Search just our sites by using our customised search engine

Unique Cottages | Electric Scotland's Classified Directory

Click here to get a Printer Friendly PageSmiley

The Southern States of America
The History of West Virginia - Chapter II


The Two Virginias Before Divorce.

An intelligent view of the events resulting in severing in twain the original state cannot be obtained without understanding the relations existing between the two Virginias prior to the war. It is a general impression that the separation was caused by questions growing out of the war. But the war was not the cause but only the occasion for the separation. The question of dividing the state of Virginia on the lines finally accomplished had been a mooted question for fifty years prior to the war. It had agitated the legislatures and conventions of the state. It had been a subject of discussion in political campaigns and in party organizations. It had so embittered the population of the two territorial sections as to threaten the public peace.

The causes which developed this situation between the two sections need only to be enumerated to appear conclusive. In the first place we have the anomaly of a state exercising sovereignty over a territory so geographically divided by a chain of mountains as to effectually cut off communication between its population of the one side and the other. The ranges of the Alleghany Mountains erected their lofty crests and stretched themselves from one end to the other. They were impenetrable and impassable by any ordinary means of transportation. The state government was administered from Richmond, and its edicts carried around through the District of Columbia and the state of Maryland to the western territory under its jurisdiction. It was facetiously said that when a sheriff from one of the western counties had traveled to his state capital to settle his accounts, he had just enough left of the revenues collected to pay his expenses back home. There was not only no communication between the two peoples, but there was little or no acquaintance, and absolutely no commercial relations. Western Virginia belonged by nature, not to eastern Virginia, but to the valley of the Mississippi. Its natural outlets to market were south and west, with Cincinnati and Chicago, with Pittsburg on the north, and with Baltimore on the east.

Nature had divided Virginia. When the boundaries between the states of the Union were being fixed-as far back as 1781-there was a controversy in the Federal Congress as to the western, boundary of Virginia. It was then claimed that the Alleghany Mountains should constitute her real boundary, as it was her natural boundary. Pennsylvania, Delaware, Maryland and, perhaps, other states, were inclined to confine Virginia to the Alleghany boundary. Daniel Webster had, thirty years before the war, with prophetic forecast, advised the South if it withdrew from the Union that the separation would leave Virginia dissevered, for the natural line of division would leave western Virginia allied with the states of the North rather than the South.

Moreover, the people of eastern and western Virginia were never homogeneous. They were as far apart in tastes and temperament as by geographical conditions. Their peoples were of a different ancestry, different habits, different tastes, different manners and modes of life.

The bringing together, therefore, under one state government of two peoples so diverse in their tastes and character as the eastern and western Virginians was like an attempt to fuse an aristocracy and a democracy into one homogeneous whole. Naturally, they did not mix. Geographically, they could not mix.

The situation was aggravated by the existing system of slavery. Slavery was a profitable institution east of the mountains; it was of but little practical value west of the mountains. That section of the state west of the Alleghanies was best adapted to stock-raising, grazing, growth of the cereals, to manufacturing, and such industries as could not profitably employ slave labor. Its people cared very little for the institution on economical grounds, and were somewhat awry with it on moral considerations. They would not have invited it as an original proposition. They accepted it like many other things that were thrust upon them by the East. In the East it was interwoven with all their domestic and political institutions, and was maintained without any moral compunctions. It had shaped and moulded their laws and public policy, as well as their private interests and modes of life. The western section was bordered its entire length by free soil, which made the escape of the slave easy. He need but cross the Ohio River, or step across the invisible line into Pennsylvania, to find freedom from his bonds.

Moreover, the preponderance of slave property in the East gave rise to a very unsatisfactory basis of representation between the East and West that was a continual source of irritation and dissatisfaction.

The simple enumeration of the foregoing facts and conditions establishes the statement with which we introduced this subject, that the war was not the - cause but only furnished the opportunity for the severance of West Virginia from the mother state. The fruit was already ripe, and needed only that the tree be shaken. There was no such unnatural and incongruous alliance existing in the Union of states as that which existed between the two Virginias. It is not strange that the two sections parted. It is strange that they remained together as long as they did.

Steps Leading to the "Parting of the Ways."

The Virginia Secession Convention, so called, which assembled at Richmond on Feb. 13, 1861, was in continuous session from that date until the first of May, when it adjourned to meet again on June 12.

