Mark David RichardsFragmented Before a Great StormMay 9, 2002

Fragmented Before a Great Storm

Presented before the Arlington Historical Society

May 9, 2002

by Mark David Richards, PhD, Sociologist

[email protected] 

Until 1846, Washington, District of Columbia, was
shaped like a diamond. President George Washington, America’s greatest
hero from Virginia and favorite General of the Revolution, determined DC’s
shape in 1791. He included his hometown, Alexandria. In 1846, all DC land
southwest of the Potomac River was returned to Virginia, perhaps foreshadowing
the great storm that was to fragment the nation.

Introduction

I’m pleased to have the opportunity to speak with you about the
retrocession of Alexandria and Arlington County from the District of
Columbia to Virginia. I am a long-term resident of DC. DC’s struggle to
achieve equal rights today is similar to your area’s struggle some 150
years past. For nearly half a century, our areas shared a dream set out by
George Washington, and together we formed his federal diamond. But the
dream was fraught with difficulties. In 1846, Alexandria and Arlington
County solved the problems by returning to Virginia. Georgetown and
Washington City & County, which were merged into Washington, District
of Columbia, have since struggled under federal rule to win the freedoms
and rights your ancestors won for you when they made the choice to
retrocede. Today, DC is in a difficult situation. It has been separated
from Maryland for so long, most cannot seriously contemplate retrocession.
DC has had a long-standing and steady goal—to achieve the same rights as
all other citizens. But, Congress has not been willing to grant DC
residents equal constitutional rights, much less statehood. But let’s
start at the beginning.

The American Revolution was fueled by the English Parliament’s claim
that it had the right to exclusive legislative authority, in all cases
whatsoever over English citizens in the colonies, who, Parliament
claimed, had "virtual representation" in that body. Colonists
called that "taxation without representation." In 1774, citizens
in Alexandria approved the Fairfax County Resolves, written by George
Mason and George Washington. The Resolves claimed equal rights under the
British Constitution—including representation in Parliament and control
of taxation, military forces, judicial power, and commercial action. Great
Britain, in violating her own principles of representation, showed she did
not respect her subjects and united previously jealous colonies that
fought a revolution to become independent states, loosely united under
Articles of Confederation.

The District of Columbia was born in the second American Revolution.

After the Revolution, difficult economic conditions fueled public
disorder, or mobocracy. George Washington and other leaders argued that
the states needed a stronger central authority if they were to remain
united. The Virginia Assembly called a meeting of commissioners to meet in
Annapolis to discuss interstate trade issues and uniform regulation of
commerce, related to a dispute between Virginia and Maryland over the
Potomac River. The Annapolis meeting resulted in a call for each state to
send a delegate to Philadelphia in 1787. Washington commented,

"We have errors to correct. We have probably too good an
opinion of human nature in forming our confederation. What a triumph
for the advocates of despotism to find that we are incapable of
governing ourselves, and that systems founded on the basis of our
equal liberty are merely ideal and fallacious!"¹

Washington presided over the Philadelphia Convention, where 55 notables
forged compromises in a federal Constitution written to unite divergent
interests—small states would have equality in the Senate, large states
would have power according to their population in the House of
Representatives. Though delegates had far overstepped their mandate,
Congress approved the Constitution and sent it to the states for
ratification.

Proponents (Federalists) said the new Constitution formed a "happy
combination … the great and aggregate interests being referred to the
national, the local and particular to the State legislatures," and it
could be amended if imperfections were identified.² Anti-Federalists argued
that the Constitution should be improved before it was irrevocably set
into law, to which Alexander Hamilton (Federalist No. 85) wrote, "I
should esteem it the extreme of imprudence to prolong the precarious state
of our national affairs and to expose the Union to jeopardy of successive
experiments in the chimerical pursuit of a perfect plan. …[T]ime must
bring it to perfection." The Constitution was ratified.

Senator James G. Blaine, Republican author who chronicled the events
leading to the Civil War in Twenty Years of Congress, (two
volumes published in 1870), reminds that the 1787 Constitution wouldn’t
have been achieved without the compromise over slavery. But the compromise
raised a moral question and was but a temporary measure that preoccupied
the nation until slavery was abolished—first in the District of Columbia
in April 1862, when 3,100 slaves were freed. Can you imagine the joy of
being a freeman! This is hard to even contemplate. The slave trade was
abolished in DC much earlier—in 1850, just a few years after Alexandria
reunited with Virginia.

Alexandria and Arlington County were part of the District of Columbia
for nearly a half-century. John Hammond Moore wrote in 1981 that the
decision by Alexandria residents to retrocede to Virginia in 1846 was not
"rooted in North-South animosities which fifteen years later would
lead to war, nor were they based upon any intense, deep-seated desire by
residents of Alexandria and its rural enclave (called Alexandria County
until 1920) to be part of the Old Dominion once more. Retrocession was, in
fact, a relatively sudden development avidly promoted by Alexandria
merchants."³ Nevertheless, Constance McLaughlin Green in 1962 noted,
"For the slave-owning South, Virginia’s reacquisition of a third of
the ten-mail square was a victory" because "two pro-slavery
members added to the Virginia Assembly would certainly strengthen the
position of tidewater planters in their intensifying political struggle
with piedmont and mountain county farmers."⁴ Dean Allard in 1978 noted
that the final Congressional vote "fell far short of reflecting a
clear division between north and south;" he noted that Jefferson
Davis voted against retrocession.⁵

In chronicling the events leading to the Civil War, Senator Blaine did
not mention retrocession. But the gathering storm in the nation over the
issue of slavery is the context within which the 10-Mile Square—George
Washington’s federal diamond—was fragmented in 1846.

Creation of The District of Columbia

President Washington was granted the right to choose a "District
of Territory, not exceeding ten miles square, to be located as hereafter
directed, on the river Potomack, at some place between the mouths of the
eastern branch and Conogocheque, be, and the same is hereby accepted for
the Permanent Seat of the Government of the United States," in the
Residence Act passed on July 16, 1790. The Act specified that the three
commissioners who would implement the development of suitable buildings
for the federal government, to be chosen by President Washington,
"shall have the power to purchase or accept such quantity of land, on
the eastern side of the said river, within the said district, as the
President shall deem proper for the use of the United States. George
Washington had a mind of his own. He fixed the base of the federal
territory at Alexandria, his hometown, and made this proclamation on
January 24, 1791:

"Now, therefore, … I do hereby declare and make known that
the location of one part of the said district of ten miles square
shall be found by running four lines of experiment in the following
manner; that is to say: running from the courthouse in Alexandria,
Virginia, due southwest half a mile, and thence a due southeast course
‘till it shall strike Hunting Creek to fix the beginning of said
four lines of experiment."⁶

On March 3, 1791 Congress passed a formal act confirming that George
Washington could include his hometown of Alexandria in the federal
district. Washington’s personal secretary wrote:

"By this means the Commissioners were enabled so to lay off
the district of ten miles square, that the center thereof is made the
center of the spot on which the City is laid out, as nearly as the
nature and form of the ground of the City will permit. The district of
ten miles square thereby includes the river Potomack for five miles
above and the like distance below the middle of the City; and extends
in the state of Virginia about three miles over the river."⁷

The area chosen for the Territory of Columbia was comprised of two
established towns with governance structures—Georgetown (mapped in 1751)
and Alexandria (established in 1749), and two plotted but undeveloped
towns—Hamburg (or Funkstown, established in 1768) and Carrollsburg
(established in 1780). Washington City was created—and grew over the
other areas.

The Lower Potomac Region Crowned by The District of
Columbia

Source: History of the George Washington Bicentennial
Celebration, Vol. 1 Literature Series,

U.S. George Washington Bicentennial Commission,
Washington, D.C., 1932, p. 412.

