Note: This was a term paper on the creation of West Virginia that I presented for my Civil War and Reconstruction class in grad school. It was created under much durress. I stopped for dinner on the evening before the paper was due, saving and shutting the computer down. I only had about two pages left to make---basically the conclusion. After dinner, I turned on the computer and discovered that the floppy died---I lost the whole paper. Needless to say, I was up all night trying to re-write the whole thing without a draft or outline. So, please excuse the errors and organization inadequacies---there was no time to proof the thing before turning it in.
A Coup D'Etat: The Creation Of West Virginia, 1860-1871
Terry Gruber Hist 525
December 12, 1992
The creation of West Virginia is an event unparalleled in American history. Created in the midst of Civil War, it launched a storm of controversy that did not settle until a Supreme Court decision in 1871. At the core of the controversy was the constitutionality of its creation. In treading through the labyrinth of facts, myths, and legal arguments, the fact remains that the Constitution of the United States was wholly ignored in favor of political expediency.
The Constitution speaks clearly about the admission of new states. Article IV, section 3, clause 1 states:
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 be 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 of the Congress.
For West Virginia to be legally erected, the consent of Virginia, West Virginia, and Congress must be had. In August of 1861 a convention of western Virginians passed an ordinance to In May of 1862 the Restored Government of create a new state. Virginia gave its consent in taking its western section for the creation of West Virginia. Congress gave its formal consent to the division of Virginia in 1866.
The inclusion of the eastern counties of West Virginia provided a basis for legal challenge by Virginia after the Civil War. The counties of Jefferson, Berkeley, Morgan, Hampshire, Hardy, and Pendleton were included by popular vote in each of the counties. Three of the Eastern counties accepted inclusion in the new state in an election held on 3 April 1862. Morgan County approved inclusion on 5 May 1862. Berkeley and Jefferson Counties approved inclusion in May of 1863. The votes were certified by the Restored Virginia governor, Francis H. Pierpont.2
In 1866, Virginia attempted to regain jurisdiction over all of its former counties, but was rebuffed. Refusing to drop the issue, Virginia, in December of 1866, filed a claim against West Virginia to regain its jurisdiction in the counties of Berkeley and Jefferson. In the case of Virginia v. West Virginia, the United States Supreme Court, on 6 March 1871, denied Virginia's claim. Although the constitutionality of the creation of West Virginia was not directly addressed, legal opinion assumed that the Supreme Court tacitly implied West Virginia's legitimacy. 3
Benjamin R. Curtis, arguing for Virginia, chose to focus on the Consent Clause of the Constitution. Article l, Section 10, Clause 3 states: "No state shall, without the Consent of Congress, … enter into any Agreement or Compact with another State …" In 1862, the Virginia Legislature had already given its consent to the taking of its western counties to form a new state. Curtis maintained that the agreement made between Virginia and West Virginia was illegal because the consent of Congress had not been obtained prior to entering into the agreement. The belated approval of Congress in 1866 was moot because of the Virginia Legislature act in 1865 which withdrew Virginia's consent to the agreement. The reason given for Virginia's withdrawal of consent was that Governor Pierpont had been misled about the results of the election. 4
Arguing for West Virginia, Reverdy Johnson stated that the argument of Virginia, claiming improper certification of the election results by Governor Pierpont, was groundless citing the precedent of Knox County v. Aspinwall and others. Furthermore, Virginia was not a state according to the Reconstruction Act of Congress. Therefore, Virginia could not bring any suit before the Court. 5
Five years passed before a decision was made on Virginia's claim. When the case first appeared before the Court in 1866, a decision was postponed. The death of Justice Wayne had resulted in an equal division of opinion in the Court. During the next five years another vacancy on the bench occurred. In 1870, President Grant filled the vacancies with Justices William Strong and Joseph Bradley. Virginia immediately reopened the argument. 6
The Justices sitting on the bench in 1871 were Miller, Swayne, Strong, Bradley, Clifford, Davis, and Field. Chief Justice Chase and Justice Nelson were absent due to illness.7
Virginia's claim was denied. Speaking for the majority of Miller, Swayne, Strong, and Bradley, Justice Miller stated that Congress had given its implied consent in 1862, when it approved the West Virginia Constitution which described the agreement made with Virginia. The argument of misrepresented election results was rejected because of the lapse of time. The dissenting Justices Davis, Clifford, and Field maintained that Congress never gave its consent to the agreement until 1866, after Virginia had withdrawn from the contract. 8
There are several questions that arise in the aftermath of Virginia v. West Virginia. The case did not confront the question of the constitutionality of West Virginia. If Virginia was a seceded state, then how was the recognition of the Restored Government of Virginia justified? In recognizing the Restored Government, did the Federal government abide by its Constitutional mandate to guarantee a Republican form of government to every state? How could any election result be certified in the volatile atmosphere that existed in western Virginia during the Civil War? The answers can only be discovered by examining the events which led to the admission of West Virginia as the thirty-fifth state.
