The Crittenden Compromise was Senator John J. Crittenden's December 1860 proposal to prevent secession by extending the Missouri Compromise line (36°30') to the Pacific, permanently protecting slavery south of it. Lincoln and the Republicans rejected it because it violated their free-soil platform, and it failed.
The Crittenden Compromise was the final serious attempt to talk the South out of leaving the Union. In December 1860, after Lincoln won the election but before he took office, Kentucky Senator John J. Crittenden proposed a package of constitutional amendments. The centerpiece extended the old Missouri Compromise line (36°30') all the way to the Pacific. Slavery would be banned in territories north of the line and permanently protected south of it, and the amendments would be unamendable, locking slavery into the Constitution forever.
It failed for one decisive reason. Lincoln and the Republican Party had just won the election of 1860 on a free-soil platform, meaning no expansion of slavery into ANY territory. Accepting Crittenden's deal would have meant abandoning the exact promise that got them elected. Lincoln refused, the proposal died in Congress, and seven Deep South states seceded between December 1860 and February 1861. The Crittenden Compromise matters less for what it proposed than for what its failure proved, which is that by 1860 the slavery-expansion question had moved past compromise.
This term sits at the hinge of Unit 5, bridging Topic 5.6 (Failure of Compromise) and Topic 5.7 (Election of 1860 and Secession). It directly supports APUSH 5.6.A (explain the political causes of the Civil War) and APUSH 5.7.A (describe the effects of Lincoln's election). The CED's essential knowledge (KC-5.2.II.B.ii) says national leaders made repeated attempts to resolve slavery in the territories that 'ultimately failed to reduce conflict.' The Crittenden Compromise is the last item on that list, the period at the end of the sentence. It also illustrates KC-5.2.II.D, because Lincoln's rejection of it shows he meant his free-soil platform literally, which is exactly why the South seceded. If an exam question asks why compromise stopped working by 1860, this is your best closing evidence.
Keep studying APUSH Unit 5
Missouri Compromise (Unit 4)
Crittenden's plan was basically the Missouri Compromise on rewind. He wanted to revive the 36°30' line from 1820 and stretch it to the Pacific. The fact that the nation's last-ditch idea in 1860 was a forty-year-old formula shows how empty the compromise toolbox had become.
Abraham Lincoln and the Election of 1860 (Unit 5)
Lincoln won without a single Southern electoral vote on a platform of stopping slavery's expansion. The Crittenden Compromise asked him to trade away that platform before even taking office. His refusal is the cleanest evidence that the election of 1860 left no political middle ground.
Secession (Unit 5)
The compromise's failure and secession are cause and effect in real time. While Congress debated Crittenden's amendments in the winter of 1860-61, seven Deep South states were already voting to leave the Union. The timeline itself is an argument that the South had stopped waiting for deals.
Dred Scott decision (Unit 5)
Dred Scott (1857) had declared the Missouri Compromise line unconstitutional, so Crittenden was trying to resurrect a boundary the Supreme Court had already struck down. That irony makes a great point in an essay about how legal and political fixes kept undercutting each other.
On multiple choice, the Crittenden Compromise shows up in two ways. First, as the answer to 'which failed compromise most directly precipitated the secession crisis after the election of 1860.' Second, in continuity questions asking how it echoed earlier attempts to manage sectional tension (the answer hinges on its reuse of the Missouri Compromise line). No released FRQ has used the term verbatim, but it is high-value evidence for two essay tasks. In a causation essay on the political causes of the Civil War (LO 5.6.A), it works as your final proof that compromise had failed. In a continuity-and-change argument across 1820-1860, it lets you show that the same geographic-line approach was tried in 1820, 1850, and 1860 with diminishing success. Always pair the term with WHY it failed, which is Lincoln's free-soil commitment, not just the fact that it failed.
The Missouri Compromise (1820) actually passed and kept the peace for decades; the Crittenden Compromise (1860) tried to revive its 36°30' line and went nowhere. Easy way to keep them straight: Missouri created the line, Crittenden tried to bring it back from the dead. Also note the dates. Missouri belongs to Unit 4's sectional tensions, while Crittenden is the dying gasp of compromise in Unit 5.
The Crittenden Compromise was Senator John J. Crittenden's December 1860 proposal to stop secession by extending the Missouri Compromise line (36°30') to the Pacific and permanently protecting slavery south of it.
Lincoln and the Republicans rejected it because allowing slavery's expansion south of the line contradicted the free-soil platform they had just won the election of 1860 on.
Its failure shows the CED's core point in KC-5.2.II.B.ii, that repeated attempts to resolve slavery in the territories ultimately failed to reduce conflict.
Seven Deep South states seceded between December 1860 and February 1861 while the compromise was being debated, making its failure the immediate trigger of the secession crisis.
On the exam, use the Crittenden Compromise as your final piece of evidence that the political system could no longer compromise over slavery by 1860.
It was Senator John J. Crittenden's December 1860 proposal of constitutional amendments to prevent secession, mainly by extending the Missouri Compromise line (36°30') to the Pacific with slavery permanently protected south of it. It failed, and the secession crisis followed.
Lincoln and the Republicans refused to accept any expansion of slavery into the territories, since their entire 1860 platform was free soil. Agreeing to Crittenden's plan would have meant abandoning the position that won them the election.
Almost certainly not. Seven Deep South states seceded between December 1860 and February 1861 while Congress was still debating it, and the South's stated reason was protecting slavery, not the absence of one more deal. The exam treats it as proof that compromise had already failed.
The Missouri Compromise (1820) passed and created the 36°30' line; the Crittenden Compromise (1860) tried to revive and extend that same line but was rejected. One opened four decades of line-drawing compromises, the other proved that approach was dead.
Yes, it falls under Topics 5.6 and 5.7 in Unit 5 and supports learning objectives APUSH 5.6.A and APUSH 5.7.A. It typically appears in multiple-choice questions about the failure of compromise and works as strong essay evidence for the political causes of the Civil War.