Chapter XIV: Book I (11)

The Clark Amendment prevailed only in consequence of the refusal of six Secession Senators to vote against it. These were Messrs. Benjamin and Slidell, of Louisiana; Mr. Iverson, of Georgia; Messrs. Hemphill and Wigfall, of Texas; and Mr. Johnson, of Arkansas. Had these gentleman voted with the border slaveholding States and the other Democratic Senators, the Clark Amendment would have been defeated, and the Senate would then have been brought to a direct vote on the Crittenden resolution.

It is proper for reference that the names of those Senators who constituted the majority on this question, should be placed upon record. Every vote given from the six New England States was in opposition to Mr. Crittenden’s resolution. These consisted of Mr. Clark, of New Hampshire; Messrs. Sumner and Wilson, of Massachusetts; Mr. Anthony, of Rhode Island; Messrs. Dixon and Foster, of Connecticut; Mr. Foot, of Vermont; and Mr. Fessenden, of Maine. The remaining twelve votes, in order to make up the 20, were given by Messrs. Bingham and Wade, of Ohio; Mr. Trumbull, of Illinois; Messrs. Bingham and Chandler, of Michigan; Messrs. Grimes and Harlan, of Iowa; Messrs. Doolittle and Durkee, of Wisconsin; Mr. Wilkinson, of Minnesota; Mr. King, of New York; and Mr. Ten Eyck, of New Jersey. The Republicans not voting were Hale of New Hampshire; Simmons of Rhode Island; Collamer of Vermont; Seward of New York, and Cameron of Pennsylvania. They refrained from various motives, but in the majority of instances because they disbelieved in any effort to compromise, for nearly all were recognized leaders of the more radical sentiment, and in favor of coercion of the South by energetic use of the war powers of the government. This was specially true of Hale, Seward, and General Cameron, shortly after Secretary of War, and the first Cabinet officer who favored the raising of an immense army and the early liberation and arming of the slaves.

On December 4th, 1860, on motion of Mr. Boteler of Virginia, so much of President Buchanan’s message as related to the perilous condition of the country, was referred to a special committee of one from each State, as follows:

Corwin of Ohio; Millson of Virginia; Adams of Massachusetts; Winslow of North Carolina; Humphrey of New York; Boyce of South Carolina; Campbell of Pennsylvania; Love of Georgia; Ferry of Connecticut; Davis of Maryland; Robinson of Rhode Island; Whiteley of Delaware; Tappan of New Hampshire; Stratton of New Jersey; Bristow of Kentucky; Morrill of Vermont; Nelson of Tennessee; Dunn of Indiana; Taylor of Louisiana; Davis of Mississippi; Kellogg of Illinois; Houston of Alabama; Morse of Maine; Phelps of Missouri; Rust of Arkansas; Howard of Michigan; Hawkins of Florida; Hamilton of Texas; Washburn of Wisconsin; Curtis of Iowa; Burch of California; Windom of Minnesota; Stout of Oregon.

Messrs. Hawkins and Boyce asked to be excused from service on the Committee, but the House refused.

From this Committee Mr. Corwin reported, January 14th, 1861, a series of propositions with a written statement in advocacy thereof. Several minority reports were presented, but the following Joint Resolution is the only one which secured the assent of both Houses.

CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT.

_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:

ART. 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.

The Legislatures of Ohio and Maryland agreed to the amendment promptly, but events followed so rapidly, that the attention of other States was drawn from it, and nothing came of this, the only Congressional movement endorsed which looked to reconciliation. Other propositions came from the Border and individual states, but all alike failed.

The Peace Convention.

The General Assembly of Virginia, on the 19th of January, adopted resolutions inviting Representatives of the several States to assemble in a Peace Convention at Washington, which met on the 4th of February. It was composed of 133 Commissioners, many from the border States, and the object of these was to prevail upon their associates from the North to unite with them in such recommendations to Congress as would prevent their own States from seceding and enable them to bring back six of the cotton States which had already seceded.

One month only of the session of Congress remained. Within this brief period it was necessary that the Convention should recommend amendments to the Constitution in sufficient time to enable both Houses to act upon them before their final adjournment. It was also essential to success that these amendments should be sustained by a decided majority of the commissioners both from the Northern and the border States.

On Wednesday, the 6th February, a resolution was adopted,[10] on motion of Mr. Guthrie, of Kentucky, to refer the resolutions of the General Assembly of Virginia, and all other kindred subjects, to a committee to consist of one commissioner from each State, to be selected by the respective State delegations; and to prevent delay they were instructed to report on or before the Friday following (the 8th), “what they may deem right, necessary, and proper to restore harmony and preserve the Union.”

This committee, instead of reporting on the day appointed, did not report until Friday, the 15th February.

The amendments reported by a majority of the committee, through Mr. Guthrie, their chairman, were substantially the same with the Crittenden Compromise; but on motion of Mr. Johnson, of Maryland, the general terms of the first and by far the most important section were restricted to the _present_ Territories of the United States. On motion of Mr. Franklin, of Pennsylvania, this section was further amended, but not materially changed, by the adoption of the substitute offered by him. Nearly in this form it was afterwards adopted by the Convention. The following is a copy: “In all the present territory of the United States north of the parallel of thirty-six degrees and thirty minutes 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.”

Mr. Baldwin, of Connecticut, and Mr. Seddon, of Virginia, made minority reports, which they proposed to substitute for that of the majority. Mr. Baldwin’s report was a recommendation “to the several States to unite with Kentucky in her application to Congress to call a Convention for proposing amendments to the Constitution of the United States, to be submitted to the Legislatures of the several States, or to Conventions therein, for ratification, as the one or the other mode of ratification may be proposed by Congress, in accordance with the provisions in the fifth article of the Constitution.”

