"That the causes heretofore frequently assigned are the true ones we do not believe.... We humbly suggest our belief that the slavery that exists and which with gigantic strides is gaining ground among us, is, in truth, the great efficient cause of the multiplied evils we deplore. We cannot conceive that there is any other cause sufficiently operative to paralyze the energies of a people so magnanimous, to neutralize the blessings of Providence included in the gift of a land so happy in its soil, its climate, its minerals and its waters; and to annul the manifold advantages of our republican system and geographical position. If Virginia has already fallen from her high estate, and if we have assigned a true cause for her fall, it is with the utmost anxiety that we look to the future to the fatal termination of the scene. As we value our domestic happiness, as our hearts yearn for the prosperity of our offspring, as we pray for the guardian care of the Almighty over our Country—we earnestly inquire what shall be done to avert the impending ruin. The efficient cause of our calamities is vigorously increasing in magnitude and potency, while we wake and while we sleep."[14]
The able men in the convention saw that no permanent agreement could be reached between the two sections until the basic cause of the whole conflict had been settled. The power of the big planters, however, was too great and there was made no constitutional provision having the purpose to abolish slavery. The Convention of 1829-30, therefore, settled nothing. A compromise was effected on the question of re-apportionment of representation; a constitutional provision set forth a program of future apportionments; but the permanent settlement of this and other important questions was left for the Convention of 1850.
The Assembly of 1831-32 was the scene of an intense debate on the issue of slavery. Because of a turn of events, a more definite cleavage had come between the east and the west. The domestic slave trade, improved methods of agriculture, internal improvements, better means of communication, the consequent increase of capital which helped to restore the impoverished lands and to bring into use the uncultivated areas of the east, brought about in that section a marked revival of interest in the economic possibilities of slavery.[15] The west took a step in the opposite direction.
It must be remembered, however, that there were but few abolitionists of the extreme type in the western sections of Virginia. The responsible leaders in this movement against slavery were not concerned with any moral or religious theories on the subject, but rather, were acting because of their conviction that slavery was an economic evil. These men saw that the States to the north and west of them had outstripped them in the race for material prosperity. They saw, too, the gradual but unrelenting impoverishment of the east. They concluded, therefore, that their lack of prosperity was due to their proximity to the slave-holding section of the State. The belief became current that the natural resources of the west would attract capital and population, if the objectional slaves were removed. In consequence, therefore, they favored a gradual emancipation and deportation of the slaves.[16]
Numerous petitions, memorials and resolutions found their way to the Assembly. These may be divided into three classes: (1) those asking for the removal of free Negroes from the State; (2) those seeking to amend the Federal Constitution with a view to giving Congress power to appropriate money with which to purchase slaves and transport them and the free Negroes from the United States; and (3) those urging the State to devise some scheme for gradual emancipation.[17] The first class of petitions came principally from the large slave-holding sections of the State; the second and third classes came from those sections of the State in which slaves were not numerous.
It was evident that this Assembly must take a definite position with reference to the question of the abolishment of slavery. Accordingly, therefore, a number of these resolutions concerning slavery were referred to a select committee composed of twenty-one members, sixteen of whom were from counties east of the Blue Ridge. After three days of conference, during which fiery discussions and motions were rampant in the legislature, the committee reported to the effect that "it is inexpedient for the present to make any legislative enactment for the abolition of slavery."[18] Mr. Preston, of Montgomery, moved immediately to amend the report by substituting therefor: "It is expedient at this time to adopt some legislative enactment for the abolition of slavery."[19] The amendment was defeated by a vote of seventy-three to fifty-eight. Mr. Bryce, of Goochland County, thereupon, proposed to amend the report of the select committee, already herein noted, by prefixing the following preamble: "Profoundly sensible of the great evils arising from the condition of the Colored population of the Commonwealth; induced by humanity as well as policy to an immediate effort for the removal, in the first place as well as those who are now free as of such as may hereafter become free, believing that this effort, while it is in just accordance with the sentiment of the community on the subject, will absorb all our present means; and that a further action for the removal of the slaves, should await a more definite development of public opinion."[20] This preamble was adopted, despite tremendous opposition of the pro-slavery men.
The discussion of 1832 was followed by a decided reaction against the proposal for the abolition of slavery. Professor Thomas R. Dew, of William and Mary College, crystallized the pro-slavery sentiment in a masterful essay entitled: A Review of the Debates in the Virginia Legislature of 1831-32. This essay dealt with the theoretical and practical aspects of slavery in all countries and especially with the rise and development of Negro slavery in America. It pointed out the difficulties attendant upon the deportation of the free black and slave populations, and the danger to society of their emancipation without deportation. It ridiculed the idea of a successful slave uprising under the conditions then obtaining, and held that the whole discussion of so momentous a question by young and inexperienced legislators was entirely out of order.[21] The forceful argument of Professor Dew was met by one from Jesse Burton Harrison, whose essay was entitled: "A Review of the Speech of Thomas Marshall in the Virginia Assembly of 1831-32." Mr. Harrison's arguments to prove that Negro slavery in Virginia was an economic evil appeared to be merely a reiteration of the arguments of Marshall.[22] Former President Madison also replied briefly to Dew. His essay set forth that Dew had held too cheaply the presence of Negro slavery and emigration and ascribed too much importance to the influence of the tariff laws.[23]
By far the most important sectional issue in Virginia during the period 1834 to 1850 was that arising out of a movement for a united slave-holding South. The Virginia Congressmen had voted as a body against the "Wilmot Proviso," the abolition of the domestic slave trade and the abolition of slavery in the District of Columbia. In spite of these facts, leading citizens of Western Virginia were trying to devise ways and means whereby to rid that portion of the State of Negro slavery. Dr. Henry Ruffner, Henry McDowell Moore and John Letcher were prominent among those who proposed a plan whereby the gradual emancipation of all slaves in the State west of the Blue Ridge Mountains would be effected. The plan was first debated in the Franklin Society at Lexington in 1847. Later it appeared as a pamphlet entitled An Address to the People of West Virginia by a Slaveholder of West Virginia. This pamphlet proposed to show that slavery was opposed to the public welfare and that it might be gradually abolished without results detrimental to the rights and interests of the slave holders. It contained elaborate comparisons between the slave-holding States and those not holding slaves, to the disadvantage of the former, in tending to prove that slavery was an economic evil.[24]
Dr. Ruffner, later speaking of the movement, said: "No one so far as I can remember took the abolitionist ground that slave holding was a sin and ought to be abolished. With us, it was merely a question of expediency and was argued with special reference to the interests of West Virginia." Speaking of the reception of the pamphlet in Western Virginia, he said that the editors in the Valley, doubting the success of the scheme, hesitated to endorse his efforts; but that west of the Alleghenies it met with a most encouraging reception.[25]
There began during the two decades from 1830 to 1850 a period of internal improvements because of a rapid increase in the population and wealth of Western Virginia. The construction of turnpikes and local railroads in the trans-Allegheny country and the projection of other improvements attracted there immigrants, and served also to interest speculation in its cheap lands and natural resources. English and eastern capitalists purchased large tracts of land and sold them in small parcels to settlers who occupied them.[26] Capitalists from the Middle West and New England States established small manufactories there, and immigrants coming thither chose between working therein and becoming farmers or teachers. A considerable German population was numbered among these immigrants. The census of 1850 showed an excess of 90,372 white population in the West over that in the East. The lands in the transmontane country had risen to a value of only fifteen million dollars less than the cash value of the lands east of the Blue Ridge.[27]