CHAPTER IV

[43]See generally, Martha Hiden,How Justice Grew: Virginia Counties: An Abstract of Their Formation, (Williamsburg: Virginia 350th Anniversary Celebration, 1957). Also, because time-honored tradition as well as law influenced the organization of Virginia counties, the description of English local government in J. B. Black,The Reign of Elizabeth, 1558–1603, (Oxford: Oxford University, 1936), pp. 174–177, applies to Virginia's county government in the colonial and early federal periods.

[43]See generally, Martha Hiden,How Justice Grew: Virginia Counties: An Abstract of Their Formation, (Williamsburg: Virginia 350th Anniversary Celebration, 1957). Also, because time-honored tradition as well as law influenced the organization of Virginia counties, the description of English local government in J. B. Black,The Reign of Elizabeth, 1558–1603, (Oxford: Oxford University, 1936), pp. 174–177, applies to Virginia's county government in the colonial and early federal periods.

[44]The first statute on this subject, in 1628, used the term "commissioners" (I Hening,Statutes, 133). In 1662, this term was replaced by "justices". P. A. Bruce,Institutional History of Virginia in the Seventeenth Century, (New York: Putnam, 1910), I, 488. However, Porter,County Government, p. 170, states that "justice of the peace" was the full title during most of the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries.

[44]The first statute on this subject, in 1628, used the term "commissioners" (I Hening,Statutes, 133). In 1662, this term was replaced by "justices". P. A. Bruce,Institutional History of Virginia in the Seventeenth Century, (New York: Putnam, 1910), I, 488. However, Porter,County Government, p. 170, states that "justice of the peace" was the full title during most of the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries.

[45]Porter,County Government, p. 168.

[45]Porter,County Government, p. 168.

[46]In 1657, for example, the House of Burgesses enacted legislation requiring that appointments be recommended by the county court and approved by the Assembly. (I Hening,Statutes, 402, 480) But this requirement appears to have been repealed after the restoration of Charles II.

[46]In 1657, for example, the House of Burgesses enacted legislation requiring that appointments be recommended by the county court and approved by the Assembly. (I Hening,Statutes, 402, 480) But this requirement appears to have been repealed after the restoration of Charles II.

[47]Porter,County Government, p. 49, cites theCalendar of State Papers, I, 261, listing the numbers of justices in nearby counties as follows: Fauquier, 18; Prince William, 18; Loudoun, 17.

[47]Porter,County Government, p. 49, cites theCalendar of State Papers, I, 261, listing the numbers of justices in nearby counties as follows: Fauquier, 18; Prince William, 18; Loudoun, 17.

[48]Charles Sydnor,American Revolutionaries In The Making, (New York: Collier, 1962), p. 64.

[48]Charles Sydnor,American Revolutionaries In The Making, (New York: Collier, 1962), p. 64.

[49]Hening,Statutes, I, 117.

[49]Hening,Statutes, I, 117.

[50]Hening,Statutes, I, 305.

[50]Hening,Statutes, I, 305.

[51]Hening,Statutes, II, 28, 280.

[51]Hening,Statutes, II, 28, 280.

[52]Porter,County Government, p. 42.

[52]Porter,County Government, p. 42.

[53]Ibid., pp. 27–28.

[53]Ibid., pp. 27–28.

[54]Hening,Statutes, I, 330, 484.

[54]Hening,Statutes, I, 330, 484.

[55]These rules included prohibitions against extortion of excessive fees, acting as lawyers in their own courts, falsifying revenue returns, multiple job-holding and the like. See Hening,Statutes, I, 265, 297, 330, 333, 465, 523; II, 163, 291. Porter,County Government, 68, comments that "the office of sheriff, judging from the number of acts which the assembly found it necessary to pass, was the problem child of ... [the 18th century], not only in regard to the duties of the office, but also in the method of appointment."

[55]These rules included prohibitions against extortion of excessive fees, acting as lawyers in their own courts, falsifying revenue returns, multiple job-holding and the like. See Hening,Statutes, I, 265, 297, 330, 333, 465, 523; II, 163, 291. Porter,County Government, 68, comments that "the office of sheriff, judging from the number of acts which the assembly found it necessary to pass, was the problem child of ... [the 18th century], not only in regard to the duties of the office, but also in the method of appointment."

[56]Shepherd,Laws of Virginia, I, 367.

[56]Shepherd,Laws of Virginia, I, 367.

[57]Calendar of State Papers, IV, 416.

[57]Calendar of State Papers, IV, 416.

[58]Hening,Statutes, XI, 352.

[58]Hening,Statutes, XI, 352.

[59]Hening,Statutes, IV, 350.

[59]Hening,Statutes, IV, 350.

[60]Hening,Statutes, II, 419; IV, 350.

