|Wikisource has original text related to this article:|
The Crittenden Compromise was an unsuccessful proposal introduced by United States Senator John J. Crittenden (Constitutional Unionist of Kentucky) on December 18, 1860. It aimed to resolve the secession crisis of 1860–1861 by addressing the fears and grievances about slavery that led many slave-holding states to contemplate secession from the United States.
It guaranteed the permanent existence of slavery in the slave states and addressed Southern demands in regard to fugitive slaves and slavery in the District of Columbia. It proposed extending the Missouri Compromise line to the west, with slavery prohibited north of the 36° 30′ parallel and guaranteed south of it. The compromise included a clause that it could not be repealed or amended.
The compromise was popular among Southern members of the Senate, but it was generally unacceptable to the Republicans, who opposed the expansion of slavery beyond the states where it already existed into the territories. The opposition of their party's leader, President-elect Abraham Lincoln, was crucial. Republicans said the compromise "would amount to a perpetual covenant of war against every people, tribe, and state owning a foot of land between here and Tierra del Fuego." The only territories south of the line were parts of New Mexico Territory and Indian Territory. There was considerable agreement on both sides that slavery would never flourish in New Mexico. The South refused the House Republicans' proposal, approved by committee on December 29, to admit New Mexico as a state immediately. However, not all opponents of the Crittenden Compromise also opposed further territorial expansion of the United States. The New York Times referred to "the whole future growth of the Republic" and "all the Territory that can ever belong to the United States, — the whole of Mexico and Central America". 
Amendments to the Constitution
- Slavery would be prohibited in any territory of the United States "now held, or hereafter acquired," north of latitude 36 degrees, 30 minutes line. In territories south of this line, slavery of the African race was "hereby recognized" and could not be interfered with by Congress. Furthermore, property in African slaves was to be "protected by all the departments of the territorial government during its continuance." States would be admitted to the Union from any territory with or without slavery as their constitutions provided.
- Congress was forbidden to abolish slavery in places under its jurisdiction within a slave state such as a military post.
- Congress could not abolish slavery in the District of Columbia so long as it existed in the adjoining states of Virginia and Maryland and without the consent of the District's inhabitants. Compensation would be given to owners who refused consent to abolition.
- Congress could not prohibit or interfere with the interstate slave trade.
- Congress would provide full compensation to owners of rescued fugitive slaves. Congress was empowered to sue the county in which obstruction to the fugitive slave laws took place to recover payment; the county, in turn, could sue "the wrong doers or rescuers" who prevented the return of the fugitive.
- No future amendment of the Constitution could change these amendments or authorize or empower Congress to interfere with slavery within any slave state.
- That fugitive slave laws were constitutional and should be faithfully observed and executed.
- That all state laws which impeded the operation of fugitive slave laws, the so-called "Personal liberty laws," were unconstitutional and should be repealed.
- That the Fugitive Slave Act of 1850 should be amended (and rendered less objectionable to the North) by equalizing the fee schedule for returning or releasing alleged fugitives and limiting the powers of marshals to summon citizens to aid in their capture.
- That laws for the suppression of the African slave trade should be effectively and thoroughly executed.
Both the House of Representatives and the Senate rejected Crittenden's proposal. It was part of a series of last-ditch efforts to provide the Southern states with sufficient reassurances to forestall their secession during the final session of Congress prior to the Lincoln administration taking office.
The Crittenden proposals were also discussed in February 1861 at the peace conference, the final formal effort to avert the start of war, only to fail again as the provision guaranteeing slave-ownership throughout all Western territories and future acquisitions proved too unpalatable for Lincoln and the Republicans.
A February 1861 editorial in the Charleston Courier (Charleston, Missouri) summed up the mood prevalent in Southern-leaning border counties as the Crittenden proposals went down in defeat: "Men at Washington think there is no chance for peace, and indeed we can see but little, everything looks gloomy. The Crittenden resolutions have been voted down again and again. Is there any other proposition which will win, that the South can accept? If not—there comes war—and woe to the wives and daughters of our land; beauty will be but an incentive to crime, and plunder but pay for John Brown raids. Let our citizens be prepared for the worst, it may come." This statement, made by the paper's editor, George Whitcomb, came in response to a fiery letter to the editor from Congressman John William Noell, the area's Representative in Congress, excoriating "disunion".
- Amendments Proposed in Congress by Senator John J. Crittenden: December 18, 1860 Avalon Project
- James M. McPherson (1988). Battle cry of freedom: the Civil War era. United States of America: Oxford University Press. p. 904 pages. ISBN 0-19-516895-X.
- David M. Potter (1976). The Impending Crisis. Harper & Row. pp. 533–534. ISBN 978-0-06-131929-7.
- "The Crittenden Compromise". The New York Times. February 6, 1861.
- "Cong. Globe, 36th Cong., 2nd Sess. 114 (1860).". Retrieved May 1, 2014.
- Whitcomb, Geo. (February 1, 1861). "Editorial". Charleston Courier (Charleston, Mo). Charleston, Missouri. p. 2. Retrieved February 16, 2012.