Virginia was on the brink of secession after the election of 1860. Her sister states to the south had seceded from the Union with the election of Lincoln. Toward the end of the year, Virginia called a special session of the legislature. Ostensibly to discuss the sale of a canal to a foreign country, the session spent most of its time debating secession for Virginia. The majority in the legislature was not for secession unless the Federal government resorted to coercion against the seceded states. The attempt by the Lincoln administration to aid Fort Sumter was seen by the legislature as coercion. Immediately after the shelling of Fort Sumter, the Virginia legislature passed an Ordinance of Secession. The ordinance
was put to a vote throughout the state and overwhelmingly approved. On 17 April 1861 Virginia joined the Confederacy.West of the Blue Ridge Mountains, the vote was not as unanimous. The socio-economic make-up of this region was quite different from the eastern part of the state. In order to understand the creation of a new state out of a portion of the "Old Dominion", understanding the character of this region is necessary. There were three cultural regions in Virginia in 1860. East of the Blue Ridge, the inhabitants were by birth Virginians and had inhabited this area for generations. Those of foreign birth were few. Agriculture, using slave labor, was the dominant economic activity. The area between the Blue Ridge and Allegheny Mountains compose the second region. Living in this area were immigrant Pennsylvania Germans, Scots-Irish, and older eastern Anglo-Virginian families. Those of non-English background had been living for several generations in the region and had become more like the eastern Virginians. Like eastern Virginia, the agricultural economy depended upon slave labor. West of the Alleghenies, particularly in the border areas, were recent anti-slavery German immigrants and immigrants from the northern states. These groups were not sympathetic to slavery. The dominant economic activity, using free labor, was industrial production and mining.9
Economically, the central Ridge and Valley region was becoming more linked to the areas to the east. Agricultural produce was transported to markets in the east and south through the James River and Kanawha Canal, the Virginia and Tennessee Railroad, and a railroad that was later called the Chesapeake and Ohio. The counties in the north of this region were commercially isolated from Richmond, but had direct connections to the East and West via the Baltimore and Ohio and the Winchester and Potomac Railroads. From 10% to 39% of the white families living in the Central region had slaves.10
West of the Alleghenies, there were few commercial links to the areas east of the Blue Ridge. This region was exclusively linked by railroads to northern and western cities, the Baltimore and Ohio Railroad being the most important. The products from this region were primarily from industrial manufacturing and mining. Wheeling, located a short distance west of Pittsburgh on the Ohio River, was second only to Richmond in manufacturing. Three times more iron was mined in the West than in the East. Mason County alone accounted for one-third of the state's coal output. A growing oil and natural gas industry characterized the West by 1860, which attracted many northern capitalists. In the northwestern section, the growing ironworking industry also lured northern industrialists. The heavy concentration of immigrants from the Northern states, particularly in the Northern Panhandle area, and the very low incidence of slavery in the entire region contributed to the differences in socio-economic interests between the West and the areas to the east of the Alleghenies.11
By 1860, the northwestern region of Virginia had become isolated from the eastern portion. Commercial connections were closely tied to cities of the North and West. Agriculture was conducted on a much smaller scale than in the East, eliminating the need for slave labor. Commercial interest was in industrial development. Efficient, cheap transportation and banks were essential to development. Therefore, the primary legislative concern was in transportation improvement and in chartering banks. Western legislators were interested in the state authorizing and subsidizing road and canal construction. Eastern legislators began to heed the requests from their western colleagues during the 1850's. However, by 1860, development still lagged far behind that of the East.12
