed him to
the bench of the Supreme Court in 1796. He was
learned in the law, and indefatigable in his labours.
His temper was quick, his will unbending. He
was a thorough Federalist, and approved with all
his heart of the measures of the administration. It
may be that his political prepossessions were too
strong, that they sometimes warped a judgment
otherwise perfectly upright; but all the vigilance
and energy of party zeal employed against him in
his trial before the Senate of the United States, did
not convict him of using his office to corrupt or to
oppress.

He was soon to hold a Circuit Court for the
United States in Richmond, and on receiving from
Luther Martin the pamphlet of Callender, his attention
was forcibly drawn to it. He said he would
carry it with him, and that "if the Commonwealth
of Virginia was not utterly depraved, or if a jury
of honest men could be found there, he would
punish Callender. He would teach the lawyers of
Virginia the difference between the liberty and the

licentiousness of the press."[55] These remarks may
have been partly jocular, but they were accompanied
by a firm resolve to carry his purpose into
effect.

He arrived in Richmond, and on the 22d of May
opened his court. He charged the grand jury
specially as to the Sedition Law, and on Saturday,
the 24th, they made a presentment of Callender for
writing and publishing the libellous pamphlet. On
this presentment, Thomas Nelson, the District
Attorney, immediately drew an indictment in due
form, which was sent to the grand jury, and found
without delay. In the mean time the judge directed
a capias to issue against the accused, and though
this was a more rigorous process than was customary
in Virginia, in cases not capital, yet the
Senate of the United States afterwards vindicated
the court in using it.[56] The marshal went forthwith
to Petersburg, and on the 27th returned,
bringing in his custody the renowned author,
greatly frightened, and not a little concerned at
"the prospect before" him.[57] He was admitted to
bail, but preparations for his trial were commenced.

William Wirt, George Hay, and Philip Norborne
Nicholas, volunteered to defend the accused;
the first had already become distinguished for those
brilliant qualities which afterwards placed him
among the best advocates of America; the second
was a lawyer of high standing, ardent in temperament,

and honourable in bearing; and the last was
a brother of George and Wilson Carey Nicholas,
and though very young, was the Attorney-General
of Virginia.[58] They appeared in court, and earnestly
pressed for a continuance of the case, on the
ground that Callender was not prepared for his
defence, needed witnesses and documents, and that
they needed preparation. But the Judge refused
to continue; he told them he would give them two
weeks, a month, nay, six weeks, to procure their
testimony.[59] He directed summonses to issue for
Mr. Giles, General Mason, and John Taylor, all of
whom Callender swore to be material witnesses for
him. The process was all executed by the 2d day
of June, but of the three witnesses summoned, only
Colonel Taylor attended. By him the counsel for
the defence proposed to prove the truth of certain
of the allegations in the pamphlet, which were
charged in the indictment, and thus, as to those
allegations, bring Callender within the protecting
clause of the Sedition Law. But Judge Chase required
them to reduce their questions to writing,
and because Colonel Taylor could not prove the
truth of all the allegations of the pamphlet charged
as libellous in the indictment, he refused to permit
his evidence to go to the jury![60] He even intimated
that the counsel for the accused knew this evidence
to be inadmissible, and that their design was to
affect and mislead the populace! It was in this
part of the trial that Judge Chase's conduct was
most reprehensible, and the vote of the Senate upon
it, proved how much they disapproved it. He
seemed afterwards conscious of the impropriety,
and feebly proposed to the District Attorney that
Colonel Taylor's evidence should be admitted, but
Mr. Nelson, insisting that it was illegal, refused it.[61]

When the marshal called a jury for the trial, he
summoned several members of the Republican
party, but, for various causes, they declined to
serve, and the jury, as finally sworn, consisted entirely
of Federalists.[62] Mr. Nicholas proposed to
challenge "the array," (that is the whole jury,) on
the ground that one juror had expressed an opinion
adverse to the accused, and he supported his proposition
by authority; but the Judge said challenges
to the array would only be for partiality in
the sheriff or marshal,[63] and that if they had any objections,
they must apply them to the jurors individually.
When the first juror was called to the
book, Judge Chase asked him, "Have you ever
formed and delivered an opinion upon the charges
contained in the indictment?" Never having seen
or heard the indictment, the man of course answered
in the negative. Mr. Hay earnestly insisted
that the proper question was, "Have you ever
formed and delivered an opinion on the book entitled
`The Prospect before Us,' from which the charges

in the indictment are extracted?" But the court said
no, and the juror was sworn. The eighth juror who
presented himself was John Basset: he was a
friend of the administration, and a man of honour
and delicacy; he begged that he might be excused
from serving, and said that though he had not seen
or heard the indictment, yet he had seen in a
newspaper what purported to be extracts from the
"Prospect before Us," and if they were genuine,
he had formed an unequivocal opinion that the
pamphlet came under the Sedition Law.[64] Nevertheless,
the Judge decided that he was a good juror,
and he was sworn accordingly. In this proceeding
the reader may fear that he detects an improper
leaning against the accused on the part of Judge
Chase. Yet his defence of the principles on which
this part of his conduct was based is so conclusive,
that it not merely satisfied a majority of the Senate,
but has been adopted as law by a well-trained legal
mind in Virginia.[65]

After the evidence for the prosecution was closed,
Thomas Nelson, the District Attorney, addressed
the jury. He belonged to the Republican party,
yet he spared not Callender or his pamphlet. He
opened the libellous passages, one after another,
and disclosed the motives that suggested them with
a clearness which forbade doubt in the minds of
hearers. On the part of the defence, the evidence
of Colonel Taylor being excluded, the counsel had

no resource but to address the jury on the general
subject. And here a curious scene presented itself.

William Wirt rose first. He told the jury that
the position of the defence was embarrassing, because
they were not fully prepared for trial. He
then boldly took the ground that in a criminal case
the jury were to decide both the law and the fact;
that they were therefore to consider the character
of the Sedition Act; that that act was not law, because
unconstitutional. At this point Judge Chase
called out, "Take your seat sir! if you please."
Mr. Wirt complied. The Judge then said that the
jury could not decide the constitutionality of the
Sedition Law, and that it must not be argued for
them, but for the court, and he read part of a long
written opinion to the effect, that the province of
the jury in a criminal case was to interpret a law
in existence; that the Sedition Law had been duly
enacted and was in existence; that whether it
accorded with the Constitution was a question to
be decided exclusively by the Federal Judiciary;
that this was evident from the Constitution itself,
and the laws of Congress providing for the judicial
department; and that to permit such a question to
be decided by a "petit jury," would be highly imprudent.[66] Mr. Wirt again rose, and a sharp dialogue
ensued. Mr. Wirt. "Since the jury have a
right to consider the law, and since the Constitution
is law, the conclusion is certainly syllogistic,
that the jury have a right to consider the Constitution."
Judge Chase. "A non sequitur, sir," (with

a bow.) Mr. Wirt sat down, and did not rise again
during the trial.

Whatever weight may be attributed to Judge
Chase's opinion, it is difficult to evade the force of
Mr. Wirt's argument on the subject. By an Act
of Congress, the rules of proceeding in the State
Courts had been adopted, wherever they were applicable,
for the Federal Courts. The common
law rule for criminal trials has long been recognised
in Virginia. In favour of life and liberty,
the jury may decide both law and fact, even against
the most positive instruction from the bench. If
they acquit, their verdict cannot be set aside or reviewed
by appeal. Therefore in truth they may
decide the constitutionality of a law, for if they believe
an Act of Congress unconstitutional, they
may acquit the accused, however plainly he may
have violated it. If then, in fact, they may decide
this question, why shall it not be argued before
them?

Mr. Nicholas followed Mr. Wirt, and notwithstanding
the Judge's view, he pursued nearly the
same course of argument, urging that the jury had
a right to find a general verdict, and that therefore
they must of necessity pass upon the constitutionality
of the law. He was sometimes interrupted,
but was at last permitted to proceed to his conclusion.
Mr. Hay spoke last for the defence; he had
already come in contact with the court with some
violence, and neither had forgotten it. Mr. Hay
said, "The arguments which I shall urge I shall
address to the court, not wishing to be heard by

the jury, or to be attended to by the numerous auditory
now present." But he had not proceeded far
before the Judge interrupted him; a colloquy ensued,
and when Mr. Hay resumed his argument,
he was again interrupted. He immediately stopped,
folded up his papers, and prepared to leave the
court. The Judge called, urged him to proceed,
and told him "there was no occasion to be captious."
The counsel for Callender all left the room
and did not return.[67]

The conduct of Judge Chase to the three advocates
who had volunteered to defend rather the
Constitution than the accused, was made a special
item of charge against him, in the ordeal through
which he passed before the Senate of the United
States. And there can be no doubt that his course
was stern beyond propriety, and irritating beyond
judicial politeness. But there was an amusing
correspondence between his treatment of these
several gentlemen, and their own peculiar traits
and dispositions. In the words of the Apostle, the
judge became "all things to all men." "To the
logical Mr. Wirt, he was logical; to the polite Mr.
Nicholas, he was polite; to the zealous and pertinacious
Mr. Hay, he was warm and determined."[68]

When the argument before the jury was closed,
Judge Chase read to them in full his opinion
against their right to determine the constitutionality
of the Sedition Law. He then explained the
case before them; told them the fact of publication

must be proved, and that they must be satisfied
the writing was "false, scandalous, and malicious."
He spoke of Mr. Adams's long and faithful service
to his country, and declared that he was rejoiced
that Callender was not a native American. (June
3d.) The jury retired, carrying with them "The
Prospect before Us," and in two hours they returned
into court with a verdict of "Guilty."[69] On
the 4th of June, Callender was brought in, and the
court pronounced sentence. He was to be fined
two hundred dollars, to be imprisoned nine months,
and to give security for his future good behaviour.
He was immediately committed to the custody of
the marshal, to be kept until the fine should be
paid, and the security given.[70]

Thus, one of the laws which had excited the
fears of Virginia, against which she protested in
1798, which she again deliberately condemned in
1799, and which she continued to the last to regard
as unconstitutional, was carried into force upon her
soil. We may readily suppose that party feeling
ran high in Richmond, and that the events of the
trial were not calculated to allay it. Yet there was
so much that was really disgusting in Callender's
pamphlet, and he was personally so little respected,
that public sympathy did not make him its object.
The law and its results were submitted to. No
effort was made to arrest them by violence.

But as the elections of the fall approached, the
Republicans of Virginia were ceaseless in their
efforts. The sequel of the contest throughout the
United States, is well known. Thomas Jefferson
and Aaron Burr, received a majority of electoral
votes over John Adams. But as Mr. Jefferson and
Mr. Burr had precisely the same number of votes,
and the Constitution did not then require voters to
specify which candidate they wished to be President,
and which Vice-President, the election at
last devolved upon the House of Representatives.
Here the Federalists voted for Mr. Burr; and not
until after thirty-five ballots, and imminent danger
of a dissolution of the Government, did some of
the less inflexible give way, and thus secure the
election of Mr. Jefferson.[71] But the popular voice
had been heard; the people had declared against
the Alien and Sedition Laws; the object of Virginia
was accomplished without either nullifying
the law, or overturning the government. Not long
after the success of the new administration became
apparent, these unconstitutional acts were repealed.
It was decided that America might be saved without
making her President at once lawgiver, judge,
and executioner, upon the alien; and that sedition
might be quelled without fettering the press, and
proscribing opinions.

And yet, though the triumph of liberty, and that
of law and order, had been achieved, and had gone
hand and hand together, they had not been won
without a sacrifice. Stormy passions had been

roused, which did not subside until they had rent
asunder many ties; characters had been assailed
which were once regarded with a nation's reverence.
Men had learned to think lightly of past
services, when covered with present obloquy; and
minds once devout had been taught to listen with
patience, and even with pleasure, to infidel philosophy.
There had been evil in both parties, and
there had been good wrought, not as the immediate
object of either, but as the work of the Power that
can bring light out of darkness, and order out of
chaos. Virginia has little cause to wish renewed
the scenes of a struggle which arrayed her noblest
sons in battle against each other, and infused a bitterness
into her spirit that will, perhaps, in some
measure, endure with her existence.

CHAPTER VII.

While the Commonwealth was watching the
course of the Federal Government, her internal
condition needed her care. And her true interest
must always be identified with the progress of
events within her own borders, for the federal

system is but the creature of state will, its object is
the general good, and it is only interesting to the
states so far as it enables their people to become
prosperous and happy. No attention to government,
either general or local, will compensate for
the want of domestic peace, of diffused intelligence,
of industrious habits, of virtuous dispositions, all of
which elements are necessary to the real welfare of
every nation.

Since the year 1620, Virginia had held a species
of population which deeply affected her character,
and spread its influence through every part of her
society. It is believed, that at no time during the
colonial period, were a majority of her white inhabitants
in favour of importing negro slaves; but
the English government continued to sanction the
trade, and English ships continued to bring Africans
to the Colony. And it is certain that in 1778,
by a solemn act of lustration, Virginia cleansed
herself from the guilt of her mother. She forbade
that slaves should any longer be imported; and if
her people had ever been responsible for their admission,
they were then justified in the eyes of
Him who said to the penitent, "Go and sin no
more!" But now the evil was fixed upon her; it
is true, the number of slaves could not be augmented
by importation, but it was liable to be
swollen by the "irrepressible laws of human increase;"
and experience has shown that the absence
of care, and the certainty of subsistence enjoyed by
this class in Virginia, have made them propagate
with more rapidity than the white population.

Thus slavery continued to exist within her borders,
and it was attended with the dangers to which, in
every age of the world, the admixture of such an
ingredient has exposed society.

Not far from Richmond, at this time, lived Thomas
Prosser, who owned a number of slaves, and
among them a man named Gabriel, distinguished
for his intelligence, and his influence with his class.
He was twenty-four years old; his stature was tall,
and his bodily strength very great; he had "a
gloomy, insidious brow," a long, stern visage, and
previous conflicts had left several scars upon his
person. There was, at the same time, in the
neighbourhood, a slave named Jack, who, as usual,
took his master's last name, and was commonly
called "Jack Bowler." He was twenty-eight years
old, a perfect giant in stature and strength, being six
feet five inches high, and possessed of remarkable
muscular power. His hair was long, and worn in a
queue, in the style of the day.[72] These two men
combined for a conspiracy. Gabriel was the leading
mind, and so actively exerted himself, that in
the subsequent scenes, he won the title of "General
Gabriel," which was commonly given him both
by whites and negroes.

With secrecy and skill a plot was organized. It
is supposed to have embraced nearly one thousand
slaves, yet so well was their counsel kept, that it
did not escape until the very night on which their
object was to be carried out. Their plan was such
as might have been expected from brutal natures,

impelled rather by lust and cruelty, than by real
wrongs. They were to attack Richmond at night,
when her people were asleep and defenceless, to
kill all the white males who might be dangerous, to
divide the women among themselves, to seize arms,
ammunition, and other spoils, and to unite with
brethren through the state, in making war of extermination
upon the whites. A plot so diabolical
was happily defeated by a providential warning.

On the evening of a day near the close of August,
a number of the conspirators had assembled in the
country, several miles from Richmond, where they
prepared for an attack during the night. A tremendous
summer storm came on, attended by torrents
of rain, and while it was yet raging, a slave
named Pharaoh, the property of William Mosby,
escaped without being observed by his fellows, and
hastened to Richmond. He swam an intervening
creek which was then rising, arrived safely in the
city, and communicated his information, which
was regarded as so important that it was carried
immediately to Governor Monroe. Forthwith the
alarm was given, the drums beat, volunteer companies
were called out, the militia were under arms,
and all things were made ready to give the assailants
a proper reception.[73]

In the mean time, the rain poured down without
ceasing, and the creek already noticed became so
swollen, that it could not be crossed without danger.

A tradition, not printed, but well preserved, has told
us that the chief rendezvous of the slaves was near
Mr. Thomas Prosser's house. He was warned by
a servant woman, and with difficulty made his escape
by a window. As he ran through the rain,
he sometimes looked back, and every flash of lightning
glanced from the bright scythe-blades, which
were the principal arms of the conspirators. So
eager were they to make their attack, that they
marched in the midst of the storm, but coming to
the creek, they found it nearly impassable. A
number of the most daring plunged in, and attempted
to swim to the other side; several were
drowned in the attempt, and those who succeeded,
had advanced but a little distance, before they discovered
that their plot was known. Then the
whole body of insurgents broke and dispersed in
every direction; the ringleaders took refuge in
places of concealment, and the private members,
generally, returned to their homes.

Measures were promptly taken to arrest those
who had been engaged in this plot, and bring them
to trial. As fast as they were brought in, they
were tried by a court of "Oyer and Terminer,"
composed of the justices of Henrico County. Several
were acquitted for want of evidence; but
many were found guilty, condemned, and successively
executed by hanging.[74] A reward of three
hundred dollars each, was offered by the Governor
for the apprehension of Gabriel and Jack; for several

weeks they could not be found, but at length
they were apprehended, and met the fate they deserved.
Gabriel was tried on the 6th of October,
convicted and condemned.[75] He is said to have
lost all firmness as death approached, and to have
shown, at the final scene, nothing but abject fear.
To provide against danger, the volunteer companies
under arms were ordered to attend the executions.
As the number of victims gradually increased,
public feeling reacted, and a merciful
arrest of justice occurred, long before all the guilty
had been punished.

(1801.) One of the most important results of
this insurrection was the establishment of the public
guard at Richmond. On the last day of the
year 1800, the House of Delegates resolved that
this step was expedient,[76]
and on the 22d of January
succeeding, an act was passed for the purpose.[77] It
said that, "in the present crisis of affairs," it was
proper to have an armed guard, and provided for
the enlistment of sixty-eight privates, who were to
be under a captain, a lieutenant, and an ensign.
They were to have quarters at the armory, and
their service and pay were all properly defined.
Subsequent years have more and more confirmed
Virginia in the policy of keeping up this guard;
from time to time it has been reconsidered and improved;
its numbers have not been much increased,
but it has been rendered more efficient,[78] and has

probably never been higher in public esteem, both
as regards its officers and men, than it is at present.
Intimations have sometimes been made, that this
corps is in fact "a standing army" on a small scale,
and that therefore it contravenes the letter and
spirit of the Federal Constitution. But its origin,
its design, its character, and duties, alike repel such
construction. It has never yet drawn a disapproving
look from the General Government, and
Virginia would not yield it without a struggle.

We now approach a measure adopted by the
General Assembly, which has been the subject of
severe scrutiny and animadversion; but which,
when fully understood, will be found to be the
acting out of the principles of the Bill of Rights,
and of religious freedom, and the final step necessary
to sever Church and State in Virginia. That
this subject might be at once, and clearly presented,
we have reserved for this place, notice of an Act of
Assembly, passed in 1799, and having an important
bearing upon their subsequent action.

The act was passed on the 24th of January.[79] It
recited that the Constitution of the State had pronounced
the government of the King of England
to be dissolved by the Revolution; had substituted
for it a new civil government, and that the Bill of
Rights had excepted from the powers of the government,
any authority to revive any species of
church government, by referring the subject of religion
to conscience. It farther recited, that several
Acts of Assembly had admitted the Established

Church to have continued so subsequently to the
Constitution; had bestowed property upon that
church; had asserted a right to establish any religious
sect, and had incorporated religious sects,
"all of which is inconsistent with the principles of
the Constitution, and of religious freedom, and
manifestly tends to the re-establishment of a national
church." Therefore, to prevent these evils, this act
first repealed several prior acts, viz., the act passed
in 1776, for exempting Dissenters from contributing
to the Established Church, and for other
purposes; the act in relation to the payment of the
salaries of the ministers of the Church of England;
the act for incorporating the Protestant Episcopal
Church; the act to authorize the election of vestries;
the act repealing the incorporation of the
Protestant Episcopal Church; and the act giving
powers to the Trustees of that Church; and then
this sweeping enactment declares, that the "Act
for establishing religious freedom" is a true exposition
of the principles of the Bill of Rights, and
Constitution.

That the reader may not be confused by this
complicated law, which seems to repeal some prior
legislation which, when adopted, was regarded as
highly liberal, he must be reminded of the object
and the effect of this act of 1799. Its object was to
strike down and cut away at once, every statute,
which in any form, either expressly or impliedly,
recognised a connexion between Church and State.
It was a process like that of taking down a confused
mass of architecture, some good, some bad,

and preparing to erect a graceful edifice, in which
nothing should be found to offend an exact taste.
It sought to repeal every enactment which spoke
of an "Established Church" as still existing;
which made mention of Dissenters, which talked
of Toleration. Where all were free, there should
be no such thing as an Established Church; no
such persons as Dissenters; no such word as toleration.
Its effect was to refer the religious rights of
the people of Virginia to four sources of decision:
first, the principles of the Revolution itself; secondly,
the Bill of Rights; thirdly, the Constitution;
fourthly, the Bill of Religious Freedom.
Upon this fourfold base, liberty would be firm.

