While instructive, it will also not be devoid of interest, to pause here, and examine the nature of the Crittenden Resolutions, and also the Resolutions of the Peace Congress, which, we have seen, were spurned by the Secession leaders, through their chief mouthpiece in the United States Senate.

The Crittenden Compromise Resolutions were in these words: 

“A Joint Resolution proposing certain Amendments to the Constitution of the United States: 

“Whereas, serious and alarming dissensions have arisen between the Northern and the Southern States, concerning the Rights and security of the Rights of the Slaveholding States, and especially their Rights in the common territory of the United States; and whereas, it is eminently desirable and proper that these dissensions, which now threaten the very existence of this Union, should be permanently quieted and settled by Constitutional provisions which shall do equal justice to all Sections, and thereby restore to the People that peace and good-will which ought to prevail between all the citizens of the United States; Therefore: 

“Resolved, by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America, in Congress assembled, (two thirds of both Houses concurring), the following articles be, and are hereby proposed and submitted as amendments to the Constitution of the United States, which shall be valid to all intents and purposes, as part of said Constitution, when ratified by Conventions of three-fourths of the several States: 

“Article I. In all the territory of the United States now held, or hereafter to be acquired, situate north of latitude 36 30’, Slavery or involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime, is prohibited, while such territory shall remain under Territorial government.  In all the territory 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 when any Territory, north or south of said line, within such boundaries as Congress may prescribe, shall contain the population requisite for a member of Congress, according to the then Federal ratio of representation of the People of the United States, it shall, if its own form of government be republican, be admitted into the Union, on an equal footing with the original States; with or without Slavery, as the Constitution of such new State may provide.

“Article ii.  Congress shall have no power to abolish Slavery in places under its exclusive jurisdiction, and situate within the limits of States that permit the holding of Slaves.

“Article iii.  Congress shall have no power to abolish Slavery within 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 first made to such owners of Slaves as do not consent to such abolishment.  Nor shall Congress, at any time, prohibit officers of the Federal government, or members of Congress whose duties require them to be in said District, from bringing with them their Slaves, and holding them as such during the time their duties may require them to remain there, and afterward taking them from the District.

“Article IV.  Congress shall 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 the sea.

“Article V. That in addition to the provisions of the third paragraph of the second section of the fourth article of the Constitution of the United States, Congress shall have power to provide by law, and it shall be its duty to provide, that the United States shall pay to the owner who shall apply for it, the full value of his Fugitive Slaves in all cases where the Marshal, or other officer whose duty it was to arrest said Fugitive, was prevented from so doing by violence or intimidation, or where, after arrest, said Fugitive was rescued by force, and the owner thereby prevented and obstructed in the pursuit of his remedy for the recovery of his Fugitive Slave under the said clause of the Constitution and the laws made in pursuance thereof.

["No Person held to Service or Labour in one State, under the Laws thereof, escaping into another, shall, in consequence of any Law or Regulation therein, be discharged from such Service or Labour, but shall be delivered up on claim of the Party to whom such Service or Labour may be due.” ­Art.  IV., Sec. 2, P 3, U. S. Constitution.]

“And in all such cases, when the United States shall pay for such Fugitive, they shall have the Right, in their own name, to sue the county in which said violence, intimidation, or rescue, was committed, and recover from it, with interest and damages, the amount paid by them for said Fugitive Slave.  And the said county, after it has paid said amount to the United States, may, for its indemnity, sue and recover from the wrong-doers or rescuers by whom the owner was prevented from the recovery of his Fugitive Slave, in like manner as the owner himself might have sued and recovered.

“Article VI.  No future amendment of the Constitution shall affect the five preceding articles; nor the third paragraph of the second section of the first article of the Constitution, nor the third paragraph of the second section of the fourth article of said Constitution; and no amendment shall be made to the Constitution which shall authorize or give to Congress any power to abolish or interfere with Slavery in any of the States by whose laws it is or may be, allowed or permitted.

["Representatives and Direct Taxes shall be apportioned among the several States which may be included within this Union, according to their respective Numbers, which shall be determined by adding to the whole Number of Free Persons, including those bound to Service for a Term of Years, and excluding Indians not Taxed, three-fifths of all Other Persons,” etc. ­Ar., Sec. 2, P 3, U. S. Constitution.]

“And whereas, also, besides those causes of dissension embraced in the foregoing amendments proposed to the Constitution of the United States, there are others which come within the jurisdiction of Congress, and may be remedied by its legislative power; And whereas it is the desire of Congress, as far as its power will extend, 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; Therefore: 

“1.  Resolved by the Senate and house of Representatives in Congress assembled, 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, and have been sanctioned as valid and Constitutional by the judgment of the Supreme Court of the United States; that the Slaveholding States are entitled to the faithful observance and execution of those laws; and that they ought not to be repealed, or so modified or changed as to impair their efficiency; and that laws ought to be made for the punishment of those who attempt, by rescue of the Slave, or other illegal means, to hinder or defeat the due execution of said laws.

“2.  That all State laws which conflict with the Fugitive Slave Acts of Congress, or any other Constitutional Acts of Congress, or which, in their operation, impede, hinder, or delay, the free course and due execution of any of said Acts, are null and void by the plain provisions of the Constitution of the United States; yet those State laws, void as they are, have given color to practices, and led to consequences, which have obstructed the due administration and execution of Acts of Congress, and especially the Acts for the delivery of Fugitive Slaves; and have thereby contributed much to the discord and commotion now prevailing.  Congress, therefore, in the present perilous juncture, does not deem it improper, respectfully and earnestly, to recommend the repeal of those laws to the several States which have enacted them, or such legislative corrections or explanations of them as may prevent their being used or perverted to such mischievous purposes.

“3.  That the Act of the 18th of September, 1850, commonly called the Fugitive Slave Law, ought to be so amended as to make the fee of the Commissioner, mentioned in the eighth section of the Act, equal in amount in the cases decided by him, whether his decision be in favor of, or against the claimant.  And, to avoid misconstruction, the last clause of the fifth section of said Act, which authorizes the person holding a warrant for the arrest or detention of a Fugitive Slave to summon to his aid the posse comitatus, and which declares it to be the duty of all good citizens to assist him in its execution, ought to be so amended as to expressly limit the authority and duty to cases in which there shall be resistance, or danger of resistance or rescue.

“4.  That the laws for the suppression of the African Slave Trade, and especially those prohibiting the importation of Slaves into the United States, ought to be more effectual, and ought to be thoroughly executed; and all further enactments necessary to those ends ought to be promptly made.”

The Peace Conference, or “Congress,” it may here be mentioned, was called, by action of the Legislature of Virginia, to meet at Washington, February 4, 1861.  The invitation was extended to all of such “States of this Confederacy whether Slaveholding or Non-Slaveholding, as are willing to unite with Virginia in an earnest effort to adjust the present unhappy controversies in the spirit in which the Constitution was originally formed, and consistently with its principles, so as to afford to the people of the Slaveholding States adequate guarantees for the security of their rights” ­such States to be represented by Commissioners “to consider, and, if practicable, agree upon some suitable adjustment.”

The Conference, or “Congress,” duly convened, at that place and time, and organized by electing ex-President John Tyler, of Virginia, its President.  This Peace Congress ­which comprised 133 Commissioners, representing the States of Maine, New Hampshire, Vermont, Massachusetts, Rhode Island, Connecticut, New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Delaware, Maryland, Virginia, North Carolina, Tennessee, Kentucky, Missouri, Ohio, Indiana, Illinois, Iowa, Wisconsin and Kansas ­remained in session until February 27, 1861 ­and then submitted the result of its labors to Congress, with the request that Congress “will submit it to Conventions in the States, as Article Thirteen of the Amendments to the Constitution of the United States, in the following shape: 

“Section 1.  In all the present territory of the United States, north of the parallel of 36 30’ of north latitude, Involuntary Servitude, except in punishment of crime, is prohibited.  In all the present territory south of that line, the status of Persons held to Involuntary Service or Labor, as it now exists, shall not be changed; nor shall any law be passed by Congress or the Territorial Legislature to hinder or prevent the taking of such Persons from any of the States of this Union to said Territory, nor to impair the Rights arising from said relation; but the same shall be subject to judicial cognizance in the Federal Courts, according to the course of the common law.  When any Territory north or south of said line, within such boundary as Congress may prescribe, shall contain a population equal to that required for a member of Congress, it shall, if its form of government be republican, be admitted into the Union on an equal footing with the original States, with or without Involuntary Servitude, as the Constitution of such State may provide.

“Section 2.  No territory shall be acquired by the United States, except by discovery and for naval and commercial stations, depots, and transit routes, without the concurrence of a majority of all the Senators from States which allow Involuntary Servitude, and a majority of all the Senators from States which prohibit that relation; nor shall Territory be acquired by treaty, unless the votes of a majority of the Senators from each class of States hereinbefore mentioned be cast as a part of the two-thirds majority necessary to the ratification of such treaty.

“Section 3.  Neither the Constitution, nor any amendment thereof, shall be construed to give Congress power to regulate, abolish, or control, within any State, the relation established or recognized by the laws thereof touching Persons held to Labor or Involuntary Service therein, nor to interfere with or abolish Involuntary Service 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; nor the power to interfere with or prohibit Representatives and others from bringing with them to the District of Columbia, retaining, and taking away, Persons so held to Labor or Service; nor the power to interfere with or abolish Involuntary Service in places under the exclusive jurisdiction of the United States within those States and Territories where the same is established or recognized; nor the power to prohibit the removal or transportation of Persons held to Labor or Involuntary Service in any State or Territory of the United States to any other State or Territory thereof where it is established or recognized by law or usage; and the right during transportation, by sea or river, of touching at ports, shores, and landings, and of landing in case of distress, shall exist; but not the right of transit in or through any State or Territory, or of sale or traffic, against the laws thereof.  Nor shall Congress have power to authorize any higher rate of taxation on Persons held to Labor or Service than on land.  The bringing into the District of Columbia of Persons held to Labor or Service, for sale, or placing them in depots to be afterwards transferred to other places for sale as merchandize, is prohibited.

“Section 4.  The third paragraph of the second section of the fourth article of the Constitution shall not be construed to prevent any of the States, by appropriate legislation, and through the action of their judicial and ministerial officers, from enforcing the delivery of Fugitives from Labor to the person to whom such Service or Labor is due.

“Section 5.  The Foreign Slave Trade is hereby forever prohibited; and it shall be the duty of Congress to pass laws to prevent the importation of Slaves, Coolies, or Persons held to Service or Labor, into the United States and the Territories from places beyond the limits thereof.

“Section 6.  The first, third, and fifth sections, together with this section of these amendments, and the third paragraph of the second section of the first article of the Constitution, and the third paragraph of the second section of the fourth article thereof, shall not be amended or abolished without the consent of all the States.

“Section 7.  Congress shall provide by law that the United States shall pay to the owner the full value of the 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 assemblages, 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 to such Fugitive.  Congress shall provide by law for securing to the citizens of each State the privileges and immunities of citizens in the several States.”