When the convention reassembled, eighty-one delegates responded to the roll call. It was not a "Secession Convention" when it first met in February, but it was now. An ordinance of secession had been already adopted on April 17 by a vote of eighty-eight to fifty-five, before the recess of the convention, and had been submitted to the people for ratification and voted upon, but no official return of the vote appears in the journal of the convention.

The business of the convention was now to put that ordinance into effect.

There are but two or three of the names of the delegates from western Virginia appearing among those signed to that ordinance. Its passage had been the signal for `their withdrawal from the convention, and in some instances of hasty flight to more friendly and safer environments west of the mountains. After the convention had looked itself over it proceeded to pass the following resolution:

"Resolved, that Wm. G. Brown, James Burley, John S. Burdette, John S. Carlile, Marshall M. Dent, Ephraim B. Hall, Chester D. Hubbard, John J. Jackson, James C. McGrew, George Me. Porter, Chapman J. Stewart, Campbell Tarr, and Waitman T. Willey, be, and are hereby expelled from this convention, and that their seats as members of the convention be, and are hereby declared vacant."

The delegates named in the foregoing resolution were those representing western Virginia, and who had voted nay on the adoption of the ordinance on its passage in April previous. It does not appear from the resolution that they had been guilty of any other offense that would deprive them of their seats, or that they had voluntarily resigned, or were to be allowed to resign-the language of the resolution was that they "be expelled." And the resolution was passed.

The fact was that after the passage of the ordinance of secession the delegates named in that resolution, from western Virginia, realized that their influence and usefulness in that body were ended. The bitterness, the malice, the suspicion, the vindictiveness and the spirit of violence incident to the outbreak of a civil war were rife among the populace of Richmond.

Under these conditions the western delegates determined that it was the part of prudence for them to get away from Richmond as speedily and quickly as possible. But even this was a difficult and dangerous undertaking. After procuring written passports from Governor Letcher, this little party of "refugees," so to speak, made their journey to Strasburg and thence down the valley by way of Winchester to Harper's Ferry, making many narrow escapes from the mobs collected at different points along the way.

The arrival at their homes of the western delegates was the occasion of general agitation of the whole population of western Virginia. They were quick to comprehend the desperate character of the situation, but unable at once to unite on a common course to meet it. As in all such crises, there was at first great confusion and diversity of opinion in the public mind. Public meetings of the people in the various counties were the order of the hour. The returned delegates were active in organizing these meetings.

The first of these meetings was held at Morgantown, the home of Hon. W. T. Willey, who had arrived fresh from the Richmond convention, and his constituents were eager to learn from him the real situation and his views as to the most expedient course to be taken by the people of western Virginia, who were not in accord with the action of the Secession Convention. The temper of the citizens of this locality expressed at this first meeting was representative of the prevailing sentiment throughout the western section. They entered a solemn protest against the secession of Virginia; denounced such action as treason against the government of the United States; declared their unalterable opposition to such a course; that they would not follow Virginia, but would dissolve their civil and political relations with the East, and commended the firmness of western delegates in resisting secession from the Union.

Similar meetings were held in a number of counties. They served to give character and direction to the forming opinions and judgment of the masses of the people. Notable among these meetings was one held at Clarksburg on April 22, which was convened at the instance of the delegate from that county, Hon. John S. Carlile, and which gave the first practical turn to the course of affairs. This meeting adopted a series of resolutions denouncing and repudiating the course of the Richmond convention, and recommended to the people of each of the counties of western Virginia to appoint five delegates to meet in convention at Wheeling on May 13 following, "to consult and determine on such action as the people of northwestern Virginia should take in the present fearful emergency."

Out of this proposition came the convention at Wheeling known as the "Mass-Meeting" or "Mass-Convention," which took the initiative step toward the dismemberment of Virginia and the erection of a new state. Hither had come, in large numbers, the representatives of the people of the western counties to confer and determine upon a course of action that involved momentous results. These delegates, it is true, had no very well defined idea of what they were there for. Their mission had not been exactly defined or determined. It was an irregular kind of proceeding. No statute law or constitution authorized or gave jurisdiction to the convention. No official authority could be found for the calling of the convention or the appointment of delegates. It was one of the steps in a revolution.

The convention was formally opened and organized; officers were elected, committees appointed, and all the machinery of a parliamentary body was soon in operation. The ideas and plans of the individual delegates were soon disclosed by a torrent of resolutions. But amidst conflicting views, one fact was developed beyond doubt, and that was that if there was any approach to unanimity on any course, it was for a separation from the old commonwealth and the formation of a new state out of the western counties.

