power. It forbade all such invasion of the rights of the people, and declared that "the infraction of any of these rights and privileges shall be held to be both a grievous private wrong and a public crime, and all persons who may commit it to become infamous and to be further punished by law without pardon or commutation."

These two series of amendments were evidently presented not with the expectation of their adoption, but rather as an arraignment of the President and the party in power and as a protest against the acts already mentioned.

104. PROTECTION OF PERSONAL LIBERTY.

Most of the propositions dealing with questions of personal relations up to the civil war were assertions of constitutional principles. At the close of the war another very important group commands our attention. These, for the most part, concerned the method by which the principle of individual liberty might be secured from assault. The thirteenth amendment, conferring freedom upon all the slaves, will naturally be treated under the head of amendments affecting slavery. It was supplemented by the fourteenth amendment, although the provisions contained in the first section of this article, as interpreted by the courts, are not confined in their application to any one class of persons, yet inasmuch as it was simply intended to protect the freedmen, it will be considered under the same head as the thirteenth amendment. It seems convenient to mention in this connection the only amendment which has been proposed dealing expressly with the Indian. The legislature of Georgia included in the call issued by her in 1833 for a convention to amend the Constitution a clause calling for an amendment definitely settling the rights of the Indian. The need of such

App., No. 1039b. See ante, par. 83. It guaranteed "the absolute right at all times and under all conditions of the people to the writ of habeas corpus and to trial by jury;" the exemption of all persons, except those in the Army and Navy, from arrest and immunity from trial and examination by military tribunals; that the military power was never to be brought into conflict with the civil authority, but should be employed to uphold the law and the courts. It guaranteed to the people at their elections the right to vote for those whom they prefer without constraint or intimidation; to freely discuss and pronounce their opinion on all public measures and the conduct of public officers; to their right to all sources of information by the purchase and transmission of books, newspapers, etc., without any obstruction, and to free trade and commerce with their fellowcitizens; to protection in their private property, which was not to be taken except to subserve some operation of the Federal Government, and then to receive full compensation or indemnity, as well as for all damages sustained by reason of the orders of the military officers of the United States. See Bryce, 1, pp. 54, 55.

2 Post, par. 123.

3 App., No. 625.

an amendment had been suggested by Georgia's almost continuous struggle with the United States courts over the rights of the Creek and the Cherokee nation.

105. SLAVERY PROPOSITIONS BEFORE 1860.

Considering the long and violent legislative struggle over slavery, which lasted through a quarter of a century, it is remarkable that there were but few propositions to amend the Constitution in this respect before 1860. In addition to the amendment with regard to abolishing the representation for the slave population, introduced just previous to 1808 and again in 1815, and the resolution of Massachusetts, presented in 1844, all of which have been dealt with elsewhere,' there were a few others aimed either at the protection or abolition of slavery.

As early as 1818 Mr. Livermore of New Hampshire introduced a resolution prohibiting slavery, which failed to receive the consideration of the House.2

Again, in 1839, J. Q. Adams tried to introduce a series of amendments abolishing hereditary slavery after 1842, forbidding the admission of slave States after 1845, and prohibiting slavery or the slave trade at the seat of government.3 Shortly after the compromise of 1850 an unsuccessful attempt was made still further to protect the interests of the slavocracy by the proposition of Mr. Daniel of North Carolina, that no amendment should be made abolishing or affecting slavery in any State without the concurrence of the slave States. In the same year Mr. Disney of Ohio tried twice in vain to secure the consideration by the House of an amendment to the Constitution which asserted the rights of local government, This was evidently prompted by a desire to insure the security of slavery, for it declared "that the people of every community have an inherent right to form their own domestic laws and to establish their own local government when they do not conflict with the Constitution," and, further, "that the will of the people of the District of Columbia ought at all times to govern the action of Congress in relation to the existence of slavery within its limits."

"6

1 Ante, par. 22.

2 App., No. 474.

Sketch of the History of Slavery, by Cooley; Story, II, Chap. XLVI.

3 App., Nos. 697, 698, 699.

4 App., No. 764. Cadwalader of Pennsylvania, on December 15, 1856, gave notice of his intention to introduce a similar amendment. H. J., Thirty-fourth Congress, third ses.

sion, p. 114.

5 App., No. 758.

6 For amendments before 1860 in regard to aiding the colonization of freedmen, sce post,

106. SLAVERY PROPOSITIONS IN 1860–61.

By the time of the opening of the second session of the Thirty-sixth Congress, in December of 1860, the condition of affairs was changed, and now amendments were freely offered, upward of two hundred being presented to Congress during this session. These multifarious propositions will be treated according to their subject-matter; their chronological history may be briefly disposed of. At the opening of the session President Buchanan recommended in his annual message three explanatory amendments to the Constitution on the subject of slavery. The first of these was an express recognition of the right of property in slaves; the second declared the duty of protecting this right in the Territories, and the last, recognized the validity of the fugitive slave law.

Nearly every prominent member of the Democratic party, especially from the Northern and border States, suggested amendments. No less than fifty-seven distinct resolutions were presented during this session of 1860-61. Some of them, in the effort to find some common ground for compromise and conciliation, contained a long list of propositions dealing with almost every conceivable phase of the slavery question.