George Washington signed a land agreement with nineteen landowners at
the location of the current site of central Washington, DC. The land
agreement only affected lots in that area, but did not affect Georgetown,
Hamburg, or Carrolsburg—separate areas.

Contrary to popular legend, Washington City was not built on a swamp,
but was considered to be a prime location for a capital of the newly
emerging republic. There were limited areas of marshy land. The area was
located in the center of the nation at the point where the Anacostia River
joins the Potomac just below Great Falls on its journey to the Chesapeake
Bay—a good location for defense.

Early Dissatisfaction With Prospect of Federal Rule

Efforts to retrocede started immediately after the states of Maryland
and Virginia ceded the land for the Territory of Columbia. Residents had
strong cultural attachments to their respective states. When laws changed
in the former states that had ceded the land to the federal government to
form DC, Congress didn’t change the laws in DC, so the Code was quickly
outdated. They started to
notice neglect. They started to ask questions.

Each jurisdiction in DC had its own identity and political structure,
and they were competitive. Washington City was uniquely the seat of
government. Washington City’s residents were not interested in
retroceding—they realized that their fortunes were tied to the federal
government, which they feared might move.

The main problem was that basic principles of republican forms of
government, for which they had fought a Revolution, were violated in the
District of Columbia. A principle that had been adopted in the
Constitutional bargaining was that the seat of government should not fall
under the jurisdiction of any state, so the federal government would
remain secure. That agreement seemed reasonable. Article I, 8, Paragraph
17 gives Congress authority…

…"To exercise exclusive legislation, in all cases
whatsoever, over such district (not exceeding ten miles square) as
may, by cession of particular States and the acceptance of Congress,
become the seat of the government of the United States; and to
exercise like authority over all places purchased by the consent of
the legislatures of the States in which the same shall be, for the
erection of forts, magazines, arsenals, dockyards, and other needful
buildings."

Though some questioned the wisdom of the District Clause, the most
important issue at the time was winning passage of the new Constitution
with as few changes as possible. During the Philadelphia Convention there
was some concern that the federal government could increase its power to
the detriment of the states by buying up land.

Questions were also raised in ratification debates. A number of states
disagreed or were uncomfortable with—and attacked—the idea of giving
Congress exclusive legislative authority. Anti-federalist leaders,
including George Mason of Virginia, George Clinton of New York, and Mercy
Warren of Massachusetts, attacked the idea and used it to express their
concerns about the Constitution in general.⁸ Samuel Osgood, a member of the
Board of Treasury, raised the specter of federal control. He said,

"It has cost me many a sleepless night to find out the most
obnoxious part of the proposed plan, and I have finally fixed upon the
exclusive legislation in the Ten Miles Square… What an inexhaustible
fountain of corruption are we opening?"⁹

Mr. Osgood proposed voting representation for the District as a
solution.¹⁰

Alexander Hamilton introduced an amendment at the New York convention,
proposing that until the District reached a certain number it would remain
part of the state from which the land was ceded to the federal government;
after the population reached a certain number, a "provision shall be
made by Congress for having a District Representation in the Body."¹¹
His suggestion was not included.

When Virginia ratified the Constitution, it added several proposed
Amendments, including this one:

"Twelfth: That the exclusive power of legislation given to
Congress over the Federal Town and its adjacent District and other
places purchased or to be purchased by Congress of any of the States
shall extend only to such regulations as respect the police and good
government thereof."

North Carolina delegates also proposed a similar amendment, as did
Pennsylvania delegates who met nearly a year after their ratification
convention.¹²

None of the amendments was included.

Federalists, such as Madison, did not believe the liberties of the
residents in the federal district would be threatened, said Congress would
grant the area an elected legislature, and argued that citizens would like
to live in a city under the jurisdiction of an enlightened Congress.
Madison wrote (Federalist Papers No. 43):

”The indispensable necessity of complete authority at the seat of
government, carries its own evidence with it. It is a power exercised by
every legislature of the Union, I might say of the world, by virtue of
its general supremacy. Without it, not only the public authority might
be insulted and its proceedings interrupted with impunity; but a
dependence of the members of the general government on the State
comprehending the seat of the government, for protection in the exercise
of their duty, might bring on the national councils an imputation of awe
or influence, equally dishonorable to the government and dissatisfactory
to the other members of the Confederacy. This consideration has the more
weight, as the gradual accumulation of public improvements at the
stationary residence of the government would be both too great a public
pledge to be left in the hands of a single State, and would create so
many obstacles to a removal of the government, as still further to
abridge its necessary independence.

The extent of this federal district is sufficiently circumscribed to
satisfy every jealousy of an opposite nature. And as it is to be
appropriated to this use with the consent of the State ceding it; as the
State will no doubt provide in the compact for the rights and the
consent of the citizens inhabiting it; as the inhabitants will find
sufficient inducements of interest to become willing parties to the
cession; as they will have had their voice in the election of the
government which is to exercise authority over them; as a municipal
legislature for local purposes, derived from their own suffrages, will
of course be allowed them; and as the authority of the legislature of
the State, and of the inhabitants of the ceded part of it, to concur in
the cession, will be derived from the whole people of the State in their
adoption of the Constitution, every imaginable objection seems to be
obviated.

The necessity of a like authority over forts, magazines, etc.,
established by the general government, is not less evident. The public
money expended on such places, and the public property deposited in
them, requires that they should be exempt from the authority of the
particular State. Nor would it be proper for the places on which the
security of the entire Union may depend, to be in any degree dependent
on a particular member of it. All objections and scruples are here also
obviated, by requiring the concurrence of the States concerned, in every
such establishment.

A newspaper commentator argued that Congress needed exclusive
jurisdiction mainly to protect itself from the international community and
special interests that were expected to gather there, but suggested the
problem of a disenfranchised local citizenry could be solved with a
Constitutional amendment when the population reached 40-50,000.¹³

Congress Claimed Its Exclusive Power Over the District of Columbia

Congress assumed exclusive legislative authority of the District of
Columbia on February 7, 1801. Alexandria’s Virginia charter remained in
force until February 25, 1804, when Congress provided a new one.¹⁴

Once in Washington City, some members of congress continued to question
the need for exclusive jurisdiction. Mr. Smilie said "he never could
understand the reason for giving Congress an exclusive jurisdiction over
ten-miles square. He believed there was but one reason: It had been
thought good policy to introduce this article into the Constitution to
facilitate its adoption, as it was known that all parts of the Union were
anxious to have the seat of Government."¹⁵ He said, "It did not
appear to him, in any proper point of view, necessary that Congress should
possess such exclusive jurisdiction. There was no doubt that, let Congress
sit where they would, they would always have sufficient power to protect
themselves. … If Congress can derive no solid benefit from the exercise
of this power, why keep the people in this degraded situation?"¹⁶

Residents of DC have been asking the same question since.

Mr. Smilie also raised the issue of time and expense of acting as the
District’s legislature, and questioned Congressional competency to
legislate for the District. He said, "the exercise of exclusive
legislation would take up a great deal of time, and produce a great
expense to the nation; and it was probable that, in the course of events,
the trouble and expense would increase with the increasing number of
inhabitants."¹⁷

In the Congressional debates, Mr. Smilie recognized the need for local
self-government. He warned, "Here, the citizens would be governed by
laws, in the making of which they have no voice—by laws not made with
their own consent, but by the United States for them—by men who have not
the interest in the laws made that legislators ought always to possess—by
men also not acquainted with the minute and local interests of the place,
coming, as they did, from distances of 500 to 1,000 miles."

Today, if a DC resident was in the audience you might hear her say,
"Amen!"

