1

"The Vindication Of The South
Brilliant Address of Hon. B. B. Munford 
An Array of Facts--The Right of Secession is Set Forth Unmistakably.  

 

On the 17th of April, by a vote of 88 to 55, the convention resolved upon an ordinance repealing the act by which Virginia had entered the Union, and submitted to a popular vote of the State, at an election to be held on the 4th Thursday of the following May, the ratification or rejection of this momentous step. The sentiments of many of the Union men of the convention doubtless found expression in the declaration of John B. Baldwin, the great Union leader, who, when called upon to know what would be the course of the Union men in Virginia declared: "We have no Union men in Virginia now, but those who were Union men will stand to their guns and make a fight that will shine out on the page of history as an example of what a brave people can do, after exhausting every means of pacification." 
 

Thus was precipitated Virginia's secession from the Union. Thus was ushered in one of the most terrific wars in all history. 

 

THE CAUSES OF WAR. 

 

Time will not permit a consideration of the causes which brought on this great conflict. They are to be gathered from remote and far distant times, as well as the epoch of the great event. Echoes of the battles of Naseby and Marston Moor; differences in the mental and religious characteristics of Puritan and Cavalier; divergent interests springing from dissimilar commercial and industrial conditions; conflicting notions as to the purposes of the Federal Government; crimination and recrimination as to the alleged prostitution of its powers for the advantage or disadvantage of the two sections; the institution of slavery; the attempted enforcement of the Fugitive Slave law; the nullification by States of this Federal statute; the abolition movement; the John Brown Raid; the growing hostility between the peoples of the North and the South; and finally, the triumph of sectionalism in the elections of 1860. 

 

VIRGINIA DID NOT FIGHT TO MAINTAIN SLAVERY. 

 

There is, however, one popular misconception to which I would direct your attention. While the institution of slavery and the rise of the abolition party were undoubtedly among the causes which precipitated the war, yet the statement is false either that Virginia seceded in order to maintain the institution of slavery, or that the authorities of the Federal Government inaugurated the war to emancipate the slaves. 
What had been Virginia's position with reference to this institution, and what historically speaking, was the cause for which the Federal Government drew its sword? 
 

 

Slavery was introduced into Virginia in 1619--a period of the world's history when the slave trade and the ownership of slaves was everywhere legalized by law. Between the date of the introduction of the first slave in 1619 and 1776, when Virginia declared her independence of Great Britain, petition after petition was addressed by her people and her Assembly, imploring the British crown to interdict the importation of slaves. Not only were petitions presented, but between the dates mentioned numerous Acts of Assembly were passed, the object and purpose of which was to stop the traffic. All of these acts were vetoed by the King, and, despite the declared opposition of the colonists, for over a century and a half the traffic continued, with each importation adding more and more to the difficulties and dangers of emancipation. 

 

AGAINST HUMAN NATURE. 

 

When her great son, Mr. Jefferson, came to pen the Declaration of Independence, and to arraign the King for his veto of these enactments, he declared that George III "has waged cruel war against human nature itself, violating its most sacred rights of life and liberty, in the persons of distant people who never offended him, captivating them and carrying them into slavery in another hemisphere." * * * "This piratical warfare, the opprobrium of infidel powers, is the warfare of the Christian King of Great Britain. Determined to keep open a market where men should be bought and sold, he has prostituted his negative by suppressing every legislative attempt to prohibit or restrain this execrable commerce." 

 

This clause in the Declaration of Independence was omitted from the draft adopted by Congress. Jefferson declares in his autobiography that it "was struck out in compliance to South Carolina and Georgia, who had never attempted to restrain the importation of slaves, and who, on the contrary, still wished to continue it. Our Northern brethren also, I believe, felt a little tender under those censures, for though their people had very few slaves, yet they had been pretty considerable carriers of them, to others." 

 

In October, 1778, the General Assembly of Virginia, then freed from the control of the British King, passed an act forever prohibiting the further importation of slaves into her Commonwealth. When she ceded to the Union the great northwest territory, won by the blood and the treasure of her people, she not only dedicated to the general government this imperial empire, but by the hand of her sons, Edward Carrington and Richard Henry Lee, constituting with Nathan Dane, of Massachusetts, a special committee, prepared the celebrated ordinance of 1787 for its government, in which it was provided that slavery should never exist in all that wide territory. 

 

THE SLAVE TRADE.