[60]Hening,Statutes, II, 419; IV, 350.

[61]Hening,Statutes, IX, 351.

[61]Hening,Statutes, IX, 351.

[62]Hening,Statutes, XII, 243.

[62]Hening,Statutes, XII, 243.

[63]John Wayland,History of Rockingham County, Virginia, (Dayton, Virginia: Ruebush-Elkins, 1912), pp. 424–425.

[63]John Wayland,History of Rockingham County, Virginia, (Dayton, Virginia: Ruebush-Elkins, 1912), pp. 424–425.

[64]Porter,County Government, p. 109, citingCalendar of State Papers, IV, 170.

[64]Porter,County Government, p. 109, citingCalendar of State Papers, IV, 170.

[65]Sydnor,American Revolutionaries, pp. 77–78.

[65]Sydnor,American Revolutionaries, pp. 77–78.

[66]As a result law books were the property of the court rather than the individual justices, and on the death or resignation of a justice his law books were surrendered to the court and divided among the remaining members of the court. Hening,Statutes, IV, 437.

[66]As a result law books were the property of the court rather than the individual justices, and on the death or resignation of a justice his law books were surrendered to the court and divided among the remaining members of the court. Hening,Statutes, IV, 437.

[67]In unusual circumstances, such as an outbreak of smallpox, the sheriff might chose an alternate site. H. R. McIlwaine (ed),Journals of the House of Burgesses, 1742–49, (Richmond, 1909), p. 292.

[67]In unusual circumstances, such as an outbreak of smallpox, the sheriff might chose an alternate site. H. R. McIlwaine (ed),Journals of the House of Burgesses, 1742–49, (Richmond, 1909), p. 292.

[68]Douglas S. Freeman,George Washington: A Biography: Young Washington, (New York: Scribner, 1948), II, 146, notes that Washington became involved in an election-day brawl at the election of members of the House of Burgesses in December 1755. The contest between John West, George William Fairfax, and William Ellzey was very close, and Washington (supporting Fairfax) met William Payne (who opposed Fairfax). Angry words led to blows, and Payne knocked Washington down with a stick. There was talk of a duel, but the next day Washington apologized for what he had said, and friendly relations were restored.

[68]Douglas S. Freeman,George Washington: A Biography: Young Washington, (New York: Scribner, 1948), II, 146, notes that Washington became involved in an election-day brawl at the election of members of the House of Burgesses in December 1755. The contest between John West, George William Fairfax, and William Ellzey was very close, and Washington (supporting Fairfax) met William Payne (who opposed Fairfax). Angry words led to blows, and Payne knocked Washington down with a stick. There was talk of a duel, but the next day Washington apologized for what he had said, and friendly relations were restored.

[69]Sydnor,American Revolutionaries, p. 53.

[69]Sydnor,American Revolutionaries, p. 53.

[70]Nicholas Cresswell,The Journals of Nicholas Cresswell, 1774–1777, (Pt. Washington, N. Y.: Kennikat Press, 1968), pp. 27–28.

[70]Nicholas Cresswell,The Journals of Nicholas Cresswell, 1774–1777, (Pt. Washington, N. Y.: Kennikat Press, 1968), pp. 27–28.

[71]Hening,Statutes, III, 243.

[71]Hening,Statutes, III, 243.

[72]"Bumbo" was an eighteenth century slang term for rum. Sydnor,American Revolutionaries, p. 53.

[72]"Bumbo" was an eighteenth century slang term for rum. Sydnor,American Revolutionaries, p. 53.

[73]William C. Rives,History of the Life and Times of James Madison, (Boston: Little, Brown, 1873), I, 180–81.

[73]William C. Rives,History of the Life and Times of James Madison, (Boston: Little, Brown, 1873), I, 180–81.

[74]Porter,County Government, p. 107.

[74]Porter,County Government, p. 107.

[75]Calendar of State Papers, IV, 337.

[75]Calendar of State Papers, IV, 337.

[76]Hening,Statutes, X, 198; XI, 432; XII, 273, 573; Shepherd,Laws, I, 114.

[76]Hening,Statutes, X, 198; XI, 432; XII, 273, 573; Shepherd,Laws, I, 114.

[77]Hening,Statutes, X, 385 (orphans); XII, 199 (mental health).

[77]Hening,Statutes, X, 385 (orphans); XII, 199 (mental health).

[78]The district court's jurisdiction included civil cases of a value of £30 or 2,000 lbs of tobacco, all criminal cases, and appeals from the county court in criminal cases. Hening,Statutes, XII, 730 et seq.

[78]The district court's jurisdiction included civil cases of a value of £30 or 2,000 lbs of tobacco, all criminal cases, and appeals from the county court in criminal cases. Hening,Statutes, XII, 730 et seq.