The proposition of Mr. Baldwin, received the votes of eight of the twenty-one States. These consisted of the whole of the New England States, except Rhode Island, and of Illinois, Iowa, and New York, all being free States.

The first amendment reported by Mr. Seddon differed from that of the majority inasmuch as it embraced not only the present but all future Territories. This was rejected. His second amendment, which, however, was never voted upon by the Convention, went so far as distinctly to recognize the right of secession.

More than ten days were consumed in discussion and in voting upon various propositions offered by individual commissioners. The final vote was not reached until Tuesday, the 26th February, when it was taken on the first vitally important section, as amended.

This section, on which all the rest depended, was negatived by a vote of eight States to eleven. Those which voted in its favor were Delaware, Kentucky, Maryland, New Jersey, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, and Tennessee. And those in the negative were Connecticut, Illinois, Iowa, Maine, Massachusetts, Missouri, New York, North Carolina, New Hampshire, Vermont, and Virginia. It is but justice to say that Messrs. Ruffin and Morehead, of North Carolina, and Messrs. Rives and Summers, of Virginia, two of the five commissioners from each of these States, declared their dissent from the vote of their respective States. So, also, did Messrs. Bronson, Corning, Dodge, Wool, and Granger, five of the eleven New York commissioners, dissent from the vote of their State. On the other hand, Messrs. Meredith and Wilmot, two of the seven commissioners from Pennsylvania, dissented from the majority in voting in favor of the section. Thus would the Convention have terminated but for the interposition of Illinois. Immediately after the section had been negatived, the commissioners from that State made a motion to reconsider the vote, and this prevailed. The Convention afterwards adjourned until the next morning. When they reassembled (February 27,) the first section was adopted, but only by a majority of nine to eight States, nine being less than a majority of the States represented. This change was effected by a change of the vote of Illinois from the negative to the affirmative, by Missouri withholding her vote, and by a tie in the New York commissioners, on account of the absence of one of their number, rendering it impossible for the State to vote. Still Virginia and North Carolina, and Connecticut, Maine, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, and Vermont, persisted in voting in the negative. From the nature of this vote, it was manifestly impossible that two-thirds of both Houses of Congress should act favorably on the amendment, even if the delay had not already rendered such action impracticable before the close of the session.

The remaining sections of the amendment were carried by small majorities. The Convention, on the same day, through Mr. Tyler, their President, communicated to the Senate and House of Representatives the amendment they had adopted, embracing all the sections, with a request that it might be submitted by Congress, under the Constitution, to the several State Legislatures. In the Senate this was immediately referred to a select committee, on motion of Mr. Crittenden. The committee, on the next day (28th Feb.), reported a joint resolution proposing it as an amendment to the Constitution, but he was never able to bring the Senate to a direct vote upon it. Failing in this, he made a motion to substitute the amendment of the Peace Convention for his own.

Mr. Crittenden’s reasons failed to convince the Senate, and his motion was rejected by a large majority (28 to 7). Then next in succession came the memorable vote on Mr. Crittenden’s own resolution, and it was in its turn defeated, as we have already stated, by a majority of 20 against 19.

In the House of Representatives, the amendment proposed by the Convention was treated with still less consideration than it had been by the Senate. The Speaker was refused leave even to present it. Every effort made for this purpose was successfully resisted by leading Republican members. The consequence is that a copy of it does not even appear in the Journal.

The refusal to pass the Crittenden or any other Compromise heightened the excitement in the South, where many showed great reluctance to dividing the Union. Georgia, though one of the cotton States, under the influence of conservative men like Alex. H. Stephens, showed greater concern for the Union than any other, and it took all the influence of spirits like that of Robert Toombs to bring her to favor secession. She was the most powerful of the cotton States and the richest, as she is to-day. On the 22d of December, 1860, Robert Toombs sent the following exciting telegraphic manifesto from Washington:

_Fellow-Citizens of Georgia_: I came here to secure your constitutional rights, or to demonstrate to you that you can get no guarantees for these rights from your Northern Confederates.

The whole subject was referred to a committee of thirteen in the Senate yesterday. I was appointed on the committee and accepted the trust. I submitted propositions, which, so far from receiving decided support from a single member of the Republican party on the committee, were all treated with either derision or contempt. The vote was then taken in committee on the amendments to the Constitution, proposed by Hon. J. J. Crittenden of Kentucky, and each and all of them were voted against, unanimously, by the Black Republican members of the committee.

In addition to these facts, a majority of the Black Republican members of the committee declared distinctly that they had no guarantees to offer, which was silently acquiesced in by the other members.

The Black Republican members of this Committee of Thirteen are representative men of their party and section, and to the extent of my information, truly represent the Committee of Thirty-three in the House, which on Tuesday adjourned for a week without coming to any vote, after solemnly pledging themselves to vote on all propositions then before them on that date.

That committee is controlled by Black Republicans, your enemies, who only seek to amuse you with delusive hope until your election, in order that you may defeat the friends of secession. If you are deceived by them, it shall not be my fault. I have put the test fairly and frankly. It is decisive against you; and now I tell you upon the faith of a true man that all further looking to the North for security for your constitutional rights in the Union ought to be instantly abandoned. It is fraught with nothing but ruin to yourselves and your posterity.

Secession by the fourth of March next should be thundered from the ballot-box by the unanimous voice of Georgia on the second day of January next. Such a voice will be your best guarantee for LIBERTY, SECURITY, TRANQUILLITY and GLORY.

ROBERT TOOMBS.

IMPORTANT TELEGRAPHIC CORRESPONDENCE.

