e amendment
was rejected.[90] Mr. Willey then offered the amendment already herein
noted. He was followed by Mr. Wade, who, expecting the State to be
admitted, if at all, under the amendment of Mr. Willey, moved to amend
the amendment by inserting at the proper place the words: "And that
all slaves within the State who shall at the aforesaid time be under
twenty-one years, shall be free when they arrive at the age of
twenty-one years."[91] Despite the anti-slavery principle here
involved, Mr. Wade was convinced that some provision was necessary to
facilitate the running of the bill in the Senate and in the House. He
thought, too, that the harshness and abruptness of the bill would be
thereby smoothed down, softened and rendered harmonious.[92]

It was no easy task, however, that the Senator from Ohio had essayed
to accomplish. His proposal brought from Mr. Willey the personal
conviction of the man. Mr. Willey preferred that the State be admitted
under the constitution precisely as submitted by the people. That not
being possible, he wished that his amendment (which was not to his
personal tastes) be carried. He deplored the situation that would
follow should the amendment of Mr. Wade be passed. He pointed out: (1)
that the majority of slaves were in counties contiguous to what would
be the borders of the old State of Virginia; (2) that many of them
ranged in age from one to twenty-one years; (3) that when they should
arrive at a convenient age for sale, they would be silently
transferred across the border into Kentucky or Virginia or the further
South, if needs be, and there sold into the cotton fields of the South
or the tobacco plantations of the East, where slavery was admittedly
at its worst; (4) that many of the slaves were females, the offspring
of whom would be free, were the mothers allowed to remain in the
State, but upon the passage of the amendment even those would be
doomed to the perpetual slavery of the far South. Replying to an
inquiry made by Mr. Lane, of Kansas, as to whether or not public
sentiment would condone such action, he asked if public sentiment
would be likely to influence those slave owners who lived in territory
contiguous to Virginia. The loyalty and fidelity of West Virginia
should, in Mr. Willey's opinion, guarantee the safe manner in which
the commonwealth would handle the question. Never before in similar
situations, he argued, had slaves _in esse_ been freed; freedom
extended only to