[79]Virginia,Code of 1819, I, 226.

[79]Virginia,Code of 1819, I, 226.

[80]Hening,Statutes, XIII, 758.

[80]Hening,Statutes, XIII, 758.

[81]Hening,Statutes, XII, 174.

[81]Hening,Statutes, XII, 174.

[82]In the late eighteenth century, Virginia millers and warehousemen were major sources of grain and flour for New England, the West Indies and Mediterranean. The House of Burgesses, and later the General Assembly, enacted comprehensive laws regulating the quality, grading and marking of these products. See, Lloyd Payne,The Miller in Eighteenth Century Virginia, (Williamsburg: Colonial Williamsburg, 1963) and Charles Kuhlman,The Development of the Flour-Milling Industry in the United States, (Boston: Houghton Mifflin, 1929), pp. 27–33, 47–54.

[82]In the late eighteenth century, Virginia millers and warehousemen were major sources of grain and flour for New England, the West Indies and Mediterranean. The House of Burgesses, and later the General Assembly, enacted comprehensive laws regulating the quality, grading and marking of these products. See, Lloyd Payne,The Miller in Eighteenth Century Virginia, (Williamsburg: Colonial Williamsburg, 1963) and Charles Kuhlman,The Development of the Flour-Milling Industry in the United States, (Boston: Houghton Mifflin, 1929), pp. 27–33, 47–54.

Fairfax County Courthouse, June 1863. Photo by T. H. O'Sullivan. Copy from the Library of Congress.Fairfax County Courthouse, June 1863. Photo by T. H. O'Sullivan. Copy from the Library of Congress.

THE WAR YEARS: 1861–1865

As events in the winter of 1860 and the spring of 1861 carried the nation into the crisis of civil war, Fairfax County aligned itself with Richmond rather than Washington. Thus, at the State's convention on secession in May 1861, the Fairfax County delegation voted to ratify the secession ordinance.[83]The consequences of this action were prompt in coming and far-reaching in their effects, for with the commencement of military operations in Northern Virginia it became impossible to carry on the normal processes of county government.

Fairfax Court House (the Town of Providence) was outside the ring of fortifications which were built on the Virginia side of the Potomac to protect the National Capital. Inside this line, stretching in a great arc from Alexandria, through the vicinity of The Falls Church, to Chain Bridge, Union Army commanders exercised military authority and administered justice through provost courts.[84]Outside this area the authority of the General Assembly of Virginia nominally remained in effect, and the justices of the courts and the sheriffs of the county continued to hold their positions under the laws of the seceded state.

Serious difficulties in the transaction of public business soon appeared throughout Fairfax County, where patrolling and skirmishing outside the ring of permanent fortified positions were daily occurrences. This was recognized in an ordinance adopted by the Secession Convention providing that when the court of any county failed to meet for the transaction of business or the public was prevented from attending the court "by reason of the public enemy", the court of the adjoining county where such obstructions did not exist had jurisdiction of all matters referrable to the court or the clerk of the court where normal business had ceased.[85]

As Virginia armed, troops of the Confederacy placed themselves in positions to repel invaders, and in May 1861, a company of the Warrenton Rifles established a camp at Fairfax Court House. On the morning of June 1, 1861, a body of Union cavalry rode through the town, and in the confused exchange of fire which followed, a Captain of the Rifles, John Quincy Marr, became the first officer casualty of the war.[86]

A month later, the tide of Union forces under McDowell swept past the courthouse on the way to its rendezvous at Bull Run, and back again to the safety of the fortified positions along the Potomac. In the wake of their victory at Bull Run, troops of the Confederacy established an outpost at Fairfax Court House to watch for signs that the Union Army might resume the offensive by moving against the Confederate earthworks near Centreville.

This outpost did not see any fighting for the time being, but it provided the site for what later was regarded as one of the decisive moments of the war. In September 1861, General Beauregard had established his headquarters at Fairfax Court House, and urgently pressed the newly-formed government of Confederate President Jefferson Davis for reinforcements with which to sweep into Pennsylvania and Maryland and, hopefully, to carry the Federal capital itself. A meeting was arranged at Beauregard's headquarters in which Davis, Generals Beauregard and J. J. Johnston, and certain of their trusted staff officers considered this plan. Their decision was to adopt a defensive posture and protect the borders of Virginia rather than take the offensive and invade the North. As events turned out, this decision had consequences of the greatest effect, for it was not until Lee marched out of the Valley on the road to Gettysburg in 1863 that there was another opportunity for the Confederacy to carry the war to the soil of the northern states.[87]

In the spring of 1862, the Confederate army retired from Fairfax Court House, and soon after that its line of fortifications at Centreville—the most extensive system of field fortifications in military history up to that time—was abandoned. As the Union armies took the initiative in their repeated efforts to reach Richmond, the crossroads at Fairfax Court House had key importance in the communication and supply systems of these forces.

