New York delegation vote No on each of the sections of the committee's
report. Messrs. Corning, Bronson, Granger, Wool, and Dodge opposed,
urging that the vote of New York be given on each section as it was
called. The majority overruled, and decided to have the Chairman
declare that New York voted No on each section.
"The question on the first section being called, Mr. King stated that
one of the members of the delegation being called away to the United
States Court, the delegation had taken a vote before he left, and he
appealed to the justice of the Convention to have it so cast, stating
that the vote of the delegation had been so cast on the previous day.
"The Convention decided that no person could vote who was not present.
"The delegation was divided."
* * * * *
II.--_Letter from the Chairman of the Massachusetts Delegation._
"WASHINGTON, _March 8th, 1861._
"MY DEAR SIR:--Your favor of the 6th instant is before me. After
alluding to the fact that 'my seat in the Peace Convention was at the
table directly under the President's chair, between him and the New
York delegation,' you desire me to inform you what took place, on the
occasion of the vote of New York being called on the morning of the
27th February. What I observed was this:
"When the vote of New York was called for, Governor King rose and
stated in substance that you had a short time before left the
Convention to argue a case in the Supreme Court, which had been
assigned for that morning, and asked the permission of the Convention
to give the vote of the State in your absence, the same as though you
were present. To this one of the Commissioners, Mr. Corning I think it
was, objected, saying that the vote of New York was to be given as her
Commissioners who were present should decide, and that the Convention
had no control or authority in the matter. Some conversation was then
had between the Commissioners who favored and those who opposed the
pending proposition, which I did not hear with sufficient distinctness
to understand, and in a minute or two Governor King announced that the
vote of New York was divided.
"This is the substance of what occurred, so far as I observed it.
"With great respect, your friend,
"J.Z. GOODRICH.
"To David Dudley Field, Esq., New York."
* * * * *
III.--_Letter to the Secretary of the Convention._
"NEW YORK, _March 4th, 1861._
"DEAR SIR:--Was any resolution passed by the Convention on Wednesday,
the 27th of February, respecting the right of New York to vote, or
affecting the vote of that State in the absence of any of her
Commissioners? On one side I am told that there was such a resolution
passed, or vote taken, in my absence; on the other side, I am told
that there was not. If one was passed, will you do me the favor to
give me a copy of it, and oblige
"Yours truly,
"DAVID DUDLEY FIELD.
"CRAFTS J. WRIGHT, Esq., &c., &c."
* * * * *
IV.--_The Secretary's Answer._
No. 135, WILLARD'S, WASHINGTON, _March 5th, 1861._
"DEAR SIR:--I have your letter. When New York was called, the inquiry
was made whether an absent member could vote, stating that one member
of that delegation was absent. The President stated that an absent
member could not vote. New York was stated divided, and did not vote.
"Respectfully, &c.,
"CRAFTS J. WRIGHT."
* * * * *
V.--_Extract from the Journal of the Convention._
"_February 27th, 1861._
"The question on the adoption of said section resulted in the
following vote:
"YEAS.--Delaware, Illinois, Kentucky, Maryland, New Jersey, Ohio,
Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, and Tennessee--9.
"NAYS.--Connecticut, Iowa, Maine, Massachusetts, North Carolina, New
Hampshire, Vermont, and Virginia--8.
"So the section was adopted.
"On calling New York, the members stated that one of their number was
absent, and the delegation were divided. Inquiry was made of the
President whether an absent member could vote. The President decided
he could not, without general leave.
"New York, Indiana, and Kansas were divided."
* * * * *
_To the Legislature of the State of New York:_
The undersigned beg leave to submit a reply to the statement of Mr.
D.D. Field, to the report of the majority of the Commissioners to the
Conference Convention at Washington, respecting his absence on the
final vote in that body, on the proposed amendments to the
Constitution of the United States. The fact of his absence is
admitted by Mr. Field, and attempted to be defended at great length,
but Mr. Field has omitted to state that, by the 14th Rule of the
Convention, "no member should be absent from the Convention, so as to
interrupt the representation of the State, without leave." Mr. Field
neither asked nor obtained leave of absence, and hence, under the
rule, he failed to discharge his duty, both to the Convention and his
colleagues. Mr. Field does not state that he made any application to
the court for a temporary postponement of his case, in view of the
important vote then about to be taken in Convention. But, on the
contrary, argues to show that his duty to his client was paramount to
his duty as Commissioner of the State of New York, in a question
involving constitutional principles. After Mr. Field had stated, in
the presence of his colleagues in the Convention, that he was obliged
to go immediately to the Supreme Court of the United States, he was
urged by those who agreed with him in opinion, to remain, and give the
vote of the State against the proposed amendments, and was repeatedly
told that his absence would divide the vote; this was so stated to
him, by the minority of the Commissioners, and that it would be so
claimed by them before the Convention. He refused to remain, and with
the full knowledge of the effect of his absence on the question about
to be taken, he left the Convention, and thus defeated the vote of his
State. We who remained in our places, felt deeply the embarrassment,
and the remarks which were made in consequence of Mr. Field's
withdrawal. We had steadily, up to that time, sustained with him, our
own, and what we believed to be the sentiment of the State, in favor
of freedom, and were, therefore, entirely unprepared for such a
determination on his part. Nor is our surprise lessened by the manner
and the certificates by which he has at great length attempted to
defend his course on this occasion. The vote of New York was not
declared until after the vote which had been previously taken in its
delegation had been stated, nor until an appeal had been made to the
Convention, and refused by its President, to enable his colleagues to
protect its vote in the absence of the Chairman of the delegation. By
his absence the vote of New York stood 5 to 5, and it was under the
decision of the Convention alone, that the vote was declared to be
divided. Mr. Field has stated that the omission to record the vote of
New York against the amendments was not owing to any act or omission
of his, but to the efforts of the minority of the delegation, or some
of them, to prevent the expression of the opinion of the majority. The
objection was made after notice to him that it would be made, and the
Convention sustained it, hence the vote was lost by his absence. Nor
is the opinion of Mr. Field entitled to consideration when he imputes
to the majority a want of fidelity to him, in not claiming and
adhering to the vote which had been taken when all were present, and
which was afterwards rendered null, by his absence. They did adhere to
it, and endeavored to cast the vote accordingly. It was his duty to
have been present, and to have thus given effect to that which had
been previously agreed to. Mr. Field states, and truly, that his
colleagues refused to unite in a joint relation of the facts of the
case. They refused, because they were not satisfied with his course,
and would not be responsible for it in any way. Up to the moment of
his leaving the Convention, Mr. Field had manifested great zeal and
ability in sustaining and defending the principles which a majority of
the delegation desired to advocate, and his failure at the last, and
decisive vote, was as unexpected as it was indefensible.
JOHN A. KING,
WM. CURTIS NOYES,
A.B. JAMES,
JAS. S. WADSWORTH,
JAS. C. SMITH.
NEW YORK, _March 28th, 1861._
* * * * *
_To the Legislature of the State of New York:_
Informed by the newspapers of this morning that five of my associates
in the Peace Convention, after waiting nearly three weeks, made
yesterday to the Legislature a communication purporting to be an
answer to the note which I thought it my duty to append to the report,
explaining why the vote of New York was not given at a particular
time, I beg leave to submit the following in reply:
I do not perceive that my associates impugn a single statement of fact
contained in my note. My engagement in Court, the importance of the
engagement, the necessity for my keeping it, the meeting of the
delegation in contemplation of it, their resolution directing how the
vote should be cast in my absence, the neglect so to cast it, are all,
by silence, admitted. Nor do I perceive any denial of the proposition
that the delegation had a right to pass the resolution, which thus
became binding on all its members until reconsidered and reversed.
Perhaps I ought to make one exception to this use of admissions. My
associates apparently wish to have it believed, yet hesitate to
assert, that the Convention made a decision respecting the right to
vote. In one place they say, "that an appeal had been made to the
Convention, and refused by its President;" in another, that "it was
under the decision of the Convention alone that the vote was declared
to be divided;" and in a third, that the objection of the minority was
made after notice to me that it would be made, and the "Convention
sustained it, hence the vote was lost," by my absence. They should
have reflected that there could have been no "decision of the
Convention" if the appeal to it was "refused by its President." The
truth beyond question is, that although my associates imagined that
the Convention decided something, it did in fact decide nothing.
My associates say further, that I argue to show that my duty to my
client was paramount to my "duty as Commissioner of the State of New
York, in a question involving constitutional principles." This is an
idle calumny. My note can be read as well as theirs; and in general
will be read by the same persons, and there is not a word in it to
justify or excuse their assertion. I never thus argued. I claimed that
I had two duties to perform, and that I performed both. I did not
claim that my duty to my State was subordinate to any other duty
whatever.