To spurn such propositions as these ­with all the concessions to the Slave Power therein contained ­was equivalent to spurning any and all propositions that could possibly be made; and by doing this, the Seceding States placed themselves ­as they perhaps desired ­in an utterly irreconcilable attitude, and hence, to a certain extent, which had not entered into their calculations, weakened their “Cause” in the eyes of many of their friends in the North, in the Border States, and in the World.  They had become Implacables.  Practically considered, this was their great mistake.  The Crittenden Compromise Resolutions covered and yielded to the Slaveholders of the South all and even more than they had ever dared seriously to ask or hope for, and had they been open to Conciliation, they could have undoubtedly carried that measure through both Houses of Congress and three-fourths of the States.

["Its advocates, with good reason, claimed a large majority of the People in its favor, and clamored for its submission to a direct popular vote.  Had such a submission been accorded, it is very likely that the greater number of those who voted at all would have voted to ratify it. The ‘Conservatives,’ so called, were still able to establish this Crittenden Compromise by their own proper strength, had they been disposed so to do.  The President was theirs; the Senate strongly theirs; in the House, they had a small majority, as was evidenced in their defeat of John Sherman for Speaker.  Had they now come forward and said, with authority:  ’Enable us to pass the Crittenden Compromise, and all shall be peace and harmony,’ they would have succeeded without difficulty.  It was only through the withdrawal of pro-slavery members that the Republicans had achieved an unexpected majority in either House.  Had those members chosen to return to the seats still awaiting them, and to support Mr. Crittenden’s proposition, they could have carried it without difficulty.” ­Vo, Greeley’s Am.  Conflict.]

But no, they wilfully withdrew their Congressional membership, State by State, as each Seceded, and refused all terms save those which involved an absolute surrender to them on all points, including the impossible claim of the “Right of Secession.”

Let us now briefly trace the history of the Compromise measures in the two Houses of Congress.

The Crittenden-Compromise Joint-Resolution had been introduced in the Senate at the opening of its session and referred to a Select Committee of Thirteen, and subsequently, January 16th, 1861, having been reported back, came up in that body for action.  On that day it was amended by inserting the words “now held or hereafter to be acquired” after the words “In all the territory of the United States,” in the first line of Article I., so that it would read as given above.  This amendment ­by which not only in all territory then belonging to the United States, but also by implication in all that might thereafter be acquired, Slavery South of 36 30’ was to be recognized ­was agreed to by 29 yeas to 21 nays, as follows: 

Yeas. ­Messrs. Baker, Bayard, Benjamin, Bigler, Bragg, Bright, Clingman, Crittenden, Douglas, Fitch, Green, Gwin, Hemphill, Hunter, Iverson, Johnson of Tennessee, Kennedy, Lane, Mason, Nicholson, Pearce, Polk, Powell, Pugh, Rice, Saulsbury, Sebastian, Slidell and Wigfall ­29.

NAYS. ­Messrs. Anthony, Bingham, Cameron, Chandler, Clark, Collamer, Dixon, Doolittle, Durkee, Fessenden, Foot, Foster, Grimes, Hale, Harlan, King, Latham, Seward, Simmons, Sumner, Ten Eyck, Trumbull, Wade and Wilson ­24.

The question now recurred upon an amendment, in the nature of a substitute, offered by Mr. Clark, to strike out the preamble of the Crittenden proposition and all of the resolutions after the word “resolved,” and insert: 

“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 our 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 Guarantees 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.”

Before reaching a vote on this amendment, Mr. Anthony, (January 16th) made a most conciliatory speech, pointing out such practical objections to the Crittenden proposition as occurred to his mind, and then, continuing, said:  “I believe, Mr. President, that if the danger which menaces us is to be avoided at all, it must be by Legislation; which is more ready, more certain, and more likely to be satisfactory, than Constitutional Amendment.  The main difficulty is the Territorial question.  The demand of the Senators on the other side of the Chamber, and of those whom they represent, is that the territory south of the line of the Missouri Compromise shall be open to their peculiar Property.  All this territory, except the Indian Reservation, is within the limits of New Mexico; which, for a part of its northern boundary, runs up two degrees above that line.  This is now a Slave Territory; made so by Territorial Legislation; and Slavery exists there, recognized and protected.  Now, I am willing, as soon as Kansas can be admitted, to vote for the admission of New Mexico as a State, with such Constitution as the People may adopt.  This disposes of all the territory that is adapted to Slave Labor or that is claimed by the South.  It ought to settle the whole question.  Surely if we can dispose of all the territory that we have, we ought not to quarrel over that which we have not, and which we have no very honest way of acquiring.  Let us settle the difficulties that threaten us now, and not anticipate those which may never come.  Let the public mind have time to cool .  In offering to settle this question by the admission of New Mexico, we of the North who assent to it propose a great Sacrifice, and offer a large Concession.

“ But we make the offer in a spirit of Compromise and good feeling, which we hope will be reciprocated. I appeal to Senators on the other side, when we thus offer to bridge over full seven-eighths of the frightful chasm that separates us, will you not build the other eighth?  When, with outstretched arms, we approach you so near that, by reaching out your hands you can clasp ours in the fraternal grasp from which they should never be separated, will you, with folded arms and closed eyes, stand upon extreme demands which you know we cannot accept, and for which, if we did, we could not carry our constituents? Together our Fathers achieved the Independence of their Country; together they laid the foundations of its greatness and its glory; together they constructed this beautiful system under which it is our privilege to live, which it is our duty to preserve and to transmit.  Together we enjoy that privilege; together we must perform that duty.  I will not believe that, in the madness of popular folly and delusion, the most benignant Government that ever blessed humanity is to be broken up.  I will not believe that this great Power which is marching with giant steps toward the first place among the Nations of the Earth, is to be turned ‘backward on its mighty track.’  There are no grievances, fancied or real, that cannot be redressed within the Union and under the Constitution.  There are no differences between us that may not be settled if we will take them up in the spirit of those to whose places we have succeeded, and the fruits of whose labors we have inherited.”

