Volume II Part 25 (1/2)

Grinnell, Hamilton Fish, R.M. Blatchford, &c. They were unanimous in their voice for reconciliation, and that the first steps have to be taken by the North.”[609]

[Footnote 608: Albany _Evening Journal_, December 1, 1860.]

[Footnote 609: _Letters of August Belmont_, privately printed, pp. 15, 16.]

Belmont undoubtedly voiced the New York supporters of Douglas, Breckenridge, and Bell, and many conservative Republicans, representing the business interests of the great metropolis; but the bulk of the Republicans did not like a plan that overthrew the cornerstone of their party, which had won on its opposition to the extension of slavery into free territory. To go back to the line of 36 30', permitting slavery to the south of it, meant the loss of all that had been gained, and a renewal of old issues and hostilities in the near future. Republican congressmen from the State, almost without exception, yielded to this view, voicing the sentiment that it was vain to temporise longer with compromises. With fluent invective, James B. McKean of Saratoga a.s.sailed the South in a speech that recalled the eloquence of John W. Taylor, his distinguished predecessor, who, in 1820, led the forces of freedom against the Missouri Compromise. ”The slave-holders,” he said, ”have been fairly defeated in a presidential election. They now demand that the victors shall concede to the vanquished all that the latter have ever claimed, and vastly more than they could secure when they themselves were victors. They take their principles in one hand, and the sword in the other, and reaching out the former they say to us, 'Take these for your own, or we will strike.'”[610]

[Footnote 610: _Congressional Globe_, 1860-61, _Appendix_, p. 221.

”Never, with my consent, shall the Const.i.tution ordain or protect human slavery in any territory. Where it exists by law I will recognise it, but never shall it be extended over one acre of free territory.” Speech of James Humphrey of Brooklyn.--_Ibid._, p. 158.

”Why should we now make any concessions to them? With our experience of the little importance attached to former compromises by the South, it is ridiculous to talk about entering into another. The restoration of the Missouri line, with the protection of slavery south of it, will not save the Union.” Speech of John B. Haskin of Fordham.--_Ibid._, p.

264. ”The people of the North regard the election of Mr. Lincoln as the a.s.surance that the day of compromise has ended; that henceforth slavery shall have all the consideration which is const.i.tutionally due it and no more; that freedom shall have all its rights recognised and respected.” Speech of Charles L. Beale of Kinderhook.--_Ibid._, p.

974. ”We of the North are called upon to save the Union by making concessions and giving new guarantees to the South.... But I am opposed to tinkering with the Const.i.tution, especially in these exciting times. I am satisfied with it as it is.” Speech of Alfred Ely of Rochester.--_Ibid._, _Appendix_, p. 243. ”I should be opposed to any alteration of the Const.i.tution which would extend the area of slavery.” Speech of Luther C. Carter of Flus.h.i.+ng.--_Ibid._, p. 278. ”I am opposed to all changes in the Const.i.tution whatever.” Edwin R.

Reynolds of Albion.--_Ibid._, p. 1008.]

Nevertheless, Weed kept at work. In an elaborate article, he suggested a ”Convention of the people consisting of delegates appointed by the States, to which North and South might bring their respective griefs, claims, and reforms to a common arbitrament, to meet, discuss, and determine upon a future. It will be said that we have done nothing wrong, and have nothing to offer. This is precisely why we should both purpose and offer whatever may, by possibility, avert the evils of civil war and prevent the destruction of our hitherto unexampled blessings of Union.”[611]

[Footnote 611: Albany _Evening Journal_, November 30, 1860.]

Preston King, the junior United States senator from New York, clearly voicing the sentiment of the majority of his party in Congress and out of it, bitterly opposed such a policy. ”It cannot be done,” he wrote Weed, on December 7. ”You must abandon your position. It will prove distasteful to the majority of those whom you have hitherto led. You and Seward should be among the foremost to brandish the lance and shout for joy.”[612] To this the famous editor, giving a succinct view of his policy, replied with his usual directness. ”I have not dreamed of anything inconsistent with Republican duty. We owe our existence as a party to the repeal of the Missouri Compromise. But for the ever blind spirit of slavery, Buchanan would have taken away our ammunition and spiked our guns. The continued blindness of Democracy and the continued madness of slavery enabled us to elect Lincoln. That success ends our mission so far as Kansas and the encroachments of slavery into free territory are concerned. We have no territory that invites slavery for any other than political objects, and with the power of territorial organisation in the hands of Lincoln, there is no political temptation in all the territory belonging to us. The fight is over. Practically, the issues of the late campaign are obsolete. If the Republican members of Congress stand still, we shall have a divided North and a united South. If they move promptly, there will be a divided South and a united North.”[613]

[Footnote 612: Thurlow Weed Barnes, _Life of Thurlow Weed_, Vol. 2, p.

