Augusta County, VA - Unionism and Political Culture from 1850-1850. Thesis Written by Mike Lesperance University of Virginia Submitted by Mike Lesperance for use in the USGenWeb Archives --------------------------------------------------------------- UNIONISM AND POLITICAL CULTURE FROM 1850-1850 Table of Contents Unionism, Nationalism, and Political Culture 1 Economic and Social Developments 7 Political Development to 1850 13 The Compromise of 1850, the Nashville Convention, and the Fugitive Slave Law 19 The Kansas-Nebraska Act 31 John Brown's Raid 38 The Election of 1860 42 Between Lincoln's Victory and Fort Sumter 52 Conclusion 66 Appendix Bibliography "If we cannot stay the wave of fanaticism that is rolling down from the North to engulf us and if, on the other hand, we cannot arrest the incendiarism of the South, all is lost." Unionism, Nationalism, and Political Culture Most histories of the decade before the Civil War concentrate on the numerous sectional crises which increased tensions between the northern free states and the southern slave states. The drama reached its climax with the November 1860 Presidential election of free-soiler Abraham Lincoln, an event that resulted in the secession of seven Deep South states and the formation of the Confederate States of America. With the outbreak of war at Fort Sumter and the exodus of the Upper South states from the Union, the tragic battle lines were drawn. This paper will examine the reactions of the people of Augusta County, Virginia, to the "Crisis of the 1850s." It will portray the threats to the Union through their eyes and chronicle the clear-headed advice they preached in a vain attempt to avert the war they feared was coming. Rather than focus merely on quantitative analyses of voting returns, the essay tries to define a political culture, a set of values and beliefs held by average citizens about the nature of the Union and their county's place in it. In this light, Unionism becomes identifiable as an integral part of their culture. A careful analysis of Augusta County newspapers demonstrates the consistent position taken by both the Whig and Democratic parties with regard to the Federal Union. This may be summed up in four parts: the federal system of government was "the greatest and best government the world has ever seen"; the maintenance of the government depended upon strict adherence to the laws as spelled out in the Constitution; these laws mandated equal treatment without regard to sectional interests; and that if the laws were not upheld, or had to be upheld by force, the Union "itself would part like a snow wreath." As the great histories on the decade make clear, sectional tensions threatened to obviate the enforcement of the laws, deny equal treatment without sectional bias, and promote physical compulsion. Most histories identify slavery as the single most important factor in sectional disputes. Certainly the editors of the Augusta papers agreed. They did not think, however, that the issue was insurmountable, largely because they saw slavery as one interest among many. Slavery is mentioned very rarely in their discussions of sectional tensions. They chose instead to stress the interests shared between sections, to convince northern and southern partisans that agitation over slavery was not worth the "price of the Union." In a real sense, the people of Augusta County were among the last antebellum American nationalists. Recently, historians Daniel Crofts, Shearer Davis Bowman, and Peter Knupfer have begun to focus on the Upper South's "reluctant Confederates" who thwarted secession in Tennessee, North Carolina, Arkansas, and Virginia until the threat of hostile action forced them to leave the Union. Typically called Unionists, the ideas of the men--women have yet to be examined--who resisted sectional pressure have not been studied with enough depth or clarity. Unionism was neither a reactionary doctrine nor only a desperate attempt to preserve the nation. It was, rather, a series of long-held values and beliefs about the benefits of American nationhood and the obligations of citizenship in "these United States." The most thoughtful interpretations of Unionism have come from David Potter and Daniel Crofts. Potter deals with Unionists in several books and articles, but his most important contribution appears in the essay, "The Historian's Use of Nationalism, and Vice Versa." This brilliant article does much to get beyond the hubris of war and Southern defeat and stresses the cultural interests shared by both sections of the country. Potter asserts that Unionist ideology was a combination of self-interests and cultural precepts emphasizing the transience of the division wrought by the war and showing that slavery was not the only interest, albeit an issue that required a bloody conflict to resolve. Recently, Daniel Crofts has led historians back to the long-ignored topic discussed in this essay. In Reluctant Confederates, he argues that "three waves" swept through the Upper South between November 1860 and April 1861: Lincoln's election was a high point for secessionists; the Upper South Conventions represented a Unionist "turning of the tide"; and, finally, Lincoln's call for troops, which gained secessionists the victory they so long sought. Crofts also discusses the importance of a strong two-party system and the relative lack of slavery as key factors in Unionists' ability to garner popular support. Both Potter and Crofts tend to depict Unionists as reactionaries striving to prevent secessionist impulses in the Upper South. Certainly Unionists did fight southern extremists and they battled valiantly in the final days before Fort Sumter to preserve the Union. Yet, if the experience of Augusta County Unionists is any indication, the arguments in favor of the Federal Union in 1861 were essentially the same ones made during the entire decade before the Civil War. To paint Unionists as defensive reactionaries struggling to reach a compromise is to misunderstand the essential components behind Unionist thought. In Augusta County, there were no "waves," only quiet resentment and determination in the wake of a perceived sectionally motivated war. An understanding of Unionism must begin and remain in the context of nationalism, "a principle which holds that the political and national unit should be congruent." A particularly persuasive interpretation of nationalism is posed by Benedict Anderson, who defines it as an "imagined community" limited in scope by the information passed on to citizens through newspapers and other sources that by definition imply "the refraction of even 'world events' into a specified imagined world of vernacular readers." Anderson's thesis about the importance of print capitalism was borne out by the experience of Augusta County. Eric Hobsbawm applauds Anderson's concept and explores the reasons why people would wish to imagine communities. He finds that feelings of collective belonging, rooted not in ethnicity, language, or religion, but in "holy icons," which he defines as symbols and rituals or common collective practices "which alone give a palpable reality to the otherwise imagined community," explain the cultural components of nationalism. He suggests that nationalism is a blend of official attitudes and the usually differing views of ordinary persons. Reiterating the point made by Potter, Hobsbawm concludes, "we cannot assume that for most people national identification . . . excludes or is always or ever superior to the remainder of the set of identifications which constitute the social being. In fact, it is always combined with identifications of another kind, even when it is felt to be superior to them." Potter's 1968 essay "The Historian's Use of Nationalism and Vice Versa" places Hobsbawm's observation in the context of the American South. Potter notes that sectionalism and nationalism "are not necessarily polar or antithetical forces, even though circumstances may cause them to work in opposition to one another." The South's interests never reflected cultural differences; when the region perceived its interests to be in jeopardy, "cultural affinities with the majority [seemed] irrelevant." This essay will argue that Unionism may be understood as nationalism. Certainly it meets the standards suggested in the recent literature. Hobsbawm asserts that "the most pervasive criterion of proto-nationalism" is the "consciousness of belonging . . . to a lasting political entity." To the Unionists of Augusta County, nationalism consisted of devotion to the "historic mission" and "common historic memories" of the nation. "What characterized the nation-people as seen from below was precisely that it represented the common interest against particular interests." In this context, Unionism, nationalism, and anti-sectionalism may be taken to mean much the same thing. To the citizens of "Old Augusta" during the 1850s, the pursuit of regional interests were viewed as ill-disguised attempts at patricide. Horrified that southern radicals' plans for secession would prompt northern reprisals, and uncertain of how to quell the sectional insurgents, Augustans watched their imagined community steadily erode. An examination of Augusta's social and political history provides the basis for a discussion of a political culture that viewed northern and southern extremism as the greatest threats to their way of life. Located in Virginia's Shenandoah Valley, Augusta County was, until the Civil War, sandwiched between the earlier-settled, English-bred, and slaveholding cultures of the Piedmont and Tidewater to the east and the frontier-forging, Scotch-Irish, free-labor communities of the Trans-Alleghenies to the west. The socio-economic and cultural differences between eastern and western Virginia--with which Augusta County identified itself--form an important backdrop to the political events examined in this essay. Before entering into a discussion of Unionism in the region, the foundation of Augustans' political culture can be discerned through a review of the social and political heritage of the county between its settlement and the late antebellum period. Economic and Social Developments Although scattered settlements of German immigrants from Pennsylvania are recorded as early as 1726, and some Scotch-Irish arrived in 1732, the demography of Augusta County took shape as a result of a 1736 land grant to William Beverly from the Virginia Council. To populate his new lands, Beverly recruited immigrants from the Scotch-Irish population of Ulster, Northern Ireland. Nearly all of these early settlers landed at Philadelphia and journeyed down the Valley along the Great Wagon Road, which bisected the region North to South. More important, most of the immigrants came in family units and paid for their own expenses, including the land they purchased from Beverly. Along with the Scotch-Irish came many Germans, often non-English speaking. Originally attractive to immigrants because of cheap land, a lack of Indian settlements, a well-defined route of travel, and government encouragement, Augusta County had by 1800 become the most populous, wealthiest, and commercially oriented county in the Valley. The Scotch-Irish majority, 58 percent of the 1775 population and steeped in commercial traditions, helps to explain many of the future social and political orientations of "Old Federal Augusta." Unlike Virginians east of the Blue Ridge, residents of Augusta County relied on their skills as artisans and small farmers to create a self-sufficient community. Not dependant upon the single-crop agriculture of Tidewater English colonists, Valley Germans and Scotch-Irish adopted practices such as crop rotation to conserve the soil. Also in contrast to the gentry of the East, Augustans did not view physical labor as demeaning; they built and maintained their own farms and shops. Influenced by religious teachings, Irish and German heritages, and a culture that praised physical labor, Virginians west of the Blue Ridge largely rejected slavery throughout the eighteenth century. Instead, a society of primarily nonslaveholding white yeomen, artisans, and mechanics evolved a democratic, essentially middle-class structure, "more akin to the free-soil North and West than to the slaveholding Tidewater and Piedmont." It is important, however, not to overstate this dichotomy. The introduction of hemp in the 1760s created a labor-intensive crop and encouraged the use of slaves. Nearly 75 percent of hemp farmers were Scotch-Irish. Augusta County therefore became the foremost Valley producer of this export-oriented crop. Where slavery had been nonexistent in 1755, by 1790 slaves made up 14 percent of the county's population. Sixty percent of slaveholders owned more than one slave. In addition to encouraging slavery, hemp production increased the commercial consciousness of the county; Augustans opened and solidified trade connections with Baltimore and Philadelphia. Staunton, as it had been since its founding, was the locus of this activity. Indeed, the county seat represented the only place in the upper Valley during the colonial period at which "major trading activities were conducted." When hemp was supplanted by wheat during the Revolutionary War, the established trade patterns continued. After the War of Independence, export farming in the county increased dramatically. New roads, canals, and an expanded role as the geographic and economic intermediary between the Atlantic seaboard and the emerging western frontier areas contributed to its export orientation. An improving transportation network first connected Augusta County to the rest of the Valley, then to Philadelphia, Lancaster, Baltimore, and finally, in the late 1850s, Richmond. Although canal projects along the James and Potomac Rivers promised new outlets for trade to Richmond and Baltimore, respectively, Augusta County--directly linked to neither waterway--favored turnpikes and, later, railroads to connect Staunton, the Valley's most important center for external trade, to the East and North. Until the completion of the Virginia Central (later the Chesapeake and Ohio Railroad) linked Augusta's county seat to the capital in 1854, the Great Valley Road, with Staunton as its terminus, remained the principal export route, with trade heading through Winchester to Baltimore, Lancaster, Georgetown, and Alexandria. Various turnpikes connected villages like Greenville, Churchville, and Waynesboro to the central trade artery. By the end of the 1850s, the Orange and Alexandria road met the Virginia Central in Gordonsville, providing Augusta County with enhanced connections to the New York- Philadelphia-Baltimore trade. The Staunton and Parkersburg Turnpike, carrying light traffic, connected the Valley to Ohio. Perhaps because of its central location, Augusta County reflected economic and cultural dispositions of both eastern and western Virginia. While the county had fewer slaves than the Tidewater, it was less free than its neighbors to the west. During the period from 1850 to 1860, Augusta's free population increased at a slower rate than the statewide average, while its slave population actually increased at a faster rate. Nevertheless, slavery was rarely mentioned in the county newspapers during the period. This is reflective of the ambiguous light in which the peculiar institution was held by many western Virginians. In a revealing entry in his diary, Staunton Spectator editor Joseph Waddell, forced by the death of a relative in 1856 to sell some slaves, wrote, "this thing of speculating in human flesh is utterly horrible to me. Slavery is entirely repulsive to my feelings, and I earnestly desire its extinction everywhere." After reminding himself of the difficulties associated with such sentiments, however, and expressing the hope that someday a calm environment might prevail so that slavery could be discussed rationally, he concluded, "I am no abolitionist." Reflecting the success of its farmers, by 1850 the largest county in the state