WARTIME RECONSTRUCTION AND THE RESTORED GOVERNMENT OF

VIRGINIA, 1861-1865

by

Robert Mooney

A Thesis Submitted to the Faculty of

The Dorothy F. Schmidt College of Arts and Letters

In Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of

Master of Arts

Florida Atlantic University

Boca Raton, FL

May 2019

Copyright 2019 by Robert Mooney

ii WARTIME RECONSTRUCTION AND THE RESTORED GOVERNMENT OF

VIRGINIA, 1861-1865

by

Robert Mooney

This thesis was prepared under the direction of the candidate's thesis advisor, Dr. Stephen D. Engle, Department of History, and has been approved by all members of the supervisory committee. It was submitted to the faculty of the Dorothy F. Schmidt College of Arts and Letters and was accepted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Arts.

SUPERVISORY COMMITTEE: d IJ.P~ D. S *- Stephen D. Engle, Ph.D. Thesis Advisor

Sanara L. Norman, Ph.D.

elly h on, Ph.D.

Khaled Sobhan, Ph.D. Interim Dean, Graduate College

iii

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

First and foremost I would like to thank my thesis committee, Dr. Engle, Dr.

Norman, and Dr. Shannon. Without the assistance of Dr. Engle in finding such an amazing and deep topic I would not have been able to develop my thesis in the first place.

Furthermore Dr. Engle has inspired me as an academic since I attended his course on the

Civil War & Reconstruction, where I rediscovered my passion for 19th Century U.S.

History. When I first registered for Dr. Norman’s U.S. History to 1877 class my freshman year I never imagined I would be where I am today and I am extremely grateful for the infinite advice that she has provided to me over the past few years. As for Dr. Shannon, although I was unable to take any courses with her, the outside perspective that she provided for understanding my thesis raised some important questions and forced me to think about the larger implications of my research. Lastly I would like to thank the other faculty in the History Department who helped me over the years and allowed me to develop as a person and historian.

Finally I would like to thank several family members who have encouraged me and helped me throughout the years, beginning with my grandmother. As a young child my grandmother would always encourage me to read on the historical topics that interested me and was constantly telling me to “look it up” whenever I had questions she could not answer, and without this guidance I would not be where I am today. I would also like to thank my parents who have supported me in more ways than can be written.

Last but not least I would like to thank my Aunt Linda for subconsciously convincing me

iv

to go to FAU in the first place and for acting as an unofficial parent to me for the past six years.

v

ABSTRACT

Author: Robert James Mooney Jr.

Title: Wartime Reconstruction and the Restored Government of Virginia, 1861-1865

Institution: Florida Atlantic University

Thesis Advisor: Dr. Stephen D. Engle

Degree: Master of Arts

Year: 2019

For the past century and a half historians have conducted more research on the

Civil War and Reconstruction than most other subjects. Except for minor mentions and one biography on the governor, the Restored Government of Virginia has been left out of the historiography. The earliest historians or political commentators believed the

Restored Government to be a small and ineffectual government that failed to achieve any broad level of support from its constituents. Furthermore, the early works suggested that the governments’ true purpose was to see that western Virginia was separated from

Virginia, not to seek the return of Virginia to the Union. While there has been slight variation over the years, historians generally continue to accept this narrative. Through the use of both federal documents and the Restored Governments various publications, this thesis seeks to demonstrate the legality behind the governments’ formation as well as

vi

explain how and why the government went from successfully restoring Virginia to being relegated to the dustbin of history.

vii

WARTIME RECONSTRUCTION AND THE RESTORED GOVERNMENT OF

VIRGINIA, 1861-1865

INTRODUCTION: ...... 1

CHAPTER 1. SECTIONALISM & SECESSION...... 10

CHAPTER 2. WHEELING, VIRGINIA: FORMING A GOVERNMENT...... 35

CHAPTER 3. WHEELING, VIRGINIA: WAR, POLITICS, AND STATEHOOD ...... 59

CHAPTER 4. ALEXANDRIA, VIRGINIA: MAINTAINING A GOVERNMENT...... 86

EPILOGUE. RICHMOND & RECONSTRUCTION ...... 112

BIBLIOGRAPHY ...... 124

viii

INTRODUCTION:

On January 25, 1870 a few hundred people flooded Richmond’s streets and excitedly flowed toward Capitol Square. Once the crowd arrived they anxiously awaited the one-hundred-gun salute to commemorate Virginia’s re-admission to the Union. At noon a team of horses placed four guns from an artillery battery at the southern end of the capitol and men in bright blue uniforms prepared to fire them. These guns held historical significance, being the same guns used to salute the stars and bars after Richmond fell in

April 1865. When the time arrived the artillerists fired their guns for nearly eight minutes.

After the deafening roar subsided and the smoke cleared, the crowd, which had grown to well over a thousand patrons, almost immediately began chanting for Governor Gilbert C.

Walker to appear. The governor was at work and a bit under the weather, however he finally stepped outside to a series of cheers. Walker proceeded to address the crowd and assured them that no Virginian was as happy that the state had returned to the Union, and before retiring to three cheers Walker predicted that Virginia would flourish like never before. While Walker and the rest of the Virginians present may have been genuinely happy at their states’ return to the Union, many were unaware that it was actually the second time their state had been restored since the beginning of the war.1

Virginia arguably played the largest role during the Civil War, with thousands of men fighting for both sides, while being unfortunate enough to have several large-scale

1Daily Dispatch (Richmond), January 26, 1870. 1

engagements occur within its borders. While Virginia remained a political and military battleground during the war, historians have tended to focus on the Confederate government in Richmond. Many Virginians were unaware that when the war broke out and Virginia seceded from the Union, a pocket of Unionists in the state’s western region resisted secession and formed their own loyal government to ensure that Virginia remained within the United States. This is not to be confused with West Virginia, which would come several years later in 1863. This Restored Government slowly rebuilt its governmental structure and maintained a relationship with the federal government throughout the war. Although the government played a substantial role in Virginia during the war, the Restored Government received little early interest from historians and has received less attention in contemporary works, often only mentioned in connection with

West Virginia’s creation. Notwithstanding, studying the Restored Government can provide numerous insights, including the sectionalism that led to the nation’s dissolution, the ever-evolving nature of federalism and how that relationship influenced wartime reconstruction, and how far the Constitution can be pushed.

Generally Civil War scholars have contributed a plethora of knowledge to the war and reconstruction, but when researching the Restored Government it becomes necessary to begin with indirectly related works or topics, such as the historical position on the changes to federalism during the war. For example the Restored Government represented the first step in maintaining federalism between Virginia and the Union and a cooperative federalist approach to preserving the relationship between nation and state. Several historians have commented on this relationship, with Daniel Elazar arguing that during the war federalism underwent a revolutionary change because domestic alterations were

2

rampant, such as fiscal, agricultural, and even conservation reform. These changes occurred throughout the northern states, but the Restored Government of Virginia participated in the revolution as well. Once the war ended, Elazar noted, the domestic revolution extended southward even though Congress refused to accept representatives from unreconstructed states. Two decades later Phillip Paludan expanded on the understanding of states’ rights and determined that they were both a southern and northern principle, one that thrived for several decades until the Civil War, including within Virginia. States’ rights played a key role in federalism’s development and Paludan further argued that as the war continued federal power expanded, as did state power. For example, state regiments far outnumbered federal regiments, the states funded public schools, and even increased the number of elected officials. The same held true for the

Restored Government of Virginia as it supplied several regiments for federal service and at the 1864 Constitutional Convention the delegates passed similar reforms.2

Where the peripheral historians unintentionally added depth to the Restored

Government during the war, there have been a few areas where the scholarship has lagged behind, such as how the government played a role in shaping wartime reconstruction policy. As it pertained to wartime reconstruction several prominent historians have commented on the southern states restoration during the war and provided a unique insight into where Virginia may have fit within those plans. Early accounts argued that when Lincoln outlined provisional reconstruction in December 1863 the policy excluded Virginia because in the executive’s eyes the state was not subject to reconstruction. Congress did not accept Lincoln’s provisional reconstruction however,

2Daniel J. Elazar, “Civil War and the Preservation of American Federalism,” Publius 1, No. 1 (1971): 44-48; Phillip S. Paludan, “Federalism in the Civil War Era,” Halcyon 10, (1988): 30-34. 3

with the Radicals believing it too lenient and, instead they offered their own policy that abolished slavery and required that fifty percent profess their loyalty to the federal government. Furthermore, under Congress’ policy Virginia was reverted to the same status as the other seceded states. Lincoln ultimately pocket-vetoed the bill, which historians generally recognized as a break between the executive and legislative on reconstruction. Some historians argued however that this action demonstrated Lincoln’s willingness to work with the Radical Republicans on reconstruction. Despite the opposition, modern historians have argued that the division between the executive and the legislative on reconstruction stemmed from the Constitution and which branch could recognize a Republican form of government, as was the case with the Restored

Government of Virginia. Furthermore these historians have maintained that this

Constitutional debate developed two schools of thought during the war on how to reconstruct the South, as the President believed that the states had never left the Union, which allowed the president to recognize a restored government. Meanwhile Congress believed that the seceded states had been reverted to territorial status, which would allow

Congress to recognize the state on their own terms.3

Numerous historians, politicians, and veterans would write on the Restored

Government’s formation. Former Confederate President Jefferson Davis was no exception to this as he wrote The Rise and Fall of the Confederate Government (1881), within which he commented on various political topics, including the Restored

Government of Virginia. Yet Davis’ work was riddled with bias regarding the Restored

3W. E. B. Du Bois, Black Reconstruction (S. A. Russell Co., New York: 1935), 151; Hans L. Trefousse, The Radical Republicans: Lincoln’s Vanguard for Racial Justice (New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 1969), 287-288; Herman Belz, Reconstructing the Union: Theory and Policy during the Civil War (Ithaca, New York: Cornell University Press, 1969), 4-7, 12-13. 4

Government and argued that the Constitutions republican ideology was violated more within Virginia than it had anywhere else. He added that West Virginia’s creation and removal from Virginia constituted secession, forgetting that the Confederacy had seceded from the Union. Davis was not the only former Confederate to contribute, as in 1899 the

Confederate Military History provided a venue for Confederate military leaders to write their version for consideration. These volumes frequently utilized a pessimistic tone when referencing the Restored Government and West Virginia’s creation. For example Maj.

Jed Hotchkiss argued that West Virginia had left Virginia without approval and had stolen a large portion of Virginia’s territory and population.4

Few historians have covered the Restored Government in its entirety, with only

Charles Ambler’s 1937 biography on Governor Francis H. Pierpont coming close, if only from the perspective of one man within the government. Within the biography Ambler maintained that Pierpont essentially shouldered all the responsibilities of the Restored

Government’s management, from raising troops to collecting taxes. This argument may have been simplistic because although the Restored Government was smaller than the states previous body Pierpont was by no means the only man within the government, which included dozens in the General Assembly, representatives at the federal level, and many more local officials. As the war’s circumstances required the military to permanently secure western Virginia within the Union a movement to separate the region from Virginia successfully attained the aforementioned goal. After West Virginia attained

4Jefferson Davis, The Rise and Fall of the Confederate Government Vol.’s I and II (New York: Da Capo Press, 1881), 255-57; Maj. Jed. Hotchkiss, “Virginia,” In Confederate Military History: Virginia, A Library of Confederate States History, in Thirteen Volumes, Written by Distinguished Men of the South, ed. Gen. Clement A. Evans (Atlanta, Confederate Publishing Company, 1899), 24; Col. Robert White, “West Virginia.” In Confederate Military History: Maryland and West Virginia, A Library of Confederate States History, in Thirteen Volumes, Written by Distinguished Men of the South, ed. Gen. Clement A. Evans (Atlanta, Confederate Publishing Company, 1899), 13. 5

statehood through the Restored Government, the Restored Government moved from

Wheeling to Alexandria, which created administrative problems. First and foremost the government’s territory after separation only contained the area not under the Union army, which was minimal, and secondly, the inhabitants who were considerably less loyal. In discussing the Alexandria government Ambler highlighted the civil-military relationship and argued that the relationship was hostile at times and came to a boiling point in 1864 as military leaders failed to accept Pierpont’s authority, but this eventually resulted in

General Benjamin Butler’s removal. Ambler’s work fell short in two areas, one being that because he focused on Pierpont the work largely ignored others involved with the government. The second area where Ambler’s interpretation was lacking was in not recognizing the Restored Government as the legitimate body that it was, instead believing the movement was just an unsuccessful attempt to reconstruct the state.5

Nearly 30 years later Richard O. Curry’s A House Divided: A Study of Statehood

Politics and the Copperhead Movement in West Virginia added considerable depth to the sectional divisions within Virginia that led to the Restored Government’s formation and later, West Virginia. Curry argued that without military assistance the government could not have sustained a movement to statehood, thus resulting in West Virginia not being created. Furthermore the Union army retained control over communication, travel, and a large percentage of the population, which limited the Restored Government’s authority.

Curry maintained that although the Restored Government held political value the authority and impact on its controlled area was minimal. Notwithstanding, when postwar

5Although Ambler was correct in his assumptions regarding the relationship between the Restored Government at Alexandria and the military, it was President Abraham Lincoln who had General Butler removed, not Congress, Charles H. Ambler, Francis H. Pierpont: Union War Governor of Virginia and Father of West Virginia (Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 1937), 102, 213, 239-43. 6

reconstruction began in mid-1865 political leaders within West Virginia feared that if

Pierpont and the Restored Government were not appointed to restore Virginia then West

Virginia’s legality could be brought into question. Conveniently President Andrew

Johnson appointed Pierpont on May 9. Curry’s analysis, although thorough, ignored the fact that the Restored Government was an equal partner in the relationship with the

Federal Government and the military and that the Restored Government had successfully restored civil governance to thousands within Virginia.6

After Ambler and Curry historians focused on West Virginia and only briefly mentioned the Restored Government as playing a small role in the state’s formation.

Many historians have touched on the founders’ intentions, but never seemed to make a case for whether West Virginia’s creation was in fact grounded in constitutional legality.

In 1969 historian Sheldon Winston questioned whether the Restored Government was meant to re-establish a loyal government or whether it was created to ensure the separation between eastern and western Virginia and break the tie. Winston noted that many of those who eventually supported West Virginia’s creation would resign their roles in the Restored Government and take positions within the new state. He concluded that Virginias’ modern leaders had not recognized the Restored Government and that the

Restored Government was little more than a small, ineffectual political organization. In

2011 Mark Snell offered another contemporary interpretation and argued that although the referendum on dismemberment held on October 20, 1862 resulted in broad support from voters the referendum did not represent the true feelings of those within the proposed state because several counties remained devout Confederates, which affected

6Richard O. Curry, A House Divided: A Study of Statehood Politics and the Copperhead Movement in West Virginia (Pittsburg: University of Pittsburg Press, 1964), 7-8, 74, 132. 7

their participation in elections. Although he discredited the referendum Snell never claimed that the Restored Government did not have the authority to hold such a vote to create West Virginia.7

The seminal work on Virginia during reconstruction, Hamilton J. Eckenrode’s

The Political History of Virginia During the Reconstruction (1904), offered a complete study on the Restored Government after the war’s conclusion as well as a brief description on the government’s time in Alexandria. Eckenrode focused on the dispute between the government and the military and argued that the Restored Government had lost the battle over authority in Norfolk and Portsmouth, evidenced by the failure to collect taxes there until after wars. Moreover Eckenrode made the case that the Restored

Governments true purpose was to govern western Virginia and give consent to West

Virginia’s creation, which was why the government struggled in Alexandria. The only other work that discussed the Restored Government at Alexandria at length, excluding

Ambler’s biography on Pierpont, was Sara Bearss 2014 article “Restored and Vindicated:

The Virginia Constitutional Convention of 1864.” Bearss’ work on the 1864

Constitutional Convention attempted to recognize the actions of the men who participated in the convention and have the moment restored to the historical record. Bearss argued that without placing this convention in the historical record, as was the case, certain events during reconstruction failed to make sense, such as how former Confederates were able to dominate the reconstruction government in the state.8

7Sheldon Winston, “Statehood for West Virginia An Illegal Act?” West Virginia History 30, No. 3 (1969): 532, 534; Mark A. Snell, West Virginia and the Civil War (Charleston, S.C.: The History Press, 2011), 56. 8Hamilton J. Eckenrode, The Political History of Virginia During the Reconstruction (Baltimore, Johns Hopkins Press, 1904), 14-25; Sara B. Bearss, “Restored and Vindicated: The Virginia Constitutional Convention of 1864,” The Virginia Magazine of History and Biography 122, No. 2 (2014): 158, 176-177. 8

The historiography aside, when the Restored Government formed in the summer of 1861 it was in direct response to the deep seeded political division between eastern and western Virginia. The Restored Government’s primary goal was self-reconstruction, which would hopefully end with Virginia being returned to the Union it its entirety.

During the war’s early years the executive almost entirely decided reconstruction policy, with the legislative supporting it, allowing Virginia’s return to the Union, albeit partially because a large percentage of the state’s territory remained under Confederate occupation. Virginia remained in this position until 1863 when it became necessary for western Virginia to separate from Virginia and become an entirely new state, placing the

Restored Government and Virginia into a complicated position. After forming West

Virginia a buffer between the Confederacy and the mid-western states allowed the military the ability to defend the region from invasion, but the Restored Government’s task of fully restoring Virginia became much more difficult. After moving from western to eastern Virginia the Restored Government faced additional challenges that ultimately hindered their ability to re-establish civil governance in the region under their control. At the same time reconstruction policy became muddled as the executive had one opinion and the legislative another, which placed Virginia in a compromised position. Generally the 37th Congress supported President Lincoln’s reconstruction policy, however, due to the change in war strategy from status quo ante bellum to one of complete victory the

38th Congress began blocking aspects of Lincoln’s policy. By the war’s end, despite having maintained federal recognition and representation, the Restored Government failed to bring Virginia in its entirety back into the Union and due to a shift in reconstruction policy the state was reverted to territorial status.

9

SECTIONALISM & SECESSION

By the 1760s western Virginia was little more than a pristine wilderness ripe for conquest (aside from Native Americans). Following the French and Indian War colonists began moving westward in search for new lands, upon which they could build a homestead and a new life for their families. As these settlers crossed the Blue Ridge

Mountains with little more than clothes, tools, and enough food for only a few months, they could not comprehend the difficulties that awaited them. When the families arrived in what would become West Virginia they largely depended on the fathers and sons hunting skills as farming was not an immediately viable option. As more families moved westward communities developed that revolved around a simpler culture than those in the state’s eastern portion. The need for slavery was almost non-existent as the families relied solely on their own free labor. As time went on the mountaineer lifestyle became sufficient for the people and these mountaineers grew increasingly opposed to the east’s ways, slavery included.9

As the new republic developed the nation’s political/social infrastructure dissolved and Virginia was a near perfect reflection of the entire nation as it pertained to the development of sectionalism. As the country fractured over sectional debates the same occurred within Virginia as eastern Tidewater citizens and Piedmont settlers attempted to subjugate the western Shenandoah Valley and Trans-Alleghany regions.

9Charles H. Ambler and Festus P. Summers, West Virginia: The Mountain State (Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey: Prentice-Hall, Inc., 1958), 54-55. 10

Diverse groups of people lived within each distinct region, with more affluent and distinguished dynasties living within the eastern region and immigrants from northern states settling in the western region. Although state politics represented a contentious point between the various geographical regions, Virginia took a leading role in federal politics and even created a presidential dynasty that put a Virginian in the White House for thirty-two out of the offices thirty-six years in existence. This political dominance meant that the state played a key role in the development of federalism in the United

States throughout the early nineteenth century. Federalism was molded by the institution of slavery, however, while Virginians generally sided with fellow southern states, within the state western Virginians often developed vastly different opinions than their eastern counterparts.10

After the English colonies in North America rebelled against the throne,

Virginians came together and created the Virginia State Constitution of 1776. The document expectedly favored the eastern counties as the Tidewater and Piedmont politicians believed that the states slave owners deserved more political authority than the non-slave owners who lived in Virginia’s western region. The constitution instituted strict voter laws that prevented anyone who did not hold large tracts of land or property from participating in the state government. Meanwhile as the United States developed its militia system political divisions became present within Virginia’s western and eastern militias, as the former consisted of a poorer class of men who could not afford to leave their homes for any extended period. Furthermore these men detested the possibility that

10Charles H. Ambler, Sectionalism in Virginia from 1776-1861 (Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 1910), 335; Leonard Cecil Hubbard, “Francis H. Pierpont and the Restored Government of Virginia,” (Ma. Thesis, University of Richmond, 1918), 1; William W. Freehling, The Road to Disunion, Volume I: Secessionists at Bay, 1776-1854 (New York: Oxford University Press, 1990), 147-48. 11

they should be forced to travel to the eastern counties and assist in the suppression of a slave revolt, which would hardly have affected their day-to-day lives. Eastern politicians did everything in their power to ensure that the western counties would have as little political authority as possible and that there was minimal economic development in the region, which further exacerbated the divide. These internal divisions over politics were largely responsible for the western counties growing disinterest in and opposition to slavery’s westward expansion, which became a leading factor for the separate Unionist movement by westerners by 1861.11

As the Republic developed from the late 1700s into the early 1800s the country took a confrontational stance with several foreign empires and attempted to assert itself on the international stage. The largest foreign instigator, the English, insisted upon the conscription of American sailors. After the United States requested the cessation of such practices, the English declined to acquiesce. As tensions escalated between the two nations, southern politicians and leaders in the United States pushed for confrontation, thus the War of 1812 began. During the war state militias took a leading role in the fight as the English managed several campaigns that threatened America’s coastal regions, including burning the White House in Washington, D.C. In Virginia the divisions between the eastern and western militias remained intact as the men preferred to remain near their homes. If the English forces invaded the men wanted to ensure their homes were protected. The federal government’s decision not to reinforce Virginia’s coastal cities further aggravated these divisions, which in turn forced the state to organize its own defense. By wars’ end Virginians were no closer to agreement or political equality, a fact

11Alan Taylor, The Internal Enemy: Slavery and War in Virginia, 1772-1832 (New York: Norton, 2013), 33-34, 152-53. 12

that only became worse as political compromise failed to achieve results, leading to further internal strife.12

While eastern politicians continued their domination over the west, a push for constitutional reform forced Virginia’s General Assembly to agree to a popular referendum and to the east’s surprise the referendum passed 21,896 to 16,632 in favor of a Constitutional Convention. The referendum’s passage was quite revealing, as under the old Virginia constitution for men to vote in Virginia they needed to own at least fifty acres of land, which prevented nearly half the male population from voting in the state.

After the referendum’s passage an overwhelming majority of delegates elected were from the Tidewater and Piedmont, which ensured that the eastern elites would be dictating any compromise. When the delegates arrived in Richmond for the convention on October 5,

1829 there were striking differences between the eastern and western delegates, exemplified by the former’s rich dress and the latter’s plain dress. Almost immediately the western delegates called for internal improvements throughout the Blue Ridge

Mountains that would allow and encourage economic connections to outside markets.

Additionally the western delegates wanted the General Assembly’s representation based upon the 1830 census with periodic revisions to reflect updated figures. Meanwhile the eastern delegates wanted representation based upon the 1820 census with no re- evaluations. The eastern delegates ultimately got their way while the western counties had to accept that their representation would remain stagnant despite a growing white population.13

12William J. Cooper Jr., Liberty and Slavery: Southern Politics to 1860 (New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 1983.), 123; Alan Taylor, The Internal Enemy, 161-64, 172. 13William W. Freehling, Secessionists at Bay, 169-71, 174, 176. 13

The final constitution gave in to some western demands and provided for a more egalitarian state government, but slaveholders managed to retain most of their power and political hold over the state. Western Virginians and their newspapers generally opposed the new constitution and took an active role in expressing their distaste for the eastern political domination over the west. The Compiler in Wheeling published a report on a meeting held in Wheeling on December 14 that had passed several resolutions expressing their distaste for the former constitution that allowed the eastern slave owners to rule over the western free laborers. Just a few days after the convention had adjourned sine die on

January 15, 1830, the Compiler described the anguish felt by many western Virginians and it claimed that their hopes had turned to “unfeigned sorrow” after they recognized that very little had changed. This opposition and disgust became quite clear in April when the popular vote clearly demonstrated that the western counties did not approve as the constitution received few affirmative votes on the referendum.14

While western Virginians continued their resistance to the eastern elites a small opportunity presented itself that had the potential to improve their political situation. In

August 1831 a young slave named Nat Turner led a band of slaves in insurrection in

Southampton County, Virginia; an action that prompted a movement in Virginia’s

General Assembly to have slavery abolished in the State. One measure in the General

Assembly nearly accomplished the removal of slavery when the House of Delegates passed a bill that funded colonization in Africa for the next two years, however the bill failed in the Senate and no other measures came close to passage.15

14William W. Freehling, Secessionists at Bay, 162; Compiler, December 23, 1829, January 27, 1830; Wheeling Gazette, April 24, 1830. 15Beverley B. Munford, Virginia’s Attitude Toward Slavery and Secession (New York: Longmans, Green, and Co., 1909.), 45, 47. 14

During the 1832 Presidential Election Andrew Jackson (a native North Carolinian who had moved to Tennessee) easily won the electoral votes from Virginia and received broad support from the southern states. Despite this backing Jackson needed to take a strong federal position as he dealt with the troubling tariffs that were pushing southern states closer to nullification, particularly South Carolina. The Tariff of 1828 had increased import duties from 33 ½ percent to 50 percent, which angered South

Carolinians more than previous tariffs as the newest duty would hardly improve their rapidly declining economic status (caused by recent economic depressions). Between

1828 and 1832 southern politicians (Virginians included) urged tariff reform. The Tariff of 1832 was only a slight improvement as most rates were halved, but those that impacted southern states the most (such as cotton) remained at 50 percent. In response to the new tariff South Carolina’s General Assembly modeled an Ordinance of Nullification after

Vice-President John C. Calhoun’s anonymously penned South Carolina Exposition and

Protest from 1828. The Ordinance declared that South Carolina had deemed the new tariff (as well as previous tariffs) unconstitutional because they favored northern industry while punishing the South.16

After South Carolina nullified the tariffs of 1828 and 1832 Virginians generally opposed the action, however after President Jackson’s proclamation to South Carolina on

December 10, 1832 (where he condemned nullification and threatened the use of force)

Virginians opposed the president’s position. The decision to support or oppose Jackson depended upon the region, while the western counties largely supported the president the

16Richard E. Ellis, The Union at Risk: Jacksonian Democracy, States’ Rights and the Nullification Crisis (New York: Oxford University Press, 1987), 127; William W. Freehling, Prelude to Civil War: The Nullification Controversy in South Carolina, 1816-1836 (New York: Harper & Row, 1966), 138, 248. 15

eastern counties opposed his action. Governor John Floyd of Virginia eventually decided that the state’s General Assembly should consider the Nullification Proclamation and become involved if necessary. After deliberating for several weeks the General Assembly adopted several resolutions that urged South Carolina to repeal their proclamation while at the same time it urged the federal government to reduce tariffs and asked that both parties take steps to avoid confrontation in the future. The General Assembly authorized

Benjamin Watkins Leigh to travel to Charleston, South Carolina as a commissioner to prevent the nullifiers from taking further action, however Leigh arrived several days after the South Carolina General Assembly agreed to repeal the proclamation on March 11,

1833. This attempt at preventing dis-Union notwithstanding, Virginia’s General

Assembly thoroughly maintained that states held the right to secede from the Union as they saw fit. The Nullification Crisis further demarcated Virginia’s sectionalism as the western counties strongly supported the Union and the federal government’s authority.

The eastern counties opposed the federal government’s response and simultaneously reaffirmed states’ rights and southern ideology.17

As the United States expanded westward a brief war with Mexico led to the republic annexing vast amounts of territory stretching to the west coast. Although many politicians viewed this as destiny, the possibility of organizing new territories into states led to discussions surrounding slavery’s expansion. After acquiring the land from Mexico

Congress debated whether to admit the new territories as free or slave states, with the

North resisting the admission of additional slave states on the ground that it would prevent the South from gaining any additional advantage in Congress. In January 1850

17Richard E. Ellis, The Union at Risk, 129, 133, 136, 139; William W. Freehling, Secessionists at Bay, 281; William W. Freehling, Prelude to Civil War, 290. 16

Henry Clay (known as the Great Compromiser) proposed several resolutions to the

Senate. These included California’s admission as a free state, Mexican territory would be organized into states, the border between New Mexico and Texas would be defined, the federal government would purchase Texas’ debt, slavery would be abolished in

Washington, D.C., and the Fugitive Slave Act would be enforced by northern states. The final resolutions were quite similar to Clay’s original proposal with the only notable change being the promise to organize New Mexico and Utah without additional debate over their status. The final compromise strongly favored the southern states more than the northern states as Clay attempted to delay the inevitable fracture between the sections.18

Just months after Congress alleviated sectionalism on a national level Virginians voted to hold another Constitutional Convention with the hope that it would diffuse discord between the eastern and western regions. The General Assembly decided that representation for the convention should include two factors; population (where the

Western counties had the upper hand) and taxation (where the eastern counties dominated). After the election results came in it became clear once again that representation favored the Tidewater and Piedmont regions over the Valley and Trans-

Allegheny. When the convention assembled in October 1850 Henry A. Wise (future

Governor of Virginia) took on a leading role in protecting slavery. Wise feared that if the eastern counties failed to protect slavery that failure would jeopardize its future in the western counties, which had the potential to impact the entire state’s economic status.

Moreover Wise believed that a compromise would strengthen the economic relations

18James M. McPherson. Battle Cry of Freedom: The Civil War Era (New York: Oxford University Press, 1988), 70-71. 17

between the regions as western agricultural goods would move eastward while slavery expanded westward.19

The primary goal for the western delegates at the convention was to ensure that both houses in the General Assembly would be based upon the white population in the various legislative districts. The problem that ultimately prevented the westerners from attaining this goal was that their disproportional representation (when compared to the more powerful eastern counties) left them in a permanent minority. After the western delegates recognized that the eastern leaders were not offering a reasonable agreement a number of them met outside the convention and vowed that they would return home if they could not reach a compromise. In the end the convention adjourned in August 1851 with the western delegates winning a partial victory when it came to representation in the

House of Delegates (based upon the white voters in the district), but the Senate would not be changed. Despite the eastern counties conceding some authority (marginal at best) to the western counties and creating a more egalitarian state the western counties had to carry a larger proportion of the tax burden than their eastern counterparts because of ad valorem taxation. The eastern delegates urged the convention to offer some protection for slavery, resulting in ad valorem taxation, which meant that the state would not tax slaves under twelve years old and those that could be taxed were not assessed at more than three-hundred dollars. Although the results were not exceedingly beneficial to voters in

19Craig Simpson, “Political Compromise and the Protection of Slavery: Henry A. Wise and the Virginia Constitutional Convention of 1850-1851” Virginia Magazine of History and Biography 83, No. 4 (1975): 387-88, 391-92, 395-96. 18

the western counties, an additional compromise allowed a popular vote in place of a legislative vote for the Governor of Virginia.20

Voter representation in Virginia’s General Assembly was not the only concern addressed by western leaders during the 1850s. They focused their efforts on internal improvements as well. During the 1850s railroads became the ideal way to transport goods and construction began on several railroad lines through western Virginia (such as the Baltimore and Ohio Railroad) that connected that region to northern cities. Because railroads became more favorable than wagons or waterways the government abandoned plans for extending the James River and Kanawha Canal to the western counties. This oversight added to the resentment towards the eastern regions as the western regions remained disconnected from the former and became increasingly connected to northern economic markets. By 1853 western Virginians in the panhandle had grown so weary of their treatment by the eastern elites that they attempted to merge with Pennsylvania and three years later they unsuccessfully tried again. Angered by eastern political oppression western Virginians channeled their contempt by opposing slavery, not on moral grounds or because they supported abolitionism, but because they understood that the institution was responsible for their subjugation by the eastern elites. Despite the disapproval some wealthier western Virginians did support the institution. As was the case in Kanawha

County where after discovering large salt deposits slaves were imported to assist in the

20Craig Simpson, “Political Compromise and the Protection of Slavery,” 394, 397-98, 400, 403-4; William W. Freehling, The Road to Disunion, Volume II: Secessionists Triumphant, 1854-1861 (New York: Oxford University Press, 2007), 506; Crofts, Daniel W. Crofts, Reluctant Confederates: Upper South Unionists in the Secession Crisis (Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 1989), 58. 19

mining operations. Aside from this endeavor however, slaves in the western counties were few and far between.21

By 1854 the Congressional measures of 1850 unraveled as the Kansas and

Nebraska territories sought statehood within the Union. After debating for weeks

Congress passed the Kansas-Nebraska Act which removed westward restrictions on slavery. Shortly after border ruffians (pro-slavery activists) from Missouri flooded into

Kansas to promote the peculiar institution. The following year a pro-slavery man murdered a Free-Soiler and a thousand ruffians left Missouri en-masse and invaded the city of Lawrence, Kansas. The ruffian invasion resulted in the seizure of Lawrence, and by 1856 there were two governments operating within Kansas; a free government in

Topeka and a pro-slavery government in Lecompton. While each government wrote a constitution the Lecompton version was the only one brought before Congress because it resulted from the popular referendum that the Free-Soilers had boycotted. Virginia’s eastern Tidewater and Piedmont regions supported the Lecompton constitution and

Kansas’ admission as a slave state, while the western counties in the Valley and Trans-

Alleghany generally opposed the Lecompton constitution. Congress ultimately rejected the Lecompton constitution, but only by a small majority. Ultimately Kansas entered the

Union as a free state in 1861.22

In 1859 John Brown attempted to seize the federal armory in Harpers Ferry with the intention of providing arms to slaves so that they could inaugurate a nationwide

21Daniel W. Crofts, Reluctant Confederates, 56, 59; William A. Link, “’This Bastard New Virginia’: Slavery, West Virginia Exceptionalism, and the Secession Crisis,” West Virginia History, New Series 3, No. 1 (2009): 39-40; Scott A. MacKenzie, “The Slaveholders’ War: The Secession Crisis in Kanawha County, Western Virginia, 1860-1861,” West Virginia History, New Series 4, No. 1 (2010): 34. 22James M. McPherson. Battle Cry of Freedom, 148, 168-69; Charles H. Ambler, Sectionalism in Virginia, 309. 20

revolt. Brown’s raid failed and he hung for it, but this did not prevent the development of southern hysteria for several months. After Brown southerners began to feel that abolitionists in the North were actively organizing and funding attempts to destroy slavery in the South and relegate those states to a colonial status. Virginians had now lived through at least two subversive attempts that sought to remove the institution from within the state, not to mention other slave revolts. John C. Underwood who would go on to lead the 1867-68 Virginia Constitutional Convention suggested that abolitionists in the

North were willing to fund schemes in the South. Underwood was originally from

Herkimer County in Upstate New York and after attending Hamilton College he drifted between political parties; beginning as a Whig, then a Free-Soiler, and then finally a

Republican. These political groups infused Underwood with the free labor ideology that he wished to spread into Virginia and hopefully the entire South. Underwood took his first step toward his goal when he opened dairy and cheese factories in Fauquier and

Clarke Counties, importing free labor from his home county in New York. Despite initial success the factories floundered and the laborers returned to their homes, forcing

Underwood to devise a new scheme.23

In 1856 Underwood became increasingly involved in national politics and attended the Republican National Convention as a representative from Virginia (despite their sparse numbers in the state). Underwood intended to support William H. Seward for the presidential ticket, but John C. Frémont won the nomination. Before the convention adjourned the delegates asked Underwood to speak and he proceeded to criticize

23Clement Eaton, A History of the Southern Confederacy (New York: Macmillan Company, 1954), 2; Patricia Hickin, “John C. Underwood and the Antislavery Movement in Virginia, 1847-1860,” Virginia Magazine of History and Biography 73, No. 2 (1965): 156-57. 21

Virginians and their attachment to the peculiar institution. News of Underwood’s attendance at the convention reached his home in Virginia. Due to the potential danger of returning to the South he decided it would be best if he were to remain in the North.

Underwood spent his time away from home campaigning for Frémont as well as concocting a new scheme for his Republican invasion into the South, starting with

Virginia. Underwood’s invasion began with his alleged connection to the Wheeling

Intelligencer, which had recently purchased by Republican Archibald Campbell (who had also attended Hamilton College) and received funding from several northern

Republicans. In 1857 Underwood created the American Emigrant Aid and Homestead

Company, which became responsible for building towns in southern states and encouraging like-minded individuals (mostly Republicans) to settle there. One such town,

Ceredo (located along the Ohio River in western Virginia), thrived during the fall of

1857. After John Brown’s raid on Harpers Ferry however, the entire plan unraveled as

Virginians became increasingly skeptical of northerners. Shortly after his most recent failure Underwood returned to politics and again accompanied an assemblage of Virginia

Republicans to the national convention in Chicago in preparation for the 1860

Presidential Election. Underwood’s intention was to ensure Seward received the presidential nomination, but after Abraham Lincoln gained support and won Underwood accepted the decision and campaigned for the nominee across the Midwestern states.24

Amidst the repercussions from the John Brown raid Virginia underwent a turbulent gubernatorial election that reflected the period’s internal divisions. In preparation for the election Governor Wise inaugurated a campaign against John Letcher

24Patricia Hickin, “John C. Underwood and the Antislavery Movement in Virginia,” 159-61, 164, 166. 22

and attempted to prevent his election. The Opposition Party (a combination of former

Whigs and Nativists) tried to question Letcher’s support for slavery in Virginia by stressing some anti-slavery remarks made by Letcher a decade earlier. To oppose Letcher the Opposition Party chose former Whig William L. Goggin as their candidate for governor. In keeping with the party’s attitude toward Letcher, Goggin insisted that

Letcher was at fault for the Emigrant Aid Society’s invasion into Virginia and blamed him for Nathanial P. Banks election as Speaker of the House. The Opposition Party needed to compromise with the Democratic Party’s opponents to have any hope for winning the gubernatorial election, however they failed to do so and Letcher won the election 77,113 to 71,643. This failure to compromise became an important theme in the state as the conditional Unionists in Virginia demanded protection for slavery and when these demands were not met they turned toward secession and a union with other southern states.25

Tensions flared during the summer and fall of 1860 and rumors of slave rebellions spreading throughout the South fueled secession. Western Virginians did not suffer from such fears as there were only 18,371 slaves in the area in 1860, a small portion of the total 491,000 in the entire state. As fear over rebellion spread across the southern states all eligible voters who wanted to protect the peculiar institution or prevent it from spreading westward (while also dissolving bonds that held the Union together) were captivated by the presidential election. The contest became disarrayed as the Democratic

National Convention (held in the ill-equipped city of Charleston, South Carolina) fell

25William S. Hitchcock, “The Limits of Southern Unionism: Virginia Conservatives and the Gubernatorial Election of 1859,” Journal of Southern History 47, No. 1 (1981): 66-67, 69-70, 72; Charles H. Ambler, Sectionalism in Virginia, 325. 23

apart as the delegates could not compromise regarding which planks to include in the platform, causing several states to leave the convention. The Republican National

Convention in Chicago fared much better despite being a newer political organization formed in response to the troubling events during the 1850s. In western Virginia the

Republican Party received relatively little support despite Underwood’s hopes. In

September the Wide Awakes (a Republican youth organization) held a parade in

Wheeling that had a relatively modest turnout with some five hundred supporters.

Despite remaining Unionist in these western counties and with some Republican supporters, the votes were split between southern Democrat John C. Breckenridge and the

Constitutional Union party’s John Bell.26 Virginia’s electoral votes eventually went to

Bell, but it was to no avail as Lincoln and the Republicans won the election and inaugurated political unrest across the South. The Virginia General Assembly’s attempt to raise taxes for mobilization would have proportionally hurt the western counties more than the eastern counties (due to having fewer slaves) and further divided the regions.27

Prior to the election of 1860 South Carolinas Governor William Gist sent secret correspondence to other lower South governors inquiring as to their interest in a southern convention. The governor also sent a commissioner to Richmond to procure representatives from the commonwealth at the convention; this was refused. In response to Gist the governors all agreed that their respective states would not initiate a movement, but if another state did (such as South Carolina) or the Federal Government violated their

26If West Virginia had been a state during this election the electoral votes would have gone to Breckenridge and not Bell. 27Clement Eaton, A History of the Southern Confederacy, 2; Michael F. Holt, The Election of 1860 (Lawrence, Kansas: University Press of Kansas, 2017), 2, 50, 55-61; Mark A. Snell, West Virginia and the Civil War, 18-20; William A. Link, “’This Bastard New Virginia’,” 41-42; William A. Link, Roots of Secession: Slavery and Politics in Antebellum Virginia (Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 2003), 215. 24

states’ rights, they would leave the Union. After Lincoln’s election it only took a few weeks for the first state to attempt secession as South Carolina left on December 20.28

Amidst this mass movement Governor Letcher called Virginia’s General Assembly into extra session and asked that the delegates pass a resolution to prevent additional states from seceding and alleviate the crisis at hand. In his address to the General Assembly

Letcher argued for the legality of secession, but suggested that northern and southern states appoint commissioners to reconcile their differences. This eventually led to the

Peace Convention.29

Initially former President John Tyler (a Virginian) had wanted the proposed convention to be comprised of delegates from the slave states that had remained within the Union. This was not what occurred as 131 delegates from twenty-one northern and southern states attended.30 The convention’s intended goal, at least initially, was to restore the Union and protect slavery in its current state, but most southern delegates felt that slavery should be allowed to expand into the western territories if the inhabitants so wished. Meanwhile, most northern delegates felt that there should be no further expansion of slavery and the long established regional differences made compromise on this issue quite difficult.31

28After South Carolina’s secession in late December several states followed, beginning with Mississippi on January 9, Florida on January 10, Alabama on January 11, Georgia on January 19, Louisiana on January 26, and Texas on February 1. 29William W. Freehling, Secessionists Triumphant, 285-86; Clement Eaton, A History of the Southern Confederacy, 56; Beverley B. Munford, Virginia’s Attitude Toward Slavery and Secession, 248- 49. 30States that sent commissioners to the Peace Convention included Connecticut, Delaware, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky, Maine, Massachusetts, Missouri, Maryland, North Carolina, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New York, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Tennessee, Vermont and lastly, Virginia. 31Samuel E. Morison, “The Peace Convention of February, 1861,” Proceedings of the Massachusetts Historical Society 73, No. 3 (1961): 59, 78; Jesse L. Keene, “Sectionalism in the Peace Convention of 1861,” Florida Historical Quarterly 40, No. 1 (1961): 54, 74; Official Journal of the Conference Convention, Held at Washington City, February, 1861 (Peace Convention), 77. 25

The convention met at Willards’ Concert Hall in Washington D.C. on February 4 and appointed temporary officers to preside over the meeting until permanent ones were selected. The following day the delegates elected Tyler president, whereupon he addressed those present. Tyler felt that the delegates had “committed a great error” by electing him. Despite their error it was clear to Tyler that the situation’s urgency required him to accept the position. Tyler then addressed each individual delegation present at the convention and in demonstrating his genuine love for the nation referenced something unique about each state. Before concluding his speech Tyler warned the delegates that if they would put their patriotism before their political party then “one long, loud shout of joy and gladness will resound throughout the land.” In the end Tyler’s opening address did very little when it came to reasonable compromise as on the final day (February 27) the convention voted and passed several resolutions that closely resembled the proposed

Constitutional amendment by John J. Crittenden. This would have prevented the federal government from ever abolishing slavery within a state or from removing said amendment. The resolutions passed by the convention reaffirmed the 36-30 parallel, assured that a majority of free state and slave state senators would have to approve any acquisition of additional territory, prevented Congress from abolishing slavery in the nation’s capital, reinforced the Fugitive Slave Act, prohibited the slave trade, and offered

Congressional reimbursement for lost slaves. One final resolution (initially rejected) emphasized that per the constitution a state could not secede from the Union, however the resolution’s final draft allowed for secession through an approved process.32

32Official Journal of the Conference Convention, 3, 6-7, 71-76; William W. Freehling, Secessionists Triumphant, 470. 26

Throughout the convention the northern delegates continued to question whether a compromise would have any effect upon the states who had already seceded and by the last session the question remained unanswered. The resolutions passed by the convention failed to represent a true compromise between the northern and southern states and solved very little when it came to preserving the Union. Some people (both North and

South) believed that the Peace Convention was little more than a collection of older politicians who relied upon outdated beliefs when forming a solution to the secession crisis. Overall the failed attempt at reconciliation hurt the Union through some unintended consequences. After news arrived in Richmond that the Peace Convention had failed to bring about any real compromise the attitudes in the Virginia State

Convention shifted from Unionism toward Secessionism and in due course led to the division within the state as western Virginians tried to prevent the inevitable.33

Meanwhile those in western Virginia took precautions against secession and on

November 24, 1860 several western politicians gathered in Clarksburg, Virginia to pass resolutions that condemned secession and opposed any attempt to hold a Virginia State

Convention to discuss the matter. These men were not alone. Virginia and particularly western Virginia, had a large Unionist population along the Baltimore and Ohio Railroad that acted as an economic route that connected the area to several northern states. Their opposition to a convention notwithstanding, and the federal government’s desperate desire to keep the upper South in the Union, Virginia’s General Assembly decided that a

33Howard C. Westwood, “The Real Lost Cause: The Peace Convention of 1861,” Military Affairs 27, No. 3 (1963): 129; Jesse L. Keene, “Sectionalism in the Peace Convention of 1861,” 81; William W. Freehling, Secessionists Triumphant, 513; James I. Robertson Jr., “The Virginia State Convention of 1861,” In Virginia at War, 1861, ed. William C. Davis and James I. Robertson Jr., 1-26 (Lexington, K.Y.: University of Kentucky Press, 2005), 8. 27

popular referendum would ascertain the public’s interest in holding a convention. The referendum (held the same day the Peace Convention opened) contained two questions for voters to answer; whom they wished to be their delegate to the Virginia Convention and, if any resolutions passed, would they need approval via a second popular referendum. As the results for the initial referendum came in Virginia’s Unionists rejoiced as they had won a clear victory, with less than a third of the delegates selected to the convention being outright secessionists.34

As the convention assembled in Richmond on February 13 the western delegates, including Waitman T. Willey and John S. Carlile (future senators from the Restored

Government of Virginia), attempted to seize the occasion and open discussion on the same issues that had occupied the delegates at the 1850 Constitutional Convention.

Because of their historic position and their pro-Union stance the western delegates at the convention were subject to criticism from the men and women in the galleries, as well as the secessionist mobs that roamed the streets. Initially the convention maintained its pro-

Union majority, but following the Peace Convention’s failure and Lincoln’s inaugural address the secessionists in the Virginia Convention were flustered. During late March and early April tensions flared and the Conditional Unionists in Virginia urged the

Federal Government to remove all troops from both Fort Sumter in South Carolina and

Fort Pickens in Florida, whereas before they had asked for only Sumter’s evacuation. The convention even sent John B. Baldwin as a commissioner to Lincoln to persuade him to

34Mark A. Snell, West Virginia and the Civil War, 20; Henry T. Shanks, The Secession Movement in Virginia, 1847-1861 (New York: Da Capo Press, 1970), 210-211; Russell, McClintock, Lincoln and the Decision for War: The Northern Response to Secession (Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 2008), 170; Scott A. MacKenzie, “The Slaveholders’ War: The Secession Crisis in Kanawha County, Western Virginia, 1860-1861,” 41; William A. Link, Roots of Secession, 227. 28

meet the conditional Unionists demands. Nothing came from this despite the president later claiming that he offered to remove troops from southern forts if the Virginia

Convention adjourned sine die. Afterword the federal government made one final attempt at compromise with Virginia. Newly appointed Secretary of State William H. Seward concocted a scheme to send a commissioner to Richmond to propose to the convention that the federal government would surrender Fort Sumter if Virginia remained within the

Union, but this plan failed.35

By April 4 the Unionists at the convention still maintained their dominance over the secessionists and when a delegate put forth a vote for secession it failed to attain any marginal support, losing 90 to 45. As discussions surrounding secession increased over the next few days General John Jay Jackson from Wood County proudly proclaimed that western Virginians would not join the eastern states should secession be approved and even the New York Times reported that western Virginia had declared its “Independence” from eastern domination. As western Virginians and the Unionists in the convention attempted to prevent secession, South Carolina was actively taking steps to remove the federal troops from Fort Sumter in Charleston’s harbor. When the president ordered a ship to resupply the Fort, General P. G. T. Beauregard (commander of the troops within the city) ordered Major Robert Anderson (Sumter’s commander) to surrender the fort;

Anderson respectfully declined. When Anderson’s refusal reached Beauregard the

General ordered all batteries in the harbor to commence a bombardment against the fort at 4:30 AM on April 12. The batteries lobbed shells toward the fort for over thirty-six

35Daniel W. Crofts, Reluctant Confederates: Upper South Unionists in the Secession Crisis, 161, 261; William A. Link, Roots of Secession, 233; Russell, McClintock, Lincoln and the Decision for War, 230, 234, 243; Allan Nevins, War for the Union, 1861-1862: The Improvised War (New York: Konecky & Konecky, 1971), 64. 29

hours. Anderson refused to surrender until he absolutely could not hold out for any longer. By the early afternoon on April 13 Beauregard again offered his terms to

Anderson. The terms contained three brief requests; that all property be turned over to

Beauregard, that the stars and stripes be lowered to a salute, and that Anderson choose the time for said surrender on the following day. After old glory’s removal the victors raised South Carolina’s Palmetto Guard flag in its stead. Although the engagement was but a minor affair with no casualties (except for two federal soldiers killed after a gun exploded during the salute), the event played a key role in the decision for secession in the upper South, Virginia included.36

News of the attack on Sumter did not reach Richmond until the day after the bombardment and took an additional day for it to reach western Virginia. That same morning Carlile and the other delegates walked up the Virginia Capital Building’s steps and into the chamber where the convention met. At precisely 10:00 AM convention president John Janney from Loudoun County called the fifty-first meeting to order and ordered the prayer led by Reverend Alden Bosserman from the Universalist Church in

Richmond. While the proceedings were underway a telegram arrived informing the delegates that Fort Sumter had succumbed to the siege. Some members seized the occasion to introduce a proposal that they should recognize and assist the Confederacy.

Shocked by this turn of events Carlile decided that someone needed to put an end to the secessionist debate. Demanding recognition by the other delegates Carlile proclaimed that if “the time shall ever come when I shall be found warring against any portion of this

36William A. Link, Roots of Secession, 235; New York Times, April 10, 1861; The Battle of Fort Sumter and First Victory of the Southern Troops (Charleston, South Carolina: Evans & Cogswell, 1861), 3- 4, 10, 24, 26-27. 30

Union, I trust that, with him, I will be found with the flag of my country in one of my hands.” In response to Carlile’s proclamation former Governor of Virginia Henry A.

Wise mockingly shouted “Oh! I should take it away from you if I saw it there,” causing the room to erupt with laughter.37

Mildly embarrassed Carlile immediately acquired the floor again and proceeded to explain why he was present at the convention and why his constituents had chosen him to represent their interests. His cause, noble in retrospect, was to “see harmony restored to this Union, and all the States re-instated to their respective positions.” In furthering his point he questioned the proposed reason for the convention itself, asking “what is the object we have in view in considering these propositions…if not to preserve the government and restore harmony?” He went so far as to acknowledge the hypocrisy within the convention and complained that members did little to assist Major Anderson at

Fort Sumter, who shared “kindred blood with our own,” but wanted to assist the rebels in their destruction actions. Carlile closed his argument and insisted that the Confederate states had revoked “all allegiance to the United States Government; they have trampled upon its flag, and erected the standard of rebellion in their midst.” The debate continued for the entirety of that session and the Unionists feared that secession had become more than a probability.38

Over the next twenty-four hours President Lincoln considered whether or not he would request that the states organize their militias for federal service to assist in the rebellions suppression. On April 15 Secretary of War Simon Cameron officially

37Proceedings of the Virginia Secession Convention, April 13, 1861. The University of Richmond has digitized the entire proceedings and speeches can be searched by delegate, county, or specific day. 38Ibid, John Carlile, April 13, 1861. 31

requested that Governor Letcher and Virginia raise three regiments with one-hundred and eleven officers and two thousand two hundred and twenty-nine enlisted men.39 By the following morning the governor had penned Virginia’s response to the request:

In reply to this communication I have only to say that the militia will not be furnished to the powers at Washington for any such use or purpose as they have in view. Your object is to subjugate the Southern States, and a requisition made upon me for such an object—an object, in my judgment, not within the purview of the Constitution or the act of 1795—will not be complied with. You have chosen to inaugurate civil war, and having done so, we will meet it in a spirit as determined as the administration has exhibited toward the south.40 The following day Samuel Woods (Virginia Convention delegate from Barbour County) wrote from Richmond to a good friend and warned him that “war” was “inevitable,” that

Virginia would be leaving the Union “in less than thirty days,” and that “we must fight or submit to coercion.” Mr. Woods predicted that dark and “bloody days” were coming; his prophecy would prove correct.41

By April 17 the Virginia convention had completely shifted from a Unionist majority to a prominently secessionist dominion. After the secessionist leaders called for a vote on secession the convention tallied the votes that would ultimately change the nature of the nation. The result devastated the Unionists at the convention as secession was approved 88 to 55, with a final tally of 103 to 46. Of the 47 delegates from western

Virginia 32 voted against secession and 11 for secession in the initial vote, while 4 did not vote. That same night some twenty delegates from the western counties met in the

Powhatan Hotel to discuss the predicament. Not wanting to disrupt the relationship they

39Daily Dispatch (Richmond), April 13, 1861; Alexandria Gazette, April 15, 1861; Staunton Spectator, April 16, 1861; U.S. War Department, The War of Rebellion: A Compilation of the Official Records of the Union and Confederate Armies, 128 vols. (Washington: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1880-1901), Series III, Vol. 1, 69. 40U.S. War Department, War of Rebellion, Series III, Vol. 1, 76. 41Letter from Sam Woods to Col. D. M. A., April 17, 1861, Francis H. Pierpont Restored Government Executive Papers, 1861-1865, Library of Virginia. 32

held with the federal government they decided to return to western Virginia to hold their own convention in Wheeling on May 13. Almost immediately after the vote on secession the western delegates began leaving the convention and did so under duress as they feared public reprisals for their negative votes on the ordinance. John Carlile was among the delegates who left, departing on April 19 for western Virginia, with a brief detour through the nation’s capital to relay the convention’s actions to the president. Two days later, despite calls for their imprisonment, Governor Letcher offered safe passage for any western delegates who remained in Richmond. By that point most had already left the city. On June 28 (two months after the western delegates fled the convention and organized their own government) the convention in Richmond adopted a resolution to expel them.42

As stipulated by the popular referendum any ordinances adopted by the convention in Richmond would be subject to a public vote scheduled for May 23. Despite this former Governor Wise set about organizing a company of men to seize all federal holdings within the state, including the armory in Harpers Ferry and the Naval Yard in

Norfolk. Governor Letcher sanctioned this mobilization and officially ordered all government property in the state to be secured by Virginia’s troops. Letcher similarly took steps to severe economic ties with northern states, going so far as to ban the trade of certain goods (including flour, pork, and beef) from Ohio and Pennsylvania, ordering instead that South Carolina would receive those goods. As the convention in Richmond began preparations for a union with the Confederacy Confederate Vice-President

42James I. Robertson Jr., “The Virginia State Convention of 1861,” 18; William A. Link, “’This Bastard New Virginia’,” 48; Richard G. Lowe, “Republicans, Rebellion, and Reconstruction: The Republican Party in Virginia, 1856-1870” (PhD diss., University of Virginia, 1968), 83; Leonard Cecil Hubbard, “Francis H. Pierpont and the Restored Government of Virginia,” 12. 33

Alexander H. Stephens arrived in Richmond on April 22. The ensuing discussions helped in the formation of an alliance between Virginia and the Confederate States of America, subsequently signed on April 24 and ratified by the convention the following day.43

All things considered only ten days had elapsed between the fall of Fort Sumter and the signing of an alliance between Virginia and the Southern Confederacy. The seemingly immediate change in opinion in Virginia from remaining in the Union toward secession occurred when the federal government resorted to force, and the Virginia convention found this action irreconcilable.44 After Virginia’s secession three more states would join; Arkansas on May 6, North Carolina on May 20, and Tennessee on June 8.

There were unsuccessful movements underway in Kentucky and Missouri to have them join the Southern Confederacy as well. As Virginia’s secessionist government took steps in preparation for war the western delegates prepared for a convention where they would determine their fate in the Union.

43William W. Freehling, Secessionists Triumphant, 524-26; William A. Link, “’This Bastard New Virginia’,” 53; Allan Nevins, War for the Union, 1861-1862, 93-94. 44Beverley B. Munford, Virginia’s Attitude Toward Slavery and Secession, 275. 34

WHEELING, VIRGINIA: FORMING A GOVERNMENT

Just two weeks after the New York Times reported that the “action of Virginia” was “probably more important to the future of this country, than that of any other state,” the state had left the Union and the “shuffling, double dealing Governor…has at last done a serviceable trick, as he supposes, for the enemy,” ordering ships sunk in Norfolk’s harbor to prevent federal ships from leaving.45 As the secessionist Governor of Virginia actively took steps to impede a federal invasion, those western delegates who fled the convention in Richmond returned to their homes. Upon their return several politicians and newspapers in the western counties urged the organization of all Union men to ensure

“our own security, both against harm from within and without.”46 At the same time several prominent western newspapers suggested that the delegates who were returning from Richmond may have done so with fear for their lives, even including a report that a secessionist mob had “hung halters” outside Carlile’s hotel window and “in every way insulted and outraged him that they could.”47

As Virginia slowly divided those in the western portion recognized that if a war was going to be fought between the North and the South the towns and cities within which they lived would be among the first to see the face of war. Despite this threat the

Unionists organized themselves, holding several mass meetings in Guyandotte,

45New York Times, March 30, 1861; Daily Intelligencer (Wheeling), April 19, 1861. 46Daily Intelligencer (Wheeling), April 19, 1861. 47Daily Intelligencer (Wheeling), April 20, 1861. 35

Clarksburg, and Fairmont, and publicly announced that they had scheduled a conventio n for May 13 in Wheeling, where the duly elected delegates would decide Virginia’s fate.

Wheeling was built around the iron and glass manufacture and its population largely consisted of northern immigrants, so it tended to have Unionist leanings. This did not mean that secessionists were nonexistent. Wheeling contributed its own company in the

27th Virginia (Confederate) Infantry Regiment, called the Shriver Greys, which contained some 100 plus men from the city. As with most secessionists in Virginia’s western region the Shriver Greys contained younger men largely those from the more aristocratic families in the area. The wealthier families around Wheeling remained relatively loyal to the state government in Richmond as they believed that government more capable of maintaining their current social and economic status. Unlike the men who enlisted in the

Shriver Greys, not all secessionists in Wheeling (and the entire western region) openly supported the Confederacy. Many citizens remained quiet regarding their allegiance because they feared retaliation or imprisonment, as was the case with several secessionist leaders caught in western Virginia later in the war.48

In the weeks leading up to the Wheeling Convention tensions throughout the northern states flared, especially in Maryland where secessionist mobs roamed the state in an attempt to force its secession. On April 19th the 6th Massachusetts Regiment boarded a train to Washington, D.C. in response to the president’s call for 75,000 men.

Unluckily for these men the train route required that they pass through Baltimore on their way to the capital and by this time Baltimore was a hotbed for the mobs. As the train

48Daily Intelligencer (Wheeling), April 20, 1861; Ken Fones-Wolf, “’Traitors in Wheeling’: Secessionism in an Appalachian Unionist City,” Journal of Appalachian Studies 13, No. ½ (2007): 75, 77, 79-80, 86, 91. 36

arrived in Baltimore locals began gathering in anticipation as the troops would have to switch trains after crossing the city. The men remained on their train and their cars were attached to horses and pulled across the city. This proved to be a fatal error. Almost immediately the crowd besieged the cars by lobbing heavy objects. The 6th opened fire on the civilians and both sides suffered a few casualties. The assault in Baltimore outraged western Virginia’s Unionists and the Daily Intelligencer in Wheeling called it a

“cowardly and brutal onslaught” by the “traitors” in that city.49

By April 20 William G. Brown (congressman from northern Virginia) proposed a resolution in the House of Representatives urging that current U.S. senators from Virginia

(James M. Mason and Robert M. T. Hunter) be removed from their positions because they both supported secession. This represented the first step in having the secessionist

Government of Virginia discredited by the federal government and established the foundation for a Restored Government. While Unionists in Washington were taking these actions the Daily Intelligencer inaugurated a campaign to ensure that western Virginia would remain within the Union through whatever means necessary. On April 22 the

Intelligencer announced the convention for the western counties scheduled for the following month and proclaimed that “Northwestern Virginia will never submit to be wrenched from under the flag of the Federal Government by the secession traitors at

Richmond.” Three days later the Intelligencer professed the western counties’ patriotism,

“God bless our Northwest! Her name in a few weeks’ time, when the wicked rattlesnake

49James M. McPherson, Battle Cry of Freedom, 285; Allan Nevins, War for the Union, 1861-1862, 81; Daily Intelligencer (Wheeling), April 20, 1861. 37

conspiracy shall have been overwhelmed and crushed out, will be the praise and admiration of the nation.”50

The same day that Lincoln ordered all major ports in Alabama, Florida, Georgia,

Louisiana, Mississippi, and Texas be blockaded, the Virginia Convention in Richmond penned a letter to Confederate President Jefferson Davis and informed him that members had passed a resolution offering Richmond as the Confederate Seat of Government, or any other city in Virginia that they so desired. Just a few days later Lincoln authorized the newly promoted commander of forces in Kentucky, General Robert Anderson, to recruit and form regiments in Kentucky and western Virginia, thus creating several

Virginia (U.S.) regiments. By this time the 1st Virginia Infantry Regiment (U.S.) had already begun the mustering process and it became clear that the divide between eastern and western Virginia was growing wider as young men enlisted with both the Union and

Confederate armies.51 Meanwhile a large public gathering held in Wheeling on May 11 included a band, fireworks, and speeches from several important politicians, including

Francis Pierpont and John Carlile, with Carlile proclaiming his support for western

Virginia’s immediate separation from the rest of the state. Rapturous applause and enthusiasm from the crowd indicated broad support for immediate separation, and Carlile would attempt to capitalize upon it over the following three days.52

50Daily Intelligencer (Wheeling), April 20, 1861, April 22, 1861, April 25, 1861. 51The 1st Virginia Infantry Regiment organized in May 1861 with a term of enlistment lasting for only three months, however, after the enlistment expired, a large portion of the troops reenlisted and formed a second 1st Virginia Infantry Regiment. 52U.S. War Department, War of Rebellion, Series III, Vol. 1, 122, 171; Letter from Virginia Convention to Jefferson Davis, April 27, 1861; New York Times, May 8, 1861, May 12, 1861; C. J. Rawling, History of the First Regiment Virginia Infantry. Being a Narrative of the Military Movements in the Mountains of Virginia, in the Shenandoah Valley and East of the Blue Ridge During the War of the Rebellion, of the First Regiment Virginia Infantry Volunteers-Three Months’ and Three Years’ Service (Philadelphia: J. B. Lippincott Company, 1887), 19-20. 38

The Wheeling Convention assembled at 11:00 AM on May 13 at Washington Hall and two factions dominated the gathering. The first faction (led by Carlile) wanted western Virginia’s counties to form an entirely new state while the second faction (led by the likes of Waitman T. Willey and Pierpont) urged caution and patience. Although a new state would eventually be created, the Carlile faction had to contend with the constitution.

To create a new state from a previously established one, Article IV, Section 3 clearly stated that in order for this to occur the state’s General Assembly would need to approve such a decision. Instead members would need to discern the western Virginians’ opinion on the matter and create an official response to the actions taken by the Virginia

Convention in Richmond.53

As the duly elected delegates arrived and entered Washington Hall they represented twenty-seven counties from western Virginia. To ensure that the delegates’ composition remained satisfactory Carlile proposed that the only men the convention ought to admit as delegates should be those from western counties as they would be the only ones who would have verifiable authority vested upon them by their constituents.

Therefore any decision or proclamation made by the convention would be “sanctioned by the authority of the people.” After Carlile’s proposal a lengthy debate ensued over which delegates would be admitted to the convention. Pierpont proposed that the delegates create a credentials committee with men from each county who could then select delegates for admission to the convention. Furthermore Pierpont suggested that votes (for the purpose of fairness) should be based upon each counties’ population, something western Virginians had historically supported. As the discussion dragged on John S.

53James M. McPherson, Battle Cry of Freedom, 298; Mark A. Snell, West Virginia and the Civil War, 22. 39

Burdett from Taylor County grew impatient and asserted that they were wasting time as

“chains have already been forged for us, and the bayonets are threatening invasion.” The convention ultimately agreed that all men elected as delegates by their communities would have a place at the convention. Before adjourning until an afternoon session, the convention selected Dr. John W. Moss from Wood County as president, who then thanked the delegates for the honor and proceeded to announce that the decisions made by the convention would influence thousands, while he simultaneously hoped for a successful movement.54

Delegates returned for the afternoon session at 3 PM and General John J. Jackson from Wood County took the floor to describe what he believed should be the convention’s goal. Jackson felt that passing resolutions condemning secession would be useful, but they should organize a campaign to prevent the voters throughout the state from approving the Ordinance of Secession scheduled for May 23. After Jackson retired to his seat Carlile offered an immediate response to his goal, arguing that the time for resolutions had passed and they would mean nothing if Governor Letcher sent troops to intimidate Unionists at the polls. Carlile added that the convention should demonstrate

“its loyalty to the Union” by asking the federal government for military assistance, finishing with a line from a famous Virginian: “Give me liberty or give me death!” After the applause subsided the credentials committee submitted its report to the convention and admitted delegates from twenty-six counties. Willey (recently appointed to the

Committee on State and Federal Relations) took the floor and offered support to Gen.

Jackson’s position that suggested they wait until after the results from the vote on

54Proceedings of the First Convention of the People of Northwestern Virginia at Wheeling, May 1861, 35-40, 42. 40

secession were tallied before making any radical decisions. The convention adjourned for the day and decided to reconvene the following morning at 10:00 A.M.55

The following day Carlile (still upset with some of the delegates admitted to the convention) suggested they remove Frederick County from the counties that delegates would be allowed. Despite Carlile’s protestations the Committee on Credentials admitted the delegate from Frederick County anyhow. Shortly after, the conversation again returned to the convention’s aim and Willey addressed the concerns regarding his speech from the night before. Willey claimed that he wanted the convention to take some action, such as condemning the “usurpation” in Richmond and creating a “platform upon which to organize the public sentiment for a separation of the state.” In response to Willey’s position Colonel James S. Wheat from Ohio County and Carlile each proposed resolutions that they believed should be referred to their respective committees. Wheat’s resolution condemned secession and the actions taken by the convention in Richmond while Carlile took a more radical approach. Carlile proposed that the Tenth and Eleventh

Congressional Districts and Wayne County be formed into what he suggested be called the State of New Virginia. This proposed resolution led to a long-winded debate over whether the resolution would go to the committees before consideration. Both proposals were then submitted to the committees and the convention adjourned until 7 PM while awaiting the reports.56

55The counties admitted to the convention on May 13 included, Hancock, Brooke, Ohio, Marion, Monongalia, Harrison, Preston, Wood, Ritchie, Lewis, Upshur, Gilmer, Wirt, Jackson, Mason, Wetzel, Pleasants, Barbour, Hampshire, Berkeley, Taylor, Tyler, Doddridge, Roane, Frederick, and Marshall; Ibid., 42, 44-45, 48. 56It was unclear why Carlile singled out the delegate from Frederick County, although he did suggest that the delegate may not have been appointed or elected by a committee in Frederick County, which could have cast doubt upon the legitimacy of the entire convention. Ibid., 46-53. 41

Upon re-convening the Committee on State and Federal Relations reported several resolutions that had been discussed. First, that annexation to the Confederate

States would be “ruinous” for northwestern Virginia and her economy. Second, if

Virginia adopted the Ordinance of Secession, then a convention would be held on June

11, 1861 in Wheeling to “devise such measures, and take such action as the safety and welfare of Virginia may demand.” Third, that a restoring the Government of Virginia was grounded in law, and lastly, that the authorities would do everything in their power to

“preserve the peace” in the state’s northwestern region. As the committee finished their report a distraught Carlile urged his fellow delegates to do more than just adopt resolutions. In response Willey argued that Carlile’s proposition was a clear “violation of the law,” and treasonous against the Constitution of Virginia and the Constitution of the

United States. Willey added that if the convention took such actions as suggested by

Carlile then it would all but ensure that war came to western Virginia. Before settling the debate the meeting adjourned for the evening, and after Willey had left the convention chamber three cheers for New Virginia rang out, followed by three more for Carlile.57

By the convention’s final day tensions rose between the two dominant groups as an agreement seemed out of reach. After another delegate suggested they lay the groundwork for the forming a provisional government, Willey argued against it and highlighted the fact that it was treasonous to continue the discussion and, if it did not cease the war would come to their doorsteps. After continued debate regarding Willey’s position, a delegate suggested that the convention go into secret session, a move Pierpont opposed. Pierpont then obtained the floor and offered his support for the resolutions

57Ibid., 54-55. 42

adopted by the Committee on State and Federal Relations the day before and clearly aligned himself against the provisional government’s supporters. Pierpont’s recommendation rubbed Carlile the wrong way and Carlile retorted that after this convention he would not seek office. The members then proposed that the convention take a brief recess to allow all delegates to calm themselves so that they could reach a compromise.58

After the convention reconvened at 2 PM Pierpont returned to the floor and apologized for his tone a few hours prior. The convention again adjourned for a recess until 5 PM. Upon returning to the convention hall Gen. Jackson received and read a telegram from his hometown that informed him that the “dogs of war are about: look out for state troops.” Clearly not fazed by the telegram Jackson sarcastically urged Governor

Letcher to send troops to the western region because when they arrived they would be welcomed with a “warm reception.” After another brief recess John Burdett announced that he had received a letter that claimed support from Randolph and Jackson Counties for the convention and any decision the convention made. The Committee on State and

Federal Relations read their report, which had only a few minor changes from the report read the day before. Daniel Polsley from Mason County made a motion to postpone the vote on the resolutions until the report could be printed, but Gen. Jackson strongly opposed this because he needed to return home to plant his corn for the season. With none disapproving a vote was brought upon the resolutions discussed the day before and they passed almost unanimously, with only two objections heard.59

58Ibid., 58-60. 59Ibid., 60-62, 65. 43

Before the convention adjourned sine die the members encouraged several men to give a final address to the convention, Carlile and Willey among them. Carlile stood before the delegates and offered a somber yet hopeful message: “This is a government to love: and I cannot for a moment contemplate its destruction without feeling as I never deemed myself capable…I have resolved to do all that I can, in any and every position, to preserve it, and aid and co-operate with my fellow-citizens in its preservation.” After the applause subsided Willey rose and offered a similar message to those present: “I assure you to-night, if by laying down my humble life on the altar of my country I could bring back peace and harmony, and re-organize and restore the glorious Union, which our fathers formed for us, I would willingly.” Willey further professed his absolute belief that

Virginia’s voters would not pass the Ordinance of Secession, but it required all to ensure its rejection. Finally, Willey hoped that they would all meet again “under fairer auspices.”

Enthusiastic cheers echoed thorough Washington Hall as the convention adjourned and the delegates returned home to await the dreaded referendum.60

As voters prepared for the referendum the Richmond Enquirer reported that a large contingent of troops from Ohio had positioned themselves directly across the Ohio

River from Wheeling. The report suggested that these “Black Republican” troops were to be “called upon by Carlile and company” to suppress the “patriotic citizens of Wheeling,” but the Enquirer predicted that this would do little for their movement as all four regions would overwhelmingly pass the ordinance.61 After May 23 the secessionist government published the referendum returns and it became clear that the voters in the western counties had overwhelmingly opposed the ordinance by a 3 to 1 margin. Half the voters

60Ibid., 65-67, 70-71. 61Richmond Enquirer, May 24, 1861. 44

within what would become the state of West Virginia however voted for the ordinance.

Overall the ordinance received 125,950 affirmative votes against 20,773, and although the referendum resulted in the Virginia Unionist’s failure in prevent Virginia’s secession the results demonstrated that the western counties did not wish to leave the Union and that when the Second Wheeling Convention met on June 11, the delegates would act accordingly.62

While still calculating the referendum’s returns, Confederate and Union troops began moving into western and northern Virginia. On May 24 rumors circulated that

Governor Letcher had ordered Virginia (C.S.) troops to Clarksburg, Virginia, less than sixty-five miles to the south-east of Wheeling, to organize a camp to secure the Baltimore and Ohio Railroad. That very same day an estimated 6,000 to 10,000 Union troops from

New York, New Jersey, and Michigan crossed the Potomac River under the cover of darkness and seized Alexandria and Arlington Heights (which overlooked the capital).

Meanwhile the 1st Virginia (U.S.) marched from Wheeling on May 26 and toward

Grafton, located a few miles to the east of Clarksburg. After the 1st Virginia left

Wheeling the 16th Ohio crossed the Ohio River and fell in behind the Virginians. Prior to crossing the river, General George B. McClellan, then commander of Ohio’s troops, addressed the people of western Virginia and promised them protection. McClellan further urged the people to sever “the connection that binds you to traitors— proclaim to the world that the faith & loyalty so long boasted by the Old Dominion are still preserved in Western Virginia, & that you remain true to the Stars & Stripes.” Just four days later

62James M. McPherson, Battle Cry of Freedom, 298; William W. Freehling, Secessionists Triumphant, 526; Mark A. Snell, West Virginia and the Civil War, 23; Daily Intelligencer (Wheeling), May 28, 1861. 45

the 1st Virginia and the 16th Ohio occupied Grafton with almost no resistance and the 6th

Indiana arrived shortly thereafter.63

General McClellan’s plan for western Virginia was to drive his men through the

Great Kanawha River Valley, cross the Allegheny Mountains, and make a push for

Richmond in concert with the troops moving south from Washington. McClellan’s first successful engagement in western Virginia came at Philippi on June 3. McClellan was not actually a participant as he was to the west with his troops that had crossed at

Parkersburg. The rebel troops that occupied Philippi were the same troops that had retreated from Grafton a few days prior and they were generally unprepared for a fight.

According to Charles J. Rawling (who later served in the 1st Virginia after the regiment was re-organized) the march from Grafton to Philippi was unpleasant as the heavy rains turned the roads to mud, but the men continued without complaint. On the morning of

June 3 the 1st Virginia (U.S.) arrived late to its designated position while the 9th Indiana and 14th Ohio positioned their artillery and “the first Union messengers dropped among the tents of the enemy.” When the 1st Virginia finally arrived the Confederate forces were already in the midst of a disorganized retreat from the town, so the 1st pursued with vigor.

There were very few Union casualties during the engagement. In the pursuit through

Philippi the 1st Virginia’s Col. Benjamin F. Kelley was shot through the chest, but he miraculously survived the wound.64

63Daily Intelligencer (Wheeling), May 24, 1861, May 25, 1861; Richmond Enquirer, May 28, 1861; New York Times, May 30, 1861, May 31, 1861; Stephen W. Sears, ed., The Civil War Papers of George B. McClellan: Selected correspondence, 1860-1865 (New York: Da Capo Press, 1992), 26. 64Stephen W. Sears, ed., The Civil War Papers of George B. McClellan: Selected correspondence, 1860-1865, 26; C. J. Rawling, History of the First Regiment Virginia Infantry, 25-27. 46

The victory at Philippi prevented Confederate troops from seizing another section of the B & O Railroad, especially after having occupied Harpers Ferry in May (which had already divided the railroad in half). Six weeks later McClellan’s forces were triumphant at Rich Mountain, and at Laurel Mountain on July 11, General William S. Rosecrans took his men on a flanking maneuver to attack the Confederate position. McClellan, who was supposed to initiate a second attack, failed to do so as he believed that Rosecrans had been unsuccessful (which was not the case). Despite McClellan’s failure the Confederate troops retreated from Laurel Mountain and McClellan’s men persisted on the offensive and re-engaged with the rebels at Corrick’s Ford on July 13, killing Confederate General

Robert S. Garnett and forcing his remaining troops to abandon the northwest. By mid-

July McClellan had proven himself worthy (at least to the federal government) and found himself compared to Napoleon. After the Union defeat at the First Battle of Bull Run on

July 21 the president ordered the general to report to Washington as the new Commander of the Army of the Potomac, while General Rosecrans replaced him in western Virginia.

These victories, particularly the victory at Philippi, allowed the western Unionists to hold the Second Wheeling Convention from June 11 to June 25 as they reorganized the

Government of Virginia and re-established local governments while similarly maintaining federalism with the Union.65

On June 3, eight days after the victory at Philippi, Unionists returned to Wheeling and intended to declare the Government of Virginia at Richmond defunct while simultaneously replacing it with an entirely new organization. The first day the

65Stephen W. Sears, George B. McClellan: The Young Napoleon (New York: Ticknor & Fields, 1988), 75, 80, 94; Allan Nevins, War for the Union, 1861-1862, 142; Mark A. Snell, West Virginia and the Civil War, 34; James M. McPherson, Battle Cry of Freedom, 299. 47

convention briefly met at Washington Hall to choose temporary officers, but the following day the delegation moved to the courtroom in the United States Customs

House two blocks to the south. The conventions members elected Arthur I. Boreman

(future first governor of West Virginia) as the convention’s president. On June 13 the convention passed a several resolutions that condemned the acts committed in Richmond and supported the legality of the presiding convention. Furthermore the convention ordered all “seditious assemblages to disperse, and all companies mustered into the service of the southern confederacy to be immediately disbanded.” The following day the convention proposed an Ordinance for the Re-Organization of the State Government that allowed the delegates to appoint a governor, lieutenant governor, and a governors’ council. Moreover the ordinance allowed delegates and senators elected the previous May automatic positions in the state’s new General Assembly. Lastly all appointed or elected officials were thereby administered a loyalty oath. After a brief debate the ordinance was unanimously approved 56 to 0.66

On June 20 the Restored Government of Virginia officially replaced the former government in Richmond as the convention elected the new officials. Daniel Lamb from

Ohio County nominated Francis Pierpont for governor and after the members offered no other nominations they unanimously elected him 77 to 0. During Pierpont’s victory speech he thanked the delegation for electing him and proceeded to outline the divisions between the “laboring class” and the “capital class,” and how the latter felt that all legislation should benefit their interests alone. Pierpont then argued that not only were the people of western Virginia not “consulted upon” the “subject” of secession, secessionists

66Journal of the Convention Assembled at Wheeling, 11 June 1861, 3-4, 8, 11-13, 18. 48

had ignored the people in eastern Virginia as well. Secession was forced upon them,

Pierpont contended, “at the point of the bayonet” by the “usurpers at the South, who have inaugurated this war upon the soil of Virginia, and have made it the great Crimea of this conflict.” In closing, Pierpont added that the “loyal citizens of Virginia…have been driven to assume this position; and now we are but recurring to the great principle of our fathers, that to the loyal people of a State belongs the law-making power of that state.”

After Pierpont concluded his address the delegates nominated and appointed Daniel

Polsley as lieutenant governor and then postponed the vote for the attorney-general until a later date for an undisclosed reason. Lastly the members nominated and elected the governor’s council members, selecting Peter G. Van Winkle from Wood County, William

A. Harrison from Harrison County, William Lazear from Monongalia County, Daniel

Lamb and James W. Paxton from Ohio County. The convention adjourned on June 25 until August 6 when Governor Pierpont called Virginia’s new General Assembly into extra session so that he could offer avenues for Virginia’s further restoration.67

Before the Second Wheeling Convention had taken any significant steps, former

Governor Letcher attempted to have western Virginians willingly return to the rebel government. In his June 14 Proclamation to the People of Northwestern Virginia Letcher affirmed that the secession referendum legally demonstrated that a majority of Virginians wanted to leave the Union and it was “the duty of every Virginian to acknowledge her act when ratified by such a majority, and to give his willing cooperation to make good the declaration.” In questioning the loyalty of some western men, Letcher asked if “any true

Virginian” could “refuse to tender assistance.” Letcher then requested that western

67Ibid., 27-28; Pierpont’s address was not included in the Journal of the Convention but was printed in the Daily Intelligencer (Wheeling), June 21, 1861. 49

Virginians welcome and assist the troops he had recently ordered to Huttonsville as they would attempt to drive the federal troops out of Virginia. The last issue addressed by

Letcher’s proclamation was one that had been a point of contention between the eastern and western regions for decades: tax exemptions. Letcher assured the western people that

“the East has, by a large majority, consented to relinquish this exemption,” and he then promised that the eastern region was now “ready to share with you all the burdens of

Government.”68 Letcher’s attempt at reunion failed for many reasons, but primarily because western Virginians were unwilling to bend to the eastern region’s will and did not wish to suffer needlessly for a group that had never been willing to do the same.

Interestingly the Daily Intelligencer did not publish the proclamation until June 28, whereupon the newspaper mockingly addressed each portion and demonstrated the

Unionists’ unwillingness to comply with the former governors’ request.69

On July 1 Virginia’s new General Assembly convened at the U.S. Customs House in Wheeling in response to Governor Pierpont’s call for an extra session. Overall the

General Assembly admitted 8 senators and 32 delegates, which was a smaller number than the body normally consisted, but nevertheless western Virginians were well represented. On the sessions second day the governor gave his first State of the

Commonwealth Address and argued that secession was a scheme that had been brewing for many years and those states that entertained it had wanted to destroy the federal union and the Constitution. Pierpont described the war’s causes and claimed that fault lay entirely with the southern states. He outlined the actions he had taken since being elected a few weeks prior, including his communication with the president, who had guaranteed

68New York Times, June 25, 1861. 69Daily Intelligencer (Wheeling), June 28, 1861. 50

the protection of western Virginia. Lastly Pierpont discussed tax collection, his intention to suspend specie payments to certain banks, and he suggested that the General Assembly abolish the public works, which would temporarily allow the government to function properly.70

As the senators representing Virginia in Congress (James M. Mason and Robert

M. T. Hunter) left their positions on March 28 the new General Assembly took it upon themselves to replace them. On July 9 several members suggested John Carlile as a potential replacement, but James G. West (delegate from Wetzel County) disagreed with the nomination as Carlile was actively serving in the House of Representatives and moving him to the Senate could cause unnecessary difficulty when it came to filling his current position. Despite the explanation the Virginia House and the Senate unanimously elected Carlile and decided that filling his current position would be dealt with further down the road. To fill the second U.S. Senate vacancy the members offered three candidates: Daniel Lamb, Peter G. Van Winkle, and Waitman T. Willey. Willey was the stronger and more distinguished candidate for the position on account of his demonstrated leadership during the First Wheeling Convention. Despite Willey’s reputation those who wanted statehood criticized Willey for his cautious attitude and reluctance toward immediate statehood. Willey won the election however, receiving 22 votes, while Lamb and Van Winkle each received 8. After the election Carlile and Willey promptly left for Washington to take their seats in the Senate.71

70Proceedings of the Reorganized Government of Virginia General Assembly, Extra Session, June 1-26, 1861, accessed through www.wvculture.org (On-line exhibit, A State of Convenience: The Creation of West Virginia). 71While the official proceedings did not name the critics of Willey, Fontain Smith endorsed Willey’s nomination, and while doing so, referenced those who had criticized him, Ibid. 51

Upon arriving in Washington Andrew Johnson from Tennessee presented

Carlile’s and Willey’s credentials for consideration in the Senate on July 13. James A.

Bayard (Democrat from Delaware) protested the decision to allow Carlile and Willey’s admission without having their credentials referred to the Committee on the Judiciary.

Bayard further argued that the government in Richmond was the legitimate government in Virginia despite having entered a state of rebellion. Another Democrat from Delaware,

Willard Saulsbury Sr. added that as of yesterday the assembly treated former senators

Mason and Hunter as equal members. Despite the treatment, Saulsbury argued the Senate was now changing its position by admitting two men from the new Government of

Virginia who were not actually elected to fill any official vacancy in the Senate. In direct response to the Senators from Delaware Johnson argued that the men from Virginia

(Carlile and Willey) were in fact elected to fill a vacancy as the former senators (Mason and Hunter) were no longer in Washington, having left to support secessionist Virginia.

As the debate continued Senator Lazarus W. Powell (Democrat from Kentucky) agreed with the Senators from Delaware as to the constitutionality of admitting Carlile and

Willey and in response suggested that the Senate vote to resolve the issue. Ultimately the vote failed 5 to 35 and both Carlile and Willey took the oath of office. Five days later the

Virginia House of Delegates passed a resolution instructing the Virginia delegation in

Congress to vote for any measures, whether financial or military, which would assist in the rebellion’s suppression, protect the Constitution, and preserve the Union.72

72The five senators who voted against Carlile and Willey’s admission to the Senate were all Democrats; Bayard, Jesse D. Bright from Indiana, Trusten W. Polk from Missouri, Powell, and Saulsbury, Congressional Globe, July 13, 1861, 103, 107, 109; U.S. War Department, War of Rebellion, Series III, Vol. 1, 329. 52

Carlile and Willey’s acceptance into the Senate (and several men into the House of Representatives) was not the first instance where the Restored Government of Virginia was recognized by the federal government. In President Lincoln’s address to Congress on

July 4 he described the failure by the southern states to send any troops to aid the federal government in the rebellion’s suppression, with a “few regiments” that were organized through “individual enterprise” as the only exception. Furthermore, in the border states, secession was not the prominent ideology among the people, but the “Union sentiment was nearly repressed, and silenced,” Virginia included. Lincoln then argued that the events that had and were occurring in Virginia were “perhaps the most important” as

Virginia’s voters had selected a “large majority of professed Union men” for their secession convention. These men turned their backs on Unionism, passed the Ordinance of Secession, and before the referendum could even take place had “immediately commenced acting, as if the State were already out of the Union.” All was not lost in

Virginia as the “loyal citizens have…claimed its protection,” and Lincoln believed that these “loyal citizens” were due federal recognition and protection as “being Virginia.”73

After the federal government had already recognized the Restored Government of Virginia its General Assembly continued discussions regarding the state’s division, but it would take time. General McClellan offered some administrative suggestions to

Governor Pierpont before taking his leave to Washington:

I do not regard the purpose of my presence here as being merely the military conquest of this region— it is to drive out the intruding army, which consisted of troops from Eastern Virginia & from other states, & to afford to the loyal citizens that protection due to them from the Federal Govt while engaged in the task of reorganizing their political affairs, & in the formation of an armed force sufficient to guarantee their safety & independence.

73Abraham Lincoln’s address to Congress, July 4, 1861. 53

The general added that Pierpont should take direct steps to ensure that troops be raised at a quicker pace than McClellan had witnessed, as this would create a “favorable moral effect” amongst the populations occupied by the latter’s forces. Lastly McClellan advised the re-establishment of local governments in the areas occupied by troops and that elections be held, courts opened, and mail services organized.74

Pierpont, whether through McClellan’s guidance or not, actively removed and affirmed the election of judges throughout Union occupied territory. On August 29 he confirmed the election of Ralph L. Berkshire, Esq. as judge of the 20th Judicial Circuit; on October 12 he did the same for William A. Harrison, Esq. as judge of the 21st Judicial

Circuit; and on October 14 he confirmed the election of Arthur L. Boreman, Esq. as judge of the 19th Judicial Circuit.75 Although Pierpont was the Restored Government of

Virginia’s leader, he was not the only man taking a leading role in its protection. Even before the General Assembly selected Carlile as senator in July, he made several attempts to procure arms for Virginia’s (U.S.) Volunteers. On June 19 Carlile sent a letter to

Secretary of War Simon Cameron and requested arms immediately because any “delay in getting them” tended to discourage “enlistments,” and Carlile believed that western

Virginia was to “be made the Flanders of the war.” When he did not receive sufficient arms, Carlile sent a letter to Lincoln on July 8 wherein he argued that if the “Union” was

“to be maintained the loyal people of the border slave states must be sustained.” “Our men who have been enlisted,” Carlile complained, “have been lying out without even a blanket, destitute of tents and camp equipage, destitute of arms and ammunition, for

74Stephen W. Sears, ed., The Civil War Papers of George B. McClellan, 63-64. 75Record book of Proclamations and Messages Issued by Governor Francis H. Pierpont of the Restored Government of Virginia, 1861-1863, Library of Virginia, August 29, 1861, October 12, 1861, and October 14, 1861. 54

weeks and weeks.” To remedy this situation Carlile requested that Lincoln send some five thousand arms (each with one hundred rounds) for the infantry and one thousand carbines for the cavalry, as well as camp equipment and uniforms. Carlile feared that western Virginians “shall have to give up the contest” if the federal government could not furnish the supplies.76

While Virginia’s political representatives at the federal level remained active in local politics the Second Wheeling Convention re-assembled on August 6. The proceedings revolved around creating a new state and so a Committee on a Division of the State was created and tasked with writing a potential ordinance, which they scheduled for presentation at a later date. By August 13 the committee was ready to present their ordinance that outlined the counties to be included, stating that Virginia’s 1850 constitution would provide the framework for the new constitution, and that Virginia’s

General Assembly must offer their approval, while similarly receiving congressional ratification. The members debated the ordinance until August 20 whereupon it was adopted 48 to 27. The convention scheduled the ordinance’s ratification for October 24, where thirty-nine counties within the planned state (plus Hampshire and Hardy Counties) voted, with 18,408 in favor of the ordinance and 781 opposed. The turnout for the election was low, but the Daily Intelligencer suggested that had the election been held in a more peaceful time those who did oppose the ordinance, or those who simply did not vote, would have supported the state’s division, but either way the decision was final, and the dissenters should let “bygones be bygones.”77

76U.S. War Department, War of Rebellion, Series III, Vol. 1, 280, 323. 77Proceedings of the Second Session of the Second Wheeling Convention, accessed through www.wvculture.org (On-line exhibit, A State of Convenience: The Creation of West Virginia); James M. McPherson, Battle Cry of Freedom, 298-99; Daily Intelligencer, October 26, 1861. 55

The low turnout in the referendum resulted from several things that occurred in the western counties leading up to the referendum. The first and arguably the most influential was that Confederate forces that had re-entered western Virginia for a second time to occupy the region and secure the B & O Railroad. Two former Virginia governors, John B. Floyd and Henry A. Wise, led these forces and had a total strength of around 20,000, however not all were in condition to fight. Both Floyd and Wise sent their troops into the Kanawha Valley toward Charleston and at the same time Confederate leadership sent General Robert E. Lee to take personal command of the Confederate troops at Cheat Mountain (just south of Rich Mountain). After bad weather, compiled with inexperience on the part of the volunteers, Lee’s campaign was doomed, and he moved his troops south into the Kanawha Valley to reinforce Floyd and Wise. Similar circumstances there prevented Lee from successfully driving Union troops westward and

Lee ultimately returned to Richmond. In addition to the Confederate forces’ presence throughout the proposed state, which without a doubt prevented many from casting their vote, intimidation against those who opposed the state played a role as well as those who simply boycotted the election after questioning the legality behind it.78

Although western Virginians had successfully reorganized Virginia’s government and received (at least partial) recognition from the federal government, it was by no means the only southern region to oppose their state’s decision. In Tennessee, where voters had overwhelmingly opposed a secession convention’s organization on February

9, Governor Isham Harris ordered the General Assembly on May 6 to declare independence from the United States after Lincoln’s call for troops in April. The General

78James M. McPherson, Battle Cry of Freedom, 301-303; Mark Snell, West Virginia and the Civil War, 36-40. 56

Assembly followed the governor’s instructions and adopted a declaration that was to be considered on June 8 via a popular referendum. In eastern Tennessee the Unionist organized a convention that assembled at Temperance Hall in Knoxville on May 30 with

462 delegates from twenty-nine counties. This convention, held in a city where

Confederate soldiers were actively drilling, passed several resolutions that were quite similar to those passed at the First Wheeling Convention. The resolutions condemned the actions taken by the governor and General Assembly and encouraged voters to vote against secession in June. As the referendum’s results came in it became clear that eastern Tennessee had largely voted against the proposal, but it mattered little as western and middle Tennessee voted in favor, ensuring the state’s secession from the Union.79

In response to Tennessee’s secession the East Tennessee Union Convention re- convened in Greeneville on June 17, but this time there were fewer delegates in attendance with only 285 present. The convention again passed resolutions that charged the government with violating the Constitution and passed a resolution that outlined a proposition to form a new state, which would be delivered to the General Assembly in

Nashville. Before arriving at these resolutions the convention split as some delegates wanted to form a provisional government and an army for eastern Tennessee’s defense.

After some compromise the convention adopted the aforementioned resolutions, but a few delegates made it clear that if the General Assembly did not accept the proposal they would organize a new government in Kingston. Upon receiving the request for statehood from the East Tennessee Union Convention the General Assembly simply referred it to a

79Charles F. Bryan Jr., “A Gathering of Tories: The East Tennessee Convention of 1861,” Tennessee Historical Quarterly 39, No. 1 (1980): 28-29, 32, 37-39; Thomas William Humes, The Loyal Mountaineers of Tennessee (Thomas William Humes, 1888), 106, 108, 115. 57

committee that questioned the legitimacy behind it and refused to have it put to a vote.

Governor Harris ordered additional troops into the eastern region and due to Kentucky’s neutrality Union troops were not permitted to cross the state and move into eastern

Tennessee, which ultimately prevented the proposed third session in Kingston from organizing and ended any hope for attaining separate statehood.80

Although eastern Tennessee failed to achieve separation from their own state, western Virginians were successful and as the war waged on they successfully organized a new state separate from the Restored Government of Virginia. Furthermore the

Restored Government of Virginia allowed the state to return to the Union, albeit in a partial manner due to a large portion being under Confederate occupation. In the coming months the Restored Government would begin returning civil governance to the areas occupied by Union troops. Moreover the government began preparations for the northwestern region’s separation from Virginia, because at this point in the war it was unclear whether the Union military would defeat the Confederate troops on the battlefield. Separating the state would not be easy and some would dissent, but the circumstances called for extreme measures and justified liberal interpretations of the

Constitution.

80The reason the location for the second session changed from Knoxville to Greeneville was directly related to the increase in Confederate troops travelling through Knoxville. Therefore, the conventions President, T. A. R. Nelson, decided that the location s hould be Greeneville, which had considerably less Confederate traffic, Charles F. Bryan Jr., “A Gathering of Tories: The East Tennessee Convention of 1861,” 40, 44-46; Thomas William Humes, The Loyal Mountaineers of Tennessee, 115, 119; James M. McPherson, Battle Cry of Freedom, 304. 58

WHEELING, VIRGINIA: WAR, POLITICS, AND STATEHOOD

General McClellan took command of all Union forces in July, despite some complaints that he may not have been the Napoleonic warrior he was believed to be and

General Rosecrans replaced him in the Department of Western Virginia. Rosecrans’ policy in western Virginia was quite similar to McClellan’s in the sense that he recognized the importance in maintaining the civil-military relationship between his

Army and the Restored Government of Virginia. The military rarely interfered with

Governor Pierpont’s authority in the western counties under Union occupation and allowed him to perform his duties in an effective and efficient manner. An important action taken by Pierpont was to require that all public servants take a loyalty oath to retain their current position, and they had until August 26, 1861 to do so. Restoring civil authority proved to be Governor Pierpont’s foremost priority and would not have been possible without the military presence in the area. Over the next two years Pierpont and the Restored Government of Virginia worked tirelessly to ensure the Union’s preservation and in return some politicians within the state hoped to be given separate statehood from Virginia.81

81New York Times, July 23, 1861, July 30, 1861; Record book of Proclamations and Messages Issued by Governor Francis H. Pierpont of the Restored Government of Virginia, 1861-1863, Library of Virginia, July 29, 1861, August 2, 1861. 59

Throughout the remaining fall months the federal government worked closely with Governor Pierpont and the Restored Government in procuring arms and the troops to bear them. The governor took a proactive role in this relationship, sending a letter to

Senator Carlile requesting that he work with the War Department to help Virginia raise an additional eight infantry and two cavalry regiments for federal service. Chief Clerk of the War Department James Lesley Jr. approved this request. Carlile also lobbied

Assistant Secretary of War Thomas A. Scott for arms for these new regiments. In turn

Scott had two thousand rifled arms sent to western Virginia with two hundred thousand cartridges for those rifles. On August 19 Secretary of War Simon Cameron sent a telegram to all loyal governors (Virginia included) and requested information regarding the availability and readiness of the uniformed militia or home guard within their respective states. Pierpont responded the very same day and informed Cameron that the

Virginia militia, at least that which lay within Union occupied territory, did not exceed more than 1,500 men and that the “number that could be spared even for temporary service would be inconsiderable.” The governor added that many of these men were under armed, carrying mostly smoothbore muskets which were inferior to the recently developed rifle. The following morning Cameron assured the governor that unless

Lincoln specifically requested them the federal government would not need Virginia’s militia or home guard; however he urged the governor to initiate a “speedy organization of volunteers” for service.82

By September Pierpont and the Restored Government were desperate for supplies and the governor continued to lobby the federal government for support. On September 9

82U.S. War Department, War of Rebellion, Series III, Vol. 1, 378, 387, 389, 425, 431, 436. 60

Pierpont argued in a letter to Cameron that Virginians were “suffering greatly for want of arms,” and to remedy this the governor suggested that the federal government send the four thousand arms that were stockpiled in Bellaire to Wheeling. That same day Pierpont sent a letter to Cameron requesting permission to raise an artillery regiment for General

Rosecrans, and the following day Cameron authorized Pierpont to raise “five batteries of six guns each,” in addition to requisitioning two thousand of the four thousand guns at

Bellaire for Pierpont’s desperate regiments. Although these guns were a slight concession from the federal government, Pierpont was not satisfied and on September 12 he sent a letter directly to President Lincoln and requested additional arms to ensure that western

Virginians could properly defend themselves from the secessionists “in their midst.” By

September 17 the War Department procured an additional one thousand muskets (with ammunition) that they then sent for use by Virginia regiments already in federal service.

Although Pierpont and the Restored Government successfully secured supplies for their mobilized troops, it could not have been possible without assistance from the other loyal governors, such as Governor Oliver P. Morton from Indiana. After Pierpont had unsuccessfully requested additional regiments from General Winfield Scott

(Commanding General of the U.S. Army) for western Virginia’s defense, Governor

Morton stepped in and requested that the general placate Pierpont and send the troops.83

While mobilization occupied a majority of Pierpont’s time he did not put the civil government’s restoration on hold. On September 28 Pierpont issued a proclamation that described notes from several banks that businesses could accept throughout Union occupied Virginia. The banks included the Northwestern Bank of Virginia, the Merchants

83U.S. War Department, War of Rebellion, Series III, Vol. 1, 494-495, 497, 511, 525; Francis H. Pierpont to Abraham Lincoln, September 12, 1861, Papers of Abraham Lincoln, Library of Congress. 61

& Mechanics Bank of Wheeling, the Fairmont Bank, and the branch of the Exchange

Bank of Virginia at Weston. All other currencies were not valid. This proclamation came less than three months after Pierpont had stood before the new General Assembly and ordered that all specie payments to banks be suspended. Pierpont made similar proclamations throughout his time as governor, as on February 20, 1862 he announced that bills from the Jeffersonville branch of the Northwestern Bank of Virginia would not be accepted. While working with banks was a priority for Pierpont the governor was similarly responsible for vacating the public offices in any disloyal districts in the region, and once vacated he would appoint replacements. In the first year alone Pierpont appointed court justices for over thirty counties under Union occupation and similarly appointed sheriffs, elections commissioners, and any other necessary public officials.84

Through the next two months the Restored Government began preparations for the Constitutional Convention and on November 6 Pierpont issued a proclamation on the

Ordinance for the Formation of a New State that the General Assembly passed on August

20. The governor called upon duly elected delegates to convene in Wheeling on

November 26, 1861 to organize a convention with the sole purpose of creating a constitution, which Virginia’s voters would then approve. When the delegates arrived in

Wheeling three important questions occupied them. The first and potentially the most important question was what to name their proposed new state. Originally the Second

Wheeling Convention had dubbed the new state Kanawha, but the delegates at the

Constitutional Convention were not convinced. In fact the delegates were not the only

84Record book of Proclamations and Messages Issued by Governor Francis H. Pierpont of the Restored Government of Virginia, 1861-1863, Library of Virginia, September 28, 1861, February 20, 1862; Daily Intelligencer (Wheeling), October 2, 1861. 62

ones who were skeptical, with an anonymous op-ed in the Daily Intelligencer calling the potential name a “hard jaw breaking word of harsh sound” that was “hard to spell.” The anonymous author added that since western Virginia had two rivers and a county named

Kanawha, if “either part of the state must be called Kanawha, let it be Eastern Virginia.”

Another op-ed in the Daily Intelligencer written by the “Many Ladies of Fairmont,” expressed disgust over the proposed name. These ladies felt that Kanawha was an “ugly name” that was “inappropriate” and “not the choice of the people inhabiting the territory.” Instead these ladies suggested that the new state’s name be either Western

Virginia, West Virginia, or New Virginia, with Western Virginia as their personal favorite. With the combined disgust from residents and delegates, those at the convention changed the name changed several times, finally agreeing to name the new state West

Virginia.85

The second issue that the delegates grappled with was how far to extend the new state’s borders. Two camps developed. The “Large-State” advocates pushed for borders similar to what West Virginia currently looks like, while the “Small-State” advocates pushed to include only thirty-three northwestern counties and five counties located in the

Shenandoah Valley. After the Second Wheeling Convention the “Small State” design for the state prevailed, but at the Constitutional Convention the “Large State” design triumphed. The “Large State” plan decided that forty-four counties would automatically be included in the new state while seven other counties would decide whether to join

85Record book of Proclamations and Messages Issued by Governor Francis H. Pierpont of the Restored Government of Virginia, 1861-1863, Library of Virginia, November 6, 1861; Mark A. Snell, West Virginia and the Civil War, 56; Daily Intelligencer (Wheeling), September 28, 1861, September 30, 1861. 63

through a popular referendum.86 One minor issue that the members addressed during the convention was how to elect the General Assembly (through population or taxes), which echoed Virginia’s previous Constitutional Conventions. The final issue settled by the convention was whether to abolish slavery in West Virginia or create a system for gradual emancipation. Because the panhandle counties (Berkeley, Jefferson, and Morgan) had a higher slave population than the other counties in the proposed state, the delegates were hesitant to isolate those voters. Eventually the delegates decided that the best option was gradual emancipation as well as banning the importation of any new slaves into the state. By February 20, 1862 the convention had finalized the initial constitution and prepared for the referendum scheduled for April 3.87

On April 3 western Virginia’s loyal voters went to the polls and cast their votes either for West Virginia’s creation or against it. Overall the constitution received support from 18,862 voters, with only 514 against the measure. In addition to support for the new state the several counties included an emancipation clause on the referendum and approved it 6,052 to 618. The referendum even gained support from two Union regiments, with the 8th Virginia Volunteers adding 190 for the measure, and 28 against, while the 3rd Virginia Volunteers had 286 unanimously in favor. Despite the victory 13 out of the 51 counties that could have been included within the state did not have any returns from the referendum by May 19. These results indicated that western Virginia’s voters overwhelmingly supported the proposed constitution, and within those counties that included the emancipation clause emancipation was not out of the question. After the

86The seven counties voting later were Berkeley, Frederick, Hampshire, Hardy, Jefferson, Morgan, and Pendleton, with only Frederick not joining the new state. 87Mark A. Snell, West Virginia and the Civil War, 56-57. 64

referendum voters within the region believed that statehood was a sure thing, however, the question remained whether Congress would agree to the division at all.88

As the Restored Government began preparations for Virginia’s division, Governor

Pierpont prepared his address to the General Assembly where he outlined his immediate plans for the state and reported on some issues that had presented themselves. The morning of December 2 Pierpont stood before the representatives and somewhat hopefully proclaimed that “amidst the clouds which are impending over the country, we may discern some patches of clear sky…the tide of rebellion…is at length receding.”

Pierpont then discussed his recommendations, which included the hope that “some provision be made out of the state treasury to aid in the support of the families of our volunteers,” and he hoped that the General Assembly would repeal the “stay law” (which prevented legal proceedings) as it had out lived its necessity. The governor similarly addressed a “self constituted military court at the city of Alexandria” that had formed and

“undertaken the collection of debts by seizing property and other acts unwarranted by law.” In response to the military interference Pierpont asked that the legislature repeal a law that required a 30-day delay for newly appointed justices, which would allow the governor to re-establish civil courts and prevent any military intrusion on civil governance. Secretary of War Cameron foreshadowed potential military interference on

November 19 when he sent a letter to the governor and called his attention to the

“propriety and necessity of thorough civil organization…in all counties in Virginia which

88The thirteen counties which did not have returns by May 19 were Berkeley, Fayette, Frederick, Greenbrier, Jefferson, Logan, Mercer, Monroe, Morgan, McDowell, Pocahontas, Webster, and Wyoming, A Certified Copy of the Constitution of the State of West Virginia, Miscellaneous Senate Document No. 98, 37th Congress, 2nd Session; David R. Zimring, “’Secession in Favor of the Constitution’: How West Virginia Justified Separate Statehood during the Civil War,” West Virginia History, New Series, 3, No. 2 (2009): 36. 65

are now, or may hereafter be, within the limits of the occupying forces of the United

States.” If the Restored Government were to reestablish the civil and criminal courts,

Cameron believed it would prevent military intervention in “matters which should be the subject of civil remedies.” 89

While the Constitutional Convention and General Assembly met without incident in the fall and winter of 1861, the northern and southern armies fought several small engagements across western Virginia, including Coal River, Hanging Rock, Greenbrier

River, Cotton Mill, McCoy’s Mill, Meadow Bluff, and Cherry Run. These engagements were not limited to organized forces as guerillas also roamed throughout the state. These groups included the Moccasin Rangers, who were pro-Confederate bushwhackers and their Union counterparts, the Snake Hunters. By April 1862 the guerillas were such a persistent problem that Major General John C. Frémont (Commander of the Mountain

Department by that time) ordered his forces to snuff out the bushwhacker threat in western Virginia. As guerilla warfare intensified organized forces maintained a presence in the western region, including the 1st Virginia (U.S.). On November 10, 1861 the 1st

Virginia unloaded their supply wagons in a field outside Romney (nearly one hundred miles east of Wheeling) and began organizing their winter quarters. The men used the following weeks to prepare for the war and hone their skills, with days filled with various duties and drills meant to make them better soldiers. The New Year came and went and the men eagerly marched to Blue’s Gap on January 7 and made quick work of a small band of rebels. On January 10 the 1st Virginia received orders to abandon their winter

89Record book of Proclamations and Messages Issued by Governor Francis H. Pierpont of the Restored Government of Virginia, 1861-1863, Library of Virginia, December 2, 1861; Simon Cameron to Francis H. Pierpont, U.S. War Department, War of Rebellion, Series III, Vol. 1, 661. 66

quarters in Romney as General Thomas “Stonewall” Jackson began a westward push from the Shenandoah Valley with a contingent much larger than the Union force.

Although Jackson’s movement was imposing, it was only short lived and Jackson instead focused on the Shenandoah Valley rather than the Trans-Allegheny.90

By early spring 1862 Governor Pierpont determined that the military situation in western Virginia had improved and he attempted to capitalize upon the change. On

March 14 he wrote a letter to President Lincoln wherein he proposed that the president and the Restored Government of Virginia adopt a policy that restricted rebels from taking office. Pierpont believed that this policy should be maintained until the governments had at least been established long enough to resist their perceived negative influence.

Moreover, Pierpont recommended that protecting property, particularly slaves, should entirely depend upon the cooperation between the owners and the Restored Government.

It was unlikely that the president would have adopted such a policy that protected slaves and it was not entirely clear why Pierpont suggested it, other than to maintain a conservative path as it pertained to emancipation. Furthermore, it was likely that some within the Restored Government would have benefited from Pierpont’s proposal. In June future lieutenant governor Leopold C. P. Cowper (1863-1869) wrote to Lincoln and informed him that he owned several slaves located in the Norfolk area, and one, a nine- year-old boy named Robert, had escaped to the city and then to Fort Monroe. After expressing his and the mothers’ supposed concerns Cowper wondered if it would be possible to have the boy returned despite the article of war that prohibited such actions.

Although there was no recorded response from Lincoln to Cowper, it was more than

90Mark A. Snell, West Virginia and the Civil War, 50, 54; C. J. Rawling, History of the First Regiment Virginia Infantry, 39, 42, 48, 49. 67

likely that the federal government did not return his slave and the policy was not adopted.91

Despite the improving situation in western Virginia the war was not going as intended by the federal government. The war effort had become unsustainable and the government requested additional troops from the loyal governors, but the volunteer pool had ostensibly run dry. In May 1862 the War Department requested that each governor send six additional infantry regiments for federal service. Later the same day Governor

Pierpont responded, claiming that having “discouraged all idea of further volunteering among the people…I fear I cannot raise a regiment in any reasonable time.” By June the adjutant general pushed the loyal governors again for troops and suggested that men were needed straightaway. Just ten days later a shift had occurred and on June 28 the loyal governors, Pierpont included, sent a letter to President Lincoln offering their support for any “prompt and vigorous measures” to ensure a swift end to the war. In response to this support Lincoln wrote to them on the 30th and in thanking them decided that he would call for an additional 150,000 men for federal service.92

The 150,000 men was doubled in the coming weeks to 300,000 and on July 16

Governor Pierpont issued a Proclamation to the People within which he again called upon the loyal men to offer their service to the Union. “[T]he state of Virginia,” announced

Pierpont, “has been called upon to furnish 2,080 more [which increased as the call was doubled to 300,000 men], as her proportion, for the term of three years, or during the war.” Pierpont added that he expected that loyal men would “voluntarily respond to his

91Francis H. Pierpont to Abraham Lincoln, March 14, 1862, Library of Congress; Leopold C. P. Cowper to Abraham Lincoln, June 30, 1862, Library of Congress. 92U.S. War Department, War of Rebellion, Series III, Vol. 2, 44, 46, 163, 180, 182. 68

call, and fly to assist your brave brethren in this last struggle for home, country, and constitutional freedom…Let it not be said, that it was left for Virginia to furnish her quota by resorting to a draft.” The following day Pierpont wrote to Secretary of War

Edwin M. Stanton and suggested that those enlisted under this call should be for one-year terms and not three years. Pierpont’s reasoning behind this suggestion was that if the military could not put down the rebellion in under a year it would prove difficult to put it down at all but reducing enlistments to a year would add a great boost of confidence to the country. Six days later Stanton’s assistant, Catharinus P. Buckingham, responded to the governors’ suggestion and specified that although one-year enlistments were being considered it may be a bad idea to mix one-year enlistees in a regiment with three-year enlistees and ultimately three-year enlistments were kept.93

After the West Virginia Constitutional Convention unanimously approved the proposed Constitution on February 18, 1862 and the people approved it 18,862 to 514 on

April 3, Governor Pierpont called the General Assembly into a special session to consider the results and on May 13 they passed an act to allow West Virginia’s formation.

Congress was left to ponder the decision and on May 29 Senator Waitman Willey presented a petition to the senate for West Virginia’s statehood, which was then referred to the Committee on Territories (which Senator John Carlile was a member). On June 23

Benjamin F. Wade (Republican from Ohio) introduced Senate Bill No. 365 which

93 Record book of Proclamations and Messages Issued by Governor Francis H. Pierpont of the Restored Government of Virginia, 1861-1863, Library of Virginia, July 16, 1862; U.S. War Department, War of Rebellion, Series III, Vol. 2, 232, 249, 344. 69

provided for West Virginia’s admission to the Union. Three days later Wade moved to have the bill considered by the Senate and he proceeded to outline the parameters.94

An important measure included within the Bill was that West Virginia would be admitted as a slave state despite its relatively low slave population, but there was a provision that would free all slaves born after July 4, 1863. This provision ultimately delayed the bills’ passage because several senators were not willing to approve it with its original wording. One leading senator against the present wording was Charles Sumner

(Republican from Massachusetts), who believed that allowing another slave state into the

Union would be detrimental, arguing that as short “as life may be” it was “too long for slavery.” Sumner proposed removing and replacing the provision that provided emancipation for those born on and after July 4, 1863 with one that permanently removed slavery from within the states borders.95

While the bill remained in limbo Senator Willey moved to have it taken up on

July 1. Sumner urged his colleagues to pass his amendment because he estimated that some 10,000 slaves that remained in West Virginia’s proposed borders would “continue in bondage during their lives.” In response to the ensuing debate on amending the

Constitution, Jacob Collamer (Republican from Vermont) attempted to clarify whether this bill was an Enabling Act, which would allow West Virginia to form a Constitutional

Convention and create a Constitution, or an Act of Admission. Collamer believed that the bill was an Enabling Act because the process for admitting previous states began with an

Enabling Act and then once the region provided a Constitution to Congress a vote on the

94 Congressional Globe, June 23, 1862, June 26, 1862; Mark Snell, West Virginia in the Civil War, 58-59, 82. 95Congressional Globe, June 26, 1862. 70

Act of Admission would occur. This clarification presented an issue for the Senators from

Virginia, with Willey asking if he could point out “some mode by which the people of

Northwestern Virginia could be relieved of the trouble and expense…of convening another constitutional convention, making another constitution, submitting it again to the people, recalling the Legislature,” and having Congress discuss it again. Willey added that nearly every northern state (except Massachusetts) had adopted gradual emancipation in some form and in western Virginia’s case the established labor system and geography would force slavery out much sooner anyways.96

After Senator Willey finished his explanation on how the provision was a non- issue he then described further reasons for why it was necessary that the state be admitted as soon as possible. The Constitutional Convention had designed West Virginia methodically, clarified Willey, with a committee selecting the Alleghany mountain range as the eastern border for several reasons, primarily that the range separated the

“commercial, industrial and social relations of the state.” With this mountain range’s addition fifteen counties from the valley would be included within the new state, adding an estimated 140,049 whites and 31,937 slaves. Out of that white population, Willey suggested that less than 5,000 were willing to join the new state. Admittedly when Willey heard that these counties were going to be included within West Virginia he was surprised, even asserting that upon the mountains that bordered those regions “which it is proposed to unite, have engaged in battle, and there they stand, with hands dripping in each other’s blood; and it is proposed by this bill to unite them in one State municipality!”97

96Ibid., July 1, 1862. 97Ibid. 71

As Senator Willey concluded his remarks Senator Wade took the floor and provided support for West Virginia’s admission to the Union because he had “come to the conclusion that it is impossible for the people of Eastern and Western Virginia to live together in harmony and peace.” Due to the long history of disputes between the two regions, such as discrepancies in state representation and taxation, Wade believed that the division between Virginia’s eastern and western portions was worse than any that previously or currently existed between the North and the South. Despite this clear argument by Wade, Senator Sumner could not support the admission without his proposed amendment because it would add two more slave senators to the Senate. To address the emancipation issue Wade argued that since West Virginia would be admitted with gradual emancipation (while current slave states made no real effort for emancipation) West Virginia’s future senators could hardly be compared to senators from other slave states. Wade added that although he supported the West Virginia bill he supported an amendment to the emancipation proposition, instead suggesting that it be on a graduated scale, with all newborn slaves receiving freedom and those born between certain years receiving freedom during established periods.98

After a failed attempt by Senator Willey to have the bill finally considered on July

7, Senator Wade motioned to have the bill brought up for discussion a week later. After the Senate voted against Sumner’s amendment Willey suggested that all slaves born within the state would be born free, which was a slight compromise from the original.

Despite Willey’s radical proposal Wade expanded on it and suggested that all those under age twenty-one be freed as well. Willey responded to Wade’s proposal and announced

98Ibid. 72

that he would prefer that West Virginia be admitted under the original constitution that was presented several weeks earlier. Similarly he hoped Wade’s amendment would be rejected, with Carlile similarly adding that he preferred the original constitution. Upon hearing this Wade immediately fired back that West Virginia was going to be a free state because western Virginians had put their “fate with the free states” and he hoped that

West Virginia would not “wish to leave any marks of your former servitude any longer than you can help.” He further urged the senators from Virginia to “not stickle over this” and accept his amendment.99

The Senate accepted Senator Wade’s amendment and Senator Willey modified it slightly later during the day. Willey’s amendment added that slaves under age ten would be freed at age twenty-one while those between ten and twenty-one would be freed upon their twenty-fifth birthday. When the bill finally came to a vote it passed 23 to 17, however Senator Carlile voted against the bill because he did not support the Willey amendment and he firmly believed that the Senate should accept the bill as it as originally written. From there the Senate referred the bill to the House of Representatives, but they would not discuss it until December. When Carlile refused to support the statehood bill that he helped write, word reached western Virginia and the residents there proceeded to shun the once revered senator, going so far as to remove his namesake from Camp Carlile and rename it Camp Willey.100

While western Virginians waited for Congress to reconvene in Washington,

Governor Pierpont called Virginia’s General Assembly into session and ordered that they convene on December 4 to redistrict the state in order to elect new senators and

99Ibid., July 14, 1862. 100Congressional Globe, July 14, 1862; Mark Snell, West Virginia and the Civil War, 83. 73

representatives to Congress. As Virginia’s elected representatives settled into their seats on the 4th, Pierpont stood before them to give his State of the Commonwealth address.

Pierpont announced that Virginia was allowed eleven Congressmen in the House of

Representatives for the 38th Congress and he asked that measures be taken to ensure that members would be provided. While Pierpont did not spend significant time on this topic, it was quite important to the Restored Government’s continued recognition by the federal government, as if the seats were not filled in a timely manner, the case for legitimacy would fall into question.101

Pierpont then explained why he had supported President Lincoln’s Emancipation

Proclamation from September 22. The governor indicated that from the war’s inauguration the rebellion’s suppression had not yet been achieved and the “leaders of their rebellion had impressed the minds of the slaves with the idea that the Federal

Government would take and sell them to the sugar planters of Cuba, to defray the expenses of the war.” The idea that the policy would “produce insurrection,” Pierpont argued, was a “fallacy: and the objector should remember that the rebel soldier would be better engaged in protecting his wife and children from servile insurrection at home, than in slaughtering his brethren of the Union army upon the battlefield.” He believed that the policy should be viewed strictly as a measure to bring about the rebellion’s end and confirmed this by asserting that the “slaves are the strength of the rebellion” and it was

“our duty as american citizens, the guardians of the liberties purchased by our forefathers,

101Record book of Proclamations and Messages Issued by Governor Francis H. Pierpont of the Restored Government of Virginia, 1861-1863, Library of Virginia, November 24, 1862, December 4, 1862. 74

and transmitted to us, to us, to look this subject fairly in the face, and decide between republican liberty, and african, or any other kind of slavery.”102

The final matter that the governor hoped the General Assembly would address was the persistent guerilla activity in the region. During preceding months several newspapers reported upon military activity in western Virginia and claimed that a

Confederate invasion was in the works. In response to these rumors the Weekly Register proudly proclaimed that if an invasion were to occur it would not end well for those men sent into western Virginia as the mountaineers would “hunt them down as they would wolves.” Although loyal Virginias were hopeful that they could prevent another invasion, this did not stop the rebels from making the effort to have them return voluntarily to the

Old Dominion. After Confederate forces captured Charleston in September, Major

General William Loring ordered his Proclamation to the people of western Virginia published in the newly printed Guerilla. The general’s proclamation maintained that the

Confederate troops were there to “rescue the people from the despotism of the counterfeit

State Government imposed on you by Northern bayonets, and to restore the country once more to its natural allegiance to the State.” Although Union troops retook Charleston shortly after, guerilla forces remained active in the region. In response to this activity

Pierpont explained in his address that the guerillas in western Virginia were “carrying out…a system of wholesale, indiscriminate robbery and murder.” To resolve the guerilla

102Record book of Proclamations and Messages Issued by Governor Francis H. Pierpont of the Restored Government of Virginia, 1861-1863, Library of Virginia, December 4, 1862. 75

problem Pierpont asked the General Assembly to order the arrest and intern all known secessionists within loyal Virginia.103

Despite Senate approval during the 37th Congress’ 2nd Session the House of

Representatives postponed debate on Senate Bill No. 365 (the admission of West

Virginia) until the 3rd Session began in December 1862. Upon reintroduction to the

House on December 9 several Congressmen opposed the measure because they believed it was unconstitutional and not expedient. Congressman Martin F. Conway (Republican from Kansas) opposed the bill itself but not West Virginia’s admission, largely because he believed the Government of Virginia at Wheeling was in fact not the legitimate government in the state. Conway added that the president intended to use this bill in the attempted “subversion of our constitutional system,” believing that the bill would grant additional Congressmen to Virginia and could therefore be replicated in the other states actively in rebellion against the United States. The proper way for West Virginia to be admitted, or so Conway maintained, was for the United States to turn the region held in

Virginia into a territory, with that territory then following the process for statehood as opposed to statehood through the state’s division. Congress adopted this ideology later and it would become the primary reason for the divergence in reconstruction policy between Congress and the president.104

While Congressman Conway made some valid points regarding the Restored

Government of Virginia’s constitutionality, Congressman William G. Brown, Sr.

(Unionist from Virginia) attempted to show that it was in fact constitutional. In doing so

103Record book of Proclamations and Messages Issued by Governor Francis H. Pierpont of the Restored Government of Virginia, 1861-1863, Library of Virginia, December 4, 1862; Weekly Register (Point Pleasant), October 2, 1862; Guerilla (Charleston), October 3, 1862. 104Congressional Globe, December 9, 1862. 76

Brown cited past examples where states had been created from within another state’s borders and received Congressional support. In 1789 the Virginia Legislature gave consent to Kentucky’s formation, Vermont was formed from within New York, Maine from within Massachusetts, and Tennessee from within North Carolina. Brown argued that the president, Congress, and the attorney general (who gave Virginia’s share of the profits from the sale of public lands-$40,000-to the Restored Government) had recognized the Pierpont Government and the Wheeling Legislature. Furthermore the

Richmond Government surrendered their positions as the loyal voters’ representatives when they undermined the people’s Constitutional Liberties by entering into political agreements with the Confederacy prior to the popular referendum on the Ordinance of

Secession. Since so many had recognized the Restored Government of Virginia and secession had nullified the Richmond Government, Brown argued that Congress should recognize the consent given for Virginia’s division by the Wheeling Legislature as legitimate. Congressman Robert Mallory (Unionist from Kentucky) questioned Brown on whether any counties were represented within the Wheeling Legislature outside of those within the proposed State of West Virginia. Brown replied that Alexandria and Fairfax

Counties had representation as well as a few others, but the Restored Government invited all counties to participate in the General Assembly and “if they were loyal men, they ought to have acted with us. If they were disloyal, they should have no voice either in the

Legislature of Virginia, or in this body.”105

After having conducted the day’s mandatory business discussion on Senate Bill

No. 365 continued with Congressman Brown defending the Restored Government of

105Ibid. 77

Virginia’s legitimacy and arguing that the decision to admit the state would be expedient.

In response to Congressman Conway’s suggestion that western Virginia should have been turned into a territory, Brown argued that if Virginia was in fact a territory then “I have no right to a seat upon this floor.” Brown continued his argument and further addressed the concerns over expediency and indicated that western Virginians had been

“denied…proper representation” and the Constitutional Conventions of 1829-30 and

1850 did little more than provide temporary solutions to a much larger problem.

Furthermore the Government of Virginia had raised money through taxes in large amounts with a disproportionate amount coming from those in the western counties for railroad construction. Despite this contribution from the western taxpayers the railroads being built by the Government of Virginia were in the state’s eastern portion, which represented just one of the western people’s grievances toward the state government.

Lastly the men who organized the Restored Government at Wheeling “went with their lives in their hands” as the Confederate troops slowly marched toward the city and intended to capture these men and charge them as traitors to the state. Brown concluded that a “people never did exhibit more firmness and more determination than the loyal people of Virginia on that occasion,” and through this loyalty these people should be rewarded for their courage by allowing them to form their new state.106

While Democrats were largely against the bill, several prominent Republican congressmen, such as Schuyler Colfax (Indiana) and Thomas M. Edwards (New

Hampshire) staunchly supported the bill during the afternoon despite having opposed it during the last session. Colfax argued that without a doubt numerous federal officials

106Ibid. 78

recognized the Restored Government, thus the Pierpont government was “the rightful authority in Virginia.” On expediency Colfax argued that the political differences that had persisted throughout the years were “irreconcilable” and would remain so.

Congressman Conway, being actively involved in the discussion, wondered whether the president’s recognition had led the other parties to follow suit as opposed to them distinguishing the government’s legitimacy on their own accord. In response to Conway

Colfax admitted that he could not answer his colleague’s question, but even if Conway believed the president had made the wrong decision and that western Virginia should have been a territory, it did not matter. Colfax argued that if western Virginia had become a territory it would have “assumed the habiliments of a State” prior to admission, just as the Restored Government of Virginia had done.107

Congressman Edwards had opposed the bill several months earlier, but openly admitted that he had since swapped position on the matter. This bill per its design, so

Edwards believed, was meant to weaken the Confederacy and that “if it will have…a tendency to break the power of the rebellion in Virginia, I shall go for it now, and in good faith.” Edwards added that some Congressman had questioned the constitutionality behind the Wheeling Conventions, however he believed that since the conventions organizers had properly notified them prior to the proceedings and they did not bother to send representation that did not mean that the convention was any less legitimate. When asked by Congressman Charles A. Wickliffe (Unionist from Kentucky) what would happen to those in the proposed state who opposed the decision, “exterminate them, drive them off, or make them slaves,” Edwards informed him that “if it were necessary to

107Ibid. 79

exterminate the whole people of Virginia in order to preserve the integrity of the Union, I should go for it without hesitation.” After Edwards had finished, the conversations continued but made little ground and the House adjourned at 5 PM and agreed to have the matter settled by 2 PM the following day.108

By the second day the issue had not been clearly resolved and Joseph E. Segar

(Unionist from eastern Virginia) attempted to sway the House against the bill. Although

Segar recognized the Restored Government of Virginia as the legitimate government, he believed that the “consent of the north Western people themselves has not been had.”

From the counties that would be contained within the new state ten did not vote during the statehood and constitutional referendums. In addition to questions over the counties that participated, Segar estimated that nearly 50,000 votes would normally have been cast in the included territory, but only 19,000 were cast. Another issue addressed by Segar was that three counties (Greenbrier, Mercer, and Monroe) were to be included within the new state even though these three counties were more economically and culturally connected to Virginia’s eastern portion than they were to the west. Lastly Segar wondered what would happen to his constituents once West Virginia became a state and if the Restored Government of Virginia would continue to function, because if it did not his constituents would be left to “rebellion or revolution.” Before resigning the floor

Segar affirmed that “above all things, I crave the restoration of the Union; next to that, I pray that my native State may be restored to that glorious Union undismembered [sic].”

108Ibid. 80

Not long after, the House put Senate Bill No. 365 to a vote and it passed 96 to 55, with 3 of Virginia’s Congressman voting yes while Segar voted no.109

After Congress all that stood between western Virginians and statehood was the president, who was quite uncertain when it came to the decision to sign or veto the bill.

To help clarify the issue for himself Lincoln posed the two questions that had dominated the Congressional debates (whether the bill was constitutional and whether it was expedient) to his cabinet members. When the president received the responses from his cabinet members he was doubtless surprised to find that they had split evenly on the issue, with Secretary of State William H. Seward, Secretary of the Treasury Salmon P.

Chase and Secretary of War Edwin M. Stanton responding in the affirmative, and

Attorney General Edward Bates, Secretary of the Navy Gideon Welles, and Postmaster

General Montgomery Blair responding in the negative. Seward explained that Virginia ’s people opposed the treasonous actions taken by the Government of Virginia in Richmond and took the proper steps to replace that government with a loyal one that had since given permission for West Virginia’s formation. Regarding the bill’s expediency Seward claimed that if signed western Virginians would feel safer from the Confederacy and it would protect them from any potential retaliation by former Confederates for their perceived disloyalty against the state during the war. Detailing the opposite position

Bates argued that the bill was unconstitutional because the Restored Government, although necessary for the war effort, was little more than a “provisional government” with no authority to divide Virginia and the legislature that approved the measure did not represent the state as a whole, but merely the counties that were to be included within

109The ten counties referenced by Segar were Fayette, Logan, Mason, Mercer, McDowell, Monroe, Morgan, Pocahontas, and Webster, Ibid, December 10, 1862. 81

West Virginia. Bates then concluded that the bill was inexpedient for several reasons, which included the language within the bill that would allow the state to fail despite the passage and potential signing, and “very awkward shape and inconvenient geographical relations.”110

Although the president valued the responses given to him, he still did not know what action he would take. The one thing that swayed Lincoln’s decision to the affirmative was Virginia’s persistent leaders, with Senator Waitman Willey, and

Congressmen Jacob Blair and William Brown visiting the president on New Year’s Eve.

The days leading up to his final decision Governor Pierpont sent several telegrams where he expressed his desire that the president sign the bill, and in the final telegram he indicated that he was “in great hope you will sign the bill” as the “loyal troops from

Virginia have their hearts set on it; the loyal people in the bounds of the new State have their hearts set on it; and if the bill fails, God only knows the result.” Several years later, just a few days before his assassination in 1865, Lincoln told Pierpont that it was this final telegram that ultimately swayed his decision to sign the bill.111 After hearing the various arguments surrounding the bill, the president decided for himself that admitting

West Virginia as a state was both Constitutional and expedient, so on December 31

Lincoln affixed his signature to the bill. Upon arriving at this decision the president penned his own opinion on the matter and reasoned that the Restored Government of

Virginia was legitimate because although voter turnout in the elections and referendums was minimal it was “not the qualified voters, but the qualified voters, who choose to vote,

110Mark A. Snell, West Virginia and the Civil War, 83; Responses to Lincoln were accessed through www.wvculture.org (On-line exhibit, A State of Convenience: The Creation of West Virginia), William H. Seward to Abraham Lincoln, Edward Bates to Abraham Lincoln, December 27, 1862. 111Charles H. Ambler, Francis H. Pierpont, 184, 185. 82

that constitute the political power of the State.” Lincoln added that the state’s admission was expedient because in his view the Union could “scarcely dispense with the aid of

West Virginia,” and the men that had already pledged their allegiance to the Union viewed the bill’s signing as a “matter of life and death.”112

After President Lincoln signed the Statehood Bill the West Virginia

Constitutional Convention reconvened to decide whether they would adopt the Willey

Amendment and on February 17, 1863 they did just that. On April 17 the people voted on the amendment and passed it 28,321 to 522.113 When the results reached President

Lincoln he issued a Proclamation on April 20 that announced that since the voters in

West Virginia had accepted the Willey Amendment it would enter the Union as the thirty-fifth state on June 20, exactly sixty days from his proclamation. Upon receiving the proclamation the Daily Intelligencer declared that the West Virginia Statehood Bill’s passage was “one more evidence of the capacity of American citizens for self- government…and we believe that the inherent virtue of the masses will yet save the nation despite the treachery or blunders of self-appointed leaders, as it saved us here in

West Virginia.”114

In the weeks leading up to West Virginia’s inauguration several important issues plagued both Virginia’s and West Virginia’s governments. Despite suppressing guerilla activity throughout the war, an attack on two steamboats thirty-five miles south of

112Michael Burlingame, Abraham Lincoln: A Life, Volume Two (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 2008), 460-461; Opinion of Abraham Lincoln on the Admission of West Virginia, n.d., presumably written before or on December 31, 1862. 113These vote totals were pulled from Mark Snell, West Virginia and the Civil War, 84; however, Charles H. Ambler, Francis H. Pierpont: Union War Governor of Virginia, 205, had the totals at 27,749 for the Willey Amendment, with 572 against. In addition to this, he claimed that 7,696 for, and 132 were cast by soldiers, and 1,689 of those were not currently within West Virginia. 114Mark A. Snell, West Virginia and the Civil War, 83-84; Daily Intelligencer (Wheeling), April 23, 1863. 83

Charleston on March 29 and the retaking of Point Pleasant by Union forces put men and supplies at risk. At the same time, Brigadier General John D. Imboden led his cavalry detachment across West Virginia, occupying Morgantown in April and even threatening

Wheeling at one point. In addition to military activity the governors had to respond to the

Enrollment Act passed by Congress on March 3, with Pierpont and Boreman co- authoring a letter to the Provost-Marshal-General and describing their protestations to the bill. Despite the early opposition by Pierpont, the governor later acquiesced and prior to the drafts implementation (and an invasion into western Virginia) Pierpont urged the militias to organize and prepare to defend their homes. The invasion however never made it to Wheeling.115

As June 20 arrived owners closed all businesses in Wheeling (and most across western Virginia) and homes donned the American flag as the people prepared for West

Virginia’s entrance into the Union. At the celebration both Arthur I. Boreman (the soon to be first Governor of West Virginia) and Governor Pierpont gave speeches, while

Pierpont attempted to explain to those present why he had decided to remain Virginia’s

Governor despite the troubles that surely faced him. Standing before the excited crowd,

Pierpont professed “I go to Virginia for the purpose of doing what I can do there to suppress the rebellion-to restore law and order-to secure the rights of freemen in that sacred soil.” Pierpont then pointed toward the stars and stripes that flapped above the stage and called upon West Virginians to never “abandon that flag.” In closing, Pierpont hoped that West Virginia would “grow to be the proudest state in all the glorious galaxy of States that form the nation.” Pierpont was not the only Virginia who had decided to

115New York Times, April 5, 1863; Daily Intelligencer (Wheeling), April 29, 1863; U.S. War Department, War of Rebellion, Series III, Vol. 3, 224; Morgantown Monitor, June 20, 1863. 84

remain under the Restored Government’s auspices, with Senator Carlile retaining his position as well. After one government had split into two Pierpont packed his bags and removed what remained of the Restored Government from Wheeling, West Virginia to

Alexandria, Virginia. In this new city Pierpont faced challenges that had not presented themselves earlier, particularly having to deal with a disloyal population and a military authority that did not respect the Restored Government’s legitimacy, which ultimately placed Virginia’s status at risk.116

116 Evening Star (Washington, D.C.), June 22, 1863; New York Times, June 28, 1863. 85

ALEXANDRIA, VIRGINIA: MAINTAINING A GOVERNMENT

After establishing West Virginia the Restored Government needed a new home and finally decided upon Alexandria, which offered was paramount political location due to its proximity to the capital. Occupied since the beginning of the war Alexandria was supposedly safe, however the war managed to find its way to Governor Francis H.

Pierpont’s front doorstep. On the night of September 28, 1863 Confederate Colonel John

S. Mosby (otherwise known as the “Grey Ghost”) slipped through the darkness with a few rangers and directed their horses toward the governor’s home outside the city and intended to kidnap the executive. Unbeknownst to Mosby and his men the governor was in Washington at the time and when they arrived at his empty home they decided they would instead attempt to capture one of Pierpont’s military aides, Colonel Daniel F.

Dulany. Col. Dulany, eventually captured by Mosby and his men, was taken south to

Richmond for internment. Confederate officials released Dulany from custody and exchanged him for Confederate Colonel Chrochet in early spring 1864 and Dulany returned to Alexandria on March 3. This event showed the Restored Government’s leaders that their fragile government was vulnerable to the dangers of war and at the same time susceptible to outside forces.117

117The following source was found within the American Civil War: Letters and Diaries database, Memoir of James Joseph Williamson in Mosby’s Rangers: a Record of the Operations of the Forty-Third Battalion Virginia Cavalry (New York: Ralph B. Kenyon, 1896); Alexandria Gazette, September 29, 1863, September 30, 1863, March 3, 1864, March 4, 1864. 86

After relocating to Alexandria the Restored Government faced countless problems, from losing representation in Congress, to having a large portion of their territory taken by military authority, and having Congress reject their right to participate in the 1864 Presidential Election. When faced with these challenges radicals at the federal level scrutinized Virginia’s place within the Union and in response those within the government attempted to reinforce their status through continued operation as the true government of Virginia. Even though Congress rejected the newly elected representatives from Virginia, the Restored Government managed to retain two senators in the 38th

Congress (March 1863 to March 1865), which allowed them to maintain some level of participation at the federal level and maintain their status, at least for those sessions’ duration. The Restored Government ignored the complaints regarding their status and continued towards complete restoration, holding a Constitutional Convention that resulted in a constitution more progressive in nature. This remained in place until

Congressional Reconstruction. At the same time a drawn-out dispute with the military threatened the further restoration of civil governance. The Restored Government managed to sway the president’s opinion away from the military authority through continuous lobbying and eventually had the leadership removed after the Presidential

Election. Lastly as it pertained to the Presidential Election, Virginians strategically backed Abraham Lincoln’s administration. Congress eventually decided that Virginians were not going to participate by casting votes, but Virginians still actively campaigned for the National Union Party and even sent delegates to the National Convention.118

118Charles H. Ambler, Francis H. Pierpont: Union War Governor of Virginia and Father of West Virginia, passim; Hamilton J. Eckenrode, The Political History of Virginia During the Reconstruction, passim. 87

Prior to the Restored Government finding a new home, a convention held in the

Alexandria City Council chambers on May 14 met to determine the nominations for the state’s officers. The convention was sanctioned by the Union Association of Norfolk and consisted of around twenty members. Those who attended represented Virginia’s northeastern region, Fairfax, Fauquier, and Spotsylvania. The first man nominated was

Governor Pierpont, chosen to succeed himself unanimously despite the Virginia constitution prohibiting such action. Further nominations included Edmund Pendleton from Berkeley County for lieutenant governor and S. F. Beach for attorney general. By the time the government held the state elections on May 28, Pendleton and Beach had both decided not to run for positions, with Leopold C. P. Cowper running for lieutenant governor and Thomas R. Bowden running for attorney general. Pierpont and Bowden ran unopposed and received 3,755 and 2,743 votes respectively, while Cowper ran against

Gilbert S. Miner, receiving 2,361 votes and defeating Miner. B. M. Kitchen from the

Alexandria District, Joseph Segar from the Accomac District, and L. H. Chandler from the Norfolk District were elected to the U.S. House of Representatives. These election results indicated a moderate level of participation from the loyal voters in eastern

Virginia and provided the hope that the restoration of civil governance in that region would not be as difficult as originally predicted.119

Although the Restored Government of Virginia was no longer located in western

Virginia, Governor Pierpont maintained a relationship with Virginia’s sister state and on

July 22 and September 14 he certified the poll results for Berkeley and Jefferson

119Charles H. Ambler, Francis H. Pierpont: Union War Governor of Virginia and Father of West Virginia, 215-16; Hamilton J. Eckenrode, The Political History of Virginia During the Reconstruction, 15; Alexandria Gazette, May 14, 1863, May 29, 1863, June 1, 1863. 88

Counties, while simultaneously announcing the removal of those counties from

Virginia’s dominion to West Virginia. The Restored Government decided that the new state would have Berkeley County incorporated on August 5 while Jefferson would join a few months later on November 2. The official results from those referendums were not included within Pierpont’s proclamation and as a result the two remained in perpetual limbo until Congress eventually confirmed the transfer and the Supreme Court later upheld the decision.120 By August 26 Pierpont and the Restored Government officially relocated Virginia’s capital to Alexandria. After doing so Pierpont began rebuilding

Virginia’s government once again, having to replace the state’s officers who had decided to remain in West Virginia, including his lieutenant governor and several

Congressman.121

During the fall of 1863 Pierpont recognized the importance of subduing all disloyal sentiment within the territory that remained under the Restored Government’s control. When Pierpont moved the Restored Government to Alexandria there was a significant reduction in the territory that it governed and the population was largely disloyal, at least when compared to those in western Virginia. The territory directly under the Restored Government’s control included Alexandria and Fairfax Counties, the eastern shore, and Norfolk. Pierpont’s fears were not necessarily unfounded as Confederate sympathizers in Accomac County attempted to have their cohorts elected to the Restored

120During the civil elections held on May 28, it was recorded that Berkeley County voted 645 for annexation to West Virginia, with only 7 against, while Jefferson recorded 337 for, with it being unclear how many were against, Charles H. Ambler, Francis H. Pierpont: Union War Governor of Virginia and Father of West Virginia, 215; Hamilton J. Eckenrode, The Political History of Virginia During the Reconstruction, 16. 121Record book of Proclamations and Messages Issued by Governor Francis H. Pierpont of the Restored Government of Virginia, 1861-1863, Library of Virginia, July 22, 1863, September 14, 1863; Francis H. Pierpont Restored Government Executive Papers, 1861-1865, Library of Virginia, August 26, 1863. 89

Government’s General Assembly, although the attempts were unsuccessful. This first step in securing loyalty, or so Pierpont believed, was removing the Emancipation

Proclamation’s exemption that allowed seven counties in eastern Virginia to keep their slaves. In a September 3 letter to President Lincoln Pierpont explained that the exemption was intended to breed loyalty in the slave regions, however he believed that the policy instead had the opposite effect on the people because it made them satisfied with their current situation and they did not want to take any action that would endanger the slave system. Pierpont then pressed Lincoln to remove the exemption so that the disloyal citizens in Virginia could be subdued. Lincoln did not heed the governor’s advice on the matter, opting to keep the exemption in place. Furthermore Lincoln further ignored

Pierpont’s position and ended the blockade around Alexandria’s port, which allowed the reestablishment of commerce to and from the city, permitting the citizens such freedoms they had not enjoyed for several years.122

While Pierpont and the Restored Government shifted their focus to improving local conditions the House of Representatives took the first unofficial action against the president’s position on reconstruction and toward the reversal of Virginia’s status. A contested congressional election between Lewis McKenzie and Bethuel M. Kitchen caused problems at the federal level and allowed the House to weaken the Restored

Government’s position. While Kitchen had originally won the election for Virginia’s 7th

Congressional District his returns included votes from the recently annexed Berkeley

122Francis H. Pierpont to Abraham Lincoln, September 3, 1863, Abraham Lincoln Papers, Library of Congress; U.S. War Department, War of Rebellion, Series III, Vol. 3, 837; Hamilton J. Eckenrode, The Political History of Virginia During the Reconstruction, 15; Richard Lowe, Republicans and Reconstruction in Virginia, 1856-70 (Charlottesville: University Press of Virginia, 199), 17-18; Charles H. Ambler, Francis H. Pierpont: Union War Governor of Virginia and Father of West Virginia , 213. 90

County and with the removal of votes from Berkeley County McKenzie became the winner. When both candidates brought their claims to Congress, the Committee on

Elections suggested to the House that they reject the three Representatives from Virginia

(Chandler, Kitchen, and Segar) because the war’s proximity to these districts prevented free and fair elections. The House of Representatives ultimately rejected the claims by

Kitchen and McKenzie, but only because their claims could not be substantiated due to wartime conditions (which had not played into the decision previously) and not because the House considered the government illegitimate. This decision by the House began the long process by which Congress eventually reverted Virginia to territorial status as they proceeded to block President Lincoln’s reconstruction policy.123

Meanwhile President Lincoln stood firm on Virginia’s status, one that became clear with his December 8 proclamation on Amnesty & Reconstruction. Lincoln’s proclamation outlined his reconstruction policy, stating that once 10 percent of a state’s voters had taken the loyalty oath they could re-establish their state government, but not

Virginia. Virginia’s exclusion reinforced the belief that Virginia had already returned to the Union, despite falling on difficult times after leaving Wheeling. Lincoln acknowledged however, that only Congress could decide whether to admit Congressmen to their respective halls, which was exactly what would happen as the radicals opposed the president’s policy. Lincoln’s reconstruction policy was criticized by the radicals, who believed it absurd that ten percent of voters would be enough to demonstrate loyalty and who were appalled that there was no language within the proclamation that guaranteed the freedmen’s rights. Lincoln’s proclamation on reconstruction reaffirmed Virginia’s

123Charles H. Ambler, Francis H. Pierpont: Union War Governor of Virginia and Father of West Virginia, 215; Richard Lowe, Republicans and Reconstruction in Virginia, 1856-70, 20. 91

status and allowed the Restored Government the ability to continue function until the war’s end.124

While Congress had issues with representatives from Virginia and debates over the South’s postwar reconstruction began, such circumstances did not affect Virginia’s

General Assembly, which met for the first time in Alexandria on December 7. Having accepted the obstacles that would confront the Restored Government, Governor

Pierpont’s address to the small assembly (which consisted of six senators and seven delegates on the first day) defended the government’s rights as it pertained to civil authority. Pierpont argued that as the federal government had recognized West Virginia’s separation from Virginia. That recognition reinforced the Restored Government’s status and place within the Union because the federal government accepted the Restored

Government as the legitimate government of Virginia. In further defending the General

Assembly’s right to meet with so few present, Pierpont cited Article IV, Section 4 of the

Constitution (which guaranteed a Republican form of government) and used Supreme

Court case Luther v. Borden as his evidence. In Luther v. Borden the Supreme Court ruled that the President and Congress could decide if a government was Republican in form; which in the Restored Government’s case, they had. The governor further recognized that while the government was in Wheeling it had enjoyed general support from the locals and the army, but in Alexandria they would receive little from either.

Before closing Pierpont suggested several actions that he believed would improve civil functions in eastern Virginia (one being a Constitutional Convention) and allow the

124Hans L. Trefousse, Benjamin Franklin Wade: Radical Republican from Ohio (New York: Twayne Publishers Inc., 1963), 219-220; Eric Foner, Reconstruction: America’s Unfinished Revolution, 1863-1877 (New York: Harper Perennial, 2014), 36; Abraham Lincoln’s Proclamation of Amnesty & Reconstruction, December 8, 1863. 92

Restored Government to act as the legitimate government and give itself further credibility.125

Following Pierpont’s address the House of Delegates and Senate proceeded to elect officers, electing James M. Downey from Loudoun County as Speaker of the House, while Leopold C. P. Cowper presided over the Senate, as was customary for the lieutenant governor. Overall the General Assembly contained representatives from

Norfolk, Loudoun, and Prince William Counties, as well as from Alexandria and

Northampton. During this session, which adjourned on February 10, 1864, the General

Assembly was preoccupied with matters concerning banks and taxation. They did propose and later ordered (per Pierpont’s recommendation) that a Constitutional

Convention organize and assemble on the February 13. A joint resolution between the

House and Senate asked for a vote to replace the recently deceased U.S. Senator Lemuel

J. Bowden, however it was determined that this vote should be indefinitely postponed.

One of the final acts passed by the General Assembly was one that legalized both the

Norfolk and Portsmouth municipal elections held on May 4, 1863, which re-established the local governments within those cities. The actions taken by the General Assembly during this session were not unimportant as they demonstrated a willingness for change among Virginian’s (at least those under the Restored Government), who would likely accept changes to their constitution.126

125Record book of Proclamations and Messages Issued by Governor Francis H. Pierpont of the Restored Government of Virginia, 1861-1863, Library of Virginia, December 7, 1863; Journal of the House of Delegates of the Commonwealth of Virginia (Alexandria), 1863-64, 3, 6-19; Charles H. Ambler, Francis H. Pierpont: Union War Governor of Virginia and Father of West Virginia, 217; Hamilton J. Eckenrode, The Political History of Virginia During the Reconstruction, 17. 126Journal of the House of Delegates of the Commonwealth of Virginia (Alexandria), 1863-64, 19- 30, 36, 64, 68. 93

One matter that preoccupied Governor Pierpont and the Restored Government at this time was the enlistment of black troops within Virginia (recently extended into

Accomac and Northampton Counties on October 15, 1863), which became the first example of conflict between the civil government and the military. Although the enlistment of black troops was a federal endeavor, Pierpont took an active role in engaging with the military and other colleagues such as Massachusetts Governor John

Andrew or Connecticut Governor William A. Buckingham. Through Pierpont’s cooperation and participation in the enlistment of black troops the governor encountered

General Ben Butler. By this point in the war Butler had earned a reputation as a corrupt officer following his removal as the military governor of New Orleans in late 1862. In

December 1863 Pierpont wrote a letter to Butler wherein he recommended several officers for a regiment that Butler raised; the 1st Colored Cavalry Regiment. In his response to the governor on December 3, Butler thanked him for his recommendations and remarked that Pierpont was the first governor from a slave state that offered commissions for a black regiment, but it was unclear if Butler would consider the names provided by the governor. The same day Butler wrote a letter to Secretary of War Stanton regarding Pierpont’s offer for the commission of officers, but Butler did not praise the governor as he had in his previous letter, instead he complained that governors should not be involved in recruiting troops and that all troops should be United States troops. The governor maintained a working relationship between the Restored Government and the

94

military leadership in Virginia, however the situation quickly deteriorated and made the reestablishment of civil governance quite difficult.127

While Pierpont supported the enlistment of black troops he did not support their use in combat or in occupation, which indicated his hesitancy toward radicalism. As early as June 1862 Pierpont had suggested to Lincoln that contraband (or slaves) should be used for tasks such as digging fortifications and defending said fortifications, which, or so Pierpont believed, would allow white soldiers to be spared for battle. The governor was sympathetic to those who had been recently freed, at least when compared to Senator

John Carlile. In a letter to a friend from November 1863 Carlile insisted that Lincoln’s

Gettysburg Address, which mentioned the equality of man, “would disgrace a people who could be disgraced but we long since touched the bottom.” “Barbarous heathenism alone,” added Carlile, “could exterminate one race for the purpose of liberating another and that other [one] inferior race.” Carlile believed that the North had become

“yankeeized” and that the goal was to seize the Souths “property.” Carlile, clearly embittered by recent events within the state, continued his staunch opposition to emancipation and was not present for the Senate vote on the 13th Amendment in 1865.

Likewise, this disdain toward Emancipation was felt much earlier by the Restored

Government’s leaders who sought to have Virginia excluded from the proclamation. As was the case with Joseph Segar (the Virginia Congressman from the eastern shore), who lobbied the president as early as April 1863 to ensure that his constituents would be exempt from the Emancipation Proclamation’s stipulations. The eastern shore was not

127In this period, the original spelling of Accomack County was Accomac, so that is the spelling used, U.S. War Department, War of Rebellion, Series III, Vol. 3, 887; All Butler correspondence was found on the American Civil War: Letters & Diaries database, Ben Butler to Francis H. Pierpont, December 3, 1863, Ben Butler to Edwin Stanton, December 3, 1863. 95

included as exempt under the preliminary Emancipation Proclamation, however Lincoln reassured Segar that the exclusion was simply an oversight on his part and that Segar’s constituents were in fact exempt. Lincoln could hardly have refused the request made by

Segar, which would have put the president’s plans for reconstruction into a peculiar position, specifically because Virginia was supposed to be the standard for the future restoration of states.128

By 1864 Pierpont had not wavered in his opinion on the black troops, and on

January 24 the governor wrote to Stanton regarding black troops in Accomac and

Northampton Counties, hoping to placate his citizens by having them removed. Pierpont expressed his concern that some six hundred black troops had arrived in those counties to act as an occupying force and replace the two companies of white troops already stationed there. The governor believed that these black troops, so recently freed from bondage, might be questionably disciplined at best. Pierpont suggested that they be relegated to fieldwork or assigned to defend fortifications “where they can be under the eye of the master officer.” Furthermore, added Pierpont, allowing black troops to remain in occupation may create discord among white soldiers who might interpret the policy as allowing the black troops to remain danger free while the government sent white troops to the front (even though that was exactly what Pierpont suggested). Conflict between white and black troops was not the governor’s only worry as he argued that public sympathy in this area supported slavery’s abolition, and the tensions caused by the black troop’s presence might put that support in jeopardy. While the leaders within the

128Francis H. Pierpont to Abraham Lincoln, June 20, 1862, Abraham Lincoln to Joseph E. Segar, April 23, 1863; Abraham Lincoln Papers, Library of Congress; John S. Carlile to “Hall,” November 24, 1863, Personal Papers, Library of Virginia. 96

Restored Government opinions toward emancipation and the use of black troops demonstrated their unwillingness for radical changes, they did not let those notions prevent some level of transformation.129

Not succumbing to internal divisions over emancipation or discrepancies surrounding the state’s status, on January 22, 1864 voters elected delegates for the proposed Constitutional Convention and those seventeen delegates represented thirteen counties and four cities. Although representation appeared to be small in comparison with previous Constitutional Conventions in Virginia, if the area represented by those delegates constituted a state it would have been larger than two other states in terms of territory and three in terms of population. To be eligible for candidacy the General

Assembly had required that candidates swear that they had not been in open rebellion since September 1, 1861 and had been loyal to the Union since January 1, 1863.130

When the convention assembled in the U.S. District Court house at noon on

February 13, 1864 there were several directives suggested by the governor and the

General Assembly. The delegates moved quickly, passing resolutions that redistricted the state, shrank the Virginia Supreme Court’s membership from five to three, approved of disenfranchising articles for Confederates, required a loyalty oath for public service, abolished slavery within the state, and funded a public-school system. Unfortunately the disenfranchising articles were quite lenient and allowed most Confederates to take public office so long as they had not held office under the Confederate government. On April 7

129Francis H. Pierpont to Edwin Stanton, January 27, 1864, Francis H. Pierpont Restored Government Executive Papers, 1861-1865, Library of Virginia. 130 Hamilton J. Eckenrode, The Political History of Virginia During the Reconstruction, 21; Richard Lowe, Republicans and Reconstruction in Virginia, 22; Journal of the Virginia Constitutional Convention, 1864; Sara B. Bearss, “Restored and Vindicated”: 158, 171. 97

the delegates voted 13 to 4 to adopt the new constitution and on the following day the 13 who had approved the constitution signed the document. The final action taken by the convention before adjournment on April 11 (an open attempt to proclaim their loyalty to the current administration) was to pass a resolution that endorsed Abraham Lincoln for president, an action that radicals at the federal level ignored.131

By June of 1863 Norfolk had civil governance officially restored when the

Restored Government recognizing its local elections. Despite this recognition and restoration General Butler was appointed Commander of the Department of Virginia and

North Carolina the following November, and thus began the trouble of having civil government and military occupation over the same area. The territory that Butler commanded included Norfolk, Portsmouth, Williamsburg, and a few towns along the

North Carolina coast. Upon taking command Butler continued the behavior that he was known for in New Orleans, almost immediately ordering Provost Courts to make arrests in civil cases and to hear cases that would not normally have fallen under the military’s jurisdiction. Furthermore Butler ordered Banks to report to him and ordered that residents within his district pay taxes directly to the military and not the Restored Government. Not satisfied with ignoring the civil government Butler wanted to de-legitimize the Restored

Government by removing its elected officials and replacing them with his northern friends. He even shut down a local newspaper and replaced it with his New Regime, which the federal government eventually suppressed. Butler’s military rule was criticized frequently, with them finding anything they could to have him removed, even finding evidence that suggested Butler was privy to smuggling cotton out of Norfolk. Moreover

131Ibid. 98

critics emphasized that the general was not above ordering every fourth dog killed (unless owners could pay the two-dollar fee for a license), and ordered funds from the Howard

Association (which supported children whose parents had died from Yellow Fever in

1855) be seized, or even ordering that all places of worship be placed under the Provost

Marshall’s authority. These were not the only decisions made by Butler during his time as district commander and they all demonstrated a clear disregard for the Restored

Government’s status and control over the region.132

It did not take long for Butler’s controversial crackdown in Norfolk to reach

Pierpont in Alexandria. On January 1, 1864 the governor wrote to the president that he had recently returned from Norfolk and wished to speak with him regarding the disappointing conditions he had observed on his trip. Several days later on the 9th,

Pierpont wrote to James B. Fry (the Provost Marshal General) over reports that in

Accomac and Northampton Counties draft enrollment had occurred without his approval.

Col. Fry denied this and Pierpont was quite surprised, but nonetheless ordered that all draft activities cease until he could authorize them. Not satisfied Pierpont penned a letter to Butler two days later that inaugurated months of dispute between the civil and military authorities in eastern Virginia. Pierpont argued that since June Norfolk and Portsmouth’s civil government had been restored through the elections. Pierpont then claimed that locals who had retained their secessionist spirit had resisted this process and refused to take the loyalty oath. The Restored Government resolved this problem, or so Pierpont believed, but it resurfaced with Butler’s arrival to Fort Monroe in November 1863. After

132Thomas J. Wertenbaker, Norfolk: Historic Southern Port (Durham, North Carolina: Duke University Press, 1931), 243, 246, 249; Hans L. Trefousse, Ben Butler: The South Called Him Beast! (New York: Octagon Books, 1974), 144, 166; Richard Lowe, Republicans and Reconstruction in Virginia, 18-19. 99

addressing his grievances with the general Pierpont clarified the division between civil and military rule for Butler and outlined the duties that his civil government would be responsible (collecting taxes, debts, and fees, among others) and where the military could take responsibility (soldier misconduct, smuggling, sale of liquor to soldiers, etc.).

Pierpont was not willing to step aside while Butler dismantled the Restored Government and the governor’s attempt at clarifying his responsibilities revealed the general’s intent to deny Virginia’s authority.133

On January 15 General Butler responded to Governor Pierpont and denied any knowledge of interference coming from his men, but Butler promised that he would conduct a proper investigation. Just five days later Pierpont was still concerned over

Butler’s intrusion upon the civil government and utilized a familiar strategy, pleading with Stanton to have the military government removed to protect the civil liberties of the citizens in Norfolk and Portsmouth. Throughout the next month a federal inquiry into

Butler’s activities began and in response Butler wrote Lincoln on February 23 and explained that Pierpont was misinformed and that all actions taken were to benefit the cities and his army. By mid-April Pierpont felt that his attempts to resolve the dispute between the Restored Government and the military through diplomatic means had failed, and on April 18 wrote a brief letter wherein he requested Congressional intervention to resolve the disagreement. Regrettably for the governor neither Congress nor the president gave assistance, which stalled plans for further restoration of civil governance.134

133Francis H. Pierpont to Abraham Lincoln, January 1, 1864, Abraham Lincoln Papers, Library of Congress; Francis H. Pierpont to James Burnett Fry, January 9, 1864, Francis H. Pierpont to Ben Butler, January 11, 1864, Private and Official Correspondence of Gen. Benjamin F. Butler. 134Benjamin Butler to Francis H. Pierpont, January 15, 1864, Benjamin Butler to Abraham Lincoln, February 23, 1864, Francis H. Pierpont to Abraham Lincoln & Congress, April 18, 1864, Francis H. Pierpont Restored Government Executive Papers, 1861-1865, Library of Virginia; Francis H. Pierpont to Edwin Stanton, January 20, 1864, Private and Official Correspondence of Gen. Benjamin F. Butler. 100

Outraged by Pierpont’s letter outlining his duties, Butler referred to the governor as the “soi disant Governor,” or self-proclaimed, while the Washington Chronicle called

Pierpont’s “attack upon General Butler…full of suicidal bitterness and venom.” Butler took Pierpont’s dissent personally and in response published a twenty-two-page pamphlet that defended his actions in Norfolk and attacked Pierpont’s legitimacy, going so far as to claim that the “Restored Government of Virginia has no territory over which to attempt jurisdiction,” except areas under Union occupation. Although the Restored Government relied heavily upon the military to maintain the peace, there was no area in the South that did not have a military presence during this period. Butler did not stop at the pamphlet and in mid-June scheduled a referendum in the territories under his military district for

June 28, which would let the people decide whether they wanted a civil or military government. Annoyed by this announcement Pierpont issued a proclamation to the loyal people of Norfolk wherein he suggest they boycott Butler’s referendum, hoping that the disloyal participants would be minimal, voiding the results.135

Eight days before the referendum Thomas R. Bowden (Virginia’s Attorney

General) wrote a letter to Edward Bates (Attorney General of the United States) where he claimed that some thirty merchants and liquor dealers, believed to be army followers, received indictments by the Circuit Court in Norfolk for tax avoidance. The indictments,

Bowden argued, were the reason for Butler’s proposed referendum and the he believed that if Butler took control he would release these men almost immediately without facing any consequences for their crimes. As expected the referendum passed with the few who

135Ben Butler to John M. Dunn, May 4, 1864, Francis H. Pierpont Restored Government Executive Papers, 1861-1865, Library of Virginia; Excerpt from the Washington Chronicle in the Alexandria Gazette, May 13, 1864; Pierpont’s Pamphlet, June 24, 1864, Abraham Lincoln Papers, Library of Congress; Virginia State Journal (Alexandria), June 22, 1864. 101

participated almost unanimously in favor of military rule, with a final reported tally of

330 to 16. Two days later the Virginia State Journal received an anonymous letter from an individual who claimed that all who voted in favor simply did so to avoid the paying taxes to the Restored Government. The author similarly claimed that the military placed guards at the polling locations to ensure that those entering would vote for the military authority. Despite these accusations of interference and the boycott asked by Pierpont,

Butler took the results and immediately ended civil governance in the territory under his military district. In ending civil governance Butler put the Restored Government and the

State of Virginia’s status into question, while simultaneously reducing its territory to a mere fraction of what it was prior.136

At the federal level officials were not ignoring the situation entirely and on July

19 Secretary of the Navy Gideon Welles recorded in his diary that Lincoln held a cabinet meeting to discuss the trouble in Norfolk between Butler and Pierpont. Welles recalled a discussion on the referendum and the large number of voters who protested it.

Furthermore Welles mentioned that Butler once admitted to confiscating and selling whiskey that he had issued permits for, and ultimately concluded that the “more I see of him, the greater is my distrust of his integrity.” Nothing came from this cabinet meeting and officials within the Restored Government continued to take matters into their own hands. E. W. Whipple, a chairman for a public meeting of “loyal” citizens (loyal to the military), informed Butler in late July that Judge Edward K. Snead was holding court in

Norfolk despite orders prohibiting such an action. The judge’s intended action, argued

136Thomas R. Bowden to Edward Bates, June 20, 1864, Calendar of Virginia State Papers, Volume XI, 428; Charles H. Ambler, Francis H. Pierpont: Union War Governor of Virginia and Father of West Virginia, 239; Virginia State Journal (Alexandria), June 30, 1864. 102

Whipple, was to challenge Butler’s authority. Snead was not the only man in Norfolk who ignored Butler’s order against civil government, as James L. Belote (the mayor of

Norfolk) resumed his civil duties as well. Angered by Pierpont’s intention to re-open courts in Norfolk, Butler wrote to the president and again claimed that the Restored

Government was not the legitimate government of Virginia. The evidence provided by the general for this assertion was that Virginia was entitled to 12 electoral votes for the upcoming presidential election. Butler wondered how the Union’s loyal citizens would feel if a candidate lost the election because of those twelve votes? As far as Butler was concerned if that situation were to arise the loyal citizens would reject the results outright. Even though Butler had illegally seized its territory the Restored Government’s officials refused to accept his demands and these actions prevented the general from asserting complete control.137

It was clear that Butler opposed the Restored Government in every way. On

August 3 the general wrote to Edwin Stanton and suggested that Governor Pierpont was attempting to have Accomac and Northampton Counties removed from his military district. Butler feigned support for Lincoln’s policy and suggested that he was not opposed to this idea, but he would prefer that it be voted on, however, this did not occur.

Butler used this idea of another election to suggest that he was not the only man in eastern Virginia who wished for the replacement of the Restored Government and one man, no doubt a Butler follower, reported to the general in November that a “number” of loyal citizens on Virginia’s eastern shore called for the governor’s removal and

137Gideon Welles, Diary of Gideon Welles, Secretary of the Navy Under Lincoln and Johnson, Vol. XI. ed. Edgar Thaddeus (Boston: Houghton, Mifflin & Co., 1911), 81; E. W. Whipple to Benjamin Butler, July 26, 1864, Benjamin Butler to Abraham Lincoln, Francis H. Pierpont Restored Government Executive Papers, 1861-1865, Library of Virginia. 103

replacement with a military governor. This man estimated that such an action would receive support from approximately ninety percent of the twelve thousand voters. While

Butler claimed support from locals under his jurisdiction the controversy and accusations against him became too numerous to ignore and Butler had his command stripped by

Lincoln on January 7, 1865. At this point the decision to remove Butler was an easy one, as Lincoln had already been re-elected and there were no other reasons to retain the general any longer. After the war General George H. Gordon recalled the relationship between Butler and Pierpont, where he referred to the latter as a “lion” who despised the former. Despite the ill feeling Gordon suggested that Butler attempted to mend the relationship between himself and Pierpont, even though Butler had offered a reward for

Pierpont’s capture and had attacked the governor countless times. The delay in removing

General Butler from command prevented Pierpont from expanding civil governance, and this would come back to haunt the state as Congress considered Virginia’s status in the coming weeks.138

While General Butler had questioned Virginia’s potential participation in the 1864 presidential election this did not prevent the Restored Government from taking the necessary steps to prepare for the election. On June 3 political leaders held a meeting at the Alexandria County Court House to elect delegates to the National Union Party

National Convention scheduled for the 7th in Baltimore. The meeting subsequently selected a total of 5 delegates, with William D. Massey and L. H. Chandler selected as representing the two senatorial districts and Dr. Arthur Watson, Chas. W. Buttz, and

138Benjamin Butler to Edwin Stanton, August 3, 1864, Francis H. Pierpont Restored Government Executive Papers, 1861-1865, Library of Virginia; Hans L. Trefousse, Ben Butler: The South Called Him Beast!, 169, 174; George H. Gordon, A War Diary of Events in the War of the Great Rebellion, 1863-1865 (Boston, James R. Osgood & Company, 1882), 401. 104

William F. Mercer representing the three reorganized house districts. Unfortunately the members decided to reject Virginia’s delegates after several radical Republicans claimed they were not a state and instead took the Congressional position that Virginia was a territory. After the convention had selected Abraham Lincoln and Andrew Johnson as their candidates, James H. Lane from Kansas requested that the convention allow those delegations not given voting rights (Virginia included) to cast votes as a symbolic gesture. The convention’s president did not entertain the measure. Rejection at the national convention was a blow to the Restored Government and loyal Virginians, however it did not definitely mean that the state would not participate in the election.139

Although the National Convention rejected the Virginia delegation, the Virginia

State Journal expressed the hope that Virginians had not lost the right to participate in the election itself, citing a recent movement in the House of Representatives that maintained that no states had left the Union. Most loyal Virginians felt this hopefulness, with the

Unconditional Union States Central Committee meeting in the Secretary of the

Commonwealth’s office on June 20. This meeting contained four men from Norfolk,

Alexandria, Fairfax County, and Loudoun County, and intended to select the date for the selection of Presidential Electors. The committee deciding upon September 7.

Furthermore, Lincoln Council No. 6 organized a ratification meeting in Portsmouth where they ratified the National Conventions results and endorsed the Lincoln and

Johnson nomination. At the same time the council offered to support the candidates if

Congress decided that Virginians be allowed to participate in the election. Support for

139Virginia State Journal (Alexandria), June 4, 1864; Proceedings of the National Union Convention held in Baltimore, Md., June 7th and 8th, 1864, 18-21, 77-79; Richard Lowe, Republicans and Reconstruction in Virginia, 20. 105

Lincoln spread throughout Union occupied Virginia, with the Virginia State Journal

(which openly supported Lincoln and Johnson) reporting that supporters in northeastern

Virginia had raised the first Lincoln campaign flag at Ferry Point on July 9. The symbolic gesture by Lincoln’s supporters in Virginia verified the state’s commitment to the current administration, and with it the established reconstruction policy that allowed it to exist.140

Despite the efforts taken by the Restored Government Congress eventually decided that they would not count the electoral votes from the seceded states in the presidential election. The reason Congress took this direction was because they had recently passed the Wade-Davis bill. The bill, a collaboration between Benjamin Wade and Henry W. Davis, argued that only after slavery’s abolition and the guaranteed rights of freedmen could reconstruction in the South commence. Furthermore Radical

Republicans in Congress had recently arrived at the belief that although the Confederate states had not left the Union their condition within it had changed, meaning that they had been reverted to territorial status. Thus the bill required that a majority of voters (or 50 percent) take the loyalty oath and that elections for Constitutional Conventions begin so that slavery’s abolition could guarantee the protection for freedmen’s rights. Due to the political tension and the upcoming election it was clear that the radicals created the bill as an anti-administration policy, and after the bill passed both the Senate and the House it was pocket vetoed by Lincoln. Lincoln believed that since several states had already begun reconstruction under his process it would only complicate things and discourage the Unionists within those regions. Moreover the president did not entirely believe that

140Virginia State Journal (Alexandria), June 14, 1864, June 20, 1864, June 24, 1864, July 9, 1864. 106

Congress even had the ability to require slavery’s abolition in the South, therefore he made the decision to take no action.141

While Congress had informed them that their votes were not be counted

Louisiana and Tennessee’s leaders (already reconstructed under Lincoln’s Ten Percent

Plan) decided that they would participate in the election. There was some pushback against the reconstructed states participating. One New York meeting strongly opposed

Lincoln’s re-election to a second term and declared that if he won with those three states many would resist and reject the results. Meanwhile Virginians, although disappointed by

Congress’ decision, expressed their continued support for Lincoln and Johnson and even held a meeting in Alexandria’s Liberty Hall on October 11. As the election came and went Lincoln and Johnson overwhelmingly beat the old war hero General George

McClellan, with the only votes reported as cast in Virginia being from soldiers. There was no doubt however that the loyal Virginians and the Restored Government celebrated the Victory and looked forward to continuing the important relationship with the Lincoln administration as they hoped it would uphold their status.142

After the election the Restored Government continued functioning as normal, and on December 4 over a dozen men arrived in Alexandria for the General Assemblies 1864-

1865 session. On December 6 Pierpont’s address, read to the few in attendance, highlighted the issues that plagued the Commonwealth. The state of the Commonwealth, or so Pierpont believed, was “deplorable,” with “predatory bands of guerillas and

141Alexandria Gazette, July 21, 1864; Hans L. Trefousse, Benjamin Franklin Wade: Radical Republican from Ohio, 219-20, 223; Herman Belz, Reconstructing the Union: Theory and Policy during the Civil War, 205, 232; Eric Foner, Reconstruction: America’s Unfinished Revolution, 1863-1877, 60. 142It is unclear whether Virginians accepted Congress’ decision on their participation in the election as even the Restored Government believed thems elves a part of the Union, but that may have recognized that their status as a state was changing; Alexandria Gazette, October 12, 1864, October 28, 1864; Daily National Republican (Washington, D.C.), November 9, 1864. 107

robbers” roaming throughout the “rear of the Union Army in many sections.” To resolve this issue the governor suggested that it was “prudent to attempt a re-organization in the

Northern counties of the State.” Pierpont believed that reorganization in eastern Virginia would have been nearly finished “but for the hostility of the Military Commander of that district to Civil Government.” Pierpont then proceeded to lambast General Butler, arguing that rebel sympathizers, army followers, and British subjects had overthrown the civil government and replaced it with a “military despotism.” Pierpont even went so far as to claim that the general was using his army for personal gain, which by some later indications may have been the case. Opportunely for Pierpont and the Restored

Government, they would no longer have to deal with the general in a few weeks.143

After Pierpont finished criticizing Butler he congratulated the General

Assembly’s members and proclaimed that Virginia was the first southern state to

“proclaim emancipation within her borders and thereby extirpate human slavery.”

Despite the accomplishment Pierpont warned and suggested that the General Assembly should repeal the apprenticeship laws, any laws that prohibited the “education of negroes,” and pass a law that would allow “negro testimony” in courts. Afterword

Pierpont concluded his address with a very clear message for the future:

My late observations, more than ever, confirm me in the propriety and the wisdom of the establishment of the restored government of Virginia, as a means of affording the people the benefits of civil government in the sections re-claimed from the rebels, and also affording the practical refutation of a heresy that is gaining ground in certain quarters that all the people, both loyal and disloyal…should be regarded as occupying the same position and receive the same treatment from the Federal Government. Should this heresy receive a practical endorsement by the Government of the United States it would be an abandonment of all our ideas of the duty of the Government to protect the loyal citizen… The loyal citizen is always entitled to protection of his property, his

143Journal of the House of Delegates of the Commonwealth of Virginia (Alexandria), 1864-65, 5- 6. 108

liberty, his person and his life. To deny him these is to abandon the great objects of the Government. As far as Pierpont was concerned the Restored Government and the Unionists under its care should receive the same governmental protections guaranteed by the federal government in the northern states, however the radical Republicans at the federal level no longer held this position.144

After the governors’ address the General Assembly immediately went to work and on December 8 a joint vote selected Joseph Segar as the replacement for the deceased

Lemuel Bowden as Senator for the 38th Congress’ remaining session and John C.

Underwood to replace Carlile for the 39th Congress. Despite being elected in December

Segar did not arrive in Washington, D.C. until late February 1865, allowing some seventy days to pass. When Senator Waitman Willey from West Virginia presented Segar’s credentials on the 18th some senators took issue with the exceptionally long delay in presenting the credentials and they suggested tabling the decision as the Congressional

Session had nearly concluded. The following month the Senate denied Underwood his seat (until 1870 no other Virginians were accepted by Congress). This rejection represented the final action in affirming Virginia’s relegation as a territory.145

Meanwhile Virginia’s General Assembly accomplished another important feat.

After the House received word from the Senate on February 9 that they had ratified the

13th Amendment the House promptly voted on the very same and passed the bill with 9 votes for ratification and only 2 against. One of the final resolutions passed by the

General Assembly came on February 28, which authorized Governor Pierpont to remove

144Ibid., 8, 15. 145Congressional Globe, 38th Congress, 2nd Session, Saturday, February 18, 1865, 849. 109

the Seat of Government whenever he saw fit, so long as it was to Richmond. This session of the General Assembly continued the cooperation and connection with the federal government, but as Congress relegated the state to territorial status these decisions had little effect.146

In the weeks leading up to the war’s end there was relatively little activity that occupied the Restored Government and the focus shifted towards Richmond. On April 1 the Richmond Daily Dispatch reported that the lines near Richmond and Petersburg were relatively quiet and suggested that it was likely to stay that way. The following day the evacuation of Richmond began and Confederate soldiers who wished to prevent Union troops from seizing supplies ordered them burned. On April 4 Lincoln arrived in the city for a tour, and while in Richmond the president issued an order that would allow

Virginia’s rebel legislature to assemble so that they could order General Lee and the

Virginians to lay down their arms, but fortuitously for Lincoln General Lee surrendered a few days later on April 9. Afterword discussions over Virginia’s reconstruction and the

Restored Government’s role began, with Salmon P. Chase suggesting to the president that maintaining the Restored Government and Pierpont would be ideal, as it would “be far easier and wiser, in my judgment, to stand by the loyal organization already recognized.”

After Lincoln’s assassination on the 13th there was still no clear answer for what would happen to Virginia’s government. On May 9 President Andrew Johnson ordered

146Journal of the House of Delegates of the Commonwealth of Virginia (Alexandria), 1864-65, 20- 21, 56, 66. 110

Pierpont’s continuation as Governor of Virginia and that he should receive federal aid so that he could extend the state’s administration throughout Virginia.147

After surviving to the war’s end the Restored Government of Virginia faced countless obstacles while extending civil governance, which in the end prevented the state from fully returning to the Union. Congress’ decision to reject Virginia’s elected representatives and senators reflected the influence that the war had on such decisions, with the shift occurring after it became clear the North had won the war. Although

Congress had recognized the Restored Government, to secure western Virginia the radicals believed they were not obligated to continue seating representatives from

Virginia. Furthermore Congress did not have the same views as the president as it pertained to the reconstructing the former Confederate states. In spite of this the Restored

Government maintained some representation in the Senate for the entire war, which affirmed that Virginia was (at least partially) a state within the Union, even if it was restricted in some ways. Butler reaffirmed this idea when, after his removal, the Restored

Government quickly spread to those areas from which Butler had prior control. As the war came to a close there was the expectation that under postwar reconstruction the federal government would allow Virginia to return to the Union in a sufficient manner.

But it quickly became clear to the Restored Government’s leaders that Virginia was no longer a state, which ended any immediate plans for full restoration.

147Daily Dispatch (Richmond), April 1, 1865; Hamilton J. Eckenrode, The Political History of Virginia During the Reconstruction, 27; Salmon P. Chase to Abraham Lincoln, April 11, 1865, Abraham Lincoln Papers, Library of Congress. 111

RICHMOND & RECONSTRUCTION

On Sunday April 2, 1865 Confederate officials in Richmond decided that the situation had become untenable, ordering forts destroyed and ships sunk while men and women pushed to make the last train south. The following day Washington D.C. awoke as it had any other day during the war, but this day would end much differently. As the sun rose Washingtonians began to flood the streets in jubilee. All throughout the city the stars and stripes flapped in the wind, bells rung, cannon fire echoed, and excited crowds gathered in anticipation of the numerous speeches to be given. Andrew Johnson was among those who spoke that exciting day, touching on what he believed to be the proper way to reconstruct the South. The soon to be president took the podium and proclaimed

“‘I am in favor of leniency, but, in my opinion, evil [doers] should be punished…Treason is the highest crime known in the catalogue of crimes…and I would say, death is to easy a punishment.’” Loud cheers followed Johnson’s improvised speech and they continued for days as the excitement seemed endless.148

While Washingtonians, among others, celebrated in the North Unionists in

Richmond took to the streets to greet federal troops as they marched into their city.

Despite the initial enthusiasm Virginians were less than excited at the prospect of

Reconstruction and anxiously anticipated their return to the Union. Virginians were in a peculiar position as the Restored Government of Virginia had operated as the loyal

148Alexandria Gazette, April 3, 1865 and April 4, 1865. 112

government for the past four years, but through Congressional opposition it was reduced to territorial status with the rest of the former Confederacy. It was ultimately up to

Johnson whether it would continue operation during Reconstruction and it did not take long for Johnson to acknowledge the Restored Government as he appointed Francis

Pierpont Governor of Virginia on May 9. This legitimized the government and set reconstruction in motion. Pierpont would act as the conduit between the state and federal government until Congressional Reconstruction’s implementation in 1867, whereupon the military removed and replaced him with a more suitable candidate. Despite this head start it took, Virginia nearly five years to return as a fully represented state in the Union, and during that time the state struggled like the entire South.149

When Pierpont moved the Restored Government to Richmond his immediate goal was to have the state fully returned to the Union (for a second time) in a speedy manner, believing that his government was to be treated different from the other southern states.

Because Pierpont’s believed his state was different he took a conciliatory stance towards former Confederates participating in government, which was met with the broad approval of many Virginians. Pierpont even went so far as to call the Confederate State legislature into extra session to assist his government in suppressing violence within the state. Not only did the governor rely on the Confederate legislature, but he made friends with former Governor John Letcher who offered recommendations for appointments. Pierpont eventually appointed Letcher to the Virginia Military Institute’s Board of Visitors in

149Daily National Republican (Washington, D.C.), April 4, 1865; Richard O. Curry, A House Divided: A Study of Statehood Politics and the Copperhead Movement in West Virginia , 132. 113

1866, and he became president a short time later. Although Pierpont had taken a lenient position toward Confederates, the General Assembly pushed it even further and passed an act on June 22 that restored voting rights to those who took the loyalty oath prescribed by the president, as well as the one required by the Restored Government. This decision by the General Assembly did not receive Governor Pierpont’s support, who was hesitant to restore such rights. This was not the only time that Pierpont would remove himself from his earlier lenient stance either, as when the board of directors nominated former General

Joseph E. Johnston as president for the Richmond and Danville Railroad. The governor spoke out against the nomination and argued that it was not sensible, which resulted in

Johnston losing the election.150

As the Restored Government adopted a conciliatory policy, loyal men who had previously supported the government began to oppose the actions taken, with the Union

Association of Alexandria even requesting that Congress designate the Pierpont

Government as provisional. Around the same time, a group of men in Frederick County met and passed several resolutions that expressed their disapproval in Pierpont and his opposition to removing the voting restrictions. Pierpont believed that only those he pardoned should receive their voting rights, which was not a slow process by any means, as by August 1865 Pierpont had already pardoned over one thousand men. Despite the discontent a town council in Fredericksburg met in late September and passed a

150Leonard Cecil Hubbard, “Francis H. Pierpont and the Restored Government of Virginia,” 64, 74; Alexandria Gazette, June 16, 1865, June 19, 1865; F. N. Boney, “John Letcher and Reconstruction in Virginia,” Mississippi Quarterly 19, No. 2 (1966): 57; Act Passed by the General Assembly for the Restoration of Voting Rights, June 22, 1865, Francis H. Pierpont Restored Government Executive Papers, 1865-1868, Library of Virginia. 114

resolution that supported Pierpont and the local military commanders and around the same time Johnson pledged his support for Pierpont and added that he would do anything needed should it be requested. Although Pierpont and Johnson worked well with one another, the governor did not agree with all reconstruction policies, and after Mississippi sent a request to the president asking for the withdrawal of all black troops that had remained in the state Pierpont wished the same. This occupation by black troops led to the fear across the Southern states that violence would break out, which in some cases did occur, and Pierpont even sent a letter to the Commander of the Department of Virginia on

December 11, 1865 and requested that the military arm companies of white volunteers to suppress any violent outbursts.151

Removing black troops was one of many suggestions made by Pierpont, with the governor proposing to the Secretary of the Treasury that the state could pay the taxes owed by Virginians, at least initially. The reason for this, or so Pierpont argued, was that money was quite scarce within Virginia and inflation had made the money which was available virtually worthless. Pierpont believed that the state could pay the taxes in installments as opposed to one lump sum. This arrangement received some support from

Virginia’s population, with the Alexandria Gazette arguing that it was favorable to many, but some thought that the state would simply not benefit from the decision. The finances within the state occupied much of Pierpont’s time, and prior to dealing with taxation’s issues the governor had ordered commissioners (Charles Palmer and Horace L. Kent

151Alexandria Gazette, July 5, 1865, July 8, 1865, July 22, 1865, September 14, 1865; New York Times, August 24, 1865, September 20, 1865; Letter from Francis H. Pierpont to the Commander of the Department of Virginia, December 11, 1865, Francis H. Pierpont Restored Government Executive Papers, 1865-1868, Library of Virginia. 115

from Richmond, and Lewis McKenzie from Alexandria) to report on the current conditions of the banks within the state, with the goal being to reduce the bills in circulation to prevent the inflation that eventually came in the fall.152

Before the end of 1865 the newly elected General Assembly met at the Capitol building in Richmond. On December 4 Pierpont’s message on the state of affairs in

Virginia proudly proclaimed that it was by the “dispensation of Divine Providence, the people of our state once more enjoy peace with some of its blessings,” however “the public mind is still in an unsettled condition.” Pierpont estimated that the state had nearly

$22 million invested in Railroads and it was extremely important that the state had those railroads returned by the federal government. Furthermore, the governor urged the members to reform tax collection, fund public education, creation a polytechnic school, and secure more rights for freedmen (i.e. marriages, ministerial rights, right to testify).

Pierpont then requested that the legislature provide funds to repair the State’s Capitol, which had suffered during Richmond’s fall. He believed that these repairs would have a

“most salutary effect upon the people.” On Berkeley and Jefferson Counties status and their annexation by West Virginia, Pierpont maintained that he was relatively unable to influence the decision and felt that it was better for Congress to decide. Back in October the Alexandria Gazette had reported that a public meeting held in Jefferson County had passed several resolutions that expressed quite clearly that they were not under the State of West Virginia, but were in fact still under Virginia. In closing his address Pierpont

152Letter from Francis H. Pierpont to the Secretary of the Treasury, December 20, 1865, Francis H. Pierpont Restored Government Executive Papers, 1865-1868, Library of Virginia; Alexandria Gazette, December 27, 1865; Alexandria Gazette, June 10, 1865. 116

advised that the actions taken by the General Assembly “at the present will have much to do with the future of Virginia.”153

When the General Assembly finally got to business, Pierpont’s lenient policy towards the former Confederates began to show as they ignored nearly every directive given by the governor. The day after Pierpont’s message, the Senate repealed the act passed on May 13, 1862 that gave consent for West Virginia’s creation, the act passed on

January 31, 1863 that authorized Berkeley County’s transfer, and the act passed on

February 4, 1863 that authorized other counties to be transferred with consent. Several weeks later the Senate passed a resolution that asked Pierpont to produce all documents or information relating to West Virginia’s formation. In demonstrating further

Confederate influence the Senate passed a resolution to form a committee that would consider Jefferson Davis’s release as well as other political prisoners. The one odd action taken by the legislature during this session that contradicted their position on the

Restored Government was to confirm the Alexandria legislature’s ratification of the 13th

Amendment. Similarly on December 20 the legislature passed a resolution that expressed the hope for a speedy reunion between the North and the South, but it carried little weight because due to the other actions taken. Several other acts passed by the legislature included Vagrancy Laws, support for President Johnson and Presidential Reconstruction, a bill that asserted authority over Berkeley and Jefferson Counties, and the election of

153Journal of the Senate of the Commonwealth of Virginia, 1865-66, 11-12, 18, 20, 22, 27, 30-31, 36; Alexandria Gazette, October 2, 1865. 117

commissioners who were to be sent to West Virginia to discuss their share of the state debt.154

Throughout the next year, barring the Congressional recognition of the Berkeley and Jefferson Counties’ transfer from Virginia to West Virginia, little change occurred with Virginia’s status in the Union. When the General Assembly met again in December

1866 Pierpont remained hopeful, however the legislature passed acts that opposed the governor, such as one that was meant to prevent West Virginia from collecting taxes in

Berkeley and Jefferson Counties. Not long after the General Assembly adjourned

Congress passed the Congressional Reconstruction Acts, and in response Pierpont called the legislature into extra session on March 4. In his message to the assembly he discussed the reasons for passing the acts, and he believed it was a direct result of the southern press’ “bold, defiant, bitter and vindictive tone,” as well as the southern state’s failure, with the exception of Tennessee, to ratify the 14th Amendment. Pierpont recounted his opening address to the legislature the previous December whereupon he urged them to approve the amendment for the “sake of securing peace,” which they had decidedly refused to do. Believing this to be a grave error Pierpont pleaded his case and asked that the legislature “carry out the requirements of the law, and adapt ourselves to the new state of affairs at once.” The General Assembly ignored the governor’s request and Virginia refused to ratify the amendment until October 1869, with the Richmond Times even

154Journal of the Senate of the Commonwealth of Virginia, 1865-66, 38, 40, 63, 83, 95-96, 116, 167, 260, 314-319. 118

reporting that Pierpont’s understanding of the law was quite misconstrued to say the least.155

In March of 1867 the New York Times reported that the Virginia Legislature was attempting to hold a Constitutional Convention on their own volition and that this would hopefully inaugurate a movement across the other southern states that still remained outside the Union. This attempt failed because General Ulysses S. Grant appointed

General John M. Schofield as the commander in charge of Military District No. 1 shortly after. Schofield, who had been with General William T. Sherman when General Joe

Johnston surrendered in North Carolina, had been appointed commander of the

Department of the Potomac (which included Virginia) in August the previous year.

Virginians generally liked Schofield who had worked with Governor Pierpont judiciously to organize militias to quell the fear of violence.156

When Congress passed the Reconstruction Act on March 2 it nullified all existing governments in the former Confederacy except for Tennessee, however in demonstrating his moderate position, Schofield allowed the existing government to remain in place. In working with the Government of Virginia Schofield, who personally opposed the amendment, had previously urged the state to ratify the 14th Amendment to expedite their reconstruction and return to the Union. Instead, the general called for an election on

October 22 to decide upon a Constitutional Convention scheduled for December 3, 1867.

155Journal of the House of Delegates of the Commonwealth of Virginia, 1866-67, 48, 55; Journal of the House of Delegates of the Commonwealth of Virginia, 1866-67, Extra Session, 3, 6; Excerpt from the Richmond Times in the Alexandria Gazette, March 8, 1867. 156New York Times, March 11, 1867; James L. McDonough, “John Schofield as Military Director of Reconstruction in Virginia,” Civil War History 15, No. 3 (1969): 237-238, 240-241, 246. 119

Schofield, who later denied the gerrymandering allegations, personally created the apportioned districts that all but assured a Radical dominated convention.157

When the election results for the convention came in a total of 105 delegates were elected, with Republicans securing 72 and Conservatives taking the remaining 33. The convention assembled in early December 1867 and the members elected Judge John C.

Underwood, the famous abolitionist who had attempted to subvert slavery in Virginia a decade prior, the convention’s president. In his opening address Underwood hoped that the convention could frame a more democratic Constitution and he urged the convention to provide free public education, charity, and end unfair taxation. For the entire convention the Radical Republicans dominated the floor and the votes, and by the time the convention adjourned several weeks later they had established an outline for disenfranchisement, funded public schools, and created a property tax. Despite the

Republican dominance, the Conservatives at the convention held firm to their beliefs and because they had faced such animosity they unified, and in the coming months seized control away from the Radicals.158

Before the Constitutional Convention came to a close, rumors surfaced that

Schofield would be removing Governor Pierpont from office and replacing him with a military governor since his term had officially expired. Schofield assured Pierpont that he

157Ibid. 158Richard G. Lowe, “Virginia’s Reconstruction Convention. General Schofield Rates the Delegates,” Virginia Magazine of History and Biography 80, no. 3 (1972): 342, 345; Journal of the Virginia Constitutional Convention, 1867-68, 7-8; James L. McDonough, “John Schofield as Military Director of Reconstruction in Virginia,” 249-50; Richard Hume, “The Membership of the Virginia Constitutional Convention of 1867-1868: A Study of the Beginnings of Congressional Reconstruction in the Upper South,” Virginia Magazine of History and Biography 86, No. 4 (1978): 473. 120

would retain his position for an indefinite time until he could be replaced through an election. By April it was rumored that Pierpont would be removed anyhow and replaced by General Henry H. Wells. On April 4 Schofield officially removed Pierpont from office. Initially the general had hoped that Grant would appoint him military governor, but this did not matriculate. Schofield’s first choice for governor was Judge Alexander

Rives, but the general settled for Wells. Pierpont attempted to resist the removal and even received support from the Richmond Enquirer (never really supported the governor), which urged him to contest the removal several months later. The former governor came to terms with the decision and later returned to his home in West Virginia. Pierpont, in a final message to Virginians, mentioned that he desired them to accept and approve the new Constitution because if they waited “for a perfect Constitution” they would “never get one.”159

Not long after Pierpont left so did Schofield as President Grant nominated as his

Secretary of War. After Schofield Colonel George Stoneman briefly commanded the 1st

Military District and then General Edward R. Canby took command until reconstruction ended. The revolving door continued, and the press often referred to Governor Wells as the “imported Governor of Virginia.” Because Virginians disliked Wells, after voters elected Gilbert C. Walker as governor Wells decided that he would resign his position and allow Walker to become provisional governor until his term began in January 1870.

159Alexandria Gazette, January 4, 1868, April 1, 1868; James L. McDonough, “John Schofield as Military Director of Reconstruction in Virginia,” 253; Several days after Pierpont was removed from office, the Enquirer seemingly mocked him by insinuating he would pack his carpet bag and return to the state which he had taken from Virginia, West Virginia. Despite this, the Enquirer found that Pierpont “had many virtues” and was a “far better man than some others of his party,” Excerpt from the Richmond Enquirer in the Alexandria Gazette, April 8, 1868, July 30, 1868; New York Times, May 4, 1868. 121

Walker would have the honor of overseeing Virginia’s readmission to the Union just weeks after he began his first official term. The readmission process was not quite as smooth as was hoped, as Congress made several attempts to delay the readmission despite the state having fulfilled the requirements. Despite the attempt Congress readmitted Virginia on January 26, 1870 and just a few weeks later Walker convened the legislature, wherein General Canby turned over all civil affairs to the State of Virginia.160

Historically the Restored Government of Virginia has been remembered as a failed political movement that sought to restore their state to its proper place within the

Union, however this was not truly the case. The Unionists in western Virginia successfully restored themselves and as the constitution guaranteed a Republican form of government, the federal government accepted and recognized theirs as fulfilling that requirement. Initially the Restored Government expanded civil governance across the western region with the military’s assistance, and in protecting the integrity of the Union formed West Virginia and sacrificed a loyal population and territory for the greater good.

After making this decision, the Restored Government limped to Alexandria and attempted to rebuild the required infrastructure, but the many obstacles slowed progress.

Despite the difficulties the executive still recognized the Restored Government’s place within the Union as a state, however Congress (seized by the Radical Republicans) no longer accepted the government’s legitimacy and after resisting the president’s reconstruction policy reduced Virginia to territorial status. When the war came to an end

160James L. McDonough, “John Schofield as Military Director of Reconstruction in Virginia,” 255; Bristol News (Bristol, Virginia & Tennessee), October 30, 1868; Daily Dispatch (Richmond), September 22, 1869, February 9, 1870; Daily National Republican (Washington, D.C.), January 27, 1870. 122

Virginia formally entered a new phase of reconstruction, one that would last longer than several other southern states, and one that ignored the state’s role in securing the nation’s future. Because the government operated in a constitutional grey area, the Restored

Government of Virginia has been long ignored and forgotten by historians and became relegated to near obscurity. Virginia’s modern establishment has not recognized the government because it would force them to acknowledge an embarrassing past and put to rest their admiration towards those who violated the Constitution.

123

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Manuscripts:

American Civil War Letters and Diaries Database Private and Official Correspondence of Benjamin F. Butler

Library of Congress Abraham Lincoln Papers

Library of Virginia Francis H. Pierpont Restored Government Executive Papers, 1861-1865 Francis H. Pierpont Restored Government Executive Papers, 1865-1868 Record Book of Proclamations and Messages Issued by Governor Francis H. Pierpont of the Restored Government of Virginia, 1861-1863

Government Documents:

Calendar of Virginia State Papers, Volume XI

Congressional Globe

Journal of the Convention Assembled at Wheeling, 11 June 1861

Journal of the House of Delegates of the Commonwealth of Virginia (Alexandria), 1863- 64

Journal of the House of Delegates of the Commonwealth of Virginia (Alexandria), 1864- 65

Journal of the House of Delegates of the Commonwealth of Virginia, 1866-67

Journal of the House of Delegates of the Commonwealth of Virginia, 1866-67, Extra Session

Journal of the Senate of the Commonwealth of Virginia, 1865-66

Journal of the Virginia Constitutional Convention, 1864

Official Journal of the Conference Convention, Held at Washington City, February 1861 (Peace Convention)

124

Proceedings of the First Convention of the People of Northwestern Virginia at Wheeling, May 1861

Proceedings of the National Union Convention held in Baltimore, Md., June 7th and 8th, 1864

Proceedings of the Reorganized Government of Virginia General Assembly, Extra Session, June 1-26, 1861

Proceedings of the Second Session of the Second Wheeling Convention

Proceedings of the Virginia Secession Convention, 1861

Newspapers and Periodicals:

Alexandria Gazette

Bristol News (Bristol, Va. & Tenn.)

Compiler (Wheeling, Va.)

Daily Dispatch (Richmond, Va.)

Daily Intelligencer (Wheeling, Va.)

Daily National Republican (D.C)

Evening Star (D.C)

Guerilla (Charleston, Va.)

Morgantown Monitor

New York Times

Richmond Enquirer

Staunton Spectator

Virginia State Journal

Weekly Register (Point Pleasant, Va.)

Wheeling Gazette

Primary Sources:

125

Davis, Jefferson. The Rise and Fall of the Confederate Government Vol.’s I and II. New York: Da Capo Press, 1990 (1881).

Gordon, George H. A War Diary of Events in the War of the Great Rebellion, 1863-1865. Boston: James R. Osgood & Company, 1882.

Hotchkiss, Maj. Jed. “Virginia.” In Confederate Military History: Virginia, A Library of Confederate States History, in Thirteen Volumes, Written by Distinguished Men of the South, ed. Gen. Clement A. Evans, 3-557. Atlanta: Confederate Publishing Company, 1899.

Rawling, C. J. History of the First Regiment Virginia Infantry. Being a Narrative of the Military Movements in the Mountains of Virginia, in the Shenandoah Valley and East of the Blue Ridge During the War of the Rebellion, of the First Regiment Virginia Infantry Volunteers-Three Months’ and Three Years’ Service. Philadelphia: J. B. Lippincott Company, 1887.

Sears, Stephen W. ed. The Civil War Papers of George B. McClellan: Selected correspondence, 1860-1865. New York: Da Capo Press, 1992.

The Battle of Fort Sumter and First Victory of the Southern Troops. Charleston, South Carolina: Evans & Cogswell, 1861.

United States. War Department. Department of the Army Department of the Interior Navy Department War Office. The War of Rebellion: A Compilation of the Official Records of the Union and Confederate Armies. Washington: [series III, vol. I-V], 1894.

Welles, Gideon. Diary of Gideon Welles, Secretary of the Navy Under Lincoln and Johnson, Volume XI. Ed. Edgar Thaddeus. Boston: Houghton, Mifflin & Co., 1911.

White, Col. Robert. “West Virginia.” In Confederate Military History: Maryland and West Virginia, A Library of Confederate States History, in Thirteen Volumes, Written by Distinguished Men of the South, ed. Gen. Clement A. Evans, 3-115. Atlanta, Confederate Publishing Company, 1899.

Williamson, James J. Memoir in Mosby’s Rangers: a Record of the Operations of the Forty-Third Battalion Virginia Cavalry. New York: Ralph B. Kenyon, 1896.

Secondary Sources:

Ambler, Charles H. Sectionalism in Virginia from 1776-1861. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 1910.

126

———. Francis H. Pierpont: Union War Governor of Virginia and Father of West Virginia. Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 1937.

Ambler, Charles H. and Festus P. Summers. West Virginia: The Mountain State. Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey: Prentice-Hall, Inc., 1958.

Bearss, Sara B. “Restored and Vindicated: The Virginia Constitutional Convention of 1864.” The Virginia Magazine of History and Biography Vol. 122, No. 2 (2014): 156-181.

Belz, Herman. Reconstructing the Union: Theory and Policy during the Civil War. Ithaca, New York: Cornell University Press, 1969.

Boney, F. N. “John Letcher and Reconstruction in Virginia.” Mississippi Quarterly Vol. 19, No. 2 (1966): 53-65.

Bryan, Jr., Charles F. “A Gathering of Tories: The East Tennessee Convention of 1861.” Tennessee Historical Quarterly, Vol. 39, No. 1 (1980): 27-48.

Burlingame, Michael. Abraham Lincoln: A Life, Volume Two. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 2008.

Cooper, William J. Jr. Liberty and Slavery: Southern Politics to 1860. New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 1983.

Crofts, Daniel W. Reluctant Confederates: Upper South Unionists in the Secession Crisis. Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 1989.

Curry, Richard O. A House Divided: A Study of Statehood Politics and the Copperhead Movement in West Virginia. Pittsburg: University of Pittsburg Press, 1964.

Du Bois, W. E. B. Black Reconstruction: An Essay Toward a History of the Part Which Black Folk Played in the Attempt to Reconstruct Democracy in America, 1860- 1880. New York: S. A. Russell Company, 1935.

Eaton, Clement. A History of the Southern Confederacy. New York: Macmillan Company, 1954.

Eckenrode, Hamilton J. The Political History of Virginia During the Reconstruction. Baltimore, Johns Hopkins Press, 1904.

Elazar, Daniel J. “Civil War and the Preservation of American Federalism.” Publius Vol. 1, No. 1 (1971): 39-58.

Ellis, Richard E. The Union at Risk: Jacksonian Democracy, States’ Rights and the Nullification Crisis. New York: Oxford University Press, 1987.

127

Foner, Eric. Reconstruction: America’s Unfinished Revolution, 1863-1877. New York: Harper Perennial, 2014 (1988).

Fones-Wolf, Ken. “’Traitors in Wheeling’: Secessionism in an Appalachian Unionist City.” Journal of Appalachian Studies Vol. 13, No. ½ (2007): 75-95.

Freehling, William W. Prelude to Civil War: The Nullification Controversy in South Carolina, 1816-1836. New York: Harper & Row, 1966.

———. The Road to Disunion, Volume I: Secessionists at Bay, 1776-1854. New York: Oxford University Press, 1990.

———. The Road to Disunion, Volume II: Secessionists Triumphant, 1854-1861. New York: Oxford University Press, 2007.

Hickin, Patricia. “John C. Underwood and the Antislavery Movement in Virginia, 1847- 1860.” Virginia Magazine of History and Biography, Vol. 73, No. 2 (1965): 156- 168.

Hitchcock, William S. “The Limits of Southern Unionism: Virginia Conservatives and the Gubernatorial Election of 1859.” Journal of Southern History Vol. 47, No. 1 (1981): 57-72.

Holt, Michael F. The Election of 1860. Lawrence, Kansas: University Press of Kansas, 2017.

Hubbard, Leonard Cecil. “Francis H. Pierpont and the Restored Government of Virginia.” Ma. Thesis, University of Richmond, 1918.

Hume, Richard. “The Membership of the Virginia Constitutional Convention of 1867- 1868: A Study of the Beginnings of Congressional Reconstruction in the Upper South.” Virginia Magazine of History and Biography Vol. 86, No. 4 (1978): 461- 484.

Humes, Thomas W. The Loyal Mountaineers of Tennessee. Thomas William Humes, 1888.

Keene, Jesse L. “Sectionalism in the Peace Convention of 1861.” Florida Historical Quarterly Vol. 40, No. 1 (1961): 53-81.

Link, William A. Roots of Secession: Slavery and Politics in Antebellum Virginia. Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 2003.

———. “’This Bastard New Virginia’: Slavery, West Virginia Exceptionalism, and the Secession Crisis.” West Virginia History, New Series Vol. 3, No. 1 (2009): 37-56.

128

Lowe, Richard. “Republicans, Rebellion, and Reconstruction: The Republican Party in Virginia, 1856-1870.” Ph.D diss., University of Virginia, 1968.

———. “Virginia’s Reconstruction Convention. General Schofield Rates the Delegates.” Virginia Magazine of History and Biography Vol. 80, no. 3 (1972): 341-360.

———. Republicans and Reconstruction in Virginia, 1856-70. Charlottesville: University Press of Virginia, 1991.

MacKenzie, Scott A. “The Slaveholders’ War: The Secession Crisis in Kanawha County, Western Virginia, 1860-1861.” West Virginia History, New Series Vol. 4, No. 1 (2010): 33-57.

McDonough, James L. “John Schofield as Military Director of Reconstruction in Virginia.” Civil War History Vol. 15, No. 3 (1969): 237-256.

McPherson, James M. Battle Cry of Freedom: The Civil War Era. New York: Oxford University Press, 1988.

Morison, Samuel E. “The Peace Convention of February, 1861.” Proceedings of the Massachusetts Historical Society Vol. 73, No. 3 (1961): 58-80.

Munford, Beverley B. Virginia’s Attitude Toward Slavery and Secession. New York: Longmans, Green, and Co., 1909.

Nevins, Allan. War for the Union, 1861-1862: The Improvised War. New York: Konecky & Konecky, 1971.

Paludan, Phillip S. “Federalism in the Civil War Era.” Halcyon Vol. 10 (1988): 27-39.

Robertson Jr., James I. “The Virginia State Convention of 1861.” In Virginia at War, 1861, ed. William C. Davis and James I. Robertson Jr., 1-26. Lexington, K.Y.: University of Kentucky Press, 2005.

Shanks, Henry T. The Secession Movement in Virginia, 1847-1861. New York: Da Capo Press, 1970.

Simpson, Craig. “Political Compromise and the Protection of Slavery: Henry A. Wise and the Virginia Constitutional Convention of 1850-1851.” Virginia Magazine of History and Biography Vol. 83, No. 4 (1975): 387-405.

Snell, Mark A. West Virginia and the Civil War. Charleston, S.C.: The History Press, 2011.

Taylor, Alan. The Internal Enemy: Slavery and War in Virginia, 1772-1832. New York: Norton, 2013.

129

Trefousse, Hans L. The Radical Republicans: Lincoln’s Vanguard for Racial Justice. New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 1969.

———. Ben Butler: The South Called Him Beast! New York: Octagon Books, 1974.

Westwood, Howard C. “The Real Lost Cause: The Peace Convention of 1861.” Military Affairs Vol. 27, No. 3 (1963): 119-130.

Winston, Sheldon. “Statehood for West Virginia An Illegal Act?” West Virginia History Vol. 30, No. 3 (1969): 530-534.

Zimring, David R. “’Secession in Favor of the Constitution’: How West Virginia Justified Separate Statehood.” West Virginia History, New Series Vol. 3, No. 2 (2009): 23-51.

130