Some Congressional members countered that District citizens would be
only temporarily disenfranchised—eventually they would be represented in
Congress and granted a Territorial Legislature. Benjamin Huger of South
Carolina (Federalist) said he didn’t think the fact that District
residents suffered deprivation of rights was an adequate reason for
retrocession, "because they are now disenfranchised of their rights,
it does not follow that they are always to remain so. Huger looked forward
to the period when the inhabitants from their numbers and riches, would be
entitled to a representation. And, with respect to their local concerns,
when they grew more numerous and wealthy, "there would be no
difficulty in giving them a Territorial Legislature," he said.¹⁸

Others argued that District residents had advantages that other
citizens who retained their citizenship rights did not have. John Bacon of
Massachusetts (Republican) said, "Though the citizens may not possess
full political rights, they have a greater influence upon the measures of
the Government than any equal number of citizens in any other part of the
Union."¹⁹ After 200 years, we can assuredly say that Mr. Bacon’s
argument is not applicable today because proximity to federal leaders is
less important in light of modern communications and transport. In
February 1803, John Bacon introduced a resolution to retrocede the
District of Columbia:

"Resolved. That it is expedient for Congress to recede to the
State of Virginia the jurisdiction of that part of the Territory of
Columbia, which was ceded to the United States by the said State of
Virginia, by an act passed the third day of December in the year 1789,
entitled, ‘An act for the cession of ten miles square, or any lesser
quantity of territory, within this State, to the United States in
Congress assembled, for the permanent seat of the General Government.
Provided, the said State of Virginia shall consent and agree thereto.

"Resolved. That it is expedient for Congress to recede to the
State of Maryland the jurisdiction of that part of Columbia which was
ceded to the United States by the said State of Maryland, by an act
passed the 19^th day of December, in the year 179_, entitled
‘An act concerning the Territory of Columbia and the City of
Washington. Provided, the said State of Maryland shall consent and
agree thereto."²⁰

Although the retrocession bill did not pass, the recognition that the
current situation was a fundamental violation of the general principles of
American governance was demonstrated when the subject was taken up again
the next year. In 1804, a bill was introduced to retrocede all parts of
the District of Columbia except Washington City. Ebenezer Elmer of New
Jersey (Republican) argued that the exclusive jurisdiction was
contradictory to the general principles of the government, and pointed out
that "the power of exercising exclusive jurisdiction over this
territory was left discretionary with Congress by the Constitution,"
and "it is a power that ought not to be exercised but upon the most
urgent necessity."²¹ He said that exclusive jurisdiction is:

"a kind of government very foreign from the leading features of
that which forms the basis of our social compact. The general principles
of our Government are the wisest and best that the ingenuity of man
every yet devised. They are the boast of every American citizen, and the
admiration of the whole world. Under the government I hope and believe
the United States will long continue to be flourishing and happy; and
that her example will instruct, and tend to ameliorate the condition of
the inhabitants of all the nations of the earth. We have most happily
combined the democratic representative with the federal principle in the
Union of the States. But the inhabitants of this territory, under the
exclusive legislation of Congress, partake of neither the one nor the
other. They have not, and they cannot possess a State sovereignty; nor
are they in their present situation entitled to elective franchise. They
are as much the vassals of Congress as the troops that garrison your
forts, and guard your arsenals. They are subjects, not merely because
they are not represented in Congress, but also because they have no
rights as freemen secured to them by the Constitution.

"They have natural rights as men, and moral agents; they may
have some civil rights constructively secured to them by the
Constitution; but have not one political right defined and guaranteed to
them by that instrument, while they continue under the exclusive
jurisdiction of Congress. I have not heard any gentleman pretend to
point out any sentence of the Constitution that secures them against
arbitrary and despotic domination—that says to Congress thus far may
you go in your legislative acts and no farther."

Some Congressmen argued that District residents were better off now
than under the British monarchy, and they had taken this deal to gain
benefits, as authorized by the Constitution. For example, John Baptiste
Charles Lucas of Pennsylvania (Republican) said DC inhabitants are
"not in a worse situation than subjects are under a monarchy,"
and they had parted with their elective franchise for pecuniary
advantages, a deal the Constitution authorized.²² Lucas’ argument is
reminiscent of the comment made in 1997 by former Congressman Newt
Gingrich of Georgia that DC citizens are better off than citizens of Cuba.
Mr. Lucas thought that since the exercise of exclusive legislation had not
been introduced by violence or conquest, it wasn’t despotic, but rather
a moral obligation between the DC and the federal government. He took
issue with the use of the word "recession" as an effort to
soften the fact that District residents were to be "transferred as a
bale of goods; and if they can be transferred to Maryland and Virginia,
they may be transferred to Vermont and Georgia.²³

Samuel Taggart of Massachusetts (Federalist) pointed out that those
supporting the retrocession bill were paving the way for the removal of
the seat of Government from the area because Georgetown and Alexandria, if
in different states, would compete more aggressively with and perhaps
injure Washington City.²⁴

The threat of removal of the seat of government from Washington City
instilled fear in Washington City residents. They argued for a Territorial
government and an amendment for equal rights, not retrocession.

Other Congressional members wanted to retrocede the full area because
they thought that it was not wise to form a Territorial government.
Experience, they said, had shown that such governments were a step on the
way to statehood. For example, James Holland of North Carolina
(Republican) argued that since Congress has a Constitutional right to give
to the people of the District—to cede to them—a Territorial
government, they also have the right to retrocede the area. He argued
against giving DC a Territorial government because, he said, citizens
would not be satisfied with anything short of statehood:

"So far as we have experienced in the operation of Territorial
governments they have been unfavorable, and they have been obnoxious
to the people. The people of those governments soon become hostile to
their rulers, and press forward to obtain the rights of freemen. It is
not in the nature of man to be contented with half freedom. If you
give them a Territorial government they will be discontented with it,
and you cannot take from them the privilege you have given. You must
progress. You cannot disfranchise them. The next step will be a
request to be admitted as a member of the Union, and, if you pursue
the practice relative to territories, you must, so soon as their
numbers will authorize it, admit them into the Union. Is it proper or
politic to add to the influence of the people of the seat of
Government by giving a representative in this House and a
representation in the Senate equal to the greatest State in the Union?
In my conception it would be unjust and impolitic, and to avoid this
and other evils, I shall vote against the report of the Committee of
the Whole, and in favor of the original resolutions"²⁵

The retrocession bill reported by the Committee of the Whole was
defeated 87 to 46. The debate had become so associated with the idea of
removing the federal seat of government from Washington City that DC
residents preferred to wait rather than gain political rights immediately
and watch the city die on the vine.²⁶

An effort to retrocede emerged again in 1818, but was defeated.²⁷
Again
in 1822, when a proposal was taken up to establish a Territorial
government in DC, proposals from Georgetown and Alexandria for
retrocession to their parent states emerged.²⁸

Robert L. Scribner (1965) reported that the first retrocession movement
in Alexandria emerged in 1824, led by Stevens Thomson Mason, but, he said,
"the townsmen were not yet willing to alter the situation in which
Washington had placed them."²⁹

Seeds of Retrocession Grow Roots

There were practical difficulties that, over time, caused Alexandria
residents to wonder about the advantages of retrocession. A Memorial to
the Senate and House of Representatives in 1826, signed by over 100
residents of Alexandria County, gives a hint of difficulties faced by
residents of Alexandria County. It called attention to the fact that since
1801, DC’s Judges "were appointed, so as to be resident, one in
each of the towns of the district." In 1826, memorialists said, both
Judges made their residence in the county of Washington, causing daily
inconveniences to Alexandrian county residents. "Your memorialists
therefore pray, that an amendment to the act passed on the 27^th
February 1801 intitled [sic] ‘An Act concerning the district of
Columbia,’ may be passed, so as to require that one of the Judges of the
Circuit Court for the district of Columbia, should be resident in the
county of Alexandria."³⁰

