to me in Cincinnati, as to the President being entirely free and
  uncommitted by any promise or obligation of any sort, made to
  anybody, previous to his nomination.

  I do not know that the matters to which I have alluded will be of
  any interest to you, but I have recalled them with much pleasure
  as showing, contrary to the generally received opinion as to Mr.
  Buchanan’s shrewdness as a politician and “wire-puller,” that when
  he left London, there was no organization or pretence of
  organization in his favor, that could be considered effective or
  likely to be useful, outside of the efforts of a few personal
  friends in the South, in Pennsylvania and New York; and before he
  returned to America, he evidently saw that he had little chance of
  success before the convention. The same marked absence of
  organization, and of all political machine-work, was evident up to
  the day before the meeting of the convention, when the friends of
  Mr. Buchanan, whom I had thus suddenly called together, made their
  appearance in Cincinnati.

  Mr. Buchanan’s opposition to the repeal of the Missouri Compromise
  left him without support from the ultra Southern leaders, many of
  whom believed that Mr. Douglas would be less difficult to manage
  than Mr. Buchanan. Louisiana was controlled through the personal
  influence of Messrs. Slidell and Benjamin, and Virginia was from
  the beginning in favor of Mr. Buchanan’s nomination. Apart from
  these States, the South was for Pierce or Douglas. Mr. Buchanan’s
  strength was from the North, but it was unorganized.

  To that time, no one had undertaken to speak for him. There were
  no headquarters where his friends could meet even for
  consultation. There was no leader—no one whose opinions upon
  questions of policy were controlling, and but for this almost
  accidental combination of his friends in Cincinnati, it was
  apparent that Mr. Buchanan could not have been nominated, simply
  because of this utter lack of that ordinary preliminary
  organization necessary to success, which was by his opponents
  alleged to be the foundation of his strength, but which in fact
  was wholly without existence.

  Mr. Slidell undertook this task, and before the meeting of the
  convention Mr. Buchanan’s success was assured.[27]

Footnote 27:

  The prominence given by Mr. Barlow to Mr. Slidell, as an active
  and earnest friend of Mr. Buchanan, led me to ask him to add a
  sketch of that distinguished man; and I have been at the greater
  pains to show the strong friendship that subsisted between Mr.
  Buchanan and Mr. Slidell, because, as will be seen hereafter, when
  the secession troubles of the last year of Mr. Buchanan’s
  administration came on, this friendship was one of the first
  sacrifices made by him to his public duty, for he did not allow it
  to influence his course in the slightest degree; and although he
  had to accept with pain the alienation which Mr. Slidell and all
  his other Southern friends, in the ardor of their feelings, deemed
  unavoidable, he accepted it as one of the sad necessities of his
  position and of the time. I think he and Mr. Slidell never met,
  after the month of January, 1861. The following is Mr. Barlow’s
  sketch of John Slidell:—

  “He was born in the city of New York in 1795; was graduated at
  Columbia College in 1810, and entered commercial life, which he
  soon abandoned for the study of the law. He removed to Louisiana
  in 1825, and was shortly afterwards admitted to the bar of that
  State. In 1829 he was appointed United States district attorney
  for the Louisiana district by President Jackson, and from that
  time took an active part in the politics of the State. He was soon
  recognized, not only as one of the ablest and most careful
  lawyers, but as the practical political head of the Democratic
  party of the Southwest.

  “In 1842 he was elected to Congress from the New Orleans district.
  In 1845 he was appointed by President Polk as minister to Mexico.
  This mission was foredoomed to failure. The annexation of Texas
  made a war with Mexico inevitable, but the broad sense shown by
  Mr. Slidell in his despatches from Mexico was fully recognized by
  the administration of President Polk, and his views were
  maintained, and his advice was followed, to the time of the
  breaking out of hostilities.

  “In 1853 he was elected to the United States Senate to fill an
  unexpired term, and in 1854 was again elected for a full term,
  which had not expired when the secession of Louisiana in 1861 put
  it at an end.

  “He was shortly afterwards sent to France as a commissioner on
  behalf of the Confederate States. On his voyage to that country he
  was taken from the British steamer ‘Trent,’ and was imprisoned at
  Fort Warren in Boston Harbor. His release by President Lincoln,
  under the advice of Mr. Seward, will be remembered as one of the
  most exciting and important incidents in the early history of the
  war. He remained in Paris as the Commissioner of the Confederate
  States until the termination of the rebellion, and during that
  period was probably the most active and effective agent of the
  Confederacy abroad.

  “His influence with the government of Louis Napoleon was very
  great, and at one time, chiefly through his persuasion, the
  emperor, as Mr. Slidell believed, had determined to recognize the
  Confederacy; but fortunately this political mistake was averted by
  the great victory gained by General McClellan over the Confederate
  army at Antietam.

  “In 1835 Mr. Slidell was married to Miss Mathilde deLande, of an
  old Creole family of Louisiana. He died at Cowes in England in
  1871. His pure personal character, his indomitable and coercive
  will, his undoubted courage, and his cool and deliberate good
  sense gave him a high place among the advisers of the Confederate
  cause from its earliest organization to its final collapse.

  “One of his most striking characteristics, for which he was noted
  through life, was his unswerving fidelity to his political
  friends. From the lowest in the ranks to those of the highest
  station, who were his allies and advocates, not one was forgotten
  when political victory was secured, and no complaint was ever
  justly made against him for forgetfulness of those through whom
  his own political career was established, or to whom, through his
  influence, the success of his political friends was achieved.

  “With strangers Mr. Slidell’s manners were reserved, and at times
  even haughty, but to those who were admitted to the privacy of his
  domestic life, or who once gained his confidence in politics, he
  was most genial, gracious, and engaging.”

When officially informed of his nomination by a committee, Mr.
Buchanan, on the 16th of June (1856), made this simple and
straightforward answer:

  I have the honor to acknowledge the receipt of your communication
  of the 13th inst., informing me officially of my nomination by the
  Democratic National Convention, recently held at Cincinnati, as a
  candidate for the office of President of the United States. I
  shall not attempt to express the grateful feelings which I
  entertain towards my Democratic fellow-citizens for having deemed
  me worthy of this—the highest political honor on earth—an honor
  such as no other people have the power to bestow. Deeply sensible
  of the vast and varied responsibility attached to the station,
  especially at the present crisis in our affairs, I have carefully
  refrained from seeking the nomination, either by word or by deed.
  Now that it has been offered by the Democratic party, I accept it
  with diffidence in my own abilities, but with an humble trust
  that, in the event of my election, Divine Providence may enable me
  to discharge my duty in such a manner as to allay domestic strife,
  preserve peace and friendship with foreign nations, and promote
  the best interests of the Republic.

  In accepting the nomination, I need scarcely say that I accept, in
  the same spirit, the resolutions constituting the platform of
  principles erected by the convention. To this platform I intend to
  conform myself throughout the canvass, believing that I have no
  right, as the candidate of the Democratic party, by answering
  interrogatories, to present new and different issues before the
  people.

In all Presidential elections which have occurred for the past fifty
years, the State election in Pennsylvania, occurring in the autumn
before the election of a President, has been regarded as of great
importance. The Republican party was now in the field, with General
Fremont as its candidate, and with the advantage which it had
derived in all the free States from the consequences of the repeal
of the Missouri Compromise, the passage of the so-called
“Kansas-Nebraska Act,” which had been followed in Kansas by an
internecine contest between pro-slavery and anti-slavery settlers. A
brutal personal assault upon Senator Sumner, of Massachusetts, by a
rash and foolish Southerner, had added fuel to the already kindled
sectional flame of Northern feeling. The precise political issue
between the Democratic and Republican parties, so far as it related
to slavery, concerned of course slavery in the Territories. It was
apparent that if the Republicans should gain the State of
Pennsylvania in the State election of October, there was a very
strong probability, rather a moral certainty, that the electoral
votes of all the free States in the Presidential election would be
obtained by that party, while there was no probability that it would
prevail in a single slave-holding State. The political issue,
therefore, was whether the sectional division of the free and the
slave States in the election of a President was to come then, or
whether it was to be averted. The State election in Pennsylvania, in
October, turned in favor of the Democrats. Her twenty-seven
electoral votes were thus morally certain to be given to Mr.
Buchanan in the Presidential election. In the interval, a large body
of his friends and neighbors assembled at Wheatland, and called him
out. His remarks, never before printed, are now extant in his
handwriting. He said:

  MY FRIENDS AND NEIGHBORS:—

  I am glad to see you and to receive and reciprocate your
  congratulations upon the triumph of the Democrats in Pennsylvania
  and Indiana.