309.]

[Footnote 613: Thurlow Weed Barnes, _Life of Thurlow Weed_, Vol. 2, p.

309.]

It is not, perhaps, surprising that Weed found so much to say in favour of his proposition, since the same compromise and the same arguments were made use of a few weeks later by no less a person than the venerable John J. Crittenden of Kentucky, the Nestor of the United States Senate. Crittenden was ten years older than Weed, and, like him, was actuated by sincere patriotism. Although his compromise contained six proposed amendments to the Const.i.tution, it was believed that all differences between the sections could easily be adjusted after the acceptance of the first article, which recognised slavery as existing south of lat.i.tude 36 30', and pledged it protection ”as property by all the departments of the territorial government during its continuance.” The article also provided that States should be admitted from territory either north or south of that line, with or without slavery, as their const.i.tutions might declare.[614] This part of the compromise was not new to Congress or to the country. It had been made, on behalf of the South, in 1847, and defeated by a vote of 114 to 82, only four Northern Democrats sustaining it. It was again defeated more decisively in 1848, when proposed by Douglas. ”Thus the North,” wrote Greeley, ”under the lead of the Republicans, was required, in 1860, to make, on pain of civil war, concessions to slavery which it had utterly refused when divided only between the conservative parties of a few years before.”[615]

[Footnote 614: The full text of the Crittenden compromise is given in the _Congressional Globe_, 1861, p. 114; also in Horace Greeley's _American Conflict_, Vol. 1, p. 376.]

[Footnote 615: Horace Greeley, _The American Conflict_, Vol. 1, pp.

378, 379.]

Nevertheless, the Crittenden proposition invoked the same influences that supported the Weed plan. ”I would most cheerfully accept it,”

wrote John A. Dix. ”I feel a strong confidence that we could carry three-fourths of the States in favour of it as an amendment to the Const.i.tution.”[616] August Belmont said he had ”yet to meet the first conservative Union-loving man, in or out of politics, who does not approve of your compromise propositions.... In our own city and State some of the most prominent men are ready to follow the lead of Weed.

Restoration of the Missouri line finds favour with most of the conservative Republicans, and their number is increasing daily.”[617]

Belmont, now more than earlier in the month, undoubtedly expressed a ripening sentiment that was fostered by the gloomy state of trade, creating feverish conditions in the stock market, forcing New York banks to issue clearing-house certificates, and causing a marked decline in the Republican vote at the munic.i.p.al election in Hudson.[618] Indeed, there is abundant evidence that the Crittenden proposition, if promptly carried out in December, might have resulted in peace. The Senate committee of thirteen to whom it was referred--consisting of two senators from the cotton States, three from the border States, three Northern Democrats, and five Republicans--decided that no report should be adopted unless it had the a.s.sent of a majority of the Republicans, and also a majority of the eight other members. Six of the eight voted for it. All the Republicans, and Jefferson Davis and Robert Toombs, representing the cotton States, voted against it. The evidence however, is almost convincing that Davis and Toombs would have supported it in December if the Republicans had voted for it. In speeches in the open Senate, Douglas declared it,[619] Toombs admitted it,[620] and Davis implied it.[621] Seward sounds the only note of their insincerity. ”I think,”

he said, in a letter to the President-elect, ”that Georgia, Alabama, Mississippi, and Louisiana could not be arrested, even if we should offer all you suggest, and with it the restoration of the Missouri Compromise line. But persons acting for those States intimate that they might be so arrested, because they think that the Republicans are not going to concede the restoration of that line.”[622] It is likely Seward hesitated to believe that his vote against the compromise, for whatever reason it was given, helped to inaugurate hostilities; and yet nothing is clearer, in spite of his letter to Lincoln, than that in December the Republicans defeated the Crittenden compromise, the adoption of which would have prevented civil war.[623]

[Footnote 616: Coleman, _Life of John J. Crittenden_, Vol. 2, p. 237.]

[Footnote 617: _Letters of August Belmont_, privately printed, p. 24.]

[Footnote 618: Horace Greeley, _The American Conflict_, Vol. 1, p.