From 1862 to the end of the war, Union troops remained in control of the crossroads and the courthouse. Contemporary photographs of the building show it being used as a lookout point and station for patrols. Other descriptions indicate that the courthouse was loopholed,[88]the furnishings were removed, and the interior generally was gutted so that only the walls and roof remained.[89]For all practical purposes, the courthouse and its related buildings were, in the years 1863 and 1864, a military outpost and minor headquarters in the Union army's system to protect its supply and communications lines from the irregular troops who kept hostilities constantly smoldering in Northern Virginia. Throughout the western part of Fairfax County, and in Loudoun, Fauquier and PrinceWilliam Counties, lived many who gave the appearance of innocent farmers during the daylight hours, but who changed into Confederate uniforms at night and on weekends to ride against isolated outposts or supply points of the Union army or destroy vulnerable bridges and communications centers.

The operations of these guerilla bands kept thousands of Union troops pinned down on rear area security guard duty, and preoccupied the forces assigned to Fairfax Court House. The difficulty of their task under the circumstances that prevailed in Northern Virginia was dramatized in the famous Confederate raid on Fairfax Court House by men under the command of Col. John S. Mosby when, on the night of March 8, 1863, the Confederate commander with about 30 men captured and carried off 33 prisoners, including Union Brigadier General Edwin H. Stoughton, and a large number of horses and quantity of supplies. Throughout 1863, 1864 and the spring of 1865 hardly a night went by without some cries of alarm and shots being fired because of the activities of the Confederate irregulars. Yet they took a substantial toll from the wealth and welfare of the very people they claimed to represent, for the Union troops soon learned more efficiency in their rear area operations, and increased the restrictions on movement of civilian traffic. The transaction of personal business in normal ways became virtually impossible. The historian, Bruce Catton, has assessed the activities of the guerilla bands as follows:

The quality of these bands varied greatly. At the top was John S. Mosby's courageous soldiers led by a minor genius, highly effective in partisan warfare. Most of the groups, however, were about one degree better than plain outlaws, living for loot and excitement, doing no actual fighting if they could help it, and offering a secure refuge to any number of Confederate deserters and draft evaders.... The worst damage which this system did to the Confederacy, however, was that it put Yankee soldiers in a mood to be vengeful.[90]

The quality of these bands varied greatly. At the top was John S. Mosby's courageous soldiers led by a minor genius, highly effective in partisan warfare. Most of the groups, however, were about one degree better than plain outlaws, living for loot and excitement, doing no actual fighting if they could help it, and offering a secure refuge to any number of Confederate deserters and draft evaders.... The worst damage which this system did to the Confederacy, however, was that it put Yankee soldiers in a mood to be vengeful.[90]

During the years when normal business at the courthouse was suspended and the county officials who held authority from the General Assembly were dispersed, some of the county's records were removed from the courthouse for safekeeping, and some were not.[91]In either case they were subject to the risks of loss and damage. Some were carried off and in later years have been brought to light as the descendents of Union and Confederate soldiers have found them in places where they had been put for safekeeping.

The jail building ceased to be used for its original purpose, and, during the latter months of the war, the jail of Alexandria County (now Arlington County) was utilized for Fairfax County's prisoners.[92]

The effort to provide a legitimate successor to the secession government in Richmond started in the Wheeling Conventions of May and June 1861, from which came the Unionist government of Francis H. Pierpont.[93]The admission of West Virginia to the Union in December 1862[94]left Governor Pierpont in control of only those parts of Northern Virginia, the Shenandoah Valley, and Chesapeake Bay that were occupied by Federal troops. Within this area, the Pierpont administration collected taxes and attempted to supply the essential services of civilian government. Closer touch with these problems was possible after June 1863, when Governor Pierpont moved his government to Alexandria.

On January 19, 1863, a new County Court for Fairfax County was convened pursuant to a proclamation by Governor Pierpont which directed that the place for the court's sessions should be changed from Fairfax Court House to the Village of West End[95]near Alexandria. Here, in January 1863, the Court met in a structure known as Bruin's Building. The minutes of this and other sessions which followed recite many of the same problems and disputes that always had occupied the time of county courts—dockets of minor criminal and civil cases, petitions to higher levels of government, determination of minor civil disputes, issuances of permits and licenses, and appointment of public officials.[96]

Certain items in the minutes of this January 19, 1863 meeting documented the strains created by the wartime conditions: a petition to the Secretary of War prayed that the "Bruin Building" in the Village of West End be placed at the court's disposal; the Deputy Commissioner of Revenue was directed to discharge the duties of the Commissioner until the latter, currently a prisoner in Richmond, could return to his duties; payments were approved for wagonowners who had hauled books, papers and records to the courthouse from various points in Fairfax and nearby counties. One item of particular interest stated:

The fact having been brought to the notice of the Court that degradations were being committed upon the Mt. Vernon Estate, the Court, under the Chancery powers vested therein, appointed Jonathan Roberts, the present Sheriff, Curator, to take charge of allproperty in Fairfax County, Va. belonging to the heirs of John A. Washington, dec.[97]

The fact having been brought to the notice of the Court that degradations were being committed upon the Mt. Vernon Estate, the Court, under the Chancery powers vested therein, appointed Jonathan Roberts, the present Sheriff, Curator, to take charge of allproperty in Fairfax County, Va. belonging to the heirs of John A. Washington, dec.[97]

After the cessation of fighting in April 1865, Governor Pierpont moved his government from Alexandria to Richmond. However, without the presidential support which Lincoln had provided during his lifetime, the Pierpont administration found it increasingly difficult to carry on effective government as the years immediately after the war saw numerous plans for reconstruction competing for favor. The situation was further complicated by the fact that in February 1864 the Pierpont administration had sponsored a constitutional convention which had adopted a new constitution for Virginia, and that this constitution had nominally gone into effect in Alexandria and Fairfax counties.[98]A complex legal problem regarding the succession of governmental authority thus was added to the formidable task of reconstructing Fairfax County's economy and physical facilities.

This task was made difficult because many of the records of the County had been scattered or destroyed during the fighting. Records were searched out and retrieved whenever their places of safekeeping were known, a process requiring years of effort. Some record books were never found. The accounts of how the wills of George and Martha Washington were recovered are frequently cited to illustrate the difficulties of reassembling Fairfax County's records.

When, in the fall of 1861, Beauregard's Confederate troops withdrew from Fairfax County, the will of George Washington was secretly removed from the courthouse by the court clerk, Alfred Moss, and taken to Richmond. Here it was placed for safekeeping with the Secretary of the Commonwealth of Virginia. Following the cessation of hostilities, it was returned to Fairfax County.[99]

Martha Washington's will was not removed from the courthouse to Richmond, but remained there during the time Union troops occupied the building as a patrol point. As might be expected, cabinets were broken open and papers scattered. One day, late in 1862, a troop of soldiers from New England was in the building and engaged in shoveling out the debris from the floor. A Union lieutenant named Thompson grew curious about these papers and interrupted the work long enough to examine some of them. He picked up the will of Martha Washington and, recognizing it, took it with him. Following the war, the will next was heard of in 1903 in England where a descendant ofLt. Thompson sold it to J. P. Morgan. The sale was reported to the Commonwealth Attorney of Fairfax County who wrote Mr. Morgan seeking the return of the will, but no answer was ever received. After Mr. Morgan's death, the County sought to obtain the will from his son. Negotiations were unsuccessful until court action was begun by the County. Finally, one day before the matter was to be argued before the United States Supreme Court, the will was returned.[100]

[83]Thomas Chapman, Jr., "The Secession Election in Fairfax County, May 23, 1861",Yearbook of the Historical Society of Fairfax County, IV (1955) 50.

[83]Thomas Chapman, Jr., "The Secession Election in Fairfax County, May 23, 1861",Yearbook of the Historical Society of Fairfax County, IV (1955) 50.

[84]Robert Anderson, "The Administration of Justice in the Counties of Fairfax, Alexandria (Arlington) and the City of Alexandria (Part II)",The Arlington Historical Magazine, II (October 1962) 10–11.

[84]Robert Anderson, "The Administration of Justice in the Counties of Fairfax, Alexandria (Arlington) and the City of Alexandria (Part II)",The Arlington Historical Magazine, II (October 1962) 10–11.

[85]Ordinance 67, passed by the Virginia Convention, 26 June, 1861, cited by Anderson, "Administration of Justice", p. 10.

[85]Ordinance 67, passed by the Virginia Convention, 26 June, 1861, cited by Anderson, "Administration of Justice", p. 10.

[86]Governor William Smith, "The Skirmish at Fairfax Court House",The Fairfax County Centennial Commission, (Vienna, Virginia: 1961) p. 4. Because of the confusion in the Confederate ranks, no officer took charge, and so Governor Smith ordered the Confederate troops to return the fire of the Federal soldiers.

[86]Governor William Smith, "The Skirmish at Fairfax Court House",The Fairfax County Centennial Commission, (Vienna, Virginia: 1961) p. 4. Because of the confusion in the Confederate ranks, no officer took charge, and so Governor Smith ordered the Confederate troops to return the fire of the Federal soldiers.

