The President's Border-State Policy.--Loyal Government erected in
Virginia.--Recognized by Congress and Senators admitted.--Desire
for a New State.--The Long Dissatisfaction of the People of Western
Virginia.--The Character of the People and of their Section.--Their
Opportunity had come.--Organization of the Pierpont Government.--
State Convention and Constitution.--Application to Congress for
Admission.--Anti-slavery Amendment.--Senate Debate: Sumner, Wade,
Powell, Willey, and Others.--House Debate: Stevens, Conway, Bingham,
Segar.--Passage of Bill in Both Branches.--Heavy Blow to the Old
State.--Her Claims deserve Consideration.--Should be treated as
generously at least as Mexico.
The great importance attached by Mr. Lincoln to the preservation
of Loyalty in the line of slave States which bordered upon the free
States was everywhere recognized. As Delaware, Maryland, Kentucky,
and Missouri had been promptly placed under the control of governments
friendly to the Union, there remained of the States in rebellion
only Virginia with territory adjacent to the Loyal States. Virginia
bordered on the Ohio River for two hundred and fifty miles; she
was adjacent to Pennsylvania for a distance of one hundred and
twenty miles, half on the southern, half on the western line of
that State. Her extreme point stretched to the northward of
Pittsburg, and was within twenty-five miles of the parallel of
latitude that marks the southern boundary of New England. The
continued exercise of even a nominal jurisdiction so far North, by
the State which contained the capital of the Rebel Confederacy,
would be a serious impeachment of the power of the National
Government, and would detract from its respect at home and its
prestige abroad. But the National Government was of itself capable
only of enforcing military occupation and proclaiming the jurisdiction
of the sword. What the President desired was the establishment of
civil government by a loyal people, with the reign of law and order
everywhere recognized. Happily the disposition of the inhabitants
was in harmony with the wishes of the Administration and the
necessities of the Union.
After the adoption of the Secession Ordinance by the Virginia
Convention on the 17th of April, the loyal people of the Western
section of the State were prompt to act. As early as the 13th of
May--a fortnight before the day appointed for the popular vote on
the Secession Ordinance in Virginia--five hundred staunch Union
men came together in a Convention at Wheeling, denounced the
Ordinance of Secession and pledged their loyalty to the National
Government and their obedience to its laws. If the Ordinance should
be approved by the popular vote of Virginia, this preliminary
conference requested the people in all the counties represented,
to appoint delegates on the fourth day of June to a General Convention
to assemble in Wheeling on the 11th of the same month. These Union-
loving men were energetic and zealous. They realized that with
the secession of Virginia, completed and proclaimed, they must do
one of two things--either proceed at once to organize a State
government which would be faithful to the National Constitution,
or drift helplessly into anarchy and thus contribute to the success
of the rebellion. Their prompt and intelligent action is a remarkable
illustration of the trained and disciplined ability of Americans
for the duties of self-government.
The members of the Convention which was organized on the 11th of
June were even more determined than those who had assembled the
preceding month. Without delay they declared the State offices of
Virginia vacant because of the treason and disloyalty of those who
had been elected to hold them, and they proceeded to fill them and
form a regular State organization of which Francis H. Pierpont was
appointed the executive head. They did not assume to represent a
mere section of the State, but in the belief that the loyal people
were entitled to speak for the whole State they declared that their
government was the Government of Virginia. This Western movement
was subsequently strengthened by the accession of delegates from
Alexandria and Fairfax Counties in Middle Virginia and from Accomac
and Northampton Counties on the Eastern Shore. Thus organized,
the Government of the State was acknowledged by Congress as the
Government of Virginia and her senators and representatives were
admitted to seats.
Notwithstanding the compliance with all the outward forms and
requirements, notwithstanding the recognition by Congress of the
new government, it was seen to be essentially and really the
Government of West Virginia. It was only nominally and by construction
the Government of the State of Virginia. It did not represent the
political power or the majority of the people of the entire State.
That power was wielded in aid of the rebellion. The senators and
representatives of Virginia were in the Confederate Congress. The
strength of her people was in the Confederate Army, of which a
distinguished Virginian was the commander. The situation was
anomalous, though the friends of the Union justified the irregularity
of recognizing the framework of government in the hands of loyal
men as the actual civil administration of the State of Virginia.
CHARACTER OF WEST VIRGINIA.
The people of the Western section of Virginia realized that the
position was unnatural,--one which they could not sustain by popular
power within the limits of the State they assumed to govern, except
for the protection afforded by the military power of the National
Government. Between the two sections of the State there had long
been serious antagonisms. Indeed from the very origin of the
settlement of West Virginia, which had made but little progress
when the Federal Constitution was adopted, its citizens were in
large degree alienated from the Eastern and older section of the
State. The men of the West were hardy frontiersmen, a majority of
them soldiers of the Revolution and their immediate descendants,
without estates, with little but the honorable record of patriotic
service and their own strong arms, for their fortunes. They had
few slaves. They had their land patents, which were certificates
of patriotic service in the Revolutionary war, and they depended
upon their own labor for a new home in the wilderness. A population
thus originating, a community thus founded, were naturally uncongenial
to the aristocratic element of the Old Dominion. They had no trade
relations, no social intercourse, with the tide-water section of
the State. Formidable mountain ranges separated the two sections,
and the inhabitants saw little of each other. The business interests
of the Western region led the people to the Valley of the Ohio and
not to the shores of the Chesapeake. The waters of the Monongahela
connected them with Pennsylvania and carried them to Pittsburg.
All the rivers of the western slope flowed into the Ohio and gave
to the people the markets of Cincinnati and Louisville. Their
commercial intercourse depended on the navigation of Western waters,
and a far larger number had visited St. Louis and New Orleans than
had ever seen Richmond or Norfolk. The West-Virginians were aware
of the splendid resources of their section and were constantly
irritated by the neglect of the parent State to aid in their
development. They enjoyed a climate as genial as that of the
Italians who dwell on the slopes of the Apennines; they had forests
more valuable than those that skirt the upper Rhine; they had
mineral wealth as great as that which has given England her precedence
in the manufacturing progress of the world. They were anxious for
self-government. Their trustworthy senator, Waitman T. Willey,
declared that the people west of the Alleghany range had for sixty
years "desired separation." The two sections, he said, had been
time and again on the eve of an outbreak and the Western people
could with difficulty be held back from insurrection. Criminations
and recriminations had been exchanged at every session of the
Legislature for forty years and threats of violence had been hurled
by one section at the other.
The opportunity for a new State had now come. Its organization
and admission to the Union would complete the chain of loyal
Commonwealths on the south side of Mason and Dixon's line, and
would drive back the jurisdiction of rebellious Virginia beyond
the chain of mountains and interpose that barrier to the progress
of the insurrectionary forces Westward and Northward. The provision
in the Federal Constitution that no new State shall be formed within
the jurisdiction of any other State without the consent of the
Legislature of the State as well as of Congress, had always been
the stumbling-block in the way of West Virginia's independence.
Despite the hostilities and antagonisms of the two populations,
Virginia would insist on retaining this valuable section of country
within her own jurisdiction. But now, by the chances of war, the
same men who desired to create the new State were wielding the
entire political power of Virginia, and they would naturally grant
permission to themselves to erect a State that would be entirely
free from the objectionable jurisdiction which for the time they
represented. They were not slow to avail themselves of their
opportunity.
ADMISSION OF WEST VIRGINIA TO THE UNION.
The Pierpont Government, as it was now popularly termed, adopted
an Ordinance on the 20th of August, 1861, providing "for the
formation of a new State out of a portion of the territory of this
State." The Ordinance was approved by a vote of the people on the
fourth Thursday of October, and on the 26th of November the Convention
assembled in Wheeling to frame a constitution for the new government.
The work was satisfactorily performed, and on the first Thursday
of April, 1862, the people approved the constitution by a vote fo
18,862 in favor of it with only 514 against it. The work of the
representatives of the projected new State being thus ratified,
the Governor called the Legislature of Virginia together on the
sixth day of May, and on the 13th of the same moth that body gave
its consent, with due regularity, to "the formation of a new State
within the jurisdiction of the said State of Virginia." A fortnight
later, on the 28th of May, Senator Willey introduced the subject
in Congress by presenting a memorial from the Legislature of Virginia
together with a certified copy of the proceedings of the Constitutional
Convention and the vote of the people.
