Before the organization of the Committee of Thirteen on the
State of the Union, mentioned in the preceding article, Mr.
Crittenden brought forward a joint resolution, December 18,
1860, containing propositions of Compromise, which soon became
known by the name of their author. These propositions were
extensive in character, covering amendments to the Constitution
and recommendations to the States. Afterwards, January 3, 1861,
he reintroduced his propositions, with a new preamble, and
with two additional amendments to the Constitution. That such
propositions could have been seriously presented as a basis of
Union shows the exacting spirit of Slavery, and the deplorable
insensibility to great principles.
The Compromise in its final form opened with a Constitutional
prohibition of Slavery in all territory of the United States
north of 36° 30´, but on the other hand it was expressly
declared that “in all the territory now held, or hereafter
to be acquired, south of said line of latitude, _Slavery of
the African race is hereby recognized as existing_, and shall
not be interfered with by Congress, but shall be protected as
property by all the departments of the Territorial Government
during its continuance”; and any territory north or south of
this line was to be admitted into the Union as a State with
or without Slavery, as the Constitution of such new State
might provide. It was further declared that Congress should
have no power to abolish Slavery in places under its exclusive
jurisdiction and within the limits of slaveholding States;
that Congress should have no power to abolish Slavery in the
District of Columbia, so long as it exists in the adjoining
States of Virginia and Maryland, or either, nor without the
consent of the inhabitants, nor without just compensation to
slave-owners who do not consent to such abolishment; that
Congress should not prohibit officers of the Federal [National]
Government, or Members of Congress, whose duties require them
to be in the District, from bringing with them their slaves and
holding them as such; and that Congress should have no power
to prohibit or hinder the transportation of slaves from one
State to another, or to a Territory in which slaves are by law
permitted to be held, whether that transportation be by land,
navigable rivers, or by sea.
Then followed Constitutional amendments, providing that the
United States should pay to the owner of a fugitive slave
the full value of such slave, in case of obstruction to the
recovery thereof,--also providing that no future amendment of
the Constitution should affect these articles, or the existing
provisions relating to slave representation and the surrender
of fugitives from service, or give to Congress any power to
abolish or interfere with Slavery in any of the States where it
exists.
Then followed another Constitutional amendment, providing
that “the elective franchise and the right to hold office,
whether Federal [National], State, Territorial, or municipal,
shall not be exercised by persons who are in whole or in
part of the African race,”--and still another, providing
for the acquisition of “districts of country in Africa and
South America” for the colonization of “free negroes and
mulattoes.”[131]
Besides these amendments to the Constitution, the joint
resolution, in order “to remove all just cause for the popular
discontent and agitation which now disturb the peace of the
country and threaten the stability of its institutions,”
proceeded to declare, that the laws now in force for the
recovery of fugitive slaves are in strict pursuance of the
plain and mandatory provisions of the Constitution, that
the slaveholding States are entitled to their faithful
observance and execution, and that laws should be made for the
punishment of those who illegally interfere to prevent their
execution,--that State laws interfering with the recovery of
fugitive slaves (referring to Personal Liberty Laws) should be
repealed, that the Fugitive Slave Act of September 18, 1850,
should be amended in certain particulars, and that the laws
for the suppression of the African Slave-Trade should be made
effectual.
The Crittenden Compromise was encountered in the Senate by the
following counter propositions, offered by Mr. Clark, of New
Hampshire, January 9, 1861.
“_Resolved_, That the provisions of the Constitution are
ample for the preservation of the Union and the protection
of all the material interests of the country; that it needs
to be obeyed rather than amended; and that an extrication
from the present dangers is to be looked for in strenuous
efforts to preserve the peace, protect the public property,
and enforce the laws, rather than in new guaranties
for particular interests, compromises for particular
difficulties, or concessions to unreasonable demands.
“_Resolved_, That all attempts to dissolve the present
Union, or overthrow or abandon the present Constitution,
with the hope or expectation of constructing a new one, are
dangerous, illusory, and destructive; that in the opinion
of the Senate of the United States no such reconstruction
is practicable; and therefore to the maintenance of the
existing Union and Constitution should be directed all the
energies of all the departments of the Government, and the
efforts of all good citizens.”
January 16, the question being taken by yeas and nays, on the
motion to substitute, resulted, yeas 25, nays 23, as follows.
_Yeas_,--Messrs. Anthony, Baker, Bingham, Cameron,
Chandler, Clark, Collamer, Dixon, Doolittle, Durkee,
Fessenden, Foot, Foster, Grimes, Hall, Harlan, King,
Seward, Simmons, Sumner, Ten Eyck, Trumbull, Wade,
Wilkinson, Wilson,--25.