[87]The Fairfax Court House meeting, which took place in Gen. Beauregard's headquarters near the courthouse, has been the subject of controversy in the memoirs of those involved. See, for example, Jefferson Davis,The Rise and Fall of the Confederate Government, (New York: Yoseloff, 1958), I, 368, 448–452, 464; Alfred Roman,Military Operations of Gen. Beauregard, (New York: Harper & Bros., 1884), I, 137–139.

[87]The Fairfax Court House meeting, which took place in Gen. Beauregard's headquarters near the courthouse, has been the subject of controversy in the memoirs of those involved. See, for example, Jefferson Davis,The Rise and Fall of the Confederate Government, (New York: Yoseloff, 1958), I, 368, 448–452, 464; Alfred Roman,Military Operations of Gen. Beauregard, (New York: Harper & Bros., 1884), I, 137–139.

[88]Washington Post, April 10, 1921.

[88]Washington Post, April 10, 1921.

[89]Alexandria GazetteandFairfax News, October 17, 1862.

[89]Alexandria GazetteandFairfax News, October 17, 1862.

[90]Bruce Catton,A Stillness at Appomatox, (New York: Cardinal Giant Edition, Pocket Books, Inc., 1958), pp. 318–319.

[90]Bruce Catton,A Stillness at Appomatox, (New York: Cardinal Giant Edition, Pocket Books, Inc., 1958), pp. 318–319.

[91]Two items from theAlexandria Gazettein July 1862 illustrate the problems regarding these records. The edition of July 12, 1862 printed a letter to the newspaper stating that records of Fairfax County had lately been found in Warrenton, having been removed there, it was supposed, by lawyers. The newsheriff of the County took possession of these records. The edition of July 23, 1862 reported that the new County Court of Fairfax held its July term in the Clerk's office, the courthouse not being in condition for that purpose, and that one of the court's actions was to order that application be made for a new seal, the old one not being found.

[91]Two items from theAlexandria Gazettein July 1862 illustrate the problems regarding these records. The edition of July 12, 1862 printed a letter to the newspaper stating that records of Fairfax County had lately been found in Warrenton, having been removed there, it was supposed, by lawyers. The newsheriff of the County took possession of these records. The edition of July 23, 1862 reported that the new County Court of Fairfax held its July term in the Clerk's office, the courthouse not being in condition for that purpose, and that one of the court's actions was to order that application be made for a new seal, the old one not being found.

[92]Fairfax County Court Minute Book, 1863–1867, p. 130. This order was entered November 25, 1864, and was rescinded by a subsequent order entered November 22, 1865. Minute Book, 1863–1867, p. 289.

[92]Fairfax County Court Minute Book, 1863–1867, p. 130. This order was entered November 25, 1864, and was rescinded by a subsequent order entered November 22, 1865. Minute Book, 1863–1867, p. 289.

[93]The Unionists in northern and western Virginia met twice in conventions held at Wheeling. In May 1861 a convention of some 400 so-called delegates from the counties in these regions met to consider their stake in the State's constitutional crisis, but took no action since Virginia had not yet ratified the secession ordinance. A second convention at Wheeling was held in June 1861, and organized a Unionist government for the State which claimed the authority of the General Assembly (which it asserted had forfeited its authority by rebellion) and other constitutional officials. Francis H. Pierpont served as governor of this Unionist government of Virginia.

[93]The Unionists in northern and western Virginia met twice in conventions held at Wheeling. In May 1861 a convention of some 400 so-called delegates from the counties in these regions met to consider their stake in the State's constitutional crisis, but took no action since Virginia had not yet ratified the secession ordinance. A second convention at Wheeling was held in June 1861, and organized a Unionist government for the State which claimed the authority of the General Assembly (which it asserted had forfeited its authority by rebellion) and other constitutional officials. Francis H. Pierpont served as governor of this Unionist government of Virginia.

[94]The Congressional approval of West Virginia's admission occurred in December 1862, but it was not until June 1863 that President Lincoln proclaimed the admission of the new State and approval of its constitution.

[94]The Congressional approval of West Virginia's admission occurred in December 1862, but it was not until June 1863 that President Lincoln proclaimed the admission of the new State and approval of its constitution.

[95]Fairfax County Court Minute Book, 1863–1867, p. 2.

[95]Fairfax County Court Minute Book, 1863–1867, p. 2.

[96]Ibid.Minutes of a meeting of the court on January 19, 1863.

[96]Ibid.Minutes of a meeting of the court on January 19, 1863.

[97]Ibid.The practical effect of this order has been questioned, however, since Mt. Vernon was sold out of the Washington family in 1859 to the Mt. Vernon Ladies' Association of the Union, and the Washingtons had, by 1863, moved to Fauquier County, leaving neither relatives or property in Fairfax County. Interview with Judge James Keith, April 1972.

