The Journal of Negro History Volume I Part 17

With so many sympathizers with the oppressed in the back country, the South had much difficulty in holding the mountaineers in line to force upon the whole nation their policies, mainly determined by their desire for the continuation of slavery. Many of the mountaineers accordingly deserted the South in its opposition to the tariff and internal improvements, and when that section saw that it had failed in economic compet.i.tion with the North, and realized that it had to leave the Union soon or never, the mountaineers who had become commercially attached to the North and West boldly adhered to these sections to maintain the Union. The highlanders of North Carolina were finally reduced to secession with great difficulty; Eastern Tennessee had to yield, but kept the State almost divided between the two causes; timely dominated by Unionists with the support of troops, Kentucky stood firm; and to continue attached to the Federal Government forty-eight western counties of Virginia severed their connection with the essentially slaveholding district and formed the loyal State of West Virginia.

In the mountainous region the public mind has been largely that of people who have developed on free soil. They have always differed from the dwellers in the district near the sea not only in their att.i.tude toward slavery but in the policy they have followed in dealing with the blacks since the Civil War. One can observe even to-day such a difference in the atmosphere of the two sections, that in pa.s.sing from the tidewater to the mountains it seems like going from one country into another. There is still in the back country, of course, much of that lawlessness which shames the South, but crime in that section is not peculiarly the persecution of the Negro. Almost any one considered undesirable is dealt with unceremoniously.

In Appalachian America the races still maintain a sort of social contact.

White and black men work side by side, visit each other in their homes, and often attend the same church to listen with delight to the Word spoken by either a colored or white preacher.

C. G. WOODSON

FOOTNOTES:

[1] Wertenbaker, "Patrician and Plebeian in Virginia," 31.

[2] Exactly how many of each race settled in the Appalachian region we cannot tell, but we know that they came in large numbers, after the year 1735. A few important facts and names may give some idea as to the extent of this immigration. The Shenandoah Valley attracted many. Most prominent among those who were instrumental in settling the Valley was the Scotchman, John Lewis, the ancestor of so many families of the mountains. The Dutchmen, John and Isaac Van Meter, were among the first to buy land from Joist Hite, probably the first settler in the Valley. Among other adventurers of this frontier were Benjamin Allen, Riley Moore, and William White, of Maryland, who settled in the Shenandoah in 1734; Robert Harper and others who, in the same year, settled Richard Morgan's grant near Harper's Ferry; and Howard, Walker, and Rutledge, who took up land on what became the Fairfax Manor on the South Branch. In 1738 some Quakers came from Pennsylvania to occupy the Ross Survey of 40,000 acres near Winchester Farm in what is now Frederick County, Virginia. In the following year John and James Lindsay reached Long Marsh, and Isaac Larne of New Jersey the same district about the same time; while Joseph Carter of Bucks County, Pennsylvania, built his cabin on the Opequon near Winchester in 1743, and Joseph Hampton with his two sons came from Maryland to Buck Marsh near Berryville. But it is a more important fact that Burden, a Scotch-Irishman, obtained a large grant of land and settled it with hundreds of his race during the period from 1736 to 1743, and employed an agent to continue the work. With Burden came the McDowells, Alexanders, Campbells, McClungs, McCampbells, McCowans, and McKees, Prestons, Browns, Wallaces, Wilsons, McCues, and Caruthers. They settled the upper waters of the Shenandoah and the James, while the Germans had by this time well covered the territory between what is known as Harrisonburg and the present site of Harper's Ferry. See Maury, "Physical Survey," 42; _Virginia Magazine_, IX, 337-352; Washington's Journal, 47-48; Wayland, "German Element of the Shenandoah," 110.

[3] Wayland, "German Element of the Shenandoah," 28-30; _Virginia Historical Register_, III, 10.

[4] See Meade, "Old Families of Virginia," _The Transalleghany Historical Magazine_, I and II; De Ha.s.s, "The Settlement of Western Virginia," 71, 75; Kercheval, "History of the Valley," 61-71; Faust, "The German Element in the United States."

[5] Dunning, "The History of Political Theory from Luther to Montesquieu,"

9,10.

[6] _Not in Text_

[7] Buchanan, the most literary of these reformers, insisted that society originates in the effort of men to escape from the primordial state of nature, that in a society thus formed the essential to well-being is justice, that justice is maintained by laws rather than by kings, that the maker of the laws is the people, and that the interpreter of the laws is not the king, but the body of judges chosen by the people. He reduced the power of the ruler to the minimum, the only power a.s.signed to him being to maintain the morals of the state by making his life a model of virtuous living. The reformer claimed, too, that when the ruler exceeds his power he becomes a tyrant, and that people are justified in rejecting the doctrine of pa.s.sive obedience and slaying him. See Buchanan, "De Jure Apud Scotos"

(Aberdeen, 1762); Dunning, "History of Political Theories from Luther to Montesquieu"; and P. Hume Brown, "Biography of John Knox."

[8] Just how much the racial characteristics had to do with making this wilderness a center of democracy, it is difficult to estimate. Some would contend that although the Western people were of races different from this aristocratic element of the East, their own history shows that this had little to do with the estrangement of the West from the East, and that the fact that many persons of these same stocks who settled in the East became identified with the interests of that section is sufficient evidence to prove what an insignificant factor racial characteristics are. But although environment proves itself here to be the important factor in the development of these people and we are compelled to concede that the frontier made the Western man an advocate of republican principles, heredity must not be ignored altogether.

Exactly how much influence the Scotch-Irish had in shaping the destiny of Appalachian America is another much mooted question with which we are concerned here because historians give almost all the credit to this race. Even an authority like Justin Winsor leaves the impression that Virginia cared little for the frontier, and that all honor is due to the Scotch-Irish. Their influence in shaping the destiny of other States has been equally emphasized. The facts collected by Hanna doubtless give much support to the claims of that people to the honor for the development of Appalachian America. His conclusions, however, are rather far-sweeping and often shade into imagination. On the other hand, a good argument may be made to prove that other people, such as the Germans and Dutch, deserve equal honor. Furthermore, few of the eulogists of the Scotch-Irish take into account the number of indentured servants and poor whites who moved westward with the frontier. Besides, it must not be thought that the East neglected the frontier intentionally simply because the Tidewater people could not early subdue the wilderness. They did much to develop it. The records of the time of the Indian troubles beginning in 1793 show that the State governments answered the call for troops and ammunition as promptly as they could, and their statute books show numerous laws which were enacted in the interest of the West during these troubles.

The truth of the matter is that, whatever might have been the desire of the East to conquer the wilderness, the sectionalizing inst.i.tution of slavery which the colony had accepted as the basis of its society rendered the accomplishment of such an object impossible. There was too great diversity of interest in that region.

[9] Jefferson's Works, VI, 484.

[10] Kercheval, "History of the Valley," 47 and 48.

[11] It soon became evident that it was better to invest in slaves who had much more difficulty than the indentured servants in escaping and pa.s.sing as freemen.

[12] Jefferson's Works, VI, 484.

[13] This statement is based on the provisions of the first State const.i.tutions. See Thorpe's "Charters and Const.i.tutions."

[14] Grigsby, "Convention of 1788," 15, 49.

[15] The people living near the coast desired reform under British rule.

The frontiersmen had to win them to the movement. A certain Scotch-Irish element in the Carolinas was an exception to this rule in that they at first supported the British.

[16] The letters and speeches of most of the Revolutionary leaders show that they favored some kind of abolition. Among the most outspoken were James Otis, John Adams, Alexander Hamilton, Thomas Jefferson, and John Laurens. See also Schoepf, "Travels in the Confederation," 149; and Brissot de Warville, "New Travels," I, 220.

[17] See the various State const.i.tutions in Thorpe's "Charters and Const.i.tutions."

[18] Ibid.

[19] Foote, "Sketches of Virginia," 85.

[20] Hart, "Slavery and Abolition," 73; Olmsted, "The Back Country,"

230-232. _Berea Quarterly_, IX, No. 3.

[21] See the Speeches of the Western members of the Virginia Convention of 1829-30, Proceedings and Debates of the Convention of 1829-30.

[22] This is proved by the reports and records of the anti-slavery societies and especially by those of the American Convention of Abolition Societies. During the thirties and forties the southern societies ceased to make reports. See Adams, "A Neglected Period of Anti-Slavery," 117.

[23] The vote on the aristocratic const.i.tution framed in 1829-30 shows this. See Proceedings and Debates of the Convention of 1829-30, p. 903.

[24] Proceedings and Debates of the Convention of 1829-30, p. 226.

[25] Thorpe, "Charters and Const.i.tutions, South Carolina."

[26] Proceedings and Debates of the Convention of 1829-30, pp. 53, 76, 442, 858.

[27] See Calhoun's Works: "A Disquisition on Government," p. 1 et seq.

[28] Adams, "Neglected Period of Anti-Slavery," 138.

[29] Ibid., 34.

[30] Ba.s.sett, "Anti-Slavery Leaders of North Carolina," 72.

[31] Adams, "Anti-Slavery, etc.," 100-101.

[32] Speech of David Rice in the Const.i.tutional Convention of Kentucky, 1792.

[33] Birney, "James G. Birney," 96-100.

[34] Reports of the American Convention of Abolition Societies, 1809 and 1823.

[35] Birney, "James G. Birney," 70.

[36] Adams, "The Neglected Period of Anti-Slavery in America," 129-130.

Annals of Congress, 17th Congress, 1st ses., 2d ses., 18th Cong., 1st ses.

[37] Ibid., 20.

[38] "The Genius of Universal Emanc.i.p.ation," 11. 35.

[39] Ibid., 10. 145.