_Atlanta, Georgia_, December 26th, 1860. _Hon. S. A. Douglas or Hon. J. J. Crittenden_:

Mr. Toombs’s despatch of the 22d inst. unsettled conservatives here. Is there any hope for Southern rights in the Union? We are for the Union of our fathers, if Southern rights can be preserved in it. If not, we are for secession. Can we yet hope the Union will be preserved on this principle? You are looked to in this emergency. Give us your views by despatch and oblige

WILLIAM EZZARD.
ROBERT W. SIMS.
JAMES P. HAMBLETON.
THOMAS S. POWELL.
S. G. HOWELL.
J. A. HAYDEN.
G. W. ADAIR.
R. C. HONLESTER.

_Washington_, December 29th, 1860.

In reply to your inquiry, we have hopes that the rights of the South, and of every State and section, may be protected within the Union. Don’t give up the ship. Don’t despair of the Republic.

J. J. CRITTENDEN.
S. A. DOUGLAS.

Congress, amid excitement which the above dispatches indicate, and which was general, remained for several weeks comparatively inactive. Buchanan sent messages, but his suggestions were distrusted by the Republicans, who stood firm in the conviction that when Lincoln took his seat, and the new Congress came in, they could pass measures calculated to restore the property of and protect the integrity of the Union. None of them believed in the right of secession; all had lost faith in compromises, and all of this party repudiated the theory that Congress had no right to coerce a State. The revival of these questions, revived also the logical thoughts of Webster in his great reply to Hayne, and the way in which he then expanded the constitution was now accepted as the proper doctrine of Republicanism on that question. No partisan sophistry could shake the convictions made by Webster, and so apt were his arguments in their application to every new development that they supplied every logical want in the Northern mind. Republican orators and newspapers quoted and endorsed, until nearly every reading mind was imbued with the same sentiments, until in fact the Northern Democrats, and at all times the Douglas Democrats, were ready to stand by the flag of the Union. George W. Curtis, in _Harper’s Weekly_ (a journal which at the time graphically illustrated the best Union thoughts and sentiments), in an issue as late as January 12th, 1872, well described the power of Webster’s grand ability[11] over a crisis which he did not live to see, Mr. Curtis says:—

“The war for the Union was a vindication of that theory of its nature which Webster had maintained in a memorably impregnable and conclusive manner. His second speech on Foot’s resolution—the reply to Hayne—was the most famous and effective speech ever delivered in this country. It stated clearly and fixed firmly in the American mind the theory of the government, which was not, indeed, original with Webster, but which is nowhere else presented with such complete and inexorable reason as in this speech. If the poet be the man who is so consummate a master of expression that he only says perfectly what everybody thinks, upon this great occasion the orator was the poet. He spoke the profound but often obscured and dimly conceived conviction of a nation. He made the whole argument of the civil war a generation before the war occurred, and it has remained unanswered and unanswerable. Mr. Everett, in his discourse at the dedication of the statute of Webster, in the State-House grounds in Boston in 1859, described the orator at the delivery of this great speech. The evening before he seemed to be so careless that Mr. Everett feared that he might not be fully aware of the gravity of the occasion. But when the hour came, the man was there. ‘As I saw him in the evening, if I may borrow an illustration from his favorite amusement,’ said Mr. Everett, ‘he was as unconcerned and as free of spirit as some here have often seen him while floating in his fishing-boat along a hazy shore, gently rocking on the tranquil tide, dropping his line here and there with the varying fortune of the sport. The next morning he was like some mighty admiral, dark and terrible, casting the long shadow of his frowning tiers far over the sea, that seemed to sink beneath him; his broad pennant streaming at the main, the Stars and Stripes at the fore, the mizzen, and the peak, and bearing down like a tempest upon his antagonist, with all his canvas strained to the wind, and all his thunders roaring from his broadsides.’ This passage well suggests that indescribable impression of great oratory which Rufus Choate, in his eulogy of Webster at Dartmouth College, conveys by a felicitous citation of what Quintilian says of Hortensius, that there was some spell in the spoken word which the reader misses.”

As we have remarked, the Republicans were awaiting the coming of a near and greater power to themselves, and at the same time jealously watching the movements of the friends of the South in Congress and in the President’s Cabinet. It needed all their watchfulness to prevent advantages which the secessionists thought they had a right to take. Thus Jefferson Davis, on January 9th, 1860, introduced to the senate a bill “to authorize the sale of public arms to the several States and Territories,” and as secession became more probable he sought to press its passage, but failed. Floyd, the Secretary of War, was far more successful, and his conduct was made the subject of the following historic and most remarkable report:-

Transfer of U. S. Arms South In 1859–60.

Report (Abstract of) made by Mr. B. Stanton, from the Committee on Military Affairs, in House of Representatives, Feb. 18th, 1861.

The Committee on Military Affairs, to whom was referred the resolution of the House of Representatives of 31st of December last, instructing said committee to inquire and report to the House, how, to whom, and at what price, the public arms distributed since the first day of January, A. D. 1860, have been disposed of; and also into the condition of the forts, arsenals, dock-yards, etc., etc., submit the following report:

That it appears from the papers herewith submitted, that Mr. Floyd, the late Secretary of War, by the authority or under color of the law of March 3d, 1825, authorizing the Secretary of War to sell any arms, ammunition, or other military stores which should be found unsuitable for the public service, sold to sundry persons and States 31,610 flint-lock muskets, altered to percussion, at $2.50 each, between the 1st day of January, A. D. 1860, and the 1st day of January, A. D., 1861. It will be seen from the testimony of Colonel Craig and Captain Maynadier, that they differ as to whether the arms so sold had been found, “upon proper inspection, to be unsuitable for the public service.”

Whilst the Committee do not deem it important to decide this question, they say, that in their judgment it would require a very liberal construction of the law to bring these sales within its provisions.

It also appears that on the 21st day of November last, Mr. Belknap made application to the Secretary of War for the purchase of from one to two hundred and fifty thousand United States muskets, flint-locks and altered to percussion, at $2.15 each; but the Secretary alleges that the acceptance was made under a misapprehension of the price bid, he supposing it was $2.50 each, instead of $2.15.