And to this more than fair proposition to the Southerners ­to this touching appeal in behalf of Peace ­what was the response?  Not a word!  It seemed but to harden their hearts.

[Immediately after Mr. Anthony’s appeal to the Southern Senators, a motion was made by Mr. Collamer to postpone the Crittenden Resolutions and take up the Kansas Admission Bill.  Here was the chance at once offered to them to respond to that appeal ­to make a first step, as it were.  They would not make it.  The motion was defeated by 25 yeas to 30 nays ­Messrs. Benjamin and Slidell of Louisiana, Hemphill and Wigfall of Texas, Iverson of Georgia, and Johnson of Arkansas, voting “nay.”  The question at once recurred on the amendment of Mr. Clark ­being a substitute for the Crittenden Resolutions, declaring in effect all Compromise unnecessary.  To let that substitute be adopted, was to insure the failure of the Crittenden proposition.  Yet these same six Southern Senators though present, refused to vote, and permitted the substitute to be adopted by 25 yeas to 23 nays.  The vote of Mr. Douglas, who had been “called out for an instant into the ante-room, and deprived of the opportunity of voting “ ­as he afterwards stated when vainly asking unanimous consent to have his vote recorded among the nays-would have made it 25 yeas to 24 nays, had he been present and voting, while the votes of the six Southern Senators aforesaid, had they voted, would have defeated the substitute by 25 yeas to 30 nays.  Then upon a direct vote on the Crittenden Compromise there would not only have been the 30 in its favor, but the vote of at least one Republican (Baker) in addition, to carry it, and, although that would not have given the necessary two-thirds, yet it would have been a majority handsome enough to have ultimately turned the scales, in both Houses, for a peaceful adjustment of the trouble, and have avoided all the sad consequences which so speedily befell the Nation.  But this would not have suited the Treasonable purposes of the Conspirators.  Ten days before this they had probably arranged the Programme in this, as well as other matters.  Very certain it is that no time was lost by them and their friends in making the best use for their Cause of this vote, in the doubtful States of Missouri and North Carolina especially.  In the St. Louis journals a Washington dispatch, purporting (untruly however) to come from Senators Polk and Green, was published to this effect.

“The Crittenden Resolutions were lost by a vote of 25 to 23.  A motion of Mr. Cameron to reconsider was lost; and thus ends all hope of reconciliation.  Civil War is now considered inevitable, and late accounts declare that Fort Sumter will be attacked without delay.  The Missouri delegation recommend immediate Secession.”

This is but a sample of other similar dispatches sent elsewhere.  And the following dispatch, signed by Mr. Crittenden, and published in the Raleigh, N. C., Register, to quiet the excitement raised by the telegrams of the Conspirators, serves also to indicate that the friends of Compromise were not disheartened by their defeat: 

“Washington, Jan. 17th, 9 P. M.

     “In reply the vote against my resolutions will be reconsidered.       Their failure was the result of the refusal of six Southern      Senators to vote.  There is yet good hope of success.

“JohnJ. Crittenden.”

     There is instruction also to be drawn from the speeches of Senators      Saulsbury, and Johnson of Tennessee, made fully a year afterward      (Ja-31, 1862) in the Senate, touching the defeat of the      Crittenden Compromise by the Clark substitute at this time.       Speaking of the second session of the Thirty-sixth Congress, Mr.      Saulsbury said: 

     “At that session, while vainly striving with others for the      adoption of those measures, I remarked in my place in the Senate      that ­

     “’If any Gibbon should hereafter write the Decline and Fall of the      American Republic, he would date its fall from the rejection by the      Senate of the propositions submitted by the Senator from Kentucky.’

“I believed so then, and I believe so now.  I never shall forget, Mr. President, how my heart bounded for joy when I thought I saw a ray of hope for their adoption in the fact that a Republican Senator now on this floor came to me and requested that I should inquire of Mr. Toombs, who was on the eve of his departure for Georgia to take a seat in the Convention of that State which was to determine the momentous question whether she should continue a member of the Union or withdraw from it, whether, if the Crittenden propositions were adopted, Georgia would remain in the Union.

     “Said Mr. Toombs: 

“’Tell him frankly for me that if those resolutions are adopted by the vote of any respectable number of Republican Senators, evidencing their good faith to advocate their ratification by their people, Georgia will not Secede.  This is the position I assumed before the people of Georgia.  I told them that if the party in power gave evidence of an intention to preserve our rights in the Union, we were bound to wait until their people could act.’

“I communicated the answer.  The Substitute of the Senator from New Hampshire [Mr. Clark] was subsequently adopted, and from that day to this the darkness and the tempest and the storm have thickened, until thousands like myself, as good and as true Union men as you, Sir, though you may question our motives, have not only despaired but are without hope in the future.”

