State's Rights Supreme

The Constitutional Convention of Virginia discusses whether its members should take an oath pledging “to support the Constitution of the State.”

The Constitutional Convention met Wednesday, June 12, 1901, at noon in the hall of the House of Delegates. Out of a membership of 100, only two were absent. The result of the discussion as to whether or not the delegates should take the oath developed the fact that colored people need expect nothing at the hands of the convention, the rabid element of holding a substantial majority. Gov. J. Hoge Tyler when he signed the bill authorizing the calling of a constitutional convention exclaimed, “God save the Commonwealth!” By a vote of 56 to 37, it was decided not to take any oath to maintain and support either the Constitution of the United States or the present Constitution of Virginia. The discussion of this question was interesting. Senator John W. Daniel called the body to order and Col. W. B. Pettit was chosen temporary chairman and Mr. Joseph Eutton, temporary secretary. Rev. Dr. Mellwaine prayed. Mr. Hunton moved to proceed to the election of a permanent president, Mr. Thom, of Norfolk, raised the point of order that no business could be properly transacted until the oath of office had been taken by the members. He made a brief speech in favor of his point and upon the withdrawal of Mr. Hunton’s motion, Mr. Thom made on in accordance with his point of order. Mr. Braxton took issue with Mr. Thom and contended that under the Virginia Constitution the members of the convention were not officers. Mr. Braxton argued that there was no precedent for swearing the members and he saw no necessity of it. If it was to be taken what would be the oath, he asked. The usual oath, he said, was to the effect that those taking it were bound to support the Constitution of the State and yet the body had met here to alter and amend that Constitution. He contended that this was a revolutionary body and its work would override the pretext Constitution. Mr. Thom then changed his motion so as to provide that without going into the question as to whether the body was bound by the provisions of the present Constitution, the oath provided by section 2, be taken. Mr. Braxton thought if the members were to take any oath it should only be to support the Constitution of the United States and to perform their duties faithfully as delegates. Mr. Hamilton ably reconded the motion of Mr. Thom and said that as a matter of precaution, the oath should not be taken. Mr. Hill Carter followed along the same line in an able speech and referred to Judge Wellford’s opinion that the members were officers. Mr. J. C. Wysor, of Pulaski, supported the motion of Mr. Thom, in an able speech, in which he took the ground that the members were officers in the eyes of the law. Mr. Wysor’s remarks were loudly applauded and Judge Berryman Green followed him in opposition to Mr. Thom’s motion. He contended that the purpose of those who advocated the motion was to bind the convention to submit the work of the body to the whole people as the oath referred to, recognized the equality of all men before the law. Judge Green said there was no danger of a reversal by the courts, but if there should be danger, the members should do their duty fearlessly and fully. Mr. Wysor replied briefly and he and Judge Green engaged in a pleasant colloquy which highly entertained the convention. Mr. Braxton again spoke against Mr. Thom’s motion and appealed to the state convention not to require the members to take any oath as it was entirely unnecessary in his judgment. He reiterated that no other convention had been required to take oath and he understood that the members of the House of Lords took no oath. Senator Daniel spoke next. He contended that the members of the convention were not officers in the eyes of the present Constitution: He had no objection to taking the oath, but the question arose whether the convention had a right to require an oath of its members not prescribed by law. He then spoke at length upon the question of whether the members were officers and able argued that they were not. Senator Daniel dealt with the legal side of the proposition almost entirely and cited many authorities to sustain his position. Senator Daniel contended that was not the spirit of the law calling the body together that the members be deemed officers, and that the precedents of 125 years were against that view. […rest of article contains more back and forth from the various senators restating their arguments…].

“State's Rights Supreme,” Black Virginia: The Richmond Planet, 1894-1909, accessed February 19, 2026, https://blackvirginia.richmond.edu/items/show/802.