To many in the West, there was resentment toward the Eastern slaveholders, who controlled the legislature. They saw themselves as spectators in the commercial development of the state. In spite of the increased attention to western interests during the 1850's, in 1860 many Westerners felt the attention was "too little, too late."13 Arthur Boreman, of Wood County, best expressed the sentiment of the western section in 1863:
West Virginia should long since have had a separate State existence. The East has always looked on that portion of the State west of the mountains, as a sort of outside appendage…The unfairness and inequality of legislation is manifest on every stage of the statute book…
The Presidential election results of 1860 reveal an equal division of opinion regarding the position that the state should take in the growing sectional differences in the United States. Candidates from four competing parties were offered to the electorate. The newly formed Republican party was perceived as being controlled by Abolitionists, in spite of the attempt to moderate that impression by the nomination of Abraham Lincoln. The Democratic Party had split, forming Northern and Southern wings. The Northern candidate, Stephen A. Douglas, was seen as a traitor to the slave-interested South. The Southern wing nominated John C. Breckenridge. The platform of the Southern Democrats would appeal to slaveholders and states-rights advocates. The Constitutional Union Party's candidate was John Bell. An amalgamation of old Whigs and American/Know-Nothing Party adherents, the Constitutional Union Party appealed to those who supported the Union and Constitution but did not want to change the established social structure.15
In comparing the 1860 Presidential election results, there is little difference between the West and the East in the choice of candidates. For Breckenridge, present West Virginia polled
44.2%, present Virginia polled 44.6%. Bell was slightly more popular in the East, receiving 46%. In the West, he received 42%. Bell carried the state by a slim plurality of 358 votes.16
The election results in the fifty counties of western Virginia reveal the political and demographic diversity of the region. A total number of 50,049 votes were cast. Of that number, Lincoln received 1,402 or 3% of the vote, Bell received 20,977 or 42%, Breckenridge received 21,908 or 44%, and Douglas received 5,742 or 11% of the vote. Western Virginia was evenly split between the Southern Democrats and the Constitutional Unionists.17
Of the fifty counties, seven counties had cast votes for Lincoln. He received 20% of the vote in Brooke, 40% in Hancock, 21% in Ohio, 6% in Preston, 1% in Ritchie, 4% in Wood, and .04% in Marion Counties. In no county did he win a majority, though in Hancock County he lost to Breckenridge by a slim margin of 1%. Brooke, Preston, Ritchie, and Marion Counties voted strongly in favor of Breckenridge, Ohio County went to Bell, and Wood County was split between Bell and Breckenridge.18
Support for Lincoln in western Virginia indicates support from the capitalists in the region. It reflects capitalist support of free labor over slave labor. The concentrated Lincoln support in Brooke, Hancock, and Ohio Counties highlights the strong northern influence in these areas. The other counties that cast votes for Lincoln indicate less significant support for the Republicans. Preston, Ritchie, Marion, and Wood Counties were located on the Baltimore and Ohio Railroad.
The Baltimore and Ohio Railroad was vitally significant to the economy of northwestern Virginia. It was the only route for industrial and mining products to be transported to markets. The inclusion of the railroad within the boundaries of West Virginia was imperative for the Capitalists of the region. The desire to include the counties east of the Alleghenies into West Virginia kept the railroad in Union territory.19
It was men with industrial interests that led the movement to separate western Virginia from its eastern portion. They stood to lose the most from a separation from the Union. Capital was needed to fund industrial expansion, mineral exploration, and mining. Bank loans and stock investment were the sources of capital used. Northerners invested substantial amounts of capital in Western Virginia industry and mineral exploitation. If Virginia seceded, stock investment and banking activity would be severely limited or totally eliminated. Transportation of products to markets would be severely limited, particularly if civil war broke out. When the Virginia Legislature passed the Ordinance For Secession on 17 April 1861, western Virginia leaders responded to the crisis facing their industries.
