Southern View of History: The War for Southern
PART IV. HISTORY OF SECESSION AND COMPROMISES
In Part four we briefly examine the history of secession movements
following the revolutionary war until the Southern States secession of 1860-61
and to look at legislations that used compromises to keep the union
Objective: To develop an understanding of the various secessions
movements in America,
examine the nature of many compromises legislated to hold the union of states
together in an attempt to avoid Southern State Secession.
A. Early American Secession Attempts
Concern for states' rights and thoughts of secession were
not exclusive to the South. The secession of South
Carolina in December of 1860 was not the first time that secession
had been dealt with in the United
States. There had been several secession
threats and attempts prior to 1860. Significant strains to national unity
had erupted in earlier times, notably during the Missouri statehood crisis (1820-1821), the
nullification controversy (1832-1833), and the aftermath of the Mexican War
(1849-1850). On each of these occasions, political leaders managed to find a
compromise that dissipated the danger. Inevitably, compromise proposals were
now offered to avert this new possibility of civil war.
1803: The state of Massachusetts
threatened secession in 1803. They were protesting the Louisiana
said that this purchase would dilute their power within the Union. Many of the politicians in Massachusetts argued that they had the right
to secede. Daniel Webster defended Massachusetts in this attempt. The secession
was avoided by negotiation and compromise between Webster, Henry Clay and
President Thomas Jefferson.
Seven years after the Louisiana Territory was purchased from France by the United
States, the southeastern portion of present-day Louisiana found itself
under Spanish control. In 1810 the people living in the land of the Florida panhandle, stretching westward to the southern
tip of what would later become Louisiana,
declared independence. Residents of Fort
San Carlos rose against
Spanish rule in September 1810, took over the fort, and raised a Bonnie Blue, a
blue flag with one white star in the middle, as their national flag. The
commandant of the militia, Philemon Thomas, along with John Rhea and other
prominent citizens led the assault, and a former American diplomat, Fulwar
Skipwith, was named president of the West
They declared that they were an independent nation and developed their own
constitution. This republic survived for three months until it was
invaded by troops from the United
States. President James Madison
authorized the governor of the U.S.
Territory of Orleans,
William C. C. Claiborne, to take over the West Florida
Republic with what every
force was necessary. The Louisiana
State Archives maintains the original
1810 Constitution of the West
along with other documents pertaining the creation of the republic.
HARTFORD CONVENTION: The New England region, once
again, was the subject of secession when in 1814 all of the New England
states, who had earlier demanded that the United States enter the War of 1812,
became dissatisfied with the war when it cut into their potential for making
a profit. New England states held close mercantile ties to Great Britain.
Both Massachusetts and Connecticut refused to contribute militia to
the federal government. In spite of an embargo enacted by Congress in December
1813, New Englanders continued to sell supplies to British troops in Canada and to
British vessels offshore. This demand for wartime provisions benefited New England businessmen and their states, as did the
enhanced market for domestic manufactures
During the fall of 1814 twenty-six delegates from the New
England states met in Hartford, Connecticut. This meeting is known as
Convention. The Hartford
Convention had been organized by the Federalist Party. Of the 26 delegates, 12
were from Massachusetts, 7 from Connecticut, 4 from Rhode Island,
2 from New Hampshire, and 1 from Vermont. Maine was still a district within Massachusetts. At this meeting the New England states put together a list of demands in
order to protect the interests of their region. Federalist extremists,
such as John Lowell Jr. and Timothy Pickering, contemplated a separate
peace between New England and Great
Britain. Political cartoons of the day
depicted England's King
George III trying to lure Massachusetts, Connecticut, and Rhode
Island back into the British fold. The
delegates drafted articles for secession and drafted proposals to challenge
what they saw as President James Madison's military
despotism with the intent to force him to resign. Before the results of this
convention could reach Washington,
D.C., the war came to an end.
The news of the Treaty of Ghent
ending the war and of Andrew Jackson’s victory at New Orleans made any recommendation of the
convention a dead letter. Its importance, however, was twofold: It continued
the view of states’ rights as the refuge of sectional groups, and it sealed the
destruction of the Federalist party, which never regained its lost
prestige. It so humiliated the attendees of the convention
the Federalist Party leaders, that the party ceased to exist as a political
TARIFFS AND NULLIFICATION: The system of Tariffs
was triggered from fallout from the
War of 1812. The British attempted to destroy America's manufacturers by
competition. The first protective tariff was passed by Congress in 1816, which
was then increasing in 1824, and again in 1828, the Tariff of Abominations. In
1828 the state of South Carolina
threatened secession. Sectional differences including financial issues
including unfair taxes and tariffs towards the southern states were
already a significant issue. The United States Federal government
was collecting most of its revenues from the South but was not spending
a proportional amount of the revenue in or for the South. Most of the
federal spending was being done in the northern states, fueling their
industrial growth and helping northern entrepreneurs and speculators to grow
rich and powerful. Unfair tariff laws were passed that economically
discriminated against the South.
One tariff that was placed on imported goods, the Tariff
of Abominations, raised prices on some items as high as 50
percent above the original European price. So if a item could be imported from England to Massachusetts
for $100, it would cost $150 to import that same item to Georgia. The Northern
interest profited two ways. The tariff raised the price of British goods
so high, that they could force Southern to buy goods, sometimes of lower
quality from Northern Business. So an item that might have a previous market
value of $95 was sold to the Southern businesses for $120. Another way
they could profit was to buy the good from England at $100 and sell it to Southern
businesses for $135 as a middleman, just below the tariff price, and make a
profit without any manufacturing expenses and no capital restrictions.
If the South bought directly from England either in cash or by trade
of goods such as cotton the extra $50 cost in tariffs to the Federal
government. Either way the Southern business lost a competitive edge.
Britain in retaliation to finding themselves tariffed out of the market,
started to refuse to buy cotton, once again hurting the Southern farmers. These
unfair tariff economics would eventually lead to the 1832 Nullification
Doctrine, by John C. Calhoun of South
Carolina, which stated that a state had the right to
consider a federal law null and void within its state boundaries. South Carolinians believed there
was precedence for the nullification of unconstitutional federal laws. South Carolina called a
convention to nullify the tariff acts of 1828 and 1832. The convention
declared these tariff acts unconstitutional and authorized the governor to resist
federal efforts to collect them.
In December of 1832, President Andrew Jackson issued a proclamation after reinforcing
the federal forts located near the harbor in Charleston,
warning the people of South Carolina
that no state can secede from the union "because each secession
destroys the unity of a nation." Jackson
was furious over the nullification measures and stated "If one
drop of blood be shed there in defiance of the laws of the United States,
I will hang the first man of them I can get my hands on to the first
tree I can find." Jackson even asked Congress, in 1833,
to pass a force bill allowing him to use the military to enforce the new
Despite these threats Jackson,
not wanting to push South Carolina
into open rebellion, welcomed a compromise tariff bill proposed by Henry
Clay. On March 1, 1833, Congress passed he Great Compromise of
1833 a settlement to reduce the tariffs in gradual steps to 20% over a
nine year period. South Carolina's leaders accepted this compromise and
the South Carolina convention repealed the act nullifying the earlier
tariff law, thus, avoiding South Carolina's
secession for the time being.
According to this chart produced in 1850, the South
produced more than a million bales of cotton a year, three-fourths of the
world's supply. In dollar value, cotton represented more than half of the
nation's exports, making it a lucrative target for the Northern business and
political interests to control. With the North manipulation of the
economy, the South felt more and more like a colony, not of Great Britain,
but this time the Federal Government.
References and Details:
"Forrest And His Campaigns. CASUS
BELLI." Southern Historical Society Papers Vol. VII. Richmond, Va.,
October 1879. No. 10
"Calhoun--Nullification Explained. By Colonel
Benjamin E. Green of Dalton,
GA." Southern Historical
Society Papers. Vol. XIV. Richmond,
Va., January-December 1886
"Letters and Times of the Tylers" Southern Historical Society
Papers. Vol. XIV. Richmond,
"Annual Reunion of the Association of the Army of Northern Virginia. The Tariff and
Nullification" Southern Historical Society Papers. Vol. XVII. Richmond, Va.,
"The Case Of The South Against The North." Southern
Historical Society Papers. Vol. XXVIII. Richmond,
Va., January-December 1900
"The Causes Of The War.-Nullification"
Southern Historical Society Papers. Vol. XXXII. Richmond, Va.,
"Living Confederate Principles: A Heritage for All
Time." Southern Historical Society Papers. Richmond, Va.,
Sept. 1915. New Series, Vol. 2, Old Series, Vol. XL.
