extreme Southerners differed from it, in so | three were intended to act as mediators far as it disputed both the right of revolu- between the extreme parties on the comtion and secession under the circumstances, mittee. but quickly made a party battle-cry of the The committee first met on the 21st Dedenial of the right of the National Gov-cember, 1860, and preliminary to any other ernment to coerce a State-a view which proceeding, they "resolved that no propofor a time won the President additional sition shall be reported as adopted, unless friends, but which in the end solidified all sustained by a majority of each of the friends of the Union against his adminis- classes of the committee; Senators of the tration. To show the doubt which this Republican party to constitute one class, ingenious theory caused, we quote from the and Senators of the other parties to conspeech of Senator Andrew Johnson, of stitute the other class." This resolution Tennessee (subsequently Vice-President was passed, because any report they might and acting President), delivered Dec. 18th, make to the Senate would be in vain unless 1860, (Congressional Globe, page 119):- sanctioned by at least a majority of the five "I do not believe the Federal Govern- Republican Senators. On the next day ment has the power to coerce a State, for (the 22d), Mr. Crittenden submitted to the by the eleventh amendment of the Con- committee "A Joint Resolution" (the stitution of the United States it is expressly same which he had two days before preprovided that you cannot even put one of sented to the Senate), "proposing certain the States of this confederacy before one amendments to the Constitution of the of the courts of the country as a party. United States," now known as the CrittenAs a State, the Federal Government has den Compromise. This was truly a comno power to coerce it; but it is a member promise of conflicting claims, because it of the compact to which it agreed in com- proposed that the South should surrender mon with the other States, and this Gov- their adjudged right to take slaves into all ernment has the right to pass laws, and to our Territories, provided the North would enforce those laws upon individuals within recognize this right in the Territories south the limits of each State. While the one of the old Missouri Compromise line. proposition is clear, the other is equally so. The committee rejected this compromise, This Government can, by the Constitution every one of its five Republican members, of the country, and by the laws enacted in together with Messrs. Davis and Toombs, conformity with the Constitution, operate from the cotton States, having voted upon individuals, and has the right and against it. Indeed, not one of all the Repower, not to coerce a State, but to enforce publicans in the Senate, at any period or and execute the law upon individuals in any form, voted in its favor. within the limits of a State.' Senator Jefferson Davis of Mississippi, publicly objected to the message because of its earnest argument against secession, and the determination expressed to collect the revenue in the ports of South Carolina, by means of a naval force, and to defend the public property. From this moment they alienated themselves from the President. Soon thereafter, when he refused to withdraw Major Anderson from Fort Sumter, on the demand of the self-styled South Carolina Commissioners, the separation became complete. For more than two months before the close of the session all friendly intercourse between them and the President, whether of a political or social character, had ceased. The Crittenden Compromise. Congress referred the request in the message, to adopt amendments to the constitution recognizing the rights of the Slave States to take slavery into the territories to a committee of thirteen, consisting of five Republicans: Messrs. Seward, Collamer, Wade, Doolittle, and Grimes; five from slave-holding States: Messrs. Powell, Hunter, Crittenden, Toombs, and Davis; and three Northern Democrats; Messrs. Douglas, Bigler, and Bright. The latter The committee, having failed to arrive at a satisfactory conclusion, reported their disagreement to the Senate on the 31st December, 1860, in a resolution declaring that they had "not been able to agree upon any general plan of adjustment." Mr. Crittenden did not despair of ultimate success, notwithstanding his defeat before the Committee of Thirteen. After this, indeed, he could no longer expect to carry his compromise as an amendment to the Constitution by the necessary two-thirds vote of Congress. It was, therefore, postponed by the Senate on his own motion. As a substitute for it he submitted to the Senate, on the 3d January, 1861, a joint resolution, which might be passed by a majority of both Houses. This was to refer his rejected amendment, by an ordinary act of Congress, to a direct vote of the people of the several States. He offered his resolution in the following language: "Whereas the Union is in danger, and, owing to the unhappy division existing in Congress, it would be difficult, if not impossible, for that body to concur in both its branches by the requisite majority, so as to enable it either to adopt such measures of legislation, or to recommend to the States such amend ments to the Constitution, as are deemed necessary and proper to avert that danger; and whereas in so great an emergency the opinion and judgment of the people ought to be heard, and would be the best and surest guide to their Representatives; Therefore, Resolved, That provision ought to be made by law without delay for taking the sense of the people and submitting to their vote the following resolution [the same as in his former amendment], as the basis for the final and permanent settlement of those disputes that now disturb the peace of the country and threaten the existence of the Union." Memorials in its favor poured into Congress from portions of the North, even from New England. One of these presented to the Senate was from "the Mayor and members of the Board of Aldermen and the Common Council of the city of Boston, and over 22,000 citizens of the State of Massachusetts, praying the adoption of the compromise measures proposed by Mr. Crittenden." It may be proper here to observe that the resolution of Mr. Crittenden did not provide in detail for holding elections by which "the sense of the people" could be ascertained. To supply this omission, Senator Bigler, of Pennsylvania, on the 14th January, 1861, brought in "A bill to provide for taking the sense of the people of the United States on certain proposed amendments to the Constitution of the United States;" but never was he able to induce the Senate even to consider this bill. President Buchanan exerted all his influence in favor of these measures. In his special message to Congress of the 8th of January, 1861, after depicting the consequences which had already resulted to the country from the bare apprehension of civil war and the dissolution of the Union, he says: Let the question be transferred from political assemblies to the ballot-box, and the people themselves would speedily redress the serious grievances which the South have suffered. But, in Heaven's name, let the trial be made before we plunge into armed conflict upon the mere assumption that there is no other alternative. Time is a great conservative power. Let us pause at this momentous point, and afford the people, both North and South, an opportunity for reflection. Would that South Carolina had been convinced of this truth before her precipitate action! I, therefore, appeal through you to the people of the country, to declare in their might that the Union must and shall be preserved by all constitutional means. I most earnestly recommend that you devote yourselves exclusively to the question how this can be accomplished in peace. All other questions, when compared with this, sink into insignificance. The present is no time for palliatives; action, prompt action is required. A delay in Congress to prescribe or to recommend a distinct and practical proposition for conciliation, may drive us to a point from which it will be almost impossible to recede. A common ground on which conciliation and harmony can be produced is surely not unattainable. The proposition to compromise by letting the North have exclusive control of the territory above a certain line, and to give Southern institutions protection below that line, ought to receive universal approbation. In itself, indeed, it may not be entirely satisfactory, but when the alternative is between a reasonable concession on both sides and a dissolution of the Union, it is an imputation on the patriotism of Congress to assert that its members will hesitate for a noment." This recommendation was totally disregarded. On the 14th January, 1861, Mr. Crittenden made an unsuccessful attempt to have it considered, but it was postponed until the day following. On this day it was again postponed by the vote of every Republican Senator present, in order to make way for the Pacific Railroad bill. On the third attempt (January 16,) he succeeded, but by a majority of a single vote, in bringing his resolution before the body. Every Republican Senator present voted against its consideration. Mr. Clark, a Republican Senator from New Hampshire, moved to strike out the entire preamble and resolution of Mr. Crittenden, and in lieu thereof insert as a substitute a preamble and resolution in accordance with the Chicago platform. This motion prevailed by a vote of 25 to 23, every Republican Senator present having voted in its favor. Thus Mr. Crittenden's proposition to refer the question to the people was buried under the Clark amendment. This continued to be its position for more than six weeks, until the day before the final adjournment of Congress, 2d March, when the proposition itself was defeated by a vote of 19 in the affirmative against 20 in the negative. The Clark Amendment prevailed only in consequence of the refusal of six Secession Senators to vote against it. These were Messrs. Benjamin and