The amendments introduced in the early part of the session varied from the propositions advanced by Jefferson Davis, for the express recognition and protection of property in slaves,3 to those advocated by Senators Crittenden and Douglas, which, although conceding great rights to the slave States, were more in the nature of a compromise. Several propositions went to the length of insisting on a radical change in the form of government, to the end that the slaveholders might feel more security in the Union.5 After the secession of South Carolina and some of her sister States, propositions for the amendment of the Constitution were even more numerous; that advocated by Senator Crittenden seemed the most likely to succeed, but it failed to receive the Republican vote and the South preferred to secede rather than to consider anything

An excellent résumé of the history of this Congress may be found in Rhodes, U. S., Vol. III, pp. 140-181; 253-271; 287-291; 305-308; 313-314. For a synopsis of various bills and resolutions, see, also, McPherson's History of the Rebellion, pp. 48-90.

2App., Nos. 778, 780.

3 App., No. 851.

4 App., Nos. 827-833 and 836-850; 852a-h, 869a-m. See Foster, Com. on Const., 1, pp. 169-

Ante, pars. 34, 48.

2

that was not adopted by nearly a unanimous vote. In the last days of February the amendments proposed by the peace congress, called at the request of Virginia, were presented to Congress. Some of their main provisions were similar to those of the Crittenden compromise, in that slavery should be prohibited north of the parallels of 36° 30', and recognized and never interfered with by Congress south of that line, and that the Federal Government was to pay for slaves rescued from officers; but it made further concessions to Southern demands. Congress was unable to agree on any of these measures, and the utmost that could be obtained was the comparatively colorless Corwin amendment.3

107. PROPOSITIONS OR LIMITATIONS ON ABOLITION.

A numerous class of amendments were intended to prevent the abolition of slavery anywhere by national authority. The end was to be accomplished in one of the following ways: (1) By an express recognition of the right of property in slaves, like the amendment proposed by President Buchanan in his annual message at the opening of the Congress. Other amendments of a similar nature were introduced by Senators Powell and Jefferson Davis and Congressman Hindman of Arkansas.

(2) By declaring either that Congress should have no jurisdiction over slavery, or that Congress should not interfere with slavery within the States, or that the regulations of the right to labor or service in any of the States was exclusively the right of each State. The Crittenden amendment and the peace convention resolutions contained such articles. In most cases these propositions were simply one of a series of amendments, and were usually accompanied by a provision that this article, together with certain of those accompanying it, should be unamendable. For some time no agreement was reached. Finally the House select committee of thirty-three reported, February 27, 1861, a resolution which read as follows: "No amendment

1 Rhodes, U. S., ш, pp. 260–265. See Chittenden's Debates and Proceedings of the Peace Convention. Foster, Com. on Const., I, p. 174 et seq.

2 App., No. 917.

App., No. 931; post, par. 107.

4App., Nos. 778-970.

App.. No. 778.

6 App., Nos 782, 805, 851.

7 App., Nos. 790, 801, 827, 833, 850, 852g, 853, 869, 869c, 874k, 876, 894, 897, 913, 917, 919, 928, 935, 950, 957, 969.

As a part of their report. There were five propositions in all, but this was the only one to amend the Constitution. See McPherson, pp. 57-62. Several had suggested this amendment, December 24, in the Senate committee of thirteen and it was agreed to by them. Journal of the committee, p. 11.

1

of this Constitution having for its object any interference within the States with the relation between their citizens and those described in section 2 of the first article of the Constitution as 'all other persons' shall originate with any State that does not recognize that relation within its own limits, or shall be valid without the assent of every one of the States composing the Union." Mr. Corwin of Ohio immediately moved a substitute, which was accepted, but the resolution as amended was then rejected. The following day the vote was reconsidered, and the Corwin amendment passed by a vote of 133 to 65, in the following terms: "No amendment shall be made to the Constitution which will authorize or give to Congress the power to abolish or to interfere, within any State, with the domestic institutions thereof, including that of persons held to labor or service by the laws of said State." When the Corwin resolution came up in the Senate, Senator Pugh of Ohio moved to substitute his resolution containing a series of seven articles and with a few exceptions covering nearly the same ground as the peace convention amendments. Then Mr. Doolittle of Wisconsin presented as a substitute a resolution declaring that no State shall have power to secede, and asserting that the laws of the United States shall be supreme. Three other resolutions were proposed, one of these being the series of the peace convention, and another authorizing the calling of a constitutional convention; but they all failed. March 2 the amendment passed by a vote of 24 yeas to 12 nays, the exact constitutional majority, and on the same day received the unnecessary approval of the President. Only three States seem to have ratified it, Ohio and Maryland through their legislatures, and Illinois through a constitutional convention. In the New England States it was rejected, and many others did not act upon it. It was not regarded as a sufficient concession to hold the Southern States which had not as yet seceded, much less

Proposed by Charles Francis Adams in committee. See Blaine, 1, p. 260-268.

2 App., No. 931.

3 App., No. 942.

4 App., Nos. 952, 953.

5App., Nos. 954, 955-965.

In reality on the 3d of March, Sunday. Mr. Trumbull raised the point of order that two-thirds of all the Senators had not voted in the affirmative, but the Chair held, and was sustained, that only two-thirds of those present was necessary. See post, par. 183. 7 See post, par. 184.

8 App., No. 931. Ohio, May 13, 1861; Maryland, January 10, 1862; Illinois, February 14, 1862. The latter is the only case of a convention being held to ratify an amendment to the Federal Constitution. Was it valid? See post, par. 179.

9 Stated upon the authority of Blaine, Twenty Years in Congress, I, pp. 266-267.