The constitution was referred to the Committee on Territories and
a bill favorable to admission was promptly reported by Senator Wade
of Ohio. The measure was discussed at different periods, largely
with reference to the effect it would have upon the institution of
slavery, and Congress insisted upon inserting a provision that "the
children of slaves, born in the State after the fourth day of July,
1863, shall be free; all slaves within the said State who shall at
that time be under the age of ten years shall be free when they
arrive at the age of twenty-one years; all slaves over ten and
under twenty-one shall be free at the age of twenty-five years;
and no slave shall be permitted to come into the State for permanent
residence therein." This condition was to be ratified by the
Convention which framed the constitution, and by the people at an
election held for the purpose, and, upon due certification of the
approval of the condition to the President of the United States,
he was authorized to issue his proclamation declaring West Virginia
to be a State of the Union.
Mr. Sumner was not satisfied with a condition which left West
Virginia with any form of slavery whatever. He said there were
"twelve thousand human beings now held in bondage in that State,
and all who are over a certain age are to be kept so for their
natural lives." He desired to strike out the provision which
permitted this and to insert on in lieu thereof, declaring that
"within the limits of the said State there shall be neither slavery
nor involuntary servitude otherwise than in the punishment of crime
whereof the party shall have been duly convicted." Mr. Sumner's
amendment was opposed by some of the most radical anti-slavery men
in the Senate, notably by Collamer and Foot of Vermont, by Wade of
Ohio, and by Howe of Wisconsin. They believed that the convictions
of the people of West Virginia had developed to the point embodied
in the bill, and that to attempt the immediate extirpation of
slavery might lead to re-action and possibly to the rejection of
the constitution. Mr. Sumner's amendment was therefore defeated
by 24 votes against 11. Of the 24 votes 17 were given by Republican
senators.
Mr. Powell of Kentucky vigorously opposed the bill in all its parts.
He contended that "if the cities of New York and Brooklyn, with
the counties in which they are located, were to get up a little
bogus Legislature and say they were the State of New York, and ask
to be admitted and cut off from the rest of the State, I would just
as soon vote for their admission as to vote for the pending bill."
No senator, he said, could pretend to claim that "even a third part
of the people of Virginia have ever had any thing to do with
rendering their assent to the making of this new State within the
territorial limits of that ancient Commonwealth." He declared this
to be "a dangerous precedent which overthrows the Constitution and
may be fraught with direful consequences." "Out of the one hundred
and sixty counties that compose the State of Virginia," he continued,
"less than one-fourth have assumed to act for the entire State;
and even within the boundaries of the new State more than half the
voters have declined to take part in the elections."
Mr. Willey argued that the Legislature represented the almost
unanimous will of all the loyal people of West Virginia. He said
that "besides the 19,000 votes cast, there were 10,100 men absent
in the Union army, and that, the conclusion being foregone, the
people had not been careful to come out to vote, knowing that the
constitution would be overwhelmingly adopted." On the 14th of
July, three days before Congress adjourned, the bill passed the
Senate by a vote of 23 to 17. Mr. Rice of Minnesota was the only
Democrat who favored the admission of the new State. The other
Democratic senators voted against it. Mr. Chandler and Mr. Howard
of Michigan voted in the negative because the State had voluntarily
done nothing towards providing for the emancipation of slaves; Mr.
Sumner and Mr. Wilson, because the State had rejected the anti-
slavery amendment; Mr. Trumbull and Mr. Cowan, because of the
irregularity of the whole proceeding.
ADMISSION OF WEST VIRGINIA TO THE UNION.
The bill was not considered in the House until the next session.
It was taken up on the 9th of December and was vigorously attacked
by Mr. Conway of Kansas. He questioned the validity of the Pierpont
Government and asked whether the law which gave him his warrant of
authority had come from "a mob or from a mass-meeting." He said
he had "serious reason to believe that it is the intention of the
President to encourage the formation of State organizations in all
the seceded States, and that a few individuals are to assume State
powers wherever a military encampment can be effected in any of
the rebellious districts." Mr. Conway denounced this scheme as
"utterly and flagrantly unconstitutional, as radically revolutionary
in character and deserving the reprobation of every loyal citizen."
It aimed, he said, at "an utter subversion of our constitutional
system and will consolidate all power in the hands of the Executive."
He was answered with spirit by Mr. Colfax of Indiana, who reviewed
the successive steps by which the legality of the Virginia government
had been recognized by the President and by all the departments of
the executive government. He argued that West Virginia had taken
every step regularly and complied with every requirement of the
Constitution.