Within thirty days after the legislature passed the Ordinance, Unionists in Preston, Monongalia, Ohio, Taylor, Mason, Wood, Jackson, and Wetzel Counties held conventions to express opposition to the Ordinance. The Clarksburg Convention held 22 April 1861 in Harrison County, called upon men to assemble ". . . on the 13th day of May next, to consult and determine upon such action as the people of Northwestern Virginia should take in the present fearful emergency . . ."20
Not all men of Harrison County were opposed to secession. On 26 April 1861, a Southern Rights Convention was held in Clarksburg. The Convention called upon western Virginians to support their sister states in the South. They declared their opposition to coercion by the Federal government. They did not advocate war, but simply stated that ". . . we want the great heart of the people to beat audibly . . ."21
The First Wheeling Convention met on 13 May 1861. The Convention debated the feasibility of erecting a new state. John Carlile of Harrison County led the debate in favor of the measure. Waitman T. Willey of Monongalia opposed the proposal, maintaining that there was a difference between rebellion and legal resistance. He intended to make any action at least appear legal. Willey's position carried the majority. However before adjournment, the Committee of State and Federal Relations, chaired by lawyer/industrialist Francis H. Pierpont,22 submitted a report to the convention. It stated:
1. The policy of state authorities was unwise and utterly subversive and destructive of our interests and efforts should be made to defeat the ordinance of secession in the special referendum.
2. If people of the state should ratify secession, a special election should be held in the northwest counties to choose delegates to meet at a second Wheeling Convention.
3. People of northwest counties might appeal to Virginia to let them leave peacefully.
23The convention finished its business by calling for a second Wheeling convention to assemble on the 11th of June.
On 23 May 1861 the Virginia Ordinance of Secession was overwhelmingly ratified by the people of Virginia, 125,950 to 20,373.24 Looking back to the 1860 election, there were a total of 50,049 eligible voters in western Virginia. In the vote on the Ordinance of Secession, if one were to assume that all of the negative votes were cast in western Virginia, then less than half of the people in western Virginia could have possibly voted against secession. A slight majority of voters in western Virginia may have approved of Virginia's secession.
The delegates attending the Second Wheeling Convention do not appear to be valid representatives of their districts. The convention opened with 100 delegates attending from thirty-four counties. More than one-third of the delegates were former members of the Virginia assembly. Several were sent by military authorities and some were self-appointed. There were no delegates from the northeastern counties of Hardy, Hampshire, and Jefferson; counties that were to be incorporated later into West Virginia.25
By declaration, the Second Wheeling Convention appointed itself the legitimate government of Virginia. After electing a president of the convention, Arthur I. Boreman, the assembly began its self-appointed task to reorganize the government of Virginia.
The first measure taken by the convention was the signing of a declaration of rights. It declared that all state offices were vacant, all actions of the General Assembly in Richmond were null and void, and acts to force ". . . the people of Virginia to separate from and wage war against the government of the United States and against citizens of neighboring states . . ." were declared to be without authority.26 On 19 June 1861, the convention adopted "An Ordinance for the Reorganization of the State Government". The next day, it elected Francis H. Pierpont as the new governor of Virginia. The new legislature was to be composed of all loyal individuals who had been elected in the May general election.27 Having accomplished this "coup d'etat", the convention adjourned.
The first step to create a "legal" new state had been taken. A state government that would voluntarily give up a portion of its territory for the establishment of a new state had been organized. The next step would be to create the new state. As called for at the Second Wheeling Convention, the Restored Virginia Legislature met on 1 July 1861. Its primary task was to fill all government offices and U.S. Congressional seats. The assembly accomplished its goal in short order, electing a Secretary of the Commonwealth, an Auditor of the Public Accounts, and a Treasurer. John S. Carlile and Waitman T. Willey were elected to fill the U.S. Senate seats of Virginia left vacant after Virginia's secession. They, along with previously chosen Representatives Brown, Whaley, and Blair, left immediately for Washington. By taking their seats in Congress as representatives from Virginia, the Federal Government recognized
the Restored Government as the rightful representative of the people of Virginia.28
At this point, the United States government failed in its Constitutional duty. Article IV, Section 4 of the Constitution of the United States asserts that "The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government ." The Congress of the United States seated representatives of a state, who were designated by a largely self-appointed legislature; a legislature that nominated the officers of that state. Furthermore, the two Wheeling Conventions that initiated the restoration of a Unionist Virginia were composed of representatives of dubious legitimacy. Clearly, a Republican form of government for Virginians was not guaranteed.
The Convention reassembled on the 6 August 1861 to form a new state. By August 20, an ordinance to create a new state, called Kanawha (later changed to West Virginia), was adopted. The boundaries of Kanawha were to be all of Virginia west of the Allegheny Mountains. A provision to include the counties of Jefferson, Berkeley, Morgan, Hampshire, Hardy, and Pendleton by popular vote in each county was added later. The Convention adjourned after calling for a popular election to ratify the ordinance and calling for a Constitutional Convention to be held on the 26th of November, in the event of the ordinance's ratification.29
The remaining steps to United States recognition of West Virginia progressed without difficulty over the next nine months. On October 24 the inhabitants of Restored Virginia ratified the ordinance to create a new state, 18,408 to 781. The work began on a Constitution for the new state in November and was completed in February 1862. The citizens ratified the Constitution in April by an overwhelming vote of 18,862 to 514. The Restored Virginia assembly met in May and gave its consent to the formation of West Virginia within its jurisdiction.30
The Union Army was an essential ingredient in the process culminating in the creation of West Virginia. Between the 23rd of May and the 11th of June, Union troops under General George B. McClellan occupied northwestern Virginia, thus assuring the election of delegates for the Second Wheeling Convention.31 In a letter of 27 February 1862 to restored Virginia Governor Francis Pierpont, from Arthur Boreman, later elected the first governor of West Virginia, Boreman expressed the danger the Virginia government was in from disloyal speakers circulating around the state, inciting people to resist the action of the assembly. He also stated, "... it is not safe for a loyal man to go into the interior and out of sight of the Ohio." He elaborated further that the Union Army was necessary to maintain loyalty and hinted at its use to suppress the disloyal speakers.32 The Union Army was present in the area, east of the Alleghenies, to be included into West Virginia by popular vote. The 22nd Pennsylvania Cavalry, Company "A", was camped in Romney, Hampshire County at the time the county was to vote on the question of its inclusion into the new state. The cavalry company's presence may have had a passive influence on the election results. In a letter to his wife, dated 3 May 1862, Private Aungier Dobbs wrote: "... we travel about here without firearms with no fears of being molested... the people is satisfied they are whiped but believe they were right ... "
Union troops were present in May of 1863 when the vote for inclusion was held in Jefferson and Berkeley Counties. These counties voted for inclusion by a stunning margin. The vote in Berkeley was 645 to 7. The vote in Jefferson was 248 to 2.34 Taking a look at the total number voting from each county in the 1860 Presidential election, a great number of people "disappeared". The 1860 total vote in Berkeley was 1,849; in Jefferson it was 1,857.35 The presence of Union troops may have dampened voter enthusiasm.
The question of admitting West Virginia as a new state came before Congress in May of 1862. The Senate voted in July for admission, 23 to 12. The House approved admission in December, 96 to 55; but not without debate.36
The debate in both Houses show that Congressmen were not unaware of the doubtful constitutional grounds for admission.
Kentucky Senator Powell expressed his opinion:
Out of 160 counties that comprise the state of Virginia, less than one-fourth have assumed to act for the entire state, even within the boundaries of the new state more than half of the voters have declined to take part in the election. No Senator could pretend to claim that even a 3d part of the people of Virginia ever had a thing to do with rendering their assent to the making of this state within the territorial limits of the ancient commonwealth.
Representative John Segar of Virginia, the only member of his delegation in the House who opposed admission asserted: "...there is no evidence that the majority of people within the counties which were to compose the new state had ever given its assent to its formation." He called the statehood bill a punitive measure against Virginia. Representative James Blaine of Maine pointed out that "…essentially the government of West Virginia was giving permission to the formation of a new state of West Virginia."39 Even after West Virginia was admitted to the Union, Senator Davis of Kentucky refused to approve seating the new West Virginia representatives stating: "The present state of West Virginia ... is a flagrant violation of the Constitution."40
Supporting the measure, Thaddeus Stevens of Pennsylvania expressed his opinion that:
We may admit West Virginia as a new state, not by virtue of any provision of the constitution, but under an absolute power which the laws of war give us. I shall vote for this bill upon that theory, for I will not stultify myself by supposing that we have any warrant in the constitution for this proceeding.41
After Congress passed the bill in early December, the bill went to President Abraham Lincoln for approval. In a memo to his Cabinet, dated 23 December 1862, Lincoln requested them to write their opinions on the admission of the new state. He requested them to respond to two queries:
Cabinet members Blair, Bates and Welles urged Lincoln to veto the bill. Secretary of the Navy, Gideon Welles's diary entry dated December 4, 1862, is a good representation of the negative arguments:
This is not the time to divide the commonwealth. The requirements of the Constitution are not complied with, as they in good faith should be, by Virginia, by the proposed new State, nor by the United States.
Again, on December 29:
Stanton...expressed surprise that I should oppose the division, for he thought it politic and wise to plant a free State south of the Ohio. I thought our duties Constitutional, not experimental...mere expediency should not override constitutional obligations. This action was not predicated on the consent of the people of Virginia, legitimately expressed; was arbitrary and without proper authority...43
In the affirmative were Chase, Stanton, and Seward. A summary of Chase's opinion provides a good representation of the main arguments for approving the bill. In his reply, he believed the Wheeling government spoke for the entire state, that in insurrection, those who remain faithful "...must be taken to constitute the State." The bill was expedient, because for the loyal men, admission was "of vital importance" for their safety and welfare. Admission would expand the emancipation process to areas not included in the Emancipation Proclamation. He may have been thinking of creating precedents for the future.44
On December 31, 1862, Lincoln signed the bill for the admission of West Virginia into the Union. At the same time he gave his reasons for signing the bill:
On 20 June 1863, the date officially given as the birth of West Virginia, Arthur I. Boreman was inaugurated as the first governor. The 1866 court challenge initiated by Virginia came at a critical juncture in the aftermath of the Civil War. Throughout the Reconstruction period, the Congress's policies were frequently under attack, both in and out of court. There was an undercurrent of siege mentality pervasive in Congress. To bolster its policy, Congress was willing to undertake whatever measures were necessary to preserve its Reconstruction policy.
The appointment of Supreme Court Justices sympathetic to Reconstruction policy was important to stave the growing anti-reconstruction sentiment. During debate to approve the appointment of Justices to fill two vacancies in the Supreme Court, a letter dated 28 December 1869 written by Senator Lot Morrill of Maine expressed the danger of appointing unsympathetic Justices: "...who can predict the mischief that may come to the nation from unfriendly interpretation of the war & reconstruction measures of Congress?"46 William Strong and Joseph Bradley were promising protectors of Congressional Reconstruction. They were confirmed in their appointment to the Supreme Court in 1870. Virginia's bid to repossess its severed territory was bound to fail.
The creation of West Virginia was an illegal act. Aside from being expressly forbidden in the Constitution, Congress and Lincoln failed to perform their constitutional duty to guarantee a Republican form of government, by both its recognition of the Restored Virginia government and its admission of West Virginia. The arbitrary and revolutionary natures underpinning both state governments were well known to all parties. Yet expedient consideration admitted West Virginia rather than constitutional consideration.
ENDNOTES
1. Wilson, James Q. American Government: Institutions and Policies. Lexington, MA: D.C. Heath and Company, 1980. 62223.
2. Cometti, Elizabeth and Festus P. Summers eds. The ThirtyFifth State: A Documentary History of West Virginia. Morgantown: West Virginia University Library, 1966. Document #132.
3. Ibid
4. Fairman, Charles. History of the Supreme Court of the United States: Reconstruction and Reunion; 1864-88, Part I. New York: Macmillan Publishing Co., Inc., 1971. 622-23.
5. Ibid, 623-26.
6. Ibid
7. Ibid, 620.
8. Ibid, 627.
9. Shanks, Henry T. The Secession Movement in Virginia, 1847-1861. Richmond: Garrett and Massie, 1934. 6-9.
10. Ibid
12. Ibid
13. Ibid
14. Cometti, Document #105
15. Shanks, 109-15.
16. Ibid, 115-17.
17. Cometti, Document #71.
18. Ibid, extrapolation.
19. Ibid, Document #78, #94.
20. Lewis, Virgil A. "How West Virginia Became A Member of the Federal Union, A Reprint". West Virginia History. 30 (October 1969): 598.
21. Cometti, Document #72
22. Ambler, Charles H. Francis H. Pierpont: Union War Governor of Virginia and Father of West Virginia. Chapel Hill: The University of North Carolina Press, 1937. 31
23. Winston, Sheldon. "Statehood For West Virginia: An Illegal Act?". West Virginia Histo ry. 30 (July 1969): 531.
24. Ibid
25. Cometti, Document #82
26. Winston, 531.
27. Lewis, 600-02.
28. Ibid.
29. Ibid.
30. Ibid.
31. Cometti, Document #82
32. Woodward, I.A. ed. "Arthur Ingraham Boreman In Fear of the Future of the New State". West Virginia History. 34 (October 1973): 382-88.