had bigger than average farms and ranked first in the state in the value of both farms and farming equipment, a distinction that continued until the Civil War. During the 1850s, Augusta County continued to produce corn, hay, and dairy products in great numbers and support large stocks of horses and cattle. Reflecting the traditions established during the period of hemp farming, tobacco and cotton were relative nonentities in Augusta, as wheat, oats, rye, and butter replaced the earlier crops as export staples. Industry in the county, encouraged from an early date by commercially minded Scotch- Irish, played a secondary but healthy role. Although the number of employed hands remained constant, capital invested tripled and the value of production increased by 72 percent between 1850 and 1860. Again reflecting the individual, entrepreneurial nature of its constituency, Augusta County had twice as many manufacturing establishments per capita as the state average. Grist mills accounted for nearly a third of the total, as opposed to one-fourth of the state's total. For a county that was two-thirds Whig, it might appear ironic that Augusta was home to nearly eight times more distilleries than the state average; the healthy regard of the Scottish for whiskey, and the ease with which bottled grains could be transported, explains this apparent inconsistency. Richmond was Augusta County's main outside connection as the 1860s dawned; nevertheless, Baltimore, Philadelphia, and New York stood as important influences on the cultural and social conditions of the area. Advertisements in the Staunton Spectator between 1850 and 1860 reveal that New York and Philadelphia provided Staunton merchants with clothing, machine tools, guns, and jewelry. In fact, before the internal improvements of the mid-1850's, Richmond lagged well behind the northern cities in advertising space. As the decade progressed the capital became the primary outlet for "all consignments of Wheat, Flour, Corn, and Produce generally." By the beginning of the last decade of the antebellum era, Augusta's citizen's partook of the "most fashionable styles to be found in the New York Market," and enjoyed fine, "wines, liquors, [and] segars" from Philadelphia. During the height of a "buy Southern goods" movement in 1855, an Alexandria dealer's promotion urged Augusta merchants "disposed to confine their dealings to their own state," to buy goods from his store--obtained from the North and including tea, candles, and "Boston Syrup." In January 1860, two months after Lincoln's election, booksellers Gould & Lincoln asked consumers to send inquiries directly to their Boston office. By 1860, Richmond and Baltimore dominated the ads pages, but the goods they hawked often bore northern labels. Though a sketch of Augusta's citizenry does not illustrate why they became such ardent nationalists, it does provide insight into the county's interests. Small, export-producing farmers, the people of the county formed a pro-commercial outlook and supported programs designed to strengthen transportation routes and ensure ready markets, North and South. Many white Augustans were steeped in a commercial tradition, possessed enough assets to have developed a keen awareness of economic activities, and cultivated devotion to a strong nationalism as the best guarantor of their interests. Political Development to 1850 Social, cultural, geographic, and economic factors combined after the War of Independence to create in Augusta County a political culture predisposed to a strong central government and, later, a devotion to Unionism. Unlike the people of the established English counties east of the Blue Ridge Mountains, the majority of Augusta County's immigrant population, like most western Virginians, had no real connections before the Revolutionary War to the heritage of Virginia. Although the War fortified those ties, independence provided the immigrants with a new country to which they now pledged allegiance. The United States, not Virginia, became the settlers' earliest object of patriotic veneration. The Revolutionary War also created situations which fortified Augusta County's nationalism. Located along the precarious frontier, people west of the Blue Ridge looked to a strong United States to mobilize inter-state capacities to confront warring Indians and also to ensure British compliance with the Treaty of Paris, which mandated the evacuation of potential Indian allies from western forts. One of the issues which threatened to delay the British departure also provides insight into the later political orientation of the county. The peace treaty declared pre-war debts owed by colonists to English merchants legally binding and many eastern Virginians, who owed heavily, opposed payment. Westerners were largely unburdened by such claims and pressed for "creditor" legislation and prompt payment of debts. This dispute provided the first issue upon which early political coalitions were formed. In the House of Delegates, Augusta County's Archibald Stuart reflected his constituents' positions by supporting James Madison's nationalistic program. The dispute during the 1780s over paper money overshadowed social, non-partisan issues including slavery, education, and the status of the Church of England. Political scholar Norman K. Risjord argues that the patterns established during the debtor dispute created coalitions that the next great issue, ratification of the Constitution in 1788, solidified. The fight for approval of the new federal system created allegiances to political organizations and meshed local and national interests. Campaigns increased voter awareness and participation. Augusta County, like the rest of the Valley, strongly supported the new Constitution, primarily for the same reasons that westerners had opposed any moratorium on debts. Following the adoption of the Confederation, western Virginians supported the nationalist policies of Alexander Hamilton and, after his death, seized on President Washington's promises to fortify the West and construct the Federal Capitol on the Potomac River, a move that promised increased trade for the Valley. Federalists, therefore, received the credit for peace on the frontier, promoting internal improvements, and increased land values. Entitled to two representatives in the state Assembly, Augusta elected only sixteen different men to fill the fifty-four seats available from 1799 to 1825. Like the rest of Virginia, Augusta County elections focused on personalities and involved a small class of competing--or rotating--elites. Although they opposed Jefferson's Embargo and the War of 1812, Augusta's representatives easily slid into Republicanism with the advent of nationalist policies following the war. Despite differences between Federalists and their Republican--often former Anti- Federalist--opponents, politics during the first party period revolved around personalities more than partisanship. The patterns established during the early national period generally determined the political persuasion of each county during the period from 1800 until 1824, although the Era of Good Feelings featured a mostly one-party system. Only one-fourth of Virginia elections during this time period were contested between parties. Regional considerations, more than party labels, divided Virginians. Western Federalists were more similar to western Republicans than their eastern brethren. As Easterners' promises failed to produce adequate internal improvements, western Virginians increasingly voiced their displeasure at the state Constitution of 1776 which gave the East a disproportionate number of seats in the Virginia General Assembly and restricted the franchise to those white males meeting substantial property qualifications. Westerners met at Staunton in 1816 and 1825 to demand constitutional revisions; a convention convened in 1829 that made minor adjustments, including increasing the Valley's representation. Augusta County voters approved the calling of and ratified the final product of the Constitutional Convention of 1829- 30. The Presidential election of 1800 exemplifies the characteristics that shaped Augusta's political orientation during the period between 1796 and 1836. In that election, Augusta County was the only Valley constituency that voted for Federalist John Adams instead of Republican Thomas Jefferson. Anti-French sentiment on the part of influential German merchants in Staunton, concern that Jefferson would reverse pro-British trading policies and thus reduce trade and depress land prices, and approval of the nationalist policies of the Federalists all combined to produce the Adams victory. Throughout the period, Augustans continued to send strong nationalists to the House of Delegates. As in most counties in Virginia, the Second Party System produced one-party dominance in Augusta throughout the antebellum period. Unlike most other areas, however, Democrats did not contest local elections until the late 1840s. Although the county voted for John Quincy Adams in 1828, by 1832 approval of President Jackson's treatment of South Carolina in the Nullification Crisis and sanction of the President's position on strict construction led Augusta County to give him a majority over opponent Henry Clay. The subsequent conduct of Andrew Jackson did, however, have an effect on the political orientation of the county. When the Whig coalition gelled in 1836 in opposition to the President's withdrawal of deposits from the National Bank, which they viewed as arbitrary, Augusta voters cast 70 percent of their ballots for William H. Harrison. From that time until the Civil War, Anti- Jacksonians and their successors--the Whigs, the American Party, the Opposition, and Constitutional Unionists--dominated Augusta politics, winning every local and national election except one. Support for nationalistic programs such as Clay's American System, economic policies favoring state banks, and opposition to states-rights advocates like John Calhoun and John Tyler best explain Augusta's political orientation between 1832 and 1848. The appearance of a Democratic opposition party in Augusta in 1848--and its continued vibrance until the Civil War--was integrally related to the tensions between eastern and western Virginia. While friction persisted from the beginning of the nineteenth century, debate over the Constitution of 1851 revealed differences between the Whig majority and a substantial number of their constituents. When the question of a new constitutional convention came before the state legislature in 1846, Augusta County's representatives, John B. Baldwin and Nathaniel Massie, both Whigs, voted to seat delegates based on a formula of representation that would count slaves as three-fifths of a person. This schema favored the East and was heavily opposed by most westerners. When Augusta citizens next went to the polls for the Assembly election in April 1846, both candidates were rejected for re-election, despite the Whig Staunton Spectator's pleas in favor of their candidacy. They were replaced by two other Whigs. The next year, a referendum to approve funding for a new road to Scottsville was rejected by a close vote. Although opposition to the Mexican War reasserted Whig dominance, the debates over the Constitution of 1851 provided the Democrats with a new opportunity to increase their partisan strength. When the provisions of the new constitution began to be debated, the Spectator took an unpopular stance in opposition to elected judges, and suggested that if they must be elected, they serve for life terms. This position seems to have been roundly rejected by many Augustans. The new constitution, finally granting universal suffrage, near-proportionate representation in the legislature, and the popular election of local officials and the governor, granted the West most of the redresses it had been seeking for forty years. Augusta County voters joined the region in an overwhelming approval of the document. The events of the years 1846 to 1851 provided Democrats in Augusta County with tangible results to what one historian has called the "hit-or-miss search for serviceable issues." The increased franchise nearly doubled the Democrats' voting strength and, in a real sense, gave birth to a viable minority party. Although it averaged a mere 40 percent of the popular vote during the 1850s, the rhetoric and actions of Democrats throughout the period provide an important glimpse into the pervasiveness of Unionism. Reared in the same traditions, and from much the same stock as the Whigs, Democrats in Augusta County retained their heritage of devotion to the Union. For both parties, the events of the 1850s tested and strengthened their conviction that the Federal system was the best guarantor of their liberties. The Compromise of 1850, the Nashville Convention, and the Fugitive Slave Law For most people in Augusta County in the 1850s, the single greatest source of information about the political and social news of the day were the two local newspapers that vied for their allegiance. If people did not actually read the papers, they received a condensed version from those who did. In this way Augustans learned of events throughout the United States and were, like most antebellum readers, remarkably well-informed about politics and literature. Not restricted to providing mere facts, the editors saturated their audience with values, modes of thought, and a sense of community. Recalling Benedict Anderson's thesis that the imagined community depends in large part upon the ability of print capitalism to unite a group of people in, among other ways, the knowledge that they partook in a common ritual, perceived events in a similar way, and felt secure in their community, the Augusta County newspapers provided readers with the basis for a shared outlook, a definable political culture. The Staunton Spectator, founded in 1823, had become by 1850 the Whig organ of the county. Published from 1848 until 1860 by the Waddell family--Lyttleton, Joseph, and Lyttleton, Jr.--the paper reflected their values as prominent Scotch-Irish townspeople, deeply familiar with and influential in the educational and governmental affairs of Staunton. Consistently siding with commercial interests, the Waddells nevertheless claimed to have "as large a circulation as any paper in Western Virginia," suggesting a wide reading audience throughout the county. The Staunton Vindicator, on the other hand, was clearly the junior partner in Augusta County journalism. Formed in 1849 as the successor to the county's first Democratic paper, the Vindicator's original editor was Frederick J. Alfred, a German. Unlike the Waddells, Alfred enjoyed few ties to the community and even left Augusta to edit a paper in Lewis County between 1851 and 1856. A succession of Germans, some more connected to Augusta, edited the paper until 1860 when the most prominent of Alfred's successors, S. M. Yost, took over full time. Yost enjoyed robust connections to the county and, aside from a tenure as an Indian agent in the New Mexico territory in the late 1850s, was a life-long resident of Augusta. While the Vindicator did not enjoy as large a circulation as its rival, a private letter put the 1858 subscription at 1100, likely reaching most Democratic voters. Although debates over the Gag Rule, the Nullification Crisis, abolition pamphlets in the Federal mail, the Mexican War, and the Wilmot Proviso ensured inter-sectional squabbling between 1830 and 1850, the Congressional session of 1850, and the famous Compromise of that year, ignited anew a heightened battle between slave and free interests over issues of territorial expansion, the return of fugitive slaves, and the concept of a Southern nation. More than any event before secession, the debates over the Compromise of 1850 caused Augusta County to gasp at the dangers of sectional strife and fear for the integrity of the Union. For both Democrats and Whigs, the debates over the future of the Union caused severe apprehension and prompted spirited defenses of the institutions they had come to identify with American liberty. Both parties' editorials rejected participation in the southern Nashville Convention, were extremely critical and fearful of southern extremism, and applauded the efforts of both Whigs and Democrats in Congress to reach a settlement. The only real difference between Augusta's parties is evident in their perceptions of northern sentiment toward the Fugitive Slave Law. Democratic editor F. J. Alfred made it clear that he expected the North to prove itself willing to uphold laws it disagreed with. The Waddells took northern compliance for granted: Northerners were innocent until proven guilty. As soon as the passage of the Compromise became certain, both parties urged Union meetings to give thanks for the aversion of sectional strife. In these gatherings were the professions of devotion to what Hobsbawm calls "holy icons." The Constitution, the flag, the Founding Fathers, and America's heritage were praised in rituals that strengthened citizens' collective perceptions of their imagined community. Given these professions, it is hardly surprising that northern adherence to the letter of the Fugitive Slave Law became the foundation upon which Augustans based compromise. The new decade began with an influx of anti-slavery petitions to Congress. The Staunton Spectator praised New Hampshire Senator Nathan Hale and repeated his assurance that "a small band of fanatics . . . have made so much noise that many people have imagined them to be greatly more numerous than they are." Others in the South were less convinced and, spurred by concerns that Congress would prohibit slavery in the territory acquired from Mexico and outraged when the Vermont Legislature declared slavery immoral, a group of slaveholders meeting in Mississippi followed John C. Calhoun's prodding and called for a Southern Convention to be held in Nashville on June 3, 1850. "We can hardly imagine that good is to result to the Union, or to the South, from the assembling of such a Convention, because it must be sectional in its character and would tend still farther to inflame the minds of our opponents at the North, if it did not endanger the Union." Democratic editor F. J. Alfred of the Staunton Vindicator coupled his rejection of the Southern Convention with a suggestion that the threat of a boycott of northern goods would be a more effective, and less fractious, safeguard against anti-slavery agitation. Two months later, in March, Alfred reversed his stand and supported sending delegates to Nashville, for the "high and holy object" of ensuring the perpetuity of the Union. Across town, the editors of the Staunton Spectator expressed revulsion at what they perceived was a dimly disguised attempt on the part of southern radicals to lead the South "by the nose, from legislative resolves to legislative crusades, then to revolution and civil war, with all its horrors." Historian William Freehling noted the psychological content behind such rhetoric, "proud Virginia was but a pawn in a game that her enemies controlled." The fear of southern extremists forcing Virginia to leave the Union plagued Augusta papers throughout the crisis period. Virginia's General Assembly failed to send delegates to Nashville, although individual counties were given the right to elect representatives. The majority of Augusta's voters lined up against sending delegates to Nashville. "Straws" wrote to the Spectator with a warning: "let any politician try a practical movement towards disunion . . . and they will find the largest crowd they ever saw" opposing them. "W." cautioned that the Congress, "whose duty is to provide for the harmony of the whole Union," must settle the issues. In an appeal that revealed some of the components of Augusta's political culture, "Hampden" decried "sectional prejudices and passions" and asked, "What is it worth--this fairest political fabric ever reared by human hands? . . . We have met at our public festivals to rival one another in paying it homage. In all our social and political meetings we have seen it honored with delight, and heard it defamed with horror." "Hampden" listed "a rational appreciation of its benefits": increased population, "political and personal liberty," "unrestricted freedom of speech and of the press," and "a boundless empire." The author concluded with an appeal to the past protections afforded by the union of the states and the assertion that Southerners should "cling to the ship" where their rights would be safe. "Slavery alone has poisoned the cup of our happiness and threatened us with ruin." Augusta County held a Union Meeting on March 25, 1850, in the Court House at Staunton. Whig James Crawford served as Chairman and editor Joseph Waddell was appointed Secretary. A committee of nine, consisting of Democrats and Whigs, drew up the resolutions of the meeting. Among the committeemen were prominent Augusta County Whigs Alexander H. H. Stuart, his brother-in-law John B. Baldwin, and editor Lyttleton Waddell. Baldwin read the majority resolutions to a crowded Court House; they express well the essential tenets of Augusta County nationalism and describe a set of beliefs upon which Unionism was built: The people of Augusta County believe that the time has arrived when it becomes them publicly and solemnly to declare their affection for that unity of government which constitutes the United States of America one people. We verily believe it to be the main pillar in the edifice of our independence, the support of our tranquility at home, our peace abroad, of our safety, of our prosperity, of that very liberty which we so highly prize. . . . We feel that, at this crisis . . . we should properly estimate the immense value of our national Union to our collective and individual happiness. The majority resolved that the Nashville Convention was "avowedly sectional in its organization and purposes" and declined to send representatives to Tennessee. Putting their faith in the protection of "a fair and just administration of our government according to the Constitution," the committee vowed, "we will march under no banner not known to the whole American people, and to their Constitution and laws." The minority report, read by Democrat James Skinner, asserted that the Democrats were "fully alive to the past glories, the present prosperity and future prospects of this great Confederacy." The best way to guarantee the enforcement of fugitive slave laws and settle the territorial question, the report continued, was for "the southern people to take counsel together" at Nashville. The majority report was adopted by a vote of "more than ten to one." This assemblage of the citizens of the county is an example of Hobsbawm's "holy icons." Called together to "your March Court," by both newspapers, each individual read the minutes of the meeting in his or her weekly paper at the same time. Collectively, amidst the rituals of drafting and reciting resolutions and voting upon them, the people gave "a palpable reality" to the "imagined community." "Hampden's" letter revealed the depths to which ritual and devotion to common historic memories shaped the community's response to the tense months when Congress struggled to reach the Compromise of 1850. Both the Vindicator and Spectator blamed sectional extremists for the difficulties in reaching a settlement. When Henry Clay's Omnibus Bill, which linked the admission of a free California with a tougher Fugitive Slave Bill, a resolution of the Texas-New Mexico boundary, and the incorporation of New Mexico and Utah, failed to pass the House in August, the editors hurled attacks at "the Northern abolitionists and the southern abstractionists." Among the "southern abstractionists" were Virginia's Senators, R. M. T. Hunter and John M. Mason, both Democrats. Finding the enemy at his doorstep, Democratic editor F. J. Alfred veered from the party line and declared, "Virginia has certainly been misrepresented." The Waddells agreed and growled that "Messrs. MASON and HUNTER . . . might as well hail from South Carolina, whose sentiments they appear so studious to represent." They added that in Augusta County, "we have not seen or heard of a single individual who is opposed to the Compromise." As the long summer dragged on, the Waddells, now joined by Lyttleton's son and namesake, analyzed the issue of sectional jealousies and concluded that northern resentment of the "Southern Aristocracy" had combined with "Southern pride" to create a hostile atmosphere. At the same time, both papers accused the "disunionists" of "shaking hands in ominous conspiracy against the liberties of the country." The Spectator urged people of both regions to "rebuke the spirit of sectional strife" and reminded readers of "the ties of a common origin and a common destiny." The Waddells reserved their harshest rhetoric for southern ultras in Congress, who constantly backed off from "untenable positions, declaring all the time that each retrograde step shall be the last." The editors asked southern extremists to "no longer fritter away time and talent in frivolous debate" and to cease insisting on territory open to slavery, even where "slavery will never exist from the nature of things." Better to spend energy reaching a compromise based upon "a devotion to the Constitution . . . upon which we build our last hope for the preservation of the Union." During the second week of September the headlines "Glorious News! The Country Safe!" and "The Union Now and Forever" greeted readers with the news that the impasse had ended. The Whig Spectator praised the Fillmore Administration and took a parting shot at "such fire- eaters as Seward, Van Duren, Rhett, and Yulee." The Democratic press hailed the efforts of "Cass, Clay, Webster, [and] Cobb," while ridiculing "aspiring politicians" who encouraged sectionalism. Alfred optimistically concluded, "Let us hope, then, that the distracting question is settled, and that calmness and moderation will control the victors and the vanquished." In the midst of celebration, the editors expressed concern over the "temporary settlement of the late exciting controversy." Democrat F. J. Alfred warned that the Compromise depended upon the faithful execution of the Fugitive Slave Law in the North. "We are apprehensive that the North will not cease intermeddling with our rights, and . . . a doubt arises . . . whether the North, in good faith, will carry out the provisions of that Bill." As for abolitionists, he continued, "until these bad, bold men are silenced, the American people will know no peace." Foreshadowing a position Augusta Democrats would take in 1861, the editor threatened that if the North ignored the new regulations, "the sooner the South separates from the North the better." From its office, the editors of the Spectator assured readers that the law's "efficacy has already been fully confirmed in numerous instances" despite the fact that "its fulfillment . . . must be painful to those who are strangers to our institutions." Instead, they focused upon the "Disunion Party" of southern extremists. The paper ridiculed those who expected the "sacred majesty of the Union to be dragged into bloody conflict" over issues settled by the Compromise. "No flag of sectional treason will ever float over these mountain battlements, till some cause holier than that of Texas inspires our devotion." To demonstrate where its devotion did lie in 1850, Augusta County held a grand celebration of the Compromise on November 25. Despite Alfred's grumbling that "it is idle mockery to be singing paeans to the Union when . . . the [Fugitive Slave] law shall not be enforced," an "overflowing Court-house" heard a speech from Democratic Congressman and former Governor James McDowell and listened to the reading of letters from prominent national figures. The Spectator's editors waxed effusively: "Augusta! blessed old county!--this glorious Union may meet with enemies in Northern fanatics and Southern hot-spurs--Virginia itself may even swerve from her allegiance; but," the Waddells crooned, "upon the mountains of Augusta, the flag of the Union will continue to float as proudly as would the flag of liberty, in the hands of WASHINGTON himself." Organizers read letters from Daniel Webster, Henry Clay, Lewis Cass, Daniel Dickinson, and native son Alexander Stuart. Readers were introduced to, and encouraged to embrace, both northern and southern architects of compromise. Webster reassured Augustans that "the masses of northern people, the general feeling and the great cry, is for the Union and its preservation." The experience reinforced the national scope of Augusta's political culture; the northern statesman appropriately reminded citizens of the past sacrifices and contributions that Virginia had made to "establish the government under which we have now lived so prosperously and so gloriously for 60 years." In the resolutions adopted by the meeting, and read by Whig leader John B. Baldwin, Augustans asserted their devotion to the "broad platform of THE CONSTITUTION, THE COMPROMISE, AND THE UNION." We are, they concluded, "prepared to meet all good citizens of every section and every party, and, discarding minor differences, to give them a cordial, hearty, and honest support against all opposers." Despite his threats, Frederick J. Alfred joined Joseph A. Waddell as one of the meeting's co-secretaries. The people of the county used the celebration of Washington's Birthday on February 22, 1851, to renew their pledge of allegiance to the United States. "Brutus," writing to the Spectator, asked that "the friends of Liberty and Union now and forever should thus testify their sacred regard for the institutions under which we live." His hopes were met by more resolutions and displays of patriotism, as merchants shut their doors from 10 to 2, and the people collectively "observed the day as a holiday." Subsequent events in 1851 revealed the extent to which both the Democrats' and Whigs' fears for the country were justified. In Georgia, Mississippi, and South Carolina, secessionists attempted to lead their states out of the Union, while in northern cities like Boston, the Fugitive Slave Law was vigorously opposed. Enforcement, as in the famous Simms case, was costly and rancorous. Alfred expressed his reservations about northern sentiment when he wrote, "When laws have to be enforced at the point of a bayonet, it argues badly for the public sentiment." (To which the Waddells retorted, "The inestimable value of the Union cannot be calculated in dollars and cents.") Although "the treasonable gang" continued to "plot the destruction of the sacred temple in which our liberties are enshrined," the editors of the Spectator joined Staunton in welcoming President Millard Fillmore to Augusta County in August. Accompanied by Secretary of the Interior Alexander H. H. Stuart, Fillmore's coach made its way down crowded streets. In another display of the collective nature of the imagined community, women waved handkerchiefs and young men scaled the rooftops to hear the President and their favorite son praise the Union. In the background, the Churchville band serenaded the scene with "national airs." From the porch of the Virginia Hotel, the Whig President elicited great applause as he pointed to the Stars and Stripes flying above him and promised "while that flag floats, I will maintain that Constitution and the Union it secures at any and every cost." The Compromise of 1850 left both parties hopeful of the preservation of the Union. Important among the nationalistic protestations, however, was the Democrats' apparent lack of faith in the northern population's determination to uphold the laws. The deterioration of Augustans' belief in this concept, fundamental to the national scope of their system of government, would prove to be the greatest stumbling block in the battle against sectionalism. For average citizens, concern over northern antipathy did not appear in the patriotic festivities that continued to cement their common devotion to a shared heritage. The Kansas-Nebraska Act By 1854, the elder Lyttleton Waddell had stepped down, leaving the Waddell cousins, Joseph and Lyttleton, Jr., in charge of the Staunton Spectator. Across town, Frederick J. Alfred had moved to Lewis County and sold the Vindicator to Absalom Koiner, Samuel M. Yost, and William G. Harman, all prominent county Democrats. As a result of the 1851 Constitution, these gentlemen voiced the opinions of a swelled Democratic opposition. Into their peaceful existence came again the specter of sectional strife, this time in the form of the Kansas-Nebraska Bill. "We hope," ventured the Spectator, "that the bill will be passed before another slavery agitation shall get under full headway." Yet, suddenly, it was 1850 all over. The Kansas-Nebraska Act is properly remembered as the finissement of the ailing Whigs and the beginning of the end for the national Democratic Party. Stephen A. Douglas, hero of the Compromise of 1850, procured legislation that left the people of any state or territory "perfectly free to form or regulate their domestic institutions in their own way, subject only to the Constitution of the United States." Popular sovereignty proved a difficult issue for both parties in Augusta County to handle. For Virginia Whigs, the demise of their party proved particularly disconcerting. In Augusta County, the partyless Spectator defined itself in opposition to the jubilant Democrats. Until they rallied around the Constitutional Union banner in 1860, Augusta ex-Whigs are best understood as anti-Democrats. An extreme example of their desperation was their support for American Party candidates and issues, despite the general hostility to nativism in the predominantly second- and third-generation immigrant county. Although issues such as internal improvements and banking reform remained salient, and nearly all Augusta ex-Whigs continued to support anti-Democrats, they were crippled by the inability of their national constituents to overcome the burr of slavery. Unlike the Compromise of 1850, the Kansas-Nebraska debates did not lend themselves to anti-sectionalism. Neither Staunton paper devoted much editorial space to the fierce national debates waged in the interim between the bill's introduction in January and its passage in May, suggesting that both editorial teams waited for their national leaders to dictate policy. On no other national issue during the decade did either paper refrain from comment for such a length of time. In February the editors of the Vindicator, following the position of national figures such as northerner Lewis Cass that popular sovereignty merely made explicit the 1850 repeal of the Missouri Compromise, aped party leaders' rhetoric and warned that "the Nebraska bill will be the touchstone of principle with all those who endorsed the Compromise of 1850." Having been portrayed by the Whigs as members of a party that opposed sectional compromise, Augusta Democrats pointed proudly to the bill's sponsor, Stephen A. Douglas. Because Douglas was the architect of this new "compromise," the Democrats of Augusta easily equated support for the Little Giant with support for the Constitution, although a stricter reading would deny citizens the right to prohibit slavery in the territories. Once again, Augusta County citizens absorbed the praise of northern statesmen. The Whigs found themselves in a more difficult position, perhaps accounting for the Spectator's continued silence during the debates. The Waddells based much of their political philosophy upon the same Constitutional guarantees that the Democratic advocates of popular sovereignty now trumpeted. The Kansas-Nebraska Act was a clear victory for the South, despite the fact that Whigs nationally were opposed to it. If the Waddells did not support the Douglas Compromise they would be betraying the South. If they applauded it, they would be abandoning the Whig fold. The Spectator thus found itself in an embarrassing dilemma. A week after President Pierce signed the Kansas-Nebraska Act the Waddells broke their silence on the latest sectional debate. The editors attacked the ambiguity surrounding the question of when voters could decide the slavery issue, and criticized the deletion of a nativist amendment. Straddling the fence, the Waddells concluded, "But the measure has now passed, and we hope the country will become quiet. The North certainly have no reason to complain--they have the kernel, and we the empty shell." They remained opposed to popular sovereignty, but approved the passage of the Act. Perhaps because of their discomfort with popular sovereignty, the editors of the Vindicator waited until unrest in Kansas and northern sentiment in opposition to the Act rallied them to a defense of Stephen Douglas; they finally blurted that, "the great majority [of Northerners] are corrupt . . . they have no love of the Union as it is--for equal rights and equal justice for all." Far more explicitly than during the crisis over the Fugitive Slave Law, the Democrats of Augusta began to lose faith in the moderation of the northern people. This marked a critical turning point for the Vindicator, which once again exposed readers to doubts about northern intentions. The demise of national Whiggery that followed the passage of the Kansas-Nebraska Act placed Augusta Whigs in the position of opposing Democrats who could claim to be the sole remaining non-sectional party left. On the defensive, the Spectator averred that constant bickering about states rights by the southern Democracy served only to fan the flame of abolitionism in the North. The Vindicator, relishing its claim as the representative of the Unionist party, smirked, "It will be a long time before the logic of the Spectator can convince anyone, save its editors, that their avowals . . . are true." Clearly, the passage of the Kansas-Nebraska Act, with its reliance upon a constitutionally dubious principle, placed the Democrats, who expressed less confidence in the ability of legal principles to restrain zealous Northerners, in a position to tweak their rivals. "Bleeding Kansas" quickly became the raw spot on the sectional wound. Augusta Democrats repeatedly sided with Southern interests and even gloated, "Kansas bids fair to be ours," although by the end of 1855, a year and a half later, the editors made it clear that no citizens of Augusta County would leave for Kansas "to have their houses burnt and their property stolen . . . by the lawless set of scamps who infest that territory." The Spectator continued to downplay sectional tensions and painted an unduly harmonious picture of life in Kansas. The Waddells attributed reports of bloodshed more to "the heated brains of designing scribblers than anywhere else." Insisting on the resilience of inter-sectional harmony, they concluded, "many suppose it would be as difficult to get a Yankee and a Southerner to shelter together in the same tent in Kansas as it would be to have a lion and a lamb bunk together in the same lair. It is all a mistake." Seeking to reassure its readers of the reliability of northern voters, the Spectator said it was natural for Northerners "taught from their infancy to regard [slavery] with horror," to be anti- slavery, and contended, "it is equally true that all of them are not disposed to be aggressive." The defunct Whigs, now supporting the American Party, sought to equate their party with a vote for "a UNION party that will save the Republic." Augusta Whigs portrayed the gubernatorial election in May 1855 as a contest between sectionalism and national interests. In a prodigious three-hour speech on May 5 in a courthouse "crowded on the occasion," Staunton's Alexander H. H. Stuart asserted "upon the result of the election in Virginia depended the fate of the Union." He further warned that "sectional organization will be the results of defeat here." Turnout for this "referendum on the Union" reached 75 percent, the highest figure of the 1850s. Following the established pattern, the higher turnout produced an overwhelming victory for American candidate Thomas Flournoy, who received nearly 65 percent of the vote. It is plausible to suppose that the increased turnout was related to the Spectator's appeals for the Union. Events in Kansas continued to plague Augusta's anti-sectionalists, although county Democrats did little to sooth residents. When improprieties involving the anti-slavery governor of Kansas surfaced in May 1855, the Vindicator wasted no time in urging that President Pierce remove "this detestable abolition agent." "Kansas," the Democratic editors declared darkly, "must be a slave state, the interests of slaveholding communities demand it." After the dismissal of Governor Reeder, Yost--who did most of the writing for the paper--Harman, and Koiner stepped back, praising the "calm and dignified tone" that pervaded the nation. "Even in lunatic Boston, there are those who have the boldness to rebuke raging fanatics, and point out to them the impending dangers of the Union." In August, an exchange took place between the editors of the Staunton newspapers that revealed the varying degrees of faith that each now put in the northern people. Each party's confidence was in direct correlation to their views about Bleeding Kansas. Northern reaction to the Kansas-Nebraska Act served only to further alienate the Augusta Democrats, while making it increasingly difficult for the Whig/Americans to stress the ancient standards of legal restraint. Disgusted with factional northern rhetoric, the Vindicator concluded that Northerners were "no longer willing to abide the landmarks and institutions established by the Fathers of the country." Veering toward the heart of their concerns, the editors cried, "the Federal Government is unable to enforce its own laws in the abolition states." Demonstrating the importance such a lapse implied, the Vindicator suggested a policy of economic non-intercourse with the northern states. This, they felt, was a "peaceable expedient" which would appeal to the "conservative better class of the people at the North." The Waddells viewed this suggestion with apprehension; restating a fundamental tenet of Augusta nationalism, they ventured, "when any formal system of retaliation has to be resorted to, we may as well prepare for a speedy dissolution of the Union." Less willing to yield on a matter of crucial importance to their understanding of their political heritage, they pleaded, "notwithstanding the wrongs which we occasionally suffer at the hands of the northern people, we would not aggravate the evil and widen the breach, but wait a little while longer, hoping for better times." John Brown's Raid Although Bleeding Kansas did not provide the necessary event to cause Augusta Democrats to lose faith in the ability of northern people to restrain radical abolitionists and their representatives in Congress, the bloodshed there spawned the man who would. The relative sectional harmony of 1856-1859 burst on a cold October morning in Harper's Ferry, Virginia, as "Osawatomie Brown" led a raid that shook the South and widened the sectional breach. "It came upon us," wrote Henry Michie, now co-editor of the Vindicator, "as a thunderbolt in the midst of calm and sunshine." When word of the fighting arrived from Charlestown, John D. Imboden, a prominent Whig and former state legislator, led a company of Augusta County volunteers to aid in suppressing the invaders. Like many in Virginia and throughout the South, county Democrats reacted swiftly and angrily to Brown's attack. Harper's Ferry, the Vindicator cried, "is but the beginning of the storm [which will] soon shadow the whole South." While Augusta's Whigs reacted with much less alarm than the Democrats, sympathetic northern reaction to the incursion caused both papers to express severe reservations about the attitudes of average Northerners to the sanctity of laws protecting southern rights. The first news of John Brown's raid on the arsenal at Harper's Ferry on October 16, 1859, was greeted with skepticism by the editors of the Spectator, who now included Richard Mauzy, a veteran of county journalism. The "Rumored Insurrection" was more likely "a rebellion among the white operatives at the Armory [which] has been mistaken for a slave insurrection." The next week's edition contained a complete recounting of the events along with a refutation of the idea that it was a "servile insurrection. All the facts show that it was nothing of the kind." While conceding that evidence pointed to the complicity of a number of prominent northern anti-slavery men, the Waddells hastened to add, "At the same time, however, we should not be guilty of the injustice of criminating the whole North. . . . No doubt an immense majority of the people regard it with the utmost abhorrence." Neither of Augusta County's newspapers, and thus their reading audience, was prepared for the northern reaction to the trial and subsequent execution of John Brown. Had Brown died in the raid the incident would have likely passed quietly, for as historian David Potter noted, "the general public did not sympathize with promoters of slave insurrections, and it might quickly have dismissed Brown as a mere desperado. But he was not killed, and he surpassed himself as few men have ever done, in the six weeks that followed." The North reacted with sympathy for the stoic Brown, who became--and remains--a symbolic martyr against slavery. The Staunton papers viewed the pealing church bells, black bunting, memorial services, and legislative resolutions of the northern states with unbridled horror. "The time was," the Vindicator accurately recalled on the day that Virginia hanged Brown, "when such outrages would have been denounced with the same vehemence in the North as in our own State. But those days of conservatism have been lost." In Massachusetts, the Legislature came within votes of recessing in honor of Brown, and, in a passage full of revealing anti-northern rhetoric, the Vindicator roared, "from the pulpits, wicked miscreants proclaim treason and avow before DELIGHTED congregations that John Brown, the robber, the villain, the murderer, is a saint, a martyr, yea more, a second Savior." Sending a message that was both reassuring and disconcerting to readers, the editorial concluded, "we have not entirely despaired of the Republic, but there is everything in the sign of the times to shake our confidence as to the perpetuity of the Union." "Wicked," given to "treason," and martyring a "murderer," Northerners began to take on a villainous, plotting mein. To Augustans unaccustomed to such an image, the unity, indeed the national scope of their imagined community became less concrete. If Northerners did not value the laws in the way Augustans did, what place did they have in the forging of a future shared heritage. The Spectator professed to have "more dangerous apprehensions of danger to the Union than have ever been felt in any previous crisis in the history of our country." With anguish, the editors declared that they retained faith in the majority of Northerners, but "a state of public sentiment has been developed at the North which the conservative men of the South had not imagined to exist, and for the first time they have been forced to doubt whether it is possible for the two sections of the Union to dwell together in unity." "We want," continued the ex-Whig editors, "no fire-eating resolutions in our legislatures-- no abusive harangues from our representatives in Congress--no inflammatory appeals and bitter philippics in our southern journals. All these things do more harm than good." The Waddells called for an increased awareness of Virginia's rights in the Union, urged the state to "protect her citizens from invasion," and, revealing the unspoken depth of their disillusionment, briefly suggested a policy of commercial non-intercourse with the northern states. In late November, two meetings were held in Augusta County to discuss the raid. On Saturday night, November 29, a town meeting in Staunton chaired by Mayor Nicholas K. Trout blamed the "fanatical teachings of Wm. H. Seward and his party" for Brown's raid and raised $400 to equip the area's military companies "such as will insure their preparation and readiness for every emergency." The previous day, a committee including veteran Unionist and former Whig Assemblyman John Brown Baldwin had drawn up resolutions declaring that "while we deprecate all acts calculated to add to the public sentiment and to weaken the bonds of the Union . . . it is the imperative duty of the people to arm and prepare for public defence." This meeting also resolved to raise funds for Augusta's volunteer companies. Organizations sprang up throughout the county. John Brown's attack on Virginia did more than arouse the residents of Augusta County to form defensive companies. Prior to the raid, both Staunton newspapers had expressed their belief in the moderation of the northern people. The manifestations of adverse northern sentiment caused the Vindicator to lose faith in the ability of Northerners to check the spirit of sectionalism. Exasperated at the Spectator's continued optimism, Henry Michie finally exclaimed, "We are sick and tired of the eternal assertion that the masses of the North are sound, but misled by demagogues. It is our deliberate opinion that the masses are rotten to the core." Augusta's Democrats began to doubt the national character of the Union. Their censure of northern leaders, begun during the debates over the enforcement of the Fugitive Slave Law, had gradually progressed to a dismissal of average Northerners' devotion to constitutional safeguards. As historian David Potter noted, "It was hard for a Southern Unionist to answer the statement of the Richmond Enquirer that 'the northern people have aided and abetted this treasonable invasion of a Southern state.'" If the people, upon whom the Union was based, began to divide along sectional lines, what would remain of a national federation? As the rhetoric of their December meeting makes clear, Augusta County's citizens greeted the new decade uncertain over the future of the Union, but determined to fight for its preservation. The Election of 1860 On January 17, 1860, the Spectator headed its editorial column "Fighting for the Union." From Brown's raid until secession, a period of nearly a year and a half, the newspaper editors of Augusta County were involved in a near-constant battle against sectional extremism, both North and South. Before the various parties met to nominate presidential candidates, the first regional challenge to Federal Union came in the person of Christopher C. Memminger, sent by South Carolina to Richmond seeking Virginia's participation in a new Southern Conference. "The sentiment of the people of Augusta County on this subject," veteran editor Joseph Waddell declared confidently, "may be inferred from their action in 1850, in reference to the famous Nashville Convention." Once again, former Whigs reiterated their contention that the Legislature had no authority to send delegates to such a convention. This time, however, the Vindicator disagreed and urged the selection of a delegation from Virginia in order to balance the actions of "her more hot-headed sisters." In the Virginia Senate, Augusta's Alexander H. H. Stuart led the fight against South Carolina's invitation and, on March 8, the legislators voted against the Memminger proposal. The disagreement over the Southern Convention reflected the growing distance between Democrats and Opposition politicians in the county. The Waddells continued to assure their readers that with the exception of the "insignificant faction of ultra abolitionists at the North and a few equally insane gentlemen of the fire-eating stripe at the South, nobody seems disposed at present to tolerate the idea of a dissolution of the Union." Democrats, on the other hand, had jettisoned such thoughts and increasingly put their faith in the ability of the Democratic Party to overcome sectional hysteria. For both groups, the campaign of 1860 proved to be a sobering reminder of their minority status within an increasingly sectionalized Union. The crises of the decade just passed paled in light of the white-hot sectionalism of the Presidential campaign of 1860. The severity of the situation prompted the Spectator to undertake a rare discussion of slavery. The paper asserted its belief that unrealistic agitation for and against slavery posed the greatest threat to national integrity. If the Republicans were sincere in their formal declarations not to assault slavery where it existed, "there need be little difficulty in coming to an amicable settlement. With the exception of a few extreme men at the South, the people of this section are not 'slavery propagandists'--they have no desire to carry slavery into any territory now free, and it is not in their interest to do so." True, the editors admitted, the slave states did not like to be told they could not do what they believed they had a Constitutional right to do, but sober discussions would reveal no conflicting interests. The southern Whigs could approve neither the "Black Republican [nor] Democratic parties . . . both of which are alike sectional and tending to disunion." The new Democratic editor of the Staunton Vindicator, however, believed that the only hope for national reconciliation lay in the only national institution--the Democratic Party. For Samuel M. Yost, a former editor of the paper who had recently returned from a Buchanan Administration appointment in New Mexico and been elected as a delegate to the Democratic Convention of 1860, the fate of the Union depended on the union of the Democracy. "The cool, refreshing breezes which invigorate and enliven the physical man in the Valley of Virginia, are sadly missed here," reported Yost after a forty-eight-hour train trip to Charleston, South Carolina. Unprepared for the ninety-three degree heat, Yost gasped that the delegates "are gradually losing, by profuse perspiration, our surplus flesh." The Augusta County Democrat remained unaware that, like Shylock, his fellow Southerners would indeed demand a pound of flesh to keep the party intact. In the same letter, Yost maintained his belief that "the Convention won't break up in a row- -there will be no withdrawal of Southern delegates from it--nor will the Douglass' turn their faces towards Baltimore." Yost voted against the state delegation position to nominate a candidate before drawing up a platform, but this fateful measure passed and provided southern extremists the opportunity to argue over slavery in the territories and to bolt the Convention, which they did on April 30. An appalled Yost wrote home, "Yesterday was a stormy and rather significant day in the Convention." He bemoaned the fact that the party was rupturing over "a straight-laced demand [which] must be made for the concession of an abstract idea." Unable to abandon hope in the party, Yost concluded, "I still think, however, that [the bolters] will come back to the original Convention." Before the Convention adjourned to Baltimore six weeks later, Yost broke with the Virginia delegation on the 23rd ballot and supported Stephen A. Douglas instead of R. M. T. Hunter, the state's favorite son. Intra-state tensions, soothed by the Constitution of 1851, flared anew. "For one, we are tired of playing second-fiddle to the silk-stocking and kid-glove gentry of Eastern Virginia." Yost clearly viewed the slave-holding Easterners--and southern bolters--as threats to the national integrity of the party, which he alone felt could prevent a sectional rupture of the country. Before the Democrats reassembled in Baltimore--with dissenters going to Richmond-- southern opposition groups convened to nominate John Bell and Edward Everett on a Constitutional Union ticket. The Waddells attended the May 9 Convention in Baltimore and "felt our hopes for the perpetuity of our institutions revive." Based on a strict reading of the Constitution and the burying of the slavery discord, this party reflected the political thought that Augusta's Whigs had been promulgating for the past decade. It is no surprise that the editors of the Spectator held "the solemn conviction that nothing but the success of such men can save the country from continual discord, and perhaps dissolution." With the nomination of Abraham Lincoln at the Republican Convention in Chicago, sectional tensions rose to new levels. A month before the fateful split of the Democratic Party, S. M. Yost pleaded for moderation, using the time-honored appeals: The North and South have been educated to think differently, each honest in their convictions. . . . Let then the honest masses . . . come forth and rally around the compromises, the honor, and the flag of their country, and . . . crush out fanaticism both North and South. . . . The great heart of the country is for the preservation of the Union. . . . Let the infamous sentiment [of disunion] be repudiated and rebuked, that the Star-Spangled Banner may continue to wave over the land of the free and the home of the brave. As the participants lurched toward the Baltimore Convention, Yost criticized attempts endorsed by Virginia Senators Hunter and Mason to force Douglas to adopt a guarantee of slavery in the territories. "It is unreasonable," he pleaded, "to demand that the Northern Democracy be crushed for the sake of a mere abstraction." On July 6, 1860, after the splintering of the Democratic Party, the Vindicator hoisted the banner of Stephen A. Douglas for President. Compromise finally failed to avert the disruption which sectional conflicts had so frequently invited. Richard Mauzy bought out the Waddells in late May and promised to continue their policies. Like his former partners, Mauzy placed his hopes for national preservation in the Bell- Everett ticket. "Upon their success," he intoned, "everything that we hold dear depends." As the Democracy divided, the Spectator boosted Bell as the only non-sectional candidate. Leaving no doubt about the importance he wanted voters to attach to the choice posed by the election of 1860, Mauzy asked, "Is a cemented Union preferable to a dismembered confederacy? Is Nationality preferable to sectionalism? Is peace and prosperity preferable to civil war and desolated fields?" The campaign raged with fierce intensity throughout the summer. Democrats and Constitutional Unionists waged a pitched battle for Augusta's votes. In this contest, however, they battled a common enemy in the Southern Democratic ticket headed by secessionist John Breckinridge. When Mauzy exhorted Bell-Everett clubs with the reminder, "You are laboring for a great object--the preservation of the National Union," he might well have spoken for Augusta Democrats. After it became apparent that Lincoln would be elected, both editors demonstrated their belief in the continued efficacy of the Federal system and urged their readers to prepare for Republican rule. Mauzy and Yost, recognizing that Lincoln had no support in Augusta County, heaped more scorn on the Vice-President than upon the Republican. Voters seemed to agree. "C. H. W." confided to the Vindicator, "Just between you and I, I think Wm. L. Yancey is equally guilty of disunion as Seward, or any Northern man, and I am confident he (Yancey) should have been taken out [at] Charleston to a blackjack, and hung higher, if possible, than old John Brown." On August 4, the Augusta Rifles, a largely Democratic volunteer company based at Brown's Spring, assembled for the presentation of a United States flag made by local women. In their speeches accepting the gift, the officers of the company, both prominent Democrats, spoke of the importance they attached to past traditions and expressed their hope that moderate forces would quell the "advancing storm of sectional fury" that threatened the nation. Their rhetoric demonstrates the place such rituals had in the political culture of Augusta's citizens. Absalom Koiner, a former state assemblyman and ex-editor of the Vindicator, declared, "This flag is full of interest and meaning to every American citizen. It is the insignia of our nationality. It is the emblem of American character. To tell what America means . . . there is something about it better imagined than described." The flag, he continued, served as a symbol of American democracy around the world, and reminded Americans of their past heritage, "of a host of revolutionary patriots . . . of Boston . . . Saratoga . . . and Yorktown. . . . We think of the great deeds of Jackson . . . of Scott and Taylor." Koiner continued, "we take the flag of our country into our hands as custodians, in part, of the national honor and fame, oppressed with a sense of responsibility. . . . It is not only the flag of our country, but of our Union. Every trace upon it is replete with meaning. There are the stars and stripes, expressive representations of our glorious confederacy of State Sovereignties." On the reverse side of the banner, the ladies had sewn the motto of Virginia, sic semper tyrannis. "By this," expounded Koiner: Virginia means that Constitutional liberty shall be maintained. Her great Washington presided over the Convention which framed the Constitution, and her profound Madison, with others, secured its adoption by the States. This Flag, this Union, this Constitution, this mighty Republic, the very consummation of human greatness which overshadows all that has gone before it in ancient or modern times, is the result of the labors of the purest, the wisest and greatest patriots and statesmen, who have ever adorned or blessed our race. Shall we not preserve this mighty fabric from disintegration and decay around which cluster so many hallowed associations, so many sacred memories of the past? Perish the man who would strike one of those stars from that bright constellation, palsied the arm that would tear down that glorious flag to run up a crimson one in its stead, calling to internecine war with all its horrors and the destruction of the fairest political hopes of man. Later that month, Alexander H. H. Stuart, home from Richmond, chaired a meeting of Augusta County Constitutional Unionists that sought to "put the seal of condemnation alike on the demagogues of the slaveholding and nonslaveholding states who have sought to array one section of the country against the other, and thereby to enfeeble the sacred ties by which we are united together as one people." Mauzy issued a renewed appeal urging citizens to subordinate all interests to "the great question--the preservation of the Union." The campaign reached a fevered pitch in September as Staunton welcomed Northern Democratic nominee Stephen A. Douglas on a swing through the South. The Staunton Artillery escorted the Little Giant to the steps of the court house, where some three thousand persons gathered amidst the fire of a hundred-gun salute. William H. Harman thanked Douglas for "your devotion to the best interests of the whole people of the Union during the past quarter century." Even the partisan Spectator praised Douglas "for the patriotic, national sentiments he so emphatically uttered." When Breckinridge supporter William L. Yancey followed Douglas to Staunton, only two to three hundred gathered in the Staunton Armory to hear the famous Alabama fire-eater. The Spectator predicted that "he will not make a disunion speech before an Augusta audience." Although Yancey offered a mild oration, refusing to commit himself to secessionist policies, the Vindicator nevertheless denounced "his sophistry and superficiality." As election day neared, "A Jackson Democrat" wrote to Mauzy, "I have been a Democrat for forty years, and never give any other than a Democratic vote in all my life . . . but times have changed and men have changed with them . . . Every lover of his country [should vote for Bell and Everett.]" Two weeks later, "D.", a Douglas supporter pleaded, "May the God of nations preserve our country from harm." The reality of the situation convinced both Mauzy and Yost that a national Republican victory was a real possibility, and they began to prepare their constituents for a Lincoln Presidency. The Spectator, on October 23, headed an editorial, "Nothing to Dread from Lincoln," in which Mauzy stressed the protection afforded by the Supreme Court and the Congress, neither of which would be Republican-dominated. "If conservatism and a Union spirit shall prevail in the border Southern States," he declared, "we may prevent any of the other States, by reason and argument, from seceding if Lincoln should be elected. To break up the Government under these circumstances, simply because Lincoln should be elected, would be adding madness to treason." Yost sighed a grudging acquiescence. "We fear the nation will have to groan and suffer for four years under Black Republican rule." A week before the election, the Vindicator vented its frustrations and raged against Southern extremists who, for their own advantage, had fostered "blind and unhealthy prejudices, and nursed . . . the agitation of sectional excitement and jealousy." "Friends of the Union" expressed disgust that "the inauguration of a President, deliberately chosen by a majority of the American people . . . WILL BE RESISTED BY FORCE." On Tuesday, November 6, election day, the Spectator exhorted its readers to "SAVE YOUR COUNTRY!" and exclaimed, "Liberty and Union, Now and Forever, One and Inseparable!" "This day," declared the prophetic Mauzy, "will mark an epoch in the history of this country." He and his rival, united under desperate circumstances, had done their part: Augusta County's voters turned out in record number to give two-thirds of their votes for John Bell. Douglas received most of the remainder. Both Bell and Douglas had been presented to voters as Unionist candidates. Together, they polled nearly 95 percent of the vote. Between Lincoln's Victory and Fort Sumter Lincoln's victory marks the point at which most historians begin to study Unionism. Daniel Crofts, it will be recalled, cited the election as the first "wave" of secessionist sentiment. The election of a Republican did not precipitate a crisis in Augusta County. Constitutional Unionists did not lose hope of national reconciliation until Lincoln's Proclamation of April 15 calling for 75,000 troops to coerce the Confederate States. At first, Democrats in Augusta accepted the election results. As the permanency of the Confederacy became apparent, and the South lost representation in the Federal Government, Democrats believed that the loss of Constitutional protections warranted secession. Both parties proposed compromise solutions, made increasingly greater concessions to the Deep South, and became exasperated with Republican intransigence. The Spectator refused to give up, but Democratic editor Yost finally encouraged citizens to prepare for war. Meanwhile, two of Augusta County's most prominent sons waged a valiant, and futile, effort to prevent secession. After years of denouncing southern extremists, Augustans realized with horror that the Deep South's withdrawal made it increasingly difficult for Virginia to remain in the Union. After Lincoln's victory, ex-Whig Richard Mauzy reiterated the protections afforded by the Constitutional system of checks and balances, reminding readers that the Deep South now posed the greatest danger to the Union. Sketching a scenario all-too-familiar to nervous readers, Mauzy rued possible secession, for if the states of the Deep South "will secede when we have a safe majority and there can be no danger, that we may be left in a minority where danger will threaten, in a confident belief that we will then secede and unite our fortunes with theirs." Defiantly, he added, "Virginia has interests independent of the Cotton States, and she should take care of them in spite of the action of those States." "R.", in a letter to the editor of the Spectator, acknowledged the past benefits of the Union and asserted, "Virginia loves the Union, and since Lincoln is elected by the people . . . she feels it her duty not to resist his inauguration or administration, as this strikes at the foundation of our government, so long as that administration . . . does not infringe upon the rights of the several States." Virginia, "R." continued, held the "balance of power" between secessionists and Unionists. "It becomes Virginia . . . to take the lead in every possible manner for saving the Union. I love the South--but I love the Union more." These sentiments, reflecting long- expressed beliefs about the nature of the federal Union and Virginia's role in the United States, remained the position of both Democrats and Whigs in Augusta for the rest of 1860. While the Spectator stressed Republican moderation, and claimed to have "more friends in the North than we have in the whole South," Democratic editor S. M. Yost hurled insults at South Carolina, the state most likely to secede. "Determined upon an insane, suicidal, illogical, and doubtful experiment, South Carolina inaugurates once again her darling project of Secession and Disunion." Like "R.", Yost hoped that Virginia "by calm, deliberate, sagacious counsel and action [might] stay the coming storm." On November 26, Augusta County held another Union meeting at a crowded court house which resolved against calling a convention to address Lincoln's election. Alexander H. H. Stuart presided over the meeting and John Brown Baldwin made another powerful speech against a convention and in support of the resolutions, which appealed to the Deep South to join Virginia "in testing the efficiency of remedies provided by the Constitution and within the Union." Democrats favored calling a convention, but they were outvoted by the Constitutional Unionists. As the Deep South moved toward secession, Yost rejected another Southern Convention because such a meeting "ignores the fact that we are part of the whole Confederacy, as well North as South." Instead, the editor of the Vindicator suggested a three-part plan. First, he proposed calling a National Convention, to cure "sectional diseases." If that failed, he suggested a Border state convention designed to set forth terms--including the prohibition of the slave trade--upon which those states might join the Deep South. Finally, if the "Cotton States" rejected that proposal, Yost favored the "formation of a Border State Confederacy, including North Carolina and Georgia. Like his neighbor at the Spectator, Yost feared that the Deep South would "hitch on and drag" the Border states from the Union. How, Yost demanded to know, could the Cotton States "break up, without sufficient cause, this, the greatest and best government the world has ever seen?" Yost's planned Border State Confederacy, as he envisioned it, would have one overriding purpose: that of "warring against the fanaticism and reckless insanity of both the extreme North and South." Mauzy continued to denounce any "Constitutional right to secession" and he censured President James Buchanan's year-end address because the lame duck Democrat did not assert the Federal Government's right to coerce South Carolina if it left the Union. Mauzy quickly added that Buchanan should also say he "did not think it expedient to exercise that right." Instead, a national convention of the states should be called, at which three-quarters could release the Palmetto state from the federal Union. The Vindicator disagreed, calling the United States "a voluntary compact of the people [which could never] be held together by physical force." As South Carolina convened its secession convention in December 1860, Augusta County readers devoured eyewitness accounts from one of their state assemblymen, John Marshall McCue, who conveyed the tense atmosphere in Columbia, where residents' "politeness is put to the test in having to listen to opposite views." As the Convention enacted secession resolutions, McCue described "the picture of the great and immortal Washington just above [the rostrum] frowning down upon the actors in this scene of Disunion. . . . The awful future . . . 'tis hid in mercy from our eyes." As the year drew to a close, the foreboding atmosphere in Augusta County, as well as the depth of citizens' fears for the continued viability of their political heritage, was captured by "C. M. B.," in the Spectator. "I am," he stated, "a Southern man, true to the core, but honestly believe wrongs have been committed by both North and South. . . . This fair fabric [of our national heritage] is to be rent asunder and 'all our pleasant places' which our fathers looked upon 'laid waste' and to become a by-word to the nations of the world--all, all to gratify the wishes of fanatics of North and South." The new year found the Virginia General Assembly debating resolutions to call a Convention to address the state of the country, and to discuss what action, if any, Virginia should take. Believing the Convention to be a prelude to secession, the Spectator opposed the meeting, and insisted on reserving the right of the people to vote upon its resolutions. "The mystic Convention veil," Mauzy cried, "is made to conceal the features of the monstrous 'mokanna' of secession." Nevertheless, when the legislature passed the resolutions, the Spectator pressed hard for the election of Unionist candidates and for reference of the Convention's action to a vote by the people. Amidst the calls for a Convention, Augusta's Democratic organ reached the final step in a long journey toward secession. The Compromise of 1850 had shaken Democrats' faith in Northerners willingness to uphold odious laws; Bleeding Kansas further revealed the extent of abolitionism in the North; and the reaction of the masses to John Brown convinced Augusta Democrats that Northerners were "rotten to the core." Now, left with a tiny minority in the Congress, facing a hostile and stubborn cabinet, exasperated at failed attempts to reach a settlement, and influenced by increasingly secessionist rhetoric in parts of the Upper South, S. M. Yost greeted the new year with a more militant attitude. Reiterating his belief that the United States offered "the most perfect system of government the world has ever seen," Yost said that the people of the North had begun to disregard southern rights with the conviction "that they are right and everybody else is wrong." The defeat of the Democracy "has sounded the death knell of the Confederacy. With Virginia and the South our destiny is cast." In the now evil North, "license has been given to extreme fanaticism, and the edict has gone out that henceforth it is a war of sections. The temper and tone of the . . . Black Republican party in the United States Senate, have clearly indicated to the country that there will be no concession there." Although Yost still clung to idea of a Border state confederacy, his rhetoric became increasingly secessionist. After crowding "as closely as herrings in a barrel" into the Staunton court house to hear the candidates on January 28, the voters distributed 87 percent of their votes between Unionist candidates state Senator Alexander H. H. Stuart, John B. Baldwin, and Douglas Democrat George Baylor. Newly converted states rights advocates William H. Harman (a former Douglas supporter) and John D. Imboden, an ex-Whig who backed Bell and Everett and had represented Augusta County in the legislature on the American ticket from 1855-1857, were badly beaten. Ninety-three percent of the voters cast their ballots for reference of the Convention's actions to a popular vote. Yost recognized that his candidates, Imboden and Harman, "were voted against by hundreds who believed their election would be equivalent to a declaration of war, and might cause pestilence and famine." As the Virginia Convention prepared to meet in Richmond on February 13, S. M. Yost prophesied darkly: "we believe that in the march of events the people of Augusta will discover in less than sixty days that the best way to preserve the peace of this country, and the only way to bring back the states that have gone, is to demand a recognition of our rights, and let the North know that we will take nothing less." He added, "We, as Virginians, will have the satisfaction to know that we have left no means untried to bring about an adjustment." On January 19, Virginia had invited the states to convene a Peace Conference in Washington on February 4. Amidst these national negotiations, Baldwin and Stuart headed to Richmond ready to confront their greatest battles for the Union they had fought so consistently to preserve. Even in Augusta County, an occasional expression of disunion appeared. "Augusta" wrote to the Vindicator on February 8, snarling, "Before I bend my knee to Lincoln and Seward, and their Virginia cohorts, I will see this land run in rivers of blood." Although the Unionists held a solid majority in the Convention, secessionists led by ex- Governor Henry A. Wise remained a vocal faction. Like the rest of the nation, the Convention adopted a "wait-and-see" attitude, following the proceedings of the Washington Peace Conference and anticipating Lincoln's March Inaugural Address. A Committee on Federal Relations was formed and, after Stuart declined to serve on it, Baldwin became a leading member. Both men searched for a solution amenable to the Border States, and both put faith in the ability and desire of the northern Republicans to compromise. In Augusta County, "An Old Subscriber" expressed his belief that the Republicans would arrive at a compromise "on the subject of slavery" and hoped that an agreement would eventually lead the departed states back into the Union. Richard Mauzy, undoubtedly in close contact with both Stuart and Baldwin, now reserved kind sentiments for William Seward, praising the New Yorker's "predilection for a moderate and conciliatory policy." The Spectator began a three-week campaign designed to show that "The Chief Object" of the Founding Fathers had been to provide for a strong "government which would be able to preserve the Union." With Lincoln's Inaugural Address--"a plain, bold, gross, and ruffianly declaration to plunge the country into Civil War," said Yost--the Vindicator could point to the new President's coercive intentions. Averring that Lincoln's rhetoric meant the end of constitutional protections, Yost dropped any remaining vestiges of Unionism and told readers, "We must either identify ourselves with the North or the South. The question of Union or Disunion is dead and buried. Dissolution has already taken place, and whether the people of Virginia can realize it or not, it is certainly so." Sectionalism finally triumphed among Augusta's "states rights" Democrats. The Spectator gave Lincoln the same advice it had doled out to Buchanan: call a convention of the states and release the Deep South from the Union by a three-fourths vote. At the same time, Mauzy admitted, "We regret that the President did not express a desire to be relieved of his obligations. . ." Within a week of the Inauguration, John Baldwin reported the recommendations of the Convention's Committee on Federal Relations. The Committee resolved to recognize the Confederate states' right of secession, expressed its desire for time to attempt to reach a compromise with the Lincoln Administration, and deplored all actions designed to precipitate a Border state withdrawal. Repeating demands made earlier by the Vindicator, the report called for a Border state convention. S. M. Yost had clearly had enough. The representatives of the North, he reminded readers, "spurned the Crittendon Amendments," "kicked the Border State proposal out of doors," "spit upon the report of the Committee of 33," "and strangled the Peace Conference abortion." Appealing to the masculine honor of his readers' home state, Yost declared: "still Virginia is running around from post to pillar endeavoring to hatch up some seductive bait by which she may be allowed to cringingly beg the consideration of her oppressors. Is it not shameful that our beloved State is made to assume such a degraded, cowardly, and humiliating position?" The Spectator, for so long an ardent activist for the national Union, made a final plea on April 2, 1861. Wrote Richard Mauzy, it is "really in the interests of the Border Slave States to maintain their present relations with the Free States on our border, and with the whole Union if possible, we have therefrom a difference between our condition and that of the Gulf States. We have interests in the Union that are paramount--interests that the Cotton States have not; and that therefore we should not rashly imperil them through any fancied identity of interests with the States that have left us." In Richmond, Stuart and Baldwin, along with Kanawha County's George W. Summers, formed the nucleus of Unionist support within the Virginia Convention. These men recognized that their plan for a Border State Convention depended upon Republican cooperation and guarantees not to fortify federal troops at Fort Sumter, in Charleston, South Carolina, and Fort Pickins, in Pensacola, Florida. On April 1, Lincoln's Secretary of State, and the leader of the conciliatory Republicans, William Henry Seward, telegraphed to the Unionist leaders in Richmond, asking for support from the Virginians in his efforts to convince Lincoln not to resupply the Forts. Lincoln, acting on Seward's urgent counsel, dispatched Virginia-born lawyer Allan B. Magruder to bring back to Washington, if not George Summers, "some Union man in whom he has confidence." On April 3, the inner circle of Virginia Unionists selected John B. Baldwin to present their case to the President. Shrouded in secrecy, Baldwin and Magruder took the night train to Washington. Arriving in the national Capitol the next morning, Baldwin was hurried to Seward's home, and the Secretary accompanied him to the White House. Lincoln greeted Baldwin with the chilling statement, "I am afraid you have arrived too late," and proceeded to ask, "Why do you not adjourn the Virginia Convention?" Baldwin replied that the Convention was "in the hands of Union men; we have in it a clear and controlling majority of three to one; [we can prevent secession] if you will uphold our hands by a conservative policy here." If the Convention adjourned, Baldwin told the President, secessionists might gain the upper hand in any future assembly. Lincoln then listened to Baldwin's suggestions for averting a civil war. Never before, the eloquent lawyer later recalled, had he made "a speech on behalf of a client in jeopardy of his life, with such earnest solemnity and endeavor." Not veering from the policies advocated by his crony at the Staunton Spectator, Baldwin advised Lincoln to state his intention to uphold the Constitution "without regard to party or section"; reject the right of secession but grant the Confederacy de facto recognition; call a national convention of the states; and withdraw Federal troops from Forts Sumter and Pickins. If Lincoln followed these steps, Baldwin pleaded, he would discover "there is national feeling enough in the seceded States themselves and all over the country to rally to your support." When Lincoln protested, Baldwin continued, "For every one of your friends who you would lose . . . you would gain ten who would rally to you and to the national standard of peace and Union." Baldwin addressed the condition of Fort Sumter, and the temperament of South Carolinians. No doubt informed by his friend John M. McCue, Baldwin advised Lincoln that South Carolina sought a pretext for a fight. "They are," he said, "asserting a right." The Augusta County Unionist left Lincoln with the warning that if shots were fired in Charleston Harbor, "from whichever side, Virginia herself will be out in forty-eight hours. If there is a gun fired at Sumter, this thing is gone." As Lincoln ushered him out, Baldwin told the President that by his actions the country would remember him as the "savior of your country," or the man who allowed the "overthrow of the best government that God ever allowed to exist." Soon after Baldwin's return to Richmond, Augusta County's other Unionist leader, Alexander H. H. Stuart, headed for Washington as part of an official three-member delegation from the Virginia Convention. This group intended to seek solid reassurances from Lincoln that he would not attack the South. A massive rain storm washed out roads and delayed Stuart's arrival until April 12. Meeting the next day with Lincoln, the Virginia delegation listened to the President tell them that "an unprovoked assault has been made upon Fort Sumter . . . I shall . . . repel force by force." Stuart urged Lincoln to reconsider and suggested that Lincoln "find it no longer expedient to hold Fort Sumter," as it was only for local defense. Even after the interview, as the delegates rushed back to Richmond, Stuart did not construe Lincoln's words as the precursor to a "general war." The next day, the Richmond papers printed Lincoln's Proclamation calling for 75,000 troops to, Virginians believed, coerce the seceded states. The Staunton Spectator responded to the news of the attack at Fort Sumter with a sense of betrayal. "After all his declarations in favor of peace, President Lincoln has taken a course calculated inevitably to provoke a collision, and to unite the whole South in armed resistance." Democrats' warnings had become a reality. After decades of participation in a political culture that posited devotion to legal protections, Lincoln's action shocked Augusta County residents. One can only imagine the numbness with which they read the news of impending violence. In this context, faced with an action they believed violated the individual liberty they held so dear, Augustans reacted with near unanimity. A postscript to the Spectator edition announcing the fighting at Fort Sumter, clearly added only after the call for troops, frantically reported, "P.S. A dispatch has just been received from Col. George Baylor . . . stating that Lincoln has called out 70,000 militia. Where from? For what? The Colonel wishes to know what the people here think. There is but one sentiment--every man is ready to take up arms. Intense excitement prevails in the community." John B. Baldwin wept when he realized that the Virginia Convention would vote for secession; Alexander H. H. Stuart refused to believe that Lincoln had called for troops to attack the South; and, in Augusta County, farmer Billy Beard wished "Virginia had left the South alone and staid in the Union." On April 17, 1861, the Virginia Convention voted 88-55 for an ordinance of secession from the Federal Union. Baldwin and Stuart voted against the ordinance while George Baylor supported it. On May 23 Augusta County voters ratified the action of the Convention by casting an overwhelming 3130 ballots for secession to 10 against. "There are now," wrote Baldwin, "no Union men in Virginia." The massive turnaround in Augusta's vote reflects the shattering of its citizens' political culture. Lincoln's Proclamation, although it did not openly declare that Virginia would be invaded in the process of national re-unification, held out the specter of an unsanctioned territorial incursion. The fact that voters took this possibility seriously demonstrates the degree to which they had lost faith in the elements of their political culture that gave it its national breadth. Augustans believed that the Proclamation ignored Constitutional guarantees against such an invasion. Furthermore, because there was no danger of physical compulsion by the South, Lincoln's action represented a northern disavowal, highly sectional in its nature, of the tenets upon which Augusta County envisioned its participation in the American Union. Reading the rhetoric of the editorials of Augusta County's two major newspapers between 1850 and 1861, one cannot avoid the notion that the county never should have seceded. Leaders of both political parties believed that participation in the Federal Union was in the best cultural, economic, and political interests of their county. Average citizens immersed themselves in a culture steeped in such a heritage. Only after the Union as they saw it ceased, with the acquiescence of an entire section of the country, to exist did they advise secession. As John D. Imboden, a former Whig and Bell supporter, wrote in January, 1861, "The Union has been destroyed by the withdrawal of several States, and the Constitution has been trampled underfoot by a majority of those which remain." Conclusion Only by viewing Unionist rhetoric through a nationalistic lens can an understanding of Unionism make sense. Nationalism, as discussed earlier in this essay, is an appeal to common historic memories and "symbols and rituals or common collective practices which alone give a palpable reality to the otherwise imagined community." It is this imagined community, and Augusta's political culture, that deserves attention here. What was, in the final analysis, Augusta County's imagined community? What it was not, and what Unionism was not, was a sectional or regional entity. Throughout the period, national news played a prominent role not only in editorials but also in news stories and vignettes. It is of no small importance that such Northerners as Daniel Webster and Lewis Cass received praise and extensive coverage from both papers while John C. Calhoun, William Yancey, and other southern radicals were castigated and little-mentioned. This reflects not only the favor shown to politicians who strove to achieve sectional compromise, but also the breadth of the "imagined community." The United States Senate received as much coverage as the Virginia House of Delegates or the Augusta County court day. The average newspaper reader became well-acquainted with events in California, Kansas, and North Carolina. To people who participated in several patriotic rituals each year, America meant what they said it meant. As a correspondent once told Richard Mauzy, "Ever since I came to know anything about American history, the War of the Revolution, American Independence, the Federal Government, or the glorious Union of our States, I have been a Union man." As this paper has shown, the American flag, the Founding Fathers, and the sacrifices of a common heritage were palpable realities to the people of Augusta County. The patriots of Boston received the same veneration as the "Father of his country." The disintegration of Augusta's political culture, assaulted by the withdrawal of the Deep South from the Union, and mocked by the remaining states, explains the county's nearly unanimous vote for secession. The people of Augusta County believed that the compact which their parents and grandparents made with the other states of the Federal Union had been broken. Their imagined community lay in shambles. To twentieth-century readers, there is an irrational aspect to this decision. But viewed through the eyes of people devoted to a concept they consistently read and wrote about, practiced and participated in, the decision was hardly a decision at all. W.M. Elliot to John D. Imboden, August 27, 1860, Imboden Papers, University of Virginia. The best history of this period remains David M. Potter, The Impending Crisis (New York: Harper and Row, 1976). Other books stressing the consequences and causes of sectionalism include Roy F. Nichols, The Disruption of American Democracy (New York: MacMillan, 1948) and Michael F. Holt, The Political Crisis of the 1850s (New York: Wiley, 1978). Staunton Vindicator, November 30, 1860; Staunton Spectator, November 20, 1850. The most exhaustive study, although chiefly confined to the period between November 1860 and April 1861, is Daniel W. Crofts, Reluctant Confederates: Upper South Unionists in the Secession Crisis (Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 1989). See also Shearer Davis Bowman, "Conditional Unionism and Slavery in Virginia, 1860-1861: The Case of Dr. Richard Eppes," Virginia Magazine of History and Biography, XCVI (January 1988), pp.31-54. Nichols and Potter, Lincoln and His Party in the Secession Crisis (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1962), also touch on Unionists. A recent effort by Peter B. Knupfer, The Union as it Is: Constitutional Unionism and Sectional Compromise, 1787- 1861 (Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press), 1991, argues that the concept of compromise was ensconced in Unionist thought from the time of the crafting of the Constitution. While reliance upon compromise was an important tenet of American federalism, it was not the dominant concept behind Unionism. David M. Potter, "The Historian's Use of Nationalism and Vice Versa," in The South and the Sectional Crisis (Baton Rouge: Louisiana State Press, 1968), pp. 34-83. Shearer Davis Bowman has argued that Southern Unionists' devotion to slavery was the major factor in their withdrawal from the Union. See Bowman, "Constitutional Unionism." Ernest Gellner, Nations and Nationalism (London: Basil Blackwell, 1983), p. 1. Benedict Anderson, Imagined Communities: Reflections on the Origin and Spread of Nationalism, Revised edition (London: Verso, 1991), pp. 6, 63. The debate over what constitutes an individual's conception of "the nation" is beyond the scope of this essay. A good discussion of the subject is in the introduction to Eric Hobsbawm's Nations and Nationalism Since 1780: Programme, Myth, Reality (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1990). Hobsbawm, Nations and Nationalism Since 1780, pp. 46-73, 11. Potter, "The Historian's Use of Nationalism and Vice Versa," pp. 47, 79. Hobsbawm, Nations and Nationalism Since 1780, pp. 73, 20. Anti-sectionalism can apply to both North-South tension and the internal friction between eastern and western Virginia. For the purposes of this paper's argument, unless specifically stated, anti- sectionalism refers to the North-South antagonism. Robert D. Mitchell, "The Upper Shenandoah Valley in Virginia During the Eighteenth Century: A Study in Historical Geography" (Ph.D. dissertation, University of Wisconsin, 1969), pp. 68-69; Alison Goodyear Freehling, Drift Toward Dissolution: The Virginia Slavery Debate of 1831-1832 (Baton Rouge: Louisiana State University Press, 1982), pp. 12-13; John Lewis Peyton, History of Augusta County, Virginia, Second Edition (Bridgewater, Virginia: C.J. Carrier, 1953), pp. 41, 53. Mitchell, "The Upper Shenandoah Valley," p. 218. Among the other Valley counties, only Rockbridge also had a majority of Scotch-Irish. Alison Goodyear Freehling, Drift Toward Dissolution, pp. 31-32. See Appendix, Table 2, for a breakdown of Augusta farms in 1850 and 1860. Ibid., p. 32. Mitchell, "The Upper Shenandoah Valley," pp. 208, 236, 363; U.S. Bureau of the Census. First Census of the United States: 1790. Population Schedule. See Appendix, Tables 1 through 5, especially 2 and 5. The county remained ambiguous about the peculiar institution. In Assembly debates in 1832, Augusta's delegates presented petitions urging the abolition of slavery. Charles H. Ambler, Sectionalism in Virginia From 1776 to 1861, reprinted (New York: Russell and Russell, Inc., 1964), p. 189; Joseph A. Waddell, Annals of Augusta County, Virginia, from 1726 to 1871, second edition, reprinted (Harrisonburg, Virginia: C. J. Carrier Company, 1979), p. 414. They also supported the moderate anti- slavery proposals made during the debates. Alison Goodyear Freehling, Drift Toward Dissolution, p. 275. Mitchell, "The Upper Shenandoah Valley," pp. 326, 360-365. Quote on p. 326. Because of the geographic features of the Shenandoah mountain area, the upper Valley refers to the southern part of the Valley. Ibid., p. 407. See note number 26, below. Ibid., p. 447. Staunton merchants were among the most vocal advocates of internal improvements. Responding to sectional agitation and recognizing the benefits of establishing a stronger trade with the west, eastern Virginians pushed for three major projects toward this end: construction of a road linking the lower Valley city of Winchester to Alexandria and Fredericksburg; clearance of the Potomac River which ran along the state's northern border; and the creation of a canal system along the James River, which connected Richmond to the upper Valley city of Lynchburg. Ambler, Sectionalism in Virginia, pp. 46-51. The ratio of free people to slaves in Augusta County was nearly twice that of the state of Virginia. See Appendix, Table 1. For a brief discussion of the tensions, see William W. Freehling, "The Editorial Revolution, Virginia, and the Coming of the Civil War: A Review Essay," Civil War History, XVI (March, 1970), pp. 67, 71. The quote is in Waddell's Diary, October 15, 1856, Alderman Library, University of Virginia. In 1860, 82% of the county's farms--as opposed to 69% of the states--were larger than 50 acres. From U.S. Bureau of the Census. Eighth Census of the United States: 1860. Agricultural Schedule. See Appendix, Table 6. See Appendix, Table 7. Although the 40,727 pounds of tobacco produced in 1860 might seem like a lot, it represented an output equivalent to that of one good size plantation. See Appendix, Tables 8 and 9. Staunton Spectator, January 1, 1850, January 10, 1860. Of 96 advertisements, only 1 came from Richmond. 6 originated from New York and 11 from Philadelphia. By 1860, these numbers were more than reversed, with northern ads accounting for only 13 of the 170 entries For an argument of Richmond's importance in Valley trade from 1765 on, see Mitchell, "The Upper Shenandoah Valley," pp. 447-458. Staunton Spectator, January 1, 1850; January 3, 1855; January 10, 1860. Norman K. Risjord, Chesapeake Politics, 1781-1800 (New York: Columbia University Press, 1978), pp. 31-34. In 1800, only 24 percent of the population in Augusta County was English. Mitchell, p. 218. Ibid., p. 151. Ibid., pp. 149, 175, 192. Stuart opposed the issuance of paper money and consistently voted for measures designed to appease Britain and force full payment of the debt. During subsequent fights over paper money in 1816, 1837, 1840, and 1846, Augusta politicians generally favored an expanded currency. Ibid., pp. 296-297. Risjord also found that non-English Americans, recent arrivals, and educated Virginians tended to support federalist proposals. Augusta County, with its large Irish Presbyterian population and traditional support for education, fits these criteria. Ibid., p. 408. Cynthia Miller Leonard, The General Assembly of Virginia: A Bicentennial Register of Members (Richmond: Virginia State Library, 1978); Ambler, Sectionalism in Virginia, p. 92. Valley Federalists and their New England constituents voiced the loudest opposition to Jefferson and Madison's anti-British foreign policy. Daniel P. Jordan, Political Leadership in Jefferson's Virginia (Charlottesville: University Press of Virginia, 1983), p. 69. Augusta retained two delegates in the Assembly, while most eastern counties saw their representation decreased to one delegate. Ambler, Sectionalism in Virginia, pp. 144, 172. Risjord, Chesapeake Politics, pp. 542, 561, 674; John Walter Wayland, The German Element of the Shenandoah Valley of Virginia (Charlottesville, Virginia: Michie Printers, 1907), p. 85. Daniel W. Crofts, Old Southampton: Politics and Society in a Virginia County, 1834-1869 (Charlottesville, Virginia: University Press of Virginia, 1992), pp. 120-121; Ambler, Sectionalism in Virginia, p. 212. Waddell, Annals of Augusta County, p. 435. See Appendix, Table 10 for a review of county elections between 1836 and 1848. Staunton Spectator, April 30, 1846. In a four-way race, the incumbents finished third and fourth. Staunton Spectator, April 29, 1847. In a section more odious to the West, the new constitution decreed that whites' wages were taxable, while slaves under 12 were exempt from taxes. Worse still, the tax value of all slaves over 12 was set at $300, well below market rates. Harry Watson, Jacksonian Politics and Community Conflict: The Emergence of the Second American Party System in Cumberland County, North Carolina (Baton Rouge: Louisiana State University Press, 1981), p. 172; see Appendix, Table 11. In the presidential election of 1852, the Whig vote increased by 333 votes, or 24.8 percent. The Democratic tally swelled by 668 votes, a 92.7 percent jump. Watson's argument follows in the tradition of historian Michael F. Holt, who attributed the Civil War to the relative paucity of such issues and the resultant weakening national party coherence. See Holt, Political Crisis of the 1850s, especially pp. 1-16. According to the 1850 Census, only 505 of 18,983, or 2.6 percent, of whites over twenty could not read. For an example of the way print news was dispersed within one family see a letter from Mary A. Smiley to her brother Thomas M. averring that the "papers say" to vote for secession, May 23, 1861, in Smiley Family papers, Alderman Library, University of Virginia. Throughout the period, the Waddells served on many town committees and Lyttleton, Sr. served as principal of the Staunton Academy both before and after his stint at the Spectator. Waddell, Annals of Augusta County, pp. 440, 444; Staunton Spectator, May 31, 1854. Unpublished document on Augusta County newspapers, prepared by Katherine Bushman, courtesy of the author; letter from Thomas J. Michie to John Letcher, May 17, 1858, Virginia Historical Society, no. ms2m5827 a1. Potter, The Impending Crisis, pp. 94-95; William W. Freehling, The Road to Disunion: Secessionists at Bay, 1776-1854 (New York: Oxford University Press, 1990), pp. 480-481. Staunton Spectator, January 16, 1850. Staunton Vindicator, January 28, March 18, 1850. Staunton Spectator, January 23, 1850. William W. Freehling, "The Editorial Revolution," p. 67. The Waddells had owned the paper since 1848. Joseph Waddell later wrote a history of Augusta County. Staunton Spectator, March 13, 1850. Staunton Spectator, March 20, 1850. Minutes of the Union Meeting, Staunton Spectator, March 28, 1850; Staunton Vindicator, April 1, 1850. Ibid. Ibid. Anderson stresses the importance of "simultaneity," people knowing that, for example, on Monday evening everyone in the community was sitting down to read the Vindicator. Staunton Vindicator, August 5, 1850. Staunton Vindicator, August 5, 1850; Staunton Spectator, August 7, 1850. Staunton Spectator, August 28, 1850. Afraid not only that Virginia would be "led by the nose" by southern extremists, Augusta's editors feared an unholy alliance between regional disunionists. Both concerns recurred throughout the period. Staunton Spectator, September 4, 1850. Staunton Spectator, September 11, 1850; Staunton Vindicator, September 16, 1850. Staunton Vindicator, September 23, 1850, September 30, 1850. Staunton Spectator, October 9, 1850, September 18, 1850. Staunton Spectator, November 27, 1850. Letter from Daniel Webster to members of Augusta County Committee on Invitation, William Kinney, Chairman, Washington, D.C., November 23, 1850. Quoted in Staunton Spectator, November 27, 1850. Staunton Spectator, November 27, 1850. In the same issue, the editors noted the quiet passing of the Nashville Convention, saying wishfully, "John C. Calhoun carried to his grave the potent wand upon which the success of all three disunion efforts depended, and left no successor behind him." Staunton Spectator, February 5, 1851, February 12, 1851. Quoted in Staunton Spectator, April 23, 1851. For a summary of the secession movements, see Potter, The Impending Crisis, Ch. 6. Staunton Spectator, May 21, 1851, August 13, 1851. The elder Waddell returned to his educational career in January, 1854 and Alfred sold out in October, 1851. Lester J. Cappon, Virginia Newspapers: A Biography with Historical Introduction and Notes (Richmond: D. Appleton-Century Co., 1936); Staunton Spectator, February 15, 1854. Quoted in Freehling, Road to Disunion, p. 559. see also Potter, The Impending Crisis, Ch. 7, and Roy F. Nichols, "The Kansas-Nebraska Act: A Century of Historiography," Mississippi Valley Historical Review, XLIII (1956), pp. 187-212. The Spectator's support of the American Party came grudgingly. After all, the Americans started a paper that threatened to drain away some of the Waddells' subscribers. Reflecting the ephemeral nature of these divisions, the editor of the True American was Richard Mauzy, who later took over at the Spectator. For Joseph Waddell's fears about the competition see his diary, August 8, 1856, Alderman Library, University of Virginia. Despite the lack of editorial commentary, readers could peruse weekly updates, including transcripts of the Congressional debates. This was the argument used by Virginia's "Old Republicans" in opposition to the Missouri Compromise of 1820. They based their position on guarantees of property in the Constitution. See Article IV, Section 2.1 and the Fifth Amendment. See also Staunton Vindicator, August 7, 1854. For a discussion of the importance of compromise in Unionist thought, see Knupfer, The Union as it Is. In the House, northern Whigs voted 50-0 against the Bill, southern Whigs approved its passage 13-9. The 13 who broke with their party made the difference in a 113-100 total count. Staunton Spectator, May 31, 1854. Staunton Vindicator, October 30, 1854. The Waddells exclaimed, "If George Washington were to arise from the dead, and announce himself a candidate in opposition to Henry A. Wise, some demagogue would discover anti-slavery sentiment in his Farewell Address." Staunton Spectator, February 14, 1855; Staunton Vindicator, February 17, 1855. Staunton Vindicator, July 31, 1854, December 15, 1855. Staunton Spectator, October 11, 1854. Staunton Spectator, March 7, 1855. Staunton Spectator, May 9, 1855. Appendix, Table 11. Turnout was 9.5% higher, while the Whig vote was 5.4% higher than the average for the period 1851-1860. Staunton Vindicator, June 9, 1855, August 25, 1855. Staunton Vindicator, August 11, 1855. Staunton Spectator, August 22, 1855. Staunton Vindicator, November 18, 1859. Staunton Vindicator, November 4, 1859. Mauzy became a partner in 1857, following the demise of his American Party paper, the Staunton True American, in 1857. Joseph A. Waddell Diary, August 8, 1856, Alderman Library, University of Virginia. Staunton Spectator, October 18, 1859, October 25, 1859. Potter, The Impending Crisis, p. 375. Staunton Vindicator, December 2, 1859. Ibid. Staunton Spectator, December 20, 1859. Staunton Spectator, December 20, December 27, 1859. Staunton Vindicator, December 2, 1859. On December 15, a meeting at Mt. Solon asserted "the South should manifest its displeasure" and called for all men between 17 and 50 to join up. Staunton Vindicator, December 16, 1859. Potter, The Impending Crisis, p. 383. Staunton Spectator, February 14, 1860; Staunton Vindicator, February 24, 1860; Shanks, pp. 97- 100. Staunton Spectator, January 17, 1860. This is in stark contrast to 1850, when Democrats in Augusta County openly broke with the actions of Senators Hunter and Mason. At that time, a belief in the ability of people to uphold the laws, not reliance on a party, formed the bedrock of Democrats' hopes for preserved national integrity. Staunton Spectator, January 31, 1860. Staunton Spectator, March 6, 1860. S. M. Yost to William H. Harman, April 21, 1860, in Staunton Vindicator, April 27, 1860. The best description of the Convention is in Nichols, The Disruption of American Democracy, pp. 288-307. S. M. Yost to William G. Harman, May 1, 1860, in Staunton Vindicator, May 4, 1860. Staunton Vindicator, May 11, 1860. Staunton Spectator, May 15, 1860. Staunton Vindicator, May 11, 1860. Staunton Vindicator, May 25, 1860; Nichols, The Disruption of American Democracy, pp. 313- 318. Staunton Spectator, July 3, 1860. Staunton Spectator, July 17, 1860; Staunton Vindicator, August 24, 1860. Staunton Vindicator, August 17, 1860. Ibid. Ibid. Staunton Spectator, August 28, 1860, August 14, 1860. Staunton Vindicator, September 7, 1860; Staunton Spectator, September 4, 1860. Staunton Spectator, October 2, 1860; Staunton Vindicator, October 5, 1860. Staunton Spectator, October 9, 1860, October 23, 1860; Staunton Vindicator, October 19, 1860. Staunton Vindicator, October 26, 1860; Staunton Spectator, October 30, 1860. Staunton Spectator, November 6, 1860; Appendix, Tables 12 and 13. Staunton Spectator, November 13, 1860. For the argument that Lincoln's election caused an increase in secessionist sentiment in the Upper South, see Crofts, Reluctant Confederates, pp. xvii, 90- 103. Staunton Spectator, November 13, 1860. Staunton Vindicator, November 16, 1860. Charles Curry, John Brown Baldwin: Lawyer, Soldier, Statesman (Staunton, Virginia: Charles Curry, 1928), p. 7. Staunton Vindicator, November 23, 1860. Staunton Vindicator, November 30, 1860. Staunton Spectator, December 11, 1860, January 15, 1861. Staunton Vindicator, January 11, 1861. John Marshall McCue to S.M. Yost, December 12, 1860, in Staunton Vindicator, December 21, 1860; McCue to Richard Mauzy, December 20, 1860, in Staunton Spectator, December 25, 1860. Staunton Spectator, December 25, 1860. Staunton Spectator, January 15, 1861. Staunton Vindicator, January 4, 1861. Appendix, Tables 14 and 15; Staunton Vindicator, February 8, 1861. Ibid. For a description of the Peace Conference, see Crofts, Reluctant Confederates, pp. 208-213; Robert Gray Gunderson, Old Gentlemen's Convention: The Washington Peace Conference of 1861 (Madison, Wisconsin: University of Wisconsin Press, 1961). Crofts, Reluctant Confederates, is based upon this premise. See pp. 215-307. Staunton Spectator, February 26, 1861. Staunton Vindicator, March 15, 1861, March 22, 1861. Staunton Spectator, March 12, 1861. Staunton Spectator, March 19, 1861. Staunton Vindicator, March 22, 1861. Staunton Spectator, April 2, 1861. Crofts, Reluctant Confederates, p. 301. Seward's efforts on behalf of national preservation are convincingly detailed throughout the book. For his Virginia connections, see Richard G. Lowe, "The Republican Party in Ante-Bellum Virginia, 1856-1860," Virginia Magazine of History and Biography, LXXXI (July, 1973), pp. 259-279. For a less charitable opinion of Seward, see Kenneth M. Stampp, And the War Came: The North and the Secession Crisis, 1860-61 (Baton Rouge: Louisiana State University Press, 1950). John B. Baldwin, Interview Between President Lincoln and Col. John B. Baldwin, April 4th, 1861: Statements and Evidence (Staunton, Virginia: Spectator Job Office, 1866), p. 10. Ibid., p. 11. Ibid., p. 12. Ibid., p. 13. Alexander F. Robertson, Alexander Hugh Holmes Stuart, 1807-1891 (Richmond: William Bird Press, Inc., 1925), p. 186.; Crofts, Reluctant Confederates, pp. 312-313. Robertson, Alexander Hugh Holmes Stuart, p. 191. Staunton Spectator, April 16, 1861. Curry, John Brown Baldwin, p. 11; Crofts, Reluctant Confederates, p. 314; Mary A. Smiley to Thomas M. Smiley, May 23, 1861, in Smiley Papers, Alderman Library, University of Virginia; records on the Ratification of the Ordinance of Secession, Virginia State Library Archives. See above, p. 2, for a listing of these tenets. From a letter written by Imboden delineating his views as a candidate for the Convention of 1861, in Staunton Vindicator, January 18, 1861. It should be noted that over five hundred fewer voters turned out for the May election than had gone to the polls in February. The May turnout was seven hundred fewer than the November, 1860, election. See Appendix, Table 11. ************************************************************************ USGENWEB ARCHIVES NOTICE: These electronic pages may NOT be reproduced in any format for profit or presentation by any other organization or persons. Persons or organizations desiring to use this material, must obtain the written consent of the contributor, or the legal representative of the submitter, and contact the listed USGenWeb archivist with proof of this consent. The submitter has given permission to the USGenWeb Archives to store the file permanently for free access. http://www.usgwarchives.net ***********************************************************************