Mr. Crittenden of Kentucky said the Wheeling government could be
regarded as the government of the whole State of Virginia "only by
a mere fiction. We _know_ the fact to be otherwise." He said it
was the party applying for admission that consented to the admission,
and that was the whole of it. When the war should cease and the
National authority should be re-established he wanted the Union as
it was. This would be "a new-made Union--the old majestic body
cut and slashed by passion, by war, coming to form another government,
another Union. The Constitution gives us no power to do what we
are asked to do." Mr. Maynard said there were "two governors and
two Legislatures assuming authority over Virginia simultaneously.
The question here is which shall the Government of the United States
recognize as the true and lawful Legislature of Virginia?" He
contended that it had already been settled, by the admission of
members of both branches of Congress under the Pierpont Government.
Mr. Dawes affirmed that "nobody has given his consent to the division
of the State of Virginia and the erection of a new State who does
not reside within the new State itself." He contended therefore
that "this bill does not comply with the spirit of the Constitution.
If the remaining portions of Virginia are under duress while this
consent is given, it is a mere mockery of the Constitution." Mr.
Brown of Virginia, from that part which was to be included in the
new State, corrected Mr. Dawes, but the latter maintained that
while a member of the Legislature "was picked up in Fairfax and
two or three gentlemen in other parts of the State, they protested
themselves that they did not pretend to represent the counties from
which they hailed."
Mr. Thaddeus Stevens said he did not desire to be understood as
"sharing the delusion that we are admitting West Virginia in
pursuance of any provision of the Constitution." He could "find
no provision justifying it, and the argument in favor of it originates
with those who either honestly entertain an erroneous opinion, or
who desire to justify by a forced construction an act which they
have predetermined to do." He maintained that it was "but mockery
to say that the Legislature of Virginia has ever consented to the
division. Only two hundred thousand out of a million and a quarter
of people have participated in the proceedings." He contended that
"the State of Virginia has a regular organization, and by a large
majority of the people it has changed its relations to the Federal
Government." He knew that this was treason in the individuals who
participated in it; but so far as the State was concerned, it was
a valid act. Our government, he argued, "does not act upon a State.
The State, as a separate distinct body, is the State of a majority
of the people of Virginia, whether rebel or loyal, whether convict
or free men. The majority of the people of Virginia is the State
of Virginia, although individuals have committed treason." "Governor
Pierpont," continued Mr. Stevens, "is an excellent man, and I wish
he were the Governor elected by the people of Virginia. But
according to my principles operating at the present time I can vote
for the admission of West Virginia without any compunctions of
conscience--only with some doubt about the policy of it. None of
the States now in rebellion are entitled to the protection of the
Constitution. These proceedings are in virtue of the laws of war.
We may admit West Virginia as a new State, not by virtue of any
provision of the Constitution but under our absolute power which
the laws of war give us in the circumstances in which we are placed.
I shall vote for this bill upon that theory, and upon that alone.
I will not stultify myself by supposing that we have any warrant
in the Constitution for this proceeding."
ADMISSION OF WEST VIRGINIA TO THE UNION.
Mr. Bingham of Ohio made an able argument principally devoted to
rebutting the somewhat mischievous ground assumed by Mr. Stevens.
He affirmed that "the minority of the people of the State cannot
be deprived of their rights because the majority have committed
treason." He argued that, the majority of the people of Virginia
having become rebels, the State was in the hands of the loyal
minority, who in that event had a right to administer the laws,
maintain the authority of the State government, and elect a State
Legislature and a Governor, through whom they might call upon the
Federal Government for protection against domestic violence,
according to the express guaranty of the Constitution. "To deny
this proposition," continued Mr. Bingham, "is to say that when the
majority in any State revolt against the laws, the State government
can never be re-organized nor the rights of the minority protected
so long as the majority are in revolt." He contended that the
doctrine he advocated was not a new one, that it was as old as the
Constitution, and he called attention to the remarkable letter of
"The Federalist," addressed by Mr. Madison to the American people
in which "he who is called the author of the Constitution" asked:
"Why may not illicit combinations for purposes of violence be formed
as well by a majority of a State as by a majority of a county or
district of the same State? And if the authority of the State
ought in the latter case to protect the local magistrate, ought
not the Federal authority in the former case to support the State
authority?"