This was the only specific scheme that had been agitated among the delegates. John S. Carlile was the author and open advocate of this measure, and he had done no little missionary work in its behalf. The idea of severing relations with the old state seemed best to satisfy the vindictive spirit of the hour. It became the rallying cry of the convention.

Thus it soon came to be not so much a question of what the convention desired to do, as how to do it. Here was a purpose and a proposition to erect a new state. It was a movement without precedent in the history of the states. Other states had been formed, but no state had been arbitrarily carved out of the territory of another state.

Mr. Carlile came forward as the leader of the scheme in the convention. His scheme for the formation of a new state was purely revolutionary in its entire conception. The next day after the convention opened he introduced the following resolution which became the basis of the debate which ensued:

"Resolved, that the committee on state and federal relations be instructed to report an ordinance declaring that the connection of the counties of this state composing the tenth and eleventh congressional districts, to which shall be added the county of Wayne, with the other portion of this state is hereby dissolved, and that the people of said counties are in the possession and exercise of all the rights of sovereignty which belong and appertain to a free and independent state in the United States and subject to the constitution thereof; and that said committee be instructed to report a constitution and form of government for the said state, to be called the state of New Virginia; and also that they report a declaration of causes which have impelled the people of said counties thus to dissolve their connection with the rest of the state, together with an ordinance declaring that said constitution and form of government shall take effect and be an act of this day when the consent of the Congress of the United States and of the legislature of the state of Virginia are obtained as provided for by Sec. 3, Article 4 of the Constitution of the United States."

As already noted, the above proposition was essentially and purely revolutionary in its character. It ran counter to every principle and provision of our system of government for the creation of a new state. But to the large majority of the members of this convention, matters of constitutional law and government were new and unpalatable at this time. Yet there were a few men among the delegates who looked beyond the present and who knew that the scheme of Mr. Carlile, carried to its ultimate end, would only result in defeat and failure of their cherished object.

In this exigency, Hon. W. T. Willey was put forward to stem the tide and undertake the bold and seemingly hopeless task of getting the convention to think. Mr. Willey was the opposite of Mr. Carlile in character and temperament. He was less optimistic, more conservative, and as a lawyer he had a clear view of the issues involved, as well as a natural bias for a legal and orderly proceeding. He and Mr. Carlile were fresh from the Richmond convention, where they had together wrestled manfully to prevent the secession of Virginia, and while they were now equally earnest in their desire to thwart the secession movement in the East, they were to become the chief opponents in a memorable debate.

Mr. Willey's appearance in the role of an opponent of the pending proposition was the signal for an outburst of angry denunciation both from the convention and the crowds in the lobby and in the streets. They called him a traitor and a secessionist. Mr. Willey threw himself into the debate with all his native eloquence and clearness of statement, and finally gained the ear of the convention. He declared that he would never lend himself to a revolutionary or an insurrectionary means of accomplishing an object which he thought could be accomplished according to law. He pointed out with great force the provisions of the Federal constitution governing the formation of a new state. He cited Sec. 3 of Art. 4, which declares:

"New states may be admitted by the Congress into this Union; but no new state shall be formed or erected within the jurisdiction of any other state; nor any state formed by the junction of two or more states, or parts of states, without the consent of the legislatures of the states concerned, as well as of the Congress."

He called attention to the fact that Mr. Carlile's plan proposed to call a new state into existence by a simple edict of the convention. He argued that the convention there assembled could not predicate any authority for such a precipitate proceeding upon the call of the people they represented; that the delegates had not been appointed with that view, or empowered to act with such extreme vigor; that this was but an informal meeting of the people, not legally convened, and could not bind the people either in law or reason, or by any known rule or precedent ; and above all, that the Federal government would not recognize a state created thus, because it was not after the mode prescribed by the Constitution of the United States. He said the proceeding, if carried out, would be "triple treason" - treason against the state of Virginia, treason against the United States, and treason against the Confederate government if that should succeed in maintaining itself. In other words, there was no existing government that did not assume a legal status, except the one proposed for the new state.

This debate continued three days with great earnestness, and the result was marvelous as an illustration of how a body like that may be turned about from a fixed and resolute purpose to accept and adopt that which it had almost unanimously and stubbornly opposed.