 

 
Thus Virginia not only gave to the Union the territory from which five of the foremost Commonwealths were carved, but dedicated it to freedom. The supreme opportunity, however, of suppressing the slave trade, came upon the adoption of the Federal Constitution. With every increase in the number of slaves, the difficulties and dangers of emancipation were multiplied. The hope of emancipation rested in stopping their importation, and dispersing over the whole face of the land those who had already found a home in our midst. Despite the opposition of Virginia, the legality of the foreign slave trade was extended for a period of twenty years. This action of the convention is declared by Mr. Fiske, the New England historian, "a bargain between New England and the far South." Continuing, he says: "This compromise was carried against the sturdy opposition of Virginia." 
George Mason, the author of our Bill of Rights, denounced what he called the "infernal traffic." "Slavery," said he, "discourages arts and manufactures; the poor despise labor when performed by slaves; they prevent the emigration of whites, who really strengthen and enrich a country. They produce the most pernicious effect on manners; every master of slaves is born a petty tyrant; they bring the judgment of heaven on a country; as nations cannot be rewarded or punished in the next world, they must be in this. By an inevitable chain of causes and effects, Providence punishes national sins by national calamities." "But," says Mr. Fiske, "these prophetic words were powerless against the combination of New England with the far South." 

 

TRADE LICENSED. 

 

Thus by the votes of Massachusetts, New Hampshire and Connecticut, with those of the far South, an additional twenty years was added to the century and a half during which the slave trade was licensed by law, and when that period had rolled around, the statesmen and thinkers of the land stood front to front with the problem of emancipation under far different, and more difficult conditions. 
 

 

The General Assembly of Virginia on more than one occasion considered the subject of gradual emancipation, and as late as 1832, the advocates of such a course mustered a following almost large enough to enact their resolutions into laws. The great difficulty, however, lay in the dangers to the community of the mere presence of such a host of slaves suddenly released from the restraints and care with which they were formerly surrounded. 
 

 

The sentiment of a large, if not the dominant element of the people of Virginia, was doubtless expressed in the words of Robert E. Lee, who, writing in December, 1856, declared: 

 

SLAVERY AN EVIL. 

 

"There are few, I believe, in this enlightened age, who will not acknowledge that slavery as an institution is a moral and political evil. I think it is a greater evil to the white, than to the colored race. While my feelings are strongly enlisted in behalf of the latter, my sympathies are more deeply engaged for the former. The blacks are immeasurably better off here than in Africa, morally, physically and socially. * * * Their emancipation will sooner result from the mild and melting influences of Christianity, than from the storm and tempest of melting controversy. * * * While we see the course of the final abolition of human slavery is still onward, and give it the aid of our prayers, let us leave the progress, as well as the results, in the hand of Him who sees the end, who chooses to work by slow influences, and with whom a thousand years are but a single day." 
 

 

The great apostle of liberty, Mr. Jefferson, realizing the dangers and difficulties of emancipation, and yet discerning some signs of the future, penned in the closing years of his life these words: "Nothing is more certainly written in the book of fate than that these people are to be free. Nor is it less certain that the two races equally free, can not live in the same government. Nature, habit, opinion, has drawn indelible lines of distinction between them." 

 

TO DEPORT THEM. 

 

The leaders and philanthropists of Virginia grew to realize the truth of these sentiments, and so the efforts which were made in the State Legislature to secure the enactment of laws for the emancipation of the slaves, were in time abandoned, and followed by the inauguration of movements for their deportation. It was nowhere felt that either the peace of the community or the well being of the slave, would be subserved by his emancipation, unless followed by his exodus from the country. In this work many of our foremost citizens were enlisted when the rise of what was known as the "Abolition Party" at the North, projecting itself as a disturbing force between master and slave, and in the councils of the Federal Government, with respect to this--a purely domestic and local institution--quenched the sentiment in favor of emancipation and riveted the startled minds of the people upon the new dangers, which as a result of the movements and discussions of the Abolition Party, confronted them. 
 

 

The reality of these fears was illustrated and intensified by the raid of John Brown and his followers, which sent a thrill of horror through the land. Such was Virginia's record with reference to slavery. Such the sentiments of some of her greatest sons. 
In the light of such a record, and such sentiments, will it be seriously insisted that she gave her home to desolation and her people to death, to maintain the institution? The vast majority of her sons who went forth to battle were not slave owners, and had little or no love for the institution. But beyond all this, the secession of Virginia could not have been to prevent the threatened emancipation of her slaves, because as we know, the Federal Government meditated no such course. 

 

LINCOLN'S PLATFORM. 

 

The platform of the party which elected Mr. Lincoln emphatically declared against any interference by the Federal power, with this domestic institution in the States, in which it already existed; and Mr. Lincoln in his inaugural address reiterated and reaffirmed that declaration. From no authoritative source was any assault meditated upon the institution of slavery. 
 