"When in the Course of Human Events", by
Charles Adams, Chapters 4, 5, 6
"The Lost Cause: The Standard Southern History of
the War of the Confederates" by Edward A. Pollard, Chapter 3,
"Story of the Confederate States" by Joseph T.
Derry, Part 2, Chapter 2.
"New England in the
Republic", by J.T. Adams
"History of the Hartford Convention" by Theodore Dwight
"The Story of the West Florida Rebellion", by Stanley C. Arthur
B. Compromise Attempts
Compromise: By 1818, Missouri Territory had gained sufficient population to be admission
into the Union as a state. Its settlers came
largely from the South, and it was expected that Missouri would be a states rights state. To
a statehood bill brought before the House of Representatives, James Tallmadge
of New York proposed an amendment that would
forbid importation of slaves and would bring about the ultimate emancipation of
all slaves born in Missouri.
This amendment passed the House but not the Senate. The bitterness of the
debates emphasized the sectional division of the United States. In 1820, a bill to
as a state passed the House. The admission of Alabama as a states right state
in 1819 had brought the states rights often referred to as southern slave
states and the Northern called free states to equal representation in the
Senate, and it was seen that by pairing Maine and Missouri, this equality would
be maintained. The two bills were joined as one in the Senate, with the clause
forbidding slavery in Missouri replaced by a measure prohibiting slavery in the
remainder of the Louisiana Purchase north the southern boundary of Missouri of
(36°30'N latitude) The House failed the bill. A conference committee of members
of both houses was appointed, the bills were treated separately, and in March
1820, Maine was made a state and Missouri was authorized
to adopt a constitution having no restrictions on slavery. The 36°30'
proviso held until 1854, when the Kansas-Nebraska Act repealed the Missouri Compromise.
Compromise of 1850. The annexation of
Texas to the United States and the gain of new territory by the Treaty of
Guadalupe Hidalgo at the close of the Mexican War aggravated the hostility between
North and South concerning the question of the extension of states rights vs
federal regulation into the new territories, of which extension of slavery,
protected by the constitution, was an issue. The Northern states favored
the proposal to exclude slavery, and thus Southern influence from all the lands
acquired from Mexico.
This, naturally, met with violent Southern opposition. When
California sought admittance to the Union as a
free state in 1849, Congress feared the
Southern states might withdraw from the Union altogether since they were losing
in the balance of power to legislate their own destinies as part of the United States.
John C. Calhoun and other Southerners, particularly Jefferson Davis, maintained
that the South should be given guarantees of equal position in the territories,
of the execution of fugitive slave laws, and of protection against the
abolitionists and the group that would become known as the "Radical
Republicans". Henry Clay proposed that a series of measures be
passed as compromise bill. The admission of California as a free
state, the organization of New Mexico and Utah territories without
mention of slavery, the status of that institution to be determined by the
territories themselves when they were ready to be admitted as states, the
prohibition of the slave trade in the District of Columbia, a more stringent
fugitive slave law; and the settlement of Texas boundary were the points of the
compromise. Congress passed these measures as separate bills in
September1850. Many in the North and South saw the compromise as a final
solution to the question of slavery, states rights, and balance of influence in
the nation and would bring an end to the threat of secession.
The Kansas-Nebraska Act of 1854:
Congress established the territories of Kansas
which again caused concern between North and South as to balance in the
legislature, and the opportunity of popular sovereignty, a key component of
states rights advocates. By some it was played up to be another bitter sectional
controversy over the extension of slavery into the territories, further
complicated by conflict over the location of the projected transcontinental
railroad. Again Northern industrialists wanted to play all the cards with
regards to control and profiteering from the railroad. Because the West
was expanding rapidly, territorial organization and alignments were of great
concern to both sections of the country. Four attempts to organize a single
territory for this area had already been defeated in Congress, largely because
of Southern opposition to the Missouri
Compromise. Stephen A. Douglas, chairman of the Senate Committee
on Territories, decided to offer territorial legislation making concessions to
the South. The bill he introduced contained the provision that the question of
slavery should be left to the decision of the territorial settlers themselves,
which was exactly in line with states rights, popular sovereignty thinking held
so dear by the Southern people. Yes they wanted to maintain a balance of
power in the legislature, but they also wanted the citizens of their state to
determine their own laws, rather than have them dictated by Congress. The
Kansas-Nebraska Act contradicted the provisions of the Missouri Compromise as an amendment was added
specifically repealing that compromise. The popular sovereignty provision
caused both Southern and Northern forces to marshal strength and exert full
pressure to determine the popular decision in Kansas in their own favor, using groups such
as the Emigrant Aid Company. The result was know in history as "Bleeding Kansas".
