Confederate Military History. Jabez Lamar Monroe Curry

Чтение книги онлайн.

СКАЧАТЬ Eden, and censuring Virginia for publishing the resolutions of May 31st. These resolutions of Maryland are too long to quote. They are strongly worded, and, though courteously expressed, evince a feeling of deep resentment. (American Archives, Fourth Series, vol. 6, pp. 1506, 1727.)

      The opportunity to repay Virginia in kind was now at hand. The convention of Virginia did not stop with instructing her delegates in Congress to move for independence and confederation. Without waiting on the result, the convention entered upon the work of preparing the State for independence and union. Her ‘Declaration of Rights’ was adopted June 12th, and her ‘Constitution or form of government’ was adopted, with like unanimity, June 29th. Article XXI of this instrument was intended to pave the way to confederation by releasing all title to the territory of other States, which had been carved out of her territory by grants of the crown, and which had occasioned colonial disputes, especially with Maryland. This article reads as follows: ‘The territories contained within the charters erecting the colonies Maryland, Pennsylvania, North and South Carolina, are hereby ceded, released and forever confirmed to the people of those colonies respectively, with all the rights of property, jurisdiction and government, and all other rights whatsoever which might at any time heretofore have been claimed by Virginia, except the free navigation and use of the rivers Potowmack and Pohomoke, with the property of the Virginia shores or strands bordering on either of the said rivers, and all improvements which have been made or shall be made thereon. The western and northern extent of Virginia shall in all other respects stand as fixed by the charter of King James the First, in the year one thousand six hundred and nine, and by the publick treaty of peace between the courts of Great Britain and France in the year one thousand seven hundred and sixty-three; unless, by act of legislature, one or more territories shall hereafter be laid off, and governments established westward of the Alleghany mountains. And no purchase of lands shall be made of the Indian natives but on behalf of the publick, by authority of the general assembly.’ （Henning's Statutes of Virginia.)

      Judge Haywood remarks on this action: ‘Here was magnanimously cut off and surrendered all the territory which had been taken from Virginia to satisfy the grants to the Lords Proprietors.’ ( Haywood's Hist. of Tenn., p. 6.)³

      Haywood is just in calling this action magnanimous. While Virginia could not, perhaps, have maintained a successful claim to the possession of those territories to which her abstract prior title had so long lain dormant, and had been weakened, if not destroyed, by so many capricious grants from the same power by which it was created, yet her position offered strong temptations to pursue the time sanctioned European policy, the policy which European statesmen consider sagacious, which has built up all the great powers of Europe at the expense of their neighbors, and which is pursued now and ever has been pursued throughout the whole history of their diplomacy. That policy would have been to nurse her claims, to hold them as a perpetual thorn in the side of her neighboring States, to prevent the formation of the union, to make herself the great central absorbing power, and gradually to encroach on the lesser States. Such a policy was feared by several of the smaller States, especially by Maryland. Had a monarch ruled the destinies of Virginia, such would have been the inevitable tendency of events. With wealth, population and resources then superior to any of the States, the prospect was certainly alluring, had the ambition of Virginia aimed at empire. But a far different spirit animated her people. Fired with the love of liberty, and struggling for their own freedom from the grasp of Great Britain, no thought entered their minds of aggression against the brethren fighting by their sides. Impelled by this spirit of her people, she devoted her efforts to bind the States in a fraternal compact, to remove all causes of jealousy, and to build up a great and permanent Federal republic, and she hastened to surrender all claims to the territory of her sister States.

      The Maryland convention, however, was in no frame of mind to recognize the magnanimity of Virginia. On the 29th of October the Maryland convention entered upon its journal the following note: ‘This convention, being informed that in the constitution or form of government agreed upon by the delegates of Virginia, a claim is made by them injurious to the inhabitants of this state,’ (American Archives, Fifth Series, vol. 3, p. 133), ‘Ordered, That the same be read, and the same was read, as follows, to wit:’ The twenty-first section of the Virginia constitution, as above quoted, was then read, and the convention resolved to consider the matter on the next day, October 30th. The consideration was resumed at the time appointed, whereupon a series of three resolutions was adopted. These resolutions make no acknowledgment of the effort of Virginia to terminate the old colonial disputes by the cession of her charter claims, but seem rather to resent it. The first resolution is in the following words: (Ibid., p. 134.)

      ‘Resolved, unanimously, That it is the opinion of this convention that the State of Virginia hath not any right or title to any of the territory, bays, rivers, or waters included in the charter granted by His Majesty Charles the First to Caecilius Calvert, Baron of Baltimore.’ (Am. Arch., Fifth Series, vol. 3, pp. 133, 134.)

      The second resolution is devoted to boundary claims, asserting ‘sole and exclusive jurisdiction over the said river Potowmack,’ etc. The third resolution is the one which demands our attention. It is as follows:

      ‘Resolved, unanimously, That it is the opinion of this convention that the very extensive claim of the State of Virginia to the back lands hath no foundation in justice, and that if the same or any like claim is admitted, the freedom of the smaller States and the liberties of America may be thereby greatly endangered; this convention being firmly persuaded that, if the dominion over those lands should be established by the blood and treasure of the United States, such lands ought to be considered as a common stock, to be parceled out at proper times into convenient, free and independent governments.’⁴

      This resolution marks the beginning of the controversy which delayed the formation of the Confederation for nearly five years, and threatened, at one time, to defeat it. The spirit of retaliation against Virginia is manifest upon its face, yet it ultimately led to good results. Just as the timely thrust of Virginia had awakened the people of Maryland to the patriotic action which hastened the Declaration of Independence, so the retaliation of Maryland, though failing signally, as we shall hereafter see, in the measures proposed by the State, yet had the effect to draw attention to the subject, and ultimately induced Virginia to reconsider the territorial policy announced in her constitution, and to make the voluntary cession of her western possessions the most magnanimous act of history.

      The territorial policy of Virginia had been foreshadowed in her constitution of June 26th, 1776, which was passed by the unanimous vote of her convention. This instrument declares that her western and northern extent shall stand as fixed by her charter, ‘unless by act of legislature one or more territories shall hereafter be laid off and governments established west of the Alleghany mountains.’

      This policy, so solemnly incorporated into her fundamental law, although the purpose of organizing the territory into new States is contingently expressed, furnishing the first official suggestion of additional States, was voluntarily made without pressure from others, and has been faithfully carried out. In one respect alone has Virginia departed from the policy outlined in her constitution. Instead of organizing all of her territory ‘west of the Alleghany mountains’ into States by the direct agency of her own legislature, she subsequently committed a portion of that duty to the United States by ceding the Northwest Territory, under express stipulations that it should be organized into States. She reserved the portion south of the Ohio, and, by direct action of her own legislature, erected it into the State of Kentucky in 1792, ten years before the United States was able to begin redeeming its pledge of organizing the Northwest Territory into States by creating the State of Ohio in 1802.

      Maryland's resolution of October 30, 1776, contained the excellent suggestion that Congress could make good use of these western lands, and would be the best agent for organizing them into independent States; but her reasoning as to any title of the United States was fallacious, and the coercive measures hinted at, and subsequently urged, were unwarrantable. The resolution was speedily followed up by bringing the matter before СКАЧАТЬ