Slidell, of Louisiana; Mr. Iverson, of Georgia; Messrs. Hemphill and Wigfall, of Texas; and Mr. Johnson, of Arkansas. Had these gentlemen voted with the border slaveholding States and the other Democratic Senators, the Clark Amendment would have been defeated, and the Senate would then have been brought to a direct vote on the Crittenden resolution. It is proper for reference that the names of those Senators who constituted the ma jority on this question, should be placed upon record. Every vote given from the six New England States was in opposition to Mr. Crittenden's resolution. These consisted of Mr. Clark, of New Hampshire; Messrs. Sumner and Wilson, of Massachusetts; Mr. Anthony, of Rhode Island; Messrs. Dixon and Foster, of Connecticut; Mr. Foot, of Vermont; and Mr. Fessenden, of Maine. The remaining twelve votés, in order to make up the 20, were given by Messrs. Bingham and Wade, of Ohio; Mr. Trumbull, of Illinois; Messrs. Bingham and Chandler, of Michigan; Messrs. Grimes and Harlan, of Iowa; Messrs. Doolittle and Durkee, of Wisconsin; Mr. Wilkinson, of Minnesota; Mr. King, of New York; and Mr. Ten Eyck, of New Jersey. The Republicans not voting were Hale of New Hampshire; Simmons of Rhode Island; Collamer of Vermont; Seward of New York, and Cameron of Pennsylvania. They refrained from various motives, but in the majority of instances because they disbelieved in any effort to compromise, for nearly all were recognized leaders of the more radical sentiment, and in favor of coercion of the South by energetic use of the war powers of the government. This was specially true of Hale, Seward, and General Cameron, shortly after Secretary of War, and the first Cabinet officer who favored the raising of an immense army and the early liberation and arming of the slaves. On December 4th, 1860, on motion of Mr. Boteler of Virginia, so much of President Buchanan's message as related to the perilous condition of the country, was referred to a special committee of one from each State, as follows: Corwin of Ohio; Millson of Virginia; Adams of Massachusetts; Winslow of North Carolina; Humphrey of New York; Boyce of South Carolina; Campbell of Pennsylvania; Love of Georgia; Ferry of Connecticut; Davis of Maryland; Robinson of Rhode Island; Whiteley of Delaware; Tappan of New Hampshire; Stratton of New Jersey; Bristow of Kentucky; Morrill of Vermont; Nelson of Tennessee; Dunn of Indiana; Taylor of Louisiana; Davis of Mississippi; Kellogg of Illinois; Houston of Alabama; Morse of Maine; Phelps of Missouri; Rust of Arkansas; Howard of Michigan; Hawkins of Florida; Hamilton of Texas; Washburn of Wisconsin; Curtis of Iowa; Burch of California; Windom of Minnesota; Stout of Oregon. Messrs. Hawkins and Boyce asked to be excused from service on the Committee, but the House refused. From this Committee Mr. Corwin reported, January 14th, 1861, a series of propositions with a written statement in advocacy thereof. Several minorrity reports were presented, but the following Joint Reso lution is the only one which secured the assent of both Houses. CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT. Be it resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, two-thirds of both Houses concurring, That the following article be proposed to the Legislntures of the several States as an amendment to the Constitution of the United States, which, when ratified by threefourths of said Legislatures, shall be valid, to all intents and purposes, as a part of the said Constitution, namely: ART. XII. 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. The Legislatures of Ohio and Maryland agreed to the amendment promptly, but events followed so rapidly, that the attention of other States was drawn from it, and nothing came of this, the only Congres sional movement endorsed which looked to reconciliation. Other propositions came from the Border and individual states, but all alike failed. The Peace Convention. The General Assembly of Virginia, on the 19th of January, adopted resolutions inviting Representatives of the several at Washington, which met on the 4th of February. It was composed of 133 Comand the object of these was to prevail upon missioners, many from the border States, their associates from the North to unite with them in such recommendations to Congress as would prevent their own States from seceding and enable them to bring back six of the cotton States which had already seceded. States to assemble in a Peace Convention One month only of the session of Congress remained. Within this brief period should recommend amendments to the it was necessary that the Convention Constitution in sufficient time to enable both Houses to act upon them before their final adjournment. It was also essential to success that these amendments should be sustained by a decided majority of the commissioners both from the Northern and the border States. solution was adopted,* on motion of Mr. On Wednesday, the 6th February, a retions of the General Assembly of Virginia, Guthrie, of Kentucky, to refer the resolu and all other kindred subjects, to a committee to consist of one commissioner * Official Journal of the Convention, pp. 9 and 10. from each State, to be selected by the | States. These consisted of the whole of respective State delegations; and to pre- the New England States, except Rhode vent delay they were instructed to report Island, and of Illinois, Iowa, and New on or before the Friday following (the 8th), York, all being free States. "what they may deem right, necessary, and proper to restore harmony and preserve the Union." This committee, instead of reporting on the day appointed, did not report until Friday, the 15th February. The first amendment reported by Mr. Seddon differed from that of the majority inasmuch as it embraced not only the present but all future Territories. This was rejected. His second amendment, which, however, was never voted upon by the Convention, went so far as distinctly to recognize the right of secession. More than ten days were consumed in discussion and in voting upon various propositions offered by individual commissioners. The final vote was not reached until Tuesday, the 26th February, when it was taken on the first vitally important section, as amended. The amendments reported by a majority of the committee, through Mr. Guthrie, their chairman, were substantially the same with the Crittenden Compromise; but on motion of Mr. Johnson, of Maryland, the general terms of the first and by far the most important section were restricted to the present Territories of the United States. On motion of Mr. Franklin, of Pennsylvania, this section was further This section, on which all the rest deamended, but not materially changed, by pended, was negatived by a vote of eight the adoption of the substitute offered by States to eleven. Those which voted in him. Nearly in this form it was afterwards its favor were Delaware, Kentucky, Maryadopted by the Convention. The follow-land, New Jersey, Ohio, Pennsylvania, ing is a copy: "In all the present territory Rhode Island, and Tennessee. And those. of the United States north of the parallel in the negative were Connecticut, Illinois, of thirty-six degrees and thirty minutes of Iowa, Maine, Massachusetts, Missouri, north latitude, involuntary servitude, ex- New York, North Carolina, New Hampcept in punishment of crime, is prohibited. shire, Vermont, and Virginia. It is but In all the present territory south of that justice to say that Messrs. Ruffin and Moreline, the status of persons held to involun- head, of North Carolina, and Messrs. Rives tary service or labor, as it now exists, shall and Summers, of Virginia, two of the five not be changed; nor shall any law be commissioners from each of these States, passed by Congress or the Territorial Le- declared their dissent from the vote of gislature to hinder or prevent the taking their respective States. So, also, did of such persons from any of the States of Messrs. Bronson, Corning, Dodge, Wool, this Union to said territory, nor to impair and Granger, five of the eleven New York the rights arising from said relation; but commissioners, dissent from the vote of the same shall be subject to judicial cogni- their State. On the other hand, Messrs. zance in the Federal courts, according to Meredith and Wilmot, two of the seven the course of the common law. When any commissioners from Pennsylvania, disTerritory north or south of said line, with-sented from the majority in voting in favor in such boundary as Congress may pre- of the section. Thus would the Convenscribe, shall contain a population equal to tion have terminated but for the interthat required for a member of Congress, it position of Illinois. Immediately after shall, if its form of government be repub-the section had been negatived, the comlican, be admitted into the Union on an missioners from that State made a motion equal footing with the original States, with or without involuntary servitude, as the Constitution of such State may provide." to reconsider the vote, and this prevailed. The Convention afterwards adjourned until the next morning. When they reassemMr. Baldwin, of Connecticut, and Mr. bled (February 27,) the first section was Seddon, of Virginia, made minority re- adopted, but only by a majority of nine to ports, which they proposed to substitute eight States, nine being less than a mafor that of the majority. Mr. Baldwin's jority of the States represented. This report was a recommendation "to the change was effected by a change of the vote several States to unite with Kentucky in of Illinois from the negative to the affirmher application to Congress to call a Con-ative, by Missouri withholding her vote, vention for proposing amendments to the Constitution of the United States, to be submitted to the Legislatures of the several States, or to Conventions therein, for ratification, as the one or the other mode of ratification may be proposed by Congress, in accordance with the provisions in the fifth article of the Constitution." and by a tie in the New York commissioners, on account of the absence of one of their number, rendering it impossible for the State to vote. Still Virginia and North Carolina, and Connecticut, Maine, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, and Vermont, persisted in voting in the negative. From the nature of this vote, it was maniThe proposition of Mr. Baldwin, re- festly impossible that two-thirds of both ceived the votes of eight of the twenty-one | Houses of Congress should act favorably on the amendment, even if the delay had not already rendered such action impracticable before the close of the session. The remaining sections of the amendment were carried by small majorities. The Convention, on the same day, through Mr. Tyler, their President, communicated to the Senate and House of Representatives the amendment they had adopted, embracing all the sections, with a request that it might be submitted by Congress, under the Constitution, to the several State Legislatures. In the Senate this was immediately referred to a select committee, on motion of Mr. Crittenden. The committee, on the next day (28th Feb.), reported a joint resolution proposing it as an amendment to the Constitution, but he was never able to bring the Senate to a direct vote upon it. Failing in this, he made a motion to substitute the amendment of the Peace Convention for his own. Mr. Crittenden's reasons failed to convince the Senate, and his motion was rejected by a large majority (28 to 7). Then next in succession came the memorable vote on Mr. Crittenden's own resolution, and it was in its turn defeated, as we have already stated, by a majority of 20 against 19. In the House of Representatives, the amendment proposed by the Convention was treated with still less consideration than it had been by the Senate. The Speaker was refused leave even to present it. Every effort made for this purpose was successfully resisted by leading Republican members. The consequence is that a copy of it does not even appear in the Journal. The refusal to pass the Crittenden or any other Compromise heightened the excitement in the South, where many showed great reluctance to dividing the Union. Georgia, though one of the cotton States, under the influence of conservative men like Alex. H. Stephens, showed greater concern for the Union than any other, and it took all the influence of spirits like that of Robert Toombs to bring her to favor secession. She was the most powerful of the cotton States and the richest, as she is to-day. On the 22d of December, 1860, Robert Toombs sent the following exciting telegraphic manifesto from Washington: Fellow-Citizens of Georgia: I came here to secure your constitutional rights, or to demonstrate to you that you can get no guarantees for these rights from your Northern Confederates. The whole subject was referred to a committee of thirteen in the Senate yesterday. I was appointed on the committee and accepted the trust. I submitted propositions, which, so far from receiving decided support from a single member of the Republican party on the committee, were all treated with either derision or contempt. The vote was then taken in committee on the amendments to the Constitution, proposed by Hon. J. J. Crittenden of Kentucky, and each and all of them were voted against, unanimously, by the Black Republican members of the committee. In addition to these facts, a majority of the Black Republican members of the committee declared distinctly that they had no guarantees to offer, which was silently acquiesced in by the other members. The Black Republican members of this Committee of Thirteen are representative men of their party and section, and to the extent of my information, truly represent the Committee of Thirty-three in the House, which on Tuesday adjourned for a week without coming to any vote, after solemnly pledging themselves to vote on all propositions then before them on that date. That committee is controlled by Black Republicans, your enemies, who only seek to amuse you with delusive hope until your election, in order that you may defeat the friends of secession. If you are deceived by them, it shall not be my fault. I have put the test fairly and frankly. It is decisive against you; and now I tell you upon the faith of a true man that all further looking to the North for security for your constitutional rights in the Union ought to be instantly abandoned. It is fraught with nothing but ruin to yourselves and your posterity. Secession by the fourth of March next should be thundered from the ballot-box by the unanimous voice of Georgia on the second day of January next. Such a voice will be your best guarantee for LIBERTY, SECURITY, TRANQUILLITY and GLORY. Mr. Toombs's despatch of the 22d inst. unsettled conservatives here. Is there any hope for Southern rights in the Union? We are for the Union of our fathers, if Southern rights can be preserved in it. If not, we are for secession. Can we yet hope the Union will be preserved on this principle? You are looked to in this emergency. Give us your views by despatch and oblige WILLIAM EZZARD. S. G. HOWELL. |