Compromise was becoming more and more of a failure
between the Northern and the Southern points of view. Amongst the
many reasons for failure were three principal reasons. First
the heart and sentiment of the country lay in burning hatreds, gnawing distrusts,
and unbending prejudices which no new laws or statutory amendments could quell.
Secondly, two distinct, determined camps of opinion, philosophy and leadership,
those being radical Republicans and the fire-eating secessionists, were
committed to mutually incompatible positions. Finally, Congress as body
of politicians was too close to party politics and power to regional
viewpoints, too prone to posturing for public effect and political
one-ups-manship, and too little thought national in scope. For compromise
to succeed, statesmanship with national rather than regional, political, or
special group economy goals were required. Congress did not have the
inclination, nor the wherewithal at that point in history to unite for the
common good of the states. Throughout the 1850's incidents of conflict of
political and economic interests further alienated members of the legislature.
Statesmanship was replaced by antagonism. An example was the
Brooks-Sumner incident in the House of Representatives in 1856.
North-South tensions heightened, so did Massachusetts Congressman Charles
Sumner's rhetoric against the South. In his Crime Against Kansas
speech, delivered in May 1856, he lambasted southern efforts to extend slavery
into Kansas and attacked his colleague, Andrew
P. Butler of South Carolina.
The South was pictured as evil slave holders, even though the issue the South
was stressing was to allow the people of the new states decide their own
fate. Of course, like any political cause, they sough allies, in this
case new states and territories that would be sympathetic with their political
and economic concerns. Shortly after Sumner's infuriating speech, Butler's cousin,
Congressman Preston Brooks of South Carolina, assaulted Sumner on the Senate
floor. At the presses spin on the incident as seen in the drawing is that the
cruel South and Southerners were the aggressors and the poor North, good and
reasonable were the victims. No attempt was made, at least in the
Northern press to understand the provocation that Brooks felt and which in turn
drove him to the attack. Brooks chose to address this months later in
Congress July 14, 1856: "Some time since a Senator from Massachusetts allowed
himself, in an elaborately prepared speech, to offer a gross insult to my
State, and to a venerable friend, who is my State representative, and who was
absent at the time. Not content with that, he published to the
world, and circulated extensively, this uncalled for libel on my State and my
blood. Whatever insults my State insults me. Her history and character have
commanded my pious veneration; and in her defense I hope I shall always be
prepared, humbly and modestly, to perform the duty of a son. I should have
forfeited my own self-respect, and perhaps the good opinion of my countrymen,
if I had failed to resent such an injury by calling the offender in question to
a personal account." He further comment to attacks he received
in the press:" The question has been asked in certain newspapers, why I
did not invite the Senator to personal combat in the mode usually adopted.
Well, sir, as I desire the
whole truth to be known about the matter, I will for once notice a newspaper
article on the floor of the House, and answer here. My answer is, that the
Senator would not accept a message; and having formed the unalterable
determination to punish him, I believed that the offence of "sending a
hostile message," superadded to the indictment for assault and battery,
would subject me to legal penalties more severe than would be imposed for a
simple assault and battery. That is my answer." This is an other
example of how two regions saw the world different. Duty, honor, action,
were viewed differently in the North than in the South. A prelude to a
bigger, more costly, more blood conflict could be seen.
On the floor of the House of Representatives there were
angry harangues, denunciations, and charges, emphasized by bursts of
hand-clapping, foot-stomping, and raucous laughter. In the galleries,
applause and hissing emanated from the crowd of onlookers which often
included loafers, clerks, politicians, handsomely dressed ladies and gentlemen.
In the lobbies, a seething, murmuring, ugly-tempered mass of political
maneuvers, at times using rough language that would have disgraced a barroom
was sounded within the codicils of the congress. Recurrently, speakers
lashed out in passages that threatened to precipitate a general affray.