     To this speech, Mr. Johnson of Tennessee subsequently replied as      follows in the United States Senate (Jan. 31, 1862)

“Sir, it has been said by the distinguished Senator from Delaware [Mr. Saulsbury] that the questions of controversy might all have been settled by Compromise.  He dealt rather extensively in the Party aspect of the case, and seemingly desired to throw the onus of the present condition of affairs entirely on one side.  He told us that, if so and so had been done, these questions could have been settled, and that now there would have been no War.  He referred particularly to the resolution offered during the last Congress by the Senator from New Hampshire [Mr. Clark], and upon the vote on that he based his argument. The Senator told us that the adoption of the Clark amendment to the Crittenden Resolutions defeated the settlement of the questions of controversy; and that, but for that vote, all could have been peace and prosperity now.  We were told that the Clark amendment defeated the Crittenden Compromise, and prevented a settlement of the controversy.  On this point I will read a portion of the speech of my worthy and talented friend from California [Mr. Latham]; and when I speak of him thus, I do it in no unmeaning sense I intend that he, not I, shall answer the Senator from Delaware. As I have said, the Senator from Delaware told us that the Clark amendment was the turning point in the whole matter; that from it had flowed Rebellion, Revolution, War, the shooting and imprisonment of people in different States ­perhaps he meant to include my own.  This was the Pandora’s box that has been opened, out of which all the evils that now afflict the Land have flown. My worthy friend from California [Mr. Latham], during the last session of Congress, made one of the best speeches he ever made. In the course of that speech, upon this very point he made use of these remarks: 

“’Mr. President, being last winter a careful eye-witness of all that occurred, I soon became satisfied that it was a deliberate, wilful design, on the part of some representatives of Southern States, to seize upon the election of Mr. Lincoln merely as an excuse to precipitate this revolution upon the Country.  One evidence, to my mind, is the fact that South Carolina never sent her Senators here.’

     “Then they certainly were not influenced by the Clark amendment.

“’An additional evidence is, that when gentlemen on this floor, by their votes, could have controlled legislation, they refused to cast them for fear that the very Propositions submitted to this body might have an influence in changing the opinions of their constituencies.  Why, Sir, when the resolutions submitted by the Senator from New Hampshire [Mr. Clark], were offered as an amendment to the Crittenden Propositions, for the manifest purpose of embarrassing the latter, and the vote taken on the 16th of January, 1861, I ask, what did we see?  There were fifty-five Senators at that time upon this floor, in person.  The Globe of the second Session, Thirty-Sixth Congress, Part I., page 409, shows that upon the call of the yeas and nays immediately preceding the vote on the substituting of Mr. Clark’s amendment, there were fifty-five votes cast.  I will read the vote from the Globe: 

     “’Yeas ­Messrs. Anthony, Baker, Bingham, Cameron, Chandler, Clark,      Collamer, Dixon, Doolittle, Durkee, Fessenden, Foot, Foster,      Grimes, Hale, Harlan, King, Seward, Simmons, Sumner, Ten Eyck,      Trumbull, Wade, Wilkinson, and Wilson ­25.

     “NAYS ­Messrs. Bayard, Benjamin, Bigler, Bragg, Bright, Clingman,      Crittenden, Douglas, Fitch, Green, Gwin, Hemphill, Hunter, Iverson,      Johnson of Arkansas, Johnson of Tennessee, Kennedy, Lane, Latham,      Mason, Nicholson, Pearce, Polk, Powell, Pugh, Rice, Saulsbury,      Sebastian, Slidell and Wigfall ­30.

     “The vote being taken immediately after, on the Clark Proposition,      was as follows: 

     “Yeas ­Messrs. Anthony, Baker, Bingham, Cameron, Chandler, Clark,      Collamer, Dixon, Doolittle, Durkee, Fessenden, Foot, Foster,      Grimes, Hale, Harlan, King, Seward, Simmons, Sumner, Ten Eyck,      Trumbull, Wade, Wilkinson and Wilson ­25.

     “NAYS-Messrs. Bayard, Bigler, Bragg, Bright, Clingman, Crittenden,      Fitch, Green, Gwin, Hunter, Johnson of Tennessee, Kennefly, Lane,      Latham, Mason, Nicholson, Pearce, Polk, Powell, Pugh, Rice,      Saulsbury and Sebastian-23.

“’Six senators retained their seats and refused to vote, thus themselves allowing the Clark Proposition to supplant the Crittenden Resolution by a vote of twenty-five to twenty-three.  Mr. Benjamin of Louisiana, Mr. Hemphill and Mr. Wigfall of Texas, Mr. Iverson of Georgia, Mr. Johnson of Arkansas, and Mr. Slidell of Louisiana, were in their seats, but refused to cast their votes.’

“I sat right behind Mr. Benjamin, and I am not sure that my worthy friend was not close by, when he refused to vote, and I said to him, ’Mr. Benjamin, why do you not vote?  Why not save this Proposition, and see if we cannot bring the Country to it?’ He gave me rather an abrupt answer, and said he would control his own action without consulting me or anybody else.  Said I:  ’Vote, and show yourself an honest man.’  As soon as the vote was taken, he and others telegraphed South, ‘We cannot get any Compromise.’  Here were six Southern men refusing to vote, when the amendment would have been rejected by four majority if they had voted.  Who, then, has brought these evils on the Country?  Was it Mr. Clark?  He was acting out his own policy; but with the help we had from the other side of the chamber, if all those on this side had been true to the Constitution and faithful to their constituents, and had acted with fidelity to the Country, the amendment of the Senator from New Hampshire could have been voted down, the defeat of which the Senator from Delaware says would have saved the Country.  Whose fault was it?  Who is responsible for it? Who did it?  Southern traitors, as was said in the speech of the Senator from California.  They did it.  They wanted no Compromise.  They accomplished their object by withholding their votes; and hence the Country has been involved in the present difficulty.  Let me read another extract from this speech of the Senator from California

“’I recollect full well the joy that pervaded the faces of some of those gentlemen at the result, and the sorrow manifested by the venerable Senator from Kentucky [Mr. Crittenden].  The record shows that Mr. Pugh, from Ohio, despairing of any Compromise between the extremes of ultra Republicanism and Disunionists, working manifestly for the same end, moved, immediately after the vote was announced, to lay the whole subject on the table.  If you will turn to page 443, same volume, you will find, when, at a late period, Mr. Cameron, from Pennsylvania, moved to reconsider the vote, appeals having been made to sustain those who were struggling to preserve the Peace of the Country, that the vote was reconsidered; and when, at last, the Crittenden Propositions were submitted on the 2d day of March, these Southern States having ’nearly all Seceded, they were then lost but by one vote.  Here is the vote: 

     “Yeas-Messrs. Bayard, Bigler, Bright, Crittenden, Douglas, Gwin,      Hunter, Johnson of Tennessee, Kennedy, Lane, Latham, Mason,      Nicholson, Polk, Pugh, Rice, Sebastian, Thomson and Wigfall ­19.

     “’NAYS-Messrs. Anthony, Bingham, Chandler, Clark, Dixon,      Doolittle, Durkee, Fessenden, Foot, Foster, Grimes, Harlan, King,      Morrill, Sumner, Ten Eyck, Trumbull, Wade, Wilkinson and Wilson ­20.

“’If these Seceding Southern senators had remained, there would have passed, by a large vote (as it did without them), an amendment, by a two-third vote, forbidding Congress ever interfering with Slavery in the States.  The Crittenden Proposition would have been indorsed by a majority vote, the subject finally going before the People, who have never yet, after consideration, refused Justice, for any length of time, to any portion of the Country.

     “’I believe more, Mr. President, that these gentlemen were acting      in pursuance of a settled and fixed plan to break up and destroy      this Government.’

“When we had it in our power to vote down the amendment of the Senator from New Hampshire, and adopt the Crittenden Resolutions, certain Southern Senators prevented it; and yet, even at a late day of the session, after they had Seceded, the Crittenden Proposition was only lost by one vote.  If Rebellion and bloodshed and murder have followed, to whose skirts does the responsibility attach?

“What else was done at the very same session?  The House of Representatives passed, and sent to this body, a Proposition to amend the Constitution of the United States, so as to prohibit Congress from ever hereafter interfering with the Institution of Slavery in the States, making that restriction a part of the Organic law of the Land.  That Constitutional Amendment came here after the Senators from seven States had Seceded; and yet it was passed by a two-third vote in the Senate.  Have you ever heard of any one of the States which had then Seceded, or which has since Seceded, taking up that Amendment to the Constitution, and saying they would ratify it, and make it a part of that instrument?  No.  Does not the whole history of this Rebellion tell you that it was Revolution that the Leaders wanted, that they started for, that they intended to have?  The facts to which I have referred show how the Crittenden Proposition might have been carried; and when the Senators from the Slave States were reduced to one-fourth of the members of this body, the two Houses passed a Proposition to Amend the Constitution, so as to guarantee to the States perfect security in regard to the Institution of Slavery in all future time, and prohibiting Congress from legislating on the subject.

“But what more was done?  After Southern Senators had treacherously abandoned the Constitution and deserted their posts here, Congress passed Bills for the Organization of three new Territories:  Dakota, Nevada, and Colorado; and in the sixth section of each of those Bills, after conferring, affirmatively, power on the Territorial Legislature, it went on to exclude certain powers by using a negative form of expression; and it provided, among other things, that the Legislature should have no power to legislate so as to impair the right to private property; that it should lay no tax discriminating against one description of Property in favor of another; leaving the power on all these questions, not in the Territorial Legislature, but in the People when they should come to form a State Constitution.

“Now, I ask, taking the Amendment to the Constitution, and taking the three Territorial Bills, embracing every square inch of territory in the possession of the United States, how much of the Slavery question was left?  What better Compromise could have been made?  Still we are told that matters might have been Compromised, and that if we had agreed to Compromise, bloody Rebellion would not now be abroad in the Land.  Sir, Southern Senators are responsible for it.  They stood here with power to accomplish the result, and yet treacherously, and, I may say, tauntingly they left this chamber, and announced that they had dissolved their connection with the Government.  Then, when we were left in the hands of those whom we had been taught to believe would encroach upon our Rights, they gave us, in the Constitutional Amendment and in the three Territorial Bills, all that had ever been asked; and yet gentlemen talked Compromise!

“Why was not this taken and accepted?  No; it was not Compromise that the Leaders wanted; they wanted Power; they wanted to Destroy this Government, so that they might have place and emolument for themselves.  They had lost confidence in the intelligence and virtue and integrity of the People, and their capacity to govern themselves; and they intended to separate and form a government, the chief corner-stone of which should be Slavery, disfranchising the great mass of the People, of which we have seen constant evidence, and merging the Powers of Government in the hands of the Few.  I know what I say.  I know their feelings and their sentiments.  I served in the Senate here with them.  I know they were a Close Corporation, that had no more confidence in or respect for the People than has the Dey of Algiers.  I fought that Close Corporation here.  I knew that they were no friends of the People.  I knew that Slidell and Mason and Benjamin and Iverson and Toombs were the enemies of Free Government, and I know so now.  I commenced the war upon them before a State Seceded; and I intend to keep on fighting this great battle before the Country, for the perpetuity of Free Government.  They seek to overthrow it, and to establish a Despotism in its place.  That is the great battle which is upon our hands. Now, the Senator from Delaware tells us that if that (Crittenden) Compromise had been made, all these consequences would have been avoided.  It is a mere pretense; it is false.  Their object was to overturn the Government.  If they could not get the Control of this Government, they were willing to divide the Country and govern part of it.”]

