No open-access location is known for this record yet.
No open-access location is known for this record yet.
Southwest Virginia's Iron Road to Secession: A Reappraisal of Civil War Appalachia by Kenneth W. Noe Archie Green once pointed out diat a "notion of dichotomy' underlay die late nineteentii century invention of Appalachia . By tiiis, Green meant die tendency in western diought to simplify complex situations by depicting die chaos of reality in terms of black and white, good versus evil, or us and diem. When applied to die southern mountains, die notion of dichotomy helped to create a homogeneous, unique land called "Appalachia ," so far out of die nation s mainstream to be nearly die nation's opposite. Recent historians like Ronald D Eller and Henry D. Shapiro have done much to point out the dangers of such an interpretation. Nonedieless, me notion of dichotomy continues to play a negative role in die region's history. One of its most enduring haunts has been the history of Civil War era Appalachia where, despite die work of recent scholars , one still encounters the loyal, Unionist, antislavery mountaineer, hopelessly at odds widi his lowland neighbors . This especially has been true in studies of antebellum Virginia and die birth of West Virginia.1 When examined more closely, however , antebellum southwest Virginia, here defined as modern southwest Virginia plus soudiern West Virginia, offers one of die strongest challenges to die notion of dichotomy. Whereas soudiwest Virginia before 1850 identified closely widi northwestern Virginia, me two offering vigorous opposition to eastern planter control, soutiiwest Virginia had evolved by 1861 into a vocal supporter of slavery, secession, and war. What caused die transformation? Simply put, eastern Virginia politicians, eager to unify die state in die face of northern abolitionists, and prodded by slavery's supporters in die deep Soudi, made political and economic concessions to soutiiwest Virginians in exchange for die enlistment of die latter group in me proslavery crusade. The result was an estrangement of die northern and soudiern sections of Trans-Allegheny Virginia, an event diat puts to 31 rest any idea of Appalachian homogeneity in die Civil War years. Prior to 1850, lowland and mountain Virginians constandy were at odds over die issues of political reform, slavery, and transportation. Eastern Virginia planters opposed any constitutional reforms diat might give a greater voice to die west, such as a broader suffrage or a redistribution of General Assembly seats to the rapidly growing west. They feared mat a reformed legislature would pass exorbitant taxes on eastern lands and slaves in order to finance die roads and canals the mountainous west required if its commerce was to expand. The west's attitude toward slavery also was suspect. Less than ten percent of die population beyond die Blue Ridge was slave population, as compared to about fifty percent in me Tidewater and Piedmont. As a result, die east blocked any attempts at real reform. The 1830 Constitution, while benefiting the Valley region north of Roanoke County, did nothing for die Trans-Allegheny. Angered , many westerners shouted for a division of the state. An alarmed legislature responded widi a plethora of internal improvement projects, including railroads , but then refused to supply adequate funding.2 Western demands for a new constitution resurfaced after the publication of die 1840 census, which revealed mat the Trans-Allegheny's white population was die largest of Virginia's four "grand divisions." With bodi political parties eager to gain new voters, eastern politicians gave in at lengtii. They were careful , however, to structure the convention process in such a way as to preserve eastern control. Angered western voters rejected the referendum calling for such a convention, but it passed nonetheless.3 As it turned out, die Constitution of 1850 surprised all sections of die commonwealth . This was due in great part to the influence of tenacious Henry A. Wise of die Eastern Shore, who crossed over to join me western delegates. The document mat resulted bore Wise's imprint. It awarded die west major gains in representation and suffrage, m return, slave owners received protection and a tax break for their slaves. This "compromise of 1850" did not result from any liberality on Wise's part. He was no progressive. Ramer, Wise's aim was to safeguard slavery from northern attacks...
Loading…
Stored only when both papers are in the corpus — 0 citations exist upstream.
Papers that cite the same references — the relational fallback while embeddings are still backfilling.
Imported from OpenAlex (CC0) — nothing here is generated.