  It is my sober and solemn conviction that Mr. Fillmore uttered the
  words of soberness and truth when he declared that if the Northern
  sectional party should succeed, it would lead inevitably to the
  destruction of this beautiful fabric reared by our forefathers,
  cemented by their blood, and bequeathed to us as a priceless
  inheritance.

  The people of the North seem to have forgotten the warning of the
  Father of his Country against geographical parties. And by far the
  most dangerous of all such parties is that of a combined North
  against a combined South on the question of slavery. This is no
  mere political question—no question addressing itself to the
  material interests of men. It rises far higher. With the South it
  is a question of self-preservation, of personal security around
  the family altar, of life or of death. The Southern people still
  cherish a love for the Union; but what to them is even our blessed
  confederacy, the wisest and the best form of government ever
  devised by man, if they cannot enjoy its blessings and its
  benefits without being in constant alarm for their wives and
  children.

  The storm of abolition against the South has been gathering for
  almost a quarter of a century. It had been increasing by every
  various form of agitation which fanaticism could devise. We had
  reached the crisis. The danger was imminent. Republicanism was
  sweeping over the North like a tornado. It appeared to be
  resistless in its course. The blessed Union of these States—the
  last hope for human liberty on earth—appeared to be tottering on
  its base. Had Pennsylvania yielded, had she become an abolition
  State, without a special interposition of Divine Providence, we
  should have been precipitated into the yawning gulf of
  dissolution. But she stood erect and firm as her own Alleghanies.
  She breasted the storm and drove it back. The night is departing,
  and the roseate and propitious morn now breaking upon us promises
  a long day of peace and prosperity for our country. To secure
  this, all we of the North have to do is to permit our Southern
  neighbors to manage their own domestic affairs, as they permit us
  to manage ours. It is merely to adopt the golden rule, and do
  unto them as we would they should do unto us, in the like
  circumstances. All they ask from us is simply to let them alone.
  This is the whole spirit and essence of the much abused Cincinnati
  platform. This does no more than adopt the doctrine which is the
  very root of all our institutions, and recognize the right of a
  majority of the people of a Territory, when about to enter the
  Union as a State, to decide for themselves whether domestic
  slavery shall or shall not exist among them. This is not to favor
  the extension of slavery, but simply to deny the right of an
  abolitionist in Massachusetts or Vermont to prescribe to the
  people of Kansas what they shall or shall not do in regard to this
  question.

  Who contests the principle that the will of the majority shall
  govern? What genuine republican of any party can deny this? The
  opposition have never met this question fairly. Within a brief
  period, the people of this country will condemn their own folly
  for suffering the assertion of so plain and elementary a principle
  of all popular governments to have endangered our blessed
  Constitution and Union, which owe their origin to this very
  principle.

  I congratulate you, my friends and neighbors, that peace has been
  restored to Kansas. As a Pennsylvanian I rejoice that this good
  work has been accomplished by two sons of our good old mother
  State, God bless her! We have reason to be proud of Colonel Geary
  and General Smith. We shall hear no more of bleeding Kansas. There
  will be no more shrieks for her unhappy destiny. The people of
  this fine country, protected from external violence and internal
  commotion, will decide the question of slavery for themselves, and
  then slide gracefully into the Union and become one of the sisters
  in our great Confederacy.

  Indeed, viewed in the eye of sober reason, this Kansas question is
  one of the most absurd of all the Proteus-like forms which
  abolition fanaticism has ever assumed to divide and distract the
  country. And why do I say this? Kansas might enter the Union with
  a free constitution to-day, and once admitted, no human power
  known to the Constitution could prevent her from establishing
  slavery to-morrow. No free-soiler has ever even contended that she
  would not possess this power.

