In lieu of an abstract, here is a brief excerpt of the content:

322 West Virginia’s Civil War–Era Constitution C h a p t e r 1 2 Delegate Elections Long before the convention referendum on 24 August 1871, partisan Democrats assumed passage and began considering prospective delegates. They also had vindictive goals of rejecting unacceptable individuals. Because of Democratic success in the October 1870 state elections and overwhelming majorities for the Flick Amendment, they had good reason to be optimistic and to prepare. Delegate candidates could not be legislative contestants, as the forthcoming legislative session and convention would meet simultaneously. While Democrats anticipated success, Republicans hoped for the best and in some contests explored cooperation with the least offensive possible Democratic convention candidates. Reflective of widespread partisan attitudes was a letter to the Wheeling Daily Register that objected to the mere mention of the names of Archibald William Campbell,ChesterDormanHubbard,andBenjaminStantonaspossiblecandidates. The “Democrat,” while conceding the rare ability and high social standing of the men, believed them to be unfit as delegates because of their past political malignity and their partisan spleen and bigotry. They were guilty of political errors that convention action was intended to correct. It would be bad policy to send Radical Republicans to correct their own political folly. He then recommended prominent Wheeling Democrats such as Judge William P. Thompson, Daniel Lamb, James Paul, Andrew Jackson Pannell, and others as being appropriate delegates.1 The West Virginia legislative act of 23 February 1871, “to take the sense of the people upon the call of a convention, and for organizing the same,” established the process and the time of delegate elections. If the majority of the electorate favored the call of the convention on 24 August 1871, the governor had to proclaim simultaneously the result once a week in state newspapers until the delegate election and the general legislative election on the succeeding fourth Thursday of October (the 26th).ThedelegatenumberfollowedthepatternfortheWestVirginiaLegislature,or a total of seventy-eight from each county, delegate district, and senatorial district.2 322 Delegate Elections 323 The elections commissioners and franchise qualifications were identical to those oftheconstitutionalreferendum.Theextendedfranchise,withoutvoterregistration, ensured the elimination of only the insane, felonious, and nonresident and those resident for less than a year. Challenges of voting rights were possible, with the commissioners deciding controversies. Voting was by ballot with the candidates’ names printed or written on it. The candidate’s name had to indicate his county, delegate district, or senatorial district. The returns had to be reported within five days to county boards of supervisors that conveyed the results to the governor. The governor then had to proclaim the result in at least one newspaper in Charleston and Wheeling, declaring the elected delegates and their districts. To remove election control from registrars and elected election officials, the act provided for the Democratic/Conservative governor, John J. Jacob, to appoint three specialelectioncommissionersineachcounty.Asitdeveloped,sevencommissioners inasmanycountiesendeduppresidingoverelectionsinwhichtheywerecandidates. All were Democrats who won their contest. They were by county: Brooke—Alexander Campbell, Jr.; Hampshire—Alexander Monroe; Hardy—Thomas Maslin; Jefferson —William H. Travers; Ohio—A. J. Pannell; Pocahontas—George H. Moffett; and, Taylor—Benjamin F. Martin.3 Two local Marion County politicians, one looking at prospects and the other seeking survival, reflected the two approaches that prevailed in other counties. The state treasurer from Fairmont, John S. Burdett, wrote to Alpheus F. Haymond after a visit home. Noting that local operatives were mentioning Haymond as a possible convention candidate as a means of his reentry into public life after the secession debacle, Burdett urged him to run, as he predicted the referendum’s success. He also mentioned that Ulysses N. Arnett of Rivesville, another former Confederate, could be another candidate. He prodded Haymond to announce himself early to forestall other candidacies. He anticipated that they “will be deviled with old Willy [Waitman T. Willey] from Monongalia.” Hearing the same rumors as Burdett, J. B. Nay, a Republican official who was on the state central and state executive committees , addressed confidential letters to Haymond that implied possible Republican cooperation in his potential candidacy. Assuring Haymond that he knew what was transpiring inside Republican circles, Nay advised Haymond that his years of silence had earned him bipartisan county support for an uncontested convention seat. Haymond, Arnett, and Willey became elected delegates.4 Hope and enthusiasm characterized Democratic grassroots organization for convention delegate elections and for formulation of county convention platforms. Republicans did not share the same attitudes as they developed their strategy. Some Republicans toyed with the idea of electing delegates who would attempt immediately to...

Share