on
passed by Congress suggesting that the so-called border slave States
take some action in reference to the final emancipation of their
slaves." Replying thereto, Mr. Willey asserted that the Legislature
was entirely favorable to a program involving final emancipation. He
took occasion, moreover, to add that "his colleague, Mr. Carlile, was
misrepresenting the attitude of the legislature that sent him there in
interposing the objection that was calculated to thwart the whole
movement."[105]

Agreeing with the remarks of Mr. Willey, Mr. Wade, while opposing the
motion of Senator Trumbull, explained that Mr. Carlile had penned all
the bills and drawn them up; that he was the hardest worker and the
most cheerful of them all, that he was the most forceful among them in
pressing his views upon the Committee. "Whence," asked he, "came this
change of heart? For indeed his conversion was greater than that of
St. Paul." "Now," said Mr. Wade, "is the time for West Virginia to be
admitted into the Union." "Let us not postpone the action for the next
session, but let us reject the motion of the gentleman from Illinois
and pass the bill."[106]

Continuing the debate, Mr. Ten Eyck affirmed the legality and the
expediency of admitting the new State. His arguments were
substantially as follows: (1) that the legal question, that is, the
right of the legislature to give assent to the division of the State,
was settled when the Senate accepted as members the two men appointed
by the said legislature; (2) as a matter of policy he urged that the
people of Western Virginia should not be forced to run the risk of
having the whole State, because of the collapse of the rebellion,
repeal the act of the legislature and thereby continue a domination of
tyranny over them. The vote was taken and the motion to postpone was
rejected.[107]

The final objection prior to the passage of the bill, came from Mr.
Powell, of Kentucky. Asserting, in substance, that since ten of the
forty-eight counties to be included in West Virginia were
unrepresented in the Convention and in the Legislature, and since less
than one-fourth of the people gave their consent to the formation of a
new State, he held that there was no constitutional right to act. He
was, therefore, unalterably opposed to the admission of the new State.
Unswerved from his position, by the assurances of Mr. Willey, that (1)
the absence of ten thousand men under arms, and (2) the foregone
concl