Georgetown, Washington City and County, and Alexandria Town and County
were also competitive in the struggle to enlarge their respective
fortunes. But they did initiate a joint venture on July 4, 1828, the
Chesapeake and Ohio Canal project. This project was launched on the same
day as their competitor, Baltimore, initiated the Baltimore and Ohio
Railroad project, which eventually won the competition.³¹ For construction,
Washington pledged a million dollars and Georgetown and Alexandria each
pledged $250,000.³² In addition, Alexandria merchants raised funds to build
the Alexandria Canal to link with C&O Canal by Aqueduct Bridge at the
current site of Key Bridge.³³

Alexandria Town’s economy was sustained primarily by exports of crops
(tobacco) and increasingly food (wheat or biscuits and herring and general
agricultural products).³⁴ It imported manufactured goods and fruit, spices,
liquor, and wines.³⁵ The failure of the Potowmack Company in 1830 was an
economic setback.³⁶ Moore wrote, "Stagnant trade, a static population,
and a sense of being ‘left out’ of District affairs—coupled with the
financial burden resulting from heavy outlays for two canals—created a
restless mood in Alexandria. Old-timers remembered the halcyon days of the
1790s before the District of Columbia became a reality, and others
wondered if reunion with Virginia might not somehow bring relief from the
municipal debts that mounted to nearly two million dollars."³⁷ The
seeds of the idea of retrocession were sprouting roots by 1835. A
committee appointed by the Common Council of Alexandria "to attend to
the interests of the Town before Congress" sent an 11-page Memorial
to the District Committee. Members of the Alexandria committee, including Francis L. Smith, Robert
Brockett, and Charles T. Stuart, explained their role was
"especially to urge upon that body the subject of retrocession."
They outlined the issues "which impel them greatly to desire, to
return to the State of Virginia, from which in an evil hour, they were
separated."

"We maintain, that all government, politically considered, but
self government, is bad, and that without some radical changes, time,
instead of making a bad government better, will make it worse. That
whatever power is exercised independently of the will of the people,
expressed individually, or through their representatives, is
despotism. We remind the committee that we are a disfranchised people,
deprived of all those political rights, and privileges, so dear to an
American citizens, and the possession of which is so well calculated
to elevate and dignify the human character; that the exclusive
jurisdiction which Congress possesses over us, however wisely and
moderately exercised, is a despotism; we are almost inclined to say
nothing more as we cannot doubt, but that our feeling, under such
circumstances, will meet with the ready sympathy of every member of
Congress.…

"Our situation is essentially different, and far worse, than that of
our neighbors on the northern side of the Potomac. They are citizens
of the Metropolis, of a great, and noble Republic, and wherever they
go, there clusters about them all those glorious associations,
connected with the progress and fame of their country. They are in some
measure compensated in the loss of their political rights… How is
it, with the citizens of Alexandria when they go abroad, or their sons
are sent to the various literary institutions in the States, from a
sense of their degraded political condition, they are induced to pass
themselves as citizens of Virginia…

"We are yet governed by antiquated English statutes [from] more than half a century ago. Efforts have at different periods, since
the cession of the District, have been made by Congress to establish
for us a Code of Laws, but each effort has proven abortive, and we
doubt not that future efforts will, if made, share a similar fate.

"The decision of the Supreme Court that inhabitants of this District
are not constitutionally entitled to many of their civil rights of
citizens of the states, and whilst an alien, a British subject may sue
in the Federal courts of the Union, we are denied the privilege. …
We are deprived of the elective franchise, a privilege to dear and
sacred, that we would present its deprivation, in the strongest light,
before your honorable body. Side by side, with the trial by jury, and
the writ of habeas corpus, may be placed the rights of the ballot box.
…while the principles of free government are yearly extending with
the rapid march of civilization, and … dynasties are yielding to
their influence, here about, in the ten miles square, in and
about the capitol of this great country, is there no improvement, no
advance in popular rights…."³⁸

While retrocessionists were discussing their degraded state as a ward
of the federal government, an increasing number of citizens were growing
increasingly uncomfortable with slavery. In the 1830s, radical and
progressive abolitionists formed a small political party, many from New
England and members of the Society of Friends. Senator Blaine wrote that
abolitionists were "a proscribed and persecuted class,"
denounced by both political parties, libeled in the press, and attacked by
"furious mobs." In 1837, John Quincy Adams presented a petition
to Congress from 150 Massachusetts citizens calling for the abolition of
slavery in the District of Columbia (http://www.wfu.edu/~zulick/340/gagrule1.html) 
Alexandria’s Franklin Armfield—like some slave traders in Washington
City—was profiting by selling surplus Virginia slaves to whites in the
Mississippi Valley.³⁹

The issue was becoming too hot to handle in Congress. In 1838, under
then Speaker of the House of Representatives, Mr. James K. Polk, a gag
rule was passed by Southern Democrats and Whigs in which "every
petition, memorial, resolution, proposition, or paper, touching or
relating in any way or to any extend whatever to slavery or to abolition
thereof, shall on presentation, without further action thereon, be laid
upon the table, without being debated, or referred."

In 1838 and 1839, Mr. Merrick of Maryland, a Southern Whig, introduced
memorials in the Senate, which were referred to the Committee on D.C. On
July 16, 1840, Mr. Merrick, from the D.C. Committee, reported a bill (S.
395) "to provide for the ascertainment of the wishes of the people of
the District of Columbia, without the corporate limits of the city of
Washington, upon the question of retrocession to the States of Virginia
and Maryland respectively." It passed to a second reading.

On September 28, 1840, the Common Council of Alexandria directed that
"polls should be opened on the second Monday in October 1840, in the
several wards of the Town, to receive the votes of all free white male
citizens of the Town and County of Alexandria over the age of twenty one
years, on the subject of the retrocession of the said town and county to
the State of Virginia." The vote was recorded as follows:⁴⁰

The mayor was instructed to send copies of the results to the
President, Congress, the Governors, and the State Legislatures, with a
request that they do lay them before Congress and their respective State
Legislatures. Memorialists from Alexandria sent a petition to Congress in
1840-41 seeking approval to retrocede to Virginia—they wrote:

"It is a fact which it is useless longer to attempt to conceal
that we have long been and are yet in a very depressed state; that our
business, in a measure, is paralyzed; that our mechanics are not kept
employed; that many of them have been compelled to leave us; and that
more must follow them unless we speedily obtain Retrocession and
Relief."⁴¹

In February 1841, Mr. Merrick again introduced memorials in support of
retrocession of Georgetown and Washington County to Maryland. Shortly
after, the General Assembly of Delaware sent resolutions to Congress
opposing retrocession, but supporting representation for DC in Congress:

"Resolved, That this Legislature are unwilling to believe,
with the citizens of Washington and Georgetown, that their only chance
for good government and prosperity rests in a retrocession of the
territory ceded to the United States to the State of Maryland; but
confidently hope the next, if not the present, Congress will grant
them ample redress of all their grievances. Resolved, That the people
of the District of Columbia ought to be represented in the Congress of
the United States, and that measure should be taken, as soon as
conveniently may be, to bring about such just and desirable end."

National and Local Contest Facilitated Retrocession

By the 1840s, there were two key national boundary questions unresolved
related to the Republic of Texas and Oregon Country. In the Presidential
contest of 1844, Mr. Polk gained the support of northern Democrats and won
the party nomination by campaigning around the "Fifty-four forty or
fight" slogan for the location of the disputed northern boundary in
"Oregon Country" (jointly governed by U.S. and Great Britain).
His opponent in the Presidential race, Henry Clay, did not support
immediate annexation of Texas—he lost. Once in office, however,
President Polk reneged on his Oregon promise and made an agreement with
Great Britain to make the 49th parallel the boundary. Senator Blaine noted
that if U.S. hadn’t rushed into the deal, British Columbia would today be
part of U.S.

The compromise in Oregon Country was considered necessary so U.S. could
enter a war against Mexico to win Texas. In June 1845, Congress passed
legislation admitting the Republic of Texas as the 28th U.S. state (http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/texmenu.htm),
which President Polk
signed in December (http://www.lsjunction.com/events/events.htm).
Texas
entered a slave state.

Alexandria merchants were unhappy when Congress in 1844 outlawed
banking corporations in DC (except on a partnership basis).⁴² In 1845 the
Alexandria Canal connection with the C&O Canal was completed, bringing
coal and raw materials to the area.⁴³ But the canal was not adequately
offsetting the overall economic decline, and there were other sources of
tension related to the fact that the federal government had forbidden the
construction of federal buildings in the southern portion of the District,
and had not established a uniform legal code for DC or updated the Code
Alexandria had inherited from Virginia.⁴⁴

John Hammond Moore (1976) reported that Alexandria’s merchant class,
concerned with economic stability of the area, began in January 1846 to
highlight the results of the referendum to advance retrocession. He
reported that Alexandria’s mayor explained the major part of the
problem, "We are disfranchised, will any American freeman desire
another or better reason?"⁴⁵

On May 11, 1846, the U.S. declared war on Mexico to settle the boundary
dispute that resulted in Mexico giving up claims to Texas, California,
Arizona, Nevada, Utah, and parts of New Mexico.

Retrocession Movement Gains Steam in Richmond

Months before the war, on February 3, 1846, the Virginia General
Assembly agreed to the retrocession of Alexandria Town and County,
provided Congress approve.⁴⁶ The count of the vote was not recorded.⁴⁷

Mr. Moore reported (1976) that citizens of Alexandria fired a
hundred-gun salute honoring Richmond’s overture, while Alexandria County
protested that there had been a secret deal between Alexandria Town
merchants and Richmond. George Washington Parke Custis, who chaired a
meeting of citizens at Ball’s Cross Roads, explained the council’s
protest, said the retrocession measure was "disposing of us as so
many swine in the market, without our knowledge, and most clearly against
our expressed wishes, repeatedly made known and publicly expressed, of
which these very thirteen people had positive personal knowledge."⁴⁸

While residents of Washington City were busy debating their future city
charter and celebrating Congressional authorization to build the
Smithsonian Institution, Congressman Robert Mercer Taliaferro (R.M.T.)
Hunter of Virginia presented Congress with Alexandria’s case for
retrocession.⁴⁹ He
argued that there were no federal structures in Alexandria, that there was
more space in the northern part of the District alone than Congress would
ever need.⁵⁰

The Georgetown council remained silent, but Washington City’s council
warned that retrocession of the portion of DC southwest of the Potomac might
be "the first step toward abrogating or destroying the compact by
which the seat of government was permanently located in the District, and
result in the removal of the capital to some other place."⁵¹

In February 1846, the House District committee approved The
Retrocession Act of 1846.

The preamble articulated the primary reason for why Alexandria should
be retroceded—it was not needed for the purposes of the General
Government:

"Whereas no more territory ought to be held under the
exclusive legislation given to Congress over the District which is the
seat of the General Government than may be necessary and proper for
the purpose of such a seat; and whereas, experience hath shown that
the portion of the District of Columbia ceded to the United States by
the State of Virginia has not been, nor is every likely to be,
necessary for that purpose; and whereas, the State of Virginia, by an
act passed… hath signified her willingness to take back this said
territory ceded as aforesaid; therefore… Be it enacted, …."⁵²

The U.S. House of Representatives took up Mr. Hunter’s retrocession
bill. Opponents argued that retrocession would be unconstitutional unless
a Constitutional amendment was passed. John A. McClernard of Illinois
asked why "only the southern part of the District would vote on
retrocession… why not the entire area?"⁵³ He noted that Congress had
required the whole state of Texas to vote on its admission to the Union.
Erastus D. Culver of New York asked, "(a) was the real motive of
retrocession to prevent escaped slaves from taking refuge in the District,
and (b) if Congress had the power to ‘make’ retrocession, then could
it not also ‘make’ abolition?"⁵⁴ Despite criticisms, the House of
Representatives approved the bill 96 to 65. One condition of the bill
required the white men of Alexandria Town and County to demonstrate their
support by majority vote in a referendum.⁵⁵

Although most members of the House apparently didn’t view the
retrocession of the southern portion of the District of Columbia as an
ominous sign, a reader of the National Intelligencer (Washington
City, DC) did. He invoked the name of General Washington when he wrote, (Intelligencer,
May 11, 1846):

"George Washington, no doubt, looked upon the District with a
military eye, and purposely located it in such a manner as to include
all the heights which would command the capitol, the President’s
House, and the public offices. If the county of Alexandria should be
retroceded, Virginia will have all the commanding heights to the west
side of the river opposite to Georgetown and Washington, from which
she might bombard the town, the President’s House, the public
offices, and even the capitol itself. In short, she would command the
city. This deserves grave consideration."⁵⁶

On July 2, the Senate took up the retrocession bill and passed it by 32
to 14. Among southerners, all but three lent their support to the bill.⁵⁷
President Polk signed the bill into law on July 10, 1846. The measure
could not become effective until a referendum was held among white male
citizens of Alexandria.

The Referendum Establishing Alexandria’s Consent

Residents of the northern side of DC and some Alexandria residents
denounced the way in which retrocession was being railroaded and held mass
meetings.⁵⁸ Some prominent county families—the Balls, Carlins, and Birches—opposed
retrocession.⁵⁹ The country section in particular opposed—some residents
had greater ties to Georgetown and Washington City, and were more
concerned about dominance by Alexandria than federal disenfranchisement.⁶⁰

Residents of the northeastern bank of the Potomac thought they should be
part of the decision about breaking up the District. Some Alexandrians
believed that the retrocession bill was "a contest between the
wealthy and the laboring classes."⁶¹ Over 500 Alexandria residents
signed a petition that they did not want to retrocede unless Congress
assumed $561,000 in debt.⁶² The Alexandria Gazette (June 12, 1846)
claimed the document was fraudulent.⁶³ The "retrocession without
relief" idea caused enough concern that the Virginia Assembly agreed
to assume the Alexandria Canal debt.⁶⁴ Richmond passed a measure extending
its jurisdiction over Alexandria on March 13, 1847.⁶⁵

A referendum was held September 1 and 2 at the Alexandria Courthouse.
The event apparently created a lively scene. Retrocessionists even
developed a Retrocession Song, sung to the tune of "Vive la Campaigne,"
part of which follows:

"Come Retrocessionists, give a loud shout,

Hurrah! We’ll retrocede,

And show the anti’s what we’re about,

Hurrah! We’ll retrocede.

