the country, but it was thought that the measures there agreed upon would be considered by Congress as especially weighty and worthy of adoption. Perhaps it may be added as an additional motive for holding the convention the partiality of the American people for employing conventions instead of the customary regular legislative bodies in the settlement of grave questions.

Hicks, as has been stated, had long formed plans of consultation among the states, and now labored to secure the success of the Conference. He paid a visit to the body while in session and was received with much cordiality by the members." Lincoln shortly before had sent for Hicks to consult with him in regard to the Maryland appointments; and, in the interviews which took place, Hicks took advantage of the opportunity to urge upon Lincoln that the latter use his influence upon the Republican leaders to secure a modification of their demands for the sake of effecting a compromise."

Roughly speaking, public opinion in Maryland at this time may be said to have been represented by the policy pursued by the delegates from the state in the Peace Conference. These with equal vehemence denounced both secession and coercion. Crisfield, Johnson and Howard even denied the right of secession, but declared as inalienable by an oppressed people, that of revolution. Maryland also refused to admit that the Union was indivisible. Towards the end of the session, Reverdy Johnson introduced a resolution which expressed regret at the action of those states which advocated secession, yet did not pass judgment upon the legality of their course or the nature of their motives. Attempts at secession were "deprecated.” The conference by a vote of nine to twelve refused to table

1 Baltimore American, March 2, 1861.

99 15

14 It was stated at the time that Lincoln offered Hicks a seat in the cabinet which he declined. No satisfactory data on the subject have been found.

Chittenden: Debates of Peace Conference, p. 449.

16

resolutions which denied the right of secession. Ohio and New Jersey voted with the slave states on four of the motions. On February 27 the Conference agreed upon the Guthrie Report, which followed substantially the Crittenden Compromise measure. Some of the provisions of the report were adopted only by close votes. In the main the chief opposition came from the most northerly of the states, though Virginia, the promoter of the Conference, almost steadily opposed the measures of compromise which were adopted.

The bickering spirit which was so noticeable in the debates, and the approaching inauguration of Lincoln, caused public interest in the Conference to flag; and its resolutions and the conclusion of the session passed largely unnoticed by the people. Indeed, the widely discordant elements present would have prevented the Conference from having much weight, even if the times had been open to such results." Meanwhile on February 1 a large mass-meeting had been held at the Maryland Institute Building. in which resolutions denouncing the course of Hicks in appointing delegates to the Peace Conference as a "flagrant and unconstitutional usurpation of power" had been adopted amid great applause. The resolutions also recommended that the people of Baltimore should vote in primaries on February 5 to select delegates for a convention which was to meet in the "Law Building" on February 7, which body was to choose representatives to a state convention to be held on the 18th of the same month. The counties were also recommended to hold primaries on February 12, and county conventions on the 14th for the same purpose.

This call for a convention was of course without any authority. It had been adopted by those who were in despair of prevailing upon Hicks either to summon the Legislature, or to call a convention. The ground was

16

37 Ibid., p. 447. Nicolay and Hay: Lincoln, volume iii, 231-2.

taken that unconstitutional measures were the best that could be adopted under the circumstances. Hopes had been expressed by some of the speakers that the Union might still be preserved, and the Peace Conference about to assemble was looked upon as a means of accomplishing this end. However, one speaker had gone so far as to say that the Union was already a thing of the past, and therefore it behooved the people of Maryland to make arrangements for their position in the future. Throughout the proceedings of the meeting Hicks had been denounced on all sides. Henry May declared that the implied meaning of the course of Hicks was that the people of Maryland were not capable of being entrusted with a serious duty. He added in a letter several days later:" "His [Hicks'] conduct is that of an oppressor; and if the people of Maryland longer submit to it, they are, in my humble opinion, only fit to be oppressed." S. T. Wallis was of the opinion that the very reason that Hicks was unwilling to trust the Legislature was sufficient reason why the people of Maryland should have confidence in that body." The course of Hicks was said by him to have been filled with inconsistencies from beginning to end. Another speaker was of the opinion that the most effective and expeditious way of ending the controversy was to gibbet Hicks."

