Refusal of Congress to act either with a view to conciliation or defence-The Sen- ate Committee of Thirteen and its proceedings-Mr. Crittenden submits his Compromise to the Committee-Its nature-The Committee unable to agree- Testimony of Messrs. Douglas and Toombs that the Crittenden Compromise would have arrested secession in the cotton States-Mr. Crittenden proposes to refer his amendment to the people of the several States by an act of ordi- nary legislation-His remarks in its favor-Proceedings thereon-Expression of public opinion in its favor-President Buchanan recommends it-Recom- mendation disregarded and proposition defeated by the Clark amendment- Observations thereon-Peace Convention proposed by Virginia—Its meeting and proceedings-Amendment to the Constitution reported by Mr. Guthrie, chairman of the committee-Its modification on motion of Mr. Franklin, and final adoption by the Convention-Virginia and North Carolina vote with Connecticut, Maine, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, and Vermont against it -Its rejection by the United States Senate-The House of Representatives refuse even to receive it-Every Republican member in both branches of Con- Congress passes no measures to enable the President to execute the laws or de- fend the Government-They decline to revive the authority of the Federal Judiciary in South Carolina, suspended by the resignation of all the judicial officers-They refuse authority to call forth the militia or accept volunteers, to suppress insurrections against the United States, and it was never proposed to grant an appropriation for this purpose-The Senate declines throughout the entire session to act upon the nomination of a Collector of the Port of Charleston-Congress refuses to grant to the President the authority long since expired, which had been granted to General Jackson for the collection. of the revenue-The 36th Congress expires, leaving the law just as they found The forts in Charleston harbor-Conduct toward them and the reasons for it- To guard against surprise reënforcements ready-Instructions to Major An- derson-Interview with South Carolina members-General Scott again recom- mends the garrisoning of all the forts-Reasons against it-The compromise measures still depending-Want of troops-Observations on General Scott's report to President Lincoln-His letter to Secretary Seward, and the man- ner in which it, with the report, was brought to light and published—Mr. Bu- chanan's reply to the report-General Scott's statement of the interview with President Buchanan on 15th December, and observations thereupon- The example of General Jackson in 1833, and why it was inapplicable, derson's removal from Fort Moultrie to Fort Sumter-The President's inter- view with the Commissioners, who demand a surrender of all the forts-His answer to this demand-Their insolent reply, and its return to them-Its pre- sentation to the Senate by Mr. Davis-Secretary Floyd requested to resign- He resigns and becomes a secessionist-Fort Sumter threatened-The Brook- lyn ordered to carry reenforcements to the fort-The Star of the West substi tuted at General Scott's instance-She is fired upon-Major Anderson de- mands of Governor Pickens a disavowal of the act-The Governor demands the surrender of the fort-The Major proposes to refer the question to Wash- ington-The Governor accepts-The truce-Colonel Hayne and Lieutenant Hall arrive in Washington on the 13th January-Letter from Governor Pickens not delivered to the President until the 31st January-The answer to it- Colonel Hayne's insulting reply-It is returned to him-Virginia sends Mr. Tyler to the President with a view to avoid hostilities-His arrival in Wash- Fort Sumter again—An expedition prepared to relieve it-The expedition aban- doned on account of a despatch from Major Anderson-Mr. Holt's letter to President Lincoln-Fort Pickens in Florida-Its danger from the rebels- The Brooklyn ordered to its relief-The means by which it was saved from capture approved by General Scott and Messrs. Holt and Toucey, with the rest of the Cabinet-Refutation of the charge that arms had been stolen-Re- port of the Committee on Military Affairs and other documentary evidence- The Southern and Southwestern States received less than their quota of arms-The Pittsburg cannon-General Scott's unfounded claim to the credit of preventing their shipment to the South-Removal of old muskets-Their value-Opinion of Mr. Holt in regard to the manner in which President Bu The successful foreign policy of the administration with Spain, Great Britain, China, and Paraguay-Condition of the Mexican Republic; and the recom- mendations to Congress thereupon not regarded, and the effect-The treaty with Mexico not ratified by the Senate, and the consequences-The origin, MR. BUCHANAN'S ADMINISTRATION. CHAPTER I. The rise and progress of Anti-Slavery agitation-The Higher Law-Anti-Slavery Societies Their formation and proceedings-Their effect destructive of State Emancipation-The case in Virginia-Employment of the Post Office to circulate incendiary publications and pictures among the slaves-Message of General Jackson to prohibit this by law-His recommendation defeated-The Pulpit, the Press, and other agencies-Abolition Petitions-The rise of an extreme Southern ProSlavery party-The Fugitive Slave Law of 1793, and the case of Prigg vs. Pennsylvania, and its pernicious effects-The South threaten Secession-The course of Mr. Buchanan as Senator-The Wilmot Proviso and its consequences-The