This text is part of:
[6]
the right of the slave States, ‘upon the principles of 1776,’ to decide the question of a separate government for themselves.1 Thurlow Weed, on the other hand, contemporaneously with Greeley's prompt declaration, proposed to reach a peaceful issue in another way,—by acceding to the substance of the claims of the seceders.
He proposed in his newspaper, as a compromise, a new fugitive-slave law, the surrender of the prohibition of slavery in the Territories, the admission of States whether free or slave, as they might come, and the protection of slavery by the government in territory lying south of 36° 30',—a solution in the main like that which was urged later by Mr. Crittenden.2 General Scott, head of the army, communicated, Oct. 29, 1860, his views in a formal paper to President Buchanan, and to Floyd, Secretary of War.
While advising the immediate garrisoning of Southern forts,—a wise counsel, which the dilatory and irresolute President did not heed,—he proposed to yield to secession except in the case of ‘interior States,’ whose withdrawal would produce ‘a gap’ in the Union.
He even assumed to advise, as a better alternative than force, a division of the country into four confederacies, the boundaries of which he proceeded to define.
A few months later, March 3, 1861, he recommended to Mr. Lincoln, by letter to Mr. Seward, the adoption of the Crittenden propositions, naming peaceable separation as one of the alternatives.3 At the Pine Street meeting in New York, where W. B. Astor, A. A. Low, D. S. Dickinson, Edwards Pierrepont, Wilson G. Hunt, and S. J. Tilden took part, an address to the South, drawn by John A. Dix, and resolutions were
1 April 9, 1861, at New Bedford; Schouler's ‘History of Massachusetts in the Civil War.’ vol. I. pp. 44-47. Phillips said, ‘I maintain on the principles of ‘76 that Abraham Lincoln has no right to a soldier in Fort Sumter.’ To apply to him his favorite expression, he ‘remembered to forget’ the inclusion of this address in his volume of speeches.
2 Albany ‘Evening Journal,’ November 30, December 1 and 15; Greeley's ‘American Conflict,’ vol. I. p. 360; Weed's ‘Life,’ vol. II. pp. 303, 313. George E. Baker wrote to Sumner, December 3, from Albany, that ‘no influential man agreed with Mr. Weed's view, and that it had no support in the rural districts.’ The Boston Journal, Jan. 9, 17, 1861, was not opposed to the restoration of the Missouri Compromise line and the nonprohibition of slavery south of 36° 30'. Greeley afterwards questioned the wisdom of the overtures made by himself and Weed. ‘American Conflict,’ vol. I. p. 361.
3 New York Tribune, Oct. 24, 1862; Scott's Autobiography, p. 626.
Cambridge, MA. Press of John Wilson and Son. 1877.
Tufts University provided support for entering this text.
This work is licensed under a
Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 United States License.
An XML version of this text is available for download, with the additional restriction that you offer Perseus any modifications you make. Perseus provides credit for all accepted changes, storing new additions in a versioning system.