Mr. Fessenden, of Maine, prefacing his remarks with the statement that he had not examined the question, proceeded to make the following observations: (1) that he wished to be assured that the State could be admitted constitutionally; (2) that considering the position of the State, the feeling of the people about the matter, the small number of slaves there at the present time, he believed it not only the duty, but the entire right of the body (Congress) to prescribe before the State comes in that she shall put herself in a proper and irreversible position on the subject of the gradual abolition of slavery; (3) that when a definite and fixed date is given for the termination of slavery, the State becomes in point of fact a free State; (4) that he was glad to know (according to Mr. Wade) that the people of West Virginia concurred in opinion with the principles sponsored by himself; and (5) that the interests of the State itself and those of all of the States in the Union demanded an irreversible agreement on the whole matter.[88] Further consideration of the bill was then postponed.
Shortly after an unsuccessful attempt on the part of Mr. Willey to have the consideration of the bill continue,[89] it was brought up again on the fourteenth of July by Senator Wade. The pending question was the amendment of Mr. Sumner. The vote was taken and the amendment was rejected.[90] Mr. Willey then offered the amendment already herein noted. He was followed by Mr. Wade, who, expecting the State to be admitted, if at all, under the amendment of Mr. Willey, moved to amend the amendment by inserting at the proper place the words: "And that all slaves within the State who shall at the aforesaid time be under twenty-one years, shall be free when they arrive at the age of twenty-one years."[91] Despite the anti-slavery principle here involved, Mr. Wade was convinced that some provision was necessary to facilitate the running of the bill in the Senate and in the House. He thought, too, that the harshness and abruptness of the bill would be thereby smoothed down, softened and rendered harmonious.[92]
It was no easy task, however, that the Senator from Ohio had essayed to accomplish. His proposal brought from Mr. Willey the personal conviction of the man. Mr. Willey preferred that the State be admitted under the constitution precisely as submitted by the people. That not being possible, he wished that his amendment (which was not to his personal tastes) be carried. He deplored the situation that would follow should the amendment of Mr. Wade be passed. He pointed out: (1) that the majority of slaves were in counties contiguous to what would be the borders of the old State of Virginia; (2) that many of them ranged in age from one to twenty-one years; (3) that when they should arrive at a convenient age for sale, they would be silently transferred across the border into Kentucky or Virginia or the further South, if needs be, and there sold into the cotton fields of the South or the tobacco plantations of the East, where slavery was admittedly at its worst; (4) that many of the slaves were females, the offspring of whom would be free, were the mothers allowed to remain in the State, but upon the passage of the amendment even those would be doomed to the perpetual slavery of the far South. Replying to an inquiry made by Mr. Lane, of Kansas, as to whether or not public sentiment would condone such action, he asked if public sentiment would be likely to influence those slave owners who lived in territory contiguous to Virginia. The loyalty and fidelity of West Virginia should, in Mr. Willey's opinion, guarantee the safe manner in which the commonwealth would handle the question. Never before in similar situations, he argued, had slaves in esse been freed; freedom extended only to those unborn at the passage of the constitution or to those born on or after a date therein designated.[93]
Again joining issue with Senator Willey, Mr. Lane pointed out that the same situation arose in Kansas when in February, 1856, the people adopted a constitution providing for the emancipation of the slaves on the fourth of the following July. The slaves, however, handled the situation. They told their masters that since they should become free after the date designated, they would not permit themselves to be taken out of the State prior to that date.[94] Mr. Lane did not doubt the capacity to do likewise on the part of the slaves then being considered.
An interesting spectacle presented itself when the two Senators from Virginia engaged in spirited debate. Mr. Carlile desired that the State be admitted under the terms of the constitution framed at Wheeling, the alternative being that the people of the State should have the new terms submitted to them for approval. He believed that Mr. Willey's amendment was incomplete as it stood, and that an amendment in conformity with the one presented by Mr. Wade was necessary, providing, of course, that it was the sense of the Senate to admit the State only upon conditions. He took issue with Mr. Willey's assertion that the passage of Mr. Wade's amendment would be followed by a wholesale delivery of slaves to purchasers further South.[95] In the meanwhile Mr. Wade's amendment was agreed to.
Mr. Carlile now began overtly his campaign of obstruction and opposition to the admission of the State into the Union. He offered as an amendment to that of his colleague to be inserted at the end of the sixteenth line, the following words: "After the said ordinance shall be submitted to the vote of the people in the said State of West Virginia and be ratified by the vote of the majority of the people thereof." The sinister motive underlying his proposal was clearly perceived and ably met by Mr. Willey. He opposed the measure: first, because of the unusual requirement of the majority vote of the people, and, second, because of the new convention that would be required to assent to the fundamental proposition, and the consequent new election and additional costs to the people. The constitutional convention, he argued, was still in existence, was still a legal body, and that, therefore, there was no sufficient reason for the reference of the matter beyond the jurisdiction thereof.[96]
Dissatisfied but not discouraged, Mr. Carlile explained away the objection to the words "majority of the people." He maintained, however, that the changes contemplated would affect the fundamental law and that they should, therefore, be ratified by the people subsequent to being assented to by the Convention. It was, he argued, a departure from and in derogation of the customs and ideas of Virginia to change the organic law without first submitting the proposed new law to the people. Setting forth more clearly his position on the whole matter Carlile said: "Supposing—as I suppose, I will see when I move this test amendment, which I shall, to this proposition—that the Senate is unwilling to admit us without conditions, I shall vote against any bill, if it is pressed, exacting conditions, for the purpose of going home to my people asking them to assemble a Convention between this and the first Monday in December, and act upon the suggestion which we have received here from the Senate, if they desire to do so and come here with a constitution that will enable Congress, without such arbitrary stretch of power to admit us at once without delay."[97]
It was evident that Carlile was committed to a proslavery program and that his plan, if adopted, would result in the indefinite postponement of the admission of the new State. His colleague, therefore, with an apparently sincere effort to meet the wishes of the Senate and to satisfy the objections of Mr. Carlile, read the bill which was presented in the House by Mr. Brown, of Virginia. At the same time he announced that that bill, if agreeable to the Committee and to his colleagues, would be acceptable to him as a compromise.[98] This assented to, Mr. Willey withdrew his original amendment and offered the Brown bill as a substitute for the whole bill, striking out all after the word "whereas" in the preamble and substituting this measure in lieu of the Committee's bill.[99] The bill as finally presented follows:
"Section 1. That the State of West Virginia be and is hereby declared to be one of the United States of America, and admitted into the Union on an equal footing with the original States in all respects, whatever, and until the next general census shall be entitled to three members in the House of Representatives of the United States: Provided always that this act shall not take effect until after the proclamation of the President of the United States hereinafter provided for.
"Section 2. It being represented to Congress that since the Convention of the 26th of November, 1861, that framed and proposed the Constitution, for the said State of West Virginia, the people thereof have expressed a wish to change the seventh section of the eleventh article of the said Constitution by striking out the same and inserting the following in its place, namely, 'The children of slaves born within the limits of this State after the fourth day of July, 1863, shall be free, and no slave shall be permitted to come into the State for permanent residence therein.' Therefore be it enacted, that whenever the people of West Virginia shall, through their said convention, and by a vote to be taken at an election to be held within the limits of the State at such time as the Convention may provide, make and ratify the change aforesaid and properly certify the same under the hand of the President of the Convention, it shall be lawful for the President of the United States to issue the proclamation stating the fact and thereupon this act shall take effect and be in force from and after sixty days from the date of said proclamation."[100]