Mr. Belknap denies all knowledge of any mistake or misapprehension, and insists upon the performance of his contract.

The present Secretary refuses to recognize the contract, and the muskets have not been delivered to Mr. Belknap.

Mr. Belknap testifies that the muskets were intended for the Sardinian government.

It will appear by the papers herewith submitted, that on the 29th of December, 1859, the Secretary of War ordered the transfer of 65,000 percussion muskets, 40,000 muskets altered to percussion, and 10,000 percussion rifles, from the Springfield Armory and the Watertown and Watervliet Arsenals, to the Arsenals at Fayetteville, N. C., Charleston, S. C., Augusta, Ga., Mount Vernon, Ala., and Baton Rouge, La., and that these arms were distributed during the spring of 1860 as follows:

Percussion muskets. Altered muskets. Rifles. To Charleston Arsenal, 9,280 5,720 2,000 To North Carolina Arsenal, 15,480 9,520 2,000 To Augusta Arsenal, 12,380 7,620 2,000 To Mount Vernon Arsenal, 9,280 5,720 2,000 To Baton Rouge Arsenal, 18,580 11,420 2,000 —————— —————— —————— 65,000 40,000 10,000

All of these arms, except those sent to the North Carolina Arsenal,[12] have been seized by the authorities of the several States of South Carolina, Alabama, Louisiana and Georgia, and are no longer in possession of the United States.

It will appear by the testimony herewith presented, that on the 20th of October last the Secretary of War ordered forty columbiads and four thirty-two pounders to be sent from the Arsenal at Pittsburg to the fort on Ship Island, on the coast of Mississippi, then in an unfinished condition, and seventy columbiads and seven thirty-two pounders to be sent from the same Arsenal to the fort at Galveston, in Texas, the building of which had scarcely been commenced.

This order was given to the Secretary of War, without any report from the Engineer department showing that said works were ready for their armament, or that the guns were needed at either of said points.

It will be seen by the testimony of Captain Wright, of the Engineer department, that the fort at Galveston cannot be ready for its entire armament in less than about five years, nor for any part of it in less than two; and that the fort at Ship Island will require an appropriation of $85,000 and one year’s time before it can be ready for any part of its armament. This last named fort has been taken possession of by the State authorities of Mississippi.

The order of the late Secretary of War (Floyd) was countermanded by the present Secretary (Holt) before it had been fully executed by the shipment of said guns from Pittsburg.[13]

It will be seen by a communication from the Ordnance office of the 21st of January last, that by the last returns there were remaining in the United States arsenals and armories the following small arms, viz:

Percussion muskets and muskets altered to percussion of calibre
69 499,554

Percussion rifles, calibre 54 42,011

———————

Total 541,565

Of these 60,878 were deposited in the arsenals of South Carolina, Alabama, and Louisiana, and are in the possession of the authorities of those States, reducing the number in possession of the United States to 480,687.

Since the date of said communication, the following additional forts and military posts have been taken possession of by parties acting under the authority of the States in which they are respectively situated, viz:

Fort Moultrie, South Carolina. Fort Morgan, Alabama. Baton Rouge Barracks, Louisiana. Fort Jackson, Louisiana. Fort St. Philip, „ Fort Pike, Louisiana. Oglethorpe Barracks, Georgia.

And the department has been unofficially advised that the arsenal at Chattahoochee, Forts McRea and Barrancas, and Barracks, have been seized by the authorities of Florida.

To what further extent the small arms in possession of the United States may have been reduced by these figures, your committee have not been advised.

The whole number of the seaboard forts in the United States is fifty-seven; their appropriate garrison in war would require 26,420 men; their actual garrison at this time is 1,334 men, 1,308 of whom are in the forts at Governor’s Island, New York; Fort McHenry, Maryland; Fort Monroe, Virginia, and at Alcatraz Island, California, in the harbor of San Francisco.

From the facts elicited, it is certain that the regular military force of the United States, is wholly inadequate to the protection of the forts, arsenals, dock-yards, and other property of the United States in the present disturbed condition of the country. The regular army numbers only 18,000 men when recruited to its maximum strength, and the whole of this force is required for the protection of the border settlements against Indian depredations. Unless it is the intention of Congress that the forts, arsenals, dock-yards and other public property, shall be exposed to capture and spoliation, the President must be armed with additional force for their protection.

In the opinion of the Committee the law of February 28th, 1795, confers upon the President ample power to call out the militia, execute the laws and protect the public property. But as the late Attorney-General has given a different opinion, the Committee to remove all doubt upon the subject, report the accompanying bill, etc.

OTHER ITEMS.

_Statement of Arms distributed by Sale since the first of January, 1860, to whom sold and the place whence sold._

_To whom sold._ _No._ _1860. _Arsenals. Date of Sale._ Where sold._ J. W. Zacharie & Co. 4,000 Feb. 3 St. Louis. James T. Ames 1,000 Mar. 14 New York. Captain G. Barry 80 June 11 St. Louis. W. C. N. Swift 400 Aug. 31 Springfield. do. 80 Nov. 13 do. State of Alabama 1,000 Sep. 27 Baton Rouge. do. 2,500 Nov. 14 do. State of Virginia 5,000 Nov. 6 Washington. Phillips county, Ark. 50 Nov. 16 St. Louis. G. B. Lamar 10,000 Nov. 24 Watervliet.

The arms were all flint-lock muskets altered to percussion, and were all sold at $2.50 each, except those purchased by Captain G. Barry and by the Phillips county volunteers, for which $2 each were paid.