[97]Ibid.The practical effect of this order has been questioned, however, since Mt. Vernon was sold out of the Washington family in 1859 to the Mt. Vernon Ladies' Association of the Union, and the Washingtons had, by 1863, moved to Fauquier County, leaving neither relatives or property in Fairfax County. Interview with Judge James Keith, April 1972.

[98]As described in William Hemphill, Marvin Schlegel and Sadie Engelberg,Cavalier Commonwealth: History and Government of Virginia, (New York: McGraw-Hill, 1957), 339–340, thisconstitution contained various new provisions, such as the abolition of slavery and denial of suffrage to all men who held office under a Confederate government.

[98]As described in William Hemphill, Marvin Schlegel and Sadie Engelberg,Cavalier Commonwealth: History and Government of Virginia, (New York: McGraw-Hill, 1957), 339–340, thisconstitution contained various new provisions, such as the abolition of slavery and denial of suffrage to all men who held office under a Confederate government.

[99]Eugene E. Prussing,The Estate of George Washington, Deceased, (Boston: Little, Brown, and Co., 1927) pp. 39–40. "Martha Washington's Will and the Story of its Loss and Recovery by Fairfax County,"Yearbook of the Historical Society of Fairfax County, Virginia, II (1952–53) 40–62.

[99]Eugene E. Prussing,The Estate of George Washington, Deceased, (Boston: Little, Brown, and Co., 1927) pp. 39–40. "Martha Washington's Will and the Story of its Loss and Recovery by Fairfax County,"Yearbook of the Historical Society of Fairfax County, Virginia, II (1952–53) 40–62.

[100]"Martha Washington's Will," p. 61.

[100]"Martha Washington's Will," p. 61.

THE YEARS OF REBUILDING: 1865–1903

With the end of the war the formidable tasks of rebuilding both state and local governments were begun. President Abraham Lincoln's view of reconstruction had been that the government which took Virginia out of the Union should be the one to bring her back into the Union,[101]and President Andrew Johnson generally sought to follow this principle. Others, mainly the Radical Republican leaders, argued that Virginia had forfeited her sovereignty by rebellion, and so could not return to the Union except on new terms.[102]In this respect, President Johnson found that the presence of Governor Pierpont in Richmond—purporting to govern under the constitution which his government had drafted and ratified in Alexandria in 1864—was a complicating factor. Not only was the legitimacy of this constitution questioned, but all evidence pointed to the conclusion that the state's leaders who had served the Confederacy could not and would not accept it.

An unsuccessful attempt to improve the constitution was made in the summer of 1865, and thereafter a series of confusing elections and administrations followed as the Radical Republican leaders in Congress overrode President Johnson's reconstruction program.[103]In March 1867, the territory of nine former Confederate states was divided into five military districts, in which army commanders were authorized to oversee the civil administrations of the states. In Virginia's military district, the army commander, General John Schofield, interfered very little with the administration of Francis Pierpont, who served as Provisional Governor. Pierpont provided a measure of needed stability compared to what had preceded it, and as a result slow but steady progress was made toward reconstituting some of the essential elements of local government in the state.[104]

The prospect of restoration of full political power to the states appeared briefly in March 1867 when Congress provided that the Confederate states would be readmitted to the Union and their delegations would be seated in Congress when they adopted constitutions which conformed to the Constitution of the United States with the new Fourteenth Amendment. A convention, dominated largely by Republican reconstructionists, met in December 1867 and brought forth the so-called "Underwood Constitution," named for Judge John Underwood who presided at the convention.

The proposed new constitution contained the main features which were needed to secure reinstatement of Virginia's sovereignty. In addition, however, it contained a controversial provision which, in effect, disenfranchised thousands who had served the Confederacy. Thus, the choice offered in the impending ratification referendum was difficult for most Virginians. So controversial was this matter that the army commander was moved to intervene and postpone the referendum indefinitely.[105]Stalemate followed during 1868 and 1869. Francis Pierpont was replaced in the office of Provisional Governor by Henry Horatio Wells, a New Yorker who was favored by the Radical Republicans. Progress toward reconstitution of local government lost momentum as state leadership lapsed.

Intervention by President Grant finally brought action on the Underwood Constitution by proposing that Virginians vote on the controversial disenfranchisement clauses separate from the main features of the document. In July 1869, the vote was taken, with the expected result that the "test oath" provision was defeated while the constitution was approved. In the General Assembly elected under this constitution, the Conservative Party enjoyed a working majority over the Republicans, who had been badly split by the referendum controversy. Henry Wells resigned, and was replaced by Gilbert Walker, who served first by appointment of the army commander and later by virtue of election to a constitutional four-year term. In January 1870, legislators from Virginia resumed their seats in the Congress, and the last Federal occupation troops left the State.