 

Even the right of the slave owner to carry his slaves into the territories, which had constituted the great question at issue, was now relinquished by the seceding States, and the territories themselves abandoned to the Union. The right of slavery in the territories was thus forever settled, while the question of the abolition of slavery in the States where it existed, had never been put in issue between the contending parties. The States of the Confederacy avowed the right to secede, and denied the power of the Federal Government to coerce them. Mr. Lincoln denied the first, and maintained the second. It was on this issue the two parties litigant submitted their controversy to the wage of battle. 
How, then, did the emancipation of the slaves become involved in the great war which followed? The facts are facts of history, and can be quickly declared.

 

PROCLAMATION OF 1862. 

On the 22d of September, 1862, after the war had been in progress for a year and a half, Mr. Lincoln issued his proclamation, in which he declared that the slaves held in the States, or portions of States which should be still in rebellion on the 1st of January, 1863, following, would be, by a subsequent proclamation, emancipated. His justification was found in the fact that, as a war measure, it would deplete the strength of the Confederacy and augment the forces of the Union. 
In all other portions of the Union where slavery was legalized, to-wit: Delaware, Maryland, West Virginia, Kentucky, Tennessee, Missouri, and portions of Louisiana and Virginia, the institution would remain unaffected by the proclamation. More than that, by the very terms of the proclamation, the people of the States in which it was made to apply could escape its effects by laying down their arms. Surely if the preservation of the institution of slavery in the seceding States furnished the incentive for their conduct, these States had simply to ground their arms and the institution would have remained. 
 

 

On the 1st of January, 1863, the final proclamation was made, in which it was recited, because of the failure of the people of the States and portions of States above mentioned to lay down their arms, the slaves within those designated localities were declared free, and the President pledged all the powers of the Union to make good this declaration. It may be of interest to note that, among the counties of Virginia excepted from the operation of this proclamation, were Accomac and Northampton--in honor of the Confederate soldiers from which this monument is dedicated to-day. 
Thus, and thus only, did the emancipation of the slaves become involved in the war. Mr. Lincoln only justified his proclamation as a war measure to help the cause of the Union, for he said: "If he could save the Union by freeing the slaves, he would do it; if he could save it by freeing one-half and keeping the other half in slavery, he would take that plan; if keeping them all in slavery would effect the object, that would be his course." 

 

REASON FOR SECESSION OF VIRGINIA. 

 

What, then, was the true cause which impelled Virginia to secede and for which her people fought? It may be stated in a word. Statesmen from the dawn of the Union had declared, and her people had been educated to believe, that any State had the constitutional right to peaceably withdraw from the Union. When the Cotton States adopted that course and formed the Southern Confederacy, Virginia, while deploring the event, still felt they had but exercised an undoubted right, and therefore any armed coercion on the part of the Federal government was not warranted by the Constitution. 
Mr. Davis, in one of his first messages, thus stated the position of this new government: "In independence we seek no conquests, no aggrandizements, no concessions of any kind from the States with which we have lately been confederated. All we ask is to be let alone; that those who never held power over us shall not now attempt our subjugation by arms." 
 

 

Virginia believed they had the right to make that declaration, and to take that stand; and because of this conviction, and because of its repeated declaration in the most solemn and authoritative form, both by legislative enactment and the avowals of her leaders, to have remained in the Union and joined in the coercion of the seceding States, would have been a repudiation of her principles and an act of tyranny and dishonor. 

 

VIRGINIA'S TRADITIONS. 

 

The people of Virginia were devoted to the memories, traditions, and the very soil of their Commonwealth--proud of her history, and jealous beyond comparison of her fame. The settlement of the State, the part which she had borne in the Revolution, and other wars, the romantic and daring adventures of her sons in every period of storm and stress, the brave avowals of her great leaders in the cause of the civil and religious liberty; the deep-seated belief that the rights of the government were only derived from the consent of the governed; the position of the parties to the impending conflict--the North rich in teeming population, diversified wealth, established government and the prestige of the old flag and the old constitution--the South unequal in every point, save in the enthusiasm and determination of her people; all this made the strongest appeal to the imagination and sympathies of her sons. To stand by as a neutral would have been to wear the badge of confessed dishonor. At the thought of invasion either of their homes or their liberties, there sprang to the hearts of these cavaliers and the sturdy yeomanry of the mountain and the plain, the inspiring words of the poet of their fatherland: 
"In our halls is hung-- 
Armory of the invincible knights of old; 
We must be free or die, who speak the tongue 
That Shakespeare spoke; the faith and morals hold 
Which Milton held--in everything we are sprung 
Of earth's first blood, have titles manifold." 