_Nays_,--Messrs. Bayard, Bigler, Bragg, Bright, Clingman,
Crittenden, Fitch, Green, Gwin, Hunter, Johnson of
Tennessee, Kennedy, Lane, Latham, Mason, Nicholson, Pearce,
Polk, Powell, Pugh, Rice, Saulsbury, Sebastian,--23.
So the amendment was agreed to, and the proposition of Mr.
Clark was substituted for that of Mr. Crittenden.
This important result, by which the Crittenden Compromise
received a heavy blow, was a surprise, brought about by
the Senators of the Gulf States,--Iverson of Georgia, Clay
and Fitzpatrick of Alabama, Brown and Jefferson Davis of
Mississippi, Benjamin and Slidell of Louisiana, Mallory and
Yulee of Florida, Hemphill and Wigfall of Texas, and Johnson of
Arkansas,--who were in attendance, but withheld their votes.
The two Senators of South Carolina, Hammond and Chesnut, also
Toombs of Georgia, had not appeared in their seats during the
session. Three of these Senators voting against the substitute,
it could not have been carried, and the original propositions
would have been still before the Senate. The adoption of the
substitute was used by them to inflame their constituents.
Their conduct on this occasion showed a “foregone conclusion.”
Nothing but Disunion would satisfy them,--not even the
Crittenden Compromise, so full of surrender.
Then ensued a comedy. Immediately after the adoption of the
substitute, a reconsideration of the vote was moved by Mr.
Cameron, of Pennsylvania, at the request of Mr. Crittenden,
which on a subsequent day was carried. The question was then
allowed to sleep on the table, until, unexpectedly, on the last
legislative day of the session, just before the expiration
of the Congress, and after the withdrawal of the Southern
Senators, it was called up by Mr. Mason, of Virginia, when
Mr. Clark again offered his substitute, which was lost by a
vote of 22 nays against 14 yeas, several Senators expressing a
desire to vote directly on the original propositions. On these
propositions the final vote stood, yeas 19, nays 20, as follows.
_Yeas_,--Messrs. Bayard, Bigler, Bright, Crittenden,
Douglas, Gwin, Hunter, Johnson of Tennessee, Kennedy, Lane,
Latham, Mason, Nicholson, Polk, Pugh, Rice, Sebastian,
Thomson, Wigfall,--19.
_Nays_,--Messrs. Anthony, Bingham, Chandler, Clark, Dixon,
Doolittle, Durkee, Fessenden, Foot, Foster, Grimes, Harlan,
King, Morrill, Sumner, Ten Eyck, Trumbull, Wade, Wilkinson,
Wilson,--20.
So the joint resolution of Mr. Crittenden, with its various
propositions, was rejected. The final withdrawal of the
Senators from seceding States obviously aided this result.
As the session was coming to a close, a joint resolution was
received from the House of Representatives proposing yet
another amendment to the Constitution, as follows.
“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.”
Bills and joint resolutions must be read on three several
days; but on ordinary occasions they receive their first and
second readings the same day. Mr. Sumner, unwilling that this
other attempt should be hurried through the Senate, objected
to the second reading on the first day, and the next day had
a question with Mr. Douglas on the correction of the Journal,
which failed to record his objection. On his motion the Journal
was corrected.[132] The Senate then suspended the rule
requiring the three readings of a Constitutional amendment on
three separate days, and proceeded to the consideration of the
proposed amendment. Mr. Pugh, of Ohio, spoke lightly of its
composition, saying:--
“I think it was De Quincey who said, that, next to the duty
which a man owes God and his country and his family, it was
his duty to preserve the purity of his mother tongue. The
Constitution of the United States is written in excellent
English; but if this amendment be expressed in the English
language, or by any rule of grammar, I do not understand
it.”
Mr. Crittenden replied, that he could “bear with bad English,
when it expressed a good thing.”
The vote on its passage was 24 yeas to 12 nays, as follows.
_Yeas_,--Messrs. Anthony, Baker, Bigler, Bright,
Crittenden, Dixon, Douglas, Foster, Grimes, Gwin, Harlan,
Hunter, Johnson of Tennessee, Kennedy, Latham, Mason,
Morrill, Nicholson, Polk, Pugh, Rice, Sebastian, Ten Eyck,
Thomson,--24.
_Nays_,--Messrs. Bingham, Chandler, Clark, Doolittle,
Durkee, Foot, King, Sumner, Trumbull, Wade, Wilkinson,
Wilson,--12.
Two thirds of the Senate present voting for the joint
resolution, it was agreed to. The proposed amendment to the
Constitution was never adopted by the States. It remains in the
national archives, a singular instance of bad composition, and
the monument of a fruitless effort.