The scene was no better in the Senate as men raised their
fists and shouted at each other. Threats
of violence became commonplace. Sen. James Hammonds, of South Carolina,
said, "The only persons who do not have a revolver and a
knife are those who have two revolvers." For a time a New England Representative, a former clergyman,
came unarmed, but finally he too bought a pistol. A Louisiana
Congressman threatened to fetch his double-barreled shotgun into the House.
Supporters of both parties in the galleries also bore lethal weapons and were
ready to use them. A single shot or blow might have brought on a melee
which would have shocked the civilized world and perhaps dissolved the
By 1859 a strong current of secession talk was running
through the general speechmaking of Southern members of the two houses
of Congress. Southern champions in Washington were now more determined than
ever before to have Southern grievances addressed. Currents of sectional
antagonism flowed from the House as well as the Senate. The road to separation
was being followed. The birth of the Confederacy was coming closer as
men began to see no hope of a formal resolution of Southern grievances. On
December 6, 1860, Senators Brown of Mississippi,
Iverson of Georgia, and
Wigfall of Texas
had made speeches implying that "the heroic South would depart no
matter what delusive concessions were
made to her."
Howell Cobb had included in his address to Georgians, on
December 6, 1860, a condemnation of compromise. Every hour that Georgia stayed in the union after Lincoln came into
power would be "an hour of degradation, to be followed by certain and
References and Details:
"Annual Reunion of the Association of the Army of Northern Virginia. Sectional Interest the True
Issue" Southern Historical Society Papers. Vol. XVII. Richmond, Va.,
"The Lost Cause: The Standard Southern History of
the War of the Confederates" by Edward A. Pollard, Chapter 4.
Congressional Record 1850-1860
"Origin Of The Late War" Southern Historical
Society Papers, Vol. I. Richmond, Virginia,
January, 1876. No. 1
"A Vindication Of Virginia And Of The South", Southern
Historical Society Papers, Vol. I. Richmond, Virginia.,
February, 1876. No. 2
"Fifth Annual Meeting Of The Southern Historical Society, 1877. No. 1-2", Southern Historical Society
Papers, Vol. V. Richmond, Virginia,
January - February, October 31st., 1877
"Address of Colonel Edward McCrady, Jr." Southern
Historical Society Papers. Vol. XVI. Richmond, Va.,
"Development of the Free Soil Idea in the United States", Southern
Historical Society Papers, Vol. XVII. Richmond,
Va., January-December. 1889.
"The Causes Of The War, Southern Historical Society Papers, Vol. XXXII.
"The Repeal of the Missouri Compromise", by P. O. Ray
"The History of the Confederacy 1832-1865", by
Clifford Dowdey, Chapter 2
"The Story of the Confederate States", by
Joseph T. Derry, Part II, Chapters 2 and 3
C. The Crittenden Compromise
The Crittenden Compromise was authored by Kentucky
Senator John Crittenden
a Whig and disciple of Henry Clayand who interestly enough had two sons that
would become generals on opposite sides in the war. Crittenden was part of a
Senate committee called a "Committee of Thirteen," formed to
address the crisis of the possible secession of the South. The
committee consisted of: Jefferson Davis, of Mississippi, and Robert
Toombs, of Georgia, representing the Lower South; R.M.T. Hunter of
Virginia, Lazarus W. Powell and Crittenden, both of Kentucky, representing
the border land states; Stephen A. Douglas and William M. Bigler of
Pennsylvania and Henry M. Rice of Minnesota,
represented the Northern Democrats; William H. Seward from New York, an ardent
abolitionist and Republican Party founder, Jacob Collamer, of Vermont,
Ben Wade of Ohio, James. R. Doolittle of Wisconsin and James W. Grimes of
Iowa, representing the Northwestern radicals.
At first, Davis
declined to serve because of the position he and his state were known to occupy,
but under the advice of friends he changed his mind. The committee was
named on the very day that South
Carolina seceded from the union. The committee
had little time and would have to act rapidly. It should be noted that not one
of the committee leaders was in close working relations with Lincoln, especially after Jefferson
Davis broke with him. Curiously, Seward, became the principal intermediary
between the committee and the staunch Unionists of the Cabinet. Leadership
within the committee lay with Crittenden. On the day the committee was formed,
Crittenden proposed six Constitutional amendments, seeking to satisfy both
sides of the sectional crisis.
