THE COMMITTEE'S REPORT.

663

whatever constitution they might adopt, provided it was republican in form.1

But the Committee of Thirty-three had meanwhile reported. The report, made on the fourteenth of January, was preceded by a political review of public affairs in late years. It lamented the publication of matter in the North “having a tendency to promote domestic insurrection in any of the States;" reviewed the excellencies of an ideal fugitive slave law; attributed the grievances of the South mainly to the abolitionists, a class that "did not act with any of the great political parties of the day," whose "chief leaders and most talented orators were most strenuously opposed to the Republican party in the late Presidential election;" quoted the plank in the Chicago platform, that the maintenance inviolate of the rights of the States, and especially, the right of each State to order and control its domestic institutions according to its own judgment exclusively, was essential to that balance of power on which the perfection and endurance of our political fabric depends, and denounced the lawless invasion by armed force of the soil of any State or Territory, no matter under what pretext, as among the gravest of crimes. The report then proceeded to explain and defend the resolutions, and the amendment which the committee recommended.

Guarantees of the rights, peculiar to the South, should be promptly and cheerfully granted. The peace of the Union was endangered by the personal liberty bills. These, the States enacting them should at once repeal. Slavery existed in fifteen States and there was no authority under the Constitution to interfere with it there: it was a local

1 For Jenkin's resolutions, see the Congressional Globe for December 12, 1860, p. 77; for Noell's Id., p. 78; for Vallandigham's, February 7, 1861, p. 794.

664

MINORITY REPORTS.

institution. Therefore an effective fugitive slave law should be enacted. Conflicting elements in the government were not a sufficient cause for its dissolution. The faithful observance of all constitutional obligations by the States was essential to the peace of the country. The federal government should enforce the federal laws, protect federal property and preserve the Union. Lawless invasions, of States, or territories, should be prevented. The Constitution should be amended by the addition of another pro-slavery article.1 New Mexico (including Arizona) should be admitted with or without slavery, as its people should decide by their constitution. A more severe and effective fugitive slave law should be passed, and a similar act for the rendition of fugitives from justice.

With Corwin's report were presented seven minority reports. The first declared that the Constitution needed to be obeyed rather than amended, and that it was sufficient for the preservation of the Union. The second recommended the adoption of the Crittenden resolutions,3 and also suggested a national constitutional convention. This last suggestion was also the burden of the third.* The fourth modified the Crittenden resolutions, made them more pro-slavery, and the fugitive slave law more severe. Charles Francis Adams, in a fifth, recited and defended the resolution which had been submitted by him in committee, and so promptly rejected. The sixth,

5

1 Report of Committee of thirty-three, No. 31, H. R. cited, supra. 2 Signed by Washburne and Tappan; Id., pp. 1-11.

3 Signed by Taylor; Id., pp. 1-20; Phelps, Rust, Whitely and Winslow.

4 Signed by Busch and Stout; Id., pp. 1-3.

Signed by Nelson; Id., pp. 1-8.

• Id., p. 3.

A DIVIDED HOUSE.

665

signed by Ferry,' dissented from the majority report because it contained matter to which Congress ought not to give its sanction. The seventh, objected because the report was deluding and misleading and did not have the support of those who framed its resolutions.2

So the committee was a house divided against itself. The minority reports were signed by fourteen members and half as many more from the Gulf States had absented themselves from the meetings. The report which Corwin made was therefore, in effect, a minority report also; so that the House resolutions, and various amendments more or less conflicting, had their counterpart in the reports of the committee appointed to bring the House to a harmonious settlement of all difficulties. Corwin had no faith in the report he had made. At heart he despaired of preserving the Union. "Treason," he wrote at this time, to the President-elect, "Treason is in the air around us everywhere. It goes by the name of patriotism. Men in Congress boldly avow it, and the public offices are full of acknowledged secessionists." The report of the committee was made the order of the day for the twenty-first, to be continued from day to day till disposed of. But on that day it was not taken up. Soon after the House was in order, the Speaker, by unanimous consent, laid before it a communication from the Alabama delegation announcing the secession of the State from the Union, and their withdrawal from further deliberations of the House. It was not the first news of the kind. The South Carolina members had sent such a communication of the action of their State on the twenty-fourth of December. The Mississippi del

1 Id., p. 1.

2 Signed by Love and Hamilton; Id., p. 2.

8 Nicolay and Hay's Lincoln, III, 218.

666

PROGRESS OF SECESSION.

egates had sent their notice on the twelfth of January. Now, Alabama had seceded. Cobb, a member from Alabama, remained till the thirteenth of January, when, having submitted the ordinance of secession of that State, and its invitation to the slaveholding States to assemble in Convention at Montgomery for the purpose of organizing a Southern Confederacy, he formally withdrew from the House. The Georgia members announced the secession of their State and withdrew on the twenty-third, and the Louisiana delegation on the fifth of February.1

Thus while the Committee of Thirty-three was working zealously to preserve the Union by concessions to the South, by guarantees of its "peculiar rights," the Gulf States were seceding from the Union with greater zeal and organizing a Confederacy of the slaveholding States. Of what use then conciliation, if the South would not have it? But even yet the Southern leaders were not taken seriously in the North. As soon as they discovered, which would be soon, that Lincoln was not an abolitionist and that they and their property and their peculiar rights were as safe under him as under Pierce or Buchanan, they would quiet down, and matters would go on much as they had for thirty years. Another compromise was wanted; that was all.

So the House continued to hear many propositions for adjusting affairs. The Crittenden resolutions came up again and again, and, it may be said, they ever had a backward look. If the Missouri Compromise had lasted thirty years, and then was wantonly repealed, or by a court dictum declared unconstitutional, and yet everybody knew that it kept the peace for thirty years, why not insert the principle of that compromise in the Constitution, where it would be safe from repeal, either by Con1 See the Congressional Globes of these dates.

gress or the Supreme Court? But as delegation after delegation withdrew from Congress, secession began to be looked upon as a fact. Where would it end? There were discontented sections in the North; would they secede? Was America on the verge of anarchy? And so speech after speech was made, the greater number in the House, on the constitutionality of secession; on its consequences; some members defending it, others, speaking with the directness of Wade and Trumbull. But the new members, fresh from the campaign that had resulted in the election of Lincoln and Hamlin, were not given to silence in the House as their party associates were in the Senate. The Senate was Democratic and speech there need not be wasted. The House was Republican and from the members of the new party in the House, the coming administration and the people would soon be choosing men for high office. It was the party with the forward look and not as yet troubled by a long history.

Though many propositions looking to a constitutional amendment were made, none were adopted by the House. Finally, on the twenty-seventh of February, Corwin moved as a substitute for the amendment which the Committee of Thirty-three had advised:

Article XIII-"No amendment shall be made to the Constitution which will authorize or give to Congress the power to abolish or interfere, within any State, with the domestic institutions thereof, including that of persons held to labor or service by the laws of said State." 1

Doubtless the substitute was Corwin's own, for it agreed with his political opinions and was, in constitutional form, the plank in the Chicago platform, which he had quoted in the preface to his report on the 14th of January. Immediately a parliamentary struggle ensued. John Hick1 Journal, H. R., 1860-61, p. 416.