Mr. Segar, who represented the district including Fortress Monroe,
pleaded very earnestly against the dismemberment of his State and
he argued, as Mr. Powell had argued in the Senate, that there was
no evidence that a majority of the people within the counties which
were to compose the new State had ever given their assent to its
formation. The ordinary vote of those counties he said was 48,000
while on the new State question the entire vote cast was only
19,000. He named ten counties included in the new State organization
in which not a single vote had been cast on either side of the
question at the special election. Though loyal to the Union and
grieving over the rebellious course of Virginia he begged that this
humiliation might be spared her. "Let there not be two Virginias;
let us remain one and united. Do not break up the rich cluster of
glorious memories and associations which gather over the name and
the history of this ancient and once glorious Commonwealth."
On the passage of the bill the ayes were 96 and the noes were 55.
The ayes were wholly from the Republican party, though several
prominent Republicans opposed the measure. Almost the entire
Massachusetts delegation voted in the negative, as did also Mr.
Roscoe Conkling, Mr. Conway of Kansas and Mr. Francis Thomas of
Maryland. The wide difference of opinion concerning this act was
not unnatural. But the cause of the Union was aided by the addition
of another loyal commonwealth, and substantial justice was done to
the brave people of the new State who by their loyalty had earned
the right to be freed from the domination which had fretted them
and from the association which was uncongenial to them.
To the old State of Virginia the blow was a heavy one. In the
years following the war it added seriously to her financial
embarrassment, and it has in many ways obstructed her prosperity.
As a punitive measure, for the chastening of Virginia, it cannot
be defended. Assuredly there was no ground for distressing Virginia
by penal enactments that did not apply equally to every other State
of the Confederacy. Common justice revolts at the selection of
one man for punishment from eleven who have all been guilty of the
same offense. If punishment had been designed there was equal
reason for stripping Texas of her vast domain and for withdrawing
the numerous land grants which had been generously made by the
National Government to many of the States in rebellion. But Texas
was allowed to emerge from the contest without the forfeiture of
an acre, and Congress, so far from withdrawing the land grants by
which other Southern States were to be enriched, took pains to
renew them in the years succeeding the war. The autonomy of Virginia
alone was disturbed. Upon Virginia alone fell the penalty, which
if due to any was due to all.
THE PUBLIC DEBT OF VIRGINIA.
Another consideration is of great weight. An innocent third party
was involved. Virginia owed a large debt, held in great part by
loyal citizens of the North and by subjects of foreign countries.
The burden was already as heavy as she could bear in her entirety,
and dismemberment so crippled her that she could not meet her
obligations. The United States might well have relieved Virginia
and have done justice to her creditors by making some allowance
for the division of her territory. Regarding her only as entitled
to the rights of a public enemy so long as she warred upon the
Union, we may confidently maintain that she is entitled at least
to as just and magnanimous treatment as the National Government
extends to a foreign foe. In our war with Mexico it became our
interest to acquire a large part of the territory owned by that
republic. We had conquered her armies and were in possession of
her capital. She was helpless in our hands. But the high sense
of justice which has always distinguished the United States in her
public policies would not permit the despoilment of Mexico. We
negotiated therefore for the territory needed, and paid for it a
larger price than would have been given by any other nation in the
world. The American Government went still farther. Many of our
citizens held large claims against Mexico, and the failure to pay
them had been one of the causes that precipitated hostilities.
Our government in addition to the money consideration of fifteen
millions of dollars which we paid for territory, agreed to exonerate
Mexico from all demands of our citizens, and to pay them from our
own Treasury. This supplementary agreement cost the National
Treasury nearly four million dollars.
If the United State were willing to place Virginia on the basis on
which they magnanimously placed Mexico after the conquest of that
Republic, a sufficient allowance would be made to her to compensate
at least for that part of her public debt which might presumptively
be represented by the territory taken from her. If it be said in
answer to such a suggestion that it would be fairer for West Virginia
to assume the proportional obligation thus indicated, the prompt
rejoinder is that in equity her people are not held to such
obligation. The public improvements for which the debt was in
large part incurred had not been so far completed as to benefit
West Virginia when the civil war began,--their advantages being
mainly confined to the Tide-water and Piedmont sections of the
State. There is indeed neither moral nor legal responsibility
resting upon West Virginia for any part of the debt of the old
State.