The Mobile _Advertiser_ says: “During the past year 135,430 muskets have been quietly transferred from the Northern Arsenal at Springfield alone, to those in the Southern States. We are much obliged to Secretary Floyd for the foresight he has thus displayed in disarming the North and _equipping the South for this emergency_. There is no telling the quantity of arms and munitions which were sent South from other Northern arsenals. There is no doubt but that every man in the South who can carry a gun can now be supplied from private or public sources. The Springfield contribution alone would arm all the militiamen of Alabama and Mississippi.”

General Scott, in his letter of December 2d, 1862, on the early history of the Rebellion, states that “Rhode Island, Delaware and Texas had not drawn, at the end of 1860, their annual quotas of arms for that year, and Massachusetts, Tennessee, and Kentucky only in part; Virginia, South Carolina, Georgia, Florida, Alabama, Louisiana, Mississippi and Kansas were, by order of the Secretary of War, supplied with their quotas for 1861 in advance, and Pennsylvania and Maryland in part.”

This advance of arms to eight Southern States is in addition to the transfer, about the same time, of 115,000 muskets to Southern arsenals, as per Mr. Stanton’s report.

Governor Letcher of Virginia, in his Message of December, 1861, says, that for some time prior to secession, he had been engaged in purchasing arms, ammunition, etc.; among which were 13 Parrott rifled cannon, and 5,000 muskets. He desired to buy from the United States Government 10,000 more, when buying the 5,000, but he says “the authorities declined to sell them to us, although five times the number were then in the arsenal at Washington.”

Had Jefferson Davis’ bill relative to the purchase of arms become a law, the result might have been different.

This and similar action on the part of the South, especially the attempted seizure and occupation of forts, convinced many of the Republicans that no compromise could endure, however earnest its advocates from the Border States, and this earnestness was unquestioned. Besides their attachment to the Union, they knew that in the threatened war they would be the greatest sufferers, with their people divided neighbor against neighbor, their lands laid waste, and their houses destroyed. They had every motive for earnestness in the effort to conciliate the disagreeing sections.

The oddest partisan feature in the entire preliminary and political struggle was the attempt, in the parlance of the day, of “New York to secede from New York”—an oddity verified by Mayor Wood’s recommendation in favor of the secession of New York city, made January 6th, 1861. The document deserves a place in this history, as it shows the views of a portion of the citizens then, and an exposition of their interests as presented by a citizen before and since named by repeated elections to Congress.

Mayor Wood’s Secession Message.

_To the Honorable the Common Council_:

GENTLEMEN:—We are entering upon the public duties of the year under
circumstances as unprecedented as they are gloomy and painful to
contemplate. The great trading and producing interests of not only the
city of New York, but of the entire country, are prostrated by a
monetary crisis; and although similar calamities have before befallen
us, it is the first time that they have emanated from causes having no
other origin than that which may be traced to political disturbances.
Truly, may it now be said, “We are in the midst of a revolution
_bloodless_ AS YET.” Whether the dreadful alternative implied as
probable in the conclusion of this prophetic quotation may be averted,
“no human ken can divine.” It is quite certain that the severity of
the storm is unexampled in our history, and if the disintegration of
the Federal Government, with the consequent destruction of all the
material interests of the people shall not follow, it will be owing
more to the interposition of Divine Providence, than to the inherent
preventive power of our institutions, or the intervention of any other
human agency.

It would seem that a dissolution of the Federal Union is inevitable.
Having been formed originally on a basis of general and mutual
protection, but separate local independence—each State reserving the
entire and absolute control of its own domestic affairs, it is
evidently impossible to keep them together longer than they deem
themselves fairly treated by each other, or longer than the interests,
honor and fraternity of the people of the several States are
satisfied. Being a Government created by _opinion_, its continuance is
dependent upon the continuance of the sentiment which formed it. It
cannot be preserved by coercion or held together by force. A resort to
this last dreadful alternative would of itself destroy not only the
Government, but the lives and property of the people.

If these forebodings shall be realized, and a separation of the States
shall occur, momentous considerations will be presented to the
corporate authorities of this city. We must provide for the new
relations which will necessarily grow out of the new condition of
public affairs.

It will not only be necessary for us to settle the relations which we
shall hold to other cities and States, but to establish, if we can,
new ones with a portion of our own State. Being the child of the
Union, having drawn our sustenance from its bosom, and arisen to our
present power and strength through the vigor of our mother—when
deprived of her maternal advantages, we must rely upon our own
resources and assume a position predicated upon the new phase which
public affairs will present, and upon the inherent strength which our
geographical, commercial, political, and financial pre-eminence
imparts to us.

With our aggrieved brethren of the Slave States, we have friendly
relations and a common sympathy. We have not participated in the
warfare upon their constitutional rights or their domestic
institutions. While other portions of our State have unfortunately
been imbued with the fanatical spirit which actuates a portion of the
people of New England, the city of New York has unfalteringly
preserved the integrity of its principles in adherence to the
compromises of the Constitution and the equal rights of the people of
all the States. We have respected the local interests of every
section, at no time oppressing, but all the while aiding in the
development of the resources of the whole country. Our ships have
penetrated to every clime, and so have New York capital, energy and
enterprise found their way to every State, and, indeed, to almost
every county and town of the American Union. If we have derived
sustenance from the Union, so have we in return disseminated blessings
for the common benefit of all. Therefore, New York has a right to
expect, and should endeavor to preserve a continuance of uninterrupted
intercourse with every section.

It is, however, folly to disguise the fact that, judging from the
past, New York may have more cause of apprehension from the aggressive
legislation of our own State than from external dangers. We have
already largely suffered from this cause. For the past five years, our
interests and corporate rights have been repeatedly trampled upon.
Being an integral portion of the State, it has been assumed, and in
effect tacitly admitted on our part by nonresistance, that all
political and governmental power over us rested in the State
Legislature. Even the common right of taxing ourselves for our own
government, has been yielded, and we are not permitted to do so
without this authority.***

Thus it will be seen that the political connection between the people
of the city and the State has been used by the latter to our injury.
The Legislature, in which the present partizan majority has the power,
has become the instrument by which we are plundered to enrich their
speculators, lobby agents, and Abolition politicians. Laws are passed
through their malign influence by which, under forms of legal
enactment, our burdens have been increased, our substance eaten out,
and our municipal liberties destroyed. Self-government, though
guaranteed by the State Constitution, and left to every other county
and city, has been taken from us by this foreign power, whose
dependents have been sent among us to destroy our liberties by
subverting our political system.

