Virginia, Does any gentleman desire that ?
It would be a cause of difficulty unending
between these States after this war is over, if
that territory should be ceded during the
pendency of this civil strife.
if Virginia is restored to the Union, and
the people then say that. Loudoun county has
been wrongfully taken from them during this
civil crisis, contrary to their wishes and their
desires, we shall have difficulty and intermi-
nable quarrels between Maryland and Vir-
ginia upon that subject. I say, therefore,
that this amendment, in every sense, is just,
proper, and right. Do the people of Mary-
land desire in the midst of this civil war to
take from Virginia territory which Virginia
herself is unwilling to give up, or may be
unwilling to give up when she becomes in
the estimation of gentlemen just as loyal a
State as Pennsylvania or New York? Does
any one desire that that should be done?
Cutting off West Virginia from her, now
brings the Old Dominion down to one of the
inferior States in point of territory. Still
further cutting off the counties of Loudoun,
Fauquier, and Fairfax, and Accomac and
Northampton upon the Eastern Shore, she
would be but a small patch stuck in the
centre of this Union. I am speaking of what
she will be when in the estimation of gentle-
men she becomes a loyal State. Shall this
be brought about in the midst of civil con-
flict? Will not the people of Virginia re-
proach us forever by saying we have made
her necessity our opportunity? that in the
midst of a civil war like this, we have taken
occasion to despoil her of territory which
was justly hers, which she bad the right to
claim, over which her jurisdiction extended,
and over which her loyal people, if you choose
to say so, desired lo exercise jurisdiction?
It the question is put to the people of
Loudoun county now, to vote upon this ques-
tion, and if we go to Alexandria to obtain
the consent of the legislature there, what
will be the motive upon which these people
would vote now? Would it not be simply
and solely to get the protection of the gen-
eral government and of the State of Mary-
land, as against the armies of the Southern
rebels? Will they vote now as they owuld
vote if peace was restored, and if they knew
they could receive the same protection
from Virginia proper as they could from
Maryland? We are putting the ques-
tion to them under the necessities of this
war, and under the difficulties they are now
suffering, before the question is determined
which way or how the war will end, of sepa-
rating themselves from Virginia, when the
result might be, and when the result which is
expected by the majority of this convention
is, that old Virginia ilself will be restored to
the Union and become a loyal State. I say
that after that time comes, these people will
regret that they have been separated from |
their own State—Virginia. The old State
pride will revive. They will desire to be a
part of the State of which they have always
formed a part.. For these reasons lam in fa-
vor of the amendment offered by the gentle-
man from Prince George's (Mr. Belt.)
Mr. BARRON called for the previous ques-
tion, which was sustained.
The question was first put upon the pend-
ing amendment offered by Mr. BELT, as fol-
lows:
Amend section 47 by adding the following
words at the end thereof: " Provided, how-
ever, that the general assembly shall have no
power to accept the cession of any such ter-
ritory until after the existing civil war shall
have been brought to a close."
Mr. DENT demanded the yeas and nays,
and they were ordered.
The question being taken, the result was—
yeas 18, nays 48—as follows :
Yeas—Messrs. Belt, Bond, Chambers,
Crawford, .Dail, Davis, of Charles, Dent,
Edelen, Henkle, Hollyday, Johnson, Jones,
of Somerset, Lee, Mitchell, Miller, Morgan,
Parran, Smith, of Dorchester—18.
Nays—Messrs. Goldsborough, President;
Abbott, Annan, Audoun, Barron, Brooks,
Carter, Cunningham, Cushing, Daniel, Davis,
of Washington, Earle, Ecker, Galloway,
Greene, Hatch, Hebb, Hoffman, Hopkins,
Hopper, Keefer, Kennard, King, Larsh, Mar-
key, McComas, Mullikin, Murray, Negley,
Nyman, Parker, Pugh, Ridgely, Russell,
Sands, Schley, Smith, of Carroll, Sneary,
Stirling, Stockbridge, Swope, Sykes, Thomas,
Valliant, Wickard, Wooden—46.
So the amendment was rejected.
The question recurred upon the adoption
of the 47th section as reported by the com-
mittee.
Mr. MILLER demanded the yeas and nays,
and they were ordered.
The question being taken, the result was—
yeas 46, nays 20—as follows :
Yeas—Messrs. Goldsborough, President;
Abbott, Annan, Audoun, Barron, Brooks,
Carter, Cunningham, Cushing, Daniel, Davis,
of Washington, Earle, Ecker, Galloway,
Greene, Hatch, Hebb, Hoffman, Hopkins,
Hopper, Keefer, Kennard, King, Larsh, Mar-
key, McComas, Mullikin, Murray, Negley,
Nyman, Parker, Pugh, Ridgely, Russell,
Sands, Schley, Smith, of Carroll, Sneary,
Stirling, Stockbridge, Swope, Sykes, Thomas,
Valliant, Wickard, Wooden—46.
Nays—Messrs. Belt, Bond, Chambers,
Crawford, Dail, Davis, of Charles, Dent, Du-
vall, Edelen, Harwood, Henkle, Hollyday,
Johnson, Jones, of Somerset, Lee, Mitchell,
Miller, Morgan, Parran, Smith, of Dorchester
—20.
So the 47th section was ordered to a third
reading.
The convention then returned to the con-
sideration of the 19th section, which had been |