When my associates assert that their Chairman left the Convention
"with full knowledge of the effect of his absence on the vote about to
be taken," if they mean that I knew or supposed that they intended to
reverse their own action, or that Mr. King would not announce the vote
as it had been resolved, or would declare the vote divided, or that
they would support him in it, or that the Convention would overrule
the delegation, then they assert what they could not know to be true,
and what is not true in fact. My note sets forth what I was told, and
what I replied.
My associates argue that I failed to discharge my duty, because I did
not obtain leave of the Convention before going into the Supreme
Court. Though I do not remember to have heard before of leave granted
by a deliberative body to a member to go out for half an hour, or for
one or two hours, I will observe, by this Convention absence was
expressly allowed, if it did not "interrupt the representation of the
State." My associates do indeed claim that, when I left the hall, the
State ceased to be represented, ten Commissioners only remaining
behind. The argument of this strange position appears to be, that a
State is not represented when its vote can be divided, and that the
vote of New York was divided. Here is a double fallacy. To say that
the vote was divided, begs the question. It was not divided so long as
the resolution passed by the delegation remained valid, and its
validity is not denied. The other part of the proposition is equally
fallacious. A State is represented when there are in the body
delegates authorized to represent it, whatever be their number. The
arguments of my associates seem to be, that a State could only be
represented in the Peace Convention by odd numbers, and that if it
sent eight or ten representatives, it would have no representatives at
all.
But what shall I say to the following sentences:--"Nor is the opinion
of Mr. Field entitled to consideration, when he imputes to the
majority a want of fidelity to him, in not claiming and adhering to
the vote which had been taken when all were present, and which was
afterwards rendered null by his absence. They did adhere to it, and
endeavored to cast the vote accordingly. It was his duty to have been
present, and to have thus given effect to that which had been
previously agreed to." Would any one imagine that the authors were
speaking of a vote, given in expectation of my absence, and to
determine what should be done when I was away? The vote was taken
because I was to be absent, and directed the Chairman how to act in
that event, but it is nevertheless pretended that the moment I became
absent, the vote became null. They might better have said that the
vote would have become null, or rather that there would have been no
occasion for it in case of my continued presence. Then they say that
they adhered to it. How did they adhere? The resolution directed the
Chairman to cast the vote in the negative. He did not obey the
resolution. His associates and mine did not insist that he should.
Nobody prevented his answering "no," when the vote was called. No
reason has ever been given for his not so answering. That he should
instead have entered voluntarily into a discussion with Mr. Tyler on
the subject, and that his associates should have looked quietly on,
can only be accounted for by supposing them indifferent or bewildered.
It is not an agreeable task to write thus of old friends; but I must
defend myself when attacked, and defence cannot always be made
pleasant to an assailant.
My late friends profess to think me responsible for the loss of the
vote of New York on a certain occasion. I think them responsible for
it. Which side is right the Legislature and the people of the State
will judge.
DAVID DUDLEY FIELD.
NEW YORK, _April 11th, 1861._
* * * * *
_Report of a Minority of the Commissioners of New York._
IN SENATE, _March 25th, 1861._
The undersigned, constituting a minority of the Commissioners,
appointed by the Legislature of the State of New York, under
resolutions responsive to those of the State of Virginia, referred to
in the report of the majority of the Commissioners of said State of
New York, admitting the correctness of the record of the proceedings
presented by said majority, but differing from them in much of the
reasoning which they present, respectfully report:
That they entered upon the duties assigned to them, earnestly desiring
to carry out the patriotic spirit of said resolutions as therein
expressed, which said original resolutions are herein embodied as a
part of this report:
NEW YORK.
CONCURRENT RESOLUTIONS _appointing Commissioners from this State to
meet Commissioners from other States at Washington, on invitation of
Virginia._
WHEREAS, the State of Virginia, by resolutions of her General
Assembly, passed the nineteenth instant, has invited such of the
slaveholding and non-slaveholding States as are willing to unite with
her, to meet at Washington, on the fourth of February next, to
consider, and if practicable, agree on some suitable adjustment of our
national difficulties; and whereas, the people of New York, while they
hold the opinion that the Constitution of the United States, as it is,
contains all needful guarantees for the rights of the States, are
nevertheless ready, at all times, to confer with their brethren upon
all alleged grievances; and to do all that can justly be required of
them to allay discontent; therefore,
_Resolved_, That David Dudley Field, William Curtis Noyes, James S.
Wadsworth, James C. Smith, Amaziah B. James, Erastus Corning, Addison
Gardner, Greene C. Bronson, Wm. E. Dodge, Ex-Governor John A. King,
and Major-General John E. Wool, be and are hereby appointed
Commissioners on the part of this State, to meet Commissioners from
other States, in the City of Washington, on the fourth day of February
next, or so soon thereafter as Commissioners shall be appointed by a
majority of the States of the Union, to confer with them upon the
complaints of any part of the country, and to suggest such remedies
therefor as to them shall seem fit and proper; but the said
Commissioners shall at all times be subject to the control of this
Legislature, and shall cast five votes to be determined by a majority
of their number.
_Resolved_, That in thus acceding to the request of Virginia, it is
not to be understood that this Legislature approve of the propositions
submitted by the General Assembly of that State, or concede the
propriety of their adoption by the proposed Convention. But while
adhering to the position she has heretofore occupied, New York will
not reject an invitation to a conference, which, by bringing together
the men of both sections, holds out the possibility of an honorable
settlement of our national difficulties, and the restoration of peace
and harmony to the country.
_Resolved_, That the Governor be requested to transmit a copy of the
foregoing resolutions to the Executives of the several States, and
also to the President of the United States, and to inform the
Commissioners without delay of their appointment.
_Resolved_, That the foregoing resolutions be transmitted to the
honorable the Senate, with a request that they concur therein.
The foregoing resolutions were passed in the House of Assembly by a
vote of seventy-three ayes to thirty-nine noes, and in the Senate by a
vote of nineteen to twelve, those in the negative, in both Houses,
being all members of the dominant party, and those in the affirmative
composed of the members of the opposition, and of those Republicans
who were supposed to be prepared to meet the State of Virginia and
other sister States, in the spirit of the resolutions adopted by the
States of Virginia and New York.
A single point in the record, to which reference has been made,
requires some consideration before proceeding to the reasoning of a
majority of the Commissioners upon the propositions finally adopted by
the Convention. The majority of the Commissioners state that most of
said majority were opposed to the submission by the Convention of any
amendments of the Constitution of the United States at the present
time, and in the present excited state of the public mind.
Not only was that ground assumed by a majority of the New York
Commissioners, but some of their number argued with great ability
against the danger of touching that sacred instrument, consecrated by
memories so dear to every patriot heart.
The propositions, presented as amendments, were clear and
distinct--their adoption would in no manner disturb the general
harmony of the Constitution; yet, strangely enough, to an ordinary
mind, the majority of the Commissioners who found such danger in
adopting the specific amendments proposed, voted with a united action
for a General Convention to remodel the entire Constitution--exposed
to all the hazards that must attend such a Convention--by whose action
a form of government might be presented, in which could not be found a
single trace of that Constitution for which they professed such high
veneration.
The undersigned will now consider the reasons presented by a majority
of the Commissioners against the proposition: The majority declare
that the Convention would not listen to, much less adopt any
amendments in the interests of freedom, or of free labor, or of the
rights of citizens of the free States, the only one of that character,
that in relation to the securing to the citizens of each State the
privileges and immunities of the citizens of the several States, &c.,
&c. As the undersigned have no recollection of the propositions to
which reference would seem to be made, other than that embraced in the
last clause, which they have quoted, they would call the attention of
the people of the State of New York to this subject, as one deeply
interesting in its character, and upon which it is supposed that there
is very little difference of opinion. As this statement is thrown out
by a majority of the Commissioners, in a manner to carry a belief that
the harsh and cruel enactments which deprive colored citizens of the
North of the privileges they claim in Southern States under the
Constitution, it may be well for our people to consider that such
enactments are not confined to the States fostering the institution of
slavery, but exist and are enforced in some States making peculiar
claim to love for freedom and the rights of man. The State of Illinois
has a code of laws against free colored persons, citizens of other
States, as severe as those of South Carolina or Louisiana. These laws
have been recently enforced, and yet the North does not hear one word
of the wrongs inflicted upon colored citizens of other States found
within the borders of Illinois.