Crittenden's plan, one of seven offered from within the
committee, received earnest attention. The Compromise, as offered on
December 18, 1860, consisted of a preamble, six proposed constitutional
amendments, and four proposed Congressional resolutions. Martin Van Buren
declared that the amendments would certainly be ratified by three-fourths of
the states. Crittenden received hundreds of assurances from all over the
North and the border states
that his policy had reached the popular heart. Before long, resolutions and
petition were pouring in upon Congress. In New York City,
63,000 people signed an endorsement of the plan. Another petition bore the
names of 14,000 women, scattered from North
Carolina to Vermont.
From St. Louis
came nearly a hundred pages of names, wrapped in the American flag.
But the five Republicans in the committee were influenced
not by public opinion but by personal conviction, party principle, and
the voice of free-soil leaders. The four minor Senators were inclined to
wait for guidance from Seward. Seward was waiting for a statement of
policy from Abraham Lincoln. Lincoln
had already made his mind up. He was never for a moment moved by the Crittenden
Compromise which was one of the most fateful decisions of Abraham Lincoln’s
career. The first committee vote was taken in Seward’s absence and the
proposal was defeated by the Republican majority. Four days later the
committee reported to the Senate that it could reach no conclusion.
in January, Crittenden rose in the Senate to make a proposal that his
compromise should be submitted to the people of the entire nation for a popular
vote. The proposal inspired widespread enthusiasm. Stephen Douglas
declared in the Senate, on the same day Crittenden’s proposal was made,
January 3, 1861, that he would "venture to prophesy that
the Republicans themselves would approve the proposed amendments."
Horace Greeley later declared that in a popular referendum, the compromise
would have prevailed by "an overwhelming majority."
Basically the plan reaffirmed accepted the boundary between free and slave
states that had been set by the Missouri Compromise (1820–21), extended the
line to California, and assured the continuation of slavery where it already
existed by decision of individual states. In addition, upheld the fugitive
slave law (1850) with minor modifications, and called for vigorous suppression
of the African slave trade. At a peace conference called by the Virginia legislature in
1861, the compromise gained support from four border state delegations. But
neither radical Northerners nor radical Southerners liked the plan. Because of
Republican obstruction, interposing delay after delay, it failed in the house
by a vote of 113 to 80 and in the Senate in March by a vote of 20 to 19.
While compromise was failing in the Senate, it was doing
little better in the House, which was even worse adapted to the task of
peacemaking. A body too large, too contentious, and too strongly
Republican for mediation effort. The House had agreed, on December
4, 1860, to form a special committee of one from each state to discuss
the condition of the union. Two days later, Speaker Pennington appointed
the "Committee of Thirty-Three." The committee consisted of
sixteen Republicans, fourteen Democrats and three Opposition members.
But he failed to name a single Douglas man
from the North and most of his Southerners were unrepresentative of
public opinion. He also chose too many radical Republicans. The
committee was more inclined to quarrel than to agree. No member of the
committee offered a plan that caught the national attention like the Crittenden
References and Details:
"Development of the Free Soil Idea in the United States.
An Address Delivered Before the Members of the Nebraska State
Historical Society on the Evening of January 14, 1890. By HON. W. H. ELLER.
Southern Historical Society Papers. Vol. XVII. Richmond, Va.,
"The Vindication Of The South. To Preserve
the Union" Southern Historical Society
Papers. Vol. XXVII. Richmond,
1899. "Dedication of the Virginia Memorial at Gettysburg, Friday, June 8, 1917"
Southern Historical Society Papers. Richmond,
Va., Sept., 1917. New Series,
Vol. 4, Old Series, Vol. XLII.
"The Lost Cause: The Standard Southern History of
the War of the Confederates" By Edward A. Pollard, Chapter 4 &
"Story of the Confederate States" by Joseph T.
Derry, Part 3, Section 1, Chapter 1.
"The Story of the Confederacy" by Robert S.
Henry Chapter 2.
"John J. Crittenden: The National Union Party
Struggle for the Union", By D.
