Confederate Military History. Jabez Lamar Monroe Curry

Чтение книги онлайн.

СКАЧАТЬ rashness in urging coercive measures had repelled confidence in the movement, and had left her no supporters except the land companies. Rhode Island, New Jersey and Delaware, declining to follow her into extreme measures, had acceded to the Confederation, leaving her in an awkward predicament. From this painful condition the judicious action of New York and the generous cession of Virginia came in time to extricate her.

      The Virginia statesmen had arrived at the conclusion that the purpose announced in their State constitution of 1776, of organizing their western possessions into independent States, could be better carried out by the United States than by the parent State. While irritated at the unjust assaults upon her title, and the threats of coercion, and while they could not concede that any portion of this land belonged to the smaller States, as a common stock, yet they recognized that these States were sadly in need of some such resource, which it was in the power of Virginia, by a wise and generous policy, to supply them. Such a policy would appease all jealousies, and would assure the great national purpose which Virginia had proposed and still ardently cherished, the completion of the Confederation.

      Now that all efforts at coercion had signally failed, Virginia could be magnanimous; yet there was necessity for caution. The Confederation was not complete, and it would manifestly be unwise to cede her territory to an inchoate government. This territory must be guarded from the grasp of the land companies, which had acquired a strong influence in Congress. The claim that the United States possessed title to any territory within the charter limits of Virginia or any other State, to be enforced at the pleasure of Congress, upon the plea that it had been defended by the common blood and treasure, or upon any other specious plea, was a dangerous doctrine, and any concession of Virginia must be so guarded that it could not be construed into a precedent to sanction such a claim. Impelled by patriotic impulses, and restrained by wise considerations of caution, Virginia decided to cede to the United States all the territory within her charter limits north of the Ohio river, and to guard this cession by conditions to protect those principles which she had so firmly maintained.

      Congress was also now ready to act upon the hint supplied by New York. Resolutions were adopted, September 6, 1760, urging all the States who owned western lands to make ‘a liberal surrender of a portion of their territorial claims so necessary to the happy establishment of the Federal union,’ and earnestly requesting Maryland to accede to the Confederation. This was followed in Congress, October 10, 1780, by additional resolutions, providing that the territory ceded should be held for the common benefit of the Union, and formed into republican States.

      The response of Virginia was prompt. In fact, Virginia had informally invited this action of Congress, as may be seen from the letter of Colonel Mason, author of the ‘Remonstrance,’ written from the Virginia Assembly, July 27, 1780, to Mr. Joseph Jones, in Congress. (Life of Patrick Henry, by W. W. Henry, vol. 2, p. 85.) In this letter, Colonel Mason says that the members of the legislature ‘wish for such reasonable propositions from Congress as they can unite in supporting.’ Her general assembly entered promptly upon the discussion of the proposed cession of the western lands. After debating its provisions through the Christmas holidays, the legislative forms of the act were completed January 2, 1781, by which Virginia tendered to the United States the most magnificent Christmas gift which history records, resigned the sovereignty of the largest tract of territory in the annals of the world ever voluntarily surrendered without price or bloodshed by a powerful state able to defend it.

      First of the States holding charter title to tender the jurisdiction and soil of her western lands, she invited the others to follow her example, and thus made possible the local governments and magical development of the West, averting the jealousy and possibly the anarchy and bloodshed that might have followed the assertion of her claims. As we see her thus voluntarily stripping herself of her territory until she shrinks up between the Ohio river and the Atlantic, shall we view her with that kindly pity which we feel for the man whose good-natured weakness has permitted greatness and fortune to fall from his grasp? Does not her course rather reveal a broad wisdom and a philanthropy which looked to the good of mankind, and not to the grasping of power or the extension of state lines? Whether we consider her magnanimous or weak, we cannot refuse the praise which poets and historians may bestow with kindling warmth, but which the world echoes with faint applause:

      All thou hast been reflects less fame on thee,

      Far less, than all thou hast forborne to be!

      But all magnanimity was lost on the land companies. The conditions of this cession, if accepted by Congress, would forever preclude the recognition of their claims. They, therefore, set up a clamor to prevent the acceptance of the cession. The effect on Maryland was different. Just one month later, February 2, 1781, Maryland authorized her delegates to accede to the Confederation, and accompanied her act with a mild declaration that she did not thereby relinquish any rights that she might have in the western lands. Her delegates ratified the articles May 1st.

      As in 1776, so again in 1781, Maryland acted with patriotism, and wisely receded from her former extreme declarations. She had notified Congress that she would not join the Confederation unless an article or articles should be added thereto limiting the boundaries of the States claiming to extend to the Mississippi river. Yet no such articles were ever added. In addition to this, the cessions of Virginia, New York and Connecticut had not been accepted, and no other charter claimant had even tendered a cession. Maryland had taken a sober second thought. She had discovered the impossibility of coercive measures and never afterward urged them, leaving the other claimant States to make cessions at leisure, or not at all, except of their own volition. The fact seems to be that she had nursed an unfounded suspicion of the ‘secret ambition’ of Virginia, and being now convinced of Virginia's patriotic intentions, she abandoned the contest, and her relations with Virginia became pacific and soon afterward cordial.

      The land companies, however, continued the fight against the acceptance of Virginia's cession, which contained conditions that would forever bar their claims. They obtained influence enough to procure the appointment of a committee favorable to their interests. Either through the exertions of the agent of the Indiana Land company, who was besieging Congress, or by some other means, a report was secured from this committee which was suspiciously favorable to the Indiana company.

      This report, made November 3, 1781, recommended that the title of the Indiana Land company be confirmed; that the cession of New York be accepted, as investing Congress with the jurisdiction of the entire western country; and that the cession of Virginia be rejected, for six reasons assigned, among which are the following:

      ‘First.—All the lands ceded or pretended to be ceded to the United States, by the State of Virginia, are within the claims of the States of Massachusetts, Connecticut and New York, being part of the lands belonging to the said Six Nations and their tributaries.’

      ‘Sixth.—The conditions annexed to the said cession are incompatible with the honor interests and peace of the United States.’

      The report offers a series of resolutions, among other things, that Congress recommend to Virginia and other states to cede ‘all claims and pretensions of claims to said western territory without any conditions or restrictions whatever.’ This report was the nearest approach to recognition which the claims of the land companies ever received in Congress, but it was a victory of short duration, and destined to an ignominious end, as shown by the following extract from the Fourth volume of Journals of Congress:

      April 18, 1782.—* * * ‘The order of the day for taking into consideration the report of the committee on the cessions of New York, Virginia and Connecticut, and the petitions of the Indiana, Vandalia, Illinois and Wabash companies, being called for by the delegates for Virginia, and the first paragraph being read, a motion was made by Mr. Lee, seconded by Mr. Bland [both Virginia delegates], “That previous to any determination in Congress, relative to the cessions of the western СКАЧАТЬ