For freemen’s lives we are bound to lead,

And to Virginia retrocede;

The ladies all cry out, ‘God speed,’

Hurrah! We’ll retrocede."⁶⁶

Black people in Alexandria were alarmed. A letter from black leader
Moses Hepburn to New York abolitionist Gerrit Smith illustrates what Mr.
Moore (1976) described as "the dread which most blacks felt as they
faced the prospects of being under the laws of the Old Dominion":

"I know that could you but see the poor colored people of this
city, who are the poorest of gods poor your benevolent hart would melt
at such an exebition, fancy but for a moment you could have seen them
on the day of Election when the act of Congress retroceding them to
Virginia should be rejected or confermed, whilest the citizens of this
city & conty were voting, gods humble poor wer standing in rows on
eather side of the court House and as the votes were announced every
quarter of an hour the suppressed wailings and Lammentations of the
people of color wer constantly assending to god for help and succor in
this the hour of ther need. And whilest ther cries and Lammentations
wer herd going up to the Lord of sabolth the curses and shoughts and
shounds of the wide mouthed artillery which made both the heavens and
earth shake and admonished us that on the side of the oppresor there
was great power. Oh sir there never was such a time here before."⁶⁷

The measure passed 763 to 222. White men of Alexandria Town supported
the retrocession measure 734-116, and white men of Alexandria County voted
against retrocession 29 to 106.⁶⁸ Mr. Moore wrote, "If the free black
population of Alexandria had been allowed to vote the tally would have
been considerably closer."⁶⁹

Days later, on September 7, 1846, President Polk issued the
proclamation of transfer from the federal government to Virginia.

Attention turned to the Virginia House of Assembly

Some citizens of the Country part of Alexandria County sent a memorial
to the Virginia House of Assembly in December opposing retrocession. They
were ignored.

Representation in Virginia became the next issue in the southern
portion of the District. The question was whether Alexandria and Fairfax
County would share a single seat in the House of Delegates, or whether
they would each have a seat.⁷⁰ The western part of the state felt they were
already under-represented in the legislature, and argued that giving
Alexandria County a delegate was unconstitutional because it would be a
reapportionment—an event called for only every ten years.⁷¹

Memorial of the Citizens of the Country Part of
Alexandria County to the Virginia House of Assembly

"The respectful memorial of the undersigned citizens of the
country part of the county of Alexandria, late of the District of
Columbia, to the house of assembly of the common wealth of Virginia,
sheweth:

"That on behalf of ourselves and of a large majority of our
fellow-citizens of the rural portion of the country of Alexandria, we
solemnly and respectfully protest against the act of retrocession passed
by the congress of the United States at the first session of the 29^th
congress, retroceding, under certain conditions, the country aforesaid
to the common wealth of Virginia, for the reasons following, namely:

"That the country portion of the inhabitants of said county were not
consulted upon the matter of retrocession, or advised of the intention
to seek a change of our allegiance, the whole proceeding having been
concocted and determined upon in secret meeting of the corporation of
Alexandria, an irresponsible body, having no manner of right to act upon
the subject:

"That we believe the legislature of the commonwealth have been
misinformed with respect to the wishes of the citizens of the country
portion of the county, as well as of many of the town of Alexandria
itself:

"The act of retrocession is an act in clear and obvious hostility to
he spirit and provisions of the constitution of the United States, and
beyond the possibility of honest doubt, null and void;

"That therefore we respectfully invoke the senate and house of
assembly to disregard and give no countenance or had to any so-called
commissioners or representative pretending or purporting to speak for
and in behalf of the citizens of the county of Alexandria, and more
especially of the citizens of the country part of the same:

"That we further respectfully request the legislature of the
commonwealth to suspend all further action in relation to said country
until the constitutionality or unconstitutionality of said act of
retrocession by the congress of the United States can be determined by
the authority legitimately charged with the same; it being the fixed
purpose and intention of your memorialists and a majority of the
citizens of the country part of the country as well as others, citizens
of the town of Alexandria, to bring without delay the question of said
constitutionality or unconstitutionality before the supreme court of the
United States. …" County of Alexandria, December 2, 1846,
Committee of nine, acting by order and in behalf of the citizens of the
country part of Alexandria county."⁷²

Alexandria County lost the battle to remain in the District, but
eventually won their own representative. The legislature passed a bill
that Alexandria and the county would share a delegate "until a
reapportionment shall take place, or until otherwise provided by the
General Assembly."⁷³ Harrison Mann (1958) explained that the following
event supports the idea that there had been a side agreement: In December
1847, a delegate from each location demanded to be seated in the General
Assembly and were granted their demand without a squabble.⁷⁴

Qualified residents of Alexandria officially became full Virginia
citizens on March 13, 1847, when the General Assembly passed a bill
accepting the retrocession.

Dark Clouds Gather on the Horizon

DC became the eye of the storm. Rhetorical wars in Congress —
disputes in the nation—culminated in what Senator Blaine called the
"political revolution of 1860." In 1962, Constance McLaughlin
Green wrote that as the slavery issue increasingly divided the nation, in
Washington "a tacit rule of conduct … emerged: abide by the law,
but say nothing, do nothing, that might upset the precarious sectional
balance. The fiercer the storm blew roundabout, the greater the quiet at
the center."⁷⁵ She described DC as being "like the stillness at
the eye of the hurricane. … Far less than other American citizens could
District residents, unrepresented in national councils, forestall disaster
growing out of the slavery question. Their one contribution must lie in
concealing their inner fears and maintaining an air of calm."⁷⁶ The
idea of the dissolution of the Union was hardly thinkable to
Washingtonians, for as Green pointed out, "it would spell
annihilation."⁷⁷

The retrocession of Alexandria accelerated the migration of free blacks
to Washington and Georgetown.⁷⁸ Between 1840 and 1850, the black population
of the southern portion of DC declined—the slave population dropped from
1,474 to 1,382 and the free population declined from 1,962 to 1,409.⁷⁹

By 1846, DC had physically become the fault line of the Union. Perhaps
this fact made the retrocession of the southern portion of the District
possible. But it appears that few at the time, besides majorities in
Alexandria County—and those voices that were not a part of the decision
in Washington City and County—made much of the fragmenting of General
Washington’s federal diamond. Between this time and the Civil War, there
were a number of efforts to retrocede the areas outside of Washington City
to Maryland, but none succeeded.

On December 22, 1848, Stephen Arnold Douglas, AKA the "Little
Giant," a Northern Democratic Senator from Illinois, submitted a
resolution instructing the committee of D.C. to inquire into "the
expediency and propriety of the retrocession of the said District to the
State of Maryland." It was considered by unanimous consent and agreed
to.

The next year, Illinois Congressman Abraham Lincoln proposed abolition
of the slave trade in District of Columbia.⁸⁰ That year, Mr. Cameron
presented a petition from citizens of Norristown, Pennsylvania, praying
the abolition of slavery in the District of Columbia, and protesting
against the retrocession of any portion of said District to the State of
Maryland. The issues seem to have been linked.

The Washington city council supported ending the slave trade, but
southerners in Congress opposed the measure because they viewed the
District as a bellwether.⁸¹ After much debate and to the relief of slaves,
in September 1850, the slave trade (not slave ownership) was abolished in DC.
That year, there were 40,001 DC residents, of which 74% (29,730) were
white (4,913 were foreign born, or 12% of the total population), and
10,271 blacks (26% of the total population). Of the African American
population in Washington City, 8,158 were free (20% of the total
population, 79% of the black population) and 2,113 were enslaved (6% of
the total population, 26% of the black population).⁸²

In 1850, the Senate again considered the resolution submitted by Mr.
Douglas. In June 1856, Mr. Albert Gallatin Brown of Mississippi, Chair of
the Committee of the District of Columbia, presented a petition of
citizens of Georgetown "praying the retrocession of that city to the
State of Maryland," which was referred to his committee.

The next month, Mr. Brown reported a bill (S. 382) "to take the
sense of the people living west of Rock creek, in D.C., on the question of
the retrocession of that part of said District to the State of
Maryland," which was read and passed to a second reading. The next
year, the bill (S. 382) was read the second time and considered in the
Committee of the Whole. Further debate was postponed. The nation was
becoming increasingly polarized along two lines—and DC residents
probably didn’t want to choose either.

In the end, the retrocession effort on the northeastern side of the Potomac
was not successful and was terminated for many years, when South Carolina
seceded on December 20, 1860. Mr. Brown entered the Confederate Army as a
captain, and was elected to the Confederate Senate in 1862.

The Civil War and Movement Toward Restoration of the Diamond

When Republicans took power, a movement to retrieve the retroceded
portion to the District replaced the drive for retrocession. Those in the
movement argued that the retrocession had been unconstitutional, an
argument that to this day has not been settled. In the end, the Supreme
Court sidestepped the issue, and the Attorney General called it a fait
accompli.

Abraham Lincoln, "government of the people, by the people, for the
people," was called a "Black Republican" by some
southerners. He was elected President. Amidst a real estate market
collapse, Washingtonians hoped for compromise. Citizens heard rumors that
Lincoln would bring "a reign of terror," and that southern
states would take the city, hang the Black Republicans, and stop the
inaugural.⁸³ Some said there was a local Fifth Column in DC. DC police were
nationalized. A House committee investigated the rumors, and General Scott
claimed less than half the local militia was loyal. Enoch Lowe, former
Maryland Governor warned that DC would return to Maryland in the case of
secession. DC was caught in the middle. The Mayor denied charges that DC
residents would disrupt the inaugural. In the end, DC citizens organized
33 companies of infantry and two troops of cavalry to defend the Union.
But there is no question that the war caused great mayhem in DC.

In his first annual address in 1861 in the midst of the Civil War,
President Lincoln suggested restoring the original District boundaries,
and, like President’s before, encouraged Congress to consider
"District interests," since they had no representative:

"The present insurrection shows, I think, that the extension
of this District across the Potomac at the time of establishing the
capital here was eminently wise, and consequently that the
relinquishment of that portion of it which lies within the state of
Virginia was unwise and dangerous. I submit for your consideration the
expediency of regarding that part of the District and the restoration
of the original boundaries thereof through negotiation with the state
of Virginia."

"I recommend to the favorable consideration of Congress the
interests of the District of Columbia. The insurrection has been the
cause of much suffering and sacrifice to its inhabitants, and as they
have no representative in Congress that body should not overlook their
just claims upon the government."⁸⁴

The news of Fort Sumter in April badly shocked DC residents, many who
had family in the south. In late May, DC volunteers seized Arlington
Heights and tore down a Confederate flag. A hotel owner was killed—Colonel
Ellsworth, the first to die in the Civil War.

In April 1862, the Union Congress emancipated the 3,100 District slaves—and
compensated owners—and after 1863, blacks were actively recruited as
soldiers. On April 9th, 1865, the bloody war ended with the Surrender of
General Robert E. Lee. Altogether, 16,534 (13,265 white, 3,269 black) DC
citizens fought for the Union.

President Lincoln was assassinated in on April 14, 1865. Although the
police were nationalized, DC residents felt shame and warned those who had
left to side with the south not to return. They were the first to place a
bronze memorial statue of President Abraham Lincoln in front of their City
Hall at Judiciary Square—where it stands elegantly and quietly today
(Old City Hall), patina-colored over time.

In January 1867, the bill for unrestricted manhood suffrage in DC
passed the Radical Republican Congress. Citizens of Georgetown and
Washington City held referendums in which less than one percent supported
the measure. President Andrew Johnson vetoed it. For the first time in our
nation, Congress overrode a Presidential veto and passed the Civil Rights
Act. Shortly after, Congress passed the 14^th Amendment—Tennessee
was the only southern state to ratify. Tennessee has a special place in DC’s
history, because Tennessee was also the lone southern state to support DC’s
bid for the right to elect the President during this century’s Civil
Rights era.

In June 1867, blacks voted for the first time in DC. While DC struggled
economically to rebuild in 1868, the House of Representatives voted eleven
articles of impeachment against President Johnson for allegedly violating
the Tenure of Office Act. He was acquitted in the Senate by one vote. That
year, Sayles J. Bowen, a Radical Republican, was elected mayor of
Washington City. When he advocated the integration of the white and
"colored" school system, he alarmed even local Republicans.

In March 1869, General Grant was inaugurated President.

Later that year, Senator Halbert E. Paine, a Radical Republican from
Wisconsin, submitted a resolution that was referred to the Committee of
Elections, in which he challenged the legality of seating Lewis McKenzie
in the House as a representative of the 7^th congressional
district of Virginia. He claimed that retrocession had been
unconstitutional, and requested the Committee on the Judiciary inquire
into the matter.

The Civil War destroyed Washington City’s infrastructure. Streets
were a muddy mess. And by 1870, Washington’s financial health was so bad
that Mayor Bowen’s furniture was seized in a judgment against the
municipality. Alexander "Boss" Shepherd, a partial owner of the Evening
Star, a prominent citizen and friend of President Grant, argued that the
only way to solve the financial crisis was to merge the local
jurisdictions and have the federal government appoint DC’s chief
officers.

Mr. Shepherd and his friends convinced Congress to pass the
"Territorial" bill in 1871, merging all jurisdictions with a
Presidentially appointed Governor and upper house, and an elected lower
house. The Georgetown Courier complained about Grant’s
appointments:

"Not one old resident, nor a Democrat, nor a Catholic nor an
Irishman, yet we have three darkies, Douglass, Gray and Hall, a
German, two natives of Maine and one of Massachusetts."

Nationally, Liberal Republicans combined with Democrats, and in 1874 the
power of the Republican Party was broken and Democrats won office. That
year, Congress abolished DC’s "Territorial" government for
mismanagement and established a 3-commission system, appointed by the
President.

The commissioner form of government was made permanent and lasted until
the Civil Right’s years when DC was granted limited home rule in 1973.
Today, DC is a young and emerging representative democracy, and its
citizens continue to ask for the same rights as citizens who live in
states.

In 1875, an effort was made by an Alexandria County citizen to obtain a
decision from the Supreme Court about the legality of the 1846
retrocession, but he failed.

For twenty years, the matter was put on the back burner.

The McMillan plan to continue work of Peter L’Enfant’s design for
the federal city prompted the question of whether the retrocession of the
Virginia portion had been legal.

In 1896, the Senate Committee on the District of Columbia considered
the question, Senator McMillan introduced, and the Senate adopted a
resolution of inquiry asking the Attorney General for an opinion and what
steps would be required to regain that area as part of the District. The
attorney general avoided the question.

Department of Justice, Washington, D.C., January 15,
1897

Sir:

In response to a resolution of the Senate adopted
December 17, 1896, whereby the Attorney-General is instructed to report
to the Senate—First, what proportion the present holdings of the
United States in the State of Virginia and within the former limits of
the District of Columbia bear to the whole territory originally ceded by
that State to the United States; secondly, by virtue of what legislation
the Virginia portion of the original District was retroceded to the said
State; thirdly, whether the constitutionality of such acts of
retrocession has been judicially determined; fourthly, what legislation
is necessary again to secure to the Government exclusive jurisdiction
over either the whole or part of such territory originally included in
the District of Columbia as is now embraced in the State of Virginia—"

I have the honor to submit the following statement,
in which an attempt is made to answer the several inquiries contained in
the resolution, in the order in which they appear:…

(3) The constitutionally of said acts of retrocession
has not, so far as I am advised, been judicially determined. In the case
of Phillips v. Payne, which was heard by the Supreme Court of the United
States at its October term, 1875 (see 92 U.S. Rep., 130), an effort was
made by the plaintiff to raise the question of the constitutionally of
said act of July 8, 1846, and have it decided by that court. But the
court declined to pass upon it, holding that, under the circumstances of
the case, the plaintiff was estopped from raising the point, and the
judgment of the court accordingly went off on other ground not involving
the validity of such act.

(4) The answer to the question ‘what legislation is
necessary again to secure to the Government exclusive jurisdiction over
either the whole or a part’ of the retroceded territory is, I think,
indicated in the Constitution (see Art. I, sec. 8, par. 17); it is the
cession of the territory by the State and an acceptance thereof by
Congress.

Inasmuch as this inquiry here apparently assumes the
validity of the act of retrocession, since otherwise no legislation for
the purpose therein mentioned would be necessary, I deem it proper to
state that my response thereto is not intended as an expression of
opinion upon that point.

I have the honor to be, very respectfully,

Judson Harmon

Attorney-General."⁸⁵

In 1902, a joint resolution was introduced in both houses of Congress
directing the Attorney General "to bring suit to determine the
constitutionality of the retrocession of that portion of the original
District of Columbia that was ceded to the United States by the State of
Virginia." The joint resolution was referred in the Senate to the
Judiciary Committee, which gave its opinion that the question was a
political one:

"It seems to the Committee that it is not expedient that this
act of retrocession should be set aside by Congress, even if Congress
has the power to do so, without consent of Virginia…

As to the suggestion that the retrocession was unconstitutional, it
seems to us the answer is that from the nature of the case it is a
political and not a judicial question, and that it has been settled by
the political authorities alone competent to decide it…

If it be desirable that Alexandria become a part of the District of
Columbia again, the only way to accomplish it will be to open
negotiations with Virginia and get her consent (Luther vs. Borden, 7
How., 1.)

The Committee, therefore, reports adversely and recommends that the
resolution be indefinitely postponed."⁸⁶

Some Virginians supported a proposal to cede part of Arlington County
to the federal government.⁸⁷ Congressional representatives from Virginia
said that state would "vigorously oppose any effort to reopen the
question of retrocession," and federal officials agreed, saying,
"the act of retrocession should be regarded as an accepted fact, a fait
accompli, not to be reopened or disturbed."⁸⁸

In 1913 and 1915, The National Geographic Society of Washington, D.C.
reprinted two articles in what appears to be a hard cover book titled Washington, The Nation’s Capital,
by former President William
Howard Taft and James Bryce. President William Howard Taft described the
retrocession to Virginia as an injury:

"In its history Washington city has had to live through the
day of small things. The plan of L’Enfant met the obstinacy and lack
of the artistic sense of certain legislators who closed the vista
between the White House and the Capitol by insisting on the erection
of the Treasury across the line of Pennsylvania avenue. Then later on,
when Congress seemed determined to minimize everything national, it
retroceded to Virginia the part of the ten miles square on the south
side of the Potomac River and furnished substantial proof of its
contracted view of Washington’s future. This was quite a departure
from the broad, liberal attitude of Jefferson. It was a day of little
Americans, and whenever they are in control the National Capital
always suffers.

"The injury to Washington inflicted by the retrocession of the
Virginia part of the District was serious, and one of the questions
that we ought to meet promptly is whether we cannot retrieve some of
the ground lost by that egregious blunder."

President Taft was interested in 7,300 acres along the shoreline; in
his 1910 annual message to Congress, he said the federal government
already owned 1,000 acres, and claimed that the rest was "not of
great value" and Virginia Congressmen supported the measure if it
became parkland.⁸⁹ His proposal, however, did not advance

In January 1910, Republican Senator Thomas H. Carter of Montana
launched a campaign to solve the "crime of ’46" by restoring
the 10-mile square, but he received no support.⁹⁰ He based his analysis on
the work of George Washington University professor Hannis Taylor, who
argued that neither Virginia nor Congress had a right to retrocede the
land without passing a Constitutional amendment.⁹¹ He said that because
Maryland and the original landowners, who were part of a quadrilateral
agreement in 1791, had not been consulted, either the retrocession was
void or Maryland and the heirs of the original landowners could lay claim
to Washington, DC.⁹²

In the 1940s, an agreement between Virginia and the federal government
resolved jurisdictional issues related to National Airport. The parties
agreed that the landfill is part of Virginia and subject to its liquor and
gasoline taxes, but remained part of the federal enclave for other
matters.⁹³

Concluding Observations

While they were residents of DC, Alexandria residents enjoyed local
self-government (Alexandria City had 27 different mayors between 1790 and
1846), but not the same civil rights as citizens who lived in states—and
that seems to have been a main cause of their willingness to return to
Virginia. Another reason was because they didn’t have the right to vote
in the federal government. This likely had negative consequences on their
local economy. Residents of the southwestern portion of DC that retroceded to
Virginia have since enjoyed full constitutional rights, including
self-government, full voting rights in the federal government, and equal
protection. The county eventually gained independence from Alexandria in
the new state Constitution in 1870.

Residents of current DC have endured the struggle ever since. From one
generation to the next, they have worked to restore local self-government
and to win equal rights. In other work, I have documented DC residents’
substantial and tireless efforts. They have been loyal to George
Washington’s idea a federal system. They have fought and died in every
war. Yet, they remain disenfranchised. Some argue that giving DC residents
a single vote in the House of Representatives would solve the problem. But
it is as clear now for DC citizens as it was in 1846 for most Alexandria
citizens that more drastic and lasting measures will be required to solve
the problems and to achieve the same rights as citizens who live in
states. But they live with a dilemma—the dilemma of how to gain equal
rights without losing what they have always sought to protect—their
identity.

Today, the majority of DC residents support making the area outside of
the National Capital Service Area (NCSA) the state of New Columbia. They
believe statehood is the best way to secure equal rights and to preserve
their identity without suffering the ongoing negative terms of being ruled
by a Congress whose names most DC residents do not even know. Over the
years, DC residents have fought for and have been granted:

• A uniform Code of Laws in
  1929.
• The right to vote for
  Presidential electors (equal to the least populated state) in 1961.
• The right to elect a school
  board in 1968.
• The right to elect a
  non-voting delegate to the House of Representatives (like the
  Territories) in 1970.
• A "state level"
  court system (DC Court of Appeals) in 1970.
• A Home Rule Charter with the
  right to elect a mayor, a 13-member council, and advisory neighborhood
  commissioners. The home rule government does not have legislative,
  judicial, or budgetary autonomy—Congress can overturn every law
  without the consent of citizens. Congress can abolish DC’s
  legislature at any time.
• The right of the delegate to
  vote in the Committee of the Whole of the House of Representatives in
  1993, unless the vote was tied, at which time the delegate would
  refrain from a second vote. This right was removed in 1995 for
  partisan reasons.

This falls far short of the rights enjoyed by residents who live in the
former southeastern portion of DC.

Today’s DC residents have been separate from Maryland for over two
hundred years. They have a separate identity that has as many historic
ties to Arlington as to Maryland. Though the two areas are friends in many
ways, there is little interest today in Maryland for merging DC into its
state; indeed, there is little interest in DC in merging with Maryland.
George Washington University’s School of Media and Public Affairs
conducted a representative survey of 459 DC voters in April 2000 and found
68% opposed the proposal that "the District become part of Maryland
for the purpose of Congressional elections."

I thank Sara Collins and the Arlington Historical Society for allowing
me—an outspoken District of Columbia resident—to examine more
carefully how two hundred years ago our regional hero, President
Washington, united our areas in a dream. Residents of the
District, former and current, share a unique historic relationship that
can be strengthened today. The original areas could establish a Historic
District of Columbia (HDC) that includes all of the area General
Washington included when he created his federal diamond. An HDC
jurisdiction could consider unique cooperative agreements. In some ways,
perhaps we could overcome the historical competition, bridge the Potomac,
and once again make the District of Columbia whole.

Thank you for indulging me tonight, PLEASE, help DC win equal rights,
and let’s have a toast to the memory of General Washington!

Mark David Richards

Arlington County, Virginia

May 9, 2002

Back to top of page