It will be recollected that the Constitution first presented by the
State of Oregon, contained a clause prohibiting free colored persons
from residing within that State. That Constitution received the votes
of both the Senators from New York--each expressing his views of that
instrument, yet the public censure has not fallen upon either of those
gentlemen, by reason of such action. Nor is it necessary to go beyond
the election polls of this State, claiming its fifty thousand majority
for the cause of freedom and of equal rights--and yet counting from
the ballot box an hundred thousand majority against securing the
privilege of suffrage to colored persons, upon the same conditions
that it is secured to whites. These facts are presented with the hope
that they may create a spirit of charity in the public mind toward
those States whose peculiar position renders such harsh legislation
certainly not more censurable than it is in free States.
The undersigned differ entirely from the majority of the
Commissioners, as to the action of the Convention upon subjects
interesting to the North. It is known to all that Virginia, Kentucky,
and it is believed all the Southern Border States instructed their
delegates to insist on the Crittenden propositions, a material feature
of which was, that in all future acquired territory, south of 36° 30´,
slavery should be permitted; and yet when this material clause was
found repugnant to the Northern sentiment, a distinguished
Commissioner from Maryland moved to limit it to _present_ territory,
which proposition was adopted. Surely this was an important surrender
to Northern sentiment that should not have been forgotten.
The majority say, that by the first of the proposed amendments,
slavery is constitutionally established in all the territory south of
the line of 36° 30´, as if such recognition of slavery there was now
for the first time to be established by the proposed amendment. The
majority of these Commissioners are counsellors of eminent ability,
and yet, for some reason not easily comprehended, they have seen fit
to ignore a decision of the Supreme Court of the United States, which
declares that slavery can be carried into all the Territories of the
United States, whether south or north of the line of 36° 30´. The
famous Dred Scott decision, to which reference is here made, was often
referred to in the debates of the Convention, and was insisted upon by
many gentlemen, holding views and opinions similar to those of a
majority of the New York Commissioners, as affording all the
protection that the South could require, and claiming that the
proposed amendment was unnecessary, by reason of such protection.
The Territory of New Mexico was declared open to slavery by the
compromise act of 1850. The public mind of the North was deeply
agitated upon that subject. A distinguished statesman, who was removed
from earth before his eyes were forced "to rest upon a dismembered
Confederacy," was violently assailed for declaring that slavery could
work no practical evil in New Mexico; and yet the recent census has
vindicated that assertion, showing that in the ten years that have
passed since that compromise, only twenty-four slaves were to be found
in what the majority of the committee are pleased to call the "immense
region" of New Mexico; more than half of whom were servants of army
officers, to be removed when they should be ordered to other stations.
The Territorial Legislature of New Mexico has declared the existence
and passed laws for the protection of slavery throughout that entire
Territory, while the proposed amendment of the Constitution would
exclude it from all that portion of said Territory north of 36° 30´.
The undersigned are not only ready to vindicate their votes for that
proposed amendment, but claim that such an amendment to the
Constitution would be a great gain to the cause of freedom; taking
from the action of the Dred Scott decision, and of the Territorial
Legislation, all territory north of 36° 30´; and they challenge a
comparison of their votes, with the course of those who preferred to
leave this question subject to the action of that decision, and to the
legislation to which reference is made.
The _second_ section of the proposed amendments, touching the future
acquisition of territory, met the approval of the undersigned, as
certainly not less important to the North than to the South. The
history of our country shows how hastily the assumed powers of
Congress have been exercised upon this question, and at this moment
presents a startling example, of a State of vast territory, acquired
by a joint resolution of Congress, sustained at an enormous expense,
and now withdrawing from the Confederacy, seizing upon and applying to
its own use all the Government property found within its borders.
Every reflecting citizen can determine for himself where there is the
most danger to the cause of humanity, and whether territory is more
probably to be acquired from the North, and consecrated to freedom, or
from the Southwest, upon which these exciting contests might be
revived.
This proposed amendment is presented with entire confidence for the
decision of our people.
As the majority of the Commissioners do not dissent from the general
principles of the _third_ article, but object to some of its
provisions, the undersigned would remark that the principal difference
between them and the majority would seem to be whether Congress shall
be denied the power of abolishing Slavery in the District of Columbia,
without the consent of Maryland and without the consent of the owners,
or making the owners who do not consent just compensation. Ever since
the formation of the Government, this has been a subject upon which
the friends of freedom have been divided. In the opinion of the
undersigned, this question should be permanently settled.
The power of removing slaves from one section of the country to
another, is secured by this section, but cannot be exercised against
the wishes of the State through which slaves would otherwise be taken.
The power to touch at ports, shores, and landings, with vessels having
on board persons held in bondage, and of landing, in case of distress,
is embraced in this proposed amendment, the latter clause of which
will, certainly, receive the approval of every friend of humanity. The
undersigned do not join in the fears expressed by the majority, that a
resort to "impure means" could ever secure from the Legislature of New
York any laws upon these subjects, not entirely consistent with the
honor and dignity of the State.
The _Fourth_ proposition was adopted by a vote so large as to make
comment here unnecessary.
As the _Fifth_ proposition received the unanimous vote of your
Commissioners, it requires no comment.
The _Sixth_ proposition is upon a subject that has been discussed ever
since the formation of the Government, and need not be dwelt upon.
The _Seventh_ proposition presented itself with such force to the
Convention as to receive a strong vote, but seven States declaring
against it. It will be seen that this section requires Congress to
provide by law for securing to citizens of each State the privileges
and immunities of citizens in the several States.
Many other propositions were presented to the Convention, some of
which received the full concurrence of the undersigned; to others they
were opposed, and those who shared in the deliberations of the
Convention do not doubt, and will not deny, that propositions were
presented whose only object and effect could be to embarrass its
proceedings.
The action of the Convention failed to secure at the hands of Congress
the legislation necessary to present it to the people of the different
States, in the manner prescribed by the Constitution. Still it is in
the power, and the undersigned trust will be in the disposition of the
representatives of the people of New York, in both Halls of its
Legislation, to present them for the acceptance or rejection of her
people.
Whatever differences of political opinion may exist, there can be but
one mind as to the present critical condition of our country, or that
it is the duty of every citizen to give all the aid in his power, to
sustain an administration that has entered upon its complicated duties
under circumstances of more embarrassment than have ever before
existed in our country's history.
The undersigned not only as deeply regret, but as severely condemn,
the action of those States who have attempted to withdraw from the
Union, as do the majority of the Commissioners who opposed the
adoption of the measures of conciliation presented by the Peace
Convention.
Those who are conversant with the political action of the seceding
States, will have observed how strong is their desire to draw the
Southern Border States into this new Confederacy. With each of those
Border States are large bodies of active politicians, constantly
influencing the public mind, and misrepresenting, to a great extent,
the opinions and designs of those who have wrought out this revolution
in the national administration. The public mind is fearfully agitated
upon these issues, and the refusal of the Legislature of New York to
present the propositions of the Peace Convention, for the suffrages of
her people, will greatly diminish the power of the Union men of the
Border States to sustain themselves in their present trying position.
It is believed that Virginia is about to submit these propositions to
her people; let New York, who so nobly responded to the call of
Virginia, show that she, too, will be governed by the wishes of _her_
people, and that if those ties which have so long held these powerful
States in the bonds of brotherhood, must be severed, it shall be done
only by the verdict of their people as recorded in the ballot box.
FRANCIS GRANGER,
ERASTUS CORNING,
GREENE C. BRONSON,
WM. E. DODGE.
* * * * *
_Report of the Rhode Island Peace Commissioners._
_To the Honorable General Assembly of the State of Rhode Island:_
The undersigned Commissioners on the part of this State, appointed
upon the request of the State of Virginia, to meet Commissioners from
the other States to confer upon the best mode of adjusting the unhappy
differences which now disturb the peace of the country, respectfully
beg leave to report:
That on the 4th day of February last, at Washington, the day and place
named for the opening of the Conference, they met Commissioners from
other States, and remained with them in conference until the 27th day
of February, at which time twenty-one States were represented, when
having agreed by a majority of States to submit to Congress, to be by
Congress submitted to conventions in the several States, the annexed
article in amendment to the Constitution of the United States, the
Convention finally adjourned.
This article, it will be seen, applies the old line of 36° 30´ of
North latitude to all the present Territory of the United States,
prohibiting slavery north of that line, whilst it recognizes and
secures its existence south of that line during the territorial
government, and provides for the formation of new States out of such
territory with or without slavery as their constitutions may direct.
As this partition of territory was not disadvantageous, at least to
the free States, as it disposed of the agitation consequent upon a
recent decision of the Supreme Court of the United States upon a
celebrated case, and followed a precedent which had given peace to the
country upon this most dangerous subject of controversy for upwards of
thirty years, your Commissioners gave their assent to it as the best
practical solution of all difficulties growing out of the territorial
question.