In determining the relative obligations of the National Government
and of the government of West Virginia, concerning the debt, it is
of the first importance to remember that the new State was not
primarily organized and admitted to the Union for the benefit of
her own people, but in far larger degree for the benefit of the
people of the whole Union. The organic law would not have been
strained, legal fictions would not have been invented, contradictory
theories would not have been indulged, if a great national interest
had not demanded the creation of West Virginia. If it had not been
apparent that the organization of West Virginia was an advantage
to the loyal cause; if the border-State policy of Mr. Lincoln, so
rigidly adhered to throughout the contest, had not required this
link for the completion of its chain,--the wishes of the people
most directly involved would never have had the slightest attention
from the Congress of the United States. Strong and equitable as
was the case of West Virginia, irritating and undesirable as her
relations to the older State might be, advantageous to the people
as the new government might prove, these considerations would not
of themselves have offered sufficient inducement to engage the
attention of Congress for an hour at that critical period. They
would have been brushed aside and disregarded with that cool
indifference by which all great legislative bodies prove how easy
it is to endure the misery of other people. West Virginia indeed
got only what was equitably due, and what she was entitled to claim
by the natural right of self-government. The war brought good
fortune to her as conspicuously as it brought ill fortune to the
older State from which she was wrenched. West Virginia is to be
congratulated, and her creditable career and untiring enterprise
since she assumed the responsibilities of self-government show how
well she deserved the boon. But the wounds inflicted on the mother
State by her separation will never be healed until Virginia is
relieved from the odium of having been specially selected from the
eleven seceding States for the punishment that struck at once
against her prosperity and against her pride of empire.
Nor should it be forgotten that the State of Virginia before the
war might well be regarded as the creditor and not the debtor of
the National Government. One of her earliest acts of patriotism as
an independent State was the cession to the General Government of
her superb domain on the north side of the Ohio River, from the
sale of which more than one hundred millions of dollars have been
paid into the National Treasury. A suggestive contrast is presented
to-day between the condition of Virginia and the condition of Texas
and Florida. It was the aggressive disunionism of the two latter
States which aided powerfully in dragging Virginia into rebellion.
But for the urgency of the seven original Confederate States, in
which Texas and Florida were numbered, Virginia Loyalists would
have been able to hold their State firm in her National allegiance.
Since the war Texas has traveled the highway to wealth and power,
founded on the ownership of her public lands, of which the National
Government could have deprived her with as little difficulty as was
found in dividing Virginia. Florida has likewise enjoyed general
prosperity, and secured rapid development from the resources of
land which the National Government had generously given her before
the war and of which she was not deprived for her acts of rebellion.
True-hearted Americans rejoice in the prosperity of these States
which adorn the southern border of the Republic; but they cannot
help seeing, and seeing with regret, how differently the ancient
Commonwealth of Virginia has fared at the hands of the National
Government.
EQUITABLE CONSIDERATIONS INVOLVED.
If the hurt to Virginia were of a general character, which could
not be specified or defined, her case might be passed over with
the plea of _damnum absque injurid_. But, unfortunately,--or it
may be fortunately,--the detriment to her public credit can be
stated with substantial precision, and can be traced directly to
her despoilment. That took from her the power to pay her debt.
If the harm resulting therefrom were confined to the State and to
the holders of her securities, the National Government might the
more easily disregard the equities of the case. But Virginia's
embarrassment is of wide-spread concern, and injuriously affects
the public credit of other States. Nor can it be said that the
precedent of aiding Virginia could be quoted for aid to every State
that might get into financial trouble. It could be quoted only
for the case--which will perhaps never again occur--where the
National Government shall strip the State of a large and valuable
part of her territory, and thus take from her the ability to meet
her obligations. The precedent might then be quoted, and should
be unhesitatingly followed.
In the formal and necessarily austere administration of public
affairs there is little room for the interposition of sentiment.
Yet sentiment has its place. We stimulate the ardor of patriotism
by the mere display of a flag which has no material force, but
which is emblematic of all material force, and typifies the glory
of the Nation. We stir the ambition of the living by rearing costly
monuments to the heroic dead. It may surely be pardoned if Americans
shall feel a deep personal interest in the good name and good
fortune of a State so closely identified with the early renown of
the Republic,--a State with whose soil is mingled the dust of those
to whom all States and all generations are debtors,--the Father of
his Country, the author of the Declaration of Independence, the
chief projector of the National Constitution.