Considerable excitement occurred in the primary elections in the state. In a few cases the counties did not make any selections for members of the convention. Dorchester county, the home of Hicks, sent "Union" delegates, but these were instructed to urge that redress should be given to the South.

The State Conference Convention met on February 18, the various parts of the state being on the whole represented. Judge Ezekiel Chambers on taking the chair stated that he had heard that Hicks was considering very favorably

IS Letter of May to President of Baltimore Convention; Baltimore Exchange, February 9, 1861.

Baltimore Exchange, February 4, 1861. "Baltimore American, February 2, 1861.

the proposition to summon a convention, and therefore it was best to wait the action of a body legally chosen. Therefore the Conference decided to adjourn until March 12, unless in the meantime Virginia should pass an ordinance of secession; in which case, Chambers was instructed to reconvene the Conference as soon as possible.

The evidence in the matter would seem to indicate that Hicks was weakening in his stand that a session of the Legislature, or a sovereign convention, was neither necessary nor advisable. In a letter written on February 9, he distinctly states that if Congress through the "Committee of Thirty-three "" had not been considering plans which aimed at the restoration of harmony and the preservation of the Union, he, long before, would have called a convention." The Conference Convention reassembled on the day appointed, March 12. Stormy sessions took place on that day and on the one following, and little of importance was done. Resolutions of various kinds were read, one set declaring that any attempt by the United States Government to retake any forts seized by the Confederacy would in itself be an entire dissolution of the compact of the Constitution. In the end, compromise measures prevailed, and the convention simply provided for the sending of delegates to Virginia, and decided to wait the action of that state in regard to secession. President Chambers was given the right to summon the Convention whenever he should deem it advisable." The convention was never reassembled. On the outbreak of hostilities, Chambers issued a call for an assembling; but on the appearance of the proclamation of Hicks calling a special session of the Legislature, Chambers countermanded his previous order, declaring that the mission of the Conference was ended."

21

23

Henry Winter Davis represented Maryland on the "Committee of Thirty-three." 'Letter to Dr. Joseph J. Duvall (MS.). 23 Baltimore Sun, March 13 and 14, 1861; Baltimore Exchange, March 13 and 14, 1861; Baltimore American, March 13 and 14, 1861, 24 Baltimore Sun, April 25, 1861.

etc.

CHAPTER V.

RUMORS OF PLOTS AGAINST LINCOLN.

1

The belief existed in the minds of many persons that violent measures would be taken to prevent the inauguration of Lincoln. As far back as January, 1861, Governor Olden of New Jersey wrote to Hicks almost imploring him not to yield to the demands of the "secessionists," and expressed his belief that it "is the opinion of many that the peaceful inauguration of Mr. Lincoln depends on the firmness of your excellency." A lady informed Hicks that a Southern sympathizer had told her that he knew of three thousand men in Maryland who had sworn to prevent by force, if necessary, the inauguration of Lincoln.' Hicks himself had stated in his proclamation of January 3, 1861: "But my fellow-citizens, it is my duty to tell you that the reassembling of the legislature is wished for by many who urge it with a view to no such specification [acting as mediator between North and South, etc.]. I have been repeatedly warned by persons having the opportunity to know, and who are entitled to the highest confidence, that the secession leaders in Washington have resolved that the border states, and especially Maryland, shall be precipitated into secession with the Cotton States before the 4th of March. They have resolved to seize the Federal Capital and the public archives, so that they may be in a position to be acknowledged by foreign governments as the United States, and the assent of Maryland is necessary, as the District of Columbia would revert to her in case of a dissolution of the

'Letter of Governor Olden to Hicks (MS.).

'Mrs. Alma Phelps in a letter, January 14, 1861 (MS.).