Shifting Interpretations: Unionism in Virginia on the Eve of Secession

James Blair Historical Review Volume 9 Issue 1 James Blair Historical Review, Volume 9, Issue 1 Article 5 2019 Shifting Interpretations: Unionism in Virginia on the Eve of Secession Matthew B. Gittelman University of Virginia, Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarworks.wm.edu/jbhr Part of the History Commons Recommended Citation Gittelman, Matthew B. (2019) "Shifting Interpretations: Unionism in Virginia on the Eve of Secession," James Blair Historical Review: Vol. 9 : Iss. 1 , Article 5. Available at: https://scholarworks.wm.edu/jbhr/vol9/iss1/5 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Journals at W&M ScholarWorks. It has been accepted for inclusion in James Blair Historical Review by an authorized editor of W&M ScholarWorks. For more information, please contact . Gittelman: Shifting Interpretations Shifting Interpretations: Unionism in Virginia on the Eve of Secession Matthew Gittelman The rapid ascension of the Republican Party, which culminated in the election of Abraham Lincoln as President of the United States, prompted a tidal wave of secession among the southern states. But as the Deep South quickly departed the Union, Virginia lingered, caught between what remained of the United States and the newly formed Confederacy. As the South’s most populous and economically influential state, Virginia held the key to how the coming storm would unfold. If the Commonwealth chose to remain in the Union, the burgeoning Confederacy would have failed to acquire the South’s greatest industrial power. But, if Virginia decided to secede, all bets were off. Virginians fiercely debated the question of secession all across the state. In Pittsylvania County, the people met to discuss the crisis at hand. The convention, composed largely of local gentry and the lower white classes and held in the winter of 1861, adopted a set of motions drafted by Judge William Marshall Treadway, which were collectively known as “Mr. Treadway’s Resolution.” The Resolution petitioned the General Assembly to adopt necessary security measures, called for increased southern commercial independence, and even advocated the election of a special council to consider the question of secession. 1 Lastly, the Resolution demanded that northern states repeal any laws nullifying the Fugitive Slave Act and insisted that the federal government punish any states that may have refused. 2 With “Mr. Treadway’s Resolution,” Pittsylvania County essentially encouraged Virginia to arm one hand while extending the other. The document’s seemingly contradictory sentiments, in addition to the language expressed throughout it, appear to regard secession as a last ditch option. The citizens of Pittsylvania held the Published by W&M ScholarWorks, 2019 43 1 James Blair Historical Review, Vol. 9 [2019], Iss. 1, Art. 5 Constitution in high regard and accused the northern states and the Republican Party alike for being the true violators of the “Federal Compact.” These ideological leanings diverge from traditional notions about secession. Regardless of the conclusions historians may draw when studying the period, the historiography almost always harbors the same basic assumptions extrapolated from historical truths. The very terminology used in Civil War scholarship reflects these ideas: northerners are “federals,” southerners are “secessionists.” This diction imparts a long-established story about secession that this article aims to re-evaluate. Did the South secede from the Union because it rejected federalism? Did the North truly prioritize centralization? Placing a specific emphasis on Virginia provides the best path to answer these questions, as the Commonwealth lay at the crossroads of both the geographic and political extremes of Antebellum America. Treating Mr. Treadway’s Resolution as a microcosm of Virginian thought, this article will find that Unionist sentiment in Virginia, while often genuine, ultimately paled in importance to the preservation of slavery. Unionism in Virginia Mr. Treadway’s Resolution presented itself as an expression of the Virginian mind, but to what extent, if at all, did the citizens of Pittsylvania County and the larger Commonwealth support its assertions? Results from the presidential election of 1860 provide the best evidence to test this question. According to an edition of the Richmond Daily Enquirer from December 1860, Pittsylvania County opted for John Bell of the Constitutional Union Party, giving the native Tennessean 1,702 votes, amounting to a share of 57.98%.3 The runner-up was John C. Breckinridge of the Southern Democratic Party, who garnered 1,057 votes, accumulating 36% of the countywide total. 4 In the Commonwealth as a whole, the race between Bell and Breckinridge proved even closer, both in percentage and absolute number. Bell ultimately won Virginia, but he beat Breckinridge by just 322 votes, a paltry 0.19% difference. 5 Meanwhile, Abraham Lincoln, the winner of both the Electoral College and the national popular vote, only received 1,929 votes out of a statewide total of 167,301, a share of 1.15%. 6 https://scholarworks.wm.edu/jbhr/vol9/iss1/5 44 2 Gittelman: Shifting Interpretations The platform of the Constitutional Union Party aligned with the sentiments expressed in Mr. Treadway’s Resolution. In an official pamphlet, the party’s National Executive Committee criticized the supposed constitutional infractions of various northern states for nullifying the Fugitive Slave Act. 7 Furthermore, it castigated both the Republican and Democratic parties for their overtly sectional appeal, claiming that the former would hijack the federal government for the North and the latter for the South. 8 But above all else, the pamphlet affirmed the utmost importance of preserving the Union, stating that “no disunionist has a right to be a member of the Constitutional Union Party.” 9 Still, the National Executive Committee maintained that disunion remained a realistic possibility in the event of Democratic, or especially Republican, success.10 The party’s candidate also displayed a high degree of consistency in his opinions. In a document titled “John Bell’s Record,” the National Executive Committee stated that Bell, then a member of the United States House of Representatives, had refused to support the South Carolinians in their nullification crisis during the presidency of Andrew Jackson. 11 According to the pamphlet, he had cautioned the state’s citizens “to pause, solemnly pause and contemplate the frightful precipice which lay before them.”12 While Bell did not agree with the Supreme Court’s “doctrine of infallibility,” he also sharply criticized the response of nullification.13 This position would have appealed to citizens of Pittsylvania County in 1861. Southern Democratic Presence With the selection of John Bell and the Constitutional Union Party, Pittsylvania County and the Commonwealth of Virginia upheld Mr. Treadway’s premises in te (...truncated)