lution is the only one which secured the assent of both Houses. CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT. lowing article be proposed to the Legislatures 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: 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; Be it resolved by the Senate and House of Messrs. Sumner and Wilson, of Massachu- Representatives of the United States of setts; Mr. Anthony, of Rhode Island; America in Congress assembled, two-thirds Messrs. Dixon and Foster, of Connecticut; of both Houses concurring, That the folMr. Foot, of Vermont; and Mr. Fessenden, of Maine. The remaining twelve votes, 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-I 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 atten tion 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 States to assemble in a Peace Convention 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, 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. their associates from the North to unite 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." 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 amendments reported by a majority the Convention, went so far as distinctly of the committee, through Mr. Guthrie, to recognize the right of secession. their chairman, were substantially the This committee, instead of reporting on the day appointed, did not report until Friday, the 15th February. More than ten days were consumed in same with the Crittenden Compromise; discussion and in voting upon various probut on motion of Mr. Johnson, of Mary-positions offered by individual commisland, the general terms of the first and by far sioners. The final vote was not reached the most important section were restricted until Tuesday, the 26th February, when to the present Territories of the United it was taken on the first vitally important States. On motion of Mr. Franklin, of section, as amended. 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- ther 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 to reconsider the vote, and this prevailed. or without involuntary servitude, as the The Convention afterwards adjourned unConstitution of such State may provide." til 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." The proposition of Mr. Baldwin, received the votes of eight of the twenty-one 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 manifestly impossible that two-thirds of both 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. treated with either derision or contempt. committee declared distinctly that they 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, the Black Republican members of the 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 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. R. C. HONLESTER. Washington, December 29th, 1860. In reply to your inquiry, we have hopes that the rights of the South, and of every State and section, may be protected within the Union. Don't give up the ship. Don't despair of the Republic. J. J. CRITTENDEN. S. A. DOUGLAS. Congress, amid excitement which the above dispatches indicate, and which was general, remained for several weeks comparatively inactive. Buchanan sent messages, but his suggestions were distrusted by the Republicans, who stood firm in the conviction that when Lincoln took his seat, and the new Congress came in, they could pass measures calculated to restore the property of and protect the integrity of the Union. None of them believed in the right of secession; all had lost faith in compromises, and all of this party repudiated the theory that Congress had no right to coerce a State. The revival of these questions, revived also the logical thoughts of Webster in his great reply to Hayne, and the way in which he then expanded the constitution was now accepted as the proper doctrine of Republicanism on that question. No partisan sophistry could shake the convictions made by Webster, and so apt were his arguments in their application to every new development that they supplied every logical want in the Northern mind. Republican orators and newspapers quoted and endorsed, until nearly every reading mind was imbued with the same sentiments, until in fact the Northern Democrats, and at all times the Douglas Democrats, were ready to stand by the flag of the Union. George W. Curtis, in Harper's Weekly (a journal which at the time graphically illustrated the best Union thoughts and sentiments), in an issue as late as January 12th, 1872, well described the power of Webster's grand ability over a crisis which he did not live to see, Mr. Curtis says: * fectly what everybody thinks, upon this great occasion the orator was the poet. He spoke the profound but often obscured and dimly conceived conviction of a nation. He made the whole argument of the civil war a generation before the war occurred, and it has remained unanswered and unanswerable. Mr. Everett, in his discourse at the dedication of the statute of Webster, in the State-House grounds in Boston in 1859, described the orator at the delivery of this great speech. The evening before he seemed to be so careless that Mr. Everett feared that he might not be fully aware of the gravity of the occasion. But when the hour came, the man was there. 'As I saw him in the evening, if I may borrow an illustration from his favorite amusement,' said Mr. Everett, 'he was as unconcerned and as free of spirit as some here have often seen him while floating in his fishing-boat along a hazy shore, gently rocking on the tranquil tide, dropping his line here and there with the varying fortune of the sport. The next morning he was like some mighty admiral, dark and terrible, casting the long shadow of his frowning tiers far over the sea, that seemed to sink beneath him; his broad pennant streaming at the main, the Stars and Stripes at the fore, the mizzen, and the peak, and bearing down like a tempest upon his antagonist, with all his canvas strained to the wind, and all his thunders roaring from his broadsides.' This passage well suggests that indescribable impression of great oratory which Rufus Choate, in his eulogy of Webster at Dartmouth College, conveys by a felicitous citation of what Quintilian says of Hortensius, that there was some spell in the spoken word which the reader misses." As we have remarked, the Republicans were awaiting the coming of a near and greater power to themselves, and at the same time jealously watching the movements of the friends of the South in Congress and in the President's Cabinet. It "The war for the Union was a vindica-needed