New territory is no further dealt with by this article than to
require, except in certain specified cases, a majority of all the
Senators from each side of said line, to concur in its acquisition,
whether made by act of Congress or by treaty, thus giving to each
class of States a check upon the cupidity of the others.
The other sections of the article were designed in general so to
define and limit the rights, powers, and duties of both Congress and
the States, with regard to the subject of slavery, as to prevent
further controversy, and to enable and induce those most opposed in
opinion and interest, by the practice of mutual forbearance, to live
in peace and amity under the same Federal Government. It is believed
that in no essential particular will this article change the present
actual state of things; its value consisting in the security therein
which it gives to all, and in the settlement made by it of present and
probable subjects of controversy.
In a great practical matter of this sort, your Commissioners deem
these results of far more importance than strict adhesion to any
theory, however plausible in the abstract, and especially than to any
party declaration of principles of a sectional cast, however
vehemently argued, or numerously adopted on either side. To deal well
and wisely with the actual and real, and whilst consulting the past
and looking to the probable future for guidance, to base his action on
what _is_, comprises the whole duty of a statesman; leaving to
political philosophers to dream of what might have been, or in the
abstract of what ought to be. Reform, it is true, in this way comes
slowly, but it comes without the disturbance of material interests,
without agitation of human passions, and without the violent outbreaks
which these occasion--hindering and obstructing its progress in that
grand and orderly procession of moral causes and effects which
expresses and marks the providence and government of GOD.
It was apparent to all that, whatever may have been the motive and
origin of the present alarming movement in the extreme Southern
States, the instrument successfully used to promote it was the
agitation of their people upon the safety of the institution of negro
slavery in the States and Territories; and various conflicting
opinions with regard to the best course to be pursued to allay this
agitation were elicited in the course of this long conference.
Extremists were not wanting on the one hand, who seemed inclined to
construe the anomaly of slavery of the negro race, found in the
Constitution of a free people, into a general rule; and who proposed
or voted for propositions which they knew could not be accepted, that
their assertion might aid in the remaining States the cause of
secession. Extremists were not wanting, on the other hand, who were
opposed to doing any thing upon the subject of slavery, especially at
present, lest such action should compromise the incoming
administration, and the Republican party, and even the character of
the Government itself. Without suspecting the purity of the motives of
either of these extremists, who beyond doubt represented the views of
large and respectable bodies of men in their different sections, your
Commissioners found themselves equally unable to agree with either.
They could not ignore the fact that seven States had separated
themselves from the others and set up a federal government of their
own; and that these were ceaselessly agitating the people of the
remaining Southern States by inflammatory speeches, and writings
skilfully addressed to their interests and sympathies, to induce them
to join in this new movement. They could not doubt the assurances
given to them by able and patriotic men from the States of Maryland,
Virginia, North Carolina, Kentucky, Tennessee, and Missouri, that
these attempts upon the loyalty of the people of their States had met
at least with partial success; nor, indeed, blind themselves to the
evidences of this found in the speeches and votes of individual
Commissioners from these very States. Above all, they could not be
insensible to the touching appeals of men, venerable in years,
distinguished in public service, and whose reputation for ability and
patriotism was national, to give them something in the shape of a
constitutional security with which to allay the startled fears of
their constituents, beat back the attacks of _their_ enemies and
_ours_, and even bring again to their duty thousands of men in the
States of the extreme South, who had been led astray by the popular
fears and impulses of the hour, and who, with the loyal but overborne,
might well look to them for support, since no other had been afforded
them in the reign of terror under which they were suffering. In the
circumstances in which the country was placed, it seemed to your
Commissioners that true policy ran in the course of generous impulse;
that in this matter we were dealing not with treason, but with the
most devoted loyalty which invoked our aid against it; that the
concessions we made, if concessions indeed they were, were made to our
friends that they might be strong enough to triumph over _their_
enemies and _ours_, because the enemies of the country.
If, as is true, in this view of their duty your Commissioners stood in
the main alone amongst the Commissioners from the Northern States, and
ranged themselves by the side of the Central States of the Union, upon
whom the weight of the civil strife must come if come it must, they
need not assure you that no dastardly fears, no feelings of base
compliance, dictated the position thus taken by them. Such motives to
action neither became them nor those whom they represented. It was
because of generous faith and earnest sympathy, of ties which no
distance of time or space, and no difference of institutions can
weaken; which in our fathers' days and our own led our heroes to
_hazard all for all_, and at Guilford Court House, and Eutaw, and at
Erie, with desperate valor to snatch victory for our common country
out of the very lap of defeat; it was because our little State, with a
warm heart and a ready hand, has never failed in counsel or deed to
stand with the whole country in all dangers and in extremest
disasters, that your Commissioners conceived that they best
represented her by averting danger from those with whom they knew she
would hasten to share it. If it be true that the time has arrived when
our sympathy for an alien and a subject race has extinguished all
sympathy for our own, and has hidden from us the ties of a common
origin, common interests, and of a common glory, then, indeed, are we
separated from our brethren, and the curse of slavery has fallen upon
us as well as upon them. Your Commissioners found nothing in
themselves to justify them in attributing such sentiments to the
people of the State; and unitedly recommend the adoption by you of the
amendment to the Constitution proposed by the Conference of
Commissioners, as best fitted to give security and ensure peace to the
country.
Among the measures strenuously enforced by some of the Commissioners,
in lieu of that adopted by a majority, was the calling of a General
Convention. To this measure your Commissioners opposed their most
earnest and determined resistance. As a measure of peace, if for no
other reason, because of the long delay which it implied, it would be
utterly fruitless. But the possible danger of exposing a Constitution,
framed and adopted in the earlier and more conservative days of the
Republic, to be torn in pieces in these times of lawless irreverence
and change, is too great for any wise man willingly to encounter. The
very equality of the States in the Senate, which was won by the
revolutionary sacrifices and valor of the smaller States, now almost
forgotten, would, in the judgment of your Commissioners, be thereby
greatly endangered; and your Commissioners earnestly represent to your
Honorable body that under no circumstances should this State consent
to a measure which might lead to her own extinction. The Constitution
of a great country, adopted, as this was, on account of diversity of
interests and views, with great difficulty, should be sacred. It may
and should from time to time be amended to suit a change of
circumstances, but never exposed to the danger of being uptorn. It is
the symbol of our strength, because the ligament of our Union. It has
collected about it the reverence of three generations of our people.
It is the only rallying point now for the loyalty of the remaining
States; the only hope of the restoration of the States which have left
us; and, in its main features, it should be, as it was designed to be,
perpetual. At no time should a General Convention be invited to invade
it; and, of all times, this, in the judgment of your Commissioners,
would be the most dangerous.
Finally, it will be found upon an inspection of the Journal of the
late Conference of Commissioners, that the undersigned voted against
many propositions in themselves just and expressive of _their_
sentiments and _yours_, because inopportune and useless; and against
others, because introduced for the very purpose of sowing dissension
among the Commissioners and to prevent an agreement by majority upon
any thing. In this they must ask your candid construction of their
conduct, looking to the crisis, the occasion, the purpose and effect
of the matter upon which they were called to act; and their
unwillingness to hazard an agreement upon that deemed by them
necessary, by tacking to it that which, however true, was at least
useless, and might in the result be dangerous.
All which is respectfully submitted by
SAMUEL AMES, for self, and
ALEXANDER DUNCAN,
G.H. BROWNE,
WILLIAM W. HOPPIN,
SAMUEL G. ARNOLD,
_Commissioners._
PROVIDENCE, _March 4th, 1861._
* * * * *
COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS.
EXECUTIVE DEPARTMENT, COUNCIL CHAMBER, }
BOSTON, March 25, 1861. }
_To the Honorable the Senate:_
I have the honor to transmit to the General Court, for its use and
information, a Report just received by me from John Z. Goodrich,
Charles Allen, George S. Boutwell, Theophilus P. Chandler, Francis B.
Crowninshield, John M. Forbes, and Richard P. Waters, Esquires, who
were appointed Commissioners on the part of Massachusetts, under a
Resolve passed the fifth day of February last, to attend a Convention
of delegates from the several States of the Union, recently held at
Washington.
And I embrace this opportunity to congratulate the people of the
Commonwealth upon the fidelity, judgment, and ability with which the
Commissioners, by whom they were represented, conducted their share of
the duties of that deliberation.
And I trust that a similar intelligent, manful, and, at the same time,
charitable and patriotic adherence to principles, fundamental both in
morals and politics, will characterize the people of Massachusetts,
and all their representatives, by whatever experiences of danger or
difficulty their devotion to truth and duty may hereafter be tried.
I ask leave to call the attention of the General Court, also, to the
fact that, as yet, no provision has been adopted for the payment of
the expenses incident to the service with which the Commissioners were
charged, and to recommend that a suitable appropriation for that
purpose be made at the present session of the Legislature.
JOHN A. ANDREW.
To His Excellency JOHN A. ANDREW, _Governor, &c., &c._:
The undersigned, Commissioners appointed by your excellency, in
pursuance of certain resolutions passed by the Legislature at its
present session, to attend a Convention to be held in the City of
Washington, with authority to confer with the General Government, or
with the separate States, or with any associations of delegates from
such States, having, agreeably to your excellency's instructions,
repaired to Washington and conferred with the delegates of twenty
other States of the American Union, now respectfully submit the
following report of the proceedings of the said Convention, and of the
action of the Commissioners from Massachusetts.
The Convention commenced its sessions on the 4th of February, and
closed its deliberations on the 27th of the same month. The
Massachusetts Commissioners repaired to Washington as early as
practicable after their appointment, and presented their credentials
on the 8th of February.
The sessions of the Convention were secret; although repeated efforts
were made, with the concurrence of the undersigned, first, to remove
the injunction of secrecy, then to admit the public to witness the
deliberations, and then to procure a complete and accurate report of
the debates and doings. These efforts failed, and the undersigned are
therefore able only to transmit a copy of the Journal of the
Convention.[10]
[Footnote 10: An authentic copy of the Journal was not received until
the 21st instant and the Commissioners did not feel prepared to make a
report without an opportunity for consulting it.]
On the 6th of February a resolution was adopted, upon the motion of
Mr. Guthrie, of Kentucky, that a "committee of one from each State be
appointed by the Commissioners thereof, to whom should be referred the
resolutions of the State of Virginia, and the other States
represented, and all propositions for the adjustment of existing
difficulties between the States." Mr. Crowninshield represented
Massachusetts upon this committee. At the earliest practicable moment
he called for a specific statement of the grievances complained of by
the discontented States of the Union. This call elicited much
discussion, but no definite response to the demand was ever made
either in the committee or in Convention.
On the 15th of February, Mr. Guthrie, from the committee of one from
each State, made a report recommending certain amendments to the
Constitution of the United States. This report was adopted in
committee by a majority of five States, the delegates from Kansas not
having then taken their seats in the Convention.
A copy of this report may be found upon the twenty-second and
twenty-third pages of the Journal. After much discussion and many
amendments, the several sections of the proposed article of amendment
to the Constitution were finally adopted on the last day of the
session. It is to be observed, however, that the report as a whole
never received the sanction of the Convention, although the several
sections of the article of amendment were separately approved by a
majority of the States voting; and it may well be doubted whether the
entire article would have been adopted by the Convention.
The first section was adopted by a vote of nine States to eight; four
States--New York, Indiana, Missouri, and Kansas--not voting.
The other sections were approved by larger majorities.
The undersigned declined to vote upon the last section, but the vote
of Massachusetts, with the unanimous consent of its Commissioners, was
given in the negative upon all the others. This course seemed to be
demanded, whether regard was had to the constitution of the
Convention, the circumstances under which it assembled, the nature of
the propositions submitted, the solution of the difficulties in which
the Government and people are involved, or to the character and peace
of the country in the future. The two Pacific States, whose loyalty to
the Constitution and the Union is unquestioned, could not have been
represented in the Convention. Other States failed to appoint
Commissioners. The resolutions of the State of Virginia were passed on
the 19th of January; and it was expected that within sixteen days
thereafter the representatives of this vast country would assemble for
the purpose of devising, maturing, and recommending alterations in the
Constitution of the republic. As a necessary consequence, the people
were not consulted in any of the States. In several, the Commissioners
were appointed by the executive of each without even an opportunity to
confer with the Legislature; in others, the consent of the
representative body was secured, but in no instance were the people
themselves consulted. The measures proposed were comparatively new;
the important ones were innovations upon the established principles of
the Government, and none of them had ever been submitted to public
scrutiny. They related to the institution of slavery; and the
experience of the country justifies the assertion that any proposition
for additional securities to slavery under the flag of the nation,
must be fully discussed and well understood before its adoption, or it
will yield a fearful harvest of woe in dissensions and controversies
among the people. Nor could the undersigned have justified the act to
themselves, if they had concurred in asking Congress to propose
amendments to the Constitution unless they were prepared also to
advocate the adoption of the amendments by the people.
It is due to truth to say that the Convention did not possess all the
desirable characteristics of a deliberative assembly. It was in some
degree disqualified for the performance of the important task assigned
to it, by the circumstances of its constitution, to which reference
has already been made. Moreover, there were members who claimed that
certain concessions must be granted that the progress of the secession
movement might be arrested; and on the other hand there were men who
either doubted or denied the wisdom of such concessions.
The circumstances were extraordinary. Within the preceding ninety days
the integrity of the Union had been assailed by the attempt of six
States to overthrow its authority; seven other States were
disaffected, and some of them had assumed a menacing and even hostile
attitude. The political disturbances had been associated with or
followed by financial distress.
The Convention was then a body of men without a recognized and
ascertained constituency, called together in an exigency and without
preparation, and invited to initiate measures for the amendment of the
Constitution in most important particulars, and all at a moment when
the public mind was swayed by fears and alarms such as have never
before been experienced by the American people.
In these circumstances the undersigned thought it inexpedient to
propose amendments to the Constitution, believing that so important an
act should not be initiated and accomplished without the greatest
deliberation and care. Nor could the undersigned satisfy themselves
that any or all of the proposed amendments would even tend, in any
considerable degree, to the preservation of the Union. Although
inquiries were repeatedly made, no assurance was given that any
propositions of amendment would secure the return of the seceded
States; and it was admitted that several of the Border States would
ultimately unite with the Gulf States, either within or without the
limits of the Union, as might be dictated by events yet in the future.
Indeed, no proposition was in any degree acceptable to the majority of
delegates from the border slave States that did not provide for the
extension of slavery to the Territories, and its protection and
security therein.
And further, as appears from the Journal, the Convention was not
prepared to deny the right of a State to secede from the Union. Mr.
Field, of New York, introduced the following proposition, which, on
motion of Mr. Ewing, of Ohio, was laid upon the table:
"The Union of the States under the Constitution is
indissoluble; and no State can secede from the Union, or
nullify an act of Congress, or absolve its citizens from
their paramount obligation of obedience to the Constitution
and laws of the United States."
After much debate and repeated attempts to avoid a direct vote, the
following proposition was rejected:
"It is declared to be the true intent and meaning of the
present Constitution that the union of the States under it
is indissoluble."
AYES.--Connecticut, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Maine,
Massachusetts, New York, New Hampshire, Vermont, and
Kansas--10.
NOES.--Delaware, Kentucky, Maryland, Missouri, New Jersey,
North Carolina, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Tennessee,
and Virginia--11.
On the last day of the session, Mr. Franklin, of Pennsylvania, moved
the adoption of the following resolution:
"_Resolved_, as the sense of this Convention, that the
highest political duty of every citizen of the United States
is his allegiance to the Federal Government, created by the
Constitution of the United States, and that no State of this
Union has any constitutional right to secede therefrom, or
to absolve the citizens of such State from their allegiance
to the Government of the United States."
Mr. Ruffin, of North Carolina, moved to postpone the consideration of
the same indefinitely, and the resolution was thereupon postponed by
the following vote:
AYES.--Delaware, Kentucky, Maryland, Missouri, New Jersey,
North Carolina, Ohio, Rhode Island, Tennessee, and
Virginia--10.
NOES.--Connecticut, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Maine,
Massachusetts, and Pennsylvania--7.
For these reasons and others the Commissioners from Massachusetts
supported the proposition originally made by Kentucky, and introduced
by Mr. Baldwin, of Connecticut, recommending a national convention for
the purpose of revising the Constitution, and of providing for the
exigencies likely to arise from the changed and perilous condition of
the country. This measure offered an opportunity for consideration by
the people, and for careful deliberation by the convention that might
be constituted for the purpose. It is highly probable that, after the
lapse of three-fourths of a century, a convention of delegates from
all the States would by general consent propose amendments to the
Constitution; and it is also probable that such a convention would at
once tend to strengthen the feeling of brotherhood among the people of
various sections, while the discussion of the principles of the
Government would render its preservation of paramount concern to all.
This measure of peace and union was rejected.
The undersigned are constrained by the force of many facts and
circumstances to believe that an exciting cause of the present
difficulties, and a serious obstacle to their removal, is the possible
acquisition of Mexico and Central America.
The proceedings of the Convention furnish evidence upon this point.
The proposition to restore the Missouri Compromise, which guaranteed
freedom north of the parallel 36° 30´ north latitude, but furnished no
protection to slavery south of that line, was rejected by the aid of
the unanimous support of the slaveholding States.
The proposition to settle the territorial question by the admission of
New Mexico as a State, was summarily discouraged by the South in the
committee.
The suggestion of one of the Commissioners from Massachusetts, that if
the Convention would leave the territorial question out of view, the
difficulties concerning the rights and relations of the existing
States might be adjusted, did not meet with a favorable response from
the slaveholding section of the country.
It is to be observed further, that the various propositions and
amendments which were in any degree acceptable to the slave States
guaranteed slavery south of said line.
It did not seem to the undersigned of signal importance, whether this
guarantee was limited to our present territories, or made in words to
apply to all future acquisitions. Whenever the line of slave States
from the Gulf of Mexico to the Pacific Ocean shall be formed, an
effectual barrier will have been raised against the migration of
freemen southward. Nor can it be assumed, that either with or without
constitutional prohibition, the limits of the republic are not to be
further extended; and if the proposed line be established by the
Constitution, the fairest portions of North America will be given up
irrevocably to African slavery. Nor is the limitation of the right of
a sovereign State to fix its own boundaries, which involves the right
to acquire territory, consistent with its honor in peace, or
compatible with its dignity and necessities in time of war. The
American people are fully forewarned that it is unwise to rely upon
constitutional prohibitions against the acquisition of territory; nor
can such prohibitions always withstand the assaults of a determined
and desperate majority when acting in harmony with the tendencies of
public opinion, and the real or supposed necessities of the country.
With these views, and with this experience in mind, the undersigned
did not regard with favor the provisions contained in the second
section of the proposed article of amendment. It is also to be
observed that by this section territory may be acquired for _naval and
commercial stations, depots, and transit routes_, without a resort to
the treaty-making power. These provisions seem to be broad enough to
permit the summary annexation of Cuba, and portions of Central America
and Mexico, by a simple law or joint resolution of Congress.
Thus, these two sections considered together, furnished no additional
securities against territorial acquisitions, while they effectually
established and protected slavery in all territory, present and
future, south of the parallel 36° 30´ north latitude. By the first
section, the common law was to be so changed, that a condition of
slavery would be assumed in regard to all the African race within the
Territories, and the laws of the several slave States would be
enforced against all persons of that race who might be carried from
the existing slave States into the Territories. The language is
ambiguous, but this interpretation seems to be warranted; and, in the
opinion of the undersigned, the courts would render an interpretation
adequate to the result just indicated. It is thus seen that the only
method of establishing and protecting slavery in the Territories, is
to provide for the execution, within their limits, of the laws of the
several slave States.
This section also incorporates into the Constitution of the United
States the existing laws and usages of New Mexico relating to slavery,
and renders them irrepealable during the territorial condition.
By the second section, the Senators are divided into two classes,
those who represent the slaveholding, and those who represent the
non-slaveholding States of the Union, and a majority of each class is
required as a part of the two-thirds majority necessary for the
acquisition of territory by treaty. A full exposition of this
proposition would show that it is a complete and dangerous departure
from the principles of the Government, and sure to effect its complete
dissolution. When the Senate becomes two separate and distinct bodies,
and when the existence of the institution of slavery determines where
the line of division shall be, then the Government, for all practical
purposes, is at an end. This proposition was introduced by Mr.
Summers, of Virginia; and Virginia, by its delegates, also introduced
and supported a kindred proposition, by which "all appointments to
office in the Territories lying north of the line 36° 30´, as well
before as after the establishment of Territorial Governments in and
over the same, or any part thereof, shall be made upon the
recommendation of a majority of the Senators representing at the time
the non-slaveholding States; and in like manner, all appointments to
office in the Territories which may lie south of said line of 36° 30´,
shall be made upon the recommendation of a majority of the Senators
representing at the time the slaveholding States."
We cannot hesitate to declare the opinion, carefully formed, that this
policy of dividing the Senate into two classes, is fraught with
dangers to the country more to be dreaded than the bold and defiant
measures of those men and States that are arrayed in open hostility to
the Union. This measure is a part of the policy of Mr. Calhoun, by
which the Government was to be changed, and the executive department
so divided that nothing could be done without the concurrence of two
Presidents, one representing the slaveholding and one representing the
non-slaveholding States.
The third section contains several provisions for strengthening and
securing slavery in the District of Columbia and in the several States
and Territories. It gives to representatives and others the right to
bring their slaves into the District of Columbia, retain, and take
them away, even after slavery may have ceased to exist in that
District by the constitutional action of Congress. It secures the
slave-trade between States and Territories in which slavery is
established or recognized by law or usage, with the right of transit
through free States, by sea or river, and of touching at ports,
shores, and landings, and of landing in case of distress; reserving,
however, to the States and Territories the power to prohibit the
transit of slaves and the sale or traffic therein. Thus the
transportation of slaves would be a right as broad as the limits of
the republic, unless it should be restrained by the laws of individual
States, which acts might readily be regarded as a breach of comity.
The fourth section of the article gives to the States the power of
concurrent legislation with the United States for the rendition of
fugitive slaves, thus introducing a new topic of agitation into every
State, without in any degree relieving Congress of its duty in this
particular.
The fifth section prohibits the foreign slave-trade, and makes it the
duty of Congress to pass laws to prevent the importation of slaves,
coolies, or persons held to service or labor. As Congress has already,
by the Constitution, full power to regulate the migration or
importation of persons from other countries, there is no reason for
such constitutional provisions upon the subject. It alone remains to
enact proper laws and secure their faithful and prompt execution.
The sixth section declares that certain sections of the proposed
article of amendment, and certain provisions of the Constitution
relating to slavery, shall not be amended or abolished without the
consent of all the States.
The undersigned, being of opinion that no such stipulation ought to be
made, and that if made, it would not be binding upon the country, did
not hesitate to give the vote of the State against the proposition.
The seventh and last section of the proposed article of amendment is
in the following words:
"Congress shall provide by law that the United States shall
pay to the owner the full value of his fugitive from labor,
in all cases where the marshal, or other officer, whose duty
it was to arrest such fugitive, was prevented from so doing
by violence or intimidation from mobs or riotous assemblies,
or when, after arrest, such fugitive was rescued by like
violence or intimidation, and the owner thereby deprived of
the same; and the acceptance of such payment shall preclude
the owner from further claim of such fugitive. Congress
shall provide by law for securing to the citizens of each
State the privileges and immunities of citizens of the
several States."
In a Convention duly called and assembled for the revision of the
Constitution, the undersigned would have assented to this section; and
in declining to vote thereon they intended to so declare to their
associates from the slaveholding States.
The undersigned thus set forth the doings of the Convention, and some
of the reasons by which their conduct was controlled. It was not their
fortune to concur with the action of the Convention. The concessions
demanded by the discontented States, seemed to be inconsistent with
honor, justice, and freedom, and calculated to render permanent the
existing causes of disturbance. A Union restored by unmanly
concessions, would be productive of bitter criminations and lasting
hostilities, and would contain within itself the seeds of a violent
death.
But the undersigned are bound to say that the differences in the
Convention were, in the main, differences of opinion, and not of
purpose. Loyalty to the Constitution and the Union was general; and
the undersigned do not doubt that the act of Virginia, in inviting a
conference with her sister States, will be productive of beneficial
results to the country.
The Commissioners from Massachusetts were much impressed by the fact,
which their personal intercourse with gentlemen from all the
slaveholding States brought to their knowledge, that the present
difficulties of the country were not caused by the pressure of
grievances supposed to be actually existing; but rather by the fear of
future interference with Southern rights, caused by entire
misapprehension of the purposes of the people of the free States.
Misrepresentation of those purposes, proceeding from among ourselves,
whether prompted by ignorance of Northern sentiment, or by sinister
motives, are greatly to be deprecated.
The undersigned entertain no doubt that the intercourse between the
different sections of the country, through their representatives in
Convention, had a most salutary influence in correcting false views of
Northern sentiment, and in assuring our brethren of the South that
there is no purpose among the people of those States, who, upon
principle, oppose the extension of slavery, to disturb or touch with
an unfriendly hand the domestic relations of any other States of the
Union.
In the present exigency of public affairs, each State should be
careful to perform its whole duty freely and faithfully to its sister
States and to the country; and then may it well and fearlessly demand,
whether the Union contain many States or few, that the Government
shall be administered according to the principles of equality and
justice which characterize the Constitution formed by our fathers, and
which will prove a sufficient security in all the trials and perils of
our national existence.
JOHN Z. GOODRICH,
CHARLES ALLEN,
GEO. S. BOUTWELL,
T.P. CHANDLER,
F.B. CROWNINSHIELD,
J.M. FORBES,
RICHARD P. WATERS.
BOSTON, _March 22d, 1861._
INDEX.
ALEXANDER, W.C.
remarks of, 79, 80, 107, 113, 287, 367, 368, 369, 372, 374, 380, 383.
motion by, 300.
ALLEN, CHARLES.
remarks of, 54, 110, 321, 377.
AMES, SAMUEL.
amendment by, 359, 385.
remarks of, 368.
BACKUS, F.T.
motion by, 207.
remarks of, 272, 274, 376.
resolution by, 273.
amendment by, 290, 394.
BALDWIN, R.S.
report of, 45, 322.
remarks of, 58, 62, 139, 266, 279, 390.
amendments by, 349, 363, 411.
BARRINGER, D.M.
resolution by, 34.
remarks of, 212, 274, 284, 294, 298, 339, 353, 354, 356, 366, 383,
384, 436.
amendment by, 383.
motion by, 446, 449.
BATES, D.M.
amendment by, 364.
BATTELL, ROBINS.
motion by, 389.
BOUTWELL, GEO. H.
remarks of, 98, 110, 137, 218, 312.
BROWN, GEO. H.
remarks of, 150.
motion by, 207, 362, 452.
resolution by, 450.
BRADFORD, A.W.
remarks of, 307.
amendment by, 375.
BROCKENBROUGH, J.W.
remarks of, 278, 280, 341, 345, 393, 435.
amendment by, 435.
BRONSON, G.C.
amendment by, 209, 323, 395.
remarks of, 264, 266, 301, 323, 324, 350, 388, 389, 396, 397, 402,
406, 434.
motion by, 409.
BUCHANAN, JAMES.
letter from, 25.
BUCKNER, A.H.
amendment by, 401.
BUTLER, WM. O.
remarks of, 301.
CARRUTHERS, R.L.
remarks of, 110, 214, 298, 304, 436.
amendment by, 364.
CHASE, S.P.
motion by, 31, 54, 58.
remarks of, 34, 42, 54, 57, 112, 130, 158, 207, 208, 271, 272, 273,
274, 326, 335, 348, 352, 367, 391, 424, 446.
resolution by, 35, 205, 208.
appeal by, 446.
CHITTENDEN, L.E.
resolution by, 73.
remarks of, 73, 74, 111, 156, 206, 248, 249, 255, 279, 294, 368.
footnotes by, 156, 259, 324, 345, 358, 397, 417, 441.
CLAY, J.B.
motion by, 14, 23, 29, 158.
remarks of, 30, 77, 146, 197, 213, 266, 278, 286, 320, 345, 358, 360,
372, 384, 388.
amendment by, 387, 421.
CLEVELAND, C.F.
remarks of, 80, 105, 214, 367, 434, 448.
COALTER, J.D.
remarks of, 52, 82, 215, 375, 376, 378, 381, 393, 399.
amendment by, 209, 447.
COMMITTEE.
on organization, 13.
on credentials, 13.
on State resolutions, 26.
CONVENTION A.
rules and organization of, 23, 27.
COOK, B.C.
remarks of, 273, 313, 323.
CORNING, ERASTUS.
remarks of, 322, 441.
CRISFIELD, J.W.
motion by, 57.
remarks of, 113, 295, 334, 355, 358, 364, 365, 367, 368, 369, 379,
410, 421.
CROWNINSHIELD, F.B.
remarks of, 47, 318, 375.
motion by, 379.
CURTIS, S.H.
remarks of, 70, 71, 287, 298.
DAVIS, GEORGE.
remarks of, 56.
motion of, 56, 109, 259.
DENT, J.F.
resolution by, 208.
remarks of, 209, 319, 345, 351, 358, 366, 384, 391, 397, 424.
DODGE, W.E.
remarks of, 110, 190, 322, 359, 366, 378.
resolution by, 450.
DONIPHAN, A.W.
remarks of, 312, 378.
ELLIS, E.W.H.
motion by, 29, 437.
remark of, 442.
EWING, THOMAS.
motion by, 17, 396.
remarks of, 22, 38, 57, 141, 161, 206, 273, 314, 327, 335, 351, 359,
369, 393, 398, 424, 442.
amendment by, 364.
FIELD, D. DUDLEY.
remarks of, 47, 110, 130, 157, 158, 161, 167, 168, 169, 170, 278, 285,
286, 287, 336, 339, 353, 362, 367, 368, 371, 397, 398, 399.
motion by, 285.
resolution by, 287.
amendment by, 396, 397, 398.
FOWLER, ASA.
amendment by, 291, 364.
remarks of, 324, 349, 364, 368.
motion by, 367.
FRANKLIN, THOS. E.
motion by, 13, 448.
remarks of, 290, 323, 335.
amendment (substitute) by, 291, 323.
resolution by, 446.
FRELINGHUYSEN, F.T.
motion by, 32, 324.
amendment by, 385.
remarks of, 180, 324, 368, 384, 396, 401.
GOODRICH, J.Z.
remarks of, 71, 105, 106, 112, 216, 219, 315, 316.
amendment by, 80, 327, 398.
motion by, 206, 328.
GRANGER, FRANCIS.
remarks of, 120, 254, 328, 354, 355, 376, 377, 438.
motion by, 372.
GRIMES, J.W.
remarks of, 17.
GROESBECK, W.S.
amendment by, 325, 365.
remarks of, 365, 366, 367, 372.
GUTHRIE, JAMES.
remarks of, 21, 22, 28, 32, 66, 70, 79, 82, 102, 104, 105, 208, 209,
274, 287, 289, 290, 293, 299, 323, 324, 325, 326, 328, 334, 337,
339, 349, 350, 351, 357, 359, 360, 361, 369, 371, 373, 374, 381,
385, 395, 397, 409, 440, 448.
resolution by, 21, 79.
motion by, 26, 342, 396, 437, 440, 442, 443, 444, 445.
report of, 31.
amendment by, 43, 337, 346.
preamble by, 348.
HACKLEMAN, P.A.
remarks of, 273, 308, 344, 384, 442.
HALL, HILAND.
amendment by, 358.
remarks of, 359.
HARRIS, B.D.
remarks of, 157, 349.
preamble and resolutions by, 157.
HITCHCOCK, REUBEN.
remarks of, 29, 56, 147, 302, 346, 349, 362.
amendment by, 270, 346, 373.
HOPPIN, W.W.
remarks of, 112, 316.
HOUSTON, J.W.
remarks of, 272, 274, 283, 309, 356, 378, 421.
motion by, 273.
appeal by, 286.
HOWARD, B.C.
remarks of, 169, 360, 370, 371, 378, 405.
JAMES, A.B.
remarks of, 140, 300, 304, 324, 348.
amendments by, 348, 375.
JOHNSON, REVERDY.
motion by, 17, 23.
remarks of, 23, 57, 70, 72, 82, 85, 89, 168, 236, 334.
amendment by, 341.
resolution by, 449.
JOHNSON, WM. P.
remarks of, 112, 206, 286, 317, 334, 395.
KENTUCKY GENERAL ASSEMBLY.
resolutions of, 61.
KING, J.A.
remarks of, 315, 403, 441.
LOGAN, S.T.
remarks of, 69, 81, 106, 256, 305, 323, 326, 386, 370, 380.
amendments by, 380.
LOOMIS, A.W.
remarks of, 36, 243, 436, 450.
McCURDY, C.J.
remarks of, 82, 159, 360, 361, 367, 368, 369, 389.
amendment by, 334, 370.
McKEENAN, WM.
motion by, 343.
remarks of, 346.
MEREDITH, WM. M.
motion by, 12.
remarks of, 79.
proposition of, 79.
MOREHEAD, C.S.
remarks of, 79, 113, 167, 207, 296, 345, 391.
MOREHEAD, J.M.
remarks of, 110, 150, 306, 355, 359, 375, 377, 378, 389, 395, 398, 435.
motion by, 286.
amendment by, 379, 393.
MORRILL, L.M.
remarks of, 144, 146, 148, 149.
NOYES, W.C.
remarks of, 128, 129, 130, 131, 133, 207, 359, 369, 407.
ORTH, G.S.
remarks of, 41, 260, 262, 293, 335, 383, 385, 387.
resolution by, 42.
motions by, 383, 385.
PALMER, J.M.
remarks of, 297, 324, 326, 330, 370, 404.
POLLOCK, JAMES.
remarks of, 74, 272, 275, 344, 370, 400, 449.
amendment by, 370.
PRATT, J.T.
remarks of, 290.
PRICE, E.M.
remarks of, 12, 286, 400.
