Block · one region of the page, as the scanner read it. It may hold a whole story, part of one, several, or an advertisement; stitching blocks into articles is the next step. Text is supplied OCR.
Page 3 · column 1 of 7 · from the scan, no model involved
Those who wanted the new county argued that the distance to the Seat of Justice for many could be up to forty miles of hard traveling. As one petition stated, “If indeed the hackneyed idea that proximity to easy access to the seat tends to promote and increase litigation be true then the remote locality and intervening obstacles to Justice complained of should be subjects of consolation rather than regret with your Petitioners." Another argument appeared to favor domestic bliss. “The extent of territory, its shape, and boundary will render it convenient for every individual included and in attendance on court to return to his family and business every night and breakfast at home every morning. Any expenditure incurred therefrom wall be voluntary and generally by such as are able to bear it. No loss or inconvenience will Likely result from disarrangement of domestic concerns when instructions are issued every morning and their faithful execution attended to on each returning evening.”
Those petitions favoring the status quo argued that for most the journey to the Seat of Justice would not take more than half a day, that when the rivers flooded it was a rise and fall within a 24 hour period and didn’t the recently constructed bridges help? Also, a new county would require more taxes and nobody would want that. Ultimately, petitioners against the formation of a new county felt that politics were definitely in play. “Indeed, without intending to cast any imputations upon the motives of the friends of division generally, who are also oqr friends, and fellow country men, we must state it as our honest conviction, that the division is sought by some, more with a view to party and personal views and county politics than the public good. For these reasons we ask that the county may remain as it has for many hears without complaint, undivided...”
With hundreds of signatures on numerous petitions circulating back and forth, it was on February 2, 1833 that a final petition from Lower Culpeper signed by more than 1,500 •'reached the General Assembly. A meeting advertised in the Culpeper Gazette was to convene at the Court House on February 8 to'plot a new' course of “delaying tactics.” What this group didn’t knowr was on that same day - February 8, 1833 - the General Assembly had
80.1%