This final attempt to appease the spirit of Rebellion was on
the last legislative day of the session. The 3d of March being
Sunday, the Senate, without adjourning, took a recess from
Saturday evening till Sunday evening at seven o’clock, thus
making the 2d of March the concluding day of that Congress,
which was prolonged till noon of March 4th. During the sitting
of Sunday, from seven o’clock in the evening till midnight,
Mr. Sumner, who had never been in the habit of pairing, was
induced to pair with Mr. Polk, of Missouri, who was unwilling
to transact business on Sunday. His scruples did not prevent
him from joining the Rebellion, for which he was subsequently
expelled from the Senate on Mr. Sumner’s motion.
* * * * *
The Crittenden Compromise attracted attention not only in
Congress, but throughout the country.
Meanwhile a Boston committee arrived at Washington, composed
of leading citizens, with Hon. Edward Everett as chairman, to
urge an adjustment by mutual surrender. Mr. Everett called upon
Mr. Sumner at his lodgings, and with much emotion urged him
to bring forward some conciliatory proposition, saying, “You
are the only person who can introduce such a proposition with
chance of success.” Mr. Sumner replied: “You are mistaken in
supposing that I might have success with compromise, if I could
bring it forward. If I am strong with the North, it is because
of the conviction that I cannot compromise; but the moment I
compromised, I, too, should be lost.”
All in Massachusetts were not like this committee. The tone
of many was expressed by a venerable citizen, and an able
writer, connected with the press during a long life, Joseph T.
Buckingham, who closed a firm and courageous letter, under date
of January 11, 1861, with the words,--
“God bless _you_, and _all_ who keep a stiff backbone! For
those who yield, I care not what becomes of them.”
On the 19th of January, 1861, the General Assembly of Virginia
adopted a series of resolutions, proposing a Convention
of States at Washington, February 4, 1861, to attempt an
adjustment of the pending difficulties, and recommending the
propositions of Mr. Crittenden reinforced. The action of the
Virginia Assembly was communicated to the Senate by message of
President Buchanan, January 28th. Mr. Sumner, being against all
compromise, could not regard with favor any attempt in that
direction. A misrepresentation of his position was corrected by
the following telegram in Northern papers.
“WASHINGTON, January 30, 1861.
“The report, that Senator Sumner has approved the objects
of the Convention which is to assemble here at the call of
Virginia, is a mistake. Mr. Sumner regards that call as
part of the treasonable conspiracy against the National
Government, and does not see how Northern men can have
anything to do with it, unless they are ready in some way
to play into the hands of the traitors.
“Mr. Sumner has always held that any change by the North
from its attitude of firmness and repose can have no other
effect than the encouragement of treason.”
A telegraphic correspondence further shows his position.
“BOSTON, January 31, 1861.
“HON. CHARLES SUMNER:--
“Do you favor sending Commissioners to Washington 4th
February?
“GEORGE L. STEARNS.”
“WASHINGTON, January 31, 1861.
“GEORGE L. STEARNS, Esq., Boston:--
“I am against sending Commissioners to treat for the
surrender of the North. Stand firm.
“CHARLES SUMNER.”
Alone of the Massachusetts delegation Mr. Sumner declined to
unite with his colleagues in recommending to the Governor
the appointment of Commissioners. This isolation was the
occasion of a report which is mentioned in a letter of S. M.
Booth, written, under date of February 2d, from his prison at
Milwaukee, where he was suffering for aiding a fugitive slave.
“The telegraph assigns you the enviable position of
standing ‘solitary and alone’ among the Massachusetts
representatives, as inflexibly opposed to compromise with
rebels for the benefit of Slavery. I cannot believe you
are so entirely forsaken, yet I greatly fear the country
is to be dishonored and the Republican party dissolved.…
Rest assured that the masses of the Republican party do
not sympathize with the Compromisers of the Republican
party, nor appreciate that statesmanship which consists
in yielding vital principles to the demands of the Slave
Power. The ‘Barbarism of Slavery’ is now demonstrated
before ‘all Israel and the sun.’ I see little good to
come from the election of Lincoln, if the platform of the
opposing candidates is to be adopted by the Republican
leaders. Indeed, it were far better that Slavery should
triumph under the rule of Douglas or Breckinridge than
under the rule of Lincoln.”
So Mr. Sumner thought, and he acted accordingly. His
correspondence with Governor Andrew at this time was constant
and earnest. The latter was resolute against Compromise. In a
letter of January 20th, the Governor wrote:--
“From war, pestilence, and famine, from all assaults of
the world, the flesh, and the Devil, good Lord, deliver
us,--but most especially from any compromise with traitors,
or any bargain with Slavery!”