previous next
‘ [151] and had so stated to many of the members of the Convention.’ He further said that be had ‘examined the propositions offered by that Convention; they contain, in my judgment, every material provision that is contained in the resolution called the Crittenden Resolution.’ He also had adopted this course ‘out of deference to that great body of men selected on the resolution of Virginia, and invited by Virginia herself. The body having met, and being composed of such men, and a majority of that Convention concurring in these resolutions, I think they come to us with a sanction entitling them to consideration.’ Mr. Crittenden's reasons failed to convince the Senate, and his motion was rejected by a large majority (28 to 7).1 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.

We cannot take leave of this venerable patriot, who so wisely appreciated the existing danger, without paying a just tribute to the vigor and perseverance of his repeated efforts to ward off from his country the direful calamity of disunion and civil war. Well did he merit the almost unanimous vote of the Virginia Convention, on the 11th March, tendering him the thanks of the people of Virginia for ‘his recent able, zealous, and patriotic efforts in the Senate of the United States, to bring about ajust and honorable adjustment of our national difficulties.’2 This vote, we may remark, was far from being complimentary to the conduct of a majority of their own commissioners (Messrs. Tyler, Brockenbrough, and Seddon) in the Peace Convention.

In the House of Representatives, the amendment proposed by the Convention was treated with Still less respect than it had been by the Senate.3 The Speaker was refused leave even to present it.4 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.

Although the amendment was somewhat less favorable to the South, and ought, therefore, to have been more acceptable to the North than the Crittenden amendment, yet like this it

1 Senate Journal, p. 386.

2 National Intelligencer, March 14, 1861.

3 Con. Globe, pp. 1331, 1332, 1333.

4 House Journal, pp. 446, 448, 449.

Creative Commons License
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.

hide Places (automatically extracted)

View a map of the most frequently mentioned places in this document.

Download Pleiades ancient places geospacial dataset for this text.

hide People (automatically extracted)
Sort people alphabetically, as they appear on the page, by frequency
Click on a person to search for him/her in this document.
Crittenden (2)
John Tyler (1)
Seddon (1)
Brockenbrough (1)
hide Dates (automatically extracted)
Sort dates alphabetically, as they appear on the page, by frequency
Click on a date to search for it in this document.
March 14th, 1861 AD (1)
1333 AD (1)
1332 AD (1)
March 11th (1)
hide Display Preferences
Greek Display:
Arabic Display:
View by Default:
Browse Bar: