(1) "Resolved. That at the same time when this Constitution is submitted to the qualified voters of the proposed new state to be voted for or against, an additional section to article——, in the words following: 'No slave shall be brought or free person of color come into this state for permanent residence after this constitution goes into operation, and all children, born of slave mothers after the year 1870 shall be free, the males at the age of twenty-eight years, and the females at the age of eighteen years; and the children of such females shall be free at birth'. Shall be separately submitted to the qualified voters of the proposed new state for their adoption or rejection, and if the majority of the votes cast for and against said additional section are in favor of its adoption, it shall be made a part of article—of this constitution and not otherwise."
(2) "Resolved that the committee on schedule be and they are hereby instructed to report the necessary provisions for carrying the foregoing resolution into effect."
Mr. Sinsel moved that the resolutions be made the order of the next morning at ten o'clock; Mr. Hall, of Marion county, moved to amend the motion to the effect that it be laid on the table. Mr. Battelle deplored the application of the gag rule. The question not being a debatable one, the vote was taken. By a majority of one vote of the forty-seven cast, the resolutions were indefinitely laid on the table.[71]
On the thirteenth day of February, after the disposition of other important business, Mr. Pomeroy, of Hancock county, suggested that the questions raised by the resolutions offered the day before by Mr. Battelle might be compromised, either by adopting one of the propositions already presented, or by referring the whole matter to a representative committee of conference. Many members of the convention shared the views of Mr. Pomeroy and so stated their convictions to the body. Indeed they favored the settlement of the question then and there, without reference to a committee. Mr. Hall, of Marion, was of the opinion that its reference to a committee might carry abroad the idea that a division existed there; that that which was done, was accomplished only through a committee of compromise. Mr. Hervey was convinced that the new State must be a free State and therefore desired to vote the proposition as it stood, without the committee. Mr. Dille was of the opinion that there would be no objection to a constitutional provision forbidding the entrance into the State for permanent residence, of free Negroes or slaves, after the adoption of the Constitution. Mr. Brown, of Kanawha, sustained the view of Mr. Dille. Mr. Pomeroy made a motion to the effect that the first clause of Mr. Battelle's resolution be acted upon by the body. Mr. Battelle favored the reference of the question to a committee, thus opposing a vote that morning because he had assured a colleague of the opposite side that the question would not be brought up that morning and he wanted that all the proponents and opponents of the measure be present at the taking of the vote.
Mr. Stewart, of Doddridge, the gentleman to whom Mr. Battelle referred, having just entered, stated that he understood the motion before the House to be a compromise measure that would settle the question. Thereupon, Mr. Battelle served notice that while he would support the pending motion, he had entered into no compromise. It was his plan, therefore, to prosecute the case before the public forum. The question was put and it was agreed with one dissenting vote that there should be incorporated into the Constitution the first clause of Mr. Battelle's resolution; namely: "No slave shall be brought or free person of color come into this State for permanent residence after this constitution goes into effect."[72]
On the third day of April the vote on the question of the adoption of the constitution was taken; 18,862 votes were cast for adoption and 514 for rejection. A significant incident to the general election was the informal vote taken, at the suggestion of The Wheeling Intelligencer, on Mr. Battelle's emancipation proposition which had been rejected by the Convention. Despite the irregular and unauthorized manner in which this was done, by the several counties holding such extra election, the count showed that six thousand votes were cast for emancipation and six hundred against.[73] It is not improbable, therefore, that the constitution would have been adopted without difficulty had the emancipation clause been included. The politicians and not the people were on the wrong side of the issue.
Pursuant to the call of the Governor, the general assembly met in its second extra session on the sixth of May.[74] On the thirteenth day of the same month it passed "An Act giving the assent of the Legislature of Virginia to the Formation of and Erection of a New State within the jurisdiction of this State."[75] Everything was now in readiness for the presentation of documents and credentials to Congress, by the proposed new State, in support of its application for admission into the Union.
Prior to this Mr. Battelle, in pursuance of his earnest efforts to make the proposed new State free, had prepared a masterly address on the subject of the emancipation of the slaves, to be delivered in convention to his colleagues. The sense of the convention was such that the courageous gentleman was unable to engage its attention for that purpose. Accordingly, therefore, he had printed in pamphlet form the address that he intended to deliver, and distributed it throughout the counties of Northwestern Virginia. Among the salient points therein set forth the following are noteworthy: first, that since the institution of slavery as it existed within the bounds of Western Virginia was the mere creature of law, the law was competent to remove it; and that, therefore, it was fairly and properly a subject for the consideration of those in convention assembled; second, that the gradual emancipation of the slaves was both fundamental and vital to the success of the new State, and in consequence thereof the question should be settled in the organic law. Mr. Battelle discussed the question from two points of view, that of principle, and that of expediency. It was developed that the principle of slavery was wrong and that the system, therefore, should be abolished. "While discrimination must be made between the system and the acts of individuals, the former," he said, "is always bad, is always inconsistent with the obvious requirements of either justice or morals."[76]
Considering the proposition in the light of expediency, the question was asked: "What do the best interests of the people of West Virginia require from the persons assembled to frame the organic law?" In reply thereto there was developed the theme that labor was fundamental to the material prosperity of the commonwealth; that slave labor and free had always been and would doubtless always be unharmonious and inconsistent in purpose. Since slave labor, it was pointed out, was competent to perform only the crudest work and most menial tasks, it followed that free labor was indispensable to the material progress of the new State. "Slave labor," Battelle said, "drove out free labor and tended to make all labor undignified and despised. It should, therefore, be dispensed with." In reply to the assertion that since the system was destined to die a quick and certain death no action on the part of the State was necessary, Mr. Battelle urged that "if that be true, it furnished an additional reason for the incorporation into the constitution of a provision terminating slavery." "Such action would be but just to all parties—to both the proponents and the opponents of the present system." The argument closed with an exposition, first, on slavery as the fundamental cause of the then current distress in Virginia and in the nation; and second, on the propriety of such an act at that particular time. This argument doubtless had an unexpected effect in preparing the minds of the people of the State for the acceptance of the plan of gradual emancipation, the condition on which West Virginia was finally admitted.[77]
Slavery and the Admission of West Virginia
Waitman T. Willey, a member of the Senate from Virginia, having obtained the permission of that body to do so, presented on May 29th a certified original of the constitution together with a copy of an Act of the General Assembly of Virginia, of May 13, 1862, under the Restored Government, giving its permission for the formation of a new State within the commonwealth of Virginia. He presented at the same time the memorial of the General Assembly requesting Congress to admit the State of West Virginia into the Union. Following the receipt of these documents they were referred to the Committee on Territories, of which B. F. Wade, of Ohio, was the Chairman.[78]