 

PROPHETIC WARNING. 

 

The prophetic warning of her statesmen as to the terrors which would mark the conflict, were more than realized in her desolated homes, her impoverished people, and the myriad graves of her sons that marked the face of the Commonwealth; and yet when all was over, and standing in the midst of her desolation, the figure which represented the true life and genius and heroism of the Commonwealth, could but exclaim in the language of Demosthenes: 

 

"I say if the event had been manifest to the world beforehand, not even then ought Athens to have forsaken this course, if Athens had any regard for her glory, or for her past, or for the ages to come." 
I have thus, my countrymen, attempted to epitomize some of the causes and motives which influenced the people of Virginia during the momentous period of the Civil War. If I have presented one fact or suggested one thought which will tend to make clear the truth, then my labor has not been in vain. The great duty of this generation is to present to the world the truth with reference to the causes and motives which actuated our people in that struggle. 

 

To the future we may look with confidence for a vindication of the high principles and pure motives which controlled Virginians. The very pathos of our story will enlist the interest of the world. Calvaries and Crucifixions take deepest hold upon humanity. The truth will be found and proclaimed just so sure as sacrifice and devotion appeal most strongly to the hearts and minds of men. 
"Thou hast great allies. 
Thy friends are exultations, agonies 
And love, and man's unconquerable mind." 
Already the truth of this assertion is being verified, and writers and thinkers of this and the old world make bold to affirm the integrity and heroism of Virginia's course. Thus Henderson, the English military critic and author, in his Life of Jackson, declares: 

 

JUSTICE TO CROMWELL. 

 

"The world has long since done justice to the motives of Cromwell and of Washington, and signs are not wanting that before many years have passed, it will do justice to the motives of the Southern people. They were true to their interpretation of the Constitution." 
Then referring to Virginia--" Her best endeavors were exerted to maintain the peace between the hostile sections, and not until her liberties were menaced did she repudiate a compact which had become intolerable. It was to preserve the freedom which her forefathers had bequeathed her, and which she desired to hand down unsullied to future generations, that she acquiesced in the Revolution." 
Ropes, the New England historian and author, in his History of the Civil War, referring to the Southern people, says: "They are not in their own opinion rebels at all; they were defending their States, that is, the nations to which they conceived themselves to belong, from invasion and conquest." 

 

Mr. Lecky, England's greatest living historian, in his Democracy and Liberty, declares: "The self-sacrifice, the unanimity, the tenacity of purpose, the indomitable will displayed on both sides by the vast citizen armies, in that long and terrible struggle, form one of the most splendid pages in 19th century history." 
 

But not only will these facts impress the minds and demand recognition of the students and historians of the future, but the time will come when the united voice of this whole land will proclaim the integrity of purpose which controlled our people in that conflict, and when their heroism will be proudly claimed as a part of the heritage of our country. 
All that was pure and knightly--all that was magnanimous and strong--will yet be treasured as evidences of our country's glory. 
What Englishman to-day, while recalling the heroism displayed at Naseby and Marston Moor, stops to inquire whether his forefathers fought for Parliament or King? 

 

AMERICAN MANHOOD. 

 

The day is not far distant when upon the fields where were fought the great battles of the Civil War, monuments will be erected to commemorate the prowess and valor of American manhood as exhibited in those fierce struggles for principle. On the plains of Abraham, which overlooked the city of Quebec, was fought the last battle between the French and English-speaking races for the mastery of this continent. Victory crowned the English arms under the splendid leadership of Wolfe, despite the desperate resistance of the French, led by the noblest heroic Montcalm. Both leaders fell at their posts of duty. To-day a beautiful monument rises above the plain. It carries no sting to the hearts of the vanquished, for it commemorates the heroism of both Wolfe and Montcalm, in the generous inscription: "Valor gave them a common death; history a common fame; and posterity a common monument." 
I

nspired by the remembrance of the valor of the soldiers of Accomac and Northampton, their surviving comrades have erected this monument to perpetuate their fame. 
 

Let it stand a lasting memorial of the heroic men of this sea-girt land. 
Let it make known the ever blessed story of duty well performed; of steadfast valor and fortitude in the face of defeat. For it invokes the reverential care of all who love devotion to principle; and over it I pronounce as a sentence of consecration, the beautiful epitaph which is said to mark the last resting place of the first Grenadier of France: "Consecrated to virtue and courage, and put under the protection of the brave in every age and country." 
Southern Historical Society Papers, Vol. XXVII. Richmond, Va, January-December. 1899.

 

                                                  Back To Top  

Home ¶ Back ¶ Next