The result of the election shows, with great distinctness, the
following facts: 1st. That Mr. Buchanan was chosen President,
because he received the electoral votes of the five free States of
Pennsylvania, New Jersey, Indiana, Illinois and California (62 in
all), and that without them he could not have been elected. 2d. That
his Southern vote (that of every slave-holding State excepting
Maryland) was partly given to him because of his conservative
opinions and position, and partly because the candidate for the
Vice-Presidency, Mr. Breckinridge, was a Southern man. 3d. That
General Fremont received the electoral vote of no Southern State,
and that this was due partly to the character of the Republican
party and its Northern tone, and partly to the fact that the
Republican candidate for the Vice Presidency (Mr. Dayton, of New
Jersey), was a citizen of a non-slaveholding State. General Fremont
himself was nominally a citizen of California. This election,
therefore, foreshadowed the sectional division which would be almost
certain to happen in the next one, if the four years of Mr.
Buchanan’s administration should not witness a subsidence in the
sectional feelings between the North and the South. It would only be
necessary for the Republicans to wrest from the Democratic party the
five free States which had voted for Mr. Buchanan, and they would
elect the President in 1860. Whether this was to happen, would
depend upon the ability of the Democratic party to avoid a rupture
into factions that would themselves be representatives of
irreconcilable dogmas on the subject of slavery in the Territories.
Hence it is that Mr. Buchanan’s course as President, for the three
first years of his term, is to be judged, with reference to the
responsibility that was upon him to so conduct the Government as to
disarm, if possible, the antagonism of section to section. His
administration of affairs after the election of Mr. Lincoln is to be
judged simply by his duty as the Executive, in the most
extraordinary and anomalous crisis in which the country had ever
been placed.

I take from the multitude of private letters written or received
during and after the election, a few of the most interesting:—

                   [FROM THE HON. JAMES MACGREGOR.]

                                    HOUSE OF COMMONS, June 20, 1856.

  MY DEAR SIR:—

  I am, indeed, very happy to receive to-day the decision with
  regard to you at Cincinnati, and God grant the result be as
  successful as I wish. The feeling in this house, and I am sure in
  the country, is, I believe firmly, such as you could wish. I wish
  that miserable dispute about Central America were dissipated; for
  my part, I believe that if not only Central America, but all
  Spanish America, south of California, were possessed and governed
  by an Anglo-Saxon or Anglo-American race, the more would the
  progress of civilization, the progress of industry and commerce,
  and the happiness of mankind be advanced.

  I went over to Paris a few days after you left for Havre. Saw much
  of Mr. Mason, Mr. Corbin and Mr. Childs. The latter drew me a most
  able statement relative to the disputes with America, which I made
  good use of, on my return, with Lord Palmerston.

  You will observe that even the meretricious _Times_, which I send
  you a copy of, is coming to be more reasonable; although I cannot
  trust that journal, which, I believe, was truly characterized by
  O’Connell, in the House of Commons, as representing “the sagacity
  of the rat and the morality of a harlot.” I write in great haste
  for the post; but believe me always, and with my very kindest
  regards to Miss Lane,

                                               Faithfully yours,
                                                       J. MACGREGOR.

                      [TO WILLIAM B. REED, ESQ.]

                                       Monday Morning, July 7, 1856.

  MY DEAR SIR:—

  I return Mr. Stevenson’s letter with thanks. He appears to be “a
  marvellous proper man.” There never was a more unfounded falsehood
  than that of my connection with the bargain, or alleged bargain.
  At the time I was a young member of Congress, not on terms of
  intimacy with either Jackson or Clay. It is true I admired both,
  and wished to see the one President and the other Secretary of
  State; and after Mr. Clay had been instructed by the Kentucky
  legislature to vote for Jackson, I believed my wish would be
  accomplished. It must have been then that I had the conversation
  with Mr. Clay, in Letcher’s room, to which Colton refers, for I
  declare I have not the least trace on my memory of any such
  conversation. Had I known anything of the previous history of
  Jackson and Clay, I could not have believed it possible that the
  former would appoint the latter Secretary. A conversation of a few
  minutes with Jackson on the street on a cold and stormy day of
  December, fully related by me in 1827, and a meeting with Mr. Clay
  in Letcher’s room, and a conversation perfectly harmless as
  stated, have brought me into serious difficulties.

                            Your friend, very respectfully,
                                                     JAMES BUCHANAN.

                 [TO THE HON. JAMES C. DOBBIN.[28].]

                                   BEDFORD SPRINGS, August 20, 1856.

