SECTIONALISM IN VIRGINIA FROM 1776 TO 1861

VI. Internal Improvements, Negro Slavery, and Nullification, 1829–33

CHAPTER VI INTERNAL IMPROVEMEINTS, NEGRO SLAVERY, AND NULLIFICATION, 1829-33 The internal improvement schemes urged by advocates of the American System and the railways in process of construction westward from Baltimore were the important factors in shaping the internal improvement policies in Virginia during this period. Her legislators yet believed it possible to make Richmond a commercial rival of Baltimore, Philadelphia, and New York. Accordingly they again sought to revive interest in the proposed water communication between the James and the Kanawha rivers and took every precaution to prevent the west from becoming tributary to Baltimore by means of either the railway or canal. During the first years of this period the chief discussion , especially in the west, was to determine the policy of the Jackson administration on the subject of internal improvements. The constitutional convention of 1829-30 taught the west to expect little of the east in the way of roads and canals. Its inhabitants, therefore , hOoped for a continuation of the Adams policy, which Jackson's inaugural address and first message had led them to believe might be adhered to. The proposed Buffalo and New Orleans turnpike, to be built by way of Washington, thence through the Valley, aroused keen interest in western Virginia. The 175 176 SECTIONALISM IN VIRGINIA, 1776-1861 representatives from that section argued for it on the ground that it was necessary to promote the general welfare/ and to comply with the provisions of a contract between the federal government and Alabama and Mississippi, whereby the former had agreed to use a portion of the proceeds of the land sales within those states to construct works of internal improvement .2 Craig favored using the proceeds of the sales of the public lands upon works of internal improvement as the only means whereby they could be returned to the people. Another argument advanced by these representatives was that the proposed road would expedite the transfer of the mails, and afford an easy and necessary means of communication in time of war. Archer, P. P. Barbour, and Bouldin spoke for the east in opposition to the proposed road. Barbour in-· sisted that the circumstances surrounding the construction of the Cumberland turnpike, deemed necessary to comply with a contract between the federal government and Ohio, were not identical with those advanced in behalf of the Buffalo and New Orleans turnpike; in the former case Ohio had demanded the road, while in the latter both Alabama and Mississippi were opposed to it. He professed to see in the proposed undertaking the beginning of appropriations designed to continue the national debt and the obnoxious tariff.3 In reply 1 The chief market for the Valley, even to the Tennessee line. was Baltimore (Seward, Seward, I, 268). • Register of Congo Debates, 21 Cong., 1St sess., VI, Part II, 674, 696, 71 I. • Ibid., 696, 739, 743, 772. SLAVERY AND NULLIFICATION In to the inquiry which Archer said had been repeatedly put to him, namely: "Will Virginia nullify the law providing for the road?" he answered, invariably and promptly, "no!" for that would be to "refuse obedience to the laws of the Union." He insisted, however, that the proposed road was unnecessary, unconstitutional, and bad precedent.4 The importance and uncertainty of the sectional conflict then on in the state was attested by the frequent references made to it, in the course of this debate, by speakers other than Virginians. Some believed the proposed road necessary to prevent the dismemberment of Virginia and possibly of the Union.!! Irwin of Ohio, a native Virginian, believed that "the signs of the times" pointed to a revolution in the Old Dominion, and that the day was not distant when she would concede all that the friends of internal improvements desired and regard C. F. Mercer as her greatest benefactor .6 The bill to provide for the Buffalo and New Orleans turnpike was defeated on engrossment for a third reading: ayes 88, noes 105. The representatives of trans-Alleghany Virginia voted aye, as did Craig of the Valley and Mercer of the Loudoun district.7 The bill was finally laid on the table in order to take up instead the bill to appropriate money to the Maysville, 'vVashington, Paris, and Lexington Turnpike Company . Jackson's veto of the Maysville appropriation and • Ibid., 745. • Ibid., 670, 742. • Ibid., 727. T Smith, of the Valley, spoke for the bill but did not vote. 178...