"Congressional Resolutions Relative to the Peace
Commissioners" Southern Historical Society Papers 1959. New
Series, Vol. 14, Old Series, Vol. LII. 2d Confederate Congress--(2d
Session)--Saturday, February 25, 1865
D. Final Attempts At Compromise
had failed to reach any compromise with the States that had now chosen to
seceded. The Commonwealth of Virginia promoted a peace conference in the hope that
the delegates could arrive at some amicable compromise, then secession fever
might diminish and the seceded states might be convinced to rejoin the Union. Governor John Letcher and the Virginia Legislature
proposed to hold this National Peace Conference early in 1861 to make one final
attempt to overt the break up of the union. On January 19, 1861 all
states were invited to send delegates to the convention which would meet in
Washington, D.C. on February 4, 1861. The Washington
Peace Conference met at the Willard Hotel, in Washington,
from February 4th through February 27th, 1861, but only some of the states sent
representatives. The Lower South, and Arkansas,
boycotted the convention. The seceding states were forming the Confederacy and
thought that the compromise was a game to trick the border areas into staying
in the Union rather than joining the new
Confederacy. Representatives of 21 of the States still in the Union,
among them, Maryland, Tennessee,
North Carolina, Missouri,
Delaware, and Virginia were in attendance. Former
president John Tyler of Virginia
was the presiding officer.
attitude of Northern extremists toward the convention can be seen when Michigan senators were
initially opposed to their state’s participation in the conference. But
on February 9, both of them telegraphed their governor to send delegates.
They did so on the grounds that moderate members of the assemblage seemed likely
to prevail and that more obstructionists were needed. J.A. Seddon of
Virginia, David Wilmot of Pennsylvania, and Lot M. Morrill of Maine, did
their utmost to obstruct the gathering.
The absence of thirteen states was too great a hurdle for the convention
to overcome. In the last days of the Buchanan Administration, the
conference agreed to resolutions framed as a single amendment made of seven
sections. This amendment and its sections were very similar to the Crittenden
Compromise, although slightly different in wording and a few details.
When these resolutions were presented to a Senate committee, they were
rejected 28-7. The House, on March 1, refused to suspend its rules in
order to consider the amendment. Neither North or South seemed to
want to listen to the proposal. Soon Virginia,
North Carolina and Tennessee also seceded to join the new
The final attempt at compromise in order to prevent the dissolving of the
Union, came from Congress because the Peace
Conference failed produce the desired results. The Corwin amendment was and
remains a proposed amendment to the United States Constitution offered by Ohio
Congressman Thomas Corwin during the closing days of the 2nd Session of the
36th Congress as House Joint Resolution No. 80. The proposed, but not yet
ratified amendment would have forbidden the Federal banning of slavery and was
a last-ditch effort to avert the outbreak of the Civil War. Corwin's measure
emerged as the House of Representatives' version of an earlier identical
proposal in the Senate by William Seward. This Congressional compromise effort
would have been an amendment to the constitution, but is almost never discussed
by present day historians because it discredits their banner of a "war to
free the slaves" and the northern icons, people they hold up as the moral
beacons of America.
The proposal was that the Northern legislators would guarantee slavery for
states that already had it. This amendment passed both houses of Congress
without any slave states present, offering proof that the failure of previous
compromise efforts was based on opposition to the spread of slavery, rather
than a vote against slavery itself.
On February 28, 1861, the United
States House of Representatives approved the
resolution by a vote of 133-65 (Page 1285, Congressional Globe). On
March 2, 1861, it was approved by the United States Senate with a vote of
24-12 (Page 1403, Congressional Globe). A young Henry Adams observed
that the measure narrowly passed both houses due to the lobbying efforts
of Abraham Lincoln, the President-Elect. The Corwin amendment appears
officially in Volume 12 of the Statutes at Large at page 251. The official
record from the U.S.
House of Representatives notes:
"Joint Resolution to amend the Constitution of the United States.
Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States
of America in Congress assembled, 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 part of the said Constitution,
viz.: "Article Thirteen" 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." APPROVED, March 2, 1861.
The resolution was signed by President James Buchanan, shortly before Lincoln was inaugurated.
It is interesting to note that this is the only proposed, but not ratified
amendment to the Constitution, to have been signed by a President. The
President's signature is considered unnecessary because of the constitutional
provision that on the concurrence of two-thirds of both Houses of Congress the
proposal shall be submitted to the States for ratification. The is also
President is powerless to veto a proposed constitutional amendment. It is the
only amendment to that time ever issued by Congress which contained in its
actual text a numerical designation.
