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

682 West Virginia’s Civil War–Era Constitution C h a p t e r 3 0 The Counter-Revolution’s Complicated Constitutional Referendum Enormous national and state political complexity in 1872 made the question of constitutional ratification extremely complicated, even for the often-murky standard of West Virginia politics. Before the Convention of 1872 began and ended, only one political given could be assumed. All Republicans opposed any proposed frame. In the convention’s final days, Delegate Benjamin Wilson optimistically viewed this inevitability: “Of course we must expect the opposition of the Republican party to any constitution we may submit to the people: this is to be expected and not regretted.” As the weeks passed, regret probably surfaced in the mind of proponents. Because of the Democratic Party’s delayed success, factionalism began to rend the party. Before and during the convention, the Democratic legislators and delegates had themselves planted the seeds of complication during their numerous meetings when they formulated their political plans.1 Within three months of the inauguration of the first Democratic/Conservative governor, John Jeremiah Jacob, in March 1871, Lewis Baker, the editor of the leading state Democratic newspaper, chairman of the state executive committee, and president of the State Senate, had publicly disparaged the governor. Granville Davisson Hall assiduously sought the reason for this rupture and failed. Neither Jacob nor Baker denied the break. It likely arose from Baker’s cocksure earlier assumption of expressing the Governor’s endorsement of a constitutional convention when he had not. Governor Jacob who kept his political counsel to himself was an even-handed executive—not a partisan that appealed to party leaders. Baker favored those who worked with him during the difficult years. He viewed Jacob to some degree as an opportunisticinterloperforhisdarkhorseemergenceastheDemocraticgubernatorial nominee in 1870. Baker now had time to work against Jacob’s renomination.2 During the last week of March 1872, the Democratic caucus decided momentously that the Constitutional Convention would arrange for almost sudden death of incumbent officeholders and for election of all state officials simultaneously with 682 The Counter-Revolution’s Complicated Constitutional Referendum 683 the constitutional referendum. Under the new constitution, if ratified, the governor had a four instead of two-year term. The prize for Democratic Party regulars was greater than before. Democrats had arranged for the state nominating convention to be held on 30 May in Parkersburg in the hometown of Johnson Newlon Camden, previous gubernatorial nominee, stalwart party financier, and ally of Baker.3 During the constitutional convention and concurrent legislative session, Democratic operatives had composed a slate of state party nominees for the upcoming convention that excluded Governor Jacob. They proposed to shove him aside to the SupremeCourtofAppeals.JohnsonNewlonCamden,theprospectivegubernatorial nominee,confidentlyreported,“IthinkIwillhavenooppositionforGov.”Governor Jacob had initially abandoned hope of being a candidate for governor. Camden learned that Benjamin H. Smith, other Charleston Democrats, and a half dozen Eastern Panhandle convention delegates met with Jacob, discussed the situation, and determined to support his gubernatorial candidacy. Jacob agreed “to do what his friends wished.” Camden also heard that the Jacob’s supporters did not intend to nominate the governor in Parkersburg, but stimulate a fight to garner support for Jacob’s independent candidacy.4 William H. Hogeman, Charleston lawyer and member of the Democratic State Executive Committee, acknowledging that “a vast amount of political scheming,” had occurred, knew of the Democratic slate at the same time Camden did. He related that a meeting with Governor Jacob had transpired to urge his candidacy, and Jacob expressed his willingness to run. Jacob himself reported the Charleston meeting and declared he would “prefer to be controlled by my known friends.”5 No one could predict in April how Democratic Party machinations might affect the ratification question. Governor Jacob had never assumed a position on the question. The “sudden death” provisions that ended incumbents’ terms of office and providedforsimultaneouselectionofofficersundera constitutionthathad notbeen ratifiedwerecertainlynovelandcontroversial.Morewasatstakefor candidatesthan their simple quest for office. Ratification had to accompany their possible electoral success. Hanging over all was the narrowness of the vote plurality on the question of holding a convention in the first place; it did not assure a predictable margin of success. Was Charles James Faulkner correct to forecast that attaching independent constitutional questions immediately to amend the frame being considered injured the chances for ratification? Or was Alexander Monroe’s confidence that voters could sensibly separate the issues warranted? President Samuel Price expressed the ultimate reductionist argument that voters should not compare the proposed constitution with what...

Share