How we shall rid ourselves of this odious and oppressive connection,
it is not for me to determine. It is certain that a dissolution cannot
be peacefully accomplished, except by the consent of the Legislature
itself. Whether this can be obtained or not, is, in my judgment,
doubtful. Deriving so much advantage from its power over the city, it
is not probable that a partizan majority will consent to a
separation—and the resort to force by violence and revolution must not
be thought of for an instant. We have been distinguished as an orderly
and law-abiding people. Let us do nothing to forfeit this character,
or to add to the present distracted condition of public affairs.

Much, no doubt, can be said in favor of the justice and policy of a
separation. It may be said that secession or revolution in any of the
United States would be subversive of all Federal authority, and, so
far as the Central Government is concerned, the resolving of the
community into its original elements—that, if part of the States form
new combinations and Governments, other States may do the same.
California and her sisters of the Pacific will no doubt set up an
independent Republic and husband their own rich mineral resources. The
Western States, equally rich in cereals and other agricultural
products, will probably do the same. Then it may be said, why should
not New York city, instead of supporting by her contributions in
revenue two-thirds of the expenses of the United States, become also
equally independent? As a free city, with but nominal duty on imports,
her local Government could be supported without taxation upon her
people. Thus we could live free from taxes, and have cheap goods
nearly duty free. In this she would have the whole and united support
of the Southern States, as well as all the other States to whose
interests and rights under the Constitution she has always been true.

It is well for individuals or communities to look every danger square
in the face, and to meet it calmly and bravely. As dreadful as the
severing of the bonds that have hitherto united the States has been in
contemplation, it is now apparently a stern and inevitable fact. We
have now to meet it with all the consequences, whatever they may be.
If the Confederacy is broken up the Government is dissolved, and it
behooves every distinct community, as well as every individual, to
take care of themselves.

When Disunion has become a fixed and certain fact, why may not New
York disrupt the bands which bind her to a venal and corrupt master—to
a people and a party that have plundered her revenues, attempted to
ruin her commerce, taken away the power of self-government, and
destroyed the Confederacy of which she was the proud Empire City? Amid
the gloom which the present and prospective condition of things must
cast over the country, New York, as a _Free City_, may shed the only
light and hope of a future reconstruction of our once blessed
Confederacy.

But I am not prepared to recommend the violence implied in these
views. In stating this argument in favor of freedom, “peaceably if we
can, forcibly if we must,” let me not be misunderstood. The redress
can be found only in appeals to the magnanimity of the people of the
whole State. The events of the past two months have no doubt effected
a change in the popular sentiment of the State and National politics.
This change may bring us the desired relief, and we may be able to
obtain a repeal of the law to which I have referred, and a consequent
restoration of our corporate rights.

FERNANDO WOOD, Mayor

January 6th, 1861.

Congress on the Eve of the Rebellion.

It should be borne in mind that all of the propositions, whether for compromise, authority to suppress insurrection, or new laws to collect duties, had to be considered by the Second Session of the 36th Congress, which was then, with the exception of the Republicans, a few Americans, and the anti-Lecompton men, supporting the administration of Buchanan. No Congress ever had so many and such grave propositions presented to it, and none ever showed more exciting political divisions. It was composed of the following persons, some of whom survive, and most of whom are historic characters:

SENATE.

JOHN C. BRECKINRIDGE, of Kentucky, _Vice-President_;

_Maine_—H. Hamlin,[14] W. P. Fessenden.

_New Hampshire_—John P. Hale, Daniel Clark.

_Vermont_—Solomon Foot, J. Collamer.

_Massachusetts_—Henry Wilson, Charles Sumner.

_Rhode Island_—James F. Simmons, H. B. Anthony.

_Connecticut_—L. S. Foster, Jas. Dixon.

_New York_—William H. Seward, Preston King.

_New Jersey_—J. C. Ten Eyck, J. R. Thomson.

_Pennsylvania_—S. Cameron, Wm. Bigler.

_Delaware_—J. A. Bayard, W. Saulsbury.

_Maryland_—J. A. Pearce, A. Kennedy.

_Virginia_—R. M. T. Hunter, James M. Mason.

_South Carolina_—Jas. Chesnut,[15] James H. Hammond.[15]

_North Carolina_—Thomas Bragg, T. L. Clingman.

_Alabama_—B. Fitzpatrick, C. C. Clay, Jr.

_Mississippi_—A. G. Brown, Jeff. Davis.

_Louisiana_—J. P. Benjamin, John Slidell.

_Tennessee_—A. O. P. Nicholson, A. Johnson.

_Arkansas_—R. W. Johnson, W. K. Sebastian.

_Kentucky_—L. W. Powell. J. J. Crittenden.

_Missouri_—Jas. S. Green, Trusten Polk.

_Ohio_—B. F. Wade, Geo. E. Pugh.

_Indiana_—J. D. Bright, G. N. Fitch.

_Illinois_—S. A. Douglas, L. Trumbull.

_Michigan_—Z. Chandler, K. S. Bingham.

_Florida_—D. L. Yulee, S. R. Mallory.

_Georgia_—Alfred Iverson, Robt. Toombs.

_Texas_—John Hemphill, L. T. Wigfall.

_Wisconsin_—Charles Durkee, J. R. Doolittle.

_Iowa_—J. M. Grimes, Jas. Harlan.

_California_—M. S. Latham. William M. Gwin.

_Minnesota_—H. M. Rice, M. S. Wilkinson.

_Oregon_—Joseph Lane, Edward D. Baker.

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES.

WILLIAM PENNINGTON, of New Jersey, _Speaker_.

_Maine_—D. E. Somes, John J. Perry, E. B. French, F. H. Morse, Israel Washburn, Jr.,[16] S. C. Foster.

_New Hampshire_—Gilman Marston, M. W. Tappan, T. M. Edwards.

_Vermont_—E. P. Walton, J. S. Morrill, H. E. Royce.

_Massachusetts_—Thomas D. Eliot, James Buffinton, Charles Francis Adams, Alexander H. Rice, Anson Burlingame, John B. Alley, Daniel W. Gooch, Charles R. Train, Eli Thayer, Charles Delano, Henry L. Dawes.

_Rhode Island_—C. Robinson, W. D. Brayton.

_Connecticut_—Dwight Loomis, John Woodruff, Alfred A. Burnham, Orris S. Ferry.

_Delaware_—W. G. Whiteley.

_New York_—Luther C. Carter, James Humphreys, Daniel E. Sickles, W. B. Maclay, Thomas J. Barr, John Cochrane, Gorge Briggs, Horace F. Clark, John B. Haskin, Chas. H. Van Wyck, William S. Kenyon, Charles L. Beale, Abm. B. Olin, John H. Reynolds, Jas. B. McKean, G. W. Palmer, Francis E. Spinner, Clark B. Cochrane, James H. Graham, Richard Franchot, Roscoe Conkling, R. H. Duell, M. Ludley Lee, Charles B. Hoard, Chas. B. Sedgwick, M. Butterfield, Emory B. Pottle, Alfred Wells, William Irvine, Alfred Ely, Augustus Frank, Edwin R. Reynolds, Elbridge G. Spaulding, Reuben E. Fenton.

_New Jersey_—John T. Nixon, John L. N. Stratton, Garnett B. Adrain, Jetur R. Riggs, Wm. Pennington (Speaker).

_Pennsylvania_—Thomas B. Florence, E. Joy Morris, John P. Verree, William Millward, John Wood, John Hickman, Henry C. Longnecker, Jacob K. McKenty, Thaddeus Stevens, John W. Kellinger, James H. Campbell, George W. Scranton, William H. Dimmick, Galusha A. Grow, James T. Hale, Benjamin F. Junkin, Edward McPherson, Samuel S. Blair, John Covode, William Montgomery, James K. Moorhead, Robert McKnight, William Stewart, Chapin Hall, Elijah Babbitt.

_Maryland_—Jas. A. Stewart, J. M. Harris, H. W. Davis, J. M. Kunkel, G. W. Hughes.

_Virginia_—John S. Millson, Muscoe R. H. Garnett, Daniel C. De Jarnette, Roger A. Pryor, Thomas S. Bocock, William Smith, Alex. R. Boteler, John T. Harris, Albert G. Jenkins, Shelton F. Leake, Henry A. Edmundson, Elbert S. Martin, Sherrard Clemens.

_South Carolina_—John McQueen, Wm. Porcher Miles, Lawrence M. Keitt, Milledge L. Bonham, John D. Ashmore, Wm. W. Boyce.

_North Carolina_—W. N. H. Smith, Thos. Ruffin, W. Winslow, L. O’B. Branch, John A. Gilmer, Jas. M. Leach, Burton Craige, Z. B. Vance.

_Georgia_—Peter E. Love, M. J. Crawford, Thos. Hardeman, Jr., L. J. Gartrell, J. W. H. Underwood, James Jackson, Joshua Hill, John J. Jones.

_Alabama_—Jas. L. Pugh, David Clopton, Sydenh. Moore, Geo. S. Houston, W. R. W. Cobb, J. A. Stallworth, J. L. M. Curry.

_Mississippi_—L. Q. C. Lamar, Reuben Davis, William Barksdale, O. R. Singleton, John J. McRae.

_Louisiana_—John E. Bouligny, Miles Taylor, T. G. Davidson, John M. Landrum.

_Ohio_—G. H. Pendleton, John A. Gurley, C. L. Vallandigham, William Allen, James M. Ashley, Wm. Howard, Thomas Corwin, Benj. Stanton, John Carey, C. A. Trimble, Chas. D. Martin, Saml. S. Cox, John Sherman, H. G. Blake, William Helmick, C. B. Tompkins, T. C. Theaker, S. Edgerton, Edward Wade, John Hutchins, John A. Bingham.

_Kentucky_—Henry C. Burnett, Green Adams, S. O. Peyton, F. M. Bristow, W. C. Anderson, Robert Mallory, Wm. E. Simms, L. T. Moore, John Y. Brown, J. W. Stevenson.

_Tennessee_—T. A. R. Nelson, Horace Maynard, R. B. Brabson, William B. Stokes, Robert Hatton, James H. Thomas, John V. Wright, James M. Quarles, Emerson Etheridge, Wm. T. Avery.

_Indiana_—Wm. E. Niblack, Wm. H. English, Wm. M’Kee Dunn, Wm. S. Holman, David Kilgore, Albert G. Porter, John G. Davis, James Wilson, Schuyler Colfax, Chas. Case, John U. Pettit.

_Illinois_—E. B. Washburne, J. F. Farnsworth, Owen Lovejoy, Wm. Kellogg, I. N. Morris, John A. McClernand, James C. Robinson, P. B. Fouke, John A. Logan.

_Arkansas_—Thomas C. Hindman, Albert Rust.

_Missouri_—J. R. Barrett, T. L. Anderson, John B. Clark, James Craig, L. H. Woodson, John S. Phelps, John W. Noell.

_Michigan_—William A. Howard, Henry Waldron, F. W. Kellogg, De W. C. Leach.