Some secondary sources state that Lincoln
sign ed this resolution He was already elected but not inaugurated until
March 4 1861. More secondary sources state that Buchanan, who was still
the sitting president at the time signed it. Since this was a proposed
13th amendment in 1861 and was not ratified into law, I fear some in their
research of the “presidential signed this amendment” are confusing it with the
actual 13th Amendment that Lincoln
did get ratified in December 1864. We may never be able to discern the truth
involvement due to the attempts at sanctification of his life by his
revisionist history worshipers.
Ratification efforts began almost immediately after the measure's
adoption and included a public endorsement in the inaugural address of
Abraham Lincoln. Lincoln's
lack of opposition to the amendment proposal in his address of March 4, 1861 is
evidence that he was willing to accept slavery if it meant that his government
could continue collecting tariffs.
“I understand a proposed amendment to the Constitution, which
amendment, however, I have not seen, has passed Congress, to the effect that
Federal Government shall never interfere with the domestic institutions of the
States, including that of persons held to service. To avoid misconstruction of
what I have said, I depart from my purpose not to speak of particular
amendments so far as to say that, holding such a provision
to now be implied constitutional law, I have no objection to its being made
express and irrevocable.”
This symbolic approval of slavery by Lincoln also gives significant credibility
to the idea that his much heralded Emancipation Proclamation that would come in
1863 was no more than a destabilizing maneuver aimed at the Southern economy
and to reduce their capacity to sustain a defense to the Northern war.
The proposal was ratified by the legislatures of Ohio
(May 13,1861) and Maryland
(January 10, 1862). Illinois lawmakers, sitting as a constitutional convention
at the time also approved it. The amendment is known to have been considered
for ratification in several additional states including Kentucky, New York, and
Connecticut where it was either rejected or died in committee under
neglect as other wartime issues came to preoccupy the those states attention.
References and Details:
"Living Confederate Principles: A Heritage for All
Time" Southern Historical Society Papers. Richmond, Va.,
Sept., 1915. New Series, Vol. 2, Old Series, Vol. XL
"The Lost Cause: The Standard Southern History of
the War of the Confederates"" by Edward A. Pollard, Chapter 4, 5, 6
"Story of the Confederate States" by Joseph T.
Derry, Part 3, Section 1, Chapter 1
"The Story of the Confederacy" by Robert S.
Henry Chapter 2
Political History of the United States of America during the
Great Rebellion by Edward McPherson
Congressional Record 1861
Congressional Globe, Page 1285
Congressional Globe, Page 1403
Volume 12 of the Statutes at Large, Page 251
Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia
From Revolution to Reconstruction 1994
Part 4 Questions:
In short essay format give and support an opinion for at least six of
1. Describe the motivation of the New England states and the Federalists
as it pertained to the Hartford
Convention and potential secession in the early 1800's.
2. Give justification for or against the Tariffs of Abominations
either from the Northern or Southern perspective.
3. If you were a Southern farmer or business man, what would your
reactions have been to the Nullification actions proposed by Calhoun?
4. What sectional concerns regarding westward expansion continued to
be raised by both the North and the South from the Missouri Compromise through the Compromise
5. Why would the South wish to have a popular sovereignty approach to new
territories and states, and the North push for predetermined federal
legislation for the new states?
6. Why was the term "Bloody Kansas"
coined and what circumstances caused the Kansas-Nebraska Act to aggravate the
7. Why would most Southern citizens understand and support Preston Brooks
response to Charles Sumner, and why would most Northern citizens and the
Northern Press condemn Brooks?
8. What motives did the Republican members of the "Committee of
Thirteen" have to ignore popular support of the Crittenden Comprise and to
vote to defeat the plan?
9. What were the problems faced by the National Peace Conference of 1861?
10. Explain the motives behind Lincoln and the Congress with regards to
the proposed 13th Amendment. What implications does that have regarding
defining the cause of the war to come?
11. When looking over the proposed 13th Amendment we see Lincoln more
concerned about holding the union together and maintain revenue from Southern
states, compared to the concerns of black slaves. Why do you think America has been lead to believe that Lincoln was the
"Great Emancipator" in the face of campaign statements regarding the
Negro and slavery?