672

THE CRITTENDEN RESOLUTIONS.

visitors from all parts of the free States. The House having adjourned, the Senate attracted general attention, and while its members were discussing the measures before it, the galleries were crowded, were frequently noisy, and several times were ordered to be cleared. Yet this public interest was not centered on the House amendment. Most of the crowds at the Capitol sought only to be entertained. The attractions in the Senate were the speeches and action of the Southern Senators and the personalities of debate. The inauguration crowd was arriving and overflowing the Senate galleries; this was all. That strange power which we call "the public" was thinking more of Fort Sumter and the probable policy of the new President, than of the passage of a constitutional amendment during the closing hours of the thirty-sixth Congress.

But if the Senate would not consent to good English in the Corwin amendment, would it not substitute the Crittenden resolutions? This was Pugh's second amendment. In the history of proposed constitutional amendments, thus far, no series of propositions had received so general an approval as these which went under the name of the Kentucky Senator. Congressional committees, State legislatures, party conventions and popular gatherings had repeatedly urged their adoption. Now again, and for the last time, they were offered to the Senate. They were slightly changed from the original, and Douglas's article excluding the African race from the elective franchise and the right to hold office was inserted. But the variation did not offend either Democrats or Republicans, for it was substantially the law of the land. Wilkinson, of Minnesota, opposed to both the Corwin resolution and the substitute now offered, expressed the opinions of the plain people of the free States, that the

A WARNING FROM THE WEST.

673

Constitution was not in need of amendment. "I am well aware that the influence which surrounds this metropolis, which pervades this Chamber, and which clusters round the Representatives of the people in the other end of this Capitol, is strongly in favor of any surrender, no matter how humiliating, how degrading, how violative of the principles of liberty and justice such surrender may be, provided the moneyed interests of the commercial and trading districts of the country can be upheld." 1 "The people of the Northwest will never consent to the idea of a Southern Confederacy, to take possession of the mouth of the Mississippi river. This act, of itself, will lead to war." Doolittle, of Wisconsin, then offered an additional section, that no State had the power to withdraw from the Union. This was rejected by twenty-eight to eighteen. Douglas again reminded the Senate of the shortness of the time, urged the passage of the Corwin amendment and, then, to take up the propositions of the Peace Conference. Zachariah Chandler, of Michigan, at this point asked Powell, of Kentucky, who, it will be remembered had called for the Committee of Thirteen, at the opening of the session, whether, after the House resolution or any other compromise was adopted, he was prepared to go with the Union-loving men of the Nation, for enforcing the laws of the United States in all the States. "I am for enforcing the laws in all the States that are within the Union," replied Powell, "but I am opposed to making war on States that are without the Union. I am opposed to coercing seceding States." Chandler had said, in a private letter, to which Powell referred, that it was necessary to have a little blood-letting, or the Union would not be worth preserving, and he now quoted Jefferson's well-known let1 Globe, March 2, 1861, p. 1369.

674

WIGFALL, OF TEXAS.

ter on Shays' rebellion. "This is not a question of compromise," he continued, "this is a question whether we have a government or not." "What has all this to do with the question before the country?" inquired Wigfall, of Texas. "The Union is dissolved. Seven States have dissolved their connection with the balance. Texas went out to-day. What do you propose doing?

"It is better then, to look this matter steadily and honestly in the face, and see what is the grievance. The grievance is not about the territories. It is the denial that slaves are property and the declaration that the Federal Government has a right to settle that question. Nothing short, I believe, of an amendment to the Constitution declaring that each State has the right to secede― which is admitting the right of self-government to the people of each one of these sovereign States-will give satisfaction. I am sure, if you are talking about reconstruction, and expecting any one of these Gulf States to come back, that nothing short of that would induce them. even to entertain your propositions. You must admit that the masters are free; that they have a right to live under such a government as they see fit; that they can peaceably, quietly, constitutionally change their government if they see fit. When you do that, then they will entertain the proposition as to whether the form of government you offer them is satisfactory or not. But while you deny the right of secession, while you deny the right of self-government, those men will not consider whether they are to be well governed or badly governed, and they should not. Admit the right to govern themselves, and then offer amendments to the Constitution securing the right to their property in this Government, then they will entertain the proposition. Nothing short of that, I am satisfied, would induce any one of the Confederate

THE FIRST BLOW AT SECESSION.

677

Constitution needed no amendments. And he replied to Wigfall's question, as to what the Government intended to do about it, saying: "I am for executing the laws; I am for coercion. I am for settling, in the first place, the question whether we have a government, before making compromises which leave us as powerless as before." The resolutions of the New York legislature, "tending to the Federal Government all the resources of the State in money and men to maintain the Government, had a most salutary effect; it was the first blow at secession." Baker continued the discussion in the same spirit, but with a less vigorous presentation of national ideas.

Again Douglas warned the Senator of the brevity of time, urged the adoption of the House resolution and then, of the propositions which the Peace Conference had submitted. Bingham, of Michigan, now offered a substitute for the pending amendment, that the Constitution did not need amendment, but the laws should be enforced, and all the energies of the departments, and the efforts of good citizens should be directed to maintain the existing Union and to prevent all attempts at its dissolution. This was rejected by a vote of twenty-four to thirteen.1 Grimes, of Iowa, moved for Congress to call a Constitutional Convention, but the proposition was rejected by almost the same vote.2 Johnson, of Arkansas, then proposed that the resolutions of the Peace Conference be submitted for the House resolution, but the vote was more decisivethirty-four to three. This vote brought the Senate to the joint resolution. It was read a third time; the roll was called; twenty-four votes were recorded in its favor, and twelve against it, and the presiding officer, Trusten

1 Journal, 380; Globe, 1387. 2 Journal, 380; Globe, 1401. 2 Journal, 382; Globe, 1402.

678

THE AMENDMENT PASSED.

Polk, of Missouri, announced that it had passed. Trumbull, who with the leading Republican Senators had voted against it, raised the question, whether a joint resolution, proposing an amendment to the Constitution, did not require an affirmative vote of two-thirds of the members composing the Senate. The President replied, that it required an affirmative vote of two-thirds of the Senators present, only, in which opinion he was sustained; Wade, of Ohio, alone dissenting.

Thus, at last, the Thirteenth Amendment of 1861 passed Congress. It was a measure which pleased nobody, wholly, for even as a party proposition it was falling behind the march of events. It failed to present the opinions of Chandler, Trumbull, Doolittle and Wade in the Senate just as it failed to present the opinions of James M. Ashley, Roscoe Conkling, Galusha A. Grow, John Hickman, Owen Lovejoy, Francis E. Spinner, Thaddeus Stevens and Elihu B. Washburne in the House. The Senate had been in continuous session nearly three days, and the resolution, discussed chiefly on Sunday, was passed in the night, or probably in the early hours of March fourth. Buchanan, as is the custom at the end of a session, was in the President's room, busily signing acts and resolutions. This one, among the last passed by the Senate, was duly signed by the Vice-President, and shortly before the time for the inauguration of his successor, reached Buchanan and was signed by him. It may almost be said to have been the last legislative act of his life. Why it was presented to the President for signature does not appear. It seems to have been sent with the mass of documents demanding the President's attention.

Trumbull had refused to vote for the resolution because it made slavery perpetual in the States. This was its essential quality. Had it made slavery perpetual every