Union in serious danger at the meeting of Congress in December, 1849. THAT the Constitution does not confer upon Congress power to interfere with slavery in the States, has been admitted by all parties and confirmed by all judicial decisions ever since the origin of the Federal Government. This doctrine was emphatically recognized by the House of Representatives in the days of Washington, during the first session of the first Congress,* and has never since been seriously called in question. Hence, it became necessary for the abolitionists, in order to furnish a pretext for their assaults on Southern slavery, to appeal to a law higher than the Constitution. Slavery, according to them, was a grievous sin against God, and therefore no human Constitution could rightfully shield it from destruction. It was sinful to live in a political confederacy which tolerated slavery in any of the States composing it; and if this could not be eradicated, it would become a sacred * Annals of Congress, vol. ii., p. 1474, Sept. 1, 1789-'90. duty for the free States to separate from their guilty associates. This doctrine of the higher law was preached from the pulpits and disseminated in numerous publications throughout New England. At the first, it was regarded with contempt as the work of misguided fanatics. Ere long, however, it enlisted numerous and enthusiastic partisans. These were animated with indomitable zeal in a cause they deemed so holy. They constituted the movement party, and went ahead; because, whether from timidity or secret sympathy, the conservative masses failed in the beginning to resist its progress in an active and determined spirit. The anti-slavery party in its career never stopped to reflect that slavery was a domestic institution, exclusively under the control of the sovereign States where it existed; and therefore, if sinful in itself, it was certainly not the sin of the people of New England. With equal justice might conscience have impelled citizens of Massachusetts to agitate for the suppression of slavery in Brazil as in South Carolina. In both cases they were destitute of all rightful power over the subject. The Constitution having granted to Congress no power over slavery in the States, the abolitionists were obliged to resort to indirect means outside of the Constitution to accomplish their object. The most powerful of these was anti-slavery agitation: agitation for the double purpose of increasing the number of their partisans at home, and of exciting a spirit of discontent and resistance among the slaves of the South. This agitation was conducted by numerous anti-slavery societies scattered over the North. It was a new and important feature of their organization that women were admitted as members. Sensitive and enthusiastic in their nature against wrong, and believing slavery to be a mortal sin, they soon became public speakers, in spite of the injunctions of an inspired apostle; and their harangues were quite as violent and extreme as those of their fathers, husbands, and brothers. Their influence as mothers was thus secured and directed to the education of the rising generation in anti-slavery principles. Never was an organization planned and conducted with greater skill and foresight for the eventual accomplishment of its object. The New England Anti-Slavery Society was organized in Boston on January 30th, 1832; that of New York in October, 1833; and the National Society wasorganized in Philadelphia în December, 1833. Affiliated societies soon became numer ous. After the formation of the New England society the agitation against Southern slavery proceeded with redoubled vigor, and this under the auspices of British emissaries. One of the first and most pernicious effects of these proceedings was to arrest the natural progress of emancipation under legitimate State authority. When this agitation commenced, the subject of such emancipation was freely discussed in the South, and especially in the grain-growing border States, and had enlisted numerous and powerful advocates. In these States the institution had become unprofitable. According to the witty and eccentric Virginian, Mr. Randolph, if the slave did not soon run away from the master, the master would run away from the slave. Besides, at this period nobody loved slavery for its own sake. Virginia, whose example has always exercised great influence on her sister States, was, in 1832, on the verge of emancipation.* The current was then running strong in its favor throughout the State. Many of the leading men, both the principal newspapers, and probably a majority of the people sustained the policy and justice of emancipation. Numerous petitions in its favor were presented to the General Assembly. Mr. Jefferson Randolph, a worthy grandson of President Jefferson, and a delegate from one of the largest slaveholding counties of the commonwealth (Albemarle), brought forward a bill in the House to accomplish the object. This was fully and freely discussed, and was advocated by many prominent members. Not a voice was raised throughout the debate in favor of slavery. Mr. Randolph, finding the Legislature not quite prepared for so decisive a measure, did not press it to a final vote; but yet the House resolved, by a majority of 65 to 58, "that they were profoundly sensible of the great evils arising from the condition of the colored population of the commonwealth, and were induced by policy * Letter of Geo. W. Randolph to Nahum Capen, of 18th April, 1851. |