The exclusive claim of the Protestant Episcopal
Church to the property which had accumulated
during the Colonial period, under the laws supporting
an Establishment, was not quietly acquiesced
in by other denominations, or by the people at
large. Every year, memorials poured in upon the
Assembly, praying that this property might be
restored to the public, from whom it had so long
been diverted, and might be applied to purposes of
general good. The Baptists were chiefly active in
this work; the Presbyterians lent their aid; and in
the struggles on the one side and on the other, it is
to be feared the spirit of genuine piety suffered
harm.[80] But the friends of freedom in the Legislature
could not be blind to the justice of a claim
which sought to remove the last legal advantage
enjoyed by one church over the others. They

acted not precipitately; they had heretofore delayed
to reclaim the glebe lands for the public, because
such a step might have borne the appearance
of rigour to incumbent ministers; but at length
the time seemed to have arrived when they might
proceed without even the semblance of wrong.

(1802.) On the 12th of January was passed the
law concerning glebe lands and churches in the
Commonwealth of Virginia.[81] The preamble recites
the law of 1799, under operation of which the
principle was recognised, that all property formerly
belonging to the "late Protestant Episcopal
Church," devolved on the people of the Commonwealth,
on the dissolution of the British Government
here, "in the same degree in which the right
and interest of the said church was derived therein
from them." It farther recites, that although the
Assembly might direct a sale of such property indiscriminately,
yet wishing to reconcile "all the
good people" of the Commonwealth, they deemed
it inexpedient to disturb the existing incumbents.
The act then authorizes the overseers of the poor,
in any county where there were glebe lands vacant,
or which should become vacant by the death or removal
of the incumbent, to sell such lands and appurtenances,
and all property incident thereto. If
there were incumbents on any glebes, they were
to be restrained by a proper legal process, from
committing waste, and removing personal property.
Out of the proceeds of the sales, the overseers were
first to pay the debts of the parish, if any there
were; they were then to appropriate the balance

of money to the poor of the parish, or to any other
objects that a majority of the freeholders and housekeepers
therein might direct, provided that no appropriation
should be made "to any religious purpose
whatsoever." But it was expressly provided
that this law should not authorize the sale of any
church edifice, or of the property in it, or of any
churchyard, and should not affect any property or
money which, by private donation or subscription,
should have been acquired by the Church since
the first day of January, 1777.

In considering this act, the reader will specially
observe the care with which the Assembly protected
the feelings of the living, and the memory
of the dead. No incumbent minister could by
possibility be disturbed. No sacred building, hallowed
by the recollections of the past, could be
violated; no property within such building could
be taken; no churchyard could be sold; no private
gift, made within a quarter of a century, could
be diverted from the end designed by the donor.
Virginia introduced the innovations made necessary
by the progress of free principles, with a caution,
a ceaseless regard for human sympathies and
frailties, which might furnish a model for the world.
There was none of that horrible rending of hearts
which accompanied the revolutionary measures of
France, when the possessions of the Gallican
Church were at one fell swoop, torn from her
clergy.[82] If ever the feelings of the worthy were

outraged in Virginia, under pretext of this law,
it was the work of private ruffians, for which
neither the Legislature nor the people should
be held responsible. It has been said that after
this act, not only glebes, but church edifices,
and even communion-plate, were sold; that a case
has occurred in which a silver cup, often used
to dispense the sacred emblem of a Redeemer's
blood, became the instrument from which a profligate
wretch supplied his guests for a morning
debauch! and that a marble baptismal font was
converted into a watering-trough for horses.[83] These
may be facts, and they may well cause human
nature to blush for shame, but it will not be pretended
that they find the slightest sanction in the
law of 1802, which we have just detailed.

And if the clause forbidding money to be appropriated
"to any religious purpose whatsoever,"
shall, to any reader, seem singular, almost infidel
in its tendency, it will be easy to vindicate it. For
to what religious purpose could it have been applied
unconnected with some sectarian view? Should
it be appropriated under the guidance of the Episcopal
Church, or of the Baptist, or of the Presbyterian,
or of the Methodist? Any such application
of the fund would have defeated the very object of
the law. And could any union of purpose be expected,
even among the sects called Christian?
No such union has occurred; probably none such
ever will occur; and even if it did, it would not
satisfy the demands of religious freedom. The
Jew, the Mahommedan, even the Pagan, all had a

right to be heard; all had their "religious purposes."
The policy of the clause was perfect.

But this law for the sale of the glebe lands was
not to operate without resistance. The body known
as the Protestant Episcopal Church, considered it
as an invasion of their rights, and prepared to test
the question by an appeal to the courts. In Manchester
Parish, Chesterfield County, the Overseers
of the Poor, were proceeding to sell glebe lands
under the late act; the churchwardens and vestrymen
of the parish sought to restrain the sale by
a bill in chancery for an injunction. Chancellor
Wythe heard the case, and dismissed the bill, and
then the plaintiffs took an appeal to the highest
civil tribunal, the Court of Appeals of Virginia.[84]

Here we are called to note a marked intervention
of Providence, but whether for unmingled good or
for chastisement we will not attempt to decide.
The Judges of the Court of Appeals at this time
were Pendleton, President; Carrington, Lyons,
Roane, and Flemming,—but Judge Flemming, considering
himself interested in the case, did not sit.
Judge Roane thought the law of 1802 constitutional,
and would therefore have sustained the decision of
the chancellor. Judges Carrington and Lyons
were in favour of the claims of the Church, and
the venerable Pendleton, true to the views he had
always held as to the Establishment, had prepared
an opinion supporting the appellants. Thus, had
judgment been rendered, the Episcopal Church
would have gained its object. But the very night

before the judgment was to have been given, Judge
Pendleton died.[85] The court was left without its
head, and without all the members who had heard
the argument. A reorganization became necessary;
Judge St. George Tucker was appointed to
succeed Judge Pendleton, and at the May Term,
1804, the whole cause was reconsidered.

In behalf of the appellants, who represented the
Church, appeared Daniel Call, John Wickham,
and Edmund Randolph. On the part of the overseers,
appeared P. N. Nicholas, the Attorney-General,
and George Hay. The case had excited
much interest, and was argued with remarkable
ability and research on both sides. The highly-wrought
zeal of one of the counsel for the appellants,
may be inferred from the words he used in
argument, "Freedom of religion requires only toleration,
and may exist with an Established Church."[86]
Such doctrine, uttered in the nineteenth century,
must have startled the ear of Virginia.

The principal arguments urged for the appellants
were, that the law of 1802 was unconstitutional,
because it destroyed the vested rights of the
Protestant Episcopal Church; that the Church of
England was the prototype of, but not identical
with the Church of the Colony; that the laws
of the Colony themselves had fixed the rights
of its church; that these laws were valid when
passed; that they vested the property in the
glebes and their appurtenances, in the Church;
that the Revolution did not destroy the Church,

or divest its property; that an act of Assembly,
passed the year after the Revolution commenced,
had expressly confirmed to the Church its property
in the glebes and their incidents "in all
time coming;"[87] that several acts thereafter had recognised
the same rights; that the Protestant
Episcopal Church was identical with the Church
of England, or with that modification of the Church
of England which had existed in the Colony, and
therefore held all the rights of the ancient Church
unimpaired; and that the repeal (in 1799) of the
prior laws recognising the rights of the Church in
the property, could not destroy or affect those rights,
because they were vested. It was farther argued
that the "Bill of Rights" did not touch this case at
all; its fourth clause, which declares that no man
or set of men are entitled to exclusive emoluments
or privileges from the community, referred only to
the office of magistrate, legislator, or judge, afterwards
mentioned; and its last clause, which refers
religion to conscience, was not violated, because
conscience was not affected by the claims of the
Church to what she regarded as her property.

On the part of the appellees, and the law of 1802,
the arguments were that the Church of England
was, in fact, the Church of the Colony, having
been established by the King's Articles of Instruction
in 1606;[88] that the King was the head, and an
integral part of the Church of England; that the
Revolution destroyed the authority of the King in
Virginia, and with it dissolved the Church which

previously existed; that, admitting the Church of
the Colony to have been separate from, and independent
of the Church of England, yet it had
never been made a corporation, and, therefore, could
not take and hold property, except as the Colonial
laws directed; that, under those laws, induction by
the Governor, of some minister recommended by
the Bishop of London, was indispensable to vest a
freehold right to the property; that without this
induction, the minister would have only an estate
from year to year, the full property being in the
public; that induction was now, of course, impossible,
the authority of Colonial Governors, and of
the Bishop of London, having been alike swept
away; that all the laws of the Colony, under which
this property had accumulated, had been unjust,
and against natural right, because they compelled
all persons to contribute, whatever might be their
religious preferences, or their opposition to establishments;
that the fourth clause of the "Bill of
Rights" forbade that any set of men should enjoy
separate and exclusive emoluments and privileges,
yet such would certainly be the case if the Episcopal
Church should continue to enjoy this property;
that the clause was too broad to be restricted
to magistrates, legislators, and judges, as
was contended on the other side; that the Episcopal
Church rendered no such "public services" as
gave them a right, under this clause, because other
churches rendered as many, and more; that the
last clause of the "Bill" referred religion to conscience,
and it was against conscience that one
Church should be preferred by law to others; that
if the act of 1776, and other acts, did confirm this
property to the Episcopal Church, they were based
on false principles, were contrary to the Bill of
Rights, and had been properly repealed in 1799;
that even admitting that the Church of England,
or the ancient Colonial Church, had once a right to
this property, the Protestant Episcopal Church
could have none, because it was distinct and different
from those churches; that it was distinct and
different, both in its creed and its forms,[89] and that
this difference had been recognised by the Protestant
Episcopal Church itself, when it applied for
incorporation in 1784, for why ask to be incorporated,
if it was already a Church, having vested
rights? And, therefore, on the whole, the law of
1802 violated no principle of justice, was moderate
and generous in its provisions, constitutional and
valid in its basis.

When the opinions of the judges were delivered,
it was found that Judges Tucker and Roane
thought the law constitutional, and sustained the
appellees; Judges Carrington and Lyons thought
the law void, and supported the appellants. Thus,
the court being equally divided, the Chancellor's
decision stood confirmed. From this time, for a
long tract of years, the question was regarded as
settled, and all parties, in general, acquiesced in
the view which held the law to be constitutional;
but as this point had never been determined by a

majority of the Court of Appeals, it was thought
worthy of another struggle. This actually took
place in 1830. The overseers of the poor in
Loudon County, were proceeding to sell glebe
lands and property, and vestrymen of the parish
sought to restrain the sale by injunction. The
cause was heard by Chancellor Henry St. George
Tucker, who delivered an elaborate and searching
opinion, on the 27th May, 1830, and sustaining the
law of 1802, dismissed the bill, with costs.[90] The
case was carried to the Court of Appeals, and, in
April, 1840, it was admirably argued by Chapman
Johnson, for the vestrymen, (the appellants,) and
John Robertson,[91] for the overseers of the poor.
The court consisted of five judges, Tucker, President,
Brooke, Cabell, Parker and Stanard, and they
were unanimously of opinion that the law of 1802
must be sustained.[92] Thus the Chancellor's decision
was affirmed.

The sale of the glebes removed the last legal inequality
between the religious denominations of
the Commonwealth. The divorce between Church
and State was complete. Virginia breathed the air
of perfect religious liberty. The hope may be indulged
that her policy on the subject is fixed for
ever, and that she will not adopt any measures
which will have a tendency to restore a connexion
so unhappy in its origin, so disastrous during its

continuance, and so painful in the remedies necessary
to destroy it.

(January 30.) It was at this time that the Bank
of Virginia was first chartered and established.
The expediency of this step had long been discussed,
and was generally admitted. The state
had been flooded with bank notes from the North,
and though their character was often more than
doubtful, yet the want of gold and silver, and the
advantages of these notes for currency, introduced
them into general circulation. In December, 1785,
the old Bank of the United States had been authorized
to establish one or more offices in Virginia,
and to charge six per cent. on its loans;[93] but its
issues had not long supplied an acceptable currency.
The evils arising from private bank notes
had been so great, that the Legislature had positively
forbidden them;[94] and the demands of trade
required that Virginia should no longer be behind
the age in providing a good investment for capital.
The act originally establishing the Bank of Virginia,[95] provided that its stock should be one million
five hundred thousand dollars, to be divided into
fifteen thousand shares, of one hundred dollars
each; but by an act passed ten years afterwards,[96]
its stock was increased one million of dollars, in
ten thousand shares, of one hundred dollars each.
Under the first law, the state was to subscribe for
three thousand shares, and the whole amount of

three hundred thousand dollars was to be loaned
by the bank to the state, at four per cent. per
annum interest. Under the last act, the state was
to retain two thousand shares, and the bank
pledged itself to loan to her, when required, three
hundred and fifty thousand dollars, at seven per
cent. interest. The bank was clothed with regular
corporate powers, and was authorized to establish
branches in sundry towns in Virginia. Though
its notes could not be made a legal tender for debt,
yet the state sought to give them every sanction in
her power, by making them receivable for public
dues, and by depositing all of her inactive funds in
the vaults of the bank.

Thus the system went into operation, and the
subsequent favour bestowed on it by the Legislature,
induces us to suppose that it was well
managed. Yet very few years had elapsed before
we read complaints and remonstrances in the public
prints. Writers over feigned signatures began to
talk of partiality and intriguing, and injury to
public manners and morals.[97] The salaries of the
officers were said to be exorbitant, and were contrasted
with those of the judges. Why should the
president of the bank receive twenty-five hundred
dollars, and the cashier three thousand, while a
learned judge received but fifteen hundred? And
these writers complained bitterly of inequality in
discounts. They said the rich got all and the poor
none. They drew a picture of a man coming from
the country to live in the metropolis. "He is not

long a resident of the city, before the most important
traits in his character are strictly scrutinized.
Is his paper good at the bank? says one; does he
keep a carriage? says another; will he take a hand
at loo? says the third. A stockholder says, No, he
is an old soldier"[98] of the Revolution, and therefore
poor, and not to have accommodation at bank.
These public censors said further, that no discount
would be granted, unless the maker or endorser of
the note lived in Richmond; that the bank was
despised, hated, cursed. "Excepting the murders
in cold blood which have been perpetrated on the
defenceless inhabitants of India, the rapacity of
that monstrous mass of aristocracy, the East India
Company, has been fully equalled by the management
of the corporation of the bank."[99]

We have reason to believe that all of these complaints
were founded either in ignorance or malice.
It has long been conceded, that the salaries of the
bank officers are meagre rather than exorbitant,
when compared with the responsibility endured, and
the services rendered; and that if these salaries
contrasted disproportionately with those of judges,
the remedy was in raising the latter, rather than
reducing the first. And experience has farther
proved, that there will always be found a certain
class in society, ready to rail at a moneyed institution.
No bank properly conducted, will lend its
funds, unless upon the security of at least one man,

whose unincumbered property will more than repay
the loan. To act otherwise, would be a departure
from the only principles on which banking
operations can be safely managed. But the industrious
poor man will always obtain by his character,
the aid of a name representing property, and will
thus secure a loan. Men who have neither property
nor character, neither deserve nor obtain
loans; and hence complaints, slanders, and dark
hints of intrigue, and pride, partiality and corruption.

As years now passed away, few events occurred
either greatly to elevate or depress Virginia. She
began to feel the spirit of the wonderful century
upon which she had entered, and though her progress
was by no means so rapid as that of some of
her sister states, she did not then fall so much behind
them as to excite the fears of her admirers.
In the year 1807, took place, in Richmond, the celebrated
trial of Aaron Burr and Herman Blennerhasset,
charged with the crime of levying war
against the United States, and with the misdemeanour
of preparing and providing the means for
a military expedition against the territories of a
foreign prince, with whom the United States were
at peace. It commenced on the 22d May, and was
ended by the delivery of Chief Justice Marshall's
opinion, on the 20th of October.[100] It has no farther
connexion with the history of Virginia than
that the adherents of Burr first assembled within

her borders, and that the trial took place in her
metropolis; but the splendid displays of forensic
eloquence which it drew from William Wirt and
other counsel engaged in the cause, increased the
already high reputation enjoyed by the lawyers of
the Old Dominion.

It is not often that a domestic calamity is so
mortal in its character, and so widespread in its
influence, as to merit a place in general history;
but one now presents itself, which has formed an
era in the life of Virginia, never to be forgotten.
(1811.) During the winter of this year, unwonted
gaiety prevailed in Richmond; brilliant assemblies
followed each other in quick succession; the theatre
was open and sustained by uncommon histrionic
talent; the fascinations of the season had drawn
together, from every part of the state, the young,
the beautiful, the gay. On Thursday night, the
26th of December, the theatre was crowded to excess.
Six hundred persons had assembled within
it, embracing the fashion, the wealth, and the honour
of the state. A new drama was to be presented,
for the benefit of Placide, a favourite actor;
and it was to be followed by the pantomime of
"The Bleeding Nun."[101] The wild legend on which
this spectacle was founded, had lost none of its
power under the pen of Monk Lewis, and, even in
pantomime, it had awakened great interest. The
regular piece had been played; the pantomime had
commenced; already the curtain had risen upon its
second act, when sparks of fire were seen to fall

from the scenery on the back part of the stage.[102] A
moment after, Mr. Robertson, one of the actors, ran
forward, and waving his hand towards the ceiling,
called aloud, "The house is on fire!" His voice
carried a thrill of horror through the assembly. All
rose and pressed for the doors of the building.

The spectators in the pit escaped without difficulty;
the passage leading from it to the outer
exit was broad, and had those in the boxes descended
by the pillars, many would have been
saved. Some, who were thrown down by violence,
were thus preserved. But the crowd from the
boxes pressed into the lobbies, and it was here,
among the refined and the lovely, that the scene
became most appalling. The building was soon
wrapped in flames; volumes of thick, black vapour
penetrated every part, and produced suffocation;
the fire approaching, caught those nearest to it;
piercing shrieks rose above the sound of a mass of
human beings struggling for life. The weak were
trampled under foot, and strong men, frantic with
fear, passed over the heads of all before them, in
their way towards the doors or windows of the
theatre. The windows even of the upper lobby
were sought; many who sprang from them perished
by the fall; many were seen with garments on
fire as they descended, and died soon afterwards
from their wounds; few who were saved by this
means escaped entirely unhurt.

But, in the midst of terrors which roused the

selfishness of human nature to its utmost strength,
there were displays of love in death, which make
the heart bleed with pity. Fathers were seen
rushing back into the flames to save their children;
mothers were calling in frenzied tones for their
daughters, and were with difficulty dragged from
the building; husbands and wives refused to leave
each other, and met death together; even friends
lost life in endeavouring to save those under their
care. George Smith, the Governor of Virginia,
had brought with him to the theatre a young lady
under his protection. Separated from her in the
crowd, he had reached a place of safety, but, instantly
turning back, himself and his young ward
both became victims of the fire.[103] Benjamin Botts,
a lawyer of great distinction, had gained the door;
but his wife was left behind. He hastened to save
her, and they perished together.

Seventy persons were the martyrs of this horrible
night. Besides those already named, there perished
Abram Venable, the President of the Bank of Virginia,
and Lieutenant Gibbon,[104] who was destroyed
in attempting to save Miss Conyers. Richmond
was shrouded in mourning; hardly a family had
escaped the visit of the destroying angel, and many
had lost several loved ones. And the stroke was
not felt only at home. It fell upon hearts far removed
from the immediate scene of the disaster.

On the day succeeding this night, a father in
Richmond, who had lost a child by the fire, wrote
a letter to Matthew Clay, then a member of the
House of Representatives from Virginia, to tell him
that he too was called to mourn. It would be hard
to imagine circumstances more affecting than those
disclosed by this touching letter. The writer says,
"Yesterday a beloved daughter gladdened my heart
by her innocent smiles; to-day she is in heaven.
God gave her to me, and God—yes, it has pleased
Almighty God to take her from me. O! sir, feel
for me, and not for me only; arm yourself with
fortitude, while I discharge the mournful duty of
telling you that you have to feel also for yourself.
Yes, for it must be told! You also were the father
of an amiable daughter, now, like my beloved child,
gone to join her mother in heaven." "The images
of both my children were before me; but I was removed
by an impassable crowd, from the dear sufferers;
the youngest, (with gratitude to Heaven I
write it,) sprang towards the voice of her father,
reached my assisting hand, and was extricated;
but . . . my dear, dear Margaret, and your sweet
Mary, with her companions, Miss Gwathmey and
Miss Gatewood, passed together, and at once, into
a happier world." . . . . "Oh! God! eternity cannot
banish that spectacle of horror from my recollection.
Some friendly, unknown hand, dragged
me from the scene of flame and death."[105]

On the 30th December, intelligence of this calamity
was communicated to the Senate of the United

States; and, on motion of Mr. Bradley, a resolution
was adopted that the senators would wear crape on
the left arm for a month. On the same day, a
similar resolution was adopted by the House of
Representatives, having been introduced in a short
and feeling address, by Mr. Dawson of Virginia.[106]

Many years passed before the impression of this
event was erased in the state where it occurred. It
will never be forgotten. Some who escaped, yet
survive to tell of the scene. The day after the fire,
the Common Council of Richmond passed an ordinance
forbidding any public show or spectacle, or
any open dancing assembly, for four months.[107] A
monumental church has risen on the very spot
where the ill-fated theatre once stood, and its
monument, bearing the names of many victims of
the night, will recall to the visiter thoughts of death
and of the life beyond. Yet it is not the nature of
man to cherish depressing memories. Time, the
great destroyer, and yet the great physician, sweeps
away, first, the friends whose loss brings sorrow,
and the sorrow caused by their loss. Another
theatre has been reared in the metropolis of Virginia,
and another "Bleeding Nun" may yet be
impersonated within its walls.