  MY DEAR SIR:—

  Your favor of the 13th instant did not reach me at the Bedford
  Springs until I was about leaving, hence the delay of my answer. I
  did not reach home until the night before the last.

  I congratulate you, with all my heart, on the result of your
  election. The population of the old North State is steady and
  conservative. Of it you may be justly proud. The Southern States
  now promise to be a unit at the approaching Presidential election.
  Maryland is still considered doubtful, but the changes in our
  favor have been great within the last three weeks. The letters of
  Messrs. Pierce and Pratt have had a happy effect.

  I am glad to learn that our foreign affairs are assuming a
  favorable aspect. I most heartily approved of the dismissal of Mr.
  Crampton, and would have been quite as well satisfied had he been
  sent home in the last autumn. About the present condition of the
  Central American questions I knew nothing until the receipt of
  your letter, except from the revelations in the British
  Parliament, which I know, from experience, are not reliable. Mr.
  Dallas said nothing to me about his instructions or the views of
  the President, and, of course, I did not solicit his confidence.
  The question of the Bay Islands is too clear for serious doubt.
  Lord Aberdeen, the purest and most just of British statesmen, when
  premier gave it up, as is shown by my correspondence with the
  State Department, and it is highly probable Great Britain may make
  a virtue of necessity, and surrender these islands to Honduras to
  whom they clearly belong.

  I am glad to learn that the President enjoys good health,
  notwithstanding the fatigue, troubles, and responsibility incident
  to his position. I concur with you in opinion as to the character
  of his manly and excellent address on the receipt of the
  intelligence from Cincinnati. It was no more than what might have
  been expected from him by all who knew him. My aspirations for the
  Presidency had all died four years ago, and I never felt the
  slightest personal interest in securing the nomination. It was
  easy to foresee the impending crisis, and that the Union itself
  might depend on the result of the election. In this view, whilst
  we all have everything near and dear to us of a political
  character at stake, the President of all men has the deepest
  interest in the result. My election, so far as I am personally
  concerned is a very small matter; but as identified with the
  leading measures of his administration, the preservation of the
  Constitution and the Union, and the maintenance of the equality of
  the States, and of the right of the people of a Territory to
  decide the question of slavery for themselves, in their
  constitution, before entering the Union, it is a subject of vast
  and transcendant importance.

  Most cordially reciprocating your friendly sentiments towards
  myself, and wishing you all the blessings which you can desire, I
  remain, as ever, very respectfully,

                                               Your friend,
                                                     JAMES BUCHANAN.

Footnote 28:

  Secretary of the Navy under President Pierce.

                  [TO NAHUM CAPEN, ESQ., OF BOSTON.]

                                         WHEATLAND, August 27, 1856.

  MY DEAR SIR:—

  On my return from Bedford Springs on Monday night, I found your
  favor of the 22d instant, and your manuscript. The latter I have
  endeavored to find the time to read with care, but this has been
  impossible. I have, therefore, only been able to glance over it.
  It is written with characteristic ability, and that portion of it
  which gives extracts from my speeches has been prepared with much
  labor and discrimination. I have not seen the manuscript of any
  biography of mine before publication, nor have I read any one of
  them since, and this simply because I did not choose to be
  identified with any of them.

  For my own part, I consider that all incidental questions are
  comparatively of little importance in the Presidential question,
  when compared with the grand and appalling issue of union or
  disunion. Should Fremont be elected, he must receive 149 Northern
  electoral votes at the least, and the outlawry proclaimed by the
  Republican convention at Philadelphia against fifteen Southern
  States will be ratified by the people of the North. The
  consequence will be _immediate_ and inevitable. In this region,
  the battle is fought mainly on this issue. We have so often cried
  “wolf,” that now, when the wolf is at the door, it is difficult to
  make the people believe it; but yet the sense of danger is slowly
  and surely making its way in this region.

  After reflection and consultation, I stated in my letter of
  acceptance substantially, that I would make no issues beyond the
  platform, and have, therefore, avoided giving my sanction to any
  publication containing opinions with which I might be identified,
  and prove unsatisfactory to some portions of the Union. I must
  continue to stand on this ground. Had it not been for this cause,
  I should have embraced your kind offer, and asked you to prepare a
  biography for me, and furnