was

poly of the commerce in furs and peltries with the Indian tribes of the Missouri and Upper Mississippi. The population of the Territory in 1805 was trifling, and consisted mainly of French Creoles and traders, who were scattered along the banks of the Mississippi and the Arkansas. Upon the admission of Louisiana as a State, the name of the Territory of Louisiana was changed to that of Missouri. From the southern part of this, in 1819, erected the Territory of Arkansas, which then contained but a few thousand inhabitants, who were mainly in detached settlements on the Mississippi and on the Arkansas, in the vicinity of the "Post of Arkansas.' The first settlement in Arkansas was made on the Arkansas River, about the year 1723, upon the grant of the notorious John Law; but, being unsuccessful, was soon after abandoned. In 1820, Missouri was admitted into the Union, and Arkansas in 1836.

Michigan was admitted as a State in 1837. The Huron District was organized as the Wisconsin Territory in 1836, and was admitted into the Union as a State in 1848. The first settlement in Wisconsin was made in 1665, when Father Claude Allouez established a mission at La Pointe, at the western end of Lake Superior. Four years after, a mission was permanently established at Green Bay; and, eventually, the French also established themselves at Prairie du Chien. In 1819, an expedition, under Governor Cass, explored the Territory, and found it to be little more than the abode of a few Indian traders, scattered here and there. About this time, the Government established military posts at Green Bay and Prairie du Chien. About the year 1825, some farmers settled in the vicinity of Galena, which had then become a noted mineral region. Immediately after the war with Black Hawk, emigrants flowed in from New York, Ohio, and Michigan, and the flourishing towns of Milwaukie, Sheboygan, Racine, and Southport were laid out on the borders of Lake Michigan. At the conclusion of the same war, the lands west, of the Mississippi were thrown open to emigrants, who commenced settlements in the vicinity of Fort Madison and Burlington in 1833. Dubuque had long before been a trading post, and was the first settlement in Iowa. It derived its name from Julian Dubuque, an enterprising French Canadian, who, in 1788, obtained a grant of one hundred and forty thousand acres from the Indians, upon which he resided until his death in 1810, when he had accumulated immense wealth by lead-mining and trading. In June, 1838, Iowa was erected into a Territory, and in 1846 became a State.

In 1849, Minnesota Territory was organized; it then contained a little less than five thousand souls. The first American establishment in the Territory was Fort Snelling, at the mouth of St. Peter's or Minnesota River, which was founded in 1819. The French, and afterward the English, occupied this country with their fur-trading forts. Pembina, on the northern boundary, is the oldest village, having been established in 1812 by Lord Selkirk, a

Scottish nobleman, under a grant from the Hudson's Bay Com

pany.

There were not until near the close of the war with Mexico, any American settlements on the Pacific side of the continent. At the beginning of the century not a single white man had ever been known to have crossed the continent north of the latitude of St. Louis. The geography of the greater part of the Pacific slope was almost wholly unknown, until the explorations of Fremont, between the years 1842 and 1848. That region had formerly been penetrated only by fur traders and trappers. The Mexican war of 1846-'48, gave to the Union an immense tract of country, the large original provinces of Upper California and New Mexico. The discovery of gold in Upper California in 1848, at once directed emigration to that part of the continent. From that period settlements were rapid and territories formed in quick succession. In 1848, the Mormons, expelled from Missouri, settled in Utah, which was erected into a territory in 1850. In 1848, Oregon became an organized territory, and California, then conquered from Mexico, in 1850, was admitted as a State, and Oregon in 1859. The emigration to California was immense for the first few years: in the years 1852 and 1853, her product in gold reached the enormous value of one hundred and sixty millions of dollars.

In 1854, after the first excitement in regard to California had somewhat subsided, the territories of Kansas and Nebraska were organized. Kansas became for a time a favorite country for emigrants; and at last a bloody arena between the free soil and proslavery parties for mastery. The overwhelming preponderance of the former, resulted in its success, and Kansas was admitted as a free State in 1861.

The formation of territories from the close of the Mexican War to the close of the Southern Rebellion, was rapid without precedent, as the following summary exhibits. This was consequent upon the discovery of vast mineral wealth in the mountain country:

CALIFORNIA, ceded by treaty with Mexico in 1848; admitted as a STATE in

1850.

NEW MEXICO, ceded by treaty with Mexico, and organized as a Territory in 1848.

MINNESOTA, Organized as a Territory in 1849; admitted as a STATE in 1858.
UTAH, organized as a Territory in 1850.

ARIZONA, purchased of Mexico in 1854; organized as a Territory in 1863.
OREGON, organized as a Territory in 1848; admitted as a STATE in 1859.
WASHINGTON, organized as a Territory in 1853.

KANSAS, organized as a Territory in 1854; admitted as a STATE in 1861.
NEBRASKA, organized as a Territory in 1854.

NEVADA, organized as a Territory in 1861; admitted as a STATE in 1864.
DACOTAH, organized as a Territory in 1861.

COLORADO, organized as a Territory in 1861.

IDAHO, organized as a Territory in 1863.

MONTANA, organized as a Territory in 1864.

WEST VIRGINIA.

WEST VIRGINIA owes her existence to the Great Rebellion; or rather to the patriotism of her people, who, when the mother State, Virginia,

plunged into the vortex of secession, resolved to stand by the Union. The wisdom of their loyalty has been signally shown by its saving them from the sore desolation that fell upon most parts of the Old Dominion.

The seal of the state is remarkably appropriate. It has the motto, "Montani semper liberi"-mountaineers always free. In the center is a rock, with ivy, emblematic of stability and continuance; the face of the rock bears the inscription, "June 20, 1863," the date of foundation, as if "graved with a pen of iron in the rock forever." On the right stands a farmer clothed in the Montani semper liberi—Mountaineers always free. traditional hunting-shirt peculiar to this region; his right arm resting on the plow handles, and his left supporting a woodman's ax-indicating that while the territory is partially cultivated it is still in process of being cleared of the original forest. At his right is a sheaf of wheat and corn growing. On the left of the rock stands a miner, indicated by a pickax on his shoulder, with barrels and lumps of mineral at his feet. On his left is an anvil partly seen, on which rests a sledge hammer, typical of the mechanic arts--the whole indicating the principal pursuits and resources of the state. In front of the rocks and figures, as if just laid down by the latter, and ready to be resumed at a moment's notice, are two hunter's rifles, crossed and surmounted at the place of contact by the Phrygian cap, or cap of Liberty-indicating that the freedom and independence of the state were won and will be maintained by arms.

In the spring of 1861, when the question of secession was submitted to the people, those of Eastern Virginia voted almost unanimously in its favor, but in the northwestern counties quite as strongly against it. In fact, the desire for a separate state government had for a quarter of a century prevailed in this section, where the slaveholding interest. was slight, and the habits of the people diverse. The reasons for this 3 ( 33 )

were, that they were in a measure cut off from intercourse with Eastern Virginia by chains of mountains, and that state legislation had been unfavorable to the development of their resources. The breaking out of the rebellion was a favorable moment to initiate measures for the accomplishment of this long-desired separation. As the movement was one of grave importance, we must give it more than a passing notice, from a pen familiar with the subject.

"It has passed into history, that for many years, while the western counties of Virginia had the preponderance of white population and taxable property, the eastern counties controlled the legislation of the state, by maintaining an iniquitous basis of representation. It is enough to say, that the western counties, with few slaves, were a mere dependency of the eastern, with many slaves; and the many revenues of the state were expended for the benefit mainly of the tide-water region, while the west paid an unjust proportion of the taxes. This was always a cause of dissatisfaction. Besides, there was no homogeniety of population or interest, and the Alleghany Mountains were a natural barrier to commercial and social intercourse. There were much closer relations in these respects with Ohio and Pennsylvania, than with the tide-water region, growing as well out of the substantial similarity of society, as the short-sighted policy of having no great public improvement in the direction of Richmond. The construction of the Baltimore & Ohio Railroad, and its connections, intensified the isolation of the west from the rest of the state.

"When the ordinance of secession was submitted to the people, the western counties, with great unanimity, voted against it. This was on the 23d of May, 1861. The traitors never waited the result of the popular vote, for as soon as the ordinance passed the convention, Virginia was practically hitched on to the Confederacy; and while at Richmond the state authorities were busy in the military seizure of the state, the people of Virginia, who were still loyal, met at Wheeling immediately after the vote on the ordinance and called a convention, the members of which should be duly elected, to assemble at that city on the 11th of June. The loyal people of the whole state were invited to join in this movement. There was nothing in the state constitution against it, on the contrary, it provided for it by just this method. There happened to be, also, a notable precedent for this action, in the history of the state. In 1774, Lord Dunmore, the colonial governor of Virginia, dissolved the house of burgesses; and for the purpose of preventing legislation in any event, retired with his council on board a British man-of-war. The assembly being thus deprived of a government, met together in convention, as private citizens, and assumed the powers of the state. They issued an invitation, without any legislative authority, for the several counties or districts to send delegates to a convention. There was no legal or authorized act calling this convention, or for the choice of delegates; but it was the spontaneous act of the people, who were in favor of a free government. The convention met in 1775, and declared 'the necessity of immediately putting the country in a posture of defense, for the better protection of our lives, liberties and property.' And after enumerating the acts by which the colonial authorities had subverted government, asserted that we are driven to the necessity of supplying the present want of

government, by appointing proper guardians of the lives and liberties of our country.' And thereupon they elected state officers and restored the government.

"Mark, these Virginians, when they restored the government thus abandoned, did not proclaim revolution or secession from Great Britain; on the contrary, they said: 'Lest our views be misrepresented or misunderstood, we publicly and solemnly declare before God: and the world that we do bear true faith and allegiance to his majesty King George the Third, as our lawful and rightful king.'

Accordingly, on the 11th of June, 1861, the convention assembled, there being quite a number of delegates from the eastern counties. The first ordinance, after reciting the grievances of the people, solemnly declares: That the preservation of their dearest rights and liberties, and their security in person and property, imperatively demand the reorganization of the government; and that all acts of the convention and executive (at Richmond) tending to separate this state from the United States, or to levy and carry on war against them, are without authority and void; and that the offices of all who adhere to the said convention and executive, whether legislative, executive or judicial, are vacated.' They then proceeded to elect a governor and other state officers, who should hold their offices until an election coula he had; and to mark the era of reorganization, they added the words 'Union and Liberty' to the 'Sic semper tyrannis' of the state arms.

3

"This was not revolution, for it was a case within the constitution of the state. It could not be revolution to support the constitution and laws, both of which the Richmond traitors had abrogated. They could not be the government, for they had destroyed it. That can not be revolution which upholds or sustains the supreme law of the land, viz: the constitution of the United States and the laws in pursuance of it.

"But it is said, there was only a fraction of the people who joined in this movement. We answer in the language of another: 'Doubtless, it is desirable that a clear majority should always speak in government; but where a state is in insurrection, and the loyal citizens are under duress, the will of the people, who are for the constitution and the laws, is the only lawful will under the constitution; and that will must be collected as far as is practicable under the external force.'

"Immediately upon the election of FRANCIS H. PIERPONT as governor, he notified the president of the United States, that there existed a treasonable combination against the constitution and laws, known as "The Confederate States of America,' whose design was to subvert the authority of the United States in Virginia; that an army of the insurgents was then advancing upon the loyal people of the state for the purpose of bringing them under the domination of the Confederacy; and that he had not at his command sufficient force to suppress the insurrection, and as governor of Virginia, requested national aid. This he had an undoubted right to do, if he were governor of Virginia, for the constitution of the United States provides for the very case. [See article iv, sec. 4.]

"Was he governor of Virginia? Who was to decide between Gov. Pierpont, at Wheeling, and Gov. Letcher, at Richmond? Which was the government of Virginia, the Wheeling or the Richmond?

Happily, the supreme court of the United States furnished a solu