Volume 7 — ATTEMPT AT COMPROMISE: THE CRITTENDEN PROPOSITIONS.

Incidents and Notes, December 18, 1860, to March 4, 1861.

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!”

Under date of January 30th, the Governor wrote:—

“I think we had better be present by good men in the Conference, if there is to be one, than to be misrepresented by volunteers, or be wholly outside, unheard, and misinformed of the plans and doings inside. Our Committee on Federal Relations will report good resolutions, I think, which will leave us free of complicity with the heresy of the Virginia resolutions, and secure the dignity and fairness of our position.”

Another letter from Massachusetts said, that, if Massachusetts did not send representatives, “the Boston Hunkers would send a delegation, which would not be desirable.”

The Commissioners appointed by the Governor were, John Z. Goodrich, Charles Allen, George S. Boutwell, Francis B. Crowninshield, Theophilus P. Chandler, John M. Forbes, and Richard P. Waters,—all firm against any new concession to Slavery.

Against their influence and votes, the Convention, known as the “Peace Congress,” presented a series of propositions similar in character and surrender to those of Mr. Crittenden, sharing also a similar fate.

During these various efforts, President Buchanan was earnest for the Crittenden Compromise. An interview of Mr. Sumner with him, reported in the Northern papers, shows his desire for this terrible concession.

“Washington, February 4.

“Much interest is manifested in the interview between President Buchanan and Senator Sumner. Mr. Sumner visited the President, at the request of Governor Andrew, to learn his answer to the Massachusetts offer of military aid; that done, Mr. Sumner said,—

“What else can Massachusetts do for the good of the country?

“Mr. Buchanan. A great deal. No State more.

“Mr. Sumner. I should like to know what.

“Mr. Buchanan (after a pause). Adopt the Crittenden propositions.

“Mr. Sumner. Is that necessary?

“Mr. Buchanan. It is.

“Mr. Sumner. Massachusetts has not acted directly on these propositions, which seek to give Slavery Constitutional protection in Territories, and disfranchise large numbers of her citizens; but I believe such are the convictions of the Massachusetts people that they would never consent to any such thing.

“Mr. Sumner repeated his assurance in the strongest language.

“The President said he felt discouraged by the reply.

“Mr. Sumner spoke of the common ground where all who truly loved the country could stand. It was the Constitution as administered by Washington. The verdict of the people last November should be recognized without price or condition.

“The President said he and Mr. Sumner must differ politically.

“Mr. Sumner assured the President that the people of Massachusetts were attached to the Union; that real disunionists there might all be put in an omnibus; but Massachusetts could not be brought to sacrifice or abandon her principles, and in that he sincerely joined.”

This interview was described by Mr. Sumner in one of his familiar letters to Governor Andrew, which is copied from the private files of the latter.

Washington, February 3, 1861.

My dear Andrew,—I saw the President yesterday. He was astonished to learn that the resolutions had not been acknowledged, and said that it should be done.

Afterwards I said to him, “Mr. President, what else can we do in Massachusetts for the good of the country?” A pause. “Much, Mr. Sumner.” “What?” said I. “Adopt the Crittenden propositions,” said he. “Is that necessary?” said I. “Yes,” said he. To which I replied, “Massachusetts has not yet spoken directly; but I feel authorized to say, that, such are the unalterable convictions of her people, they would see their State sunk below the sea, and turned into a sand-bank, before they would adopt propositions acknowledging property in men, and disfranchising a portion of her population.” I think I was right.

In God’s name stand firm! Don’t cave, Andrew! God bless you!

Charles Sumner.

Save Massachusetts from any “surrender,” THE LEAST!

C. S.

The latter part of the letter alluded to reports that the Legislature was disposed to repeal or modify the well-known laws for the protection of Personal Liberty, passed originally as a defence against the Fugitive Slave Bill. Compromisers urged this surrender, particularly after the special call in the Crittenden propositions. At the request of anxious citizens at home, Mr. Sumner wrote to members of the Legislature against any such sacrifice, insisting, that, with the manifest determination of the South, it could do no good, while plainly the laws should be maintained for the sake of Liberty. His views were briefly expressed in a private letter to Hon. William Claflin, Chairman of the Republican State Committee, and President of the Massachusetts Senate.