33. Haas, Ralph. Dear Esther: The Civil War Letters of Private Aungier Dobbs; Centerville, Pennsylvania; Company "A", The Ringgold Cavalry Company; 22nd Pennsylvania Cavalry; June 29, 1861 to October 31, 1865. Apollo, PA: Closson Press, 1991. Letter date: May 3, 1862.
34. Cometti, Document #132
35. Ibid, #71.
36. Lewis, 604-05.
37. Ibid.
38. Ibid.
39. Ibid, 533.
40. Ibid.
41. Ibid.
42. Basler, Roy P. ed. The Collected Works of Abraham Lincoln. New Brunswick: Rutgers University Press, 1953. v.6. Dec. 23, 1862.
43. Beale, Howard K. ed. Diary of Gideon Welles; Secretary of the
Navy Under Lincoln and Johnson. New York: W.W. Norton and Company, 1960. v.l. Dec. 4, 1862; Dec. 29, 1862.
44. Blue, Frederick J. Salmon P. Chase: A Life in Politics. Kent, Ohio: Kent State Univesity Press, 1987. 195.
45. Basler, Dec. 31, 1862.
46. Fairman, 730-31.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
PRIMARY
Basler, Roy P. ed. The Collected Works of Abraham Lincoln. New Brunswick: Rutgers University Press, 1953. v.6.
Beale, Howard K. ed. Diary of Gideon Welles; Secretary of the Navy Under Lincoln and Johnson. New York: W.W. Norton and Company, 1960. v.l.
Cometti, Elizabeth and Festus P. Summers eds. The ThirtyFifth State: A Documentary History of West Virginia. Morgantown: West Virginia University Library, 1966.
Haas, Ralph ed. Dear Esther: The Civil War Letters of Private Aungier Dobbs; Centerville, Pennsylvania; Company "A", The Ringgold Cavalry Company; 22nd Pennsylvania Cavalry; June 29, 1861 to October 31, 1865. Apollo, PA: Closson Press, 1991.
Simpson, Brooks D., LeRoy P. Graff, John Muldowny eds. Advice After A pomattox: Letters To Andrew Johnson, 1865-1866. Knoxville: The University of Tennessee Press, 1987.
Woodward, I.A. ed. "Arthur Ingraham Boreman In Fear of the Future of the New State". West Virginia History. 34 (October 1973): 382-88.
SECONDARY
Ambler, Charles H. Francis H. Pierpont: Union War Governor of Virginia and Father of West Virgina. Chapel Hill: The University of North Carolina Press, 1937.
Barney, William L. Battleground for the Union: The Era of the Civil War and Reconstruction, 1848-1877. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall, 1990.
Blue, Frederick J. Salmon P. Chase: A Life In Politics. Kent, Ohio: The Kent State University Press, 1987.
Fairman, Charles. History of the Supreme Court of the United States: Reconstruction and Reunion; 1864-88, Part One. New York: Macmillan Publishing Co., Inc., 1971. v.6.
Lewis, Virgil A. "How West Virginia Became A Member of the Federal Union, A Reprint". West Virginia History. 30 (October 1969): 598-606.
Rice, Otis K. West Virginia: A History. Lexington: The University Press of Kentucky, 1985.
Shanks, Henry T. The Secession Movement in Virginia, 18471861. Richmond: Garrett and Massie, 1934.
Silver, David M. Lincoln's Supreme Court. Urbana: University of Illinois Press, 1956.
Wilson, James Q. American Government: Institutions and Policies. Lexington, MA: D.C. Heath and Company, 1980.
Winston, Sheldon. "Statehood For West Virginia: An Illegal Act?". West Virginia History. 30(July 1969): 530-34.
Woodward, Isaiah Alfonso. "Arthur Ingraham Boreman: A Biography, Part I". West Virginia History. 31 (October 1970): 20669.
________ West Virginia and Its Struggle For Statehood, 1861-1863. Baltimore: Wolk Publishing Company, 1954.