RANDOLPH, J.F.
motion by, 21, 30, 43, 274, 301, 449.
remarks of, 42, 74, 111, 113, 158, 206, 316, 326, 340, 348, 349, 367.
resolution by, 112.
appeal by, 349.
REID, D.S.
amendment by, 80, 291, 361.
remarks of, 81, 82, 209, 289, 297, 361, 435.
RIVES, W.C.
remarks of, 38, 132, 134, 137, 139, 143, 392, 407.
ROMAN, J.D.
remarks of, 167, 365, 385.
RUFFIN, THOMAS.
remarks of, 80, 81, 84, 125, 146, 262, 283, 290, 326, 335, 352, 370,
376, 384, 435, 448.
amendment by, 372.
motion by, 448.
SECRETARY.
statement of, 285, 345.
SEDDON, JAMES A.
motion by, 12.
resolution by, 19.
remarks of, 20, 22, 27, 29, 32, 47, 55, 56, 81, 82, 89, 91, 105, 146,
148, 150, 203, 284, 285, 290, 292, 301, 315, 329, 350, 351, 352,
353, 354, 355, 366, 374, 377, 378, 381, 395, 417, 434.
report of, 47.
amendment by, 48, 51, 289, 328, 350, 351, 352, 356, 357, 377, 418, 447.
SLAUGHTER, T.C.
remarks of, 442.
SMITH, J.C.
remarks of, 196, 198, 200, 203, 209, 212, 213, 214, 225, 345, 362,
371, 406.
motion by, 373.
SOMES, D.E.
amendment by, 409.
remarks of, 409.
STEPHENS, W.H.
remarks of, 382.
STOCKTON, R.F.
remarks of, 113, 129, 149, 436.
STONE, J.C.
remarks of, 287, 288.
SUMMERS, G.W.
report of, 18, 26, 28, 30, 41, 109, 278.
motion by, 150.
remarks of, 287, 334, 337, 338, 341, 346, 373.
amendment by, 338, 374.
TUCK, AMOS.
remarks of, 20, 30, 74, 79, 104, 274, 311, 323, 363, 370, 417, 424.
address by, 77, 425.
TURNER, T.J.
remarks of, 58, 72, 271, 361, 370, 381, 408.
motion by, 82.
resolution by, 271.
amendment by, 328, 380.
TYLER, JOHN.
remarks of, 14, 17, 22, 25, 26, 31, 41, 55, 130, 275, 288, 290, 301,
323, 325, 330, 334, 335, 337, 344, 346, 350, 362, 389, 390, 450.
decisions by, 29, 77, 79, 82, 112, 113, 148, 274, 286, 316, 322, 348,
349, 397, 398, 406, 434, 435, 437, 441, 444.
amendment by, 328.
VANDEVER, WILLIAM.
remarks of, 287, 292, 296, 301, 353, 410.
resolution by, 300.
amendments by, 371, 410.
VIRGINIA GENERAL ASSEMBLY.
preamble and resolutions of, 9.
WHITE, THOMAS.
remarks of, 172, 358, 390.
WICKLIFFE, C.E.
remarks of, 13, 19, 20, 27, 36, 42, 55, 57, 70, 77, 80, 109, 110, 129,
150, 157, 170, 189, 200, 205, 206, 207, 238, 270, 272, 273, 283,
284, 286, 312, 351, 352, 354, 361, 363, 379, 397, 406, 434, 439,
452.
resolution by, 17, 26, 56, 109, 206.
motion by, 19, 273, 343.
preamble and resolution by, 52.
amendment by, 379.
WILLARDS, J.H. & H.A.
letter from, 450.
WILMOT, DAVID.
amendment by, 208, 326, 381.
remarks of, 273, 274, 281, 283, 284, 285, 322, 325, 326, 367, 381,
382, 391, 399, 400, 433, 435.
WOOD, JOHN.
remarks of, 322, 349.
motion by, 350.
WOLCOTT, C.P.
remarks of, 323.
WRIGHT, C.J.
letter from, 33.
WRIGHT, J.C.
remarks of, 11.
INDEX TO THE APPENDIX.
B
Baker, Edward D., 502, 522, 523, 524, 526.
Barr, Thomas J., 583.
Bayard, J.A., 566.
Bigler, William, 474, 476, 477, 478, 481, 483, 486, 487.
Bingham, K.S., 468.
Bingham, J.A., 575.
Bocock, Thomas S., 575, 582.
Boteler, A.R., 576, 579, 582.
Bragg, Thomas, 515.
Brayton, William D., 582.
Buchanan, James, 572.
Burch, John C., 574.
Burnett, Henry C., 579, 582.
C
Campbell, James H., 582.
Chandler, Zachariah, 469, 471, 480.
Clark, Daniel, 480, 489.
Clingman, Thomas L., 475, 491.
Cochrane, John, 574, 581, 583.
Collamer, Jacob, 474, 482, 483, 492, 493, 497.
Committee, Select, 475.
Cox, Samuel S., 582, 583.
Craige, Burton, 575, 580, 581.
Crittenden. John J., 471, 473, 474, 475, 476, 499, 501, 502, 503, 509,
513, 514, 515, 516, 518, 532, 565, 566, 568, 569, 570.
Curtis, Samuel R., 575, 581.
D
De Jarnette, D.C., 582.
Delegates, List of, 465.
Doolittle, James R., 478, 481, 498.
Douglas, Stephen A., 474, 479, 480, 535, 564, 568, 571.
E
Ely, Alfred, 582.
Extract from the minutes of the New York delegation, 600.
Extract from Journal of the Convention, 601.
F
Fessenden, Wm. P., 468, 471, 474.
Field, David Dudley, 596, 601.
Foster, Lafayette S., 581.
G
Garnett, Muscoe, 582.
Goodrich, J.Z., 601.
Green, James S., 473, 474, 532, 536.
Grow, Galusha A., 576, 577. 578, 579.
Gwin, William M., 476, 570, 571.
H
Hale, John P., 474, 475, 476, 477, 478.
Hale, James T., 581.
Harris, John T., 582.
Hatton, Robert, 577.
Hickman, John, 577, 578, 583.
Hindman, Thomas C., 582, 583.
Hoard, Charles B., 582.
Howard, William A., 574, 578.
Hunter, R.M.T., 481, 482, 483, 484, 488, 489, 492, 493, 497, 498, 501,
569, 570.
J
Jenkins, Albert G., 581.
Johnson, Andrew, 470, 556, 568.
Johnson, Robert W., 567, 568.
Joint Resolutions, preamble to, 476, 477, 481.
Junkin, Benj. F., 581.
K
Kellogg, Francis W., 578.
L
Lane, Joseph, 535, 536.
Latham, Milton S., 475.
Leach, De Witt C., 581.
Leake, Shelton F., 581.
Letcher, John, 574.
Logan, John A., 579.
Lovejoy, Owen, 576, 577, 578, 579.
M
McClernand, John A., 576, 578, 579, 583.
Mason, James M., 470, 473, 474, 477, 479, 502, 506, 510, 514, 516, 518,
535, 564, 565.
Maynard, Horace, 575, 582.
Millson, John S., 575, 583.
N
Nicholson, A.O.P., 571.
Nixon, John T., 581.
P
Pendleton, Geo. H., 582.
Polk, Trusten, 517, 518.
Potter, John F., 582.
Powell, Lazarus W., 466, 468, 469, 470, 571.
Pugh, James L., 481, 488, 520.
Puleston, J. Henry, 472.
R
Reports of Delegations to States:
Virginia, 584.
New York, 585.
Rhode Island, 610.
Massachusetts, 613.
Report, minority, of New York Commissioners, 604.
Report of Peace Conference, 472, 478.
Resolutions of States:
Tennessee, 454.
Ohio, 456.
Kentucky, 457.
Indiana, 458.
Delaware, 458.
Illinois, 459.
New Jersey, 460.
New York, 461.
Pennsylvania, 462.
Massachusetts, 463.
Rhode Island, 464.
Missouri, 464.
Robinson, Christopher, 583.
Ruffin, Thomas, 581.
S
Sebastian, William K., 567.
Seward, Wm. H., 476, 477, 478, 481, 482, 483, 487.
Sherman, John, 580, 582.
Sickles, Daniel E., 579, 580.
Simmons, James F., 480.
Stanton, Benjamin, 574, 575.
Statement to N.Y. Legislature, 601, 603.
Stevens, Thaddeus, 576.
Sumner, Charles, 480.
T
Tyler, John, 471.
Trumbull, Lyman, 485, 486, 487, 535.
W
Wade, Benj. F., 488, 535.
Washburne, Elihu B., 577, 582.
Wilkinson, Morton S., 523, 524.
Wilson, James, 581.
Woodson, Samuel H., 580.
Wright, C.J., 601.