_Florida_—George S. Hawkins.

_Texas_—John H. Regan, A. J. Hamilton.

_Iowa_—S. R. Curtis, Wm. Vandever.

_California_—Charles L. Scott, John C. Burch.

_Wisconsin_—John F. Porter, C. C. Washburne, C. H. Larrabee.

_Minnesota_—Cyrus Aldrich, Wm. Windom.

_Oregon_—Lansing Stout.

_Kansas_—Martin F. Conway, (sworn Jan. 30th, 1861).

MR. LINCOLN’S VIEWS.

While the various propositions above given were under consideration, Mr. Lincoln was of course an interested observer from his home in Illinois, where he awaited the legal time for taking his seat as President. His views on the efforts at compromise were sought by the editor of the New York _Tribune_, and expressed as follows:

“‘I will suffer death before I will consent or advise my friends to consent to any concession or compromise which looks like buying the privilege of taking possession of the Government to which we have a constitutional right; because, whatever I might think of the merits of the various propositions before Congress, I should regard any concession in the face of menace as the destruction of the government itself, and a consent on all hands that our system shall be brought down to a level with the existing disorganized state of affairs in Mexico. But this thing will hereafter be, as it is now, in the hands of the people; and if they desire to call a convention to remove any grievances complained of, or to give new guarantees for the permanence of vested rights, it is not mine to oppose.’”

JUDGE BLACK’S VIEWS.

Jeremiah S. Black, of Pennsylvania, was then Buchanan’s Attorney-General, and as his position has since been made the subject of lengthy controversy, it is pertinent to give the following copious extract from his “Opinion upon the Powers of the President,” in response to an official inquiry from the Executive:—

The existing laws put and keep the Federal Government strictly on the
defensive. You can use force only to repel an assault on the public
property, and aid the courts in the performance of their duty. If the
means given you to collect the revenue and execute the other laws be
insufficient for that purpose, Congress may extend and make them more
effectual to that end.

If one of the States should declare her independence, your action
cannot depend upon the rightfulness of the cause upon which such
declaration is based. Whether the retirement of a State from the Union
be the exercise of a right reserved in the Constitution or a
revolutionary movement, it is certain that you have not in either case
the authority to recognize her independence or to absolve her from her
Federal obligations. Congress or the other States in convention
assembled must take such measures as may be necessary and proper. In
such an event I see no course for you but to go straight onward in the
path you have hitherto trodden, that is, execute the laws to the
extent of the defensive means placed in your hands, and act generally
upon the assumption that the present constitutional relations between
the States and the Federal Government continue to exist until a new
order of things shall be established, either by law or force.

Whether Congress has the constitutional right to make war against one
or more States, and require the Executive of the Federal Government to
carry it on by means of force to be drawn from the other States, is a
question for Congress itself to consider. It must be admitted that no
such power is expressly given; nor are there any words in the
Constitution which imply it. Among the powers enumerated in article I.
section 8, is that “to declare war, grant letters of marque and
reprisal, and to make rules concerning captures on land and water.”
This certainly means nothing more than the power to commence, and
carry on hostilities against the foreign enemies of the nation.
Another clause in the same section gives Congress the power “to
provide for calling forth the militia,” and to use them within the
limits of the State. But this power is so restricted by the words
which immediately follow, that it can be exercised only for one of the
following purposes: 1. To execute the laws of the Union; that is, to
aid the Federal officers in the performance of their regular duties.
2. To suppress insurrections against the States; but this is confined
by article IV. section 4, to cases in which the State herself shall
apply for assistance against her own people. 3. To repel the invasion
of a State by enemies who come from abroad to assail her in her own
territory. All these provisions are made to protect the States, not to
authorize an attack by one part of the country upon another; to
preserve their peace, and not to plunge them into civil war. Our
forefathers do not seem to have thought that war was calculated “to
form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic
tranquillity, provide for the common defence, promote the general
welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our
posterity.” There was undoubtedly a strong and universal conviction
among the men who framed and ratified the Constitution, that military
force would not only be useless, but pernicious as a means of holding
the States together.

If it be true that war cannot be declared, nor a system of general
hostilities carried on by the central government against a State, then
it seems to follow that an attempt to do so would be _ipso facto_ an
expulsion of such State from the Union. Being treated as an alien and
an enemy, she would be compelled to act accordingly. And if Congress
shall break up the present Union by unconstitutionally putting strife
and enmity, and armed hostility, between different sections of the
country, instead of the “domestic tranquillity” which the Constitution
was meant to insure, will not all the States be absolved from their
Federal obligations? Is any portion of the people bound to contribute
their money or their blood to carry on a contest like that?

The right of the General Government to preserve itself in its whole
constitutional vigor by repelling a direct and positive aggression
upon its property or its officers, cannot be denied. But this is a
totally different thing from an offensive war to punish the people for
the political misdeeds of their State governments, or to prevent a
threatened violation of the Constitution, or to enforce an
acknowledgment that the Government of the United States is supreme.
The States are colleagues of one another, and if some of them shall
conquer the rest and hold them as subjugated provinces, it would
totally destroy the whole theory upon which they are now connected.

If this view of the subject be as correct as I think it is, then the
Union must totally perish at the moment when Congress shall arm one
part of the people against another for any purpose beyond that of
merely protecting the General Government in the exercise of its proper
constitutional functions. I am, very respectfully, yours, etc.,

J. S. BLACK.

_To the President of the United States._

The above expressions from Lincoln and Black well state the position of the Republican and the administration Democrats on the eve of the rebellion, and they are given for that purpose. The views of the original secessionists are given in South Carolina’s declaration. Those of the conservatives of the South who hesitated and leaned toward the Union, were best expressed before the Convention of Georgia in the

SPEECH OF ALEX. H. STEPHENS.