When the "Mass-Convention" had changed its mind on the Carlile plan, it turned about to reach -the same object in another way. Hon. F. H. Pierpoint came forward with some resolutions which were in the nature of a substitute for the Carlile plan, providing for holding a convention on June 11 following, to which delegates should be regularly chosen by all the loyal counties and which should devise such measures as the welfare of the people of the northwestern counties should demand. This proposition left all questions open as to what that subsequent convention should do. It was confidently believed that any convention would favor a separation from the old state, but the particular plan for accomplishing that object should be determined by the convention itself.

This proposition met with the approval of the convention, and it made a call upon all the western counties disposed to cooperate to send delegates to the convention appointed for June 11. The whole matter was put in the hands of a well chosen executive committee and amidst a blaze of enthusiasm, and the singing of the "Star Spangled Banner," this remarkable and historic convention adjourned, after having set in motion events which made the first chapter in the history of a new state.

Reorganizing the Virginia Government.

The convention of June 11 assembled in accordance with the call of the "Mass-Convention."

Thirty-five counties of the northwest were represented, and had sent an aggregate of seventy-seven delegates.

The convention having organized, very much the same problems that had confronted the previous body immediately arose. Two schemes were presented, that of immediately forming a new state out of the counties represented in the convention, after the Carlile plan, and the other of reorganizing the Virginia state government and assuming that these counties represented in the convention were the state.

There were two weighty reasons for preferring the latter proposition. There were enough farsighted men in the convention to see that they could not have a new state until they could get control of the old state so as to give its consent, as the constitution required, to forming a new state out of its territory. Moreover, to assume that they were Virginia was the quickest and easiest course to having a state government whether it were a new or an old state.

The majority of the convention soon shifted to the support of the proposition for reorganizing the Virginia government out of the loyal counties, vacating the offices, taking possession of the whole machinery, and calling the organization the state of Virginia. They could thus have a state already, made, already recognized, and quite sure of the recognition of the Federal government in preference to that purporting to be the government of Virginia at the city of Richmond. The shrewd and farsighted men who had now come into control of affairs realized that they had immediate need of a state government ready made, and they had special need of control of the Virginia government. It was the state of Virginia that was to be dismembered, and the consent of the state of Virginia was the first essential step to the legality of this purpose. What hope had they, indeed, of the consent of the Richmond government to anything like that? But if they, west of the mountains, were the state, it was an easy proposition to have the consent of Virginia even to dividing it in sunder. To this end the convention adopted, with great unanimity, and promulgated an address or declaration of their motives and purposes, and a statement of the grievances which impelled them to this course. They framed and passed, without a dissenting vote, an ordinance which set forth in detail the scheme for reorganizing the state of Virginia. The convention was to appoint a governor, lieutenant-governor and attorney-general, to continue in office for six months; a test oath was required of all other officers then serving under the Virginia government, and on refusal of the incumbent to take the oath, the governor was to declare the office vacant and appoint a successor. The legislature was shortly to assemble and provide for a speedy general election to fill all the offices of the government.

Under this scheme the convention elected Francis H. Pierpont, governor; Daniel Polsley, lieutenant-governor, and James S. Wheat, attorney-general.

The convention then formally declared all ordinances, acts, orders, resolutions and other proceedings of the Richmond convention illegal, inoperative, null and void. With a view of taking up in earnest the work of erecting a new state, the convention adjourned on June 20, to reconvene at the same place on August 6 following.

The Restored Government of Virginia in Operation.

In pursuance of the ordinance of the June convention, the first legislature under the reorganized government of Virginia met at Wheeling on July 1, 1861.  Governor Pierpont sent in an elaborate message, among other things, informing the legislature that he had communicated to the President of the United States the purposes and acts of the convention and people of the northwest counties in endeavoring to preserve the state of Virginia to the Union, and had received his assurance that they should have such assistance from the Federal government as could be given under the authority of the constitution.

On July 9 the two houses proceeded to complete the organization of the government by filling the offices that were vacant. They appointed various state officers.

It appearing that R. M. T. Hunter and James M. Mason, senators, representing Virginia in the United States Senate, had vacated their seats and were engaged in the effort to overthrow the Federal government, the legislature proceeded to supply their places, and, accordingly, Waitman T. Willey and John S. Carlile were elected United States senators from the state of Virginia. These gentlemen proceeded to Washington, presented their credentials from the Virginia government at Wheeling, and were duly admitted by the United States Senate as senators from Virginia.