all their watchfulness to prevent tion of that theory of its nature which advantages which the secessionists thought Webster had maintained in a memorably they had a right to take. Thus Jefferson impregnable and conclusive manner. His Davis, on January 9th, 1860, introduced second speech on Foot's resolution-the to the senate a bill "to authorize the sale reply to Hayne-was the most famous of public arms to the several States and and effective speech ever delivered in this country. It stated clearly and fixed firmly in the American mind the theory of the government, which was not, indeed, original with Webster, but which is nowhere else presented with such complete and inexorable reason as in this speech. If the poet be the man who is so consummate a master of expression that he only says per *The text of Webster's speech in reply to Hayne, now ccepted as the greatest constitutional exposition ever made by any American orator, will be found in our book devoted to Great Speeches on Great Issues. Territories," and as secession became more probable he sought to press its passage, but failed. Floyd, the Secretary of War, was far more successful, and his conduct was made the subject of the following historic and most remarkable report: Transfer of U. S. Arms South in 1859-60. Report (Abstract of) made by Mr. B. Stanton, from the Committee on Military Affairs, in House of Representatives, Feb. 18th, 1861. To North Carolina Arsenal, To Charleston Arsenal, To Baton Rouge Arsenal, The Committee on Military Affairs, to whom was referred the resolution of the House of Representatives of 31st of De-To cember last, instructing said committee to inquire and report to the House, how, to whom, and at what price, the public arms distributed since the first day of January; A. D. 1860, have been disposed of; and also into the condition of the forts, arsenals, dock-yards, etc., etc., submit the following report: Percussion Altered muskets. muskets. Rifles the North Carolina Arsenal,* have been All of these arms, except those sent to seized by the authorities of the several States of South Carolina, Alabama, Louisiana and Georgia, and are no longer in' possession of the United States. That it appears from the papers herewith It will appear by the testimony herewith submitted, that Mr. Floyd, the late Secre- presented, that on the 20th of October last tary of War, by the authority or under the Secretary of War ordered forty columcolor of the law of March 3d, 1825, author-biads and four thirty-two pounders to be izing the Secretary of War to sell any arms, sent from the Arsenal at Pittsburg to the ammunition, or other military stores which fort on Ship Island, on the coast of Mississhould be found unsuitable for the public sippi, then in an unfinished condition, and service, sold to sundry persons and States seventy columbiads and seven thirty-two 31,610 flint-lock muskets, altered to per-pounders to be sent from the same Arsenal cussion, at $2.50 each, between the 1st to the fort at Galveston, in Texas, the day of January, A. D. 1860, and the 1st day building of which had scarcely been comof January, A.D., 1861. It will be seen from menced. the testimony of Colonel Craig and Captain Maynadier, that they differ as to whether the arms so sold had been found, " upon proper inspection, to be unsuitable for the public service." Whilst the Committtee do not deem it important to decide this question, they say, that in their judgment it would require a very liberal construction of the law to bring these sales within its provisions. It also appears that on the 21st day of November last, Mr. Belknap made application to the Secretary of War for the purchase of from one to two hundred and fifty thousand United States muskets, flint-locks and altered to percussion, at $2.15 each; but the Secretary alleges that the acceptance was made under a misapprehension of the price bid, he supposing it was $2.50 each. instead of $2.15. Mr. Belknap denies all knowledge of any mistake or misapprehension, and insists upon the performance of his contract. The present Secretary refuses to recognize the contract, and the muskets have not been delivered to Mr. Belknap. Mr. Belknap testifies that the muskets were intended for the Sardinian govern ment. This order was given to the Secretary of War, without any report from the Engineer department showing that said works were ready for their armament, or that the guns were needed at either of said points. tain Wright, of the Engineer department, It will be seen by the testimony of Capthat the fort at Galveston cannot be ready for its entire armament in less than about five years, nor for any part of it in less than two; and that the fort at Ship Island will require an appropriation of $85,000 and any part of its armament. This last named one year's time before it can be ready for fort has been taken possession of by the State authorities of Mississippi. (Floyd) was countermanded by the present The order of the late Secretary of War Secretary (Holt) before it had been fully executed by the shipment of said guns from Pittsburg. It will be seen by a communication from the Ordnance office of the 21st of January last, that by the last returns there were remaining in the United States arsenals and armories the following small arms, viz: Percussion muskets and muskets altered to percussion of calibre 499,554 Percussion rifles, calibre 54.......... 42,011 ...... 541,565 Total........... These were afterwards seized. + The attempted removal of these heavy guns from Al legheny Arsenai, late in December, 1860, created intense excitement. A monster mass meeting assembled at the It will appear by the papers herewith submitted, that on the 29th of December, 1859, the Secretary of War ordered the transfer of 65,000 percussion muskets, 40000 muskets altered to percussion, and 10000 percussion rifles, from the Springfield Armory and the Watertown and Water-call of the Mayor of the city, and citizens of all parties vliet Arsenals, to the Arsenals at Fayetteville, N. C., Charleston, S. C., Augusta, Ga., Mount Vernon, Ala., and Baton Rouge, La., and that these arms were distributed during the spring of 1860 as follows: aided in the effort to prevent the shipment. Through Knight, Judge Shaler, Judge Wilkins, Judge Shannon, the interposition of Hon. J. K. Moorhead, Hon. R. Mcand others inquiry was instituted, and a revocation of the order obtained. The Secessionists in Congress bitterly complained of the mob law" which thus interfered with the routine of governmental affairs.-McPhersoL's History. |