The Underwood Constitution introduced major changes into the structure of local government.[106]It adopted the Northern system of dividing counties into townships,[107]with a justice of the peace exercising his authority only within his township. Other elective offices introduced at this time were county supervisors, a county clerk, collector, assessor, overseer of the poor, and overseer of roads. All these officials—some serving the township and others the county—were salaried, and greatly increased the size of the governmental apparatus formerly centered in the county court. The Board of county supervisors was the general governing body of the county, comprised of members elected from each township.

Although this expansion of the structure of county government came in response to recognition that problems of the 1870's could not be solved with government geared to the 1770's, the impact of these problems plus Virginians' conservative political tradition led to dissatisfaction with the township system from its inception. As soon as the original force of the reconstruction movement was spent, therefore, this system was modified tobring it more into line with Virginia's historic governmental institutions. In 1875 and 1884 the number of separate elective offices was decreased, the independent powers of the townships were reduced, and the townships were converted into "magisterial districts."[108]Gradually the power to appoint all county officers except those with constitutional status was given to the board of county supervisors and the county's Circuit Court judge.

Map of Fairfax Court House from G. M. Hopkins, Atlas of Fifteen Miles Around Washington, 1879.Map of Fairfax Court House from G. M. Hopkins,Atlas of Fifteen Miles Around Washington, 1879.VIEW LARGER IMAGE

The last quarter of the nineteenth century saw the appearance and disappearance of a number of public offices now only dimly remembered. For example, the county office of commissioner of roads dated from 1831, but the constitution of 1869 created township overseers of roads who, with the commissioner of roads, formed the county road board. When the townships were abolished, the duties of these boards were transferred to the commissioner of roads and road surveyor. By 1900 this highly decentralized system had resulted in enactment of several hundred local road laws by the states and led to a confused situation that was not cured until the state highway system and highway department were established in 1919.[109]

From the time of the disestablishment of the Church of England, care of the County's poor and orphans had been the responsibility of the County's overseer of the poor. Public health measures to suppress smallpox also were carried on by this officer. The constitution of 1869 created a superintendent of the poor for each county, elected by popular vote, and the overseers of the poor became township officers. With the abolition of the townships, the superintendent of the poor also disappeared and the overseers became officers of the magisterial districts.[110]

In the early days of the nineteenth century, the justices of the County Court had been responsible for the County's militia. This system was changed in 1833 when the militia were reorganized to form divisions, brigades and regiments on a state-wide basis. Officers were appointed by the governor on recommendation of the county court. This system continued until the Civil War, and when the militia was established after the war it was managed entirely from the state level.[111]

In the changes that followed the shift of governing power to the board of county supervisors, one of the chief losers was the county sheriff. He ceased to have any control of elections or revenue matters, and his other powers and prerogatives connected with administrative functions of county government were lost to others. He became exclusively a peace officer andcustodian of the county jail, and these are the duties of his office today.

As the nineteenth century ended, Virginia moved toward another constitutional convention—its fifth since 1776—with the hope of modernizing the machinery of government. As matters turned out, however, the resulting constitution of 1902 was not a forward-looking document, and its chief results were to formalize changes which had already occurred in practice. Thus, much debate was spent on how voting qualifications should be regulated, and whether the old county court should be abolished or not. Fairfax County's representatives in the convention voted for retaining the county court, arguing that the monthly sessions had significant social values—an "heirloom of great psychological importance." Ultimately, however, the vote went against retention of the county court and it was abolished. Its judicial functions were assigned to the circuit court, and its legislative and administrative functions were performed by the board of supervisors.[112]

The disappearance of this political institution which had been the focal point of Virginia's local government for almost 300 years, marked the end of an era which reflected the tradition that public affairs were best managed by the county's gentlemen freeholders. But it did not immediately usher in as its successor an era of professionalism and responsiveness to the wishes of the public. Progress in these latter respects was postponed by slowness in widening the suffrage and the opportunity to hold public office. In this respect the Constitution of 1902 perpetuated the restrictive system which had prevailed since 1875 by retaining the capitation tax and the requirements of literacy and/or the ability to explain any part of the constitution.

The beginning of the twentieth century also marked the end of the rebuilding years which had followed the Civil War. The simple struggle for subsistence, which had been the foremost theme when scarcities existed in all types of goods and the sources of capital were meager, no longer was the overriding consideration. A measure of normalcy had, by 1902, returned to life in Northern Virginia. And if the pace of this style of life was not as vigorous or spectacular as in some other areas of the nation at that time, it offered, at least, the substantial attractions of a comfortable and secure rural setting with ready access to the centers of commerce and culture in nearby Washington, Alexandria, and Georgetown.


Back to IndexNext