This was the first formal recognition by the National legislature of the validity of the restored government.
On May 13, 1862, the legislature of the restored government passed an act giving the formal consent of Virginia to the erection of anew state out of her territory.

This territory included forty-eight counties of northwestern Virginia, and made provision for including three more-Jefferson, Berkeley and Frederick-when they should vote to come in. The first two subsequently voted in favor of the proposition, but the county of Frederick never voted on it.

These fifty counties having given their assent by a formal vote to the formation of a new state, the next step was to make a constitution for the new state.

The delegates chosen for that purpose assembled in convention at the city of Wheeling on Nov. 26, 1861. After organizing, it entered upon the work of framing a constitution for the new state, and was occupied with that work for about two and one-half months. They made many radical changes in the constitution of the old commonwealth.

The most exciting question which arose in the convention was that relating to the position which the new state would take toward negro slavery. The question of slavery was not a dead or indifferent issue even in western Virginia. There were included in the population of the forty-eight counties represented in the convention, at that time, 12,771 slaves in a population of 334,921 whites-a very small proportion, it is true, but enough to make the property value an item worth considering to those who owned it. The convention determined that the constitution should be silent on the question of slavery, and that at the time the constitution should be submitted to a vote of the people on its adoption, a kind of side vote should be taken for emancipation and against emancipation. When the vote was taken it was 6,052 for emancipation to 610 against, or ten to one in favor of a free state. The vote on the adoption of the constitution taken at the same time was 18,862 in favor to 514 against it.

The legislature of the reorganized government of Virginia assembled on May 6 following, and gave its formal assent to the formation and erection of the state of West Virginia within the jurisdiction of the state of Virginia, "according to the stipulations and provisions of the constitution," which was laid before them by the government as having been adopted by the people. The act of the legislature was ordered to be transmitted to the senators and representatives in Congress, together with a copy of the constitution, with the request that they should endeavor to obtain the consent of Congress to the admission of West Virginia into the Union.

The New State Issue in Congress.

On May 29, 1862, Senator Waitman T. Willey, who, in connection with Senator John S. Carlile, represented the state of Virginia under the restored government in the United States Senate, presented to the Senate the application for the formation of a new state, the act of the legislature giving its assent thereto, a copy of the constitution adopted by that portion of Virginia which proposed to erect a new state, and a certified copy of the returns of the vote showing the adoption of that constitution, and Mr. Willey accompanied the application with an address in which he recited the conditions which prompted the movement.

The application was referred to the Territorial Committee, and this committee, after much difficulty in agreeing upon the terms of a bill, reported on June 23, Senate bill number 365, which contained the usual specifications and some unusual conditions upon which the consent of Congress would be granted to the admission of the proposed new state.

The chief of these conditions related to the question of slavery. It will be remembered that the constitution adopted by the convention which framed it was silent on the subject of slavery. The convention had voted down a proposition to insert a clause for gradual emancipation, or submit it to a vote of the people, although an informal vote was taken at the same time. But there were 12,000 negro slaves in the territory out of which the new state was to be formed, and if these counties were admitted as a state with no provision for the emancipation of the slaves, it would continue to be slave territory. Therefore, as had been anticipated, Congress was not disposed to admit another slave state, unless provision was made for making it a free state in the near future.

The committee reported the bill with a condition requiring gradual emancipation. Senator Willey offered an amendment relating to some other condition of the bill, and also providing for reconvening the convention for the purpose of adopting a provision for gradual emancipation of the slaves. Senator Wade, of Ohio, offered an amendment that the clause of the new constitution relating to slavery should provide that "all slaves within the said state who shall, at the time aforesaid, be under twentyone years of age, shall be free when they arrive at the age of twenty-one."

The Willey amendment as thus amended was adopted, and this settled the feature of the bill relating to slavery so far as the Senate was concerned, and all cause of opposition from the majority of the Senate having been met, the bill was put upon its passage on July 14, 1862, and adopted by the Senate by a vote of seventeen for, to twenty-three against - Senator Carlile casting one of the votes against it.

The Senate bill became the order of the day in the House of Representatives on December 9 following. The debate on the bill occupied two days, and traveled along the lines that had been traversed by the Senate, except that the conditions regarding slavery did not become a question. But the constitutional questions involved were discussed with great ability on both sides.

The vote of the House on the passage of the bill resulted in ninety-six in favor and fifty-five votes against it. The bill was approved by the President, and became a law on Dec. 31, 1862.

But it must be noted that the passage of the bill by Congress did not yet admit West Virginia as a state. The bill made it conditional that the clause which Congress had prescribed relating to slavery should be inserted in the constitution by the constitutional convention, a vote be taken upon its adoption and ratified by a majority of the voters, and that when all this was done and duly certified to the President of the United States, it should be lawful for the President to issue his proclamation stating the fact, and thereupon the act should take effect and be in force on and after sixty days from the date of said proclamation.

In obedience to this act the constitutional convention was reconvened on Feb. 12, 1863. The "Willey Amendment" relating to slavery was, after much debate, adopted by the convention almost unanimously. It was submitted to a vote of the people on March 26, 1863, and adopted by a majority of 27,749 - there being only 572 votes cast against it.

The result of the vote was certified to the President of the United States, in accordance with the act of Congress, and thus the last step, but one, toward the consummation of the long contest for a new state had been successfully taken.

The State of West Virginia, as a fixed star in the galaxy of the Union, only awaited the proclamation of President Lincoln.

President Lincoln Starts the Machinery of the New State.

The proclamation of President Lincoln ushering in the new state was at this stage, of course, a mere matter of form. But Mr. Lincoln had not reached this point in the proceeding easily and without hesitation. He had had his fight between the patrons and opponents of the measure when the bill came to him from Congress for his signature. The pressure that was then brought to bear to induce him to veto the bill, perhaps made him more careful in its consideration than he otherwise would have been.

It is safe to say that all Mr. Lincoln's inclinations were toward giving the executive sanction to the new state movement. He had promised the people early in their struggle that they should have his support as far as the constitution would warrant. But now he was up against the question both from a legal standpoint and as a measure of public policy. He took his constitutional limit for determining this. He took the written opinions of the members of his cabinet. It was during Christmas week while Congress was taking a holiday that Mr. Lincoln was wrestling with the new state bill. The friends and patrons of the bill were on the ground anxiously awaiting the decision of the President, and the ear of all western Virginia was turned toward Washington to hear the result. On New Year's Day, 1863, the President approved the bill.

The battle had now been fought and won. Henceforth the territory carved out of the mother state of Virginia was to be a distinct and independent state of the Union. The issue had passed the discussion of the two houses of Congress, the cabinet chamber, and had received the approval of the Executive. Every requirement of the act had been fulfilled on the part of the people of western Virginia. The forces of opposition had been withdrawn, and only the formal declaration of the President was necessary, under the act, to usher in the new state.

On April 20, 1863, President Lincoln issued his proclamation declaring that all necessary provisions of the act of Congress creating the new state having been complied with, the said act should take effect and be in force from and after sixty days from the date of said proclamation.

Thus, on June 20, 1863, the State of West Virginia became a legal entity. It needed only to be organized and have its governmental machinery set in motion. And it was not long about it.

Hon. A. T. Boreman was elected its first governor. Governor Pierpoint and his staff quietly folded their tents and transferred the government of Virginia, which they supposed was in their keeping, to Alexandria. There he continued to administer the government of Virginia in the interest of the Federal authority, while Governor Letcher, at Richmond, continued to administer it in the interest of the Confederate authority. The legislature of the new state met in Wheeling on the day when, by the proclamation of the President, the new state was born, and proceeded to organize the government. It elected two senators to represent the new state in the United States Senate. Hon. W. T. Willey and Hon. P. G. Van Winkle were chosen to these positions. They repaired to Washington with their credentials, and although their appearance at the bar of the Senate was the occasion for formal objection to their admission by those who had opposed the new state project, and now held it had no legal existence, this was only a form of graceful submission to the inevitable. They were duly admitted, and the Senate of the United States, followed by the House in admitting delegates, thus gave the formal, full and final recognition of the Congress to the State of West Virginia.

BIBLIOGRAPHY. - Fast and Maxwell: Formation of West Virginia; W. P. Willey: An Inside View of the Formation of West Virginia.

Professor of Equity, Jurisprudence, and Commercial Law, West Virginia University.

Return to Book Index Page


This comment system requires you to be logged in through either a Disqus account or an account you already have with Google, Twitter, Facebook or Yahoo. In the event you don't have an account with any of these companies then you can create an account with Disqus. All comments are moderated so they won't display until the moderator has approved your comment.

comments powered by Disqus