would
return to the Union.25 Wilson's arguments reveal the role
in which many Virginians saw themselves - that of mediator between the
North and the South. This role was predicated on both the prominence
and geographical location of the state. Virginians felt that it was
in their power either to save or destroy the Union. In the convention,
Mr. Baldwin entreated, "
that we may go back to the days of
Monroe, to the era of good feeling, and take up anew, not merely the
language of compromise and adjustment, but take in the ancient Virginia
school, the spirit of compromise, the spirit of settlement, the spirit
characterized by our General Assembly as that in which the Constitution
was formed
."26
Although anti-secession sentiments were clearly very strong in some
Virginians, others just as ardently pushed for disunion. Just as in
the case of the pro-Union arguments, those for secession relied on several
different arguments. One group of arguments focused on Virginia's ties
with the South. While some of these arguments simply stressed the importance
of Virginia supporting the seceded states, others went as far as calling
for Virginia's immediate secession. In either case, they highlighted
the links between Virginia and the other slave states. In an editorial
written about the task of the recently begun state convention, one Virginian
explained that, while the immediate work of Virginia should be aimed
at reconciling the North and the South, if these efforts failed, the
convention needed to "
assure the South that we stand ready
to draw Virginia's sword against the first act of coercion directed
against any Southern State
."27
The economic connections between Virginia and the seceded states were
of great interest to several representatives in the state convention.
One, Mr. Holcombe, stated that Virginia's "manufacturing, mining,
agricultural, and commercial interests" lay with the South.28
He further