[Private.]

Washington, January 1, 1860.

My dear Claflin,—Massachusetts has now an important post. Her most difficult duty is to be true to herself and her own noble history. In the name of Liberty, I supplicate you not to let her take any backward step,—not an inch, not a hair’s breadth.

It is now too late for any fancied advantage from such conduct. The crisis is too far advanced. It only remains that she do nothing by which Liberty suffers, or her principles are recanted.

Remember well, that not a word from our Legislature can have the least influence in averting the impending result. What the case requires is firmness which nothing can shake.

Let the timid cry, but let Massachusetts stand stiff. God bless her!

We are on the eve of great events, and this month will try men’s souls. But our duty is clear as noonday, and bright as the sun.

Ever yours,

Charles Sumner.

In a letter dated January 15, Governor Andrew suggested a communication from the Massachusetts delegation, “that it is not important or desirable that we should repeal the Personal Liberty Laws.” February 17th, he announces, with something of exultation, the unanimous report of the Committee of the Legislature in harmony with his ideas.

“I had no original expectation of getting such a result; but I told some persons that they could not get anything through this room [the Council Chamber] not conformable to certain principles, and which did not contain certain details, unless they marched it through by dragoons.”

A letter from Hon. D. W. Alvord, written from Greenfield, Massachusetts, refers to the action of Mr. Sumner.

“Those who believe that it is the first duty of a State to protect its citizens from oppression, as much when the oppression is threatened by the General Government as when it comes from any other quarter, owe you especial thanks. Your influence has saved the ‘Personal Liberty Laws’ of this State from essential change. Such change would have been strenuously resisted by many true men in the Legislature, even had your advice been different; but your letters, shown about among members, and the knowledge spread through the Legislature that you advised against repeal or essential modification, stiffened many weak backs, and rendered any great change impossible.”

Thus at home, in the Legislature, as well as in Congress, people were busy to find some form of surrender inconsistent with those principles which had triumphed at the Presidential election. Mr. Sumner was positive against any surrender anywhere. A letter to Count Gurowski, in New York, which has seen the light since his death, is a contemporary record.

Washington, January 8, 1861.

My dear Count,—Sunday evening I had a visit from Thurlow Weed and Seward. The former said that he found himself “alone,”—nobody united with him. I rejoiced. —— and —— are here from New York for the same object. They urge that we cannot have a united North, unless we make an effort for adjustment; to which I reply: “We have the verdict of the people last November: that is enough.”

But these compromisers do not comprehend the glory of a principle. Périssent les colonies plutôt qu’un principe! That exclamation exalts a period which has many things to be deplored.

The Slave States are mad. They will all move. Nothing now but abject humiliation on the part of the North can stay them. Nobody can foresee precisely all that is in the future, but I do not doubt that any conflict will precipitate the doom of Slavery. It will probably go down in blood.…

Ever yours,

Charles Sumner.

During these efforts at compromise, the conspirators proceeded in their work. South Carolina took the lead, adopted an Ordinance of Secession December 20, 1860, and shortly thereafter raised the Palmetto flag over the custom-house and post-office at Charleston. Mississippi followed, January 9, 1861; Florida, January 10; Alabama, January 11; Georgia, January 19; and Louisiana, January 26. January 21st the Senators of seceding States withdrew from the Senate. Texas was not declared out of the Union until March 4th, when her Senators withdrew.

Another event will properly close this sketch. At the end of December, 1860, Commissioners from South Carolina arrived at Washington, in order to obtain the complete withdrawal of the national troops. Major Anderson, by a sudden movement, had transferred his command from Fort Moultrie to Fort Sumter, which was much easier to hold. Fort Moultrie and Castle Pinckney were at once occupied by the Rebels. The country was aroused, and insisted that Fort Sumter should not be abandoned. It was held, until, after a bombardment of thirty-four hours, it yielded, April 13, 1861.