The Clark substitute was then agreed to, by 25 (Republican) yeas to 23 Democratic and Conservative (Bell-Everett) nays ­6 Pro-Slavery Senators not voting, although present; and then, without division, the Crittenden Resolutions were tabled ­Mr. Cameron, however, entering a motion to reconsider.  Subsequently the action of the Senate, both on the Resolutions and Substitute, was reconsidered, and March 2d the matter came up again, as will hereafter appear.

Two days prior to this action in the Senate, Mr. Corwin, Chairman of the Select Committee of Thirty-three, reported to the House (January 14th), from a majority of that Committee, the following Joint Resolution: 

“Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That all attempts on the parts of the Legislatures of any of the States to obstruct or hinder the recovery and surrender of Fugitives from Service or Labor, are in derogation of the Constitution of the United States, inconsistent with the comity and good neighborhood that should prevail among the several States, and dangerous to the Peace of the Union.

“Resolved, That the several States be respectfully requested to cause their Statutes to be revised, with a view to ascertain if any of them are in conflict with or tend to embarrass or hinder the execution of the Laws of the United States, made in pursuance of the second section of the Fourth Article of the Constitution of the United States for the delivery up of Persons held to Labor by the laws of any State and escaping therefrom; and the Senate and House of Representatives earnestly request that all enactments having such tendency be forthwith repealed, as required by a just sense of Constitutional obligations, and by a due regard for the Peace of the Republic; and the President of the United States is requested to communicate these resolutions to the Governors of the several States, with a request that they will lay the same before the Legislatures thereof respectively.

“Resolved, That we recognize Slavery as now existing in fifteen of the United States by the usages and laws of those States; and we recognize no authority, legally or otherwise, outside of a State where it so exists, to interfere with Slaves or Slavery in such States, in disregard of the Rights of their owners or the Peace of society.

“Resolved, That we recognize the justice and propriety of a faithful execution of the Constitution, and laws made in pursuance thereof, on the subject of Fugitive Slaves, or Fugitives from Service or Labor, and discountenance all mobs or hindrances to the execution of such laws, and that citizens of each State shall be entitled to all the privileges and immunities of citizens in the several States.

“Resolved, That we recognize no such conflicting elements in its composition, or sufficient cause from any source, for a dissolution of this Government; that we were not sent here to destroy, but to sustain and harmonize the Institutions of the Country, and to see that equal justice is done to all parts of the same; and finally, to perpetuate its existence on terms of equality and justice to all the States.

“Resolved, That a faithful observance, on the part of all the States, of all their Constitutional obligations to each other and to the Federal Government, is essential to the Peace of the Country.

“Resolved, That it is the duty of the Federal Government to enforce the Federal Laws, protect the Federal property, and preserve the Union of these States.

“Resolved, That each State be requested to revise its Statutes, and, if necessary, so to amend the same as to secure, without Legislation by Congress, to citizens of other States traveling therein, the same protection as citizens of such States enjoy; and also to protect the citizens of other States traveling or sojourning therein against popular violence or illegal summary punishment, without trial in due form of law, for imputed crimes.

“Resolved, That each State be also respectfully requested to enact such laws as will prevent and punish any attempt whatever in such State to recognize or set on foot the lawless invasion of any other State or Territory.

“Resolved, That the President be requested to transmit copies of the foregoing resolutions to the Governors of the several States, with a request that they be communicated to their respective Legislatures.”

This Joint Resolution, with amendments proposed to the same, came up in the House for action, on the 27th of February, 1861 ­the same day upon which the Peace Congress or Conference concluded its labors at Washington.

The Proposition of Mr. Burch, of California, was the first acted upon.  It was to amend the Select Committee’s resolutions, as above given, by adding to them another resolution at the end thereof, as follows: 

“Resolved, etc., That it be, and is hereby, recommended to the several States of the Union that they, through their respective Legislatures, request the Congress of the United States to call a Convention of all the States, in accordance with Article Fifth of the Constitution, for the purpose of amending said Constitution in such manner and with regard to such subjects as will more adequately respond to the wants, and afford more sufficient Guarantees to the diversified and growing Interests of the Government and of the People composing the same.”

This (Burch) amendment, however, was defeated by 14 yeas to 109 nays.

A Proposition of Mr. Kellogg, of Illinois, came up next for action.  It was a motion to strike out all after the first word “That” in the Crittenden Proposition ­which had been offered by Mr. Clemens as a substitute for the Committee Resolutions ­and insert the following: 

“The following articles be, and are hereby, proposed and submitted as Amendments to the Constitution of the United States, which shall be valid, to all intents and purposes as part of said Constitution, when ratified by Conventions of three-fourths of the several States.

“Article XIII.  That in all the territory now held by the United States situate north of latitude 36 30’ Involuntary Servitude, except in the punishment for crime, is prohibited while such territory shall remain under a Territorial government; that in all the territory now held south of said line, neither Congress nor any Territorial Legislature shall hinder or prevent the emigration to said territory of Persons; held to Service from any State of this Union, when that relation exists by virtue of any law or usage of such State, while it shall remain in a Territorial condition; and when any Territory north or south of said line, within such boundaries as Congress may prescribe, shall contain the population requisite for a member of Congress, according to the then Federal ratio of representation of the People of the United States, it may, if its form of government be Republican, be admitted into the Union on an equal footing with the original States, with or without the relation of Persons held to Service and Labor, as the Constitution of such new State may provide.

“Article XIV.  That nothing in the Constitution of the United States, or any amendment thereto, shall be so construed as to authorize any Department of the Government to in any manner interfere with the relation of Persons held to Service in any State where that relation exists, nor in any manner to establish or sustain that relation in any State where it is prohibited by the Laws or Constitution of such State.  And that this Article shall not be altered or amended without the consent of every State in the Union.

