University of Virginia Library

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.