(1812.) The succeeding year witnessed a declaration
of war made against Great Britain by the
United States. The causes which led to this second
struggle have often been detailed: treaties
broken, neutral rights violated, seamen impressed,
a flag insulted, merchantmen unjustly seized; these

were the wrongs of which America complained.
Virginia sustained Mr. Madison and his administration
in their views of the war. Many of her
sons gained distinction in the combats that followed
by sea and by land, and she was not to escape
actual invasion by the enemy. Early in May,
1813, the infamous Admiral Cockburn, with a
British fleet, entered Chesapeake Bay, and commenced
a series of private depredations, to which
nothing that Dunmore had done could be compared.
His first efforts were against the coasts and villages
of the District of Columbia and Maryland. His
excesses at Havre de Grasse, Fredericktown, and
Georgetown, have placed his name among the most
brutal buccaneers that have disgraced the world.
But he was to gain even a darker reputation in
Virginia. A considerable English fleet was collected
in the Bay, near the Capes, and in Lynhaven
Harbour. They were closely watched from
Norfolk and Hampton. From time to time some
of the ships put to sea, but they soon returned, and
a heavy reinforcement came in, which swelled the
fleet to four line-of-battle ships and twelve frigates.[108]
They carried a large land force, under Sir Sidney
Beckwith; the naval commander was Admiral
Warren.

At this time Mr. Jefferson's famous "Gun-boat
System," was in course of trial in the United
States; and the harbour of Norfolk was chiefly
defended by this species of naval armament. But
to meet the emergency, large bodies of militia, from

the upper counties, had been ordered down to the
seaboard. Unused to the "malaria" of the summer
season in lower Virginia, these brave men fell
sick in numbers. Many of them died in and near
Norfolk, and the sick-list bore an appalling face.
General Robert Taylor was the commander of
the military district, and Commodore Cassin directed
the sea defences. On the 20th June, the
English frigate Junon had approached to a point
one and a half miles above Hampton, apparently
with design to lead the way to Norfolk. Now was
the time for defence. Captain Tarbell determined
to send gun-boats against her, and test the efficiency
of this armament. "Every one was impatient
to know how Mr. Jefferson's bull dogs would
acquit themselves; and whether the philosopher's
scheme would prove, upon trial, a monument of his
wisdom or his folly."[109]

On the morning of Sunday, the 20th, the gunboats
drew near and opened their fire. The frigate
suffered severely in her hull; but she warped her
broadside upon them and returned the fire. At
the same time, another frigate and a corvette, seeing
the danger of their sister, came to her aid; and
for some time, the fifteen guns of the boats, were
opposed to one hundred and fifty on the decks of
the men-of-war. The fight was hotly continued
for a time, but the sails of the gun-boats having
been pierced, and a thirty-two pound ball having
shattered one of them, they were compelled to

draw off. They had done well, and had certainly
checked the advance upon the town.[110]

Craney Island lies near the mouth of Elizabeth
River, and commands the approach from Hampton
Roads to Norfolk. Its defence, therefore, became
all-important; and Commodore Cassin resolved
that it should not be taken without a desperate
conflict. The frigate Constellation was anchored
nearly opposite to the town; a detachment of her
sailors and marines, under Lieutenant Neale, assisted
by Lieutenants Shubrick and Saunders,
were sent to the island, where they soon threw up
a battery, on the northwest side. At the same
time, on the south side, opposite the narrow inlet
between the island and the main land, Captain
Beatty was intrenched with his regiment, and a
number of volunteers from various other regiments.
High enthusiasm prevailed among the Virginians;
many who had been on the sick-list rose from their
beds, and reported for duty at the batteries on the
island.[111]

(June 22d.) The enemy advanced in boats to the
attack, numbering twenty-six hundred men, and
under Sir Sidney Beckwith. They divided their
force into two detachments. One of these pressed
forward to carry the northwest battery; but when
they came within reach, Lieutenant Neale and his
men opened upon them a galling fire. The
eighteen-pounder was trained with so fatal precision
that three of the boats were sunk; one was

literally cut in twain, and as she filled, her men
clung to her sides. The other boats hauled off in
discomfiture, and the Virginians instantly sent aid
to the drowning wretches in the water.[112]

Meanwhile, the other detachment had landed on
the main shore, and were attempting to cross the
narrow inlet in front of the southern battery. Two
twenty-four pounders and two sixes were waiting
to receive them; and the volunteers stood to their
guns like veterans. The enemy were cut to pieces
at long shot, and as they came nearer, the battery
played havoc among them. Unable to endure,
they precipitately retreated; and so eager were the
Virginians, that the Winchester riflemen ran into
the water, hoping to reach the foe with their
bullets.[113] Most of the attacking force had consisted
of miserable French troops, taken prisoners in
Spain, and induced to enlist in the English army
by prospect of pillage in America![114]

The heroic defence of Craney Island filled the
enemy with rage and shame. They abandoned
their designs upon Norfolk, and sought a more defenceless
prey. Hampton became their object.
Major Stapleton Crutchfield was charged with its
protection. He had about four hundred artillerists
and infantry. The fortifications of the place were
very slight, and it was exposed to attack at many
points. Major Crutchfield was obliged to divide
his little force; he himself took post at a battery

below the town; Captain Pryor commanded another
immediately in front of the principal landing;
and Captain Servant, with a company of rifles,
guarded the rear approaches of Hampton. (June
25th.) Cockburn in person led the attack, firing
round shot and rockets from his barges; but he was
warmly received by Crutchfield, and for a time
was brought to a stand. Sir Sidney Beckwith encountered
a severe fire from Servant's riflemen,
but the British detachments were twenty-five hundred
strong, and soon drove all opposition before
them. At the same time, a heavy corps of royal
marines were advancing upon the central battery,
commanded by Captain Pryor. Already his men
regarded captivity as certain; but their brave
leader roused them to a desperate effort. He
spiked every gun in the battery, and then at the
head of his force, made a furious charge upon the
marines, broke through their ranks, swam the
creek above the town, and actually made his escape
without the loss of a man![115] In these conflicts the
British lost two hundred men; while on the other
side not more than twenty were killed or wounded.[116]

The enemy took possession of Hampton, and committed
revolting enormities upon the people and the
town. A wanton destruction of private property
took place; but this, in itself, would have been unimportant.
The degraded soldiery, and the blacks
who had been enticed from their owners, were
allowed to riot in every species of brutality. An

aged man named Kirby, while lying sick in bed,
was murdered before the eyes of his wife, and the
next moment she was herself desperately wounded
by the discharge of a pistol![117] The women unhappily
left in the town, became the victims of the
lust both of the soldiers and negroes. They were
forcibly violated, with every species of insult; and
when one of their number sought Cockburn, and
wildly implored him to arrest this violence, the dastardly
officer replied, "he had no doubt before he
entered Hampton, all the ladies had left it, and
therefore had given no orders to prevent it!"[118] Finding
the militia of the country collecting in formidable
numbers for an attack, at 3 o'clock on the
morning of the 27th June, the British evacuated
Hampton, and returned to their ships.

While these events were in progress, Richmond
was the scene of intense excitement. On Saturday
the 26th, the citizens met at the Capitol, and
adopted defensive measures. An alarm occurred,
and every man was at his post; the drums beat to
arms; the volunteer companies, and militia regiments
assembled in the public square; their number
had never been so full, and every thing indicated
a resolve to defend the city to the last. Gray-haired
men were seen in the ranks with shouldered
muskets, and encouraging their companions by
their words. There were means at hand for an
obstinate resistance, and had it been necessary, we
cannot doubt they would have been used. But the

next intelligence was the retreat of the enemy, and
their subsequent movements banished all apprehensions
of an attack.[119]

General Taylor made the conduct of the British
at Hampton the subject of a special protest to Sir
Sidney Beckwith, in which he depicted the infamy
of their proceedings with manly eloquence. There
can be no doubt that this English officer regretted
the excesses which had been committed; but there
can be no doubt, also, that by proper measures, he
might have prevented them.[120] Cockburn's character
was already too degraded to sink lower, and
by their culpable indifference, the other commanding
officers in this expedition became involved, beyond
redemption, in his guilt.

Soon afterwards, the invading fleet left the Chesapeake,
and prepared for a descent upon North Carolina.
(1814.) The well-remembered events of
the next year did not immediately affect Virginia.
Washington City, and the exposed towns of Maryland,
were the prey sought by the enemy. The
American troops suffered an unhappy reverse at
Bladensburg, notwithstanding the heroism of Commodore
Barney. The Virginia militia did not
reach the field until after the battle. Though
America lost her Capitol, she gained the union of

all her citizens against the foe, and the English, at
last, won little by an attack which deprived them
of their highest military and naval chiefs, General
Ross and Sir Peter Parker.[121]

(1815.) On the 18th of February, in this year,
Peace was proclaimed by the President of the
United States, and was received with universal joy.
Through the country and towns of Virginia, bonfires
were lighted, and illuminated houses at night
spoke the public triumph. It is remarkable, that
in the treaty of peace, several causes prominent in
producing the war, were not alluded to. Nothing
was said about paper blockades, or the rights of
neutrals, or the impressment of seamen. Yet there
was a tacit understanding on these subjects. Each
nation had learned lessons from the war, and profited
by them. America learned her own strength,
and particularly the power of her naval arm; England
was taught that she was no longer omnipotent
at sea,[122] and that the maritime rights of her rival
were the last that would be resigned, or that she
might violate with impunity.

After completing his second presidential term in

1809, Thomas Jefferson had retired to Monticello,
in Albemarle County, and the rest of his life was
spent apart from public employment. But a mind
so active and so enlarged, could not be without an
object worthy of its powers. Mr. Jefferson had long
been deeply interested in the cause of education,
and had wished to see his native state alive to
her duty on the subject. We have seen that, as
one of the revisors of the legal code, he had sought
to elevate William and Mary College into a University
during the Revolution; but many concurrent
causes defeated this scheme. The plan of a
state institution for learning and science yet occupied
his mind, and at length his appeals to the Legislature
and the public were successful.

(1819.) On the 25th of January, the law was
passed, establishing the University of Virginia.[123]
The neighbourhood of Charlottesville, in Albemarle,
was selected for the site; and the lands and
property which had previously belonged to Central
College, there situated, were purchased by the
state. Fifteen thousand dollars per annum were
appropriated from the Literary Fund, to meet the
expenses of building, and of subsequent endowment.
The institution was to be under the direction
of seven Visiters, appointed by the Governor
and Council, and from their number, these Visiters
were to elect a Rector, to preside and give general
superintendence. The power of the Visiters was
considerable: they might make rules and regulations;
appoint and remove professors; and regulate

salaries and fees. Mr. Jefferson's influence had
secured a wide field of instruction for the University;
and the branches of study were to be so distributed
among professors, not exceeding ten in
number, as the Visiters might direct. They were
to teach the ancient languages, including Hebrew,
and many modern tongues, including the Anglo-Saxon;
mathematics, and all the physical sciences
that had then gained distinct form; anatomy and
medicine; mental science, ethics, rhetoric, and
belles-lettres; law, natural, international, and municipal,
and the science of government.

Mr. Jefferson was elected the first Rector, and
retained the office to the time of his death. He
entered into the scheme with his whole heart, and
was indefatigable in labours to forward it. He
drew all the plans for the buildings, and his taste
was so generally admitted, that few of his suggestions
were rejected by the Visiters. The workmen
were mostly procured in Philadelphia, and the
materials used were the best that the means allowed
could purchase. Mr. Jefferson's passion for
Grecian architecture showed itself in these edifices.
They are formed on models exquisitely beautiful;
yet not the most economical, or the most convenient
for the intended purpose.[124] Notwithstanding
the energy with which the Rector urged on the
work, its progress was slow; the principal difficulty
was want of money. The original estimate for
the cost had been one hundred and sixty-two thousand
dollars; but it was found it would be much

greater, and the Legislature did not very readily
grant the required appropriation. But at length,
in 1824, the buildings were so nearly complete,
that preparations might be made to open the
schools. The rotunda was not finished; but the
professor's houses, the lecture rooms, and dormitories,
were ready. Deeply anxious that all should
be favourable in the opening session, Mr. Jefferson,
with the concurrence of the other Visiters, sent
Francis W. Gilmer to Europe, to procure professors
for all the schools, except law and moral
philosophy.[125] This step was adopted from liberal
motives, but it caused some dissatisfaction.

(1825.) Early in this year, the teachers arrived.
Only the chairs of law, chemistry, and ethics, were
filled from the United States. The Rector was
fired with zeal; he rode from his house to the
buildings several times a day; professors and students
often dined with him, and his hospitable
doors were open to the crowds of visiters who
came from a distance to see the University. The
system of laws which he had suggested for the
government of the institution was approved by his
coadjutors, with hardly a dissenting voice. It
sought to rule rather by presenting high motives
and examples, and by addresses to reason, than by
stringent penalties. The professors being generally
inexperienced in the ways of American youth,
willingly adopted this plan presented by the philosopher.

But in the very first year of its life, the University

was nearly rent to pieces. (October.) The
wild young men there assembled, indulged to extreme
their propensity to disorder. Riot followed
riot in quick succession, until at length the students
rose up against the faculty in open resistance. Mr.
Jefferson was keenly mortified by this occurrence,
and the more so, because his own nephew was so
prominent in the rebellion that it was found necessary
to expel him.[126] The Rector came, with James
Madison, and Chapman Johnson, to the grounds,
and each of the three addressed the rebels in earnest
remonstrance. The riot was quelled, and the exercises
resumed their course.

The religious views of Thomas Jefferson, and
his fears of sectarian influence, undoubtedly gave
a bias to the early life of this institution, much to
be deplored.[127] But whatever may have been the
sinister causes operating on its infancy, they have
long since ceased. It is a truth practically illustrating
the value of religion, that the employment
of a chaplain at the University, was the voluntary
work of its professors, officers, and students. A
divine, chosen each year from one of the four principal
evangelical denominations, is paid by subscriptions
of the students and a percentage upon
their salaries voluntarily granted by the faculty
and other officers.[128] And since this change, notwithstanding
the scenes of rebellion and murder[129]

which have shaken it to its base, the University
has disappointed the fears of its friends, and the
hopes of its foes. In the past ten years, it has
annually averaged one hundred and eighteen new
students; its number in 1845, was one hundred
and ninety-four; and its organization has, perhaps,
never held out a more exhilarating prospect than at
the present time.

But, during the years in which the Old Dominion
was rearing an institution of learning, her
friends have been forced to acknowledge that her
general progress was far behind the demands of
the age. The delays that occurred ere her scheme
was accomplished, may be considered as indicative
of her character. After 1820, the difference between
herself, and her sisters of the North and her
daughters of the West, became constantly more
apparent. She was indeed advancing, but it was
with a step sluggish and undecided, while they
were moving forward with vigour and speed. Virginia
was seeking to feed herself upon the accumulations
of the past, while all around her were
growing strong upon the healthful aliment of the
present age. We shall again have occasion, in the
closing chapter of this work, to refer to this lethargy
which has so much weakened the sinews of our
state. It may not be impossible to find causes
adequate to produce such stupor, and to foresee in

the removal, or at least the mitigation of those
causes, the return of full life and energy to Virginia.

The Constitution of 1776 had been a tried and
faithful servant. It had its faults, but its virtues
outweighed them. It had endured for half a century,
and had guided the state through many
scenes of trial. But now it seemed to be time that
the government-making abilities of her statesmen
should again be put in motion. They had been so
long unemployed, that they were in danger of
growing dull from disuse. We have admitted that
the old system had several weak points; and have
described those most objectionable. None of these
defects were greatly injurious; for had they been
so, they would have been remedied long before the
year 1830. But as the people were now quiet, and
moderately prosperous, free from war, and not
painfully disturbed by fear of federal encroachment,
they thought it a favourable season for taking
the ancient machine of government to pieces, and
fitting it together again, with certain added springs
and wheels, which would increase its beauty and
usefulness.

The chief objection to the old constitution, was
the narrow right of suffrage. We have seen that
under its provisions, as finally interpreted by the
Legislature, the privilege of voting was confined
to men having a freehold in fifty acres of unimproved,
or twenty-five acres of improved land, or
in a house and lot in some town.[130] Though this

freehold qualification may restrict the number of
voters, yet many wise men have thought it to be
most expedient in all points of view. For, a freeholder,
in most cases, will have other interests besides
that in land; he will be interested to protect
personal property; to insure good faith between
man and man; to provide for the pure administration
of justice; and therefore he will choose honest
and competent law-makers. Yet it was natural
that this restriction should dissatisfy many who
felt deep interest in the welfare of the community,
but whose pursuits did not lead them to acquire
land. And it is true, that minds of high order have
held a freehold suffrage to be too narrow for the
spirit of American institutions.

(1828.) At length, after several ineffectual efforts
to procure a change, an Act of Assembly was
passed, on the 31st January, to provide for taking
the sense of the people as to the call of a convention.[131] The voters on this question were, of course,
to be qualified according to the existing constitution;
and upon full returns, it appeared that twenty-one
thousand eight hundred and ninety-six
voted for a convention, and sixteen thousand six
hundred and thirty-seven against it. (1829.) On
the 10th of February, another act was passed, for
organizing the convention; and it was provided
that its members should be elected by voters
qualified according to the old constitution, but that
the question of ratifying their labours should be decided
by voters qualified to vote for members of the

most numerous branch of the Legislature, according
to the requirements of the new or amended
Constitution.[132] Once more, then, Virginia was
busy with popular meetings and debates. The
members of Convention were elected, and on Monday,
the 5th of October, they met at the Capitol
in Richmond, and prepared to enter upon their
duties.

Their number varied from time to time during
the session, but it was generally about ninety-six.
It embraced men venerable in years and in reputation.
James Madison was the only member who
had also been a member of the Assembly of 1776,
that adopted the old Constitution. John Marshall,
Chief Justice of the United States, was elected
from Richmond City. Besides these, there were
James Monroe, the ex-President, John Randolph
of Roanoke, Samuel Taylor, Benjamin Watkins
Leigh, William B. Giles, Lucas P. Thompson,
Philip N. Nicholas, Archibald Stuart, Briscoe G.
Baldwin, Chapman Johnson, John R. Cooke, John
Y. Mason, Robert Stanard, Littleton W. Tazewell,
Abel P. Upshur, William F. Gordon, and others
equally distinguished, of whom some have gone
from among us, but most are alive to the present
day.[133] At first, James Monroe was elected President,
and George W. Munford, Secretary; but a
change afterwards took place, and when the
amended Constitution was approved, Philip P.
Barbour was President, and David Briggs, Secretary.

They were in session until the 15th January,
1830. Thus, their debate lasted more than three
months, nearly as long as that of the immortal Convention
of 1787. They discussed, most elaborately,
all the interests of Virginia,—present, past, and future;
and at length approved an "Amended Constitution,"
by a vote of fifty-five to forty. Philip
Doddridge, of Brooke County, was sick at the time;
had he voted, the majority for the Constitution
would have been reduced to fourteen.[134] Several
members had strong objections to the plan, but
voted for it in a spirit of compromise. John Randolph
moved that the question of ratifying should
be submitted to the vote of the people, qualified
according to the "Old Constitution;" but, as the
Act of Assembly, under which the Convention was
elected, had expressly declared that this question
should be decided by the votes of those qualified
according to the amended plan proposed, Mr. Randolph's
motion was properly rejected.[135]

The principal change involved in the "Amended
Constitution," was in the right of suffrage.[136] Under
it, with some salutary exceptions, white men
twenty-one years old are to vote, if they are qualified
according to the Old Constitution, or if they
are possessed, or have a tenant possessed of an
estate of freehold, worth twenty-five dollars, or
have in land a share worth twenty-five dollars, or
have a reversion, or vested remainder in fee in land
worth fifty dollars; or have a leasehold estate, originally
for five years or more, of the annual value

of twenty dollars; or be housekeepers and heads of
families, having actually paid within the year preceding
that in which they propose to vote, the part
of the revenue of the Commonwealth with which
they have been assessed.[137]

The New Constitution adopts the old "Bill of
Rights" without the slightest change. It also interweaves
into its own texture the enactments of
the "Bill of Religious Freedom," and farther declares
that "the Legislature shall not prescribe any
religious test whatsoever; nor confer any peculiar
privileges or advantages on any one sect or denomination,
nor pass any law requiring or authorizing
any religious society, or the people of any district
within this Commonwealth, to levy on themselves
or others any tax for the erection and repair of any
house for public worship, or for the support of any
church or ministry." It forbids bills of attainder,
ex post facto laws, laws impairing the obligation of
contracts, or abridging the freedom of speech or of
the press, or any law "whereby private property
shall be taken for public uses without just compensation."

It will not be necessary farther to detail the provisions
of the new system of government, and it is
perhaps the less necessary, because the Constitution
has already been threatened with change.
Notwithstanding the great experience and ability
of the men who framed it, their work has given
small satisfaction. Serious attempts to provide for
another convention have been made, and though

they have heretofore been defeated, it is impossible
to say when they may be renewed and carried into
full effect. To this subject allusion will again be,
presently, required.

After the Convention adjourned, the plan they
had approved was submitted to the people, and was
ratified by a majority of nearly ten thousand five
hundred votes: twenty-six thousand and fifty-five
voting in the affirmative, and fifteen thousand five
hundred and sixty-three in the negative.[138] The attentive
reader will observe, that under the ancient
freehold qualification, the number of votes thrown
on the question of a convention, was thirty-eight
thousand five hundred and thirty-three, and that,
two years afterwards, the whole number thrown,
on the expanded basis of suffrage provided by the
new system, was but forty-one thousand six hundred
and eighteen. Thus, the difference was very
little more than three thousand votes, and if we
take into view the natural increase in Virginia's
population during these two years, the difference
will appear yet smaller. The quantity of the
popular constituency seemed very little augmented,
and will any say that its quality was improved?
This fact may furnish evidence either that the
Convention ought to have made no change, or that
the change made ought to have gone far beyond
that actually adopted.

And in reviewing the official returns from the
polls,[139] we may see the broad shadow that "coming

events" cast before them. It will be remarked
that, in general, the counties west of the Blue
Ridge voted heavily against the Amended Constitution.
Harrison threw one thousand one hundred
and twelve votes to eight; Ohio, six hundred and
forty-three to three; Randolph, five hundred and
sixty-five to four; Logan, two hundred and fifty-five
to two; Hardy, one hundred and twenty to
sixty-three; Grayson, six hundred and forty-nine
to seventy, and in the county of Brooke, the whole
vote of three hundred and seventy-one was against
the plan. In the forty-one counties then composing
the entire region west of the Blue Ridge,
there was a clear majority of seven thousand three
hundred and two votes against the New Constitution.
And yet, in its favour, the sixty-eight
counties east of the Ridge, gave a majority of
seventeen thousand seven hundred and ninety-four,
which was sufficient to extinguish the whole adverse
majority of the West, and to bring the state
in favour of the new government, by a balance of
ten thousand four hundred and ninety-two votes.

This conflict of sentiment was too remarkable,
and too plainly defined by geographical bounds, to
be without an adequate cause. We must endeavour
to explain it.

In 1830, Eastern Virginia, upon a surface of
twenty-seven thousand two hundred square miles,
had a population of eight hundred and thirty-two
thousand nine hundred and eighty souls, of whom
four hundred and sixteen thousand three hundred and
twenty (or within a minute fraction of one-half) were

slaves. At the same time, Western Virginia, upon
an area of forty-two thousand eight hundred square
miles, had a population of three hundred and seventy-eight
thousand four hundred and twenty-five,
of whom fifty-three thousand four hundred and
thirty-seven, (or about one-seventh,) were slaves.
The above estimate includes the free blacks, who
were about fifty-seven thousand in number, and
were distributed through both sections of the state.[140]
Thus will be perceived at a glance the enormous
disparity of the slave interest in the two great divisions
of Virginia. And this has caused the difference
of sentiment between them, which has threatened
to rend them asunder. Other and minor
causes may have increased the feeling, but this
has been paramount. Its operation may be developed.

When the Federal Government was formed,
slavery was in full being, and it entered largely
into the debates of the body that framed the Constitution.
It was soon decided that direct taxes
and representation in the several states must be
proportioned to their respective numbers, but in
estimating those numbers the difficulty arose.
Were the slaves to be considered as persons or as
property? In fact, they were both: they were persons,
for they had bodies and souls; they increased
the numerical strength of the country for every
effort requiring human exertion; they added to its
responsibility for the protection of life and health;

they were capable of crime, and liable to punishment
for it. And they were also property, liable
to be bought and sold, conveyed by deed, bequeathed
by will, gained by marriage or descent. At
length a fair compromise was effected between the
slaveholding and non-slaveholding states, and the
result was the well-known article in the Constitution,
by which three-fifths of the slaves are added
to the free people of the states in estimating their
numbers. This established what is called the
Mixed Basis of representation and taxation.

It would be hard to find an equitable objection to
this compromise. The instrument containing it
was adopted by the Northern States, and they
have, ever since, acquiesced without resistance.
And if it was right for the Union, it seemed à fortiori
right for Virginia. For, the expenses of the
Federal Government have been generally paid
without direct taxes, and thus the slave states have
had the advantage of having their slaves estimated
in representation without the corresponding burden,
which must be imposed when necessary. But
Virginia was obliged to pay her expenses by direct
taxes, and these of course would fall most heavily
upon slaveholders, and it seemed reasonable that
those who bore the burden, should have the loudest
voice in ordering its adjustment. This view so
commended itself to the majority of the Convention,
that they adopted the principle of the Mixed Basis
for representation in Virginia. They were, of
course, compelled, under the Federal Constitution,
to apply it in apportioning representatives for Congress.[141]

And they, in substance, carried it out for
the state government.

Their Legislature was to consist of two branches,
the Senate and the House of Delegates. To constitute
the Senate, they considered the state as divided
into Eastern and Western Virginia by the Blue
Ridge. To Eastern Virginia they gave nineteen
senators, to Western Virginia, thirteen. To constitute
the House of Delegates, they considered the
state under a division into four districts, to wit: the
Tide-Water District, running from the Atlantic
coast and the Bay to the head of tide-water; the
Middle District, from the head of tide-water to the
eastern base of the Blue Ridge; the Valley District,
between the two great ranges of mountains; and
the Trans-Alleghany District, running from the
Alleghany range to the western boundary of the
state. To the first of these districts, they gave
thirty-six delegates; to the second, forty-two; to
the third, twenty-five; and to the fourth, thirty-one.
A comparison of these numbers with the population
of the several parts of the state, would show
that both Houses were, substantially, constituted on
the principle of the Mixed Basis; and though power
was given to the Legislature to re-apportion the
Senators and Delegates from time to time, yet it
was given with some restraints, and it has uniformly
been exercised according to the original
principle.

The people of Western Virginia have never been
satisfied with this arrangement. Their complaints

are natural, and merit serious thought. They have
urged that the slaves of the state ought not to be
considered, in fixing the number of representatives,
for they cannot be regarded as persons, because
they do no public duty, and can never be permitted
to vote; and as property they cannot be
considered, because such property is not the basis
of representation. They have insisted that the
White Basis alone should be adopted, and that only
this will insure to them their legitimate influence
in the public counsels. These views have been so
controlling, that in the session of 1845-46 a vote
was taken in the Legislature upon the expediency
of calling another convention. The attempt then
failed, but it is believed that it has not been finally
abandoned.

It would be obviously improper in this work to
express any opinion upon this subject, farther than
may have been necessarily involved in a fair statement
of its merits. To the wisdom, the moderation,
the patriotism, both of the West and the
East, it must be committed.

But the candid will forgive an earnest deprecation
of hasty measures for obtaining a new government.
It has been thought, that this attempt, unless
conducted with a degree of delicacy and of
self-sacrifice seldom found in human action, will end
in sundering entirely the two great divisions of the
state, than which, no result could be more deplorable.
They have been united, not so much by common
origin, or common interest, as by those thousand
hallowed and tender associations which cluster

around the very name of Virginia. There are few
sensitive hearts, either in the East or the West,
that would not bleed under the shame of a divorce
so unnatural. And even if this extreme evil did
not follow, a change of government might produce
other ills, only the more formidable, because not
yet defined. Nothing is more dangerous than that
popular restlessness which, without adequate cause,
seeks to remodel the whole framework of government.
Whether this has not been demonstrated
by the experience of the past twenty years in Virginia,
the public conscience may decide. In this
subject, beyond all others, it becomes us to consider
whether we should not

(1831.) In the year succeeding the approval of
the new Constitution, the state witnessed a scene
of domestic bloodshed caused by a part of the very
population whose presence produced such conflict
of sentiment among her citizens. In the county of
Southampton lived a slave named Nat Turner,
small and somewhat feeble in body, but of shrewd
and enthusiastic mind. He was a preacher among
his class, and claimed also the character of a
prophet. During the month of August, the sun at
one time assumed a singular appearance, probably
under the influence of meteoric causes, which have
not yet been fully explained. Nat Turner found
in this event food for his own fanaticism, and that
of his followers. He prepared papers covered with

hieroglyphics, apparently written in blood, and
presenting mystic symbols,—a sun, a crucifix, and
various numbers.[142] These were doubtless the reflections
of his own distempered fancy; but they
wrought effectively on the dark minds upon
whom they were intended to operate. He is said
to have traversed several counties, and to have
formed a plan for a general insurrection, which
was only defeated by a mistake as to the appointed
day; but no satisfactory evidence of so extensive a
plot has been adduced. Yet his scheme was sufficient
to work horrible consequences.

Late in the night of Sunday, the 21st of August,
this misguided wretch, at the head of about twenty
followers, approached the house of Joseph Travis,
his master. The negroes entered the house by a
ladder, and it was agreed that Nat Turner should
shed the first blood. He aimed a blow at Mr.
Travis, in bed, but the hatchet glanced, and the
wounded man sprang up, and called wildly on his
wife. Another negro, named Will, instantly struck
him dead with an axe. The wife and her children,
even to the infant in the cradle, all shared the same
fate. The murderers rifled the house of all the
guns and ammunition it contained, and then proceeded
on their errand of death. They had tasted
blood, and now maddened by desperation, they
thought of nothing but indiscriminate murder. At
the house of Levi Waller, they left his wife and
ten children lying in a bleeding heap upon the
floor. Near the same place was a school of little

girls, all of whom were butchered by these monsters,
except one young innocent of twelve years,
who hid herself in a neighbouring hedge. When
found afterwards by her friends, she said with
touching simplicity, that "God had watched over
her."[143] At every house, the slaves seized all the
arms and horses they could obtain; and as they
went forward their numbers increased, until they
were more than forty, well mountd, and still
thirsting for blood.

As they galloped up to the house of Mrs.
Vaughan, a widow lady of the county, she saw
them at a distance, but, paralysed with terror,
made no attempt to escape. She was killed, together
with several members of her family, and
her daughter, a young lady remarkable for her
beauty, was shot down within a few feet of the
house door, while endeavouring to make her escape.[144]
After completing other butcheries, the negroes
thought themselves strong enough to attack the
town of Jerusalem, the county seat of Southampton.
But when within a few miles of the place,
they were met by a small body of white men,
armed with guns generally loaded with bird-shot,[145]
and at the first discharge, the cowardly wretches
turned and fled to the swamps behind them. They
soon afterwards collected their scattered forces, and
prepared to make another attack.

But the first house they sought was that of

Doctor Blount; and here was to be a display of real
heroism. Besides the Doctor himself, there were
in the house, his son,[146] a brave youth of fifteen, and
three other white men. Six guns were heavily
loaded, and one was reserved by Doctor Blount,
who resolved that their lives should be sold as
dearly as possible. The negroes approached within
twenty yards, and then, with steady aim, five
discharges were poured upon them. One fell dead,
another was severely wounded; the rest betook
themselves to flight in utter consternation.[147]

It was now noon of Monday, the 22d, and from
this time, the offensive warfare of the slaves was
over. Recovering from their momentary panic,
the people of the county rallied, and came upon
the butchers with stern resolve to exterminate them
if necessary. They hunted them like beasts of
prey through the swamps. We have reason to
fear that many summary executions took place,
and that some who were innocent may have been
slain. Several slaves captured near a point known
as the Cross-Keys, were decapitated on the spot.[148]
But there was much to extenuate this violence,
and when the first ebullition of revenge was gone,
justice resumed her course; captives were brought
to Jerusalem for regular trial. General Eppes, the
commander of this militia district, organized a

sufficient force for protection, and dismissed the
companies who had come from distant points.

Meanwhile, Norfolk had heard of the insurrection,
and was in great excitement. Commodore
Warrington, of the navy-yard, promptly offered a
full supply of pistols, cutlasses, and ball-cartridges,
sufficient for a thousand men; the borough court
took active steps for sending a force to the scene;
the steamer Hampton was chartered; at Fortress
Monroe, Colonel House embarked in her with three
companies of United States troops, and then from
the sloops of war Natchez and Warren she received
a corps of marines.[149] Captain Elliot and
Colonel Worth attended them. At the same time,
troops of cavalry from Norfolk and Prince George
started for Southampton; and on the evening of
August 23d, the Richmond Light Dragoons and
Fayette Artillery set out for Jerusalem; but the
latter were met at Smithfield by a message from
General Eppes, informing them that they would
not be needed, as the insurrection was entirely
crushed.

On the morning of the 25th, besides the large
military force, there were assembled in Jerusalem
nearly four hundred ladies of the county, who had
fled from their homes to escape the murderers.
Such a display had never before been seen in the
town. The danger was over, but sad recitals were
to be exchanged among the survivors. Fifty-five
victims had fallen, principally women and children.
It is remarkable, that through the whole series of

assaults, not one female was violated.[150] Remembering
the brutal passions of the negro, we can only
account for this fact by supposing the actors to
have been appalled by the very success of their
hideous enterprise.

Order having been once more restored, and most
of the foreign troops having left the town, the trials
were carried forward with a patience and care
highly creditable to the magistracy of the county.
Twenty-one slaves were convicted and condemned,
and thirteen were executed. Nat Turner long
escaped the vigilance of his pursuers by concealing
himself under a pile of fence-rails, but at
length he was captured, and on the 11th of November,
met the fate his crimes deserved.

This insurrection produced a strong movement
of the public mind in Virginia. Its progress and
total failure had indeed strengthened the conviction
that no widespread ruin could ever be brought by
her slaves. They were weak and cowardly, killing
only the unarmed and feeble, and flying before any
determined opposition. Yet the revolt had inflicted
painful wounds; many of the young and innocent
had fallen, and many had been butchered who
had gained a good name for benevolence to their
species. The cruelty of the slaves was the more
unpardonable, because it was unprovoked. They
had never been treated harshly; Nat Turner himself
declared that his master was invariably kind
to him. Their outrages were prompted by nothing
save an inhuman fanaticism. How far they may

have been stimulated by the prevalence of abolition
doctrines, introduced among them by secret agents,
has never been determined.

Governor Floyd delayed not to arm the country.
Muskets were distributed in abundance to the
militia, and, in a short time, Virginia, if called to
the field, would have bristled with bayonets. The
next session of the Legislature was interesting:
many members of fine talents composed it, and
their debates had now a subject favourable alike to
displays of reasoning and of passion. It has been
said that the idea of general emancipation had
many supporters, and that nothing but the reaction
against the sinister influences from abroad prevented
its triumph. But this reaction was complete.
Instead of emancipating, the Legislature
passed stringent laws against slaves, free negroes,
and mulattoes; forbidding their meetings, punishing
them for words, proscribing their instruction,
arresting their preachers, and imposing other restrictions,
which though necessary, are saddening
to the heart of the philanthropist.[151] In subsequent
years, much of this austere legislation has been
modified, but enough remains to remind slaves of
the miseries entailed by such an attempt as that of
1831; and whites, of the evils bequeathed to them
by their European forefathers.

Though slavery is an institution which cannot
be considered desirable, and which Virginia would
never choose, were the question now first presented
to her, yet it is her duty carefully to guard the

property secured by it, until such time as her citizens
shall voluntarily part with it. Any interference
with it by other states, or by the General
Government, will not fail to rouse her to firm resistance.
Her principles on this subject have been
made known in a memorable case, which has not
yet ceased to act upon her conduct. On the 30th
of August, 1839, Henry L. Hopkins, Lieutenant-Governor
of the Commonwealth, transmitted to
William H. Seward, Governor of New York, a requisition,
in form, demanding the surrender of three
fugitives from justice in Virginia. The requisition
was accompanied by an affidavit made before Miles
King, Mayor and Justice of the Peace in Norfolk,
by John G. Colley, who swore that on or about the
15th of July, 1839, Peter Johnson, Edward Smith,
and Isaac Gansey, attached to the schooner Robert
Centre, then in New York, "did feloniously steal
and take from the said Colley, a certain negro slave,
the property of said Colley." The requisition
therefore, demanded these men under the Constitution,[152] and the Act of Congress made in pursuance
thereof.

Governor Seward declined to comply with this
requisition. In his answer, he made some slight
objections to the form of the affidavit; but he did
not attempt to conceal the truth, that his refusal
was based upon much broader ground than a defect
in the form of the demand. That might easily
have been repaired; but his Excellency of New
York expressly declared, that he could not surrender

these men, because he did not conceive that
the act with which they were charged came within
the meaning of the words "treason, felony, or other
crime," used in the Constitution. A voluminous
correspondence occurred between Governor Seward
and Mr. Hopkins, and was afterwards continued
between the former and Thomas Walker Gilmer,
who was elected Governor of Virginia in March,
1840.[153] This correspondence was managed with
ability on both sides. On the part of the executive
of Virginia, the power with which her right was
sustained has long been conceded; and on the side
of Governor Seward it may be said, that only ingenuity
more than common could have made his conduct
appear respectable in the eyes of reasonable
men.

He assumed the ground that the words "treason,
felony, or other crime" in the Constitution, must be
understood to apply only to those acts which are
recognised as crimes by the laws of all civilized nations;
that it was not sufficient that the act should
be a crime according to the laws of the state where
it was committed; that at common law there could
be no such crime as stealing a slave, because slavery
did not exist; that the laws of New York had long
since abolished slavery, and that, therefore, as the act
charged was a crime, not by the common law, nor
by the laws of all civilized nations, nor by the laws
of New York, but merely by the statute law of
Virginia, the Constitution did not apply, and he

was not bound to surrender the fugitives. How
indefensible was the course pursued by Governor
Seward will appear from the following considerations:

1. He infringed a precedent given by one of his
own predecessors in office. In the year 1832,
Enos T. Throop, Governor of New York, issued
his warrant directing one John Clark, to be taken
into custody, in order that he might be delivered to
an agent from Rhode Island. Governor Throop's
warrant recites a requisition of the Executive of
Rhode Island, informing him that the said Clark
was charged with having, while President of the
Burrilville Bank, abstracted notes, money, and
bank bills, from said bank, "which said acts (the
warrant adds) are made criminal by the laws of that
state." It is to be remembered that the acts committed
by Clark do not constitute a crime at common
law, but a mere breach of trust, yet Governor
Throop decided that because they were made criminal
by the laws of Rhode Island, therefore, the
fugitive must be surrendered.[154] The principle of
this precedent will apply with exactness to the
Virginia case.

2. He ran counter to a decision made by the
Supreme Court of his own state. For, this same
case of John Clark, after passing through intermediate
judicial stages, came before the highest court
of New York. Chief Justice Savage delivered an
opinion, to the effect that all the elements entered
into this case that were required in order to bring

it within the Constitution and Act of Congress; 1.
The Governor of Rhode Island had demanded that
Clark should be arrested and delivered up as a
fugitive from justice; 2. A copy of an affidavit was
presented, charging Clark with certain acts which
the Governor of Rhode Island certified to have been
made criminal by the laws of that state; 3. The
affidavit was certified by the Governor of Rhode
Island to be duly authenticated. The Chief Justice
decided that it was only necessary that the fugitive
should be "properly charged" with crime in the
state demanding him, in order to require his surrender.[155] This decision is applicable to the case from Virginia.
Her laws make it deep felony to steal a slave,[156]
and her executive had sent, with his own endorsement,
an affidavit charging the three fugitives with
having "feloniously" stolen the slave of Colley.

3. He violated the Constitution of the United
States. At the time when that instrument was
adopted, slaves existed in New York as well as in
Virginia, and one of its articles declared that "No
person held to service or labour in one state, under
the laws thereof, escaping into another, shall, in
consequence of any law or regulation therein, be
discharged from such service or labour, but shall
be delivered up on claim of the party to whom such
service or labour shall be due."[157] Cautiously as this
clause is worded, it can mean nothing less than that a

slave escaping from a slave state to a free state does
not become free. The laws of the free state cannot
deprive the owner of his property in his slave; in
other words, they must recognise that property.
New York solemnly assented to the Constitution.
She became a party to the compact, and it binds
herself and all her officers. Therefore, a slave
being property by the law of Virginia, must be
recognised as property by New York. And the
three fugitives were charged with stealing this property.
If such an act was not a crime within the
meaning of the Constitution, it is hard to conceive
what would constitute a crime. By refusing to
exercise his constitutional duty, Governor Seward
subjected himself to the charge of having deliberately
countenanced men who had "feloniously
taken and carried away the personal property of
another," which is the technical definition of a
larceny.

Even in his own, and some other states farther
north, the Governor's course was considered unjustifiable.
The press of New York and Massachusetts,
while under the control of moderate men,
spoke plainly their disapproval.[158] In Virginia, a
committee of the House of Delegates made a report
on the subject, and the Assembly advised the executive
to address letters to the Southern States,
asking their co-operation in sustaining the common
rights of the South. This was done by Governor
Gilmer, and Alabama made a prompt response.[159]

The course pursued by the Legislature of New
York has left it doubtful whether they entirely
sanctioned the refusal of the Governor;[160] but no
efficient measures were taken to surrender the
criminals. (1841.) Virginia could no longer submit
without retaliation. On the 13th of March,
the Assembly passed a severe Inspection Law, requiring
that all vessels from New York entering
the ports of Virginia, should be placed under the
control of inspectors, and should not be permitted
to leave port without a certificate from one of these
inspectors, testifying that they had no concealed or
stolen slaves aboard.[161] This act passed both Houses
by a decisive majority, yet not without opposition.
Wyndham Robertson, the delegate from Richmond
City, presented a protest, after its passage, alleging
many objections to the law. This was signed by
himself and twenty-one other members of the
House.

Hardly had this action been taken, ere a circumstance
occurred which enabled Virginia to show to
New York an example of obedience to the Constitution
in the very requirement which the latter
state so deliberately infringed. Robert F. Curry,
charged with committing forgery in New York,
fled to Virginia. Governor Seward, in proper form,
made a requisition for the fugitive. Governor
Gilmer, acting with conscientious regard to what
he deemed his duty, declined to comply with this

demand until justice should be done by New York
to Virginia. But the House of Delegates having
obtained official knowledge of the facts, passed, on
the 20th day of March, a resolution, expressing
confidence in the patriotic motives of the Governor,
but declaring that if the demand had been legally
made, the fugitive ought to be surrendered, notwithstanding
the conduct of New York. Immediately
on the receipt of this resolution, Governor
Gilmer addressed a letter to the House, in which
he vindicated his action, and declaring that he was
unwilling to oppose his individual views to the
wishes of the other department of government, he
resigned his office![162] On the 22d, Curry was surrendered
by John M. Patton, the Lieutenant-Governor,
who accompanied his act by a renewed
protest against the conduct of the executive of
New York.

A calm review of the events of this period will
convince us that the Assembly adopted the proper
course as to the requisition of Governor Seward.
The infringement of the Constitution by the executive
of New York, would not justify a similar
infringement by the executive of Virginia. The
federal compact was still binding, and it was a
duty which Virginia owed, not merely to New
York, but to every other state in the Union, to surrender
fugitives from justice when properly charged
with crime, and demanded. Yet all discriminating
minds have recognised the purity of the motives
which impelled Governor Gilmer in the course he

pursued. He was a patriot statesman. Those
who knew him best in life found in him the chivalrous
traits of the gentleman, united with those nobler
qualities that distinguish the Christian. The
appalling accident which cut him down in the very
strength of his days, filled America with mourning,
and history can offer no solace for his death, save
the sad privilege of paying an impartial tribute to
his memory.

Subsequent years have presented few causes
which have materially affected the individual fortunes
of Virginia. It might not indeed be difficult
to tell of scenes which have moved the very heart
of society, but the lessons that are to be conveyed
by these events must be left to the future. Time
must heal wounds and alleviate sorrows, before experience
will venture to record them as admonitions,
alike to those who have felt, and those who
have escaped them.

The retrocession of the county and town of
Alexandria, will appropriately close the history of
Virginia to the present time. They had been
originally granted as part of the "ten miles square."
It will be unnecessary to detail all the causes which
made them dissatisfied with their condition, and
induced a wish to return to the parent state. One
who has inhabited the "District," has compared
his feelings on a temporary visit to Virginia to
those of a man who had been gasping in a vacuum,
and had suddenly been granted the enjoyment of
a pure and healthful atmosphere.[163] How far his

views have accorded with those of others in the
same circumstances, we cannot say. The Act of
Congress authorizing the retrocession was approved
on the 9th of July, 1846, and the vote of
the county and town having shown a large majority
in favour of the measure, nothing remained but its
ratification by Virginia. On the 13th March, 1847,
the Legislature passed an act, by which this part
of the "District" was reunited to the Commonwealth.[164]
Provision was made for extending to it
the judicial rule of the state, and for organizing its
internal polity. The county and town were joined
to the county of Fairfax, for all the purposes of
suffrage for representation, either in the state or
the General Government.

Such an occurrence has novel and interesting
features for Virginia. She has sent forth many
emigrants, has been the mother of many states;
she has been impoverished by the very generosity
which has enriched younger sovereignties, and
few indeed have been the direct benefits she has derived
from her munificence. But when she finds
a number of her children voluntarily returning to
her bosom, she may hope that she has not entirely
lost her claim upon the affections of those who
have gone out and established permanent interests
in distant parts of America.

CHAPTER VIII.

Having attended Virginia from her birth, through
the varied fortunes of her life, to the present time,
it will be proper that we shall now present a view
of her general condition and prospects. This will
lead us again to speak of the past, but only so far
as shall be necessary in order to illustrate the
present. Important as may have been the action

of our state in the general system, and imposing as
her example must always be, it cannot be denied
that she no longer holds the high position in the
confederacy that she once occupied. If it be true
that she has fallen behind her sisters, that she languishes
while they prosper, that she is indolent
while they are active, her people ought not to shut
their eyes to her faults. And if for her ills there
be a remedy which perseverance can secure, wisdom
will not refuse to hear encouragement to seek
this remedy. It is believed that what will now be
presented will convince the candid that Virginia is
in a more prosperous condition than has generally
been supposed; that her worst maladies are susceptible
of cure, and that she has in herself a recuperative
power which is rapidly diffusing itself
throughout her whole system, and restoring her to
more than pristine vigour.

Our review will be appropriately opened by remarks
upon the Law of the state, its progress and
present aspect. In a previous chapter, we have
endeavoured to explain the great changes in the
civil jurisprudence of Virginia, wrought under the
influence of the Revolution. It will not be necessary
to add much to what has been said on this
subject. Farther changes have indeed been effected,—all
have been important, and some salutary;
but they have been of a character interesting rather
to lawyer and client, as such, than to the people at
large. The Common Law of England is yet the
broad basis on which rests our legal system; and
though, since the Revolution, innovations upon the

common law have been practised with unsparing
hand, yet now the Legislature touches it lightly.
The people love it, and well-trained lawyers reverence
it more and more. It is not probable that
any other general system will ever be substituted
for it in Virginia.

In the criminal law of the state, great changes
have occurred within seventy years past. The
code has been softened and improved. Cruel and
unusual punishments have been abrogated. The
punishment of death is inflicted by hanging by
the neck, and as to white inhabitants, it is retained
in three cases only: treason, murder in the
first degree, and the felonious burning of a house
in a town. Other grave felonies are punished by
confinement in the penitentiary during a series of
years, and in some cases of repeated conviction,
during life. Misdemeanours, in general, are punished
by fine, and imprisonment in the common
jails.

The Penitentiary System of the state has worked
well; its superintendence has been careful, and its
abuses have been few. The convicts have proper
medical attendance, and except in extreme cases,
they are not subjected to solitary confinement.
The Penitentiary, though not applicable to slaves,
applies to free negroes and mulattoes, as well as
whites.[165] The internal division is into five wards,
in each of which some species of healthful and

profitable labour is enforced upon every convict able
to work. Boot and shoemaking, tailoring, blacksmithing,
stonecutting, axe-making, weaving, spinning,
carpenters' work, coopering, painting, and
other industrial pursuits, are carried on with vigour,
and produce each year an average of nearly twenty-four
thousand dollars, or about one hundred and
twenty dollars for each convict. Besides these,
there is a garden attached to the buildings, which
is worked by the inmates, and which produces in
value nearly four hundred dollars per annum.
The whole number of convicts, on the 30th September,
1846, was two hundred and twenty-five,
of whom one hundred and forty-three were white,
and eighty-two coloured; two hundred and eighteen
were males, and seven females.[166] During the forty-five
years from 1800 to the beginning of 1845, the
number has greatly varied; the annual average being
one hundred and forty-six. In this period, the greatest
number was two hundred and twenty, in the year
1823. Since that time the number has diminished,
though in irregular proportion. At the opening of
1845, the total was one hundred and ninety-seven.
During the above period, the whole number of
white males received, was eighteen hundred and
fifty-four; of white females, thirty-six; of coloured
males, five hundred and thirty-four; of coloured
females, sixty-three. Thus the whole number of
white convicts received, has been eighteen hundred
and ninety; and of coloured, composed of free
negroes and mulattoes, five hundred and ninety-seven.[167]

Let it be remembered that during the forty years
from 1800 to 1840, the average white population of
Virginia was six hundred and twenty thousand,
while in the same time, the average free coloured
population was thirty-seven thousand souls. Therefore
the number of white convicts was one in about
three hundred and twenty-eight, and the number
of free coloured convicts, one in about sixty-one.
An ominous disparity! which has constantly pressed
upon the attention of the reflecting men of the
state. The free negroes and mulattoes are unquestionably
the most vicious and corrupting of the
varied material composing our social system. But
they have souls, feelings, rights. It will require
all that humanity and wisdom united can suggest,
so to legislate with regard to them as to check the
evils they produce, and yet grant them justice and
mercy.

And in this connexion, it must be stated that
the criminal law, as to free coloured persons and
slaves, differs widely from that applied to whites.
The free negroes occupy an equivocal and most
unhappy position between the whites and slaves,
and the laws affecting them partake of this peculiarity.
Capital punishment is inflicted on them
for offences more lightly punished in whites.[168]
They are entitled to trial by jury in cases of homicide,
and in all capital cases; but for other crimes,
they are tried by Justices' Courts of Oyer and Terminer,

who must be unanimous in order to convict.
They are subjected to restraint and surveillance in
points beyond number. It is vain to say aught
against the general policy of these measures; they
are the inevitable results of evils which time alone
can cure.

An inexperienced examiner, in reading the criminal
code of Virginia as to slaves, would declare
that it was stained with blood. And, in truth, it is
appalling to note the number and the character of
the offences for which death is denounced against
them. But it affords the purest consolation to reflect
that these laws seldom operate in practice.
To say that the capital execution of a slave in Virginia
is as rare as that of a white person, may not
be true; but it is true that the disparity in number
in such cases, is far less than the ignorant suppose.
The executive is clothed with the merciful power
of selling slaves condemned to die, and transporting
them beyond the limits of the state. The owner
then receives value; but if a slave so transported
returns, he is liable to execution, without reprieve,
and the owner loses his value.[169]

From the Law itself, we may now turn to the
mechanism by which it is administered. Justices
of the peace in Virginia are, in general, not paid
for their labours. Each justice has jurisdiction in
many petty offences, and in civil claims, definite
in character, which do not amount to more than
twenty dollars. Justices compose the County and
Corporation Courts. These sit monthly, and have

extensive powers, civil and criminal, legal and
equitable, original and appellate. Next, the state
is divided into ten judicial districts, and each district
into two circuits, except the fourth, which
contains three circuits. Thus, in all, there are
twenty-one circuits. In each of these, in general,
a single judge presides, uniting in himself the
jurisdictions both of law and chancery. But in
the twenty-first circuit, embracing the County of
Henrico and City of Richmond, there are two
judges, one of whom presides in law and the other in
chancery. Therefore the number of Circuit Judges
in the state is twenty-two. The Circuit Courts
have jurisdiction in civil and criminal cases, and
appeals lie to them from the County and Corporation
Courts. They sit twice a year in every county
in the state.

Next, is the General Court, composed from the
Circuit Judges. They are required to arrange
themselves into four classes of five or six judges
each, one of which is, in annual rotation, exempt
from attendance. Thus, fifteen judges are required
to attend the General Court, of whom eleven constitute
a quorum.[170] They have original jurisdiction
in cases of probate of wills and granting letters of
administration, and in some public claims; and
appellate jurisdiction from the Circuit Courts in all
criminal cases. Finally, the Court of Appeals of
Virginia is composed of five judges, specially
elected, though in some peculiar cases Circuit
Judges may constitute a Special Court of Appeals.

This court has no original jurisdiction, but it is the
supreme civil tribunal of the state. Appeals in
law and chancery lie to it from the Circuit Courts,
and its decision is final. It is deeply to be regretted
that, in consequence of the pressure of its
business, the Court of Appeals is far behindhand
in its decisions. Causes which have accumulated
for a series of years remain undecided on its docket,
and it is probable that an original appeal now obtained,
could not be heard for nearly seven years
from this time.[171] This disheartening evil is believed
to be attributable neither to judges, nor lawyears,
nor clients. The judges work assiduously
about two hundred and fifty days in each year,
the lawyers are ready for argument, when their
causes are reached, and clients are seldom in fault
for delay in their own suits. The evil chiefly
arises from the imperfect performance of the judicial
machinery connected with this department.
In the Legislature, several attempts have been
made to apply correction, but nothing has yet been
done. It is hoped that the attempt will be renewed
until a perfect remedy shall be applied.

We have seen that from time to time the legal
system of Virginia, with its incidents, has been
subjected to revisal, that order and improvement
might be introduced. The last re-arrangement
was conducted under the superintendence of Benjamin
Watkins Leigh, who was aided by William
Waller Hening and William Munford. It took
place in 1819. In this case, the labours of the

learned superintendent were confined to an accurate
collection and classification of the general laws
of the land, according to a scheme prescribed by
the Assembly. He was not required to suggest
reforms.[172] The result was the production of the
two volumes of our "Revised Code," which, with
public statutes since passed, continue to exhibit the
law of the state. Within a few years past, another
and more thorough revisal has been determined on.
The civil and criminal laws of Virginia have been
committed to John M. Patton and Conway Robinson,
whose instructions as to suggested reforms are
broad, and approach nearly to those under which
acted Messrs. Jefferson, Pendleton, and Wythe, in
1777. During the coming session of the Legislature,
a report is expected from these gentlemen.
Those who know them best believe that, united,
they possess accurate legal learning, indefatigable
industry, well-balanced judgment, and liberal views
of public policy. Virginia expects much from their
counsels. Could she obtain a good code, it were
better that it should be made like the laws of the
Medes and Persians, than that it should continue
to tremble in ceaseless fluctuation.

We pass now to some remarks upon the literature
of the state. The attempt to introduce such a
head may excite the surprise of those who can find
no literature except in the classic treasures of antiquity,
or the accumulated stores of modern Europe.
The question may be asked, where is the literature
of Virginia, and it would not be easily answered.

It is a melancholy truth that her people have never
been a reading people. In the mass, they have
shown an indifference to polite letters and to education
in general, depressing to the mind that
wishes to see them respectable and happy. Until
a great change shall be wrought in this respect, the
state can never assume her proper dignity. Nevertheless,
from her settlement to the present time,
men have occasionally lived in Virginia who have
loved learning with sacred affection, exceeded by
none ever felt in America. They have risen superior
to all sinister influences, and have shone the
more brightly, because surrounded by darkness
like that of Gothic ages.

In the year 1621, George Sandys was appointed
Treasurer of the London Company for Virginia, and
while in the Colony, he entertained himself during
leisure hours in translating Ovid's Metamorphoses
into English verse. The work was published in 1632,
under the title of "Ovid's Metamorphoses Englished,
mythologized, and represented in figures." Sandys
was one of the scholars of his day, and his work
drew forth praises from competent critics.[173] There
was little in the unbroken forest, the savage scenes,
the rude settlement, which Virginia then presented,
to accord with the warm colourings and passionate
descriptions of the Roman poet. The translator
drew inspiration from his author, and his own
bosom. Pope was charmed with the work, read it
with rapture at nine years of age, and always afterwards
mentioned it with enthusiasm. When some

of the most graceful pens of Queen Anne's reign
rendered Ovid into English, Sandys fell into oblivion;
but a few time-worn copies of his book may
yet be found in Virginia, to remind her of the first
lover of the Muses who lived on her soil.

It is remarkable that in modern years, another
great poem of antiquity has been translated into
English verse by a Virginian. William Munford
was born in Mecklenburg County, in 1775. He
graduated at William and Mary College, studied
law under Chancellor Wythe, was admitted to the
bar, and practised with success during many years.
He represented his native county in the House of
Delegates, was afterwards in the State Senate, was
chosen a member of the Council of State in 1806,
and was elected Clerk of the House of Delegates in
1811. In addition to his other duties, he reported
the decisions of the Court of Appeals, first alone,
and then in connexion with William Waller Hening,
with whom he also united in aiding Mr. Leigh
in the revisal of 1819. But amid these public
labours, Mr. Munford found time to gratify his
literary taste by translating the whole of Homer's
Iliad into English blank verse. At the time of his
death, July 21st, 1825, he left his work complete,
and prepared for the press. Various circumstances
delayed its appearance until 1846, when it was
published in Boston, in two elegant octavo volumes.
The man of letters in America, will read this work
with pride and pleasure, and profound critics have
long since demonstrated its excellence as a translation.[174]

We do not expect to see it supersede Pope's
Paraphrase of the Iliad. Nine thousand of the
most musical couplets that the English language
is capable of producing, will be read while any
taste is left in the world. But they will be read,
not because they have the simplicity, the fire, the
sublime power of Homer, but because they have
the melody, the feeling, the fascinating graces of
Alexander Pope. Cowper's version of the Iliad is
too rude to be popular. The reader who knows
only English, and who wishes to know how and
what Homer really wrote, will read Munford's
translation.

Of original poetry, Virginia has not yet produced
any work that promises to endure the test
of time. We have already noticed the "Land of
Powhatan," by St. Leger Landon Carter. It has
some beauties but more deformities. It has been
very little read. Mr. Carter's subsequent volume,
"Nugæ by Nugator," contains specimens of better
poetry than any in his earlier work; but its title
will probably foreshadow its fate, as accurately as
its author could have expected. William Maxwell,
of Virginia, has published a volume of poems,
which might now be in circulation, had it not contained
some imitations of Catullus and other Latin
poets, and certain fables in verse, which were not
adapted to the taste of the nineteenth century.
The "Missionary's Grave," in this collection, is
simple and beautiful, and other detached pieces
might be found equally pleasing and elegant.

Added to these, the press of the "Old Dominion"
has sent forth from time to time short poems,
graceful enough to please when they appeared, but
not so instinct with the true "afflatus" as to escape
final oblivion.

Of the lighter species of prose writing, our state
has produced enough to show that time and cultivation
only are required to make her respectable.
Some of the novels written by her children, male
and female, have attracted public favour. "Edgehill,"
and "Yorktown," are yet in print. William
Wirt's British Spy, has long been admired. His
speculations in physics are ingenious, though behind
his own subsequent experience; his sketches
of the great men of Virginia are free and glowing;
his "Blind Preacher" has drawn tears of genuine
feeling from many readers. Mr. Wirt's "Old
Bachelor," though not equal in interest to the Spy,
yet abounds in pleasant portraitures of men and
manners.[175] Many light fragments left by massive
minds in the state, add to her humble literary
stores. The Letters of John Randolph, of Roanoke,
published since his death, are interesting from association,
but they have not increased his fame.

In the more solid departments of literature, Virginia
has not been entirely recreant to her duty.
Her earliest History is that which takes its name
from the renowned John Smith. It is a confused
mass of information, furnished by nearly thirty
writers. Beyond denial, the best parts were from
Smith's own pen. Beverley wrote a volume on

the Colony, which was first published in 1705. He
gives a meagre and prejudiced sketch of the History
of Virginia, in the first part of his book; but
the last part is devoted to her physical condition,
agriculture, natural products, laws, manners, aborigines,—and
this is spirited and valuable. Rev.
William Stith, President of William and Mary
College, was an accomplished scholar and an excellent
man. He wrote the History of the Colony
to 1624, and published it in Williamsburg in 1747.
Our obligations to him have been acknowledged in
the first volume of this work. John Burk was an
Irishman by birth, but practised law in Petersburg
for several years. He wrote three volumes of our
history, and intended to continue it, but he unhappily
fell in a duel with a Frenchman, with whom
he had engaged in a political dispute. Mr. Burk's
volumes show genius and a love of freedom; but
his style tends constantly to the exaggerated and
bombastic, leaving the reader in painful doubt
whether he can safely trust himself to such a guide.
He published in 1804. Skelton Jones wrote a few
pages of a continuation, and Louis Hue Girardin
completed the volume to the close of the Revolution.
This performance has been already noticed.
J. W. Campbell, of Petersburg, wrote a small, but
valuable work on Virginia, published in 1813. His
son, Charles Campbell, has accomplished and is still
applying well-directed labour in the same department.
Rev. William Henry Foote, of Romney,
has published a volume of "Sketches of North
Carolina," embracing many interesting reminiscences
which time threatened to destroy. Much
may yet be expected from Mr. Foote's love of
history.

The writings of the professed statesmen of Virginia
have been generally political, and do not
fall within our present purpose. Mr. Jefferson's
"Notes" are still reckoned among the most agreeable
of his works. They were originally prepared
in 1781, at the request of M. De Marbois, of the
French legation, then in Philadelphia. The work
was revised two years afterwards, and was first
printed in Paris for private circulation. A very
inaccurate and rude French translation having appeared,
the author consented that a London bookseller
should publish the English original, "to let
the world see that it was not really so bad as the
French translation had made it appear."[176] Mr.
Wirt's Life of Patrick Henry has been deservedly
popular. It can hardly be excelled in grace,
warmth, and the power of enlisting attention. And
whatever doubts may once have prevailed, it is believed
that the authenticity of the great body of
the work will bear a rigid test. Professor Tucker's
Life of Jefferson is clearly written, and considering
the difficulty of the subject, it is eminent in candour.
John Marshall's Life of Washington is
learned and accurate, but it wants compactness
and energy. Did our plan embrace remarks upon
professional works, we might find in the law-books
prepared by Virginians, matter for rational pride,
and well-based hope.

The first newspaper in the Colony was the
"Virginia Gazette," the opening number of which
appeared in Williamsburg, August 6, 1736. It
was continued, under various changes, through
nearly fifty years. Companions and successors
were soon established. Examiner, Patriot, Virginian,
Herald, Enquirer, Whig, Compiler, Republican,
and many other equally promising names,
have thrown light and heat among the people.
The tone of the newspaper press in our state has
been always animated, sometimes violent; but
often dignified and impressive. Several attempts
had been made to establish a literary periodical,
but they were not successful until 1834, when
Thomas W. White commenced the "Southern
Literary Messenger," in Richmond. Mr. White
supplied the want of learning and refined taste, by
labour and enthusiasm. He drew able pens to his
pages, and made them welcome to a wide circle of
readers. After his death, in January, 1843, the
Messenger passed into the hands of Benjamin B.
Minor, and within a few weeks it has been transferred
to John R. Thompson, of Richmond. This
periodical, since its birth, has experienced the
changes incident to human effort. At one time it
has been solid and instructive; at another, brilliant
and erratic; at another, decent and dull. Mr.
Thompson's friends believe that it will not lose
vital warmth under his care. High considerations
will induce Virginia and her sister states to sustain
a work commenced and persevered in under so
many disadvantages.

In close union with literature, we will speak of
the institutions intended to spread learning among
the people of the state. We have already noticed
the University, and indulged in surmises as to its
prospects. William and Mary College continues
to flourish with strength apparently not abated. It
has four regular professors, and an average of one
hundred students. Its library contains about five
thousand volumes. Washington College, at Lexington,
has had varied success in the past ten
years, but must still be regarded as prosperous. It
has six professors and tutors, one hundred and
thirty-six students, and there are twenty-seven
hundred volumes in its library. The Virginia
Military Academy was established by act of Assembly
in 1836; its buildings are at Lexington.
Its operations commenced on the 11th November,
1839. The course of instruction is intended to
train young men to all that is essential to the military
art, and of course embraces a wide field of
study. The number of students in each year since
its establishment, has averaged about eighty. The
students are divided into pay and state cadets. In
1846, the number of pay cadets was seventy-seven,
of state cadets twenty-seven, making a total of one
hundred and four.[177] The annual cost of the institution
to the state has been about seven thousand
five hundred dollars. Randolph Macon College,
in Mecklenburg County, is under the care of the
Methodist denomination. It was founded in 1832.

It has eight professors and tutors, and seventy-three
students. Emory and Henry College, under
the same denomination, was founded in 1839. It
has four instructors, forty-six students, and a library
of two thousand eight hundred volumes. Rector
College, in Harrison County, is under the care of
the Baptists. It was established in 1839, and has
about fifty students. There is also a college at
Bethany, which is under the general supervision
of Rev. Alexander Campbell. It was founded in
1840, has six instructors, and one hundred and
twenty-eight students.[178]

Hampden Sydney College, in Prince Edward
County, has not flourished as its friends had hoped,
for a school so unexceptionable in its origin and
object. In the last ten years, the number of students
has hardly attained an average of sixty, and
now it is much less. Difficulties have been experienced
in providing an efficient organization of its
faculty. Within a very short time past, a change
has occurred, which will render a complete reorganization
ultimately necessary. Efforts are now
in progress to raise a fund, by which permanent
scholarships will be attached to this college. With
strenuous exertions it will again prosper; without
them, it will, we fear, become extinct.

But while the parent college thus languishes,
the medical department of Hampden Sydney,
established at Richmond in 1838, promises even
more than its most sanguine friends had hoped. It
has a beautiful building, of Egyptian architecture,

perfectly arranged for hospital instruction, and the
other facilities essential to the medical inquirer.
The number of students has annually averaged
seventy. The number during the session of 184647,
was seventy-five, of whom sixty-seven were
from Virginia. At commencement, in March, 1847,
seventeen students received the degree of Doctor of
Medicine. The department has six professors,
presiding in the several schools of Anatomy and
Physiology, Surgery and Surgical Anatomy, Chemistry
and Pharmacy, Obstetrics and Diseases of
Women and Children, Theory and Practice of
Medicine, Materia Medica and Therapeutics.[179] During
a few months past, the College has sustained a
serious loss in the death of Augustus L. Warner,
M.D., Professor of Surgery, who united to profound
theoretic knowledge of his subject, a delicacy and
skill in practice, which made the surgeon's knife in
his hand the instrument of mercy to the patient.
He has been succeeded by Doctor Charles Bell
Gibson, formerly of the Washington University,
of Baltimore. Thus the faculty is again complete,
and to the student who expects to combat Southern
disease, this medical college presents unique advantages.

Next may be mentioned the institutions of Virginia
for the relief of the insane, the deaf and dumb,
and the blind, which though not immediately connected

with the advance of learning, are evidences
of that higher philanthropy that learning tends to
produce. The state has two lunatic hospitals: the
Eastern, at Williamsburg, under the care of Doctor
John M. Galt, and the Western, at Staunton, under
Doctor Francis T. Stribling. On the 1st of January,
1846, the Eastern Asylum had one hundred and
twenty-eight patients, of whom seventy-one were
males, and fifty-seven females. During the year
ending 31st December, 1846, thirty-two were admitted,
thirteen were discharged, and seven died,
leaving at the last named date, one hundred and
forty in the hospital; of whom eighty-two were
males, and fifty-eight females. Of the aggregate of
one hundred and sixty in the Asylum during the
year, ninety-two were single, fifty-five married,
seven were widows, and six widowers.[180] The
Western Asylum, on the 1st January, 1846, had
one hundred and eighty-two inmates; one hundred
and fourteen males, and sixty-eight females. During
the year 1846, ninety-two were admitted, of whom
precisely one-half were of each sex; thirty-seven
were discharged, and twenty died, leaving at the
close of the year, two hundred and seventeen; one
hundred and twenty-three males, and ninety-four
females. Of the whole number of two hundred
and seventy-four patients in the hospital during
the year, one hundred and seventy-eight were
single, seventy-three married, twelve were widows,
and three widowers. The civil relations of the remaining
eight were not ascertained.[181] The buildings
for each of these institutions, are large; the
Western Asylum, in particular, embraces several
ample and beautiful edifices. The treatment of
the insane is tender and judicious. Humanity,
gentle labour, and watchful study of the laws of
mind, have taken the place of bars, and bolts, and
chains, and dungeons.

The building at Staunton for the deaf and dumb,
and the blind, has recently been completed, and is
thought to be very elegant and commodious. It
will accommodate one hundred and sixty pupils,
without inconvenient crowding. On the 4th December,
1846, the number of deaf mutes was
thirty-eight; twenty-one males, and seventeen females.
The number of the blind was twenty-six;
fourteen males, and twelve females. Fifty-one
deaf mutes, and sixty-three blind persons were applying
for admission.[182] The organization of this
united scheme of philanthropy is almost perfect,
and its results have been highly gratifying. The
pupils perform such profitable labour as their infirmities
will permit; their schools are regularly
conducted, and their proficiency in some branches
of study is astonishing. In music and figures, the
blind excel the most accomplished visiters who
come to see and hear them.

For the Eastern Asylum, it is estimated that
twenty-five thousand dollars will be required from
the state during the current year; for the Western,

it is thought that twenty-three thousand will be
sufficient. The Institution for the Deaf and Dumb
and the Blind, has a state annuity of ten thousand
dollars, and with five thousand more, it is believed
by the Board of Visiters, that sixty additional pupils
could be supported.[183]

By the census of 1840, the number of white
deaf and dumb persons in Eastern Virginia, was
two hundred and twelve; of white blind, two hundred
and fifty-six; of white insane and idiotic,[184] five
hundred and twelve. Of coloured deaf mutes,
there were one hundred and twenty-five; of coloured
blind, four hundred and seventeen; of coloured
idiotic and insane, three hundred and seven.
In Western Virginia, at the same time, there were
of white deaf and dumb, two hundred and forty-one;
of white blind, one hundred and seventy; of
white idiotic and insane, five hundred and forty.
Of coloured deaf and dumb, there were twenty-five;
of coloured blind, forty-nine; of coloured
idiots and lunatics, seventy-five.[185]
Thus, in the
state, the aggregate was six hundred and three
deaf mutes; eight hundred and ninety-two blind;
and fourteen hundred and thirty-four idiotic and
insane persons. From this it will be apparent that
much as have the benevolent institutions of Virginia
accomplished, more yet remains to be done.

For, throwing out of the account, those unfortunates
of all the above classes, whose relatives and
friends are able and willing to support them, there
will remain a large number to be provided for by
merciful appropriations from government.

Besides the various colleges and institutions already
mentioned, there are in the state many academies
and schools, male and female, incorporated
and unincorporated, in which the earlier stages of
learning receive attention. To these, farther allusion
may be necessary under another head.

We pass now to the religious aspect of Virginia.
We have seen, that from the dominion of a rigid
establishment, supported by law, the state passed,
gradually, through changes which resulted in complete
religious freedom. We hazard little in asserting
that there is no part of the world in which
conscience is more perfectly free from legal restraint
than in Virginia. If there yet remain
points in which a man is subjected to disabilities
because of his religious character, they are few and
anomalous. So broad are the principles of liberty
which, on this subject, pervade the minds both of
rulers and people, that it has been considered
doubtful whether government, general or local, can
enforce the observance of the first day of the week,
the Christian Sabbath. The conscientious preferences
of Jews and others, who adhere to the
seventh day as the Sabbath, have been respected.
Many of the wise and virtuous have believed that
this matter should be decided rather by the influence

of enlightened public opinion, than by the requirements
of positive law.

The effect of this divorce between Church and
State, has corresponded with the hopes of the friends
both of religion and of liberty. Those who are
most competent to judge, have believed that in no
one of the United States, has Christianity had more
vital power than in Virginia. We would not be
misinterpreted on this subject; there is yet irreligion
enough in our state to appal the reflecting;
there yet exists among us vice in its most reckless
forms, and infidelity in its most open development.
But the assertion made is, that those who have professed
to be Christians, in Virginia, have adhered
steadily, both to the creed and the practice enjoined
in the Scriptures. They have avoided, on the one
hand, the bold rationalism which denies that Christ
is God, because reason cannot comprehend him;
and, on the other, the slavish superstition which
embodies Christ in a wafer of bread, because Rome
has thus degraded him. The great doctrines of
revelation, the Triune God, the depravity of man,
the necessity for a spiritual change, the almighty
agency required to produce it, the imputed righteousness
only by which a guilty moral agent can
be justified, the faith by which it is appropriated,
and the absolute requirement of a holy life, as evidence
of that faith,—these teachings have been
received in all their simple power by the people of
our state who have sense and virtue enough to reflect
seriously upon religion. And as religious
truth, when steadily contemplated, must enlighten

and purify, so sound doctrine and consistent practice,
have eminently characterized the various denominations
of Virginia who profess an evangelical
Christianity.

The Baptists have sustained their strength, both
in numbers and influence. Since we last had occasion
to speak of them, their progress has been
continuous and rapid. The Regular Baptists are
still known by the title, and are the prevailing
class; the Separates are now hardly distinguishable
as such; but other classes have been formed,
into which many of them have been merged, and
which differ more or less from the Regulars. From
time to time secessions from the Baptist Church
have taken place, of members or bodies of members,
believing with it as to immersion, but differing
from it in other important points. The independent
form of government adopted by this Church,
has prevented any general schism on the agitating
topics of the American Union; but great differences
of opinion on the question of slavery are
believed to prevail between the Northern and
Southern Associations in the United States. In
Virginia, it is thought that the denomination, as
a body, are thoroughly Southern in feeling and
principle, on this subject.

In 1844, the Baptists of the state had thirty-five
associations, of whom twenty-three were warmly
devoted to the missionary cause, and twelve were
opposed to it. The Church had then 609 houses
of worship, 312 ministers, and 84,258 communicants.[186]

Accurate observation of men who have
long watched its progress, has shown that the
Church grows at the rate of about three and a half
per cent. per annum. At this ratio, in 1847, the
number of churches would be 673, of ministers 345,
and of communicants 85,143. The actual number
of ministers is 357.[187] Those Baptists who approve
of missionary effort, and other benevolent schemes,
have a complete and efficient organization for the
purpose. In 1846, the amount contributed by the
churches for the education of candidates for the
ministry, was two thousand and thirty-two dollars,
a sum confessedly too small for the demands of
the subject.[188] The amount raised for foreign missionary
purposes was four thousand one hundred
and thirty-one dollars; for printing and publishing
Bibles, two thousand eight hundred and fifty-six
dollars; for Sunday-schools, one hundred and
sixty-eight dollars. For some years past, increasing
attention has been paid by the Baptists to the
work of training their ministers, and the effect has
been obvious. The denomination in our state is
very powerful, and will exert a material influence
whenever it shall put forth its strength.

The Methodists of America became a distinct
Church in 1784. Previous to that time, Mr.
Wesley had been deterred by feelings engendered
by long habit, from acting upon his opinion that

bishops and presbyters in the primitive church, had
the same authority. But when the Revolution separated
the United States from Great Britain, he found
in the condition of the Methodists of America everything
favourable to the re-establishment of what he
believed to be the scriptural and primitive model.
Accordingly, assisted by Dr. Coke and Rev. Mr.
Creighton, two presbyters of the Church of England,
he ordained Richard Whatcoat and Thomas
Vasey as presbyters for America, and afterwards,
assisted by other ministers, he ordained Dr. Coke
superintendent[189] of the American churches. These
divines arrived in the United States in November,
1784, accompanied by Mr. Wesley's letter, explaining
his conduct and object.[190] From the opening
of the next year, the Church in Virginia may
be considered as having a distinct existence.

Through a series of years it has grown with
little intermission. The ingenious system of rotation
and responsibility peculiar to Methodism, has
been applied, and up to the year 1844, it worked
without material hindrance. The Conferences,
known by the names of states, have, it is true,
never corresponded with the geographical bounds
of those states. The Virginia Conference has embraced
only the larger part of the eastern division
of the state. In 1803, this Conference had 4 districts,

32 circuits, 44 preachers, and 16,893 communicants,
of which last 13,099 were white, and
3,794 were coloured.[191] From this time the denomination
increased constantly in the state; camp-meetings
were often held in various counties, and
varied as may be the abuses of such means of religious
instruction, candour will confess that their
good effects have often been apparent. In 1844,
the conflict of opinion and practice between the
Northern and Southern Conferences on the subject
of slavery, had become so intense that a separation
took place, which has resulted in the organization
of the Methodist Episcopal Church, South.[192]
The
ultimate effect of this disruption will, it is hoped, be
good; but its immediate effect was a decrease of
nearly thirty-two thousand members in the Church
from 1844 to 1845.[193] It is believed that all the
churches of the Virginia Conference accord in
feeling and principle with the South, and that of
the other Conferences, a major portion of the
churches within our state are equally firm in attachment
to Southern doctrines, although differences
on this subject exist among them which
have already produced most distressing results.

Our means of information do not enable us to
present the statistical aspect of the Methodist
Church in our state, beyond the beginning of the
year 1846. At that time, according to the best
evidence we can obtain, the Virginia Conference

had 79 church edifices, 166 local preachers, 26,868
white members, 5,192 coloured members, and had
contributed during the past year, 2,322 dollars for
superannuated ministers and other kindred charities,
and 5,132 dollars for missionary and similar
religious purposes. The Kentucky, Ohio, Baltimore,
and Philadelphia Conferences, all cover parts
of Virginia. We report such parts in the above
order as follows. Kentucky Conference: church
edifices, 4; local preachers, 29; white members,
3,746; coloured, 165; contributions for superannuated
ministers, 130 dollars; for missions, 302
dollars. Ohio Conference: church edifices, 8;
local preachers, 14; white members, 2,889; coloured,
307; contributions for superannuated ministers,
50 dollars. Baltimore Conference: church edifices,
61; local preachers, 80; white members, 15,167;
coloured, 3,441; contributions for superannuated
ministers, 980 dollars; for missions, 3,960 dollars.
Philadelphia Conference: church edifices, 4; local
preachers, 9; white members, 1,173; coloured,
712; contributions for superannuated ministers,
167 dollars; for missions, 238 dollars. Total:
church edifices, 156; local preachers, 298; members,
59,660; contributions for superannuated ministers,
&c., 3,649 dollars; for missions, &c., 9,632
dollars.[194]

The Presbyterian Church in Virginia has not
been false to the promise made by its auspicious
beginnings. Its progress has been steady; and
though inferior in numbers, and in some other
respects, to the Baptist and Methodist, it probably
yields to none in the influence which, when
required, it is capable of exerting. Its ministry, as
a body, have been learned men; and from time to
time, it has been adorned by minds as brilliant in
talents as they were devoted in piety. The names
of James Waddel, Moses Hoge, John Holt Rice,
Conrad Speece, George Baxter, and William Armstrong,
will long be remembered and revered. Of
the distinguished living, it would not be proper to
speak. For many years of its existence, this
church in Virginia, was harmonious. But the unhappy
division of 1837-38, extended itself into this
state. The Old School portion maintained a great
ascendency in numbers, but the Constitutional
Presbyterians were active and determined. For a
time embittered feeling prevailed, and scenes occurred
which produced a painful impression on all
minds in love with true piety. But as years have
passed away, bitterness has subsided; the parties
have learned to regard each other as sister churches,
separate in name, and perhaps in some doctrinal
opinions, yet united by many common sympathies.
Within a very short time past, a coalescing tendency
has exhibited itself, the full result of which
is yet to be developed.

Of the Old School part of the church, in 1847,
the Synod of Virginia embraced members from six

presbyteries, which, with minute exceptions, covered
the whole state, according to geographical boundaries.
Of these, the Presbytery of Greenbrier
had 20 churches, 14 ministers, 1 candidate for the
ministry, and 1,076 communicants. Its contributions
for religious purposes during the past year,
had not been reported. The Presbytery of Montgomery
had 18 churches, 11 ministers, 2 candidates,
1,028 communing members, and had contributed
for religious objects, 646 dollars. The
Presbytery of Lexington had 28 churches, 23
ministers, 4 licentiates, 1 candidate, 3,286 communicants,
and had contributed 1,751 dollars. The
Presbytery of Winchester had 30 churches, 19
ministers, 2 licentiates, 6 candidates, 1,412 communicants,
and had contributed 3,284 dollars. The
Presbytery of West Hanover had 42 churches, 37
ministers, 5 licentiates, 2 candidates, 1,996 communicants,
and had contributed 1,890 dollars. The
Presbytery of East Hanover had 13 churches, 14
ministers, 2 licentiates, 2 candidates, 1,283 communicants,
and had contributed 5,189 dollars.
Small frontier portions of the state are embraced
within the bounds of the Synods of Philadelphia,
Pittsburg, Wheeling, and North Carolina. These
portions altogether, have 19 churches, 19 ministers,
2,967 communicants, and have contributed 2,452
dollars. The aggregate of the state will therefore
be 170 churches, 137 ministers, 13 licentiates, 14
candidates, 13,048 communicants, and contributions
amounting to 15,212 dollars.[195]

The Constitutional or New School Synod of Virginia,
embraces the three Presbyteries of Hanover,
Winchester, and the District of Columbia. But the
churches of the last-named presbytery are not within
the geographical bounds of Virginia. In 1843, it
had 10 churches, 7 ministers, 3 licentiates, and
1,315 communicants.[196] In 1839, the synod composed
of the three presbyteries we have named, had 21
churches, 17 ministers, 2 licentiates, 3 candidates
for the ministry, and 1,611 members. In 1847, the
same synod, composed of the same presbyteries,
has 42 churches, 40 ministers, 7 licentiates, 9 candidates,
and 3,589 communing members. In addition,
the Presbytery of New River, within the
bounds of Virginia, has 7 churches, 3 ministers,
and 549 communicants.[197]

The rapid apparent increase in these presbyteries,
between the years 1839 and '47, needs a word
of comment. They have undoubtedly gained by
persons converted, and originally added to their
communion, and by the building of new churches;
but the principal increase has been from another
source. In 1839, in Virginia, this branch of the
Presbyterian Church was not fully organized.
Many ministers and private members were then
undecided in their ecclesiastical preferences who
have since united themselves regularly with the

Constitutional Presbyterians. Hence the chief
augmentation of their numbers.[198]

The history of the Episcopal Church in Virginia
is full of material for instructive reflection.
Through all its phases, it has been teaching the
simple lesson that Christianity, in order to be pure,
must be free. It has been sometimes a beacon to
warn against the dangers of its contact, and sometimes
a lighthouse to guide the storm-beaten to a
harbour of safety. But whether its example has
repelled or invited imitation, we may equally find
in its teachings admonitions for the future. We
have seen that, during the Colonial period, this
Church was established by law. All its measures
were coercive. The arm of civil government compelled
men to attend its ministrations, to conform
to its ritual, to support its officers. And we may
safely say that this was the worst period of its existence;
at the time when its legal authority was
greatest, and its connexion with the state most
stringent, its character as a church was most unhallowed
and impure. Glebe lands and stipends
raised by law, could not compensate for the want
of piety in its ministers and members.

For about thirty years after the opening of the
Revolution, this Church was struggling with adversity.
The support of law was removed, and
having, then, few other supports, it tottered to its
base. The great body of the people felt towards it
either indifference or positive dislike. Many of its

ministers forsook the country, and returned to
England; others abandoned the sacred profession,
and engaged in secular duties; others, in poverty
and danger, maintained a feeble supervision over
their scattered flocks. Its churches were often left
vacant, and were sometimes dismantled.[199] After
the year 1802, it was left wholly without legal
countenance, and was to depend upon its own redeeming
powers. The superficial observer will
look upon this period as the most gloomy and disastrous
in the history of the Church. But the philosopher,
if he be a Christian, will see in it something
more than clouds and darkness. It was
necessary that the impurities of one hundred and
fifty years should be cleansed by fire. A day was
to dawn upon the Church, made brighter by the
darkness that preceded it.

In May, 1814, Richard Channing Moore was
elected Bishop of the Diocese of Virginia. The
Convention that elected him consisted of seven
clergymen and seventeen laymen.[200] From this time
a change appeared in the fortunes of the Church,
gradual, but decided. No longer polluted by the
embrace of the state, purified by adversity, and left
to her own spontaneous efforts, her Christianity
began to develope itself in full force. Her progress
has since been constantly onward. Her bishops
have been learned and laborious, her ministers enlightened
and pious, her people zealous in good
works. The contributions of the church for religious

and benevolent purposes, have been large in
amount, and discriminating in their application.

In 1847, besides her bishop and assistant bishop,
this Church had one hundred and twelve clergymen,
either presiding over congregations in Virginia,
or engaged in kindred duties. She had 95
parishes, embracing 112 church edifices. The
whole number of communicants was 4305, and the
amount contributed during the past year, for religious
purposes, other than ministers' salaries, was
22,849 dollars.[201]

If we have drawn correct inferences from the
facts of past and present years, the course of the
Episcopal Church in Virginia proves that an Establishment
is not only not necessary, but positively
hurtful to the cause of religion. No Church in the
United States has sustained more real injury because
of its contact with the State than the Episcopal,
and no denomination of Christians has greater
reason to shrink with horror from any proposal to
renew such contact, than the Episcopal Church of
Virginia. For there are many circumstances that
would make such attempt dangerous in our state,
which would not so strongly operate in any other
part of the Union. And such we believe to be the
views of her own most virtuous and enlightened
members. If this Church, with us, has any thing
to fear, it is not from external enemies; it is rather
from an unhappy spirit of what is called High

Churchism, which has crept into the bosoms of men
and women within her own communion. This
spirit need not be described; its distinguishing
traits have long been known. It is hoped that it is
cherished by very few; indeed, it can hardly be
otherwise. For such a spirit can prevail only with
the weak or the wicked: the weak, who, not able to
appreciate the overwhelming facts and arguments
against the exclusive claims of prelacy, are content
stupidly to follow designing leaders; or the wicked,
who, knowing the truth, are yet willing to practise
the deceits of an unholy ambition. We believe
that in one or the other of these classes, the High
Church people of Virginia will be found arrayed.
There may be honourable exceptions, but they are
only numerous enough to prove the rule. It is
grateful to be able to say that, within a few months
past, one of the most accomplished and virtuous
Episcopal divines in our state has taken a noble
stand against this mischievous spirit, and has sustained
himself against all attacks, with a power
of argument irresistible to every sound head and
honest heart.

Besides these prominent evangelical denominations,
there are in Virginia several other sects, as
Quakers, Lutherans, Campbellites, Thomasites,
Mennonists, Seceders, Universalists, Swedenborgians,—all
more or less important in numbers and
influence. But we have not been able to obtain
authentic information with regard to them, nor is
it probable that any sources exist from which such
information could be procured.

The Jewish people of our state, though not numerous,
are, as in other parts of the world, so distinct
in their habits and character, as to form a
marked portion of the popular body. They are
supposed in all to number not more than seven
hundred persons, and of these about five hundred
live in the city of Richmond. They are distinguished
by their caution, industry, and success in
trade. Their first religious congregation was
established in Richmond in the year 1791, and
they have now in that city two synagogues, one
conducted after the order of the Spanish and Portuguese,
and the other after that of the German
Jews. A reader presides in each, and these are
the only Jewish houses of worship in Virginia.[202]

The Roman Catholic Church has not neglected
our state in her measures for extending her communion.
The Diocese of Richmond embraces
other parts of Virginia. Its bishop is the Right
Rev. R. V. Whelan, D.D. In 1846, it had thirteen
churches, twelve clergymen, and three institutions
of learning or charity, one of which is known
as St. Joseph's Female Academy, in Richmond.
The communicants of the church are in general
foreigners, chiefly of French or Irish extract. The
fine lands of West Virginia, by their cheapness,
have attracted foreign population, and to them the
Papists have already directed special attention.[203]

Before we pass from the religious condition of
the state, it will be proper to refer to a subject
which has given rise to some conflict of opinion
among Christians, and which has not yet been
finally discussed. We have seen that in past years
the Legislature of Virginia had repealed an act incorporating
a Christian Church, and had afterwards
declared that such acts of incorporation
"manifestly tended to the re-establishment of a national
church."[204] The policy of the state seemed
to be decidedly against the passage of any law
which might connect religion with the working of
civil government. During the period from 1802 to
1830, several applications were made to the Legislature,
by one or more religious sects, asking for
acts of incorporation to enable them to hold and
administer property voluntarily given to them; but
these applications had been uniformly rejected.[205]
It
may be, that under the pressure of fears founded
on past experience, the leading men of the state
carried their views on this subject farther than
such experience would justify. In the Convention
of 1829-30, a debate occurred on a proposition to
strike out the proviso disqualifying clergymen from
being members of either House of Assembly, but
the proposition was rejected. Twelve members
only voted for it; but among these twelve was
James Madison.[206] Immediately after this vote,
William H. Brodnax, of Dinwiddie, proposed to

the part of the Constitution touching religion, an
amendment, to the effect that nothing in that section
should be so construed as to deprive the Legislature
of the power to incorporate by law "the
trustees or directors of any theological seminary,
or other religious society or body of men, created
for charitable purposes, or the advancement of
piety and learning," with proper provisoes for control
and regulation. After a brief debate, this
amendment was also rejected, twelve members
only voting in its favour.[207] It should be remarked,
however, that though the Convention rejected this
amendment, they inserted nothing in the Constitution
which forbids the Legislature to grant corporate
powers to such bodies, if it be deemed expedient
so to do.

The only symptom of a disposition to relax its
previous policy on this subject, occurred in the
Legislature of 1841-42. On the 3d of February,
1842, a law passed, giving full legal power to
trustees for a religious society, to acquire and hold
land to the amount of thirty acres in the country
and two acres in any incorporated town, to be used
for no other purpose "than as a place of public
worship, religious or other instruction, burial-ground,
and residence of their minister." Power
is given to the Chancery Courts to revise these
trusts.[208]

After some preliminary measures, which excited
animated debate in several ecclesiastical bodies, a
committee appointed by the Convention of the
Protestant Episcopal Church in Virginia, presented
to the Legislature of 1845-46, a petition for a law
authorizing the religious congregations of the state
to hold property to a limited amount.[209] The petition
in general terms states the ills which Christian
denominations had suffered from the want of legal
protection to their property; it speaks of "corporate
rights," and of the propriety that religious denominations
should have the right "as a body," to
appeal to the laws for the protection of their interests;
it mentions several objects, as a theological
seminary, clergymen's salaries, buildings for public
worship, the relief of widows and orphans of deceased
clergymen, which merited special countenance;
it asks no privilege or immunity which the
petitioners "do not desire to see extended to their
brethren of all other denominations;" they declare
that "it would offend no less against their own
sense of what is right and proper than against the
principles of our institutions, to bestow on any religious
denomination, privileges which are not made
free and open to all."

On the 11th December, 1845, this petition was
presented to the Legislature by James Lyons, and
it was referred to the Committee on Courts of Justice.[210] Willing to obtain as much light as possible

on the subject, the committee consented that it
should be publicly discussed before them. The
debate commenced in the hall of the House of Delegates,
in Richmond, on the evening of the 8th of
January, 1846, and was continued, with intervals,
during several subsequent evenings. For the petition,
the argument was conducted by James Lyons,
William H. Macfarland, and Rev. Mr. Tinsley, a
minister of the Baptist Church; and against it, by
William S. Plumer, D.D., pastor of the First Presbyterian
Church, Richmond.[211] The debate was
animated, and often truly eloquent, and it was heard
on each evening by a crowded auditory, composed
of both sexes.

Interesting as was the whole discussion, it is
deemed inexpedient to give even a brief sketch of
the course of argument pursued on either side. But
it may here be stated that the true question discussed
was whether a general law should be passed,
giving to all religious denominations who desired
it, power to take and hold property, and to exercise
other corporate privileges incident to such power.
It was expressly declared by the gentleman who
argued against the petition, that if the boon asked
had been simply an act of incorporation for a specific
object, as a Theological Seminary, or a fund
for the widows and orphans of deceased clergymen,
he would not have opposed it.[212]

On the 6th February, the committee reported on
the petition, as follows: "1. Resolved, unanimously,
as the opinion of this committee, that the policy
of the laws of this Commonwealth, by which the
power to take and hold property is withheld from
religious congregations, is founded in the highest
wisdom, as well for the safety of the State, as for
the purity of the Church. 2. Resolved, therefore,
as the opinion of this committee, that the prayer of
the petitioners be rejected." On motion of Mr.
Lyons, this report was ordered to be laid on the
table.[213]

At the next session of the Legislature, the petitioners
obtained the leave of the House to withdraw
their petition. (January 16, 1847). It was then
again presented, and again referred to the Committee
of Courts of Justice. On the 28th January, the
committee reported; and, on the 8th of March, the
report was agreed to by the House, without a dissenting
voice. It is in the following words: "Resolved,
in the opinion of this committee, that the
said petition be rejected, it being, in the opinion of
this committee, inexpedient to legislate upon the
subject."[214]

Since this judgment of the Legislature, intimations
have been given that renewed prayers on the
subject will be offered to succeeding Assemblies by
more than one religious denomination. Delicacy
forbids that any surmises shall here be indulged as
to the final success of these prayers. But the remark

shall be hazarded that it is not probable that
Virginia will ever so far depart from her settled
policy as to sanction a general law for incorporating
all religious societies that may apply for it. Yet
an act of incorporation for a specific religious object,
might meet with greater favour than heretofore.
Gross injustice might be done, we may say,
has been done, in consequence of the want of legal
protection to property given for purposes the wisest
and most sacred that human interests can know.

Passing from the views of our state which may
be considered as intellectual and moral, we may
now speak of those which are more nearly allied to
her physical condition. It is true that mind is employed
in all that we shall notice; but, it is mind
operating chiefly upon matter. The Agricultural
interest of Virginia, shall now engage our thoughts.
Agriculture must always be the principal source of
her wealth. It is hard to conceive of any change
that could make any branch of industry within her
bosom, more productive than the cultivation of the
ground. Her rich soil, genial suns, temperate
clime, her noble rivers, skirting grounds of unequalled
beauty and fertility, all eminently fit her
for copious returns to the labour of the husbandman,
and had the skill and industry of her people
been equal to her intrinsic resources, it is impossible
to estimate the agricultural riches that she
might have produced. Even now, though slave
labour and ignorance of chemistry have ruined, for
a time, many of her finest lands, her products are
yet sufficient to banish the idea of famine from the

fancies of her poorest people. On this subject, we
shall give the results of the latest and most accurate
observations to which we have access. We
shall present, separately, Eastern and Western
Virginia, although their products are often the
same. We will give the amount of each product
of the state section, and then the county raising the
largest, and that raising the next largest quantity
of the article.[215] Our estimate will include, not
merely crops and harvests in the proper sense, but
other species of wealth directly dependent on them
for existence.

Eastern Virginia has an area of twenty-seven
thousand square miles of land and water. In 1840,
this section of the state had 157,051 horses and
mules, of which Loudon had 7,627, and Fauquier
7,624; 542,543 neat cattle, of which Fauquier had
26,184, and Loudon 25,620; 551,506 sheep, of
which Fauquier had 35,055, and Loudon 31,503;
1,121,733 swine, of which Southampton had 43,663,
and Pittsylvania 42,513; poultry, valued at 481,732
dollars, of which Fauquier had an amount valued
at 18,091 dollars, and Accomac an amount valued
at 18,064 dollars; this section raised 4,864,814
bushels of wheat, of which Loudon raised 573,460,
and Fauquier 362,227 bushels; 77,947 bushels of
barley, of which Albemarle raised 72,527, and
Gloucester 2,748 bushels; 7,586,340 bushels of

oats, of which Accomac raised 453,137, and Pittsylvania
333,763 bushels; 460,885 bushels of rye,
of which Albemarle raised 117,369, and Loudon
81,517 bushels; 27,010 bushels of buckwheat, of
which Loudon raised 6,845, and Fauquier 6,454
bushels; 21,204,699 bushels of Indian corn, of
which Loudon raised 891,695, and Pittsylvania
679,319 bushels; 877,030 pounds of wool, of which
Fauquier raised 75,195, and Loudon 63,951 pounds;
6,546 pounds of hops, of which Orange raised 940,
and Fauquier 626 pounds; 36,779 pounds of wax,
of which Pittsylvania raised 4,182, and Campbell
2,312 pounds; 1,404,217 bushels of potatoes, of
which Accomac raised 113,396, and Southampton
88,036 bushels; 193,385 tons of hay, of which
Princess Anne raised 76,250, and Louisa 21,307
tons.

The whole quantity of tobacco raised in the
state was 75,347,106 pounds. In Eastern Virginia
the quantity raised was 73,131,092 pounds; of this,
41,239,591 pounds were raised in the twelve counties
of Pittsylvania, Campbell, Buckingham, Cumberland,
Prince Edward, Charlotte, Halifax, Mecklenburg,
Lunenburg, Nottaway, Amelia, and Powhatan,
which, together, cover an area of 6,295
square miles. Pittsylvania raised 6,438,777, and
Halifax 6,209,511 pounds.

Farther, the eastern section raised 1,038 tons of
hemp and flax, of which Bedford raised 249, and
Prince William 167 tons; 2,957 pounds of rice, of
which Nansemond raised 1,440, and Southampton
1,080 pounds; 3,493,667 pounds of cotton, of which

Southampton raised 851,315, and Stafford 760,287
pounds; 2,571 pounds of silk cocoons, of which
King and Queen raised 337, and Nelson 300
pounds; 63 pounds of sugar, all made in Bedford;
323,663 cords of wood, of which Northumberland
produced 45,120, and Isle of Wight 31,307 cords;
products of the dairy, valued at 791,298 dollars, of
which Loudon raised, in value, 80,223, and Campbell
45,605 dollars; products of the orchard, valued
at 447,075 dollars, of which Southampton raised,
in value, 40,345, and Sussex 37,520 dollars; 9,628
gallons of wine, of which Fauquier made 1,226,
and Henrico 1,148 gallons; and of home-made fabrics,
of all kinds, an amount valued at 1,485,988
dollars, of which Halifax made, in value, 97,779,
and Pittsylvania 97,090 dollars.[216]

Western Virginia embraces an area of about
thirty-nine thousand square miles. In 1840 this
section had 169,387 horses and mules, of which
Wythe had 10,496 and Augusta 9,910; 481,605
neat cattle, of which Harrison had 23,536, and
Augusta 21,479; 742,266 sheep, of which Jefferson
had 67,289, and Harrison 35,119; 870,422 swine,
of which Jefferson had 72,467, and Rockingham
38,765; poultry, valued at 272,966 dollars, of which
Rockingham had, in value, 15,041, and Monongalia
11,800 dollars; this section raised 5,244,902
bushels of wheat, of which Jefferson raised 516,969,
and Rockingham 375,197 bushels; 9,483 bushels
of barley, of which Jefferson raised 4,230, and
Washington 1,168 bushels; 5,864,722 bushels of

oats, of which Monongalia raised 320,092, and
Washington 295,770 bushels; 1,021,914 bushels of
rye, of which Augusta raised 92,227, and Rockingham
90,886 bushels; 216,812 bushels of buckwheat,
of which Hampshire raised 26,167, and
Preston 16,057 bushels; 13,372,892 bushels of Indian
corn, of which Jefferson raised 988,552, and
Logan 870,930 bushels; 1,661,344 pounds of wool,
of which Jefferson raised 516,840, and Harrison
70,804 pounds; 4,051 pounds of hops, of which
Monongalia raised 636, and Shenandoah 568
pounds; 28,241 pounds of wax, of which Russel
raised 2,884, and Logan 2,358 pounds; 1,540,443
bushels of potatoes, of which Jefferson raised 151,443,
and Brooke 63,140 bushels; 171,323 tons of hay,
of which Harrison raised 13,765, and Rockingham
12,220 tons; 3,828 tons of hemp and flax, of which
Tazewell raised 923, and Jackson 750 tons;
2,216,014 pounds of tobacco, of which Botetourt
raised 707,885, and Roanoke 599,273 pounds; 816
pounds of cotton, of which Lee raised 556, and
Scott 200 pounds; 620 pounds of silk cocoons, of
which Logan raised 266, and Monongalia 111
pounds; 1,541,770 pounds of sugar, of which Harrison
raised 200,372, and Monongalia 118,569
pounds; 79,927 cords of wood, of which Shenandoah
raised 12,703, and Jefferson, 7,859 cords;
products of the dairy, amounting to 689,190 dollars,
of which Rockbridge produced, in value, 72,077,
and Rockingham 61,025 dollars; products of the
orchard, amounting to 258,690 dollars, of which
Washington raised, in value, 19,932, and Rockbridge,
16,896 dollars; 4,283 gallons of wine, of
which Rockbridge made 981, and Rockingham 697
gallons; and, of home-made fabrics, an amount valued
at 955,684 dollars, of which Rockingham made,
in value, 67,901, and Rockbridge 61,682 dollars.[217]

The estimated agricultural wealth of Virginia
will be noted under another head of this chapter.
We may now speak of the Manufacturing interest
of the state. For many years this branch of industry
was carried on almost entirely by private
families, and was inconsiderable in its results; but
within the present century, it has drawn the resources
of wealthy individuals, and of incorporated
companies, and within twenty years past, it has
rapidly expanded in its operations. We hail this
result with unalloyed pleasure. It is vain to speak
of the disadvantages of engaging in such pursuits
with slave labour, and of the false principles of
economy that would suggest the attempt. If Virginia
has lately shown any evidence of returning
prosperity, in nothing is this evidence more satisfactory
than in her attention to manufactures.
They are both the cause and the effect of revived
energy.

The largest amount of capital thus invested in
the state, is in mills for grain. Flour mills are
abundantly scattered through the east and west
sections, and at Richmond they have been erected
and employed on the most extensive scale.[218] The

capital applied in milling throughout the state is
estimated to amount to 5,184,669 dollars, while
in Massachusetts not more than 1,440,152 dollars
are thus appropriated.[219] The manufacture of tobacco
is next in amount in Virginia; it employs a
capital of 1,526,080 dollars. Next is cotton, which
employs 1,299,020 dollars of capital. Manufactures
of leather are next, employing a capital of
1,180,098 dollars. Besides these, Virginia manufactures
wool, silk, flax, and hemp, hats and caps,
soap and candles, distilled spirits, powder, glass,
earthenware, paper, carriages, wagons, and furniture,
in respectable quantities. We shall presently
give a full estimate on the subject.

The Mining interest of our state is considerable.
No man can tell what amount of wealth her
mineral resources would produce, were they fully
developed. Deep in her bosom there are hidden
treasures, which well-directed labour would bring
forth. We do not know that her gold mines have
yet compensated for the lost investments, blasted
hopes, and chilled hearts that have been expended
upon them. Nevertheless, she has gold in abundance,
which is yearly obtained in increasing
quantities. Her most profitable mineral is coal,
which in 1840 employed a capital of 1,302,000
dollars. Next is iron, which in the same year employed
a capital of 1,247,000 dollars.

Some remarks shall be devoted to the Finances

of Virginia. On this subject it would be easy to
fill many pages with reasonings and surmises, and
to offer theories which would have at least the
charm of novelty; but it is happily unnecessary.
There may be statesmen in England who esteem
her national debt a public blessing, and who admire
to enthusiasm the complicated fiscal machinery
necessary to support it; but in America we
have learned a different philosophy. In general,
the more simple that may be the financial system
of a country, the more happiness it will enjoy, if
unaffected by other causes. To administer government
with economy, to tax her people with discrimination,
to make debts with caution, and to
pay them with punctuality,—these are the duties
of a wise state; and by their neglect, nations have
been convulsed, and kings have perished on the
scaffold.

Like the other states of the Union, Virginia came
out of the Revolutionary War embarrassed by a
huge debt for unredeemed paper money. She was
gradually relieved by her own exertions, and by
the working of the funding system, established
during the first presidential term. Since that time,
though she has experienced financial vicissitudes,
she has never suffered under the imputation of bad
faith in her monetary duties. She has never repudiated.
She looks upon such conduct with unmingled
abhorrence. She has even verged to the
other extreme. She has thought it better to remain
poor and inactive, rather than endanger her credit

by contracting enormous debts for purposes of internal
development.

On the 30th September, 1845, the state had productive
stocks and funds amounting to 6,595,844
dollars, and nearly the same amount in stocks and
funds unproductive, because generally invested in
improvements not completed, or complete but not
profitable. The whole amount of state debt was
7,384,794 dollars, requiring provision for an annual
interest of 451,746 dollars. Besides this interest,
which is regularly paid, a sinking fund of nearly
6,000 dollars, is annually applied to the principal.
Beyond these, the chief items of expenditure are
the expenses of the General Assembly, which
amount yearly to about 75,200 dollars, the officers
of government, the contingent expenses of courts,
the Public Guard at Richmond, annuities to the
University, the Military Academy, school quotas,
Lunatic Hospitals, and the institutions for the deaf
and dumb, and the blind. The total expenditure
for 1845, was estimated at 1,443,388 dollars.[220]

The proceeds of productive stocks, fines, forfeitures,
and other sources, other than taxes, amounted
to 846,352 dollars. The balance of 685,051 dollars,
making up the public income, was raised by taxes
on persons and property. Persons, as such, are
taxed when enjoying special privileges, professional
or otherwise, as physicians, attorneys, merchants,
dentists, pedlers, hotel and tavern-keepers, venders
of lottery tickets, and exhibiters of shows. Property
in general is taxed as follows: slaves, horses

and mules, gold and silver watches, metallic and
other clocks, coaches and other vehicles, pianos,
gold and silver plate, interest on money loaned, income
over four hundred dollars, bridges, ferries, and
newspapers. The tax bill is remodelled each year
in the Legislature, that it may be accommodated
as skilfully as possible to the ability and feelings
of the people.

The Population of Virginia has not grown as
rapidly as her internal resources would have authorized
us to expect. Her ratio of increase has
fallen below that of most of her sisters, and when
compared with some of the western and northern
states, the difference has been striking. In 1790
Virginia was the most populous member of the
Union; she had then a total of 748,308 souls, of
whom 293,427 were slaves, and 12,776 were free
coloured persons. At that time, the second state
in population was Pennsylvania, who had 434,373
inhabitants. In 1800 Virginia had 880,200, of
whom 345,796 were slaves, and 20,124 free coloured
persons. In 1810 she had 974,622, of whom
392,518 were slaves, and 30,570 free coloured persons.
In 1820 her total was 1,065,379, of whom
425,153 were slaves, and 36,889 free coloured
persons. In 1830 she had 1,211,405, of whom
469,757 were slaves, and 47,348 free coloured. In
1840 her total population was 1,239,797, of whom
449,087 were slaves, and 49,852 were free coloured
persons.[221] We shall have occasion again to refer to

some branches of this subject, in closing this
chapter.

After having presented the varied estimates from
which the condition of a people is generally to be
inferred, the question arises, has Virginia prospered
as her physical resources would warrant us in
expecting? Has she held her place in the great
march of the American States, during the present
century? It has long been the sad conviction of
her most enlightened children, that these questions
must be answered in the negative. But enough
has been shown to encourage her, and to prove that
she has within her bounds every element of prosperity
that a people need desire. If then it be
true that she has fallen behind her sisters in any
thing pertaining to a nation's welfare, her defects
ought to be made known, that they may, if possible,
be supplied. Her wounds must be probed
in order that they may be healed, and however
painful may be the process, her real friends will
not shrink from its accomplishment. To this end,
an attempt shall here be made to compare Virginia
with one of the wealthiest and most prosperous
states in the American Confederacy. If this comparison
shall prove unfavourable to our state, the
circumstances under which it is made will exclude
the idea of prejudice or partiality. There may be
in it much for our encouragement, as well as for
our humiliation.

Massachusetts was first settled in 1620,—Virginia
in 1607; Massachusetts in winter has a cold,
harsh atmosphere,—Virginia has at all times a

temperate and pleasant climate; Massachusetts has
a hard, sterile soil, little grateful for attention,—
Virginia has a soil generous even to prodigality,
and repaying twenty-fold the labour of the husbandman;
Massachusetts is cut by small streams,
and has but one river that may claim the first dignity,—Virginia
has six of the finest rivers whose
waters reach the Atlantic; Massachusetts has,
comparatively, a flat country, and supplies water-power
by artificial means,—Virginia has a surface
of mountains, from which she obtains a natural
water-power, exhaustless in capacity; Massachusetts
has some iron and granite, but beyond these,
her minerals are as nothing,—Virginia has iron,
lead, copper, gold, salt, and coal, in quantity which
no one has yet ventured to estimate; Massachusetts
has indeed splendid harbours, and every thing
essential to the expansion of shipping,—but Virginia
has an inland sea, and harbours that might
be made as good as any in the world; Massachusetts
has seven thousand eight hundred square
miles of surface,—Virginia has sixty-six thousand
square miles of horizontal area.

From this statement of familiar facts, we infer
that, if Virginia has not equalled her northern
sister in her ratio of progress, the fault is in her
people, and not in her physical condition. That we
may see the truth on this subject, the following
comparative view will be presented.

First, as to population. In 1790, Massachusetts
had 378,717 souls. In 1800 she had 423,245. In
1810 she had 472,040. In 1820, she had 523,287.

In 1830, her total number was 610,048. And in
1840, her population amounted to 737,669. Thus
it will be perceived, that in 1840, Virginia had a
population of nineteen and Massachusetts of ninety-five
souls to the square mile.[222] This great difference
deserves attention. For, if other causes of disparity
do not intervene, population will present the
same test of progress in civilized life, in enlightened
as in savage nations. If, in the same series of
years, one country has become much more densely
peopled than another, the former has given evidence
that it is far before the latter in the possession
of materials for prosperity.

We will next offer a comparison of the actual
wealth of the two states, estimated in reference to
the same articles, at the same time, under the same
circumstances, and upon the same arithmetical
principles. In 1840, in Massachusetts, the amount
computed to be invested in mining, was 2,345,310
dollars. In agriculture, the produce for the past
year had been 22,097,429 dollars. In horticulture,
43,170 dollars. In commerce, foreign and domestic,
the amount invested was 28,016,765 dollars. In
fisheries, 11,725,850 dollars. The products of the
forest, for a year, had been 377,054 dollars. The
capital invested in manufactures of all kinds, was
45,891,524 dollars, making a total of national
wealth which might be considered as active, of
110,497,102 dollars. In the same year, in Virginia,
the amount invested in mining was 3,024,000 dollars.
In agriculture, the produce of the past year

had been 92,400,583 dollars in value. In horticulture,
19,900 dollars. In foreign and domestic commerce,
the amount invested was 21,197,803 dollars.
In fisheries, 28,383 dollars. The products of the
forest, for the past year, had been 619,673 dollars.
The capital invested in manufactures of all kinds,
was 12,865,061 dollars, making a total of active
wealth of 130,155,403 dollars.[223]

Thus it appears that the wealth of Virginia, really
indicative of public industry, only exceeds that of
her northern sister by about thirty millions of dollars.
Had her productive labour been profitable,
in proportion to her excess of area over Massachusetts,
her active wealth in 1840, would have been
nine hundred and thirty-five millions, instead of one
hundred and thirty millions of dollars. And if her
more abundant natural riches be taken into consideration,
her increase ought to have been much
greater. It must, therefore, be regarded as a truth
but too fully established, that Virginia has fallen
below her duty; that she has been indolent, while
others have been laborious; that she has been content
to avoid a movement positively retrograde,
while others have gone rapidly forward. Her motion,
compared with that of Massachusetts or Ohio,
might, in familiar terms, be likened to the heavy

stage-coach of the past century, competing with the
flying steam-car of the present.

For this sluggishness and imbecility, many causes
might be assigned, and ingenious arguments might
be urged in their support. The cause may be
complex: action and reaction are constantly taking
place: causes become effects, and, in their turn,
effects are converted into causes. But there are
three sources from which, as we believe, the evil
disposition of our state so naturally flow, that they
ought to receive special notice.

The first of these is the Want of Education among
the people. Lord Bacon has said that "Knowledge
is power." He did not say that knowledge
is virtue, or that knowledge would necessarily
bring happiness to its possessor. Yet the experience
of all ages has proved that an educated
people will, other things being equal, be the most
industrious, most prosperous, most virtuous, and
therefore most happy. And since the light of revealed
knowledge has dawned upon the world, the
necessity for education has become more and more
apparent. Great learning may not be essential, but
in the present century, to read, and write, and use
figures intelligently, are qualifications without
which the great body of any people will find it
difficult to perform their positive duties. An uncultivated
mind will be lethargic and inefficient in
its movements; polish it by education, and you
immediately give it activity and power.

Adopting these views, it is with pain we are
compelled to speak of the horrible cloud of ignorance

that rests upon Virginia. In the eastern
section, there are twenty-nine thousand eight hundred
and sixty-three, and in the western, twenty-eight
thousand nine hundred and twenty-four,
making a total of fifty-eight thousand seven hundred
and eighty-seven white persons, over twenty
years of age, who can neither read nor write.[224]
This, however, is not all. It is computed that
there are in the state 166,000 children, between
seven and sixteen years of age, and therefore fit for
school. Of these, about 28,000 poor children attend
the free and Lancastrian schools, an average
of twelve weeks in a year for each child. 12,000
more children are sent to colleges, academies, and
classical schools. The remaining one hundred and
twenty-six thousand children attend no school at
all, and receive no education except what can be
imparted by poor and ignorant parents![225] But yet
farther,—there are in Virginia 449,087 slaves, and
49,852 free negroes, who are, with few exceptions,
wholly uneducated. They are human beings, with
intellects, passions, wills, all perverted by original
depravity, and they are sunk in ignorance. Happily,
they are permitted to hear the public ministrations
of our religion, and affecting examples of
its good influence upon them are often seen. The
policy which discourages farther extension of knowledge
among them is necessary; but the fact remains
unchanged, that they exist among us, a huge
mass of mind, almost entirely unenlightened. We
fear, then, that the most favourable estimates will
leave in our state six hundred and eighty-three
thousand rational beings, who are destitute of the
merest rudiments of knowledge.

This deplorable condition has long been felt and
mourned by Virginia's most virtuous sons. Efforts
have been made to ameliorate it. Education conventions
have assembled, and many animated debates
have taken place. The Legislature has
moved from time to time, and during the session of
1845-46 its movement was decided and beneficial.
Nevertheless, the evil remains almost untouched.
We pretend not to suggest any remedy. But it will
be pertinent to the subject to add, that in the whole
state of Massachusetts, containing in 1840 seven
hundred and thirty-seven thousand six hundred
and ninety-nine persons, there were but four thousand
four hundred and forty-eight white persons,
over twenty years of age, who could neither read
nor write.

The next cause of the inefficiency of Virginia is
the Want of Internal Improvement. Her native
wealth is boundless, and if it were furnished with
means for its development, would make her rich
in a quarter of a century. But, thus far, by a concurrence
of untoward circumstances, all that she
has done in establishing lines of internal communion,
has effected little in bringing out her real
resources. As early as May, 1784, the Legislature
granted an act of incorporation to the Old James
River Company, and authorized them to raise one

hundred thousand dollars to improve the navigation
of the James.[226] But their labours were never
extensive, and their means were always too limited
to accomplish objects of much importance. In
February, 1820, the Legislature passed an act, under
which the James River Company, with its own
consent, was made a trustee to carry on the work
for the state. The plan then proposed was to render
the James River, from Richmond to the mouth
of Dunlap's Creek, in the present County of Allegany,
navigable for boats by a series of locks and
canals; to make the Great Kanawha navigable in
the same manner, from the Great Falls to the Ohio
River, and to connect the Great Falls and Dunlap's
Creek by a turnpike road.[227] Under this act, improvements,
more or less important, were applied to parts
of the line of three hundred and sixty-five statute
miles, thus designated; but no portion of the route
was completed so far as to open the wealth of the
finest section of Virginia.

Finally, in March, 1832, the stockholders of the
James River and Kanawha Company, were incorporated
by act of Assembly.[228] The object of this
Company was to connect the tide-water of the
James with the Ohio River; and it was to be done
either by canal to Lynchburg, and railroad to the
Great Falls of the Kanawha, or by railroad from
the highest improvement of the James to the Ohio,
or by a continuous railroad from Richmond to the
Ohio. Their works were to be commenced within

two years after the passing of the act, and to be
completed within twelve years from the first general
meeting of stockholders; otherwise their charter
was to be forfeited.

We have to record that after a period of fifteen
years from its incorporation, the Company has not
accomplished the task for which it was formed.
It has constructed a large and well-made canal
from Richmond to Lynchburg, a distance of about
one hundred and forty-six miles; it has advanced,
nearly to completion, a line of works from Lynchburg
to the mouth of North River, a distance of
twenty-seven miles.[229] Beyond this, it has not been
able to do more than keep in good condition the
works previously constructed. Its charter has
been extended, and legislative aid has from time
to time been bestowed on it. During the period
from the 27th June, 1835, to the 31st October,
1845, the "Old Improvements" of the Company
have yielded an amount of revenue which exceeded
the disbursements on their account by 218,825
dollars. And the Richmond Dock, purchased by
the Company, has yielded a net revenue of 16,058
dollars. But the "New Improvements" during
this period, have required an expenditure, direct
and indirect, of 5,975,398 dollars, and to meet this,
beyond the net revenue of the "Old Improvements"
and the Dock, the Company has been compelled
to rely chiefly upon payments on the stock
made by individuals, by the state, and by several

corporations.[230] It will, therefore, be apparent that,
thus far, the work has not been profitable to the
stockholders.

Neither has it developed the resources of the
state, to an extent proportioned to its cost. It
would be unjust to charge the Company with negligence
and inefficiency for the failure. They
have contended with physical obstacles far more
formidable than had been anticipated, and they
have felt the same want of abundant capital in
money, that Virginia as a state experiences. Yet
it is sad to think that so much has been expended,
and so little has been done. It is believed by many
that the canal now brings to the head of tide-water
very little produce that would not find its way thither
by the natural laws of trade. The improvement
has not yet struck the Great Valley, and opened
an avenue through which its wealth may flow to
the East: above all, the Allegany range has not
been crossed, the Ohio has not been reached, and
Virginia's frontier is literally pressed by agricultural
products which seek outlets in every direction
except through her veins.

The railroads which have been completed within
the state are convenient for travel, but do not effect
much for trade. A line of magnetic telegraph
from the North, has been finished to Richmond,
within a few months past, and has already advanced
far to the South. By means of this miracle of the
age, Virginia may converse with her distant sisters,

and hear their voices urging to energy. And it is
true, that within the present year she has shown
symptoms of a disposition to awake from her long
slumber.

Several lines of railroad are now contmplated
by the enterprising of our state. It is proposed
that one of these shall run continuously from Richmond
City to the Ohio River. Another is to be
carried from the present terminus of the Louisa
Railroad, at Gordonsville, to the eastern base of
the Blue Ridge; another is to run from the metropolis
southward, through the tobacco region of the
state, to Danville, in Pittsylvania County. For
this last object heavy subscriptions have been
already made, and many things seem to indicate
that it will be accomplished.

The last and most important cause unfavourably
affecting Virginia which we shall mention, is the
existence of Slavery within her bounds. We have
already seen the origin and progress of this institution.
As to its evils, we have nothing new to
offer; they have long been felt and acknowledged
by the most sagacious minds in our state. "It is
the common remark of all who have travelled
through the United States, that the free states and
the slave states exhibit a striking contrast in their
appearance. In the older free states are seen all
the tokens of prosperity; a dense and increasing
population; thriving villages, towns, and cities; a
neat and productive agriculture; growing manufactures,
and active commerce. In the older parts
of the slave states, with a few local exceptions, are
seen, on the contrary, too evident signs of stagnation,

or of positive decay; a sparse population,
a slovenly cultivation, spread over vast fields
that are wearing out, among others already worn
out and desolate; villages and towns `few and
far between,' rarely growing, often decaying, sometimes
mere remnants of what they were, sometimes
deserted ruins, haunted only by owls; generally
no manufactures, nor even trades, except the
indispensable few; commerce and navigation abandoned,
as far as possible, to the people of the free
states; and generally, instead of the stir and bustle
of industry, a dull and dreary stillness, broken, if
broken at all, only by the wordy brawl of politics."[231]

Were we called to declare what we believe to be
the sentiments of a large majority of our people
on the subject of slavery, we would attempt it
under two heads. First. We hold that this institution,
as it exists among us, is lawful, and that we
only have the right to control it. The Constitution
of the United States has solemnly guarantied the
rights of slaveholders in their property. Any interference
by the General Government, or by particular
states, or by classes of individuals in other
states, with her right to this property, will be resisted
by Virginia, even to the end. A dissolution
of the Union is an evil which she regards with
horror, but a dissolution of the Union would be

preferable to submission to measures which would
violate the most solemn pledges upon which the
Union was founded.

Secondly. We apprehend that, in general, the
people of Virginia hold slavery to be an enormous
evil, bearing with fatal power upon their prosperity.
This sentiment has been gaining ground during
many years. Within a very short time past, a
citizen of East Virginia, intelligent, highly educated,
and possessed of great wealth in this species
of property, has spoken out plainly, and urged
owners in our state to get rid of their slaves as
rapidly as possible.[232] And in West Virginia, expressions
of opinion have been even more decided,
and incipient means have been adopted to provide
for the gradual destruction of the evil.[233]

Under these circumstances we hail with pleasure
any indications that this part of our population is
decrasing in number, and that the time shall come
when Virginia shall be a free state. In 1790, the
slaves of the state amounted to 293,427; in 1800,
to 345,796; in 1810, to 392,518; in 1820, to
425,153; in 1830, to 469,757; and in 1840, to
449,087. Thus it appears, that in the first ten
years above noted, the slaves increased about 18
per cent.; in the second ten years, 13·3 per cent.;
in the third ten years, 8·4 per cent.; in the fourth
ten years, 10·6 per cent.; and in the last ten years,
they diminished 4·5 per cent. During the same
period, the free population increased in the first ten
years, 17·4 per cent.; in the second ten years, 9·2

per cent.; in the third ten years, 9·8 per cent.; in
the fourth ten years, 13·6 per cent.; and in the last
ten years, 6·7 per cent.

The principal source of decrease in our slaves is
in the number exported to cultivate the cotton and
sugar lands of the South. Hardly a day passes in
which large companies may not be seen traversing
the roads of Virginia, on their way to her southern
frontier. Melancholy as may be the thoughts suggested
by such scenes, they will at least bring with
them some solace. The condition of the slaves in
the South is not probably worse than upon the impoverished
plantations of our state, and their gradual
removal by this means gives place to a better
population. Already German and New York
farmers have occupied large tracts of land in Fairfax
County, and an English company has been
formed, whose professed design is to transport
emigrants from Great Britain to the inviting fields
of Virginia.[234] In her lattr days, as in her infancy,
our state seems destined to draw her inhabitants
directly from the mother country.

We have now completed a review of the past
history and present condition of Virginia. The
future is yet before her, and its revelations to her
must depend greatly upon her own preparation to
meet them. By the exercise of diligence and
virtue, she may obtain a glory more substantial,
and a happiness more pure, than any she has ever
enjoyed. May such be her conduct and her
destiny!