“Article XV.  The third paragraph of the second section of the Fourth Article of the Constitution shall be taken and construed to authorize and empower Congress to pass laws necessary to secure the return of Persons held to Service or Labor under the laws of any State, who may have escaped therefrom, to the party to whom such Service or Labor may be due.

“Article XVI.  The migration or importation of Persons held to Service or Involuntary Servitude, into any State, Territory, or place within the United States, from any place or country beyond the limits of the United States or Territories thereof, is forever prohibited.

“Article XVII.  No territory beyond the present limits of the United States and the Territories thereof, shall be annexed to or be acquired by the United States, unless by treaty, which treaty shall be ratified by a vote of two-thirds of the Senate.”

The Kellogg Proposition was defeated by 33 yeas to 158 nays.

The Clemens Substitute was next voted on.  This embraced the whole of the Crittenden Compromise Proposition, as amended in the Senate by inserting the provision as to all territory “hereafter acquired,” with the addition of another proposed Article of Amendment to the Constitution, as follows: 

“Article vii.  Section I. The elective franchise and the Right to hold office, whether Federal, State, Territorial, or Municipal, shall not be exercised by Persons who are, in whole or in part, of the African Race.

“Section ii.  The United States shall have power to acquire from time to time districts of country in Africa and South America, for the colonization, at expense of the Federal Treasury, of such Free Negroes and Mulattoes as the several States may wish to have removed from their limits, and from the District of Columbia, and such other places as may be under the jurisdiction of Congress.”

The Clemens Substitute (or Crittenden Measure, with the addition of said proposed Article vii.), was defeated by 80 yeas to 113 nays, and then the Joint Resolution of the Select Committee as heretofore given ­after a vain attempt to table it ­was passed by 136 yeas to 53 nays.

Immediately after this action, a Joint Resolution to amend the Constitution of the United States, which had also been previously reported by the Select Committee of Thirty-three, came before the House, as follows: 

“Be it Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, (two-thirds of both Houses concurring), That the following Article be proposed to the Legislatures of the several States as an Amendment to the Constitution of the United States, which, when ratified by three-fourths of said Legislatures, shall be valid, to all intents and purposes, as a part of the said Constitution, namely: 

“Article XII.  No amendment of this Constitution having for its object any interference within the States with the relation between their citizens and those described in Section ii. of the First Article of the Constitution as ‘all other persons,’ shall originate with any State that does not recognize that relation within its own limits, or shall be valid without the assent of every one of the States composing the Union.”

Mr. Corwin submitted an Amendment striking out all the words after “namely;” and inserting the following: 

“Article XII.  No amendment shall be made to the Constitution which will authorize or give to Congress the power to abolish or interfere, within any State, with the Domestic Institutions thereof, including that of Persons held to Labor or Service by the laws of said State.”

Amid scenes of great disorder, the Corwin Amendment was adopted by 120 yeas to 61 nays, and then the Joint Resolution as amended, was defeated (two-thirds not voting in the affirmative) by 123 yeas to 71 nays.  On the following day (February 28th), amid still greater confusion and disorder, which the Speaker, despite frequent efforts, was unable to quell, that vote was reconsidered, and the Joint Resolution passed by 133 yeas to 65 nays ­a result which, when announced was received with “loud and prolonged applause, both on the floor, and in the galleries.”

On the 2d of March, the House Joint Resolution just given, proposing an Amendment to the Constitution, prohibiting Congress from touching Slavery within any State where it exists, came up in the Senate for action.

Mr. Pugh moved to substitute for it the Crittenden Proposition.

Mr. Doolittle moved to amend the proposed substitute (the Crittenden Proposition), by the insertion of the following, as an additional Article: 

“Under this Constitution, as originally adopted, and as it now exists, no State has power to withdraw from the jurisdiction of the United States; but this Constitution, and all laws passed in pursuance of its delegated powers, are the Supreme Law of the Land, anything contained in any Constitution, Ordinance, or Act of any State, to the contrary notwithstanding.”

Mr. Doolittle’s amendment was lost by 18 yeas to 28 nays.

Mr. Pugh’s substitute (the Crittenden Proposition), was lost by 14 yeas to 25 nays.

Mr. Bingham moved to amend the House Joint Resolution, by striking out all after the word “resolved,” and inserting the words of the Clark Proposition as heretofore given, but the amendment was rejected by 13 yeas to 25 nays.

Mr. Grimes moved to strike out all after the word “whereas” in the preamble of the House Joint Resolution, and insert the following: 

“The Legislatures of the States of Kentucky, New Jersey, and Illinois have applied to Congress to call a Convention for proposing Amendments to the Constitution of the United States:  Therefore,

“Be it Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That the Legislatures of the other States be invited to take the subject of such a Convention into consideration, and to express their will on that subject to Congress, in pursuance of the Fifth Article of the Constitution.”

This amendment was also rejected, by 14 yeas to 25 nays.

Mr. Johnson, of Arkansas, offered, as an amendment to the House Joint Resolution, the propositions submitted by the Peace Congress or Conference, but the amendment was disagreed to by 3 yeas to 34 nays.

The House Joint Resolution was then adopted by 24 yeas to 12 nays.

Subsequently the Crittenden Proposition came up again as a separate order, with the Clark substitute to it (once carried, but reconsidered), pending.  The Clark substitute was then rejected by 14 yeas to 22 nays.

Mr. Crittenden then offered the Propositions of the Peace Congress, as a substitute for his own-and they were rejected by 7 yeas to 28 nays.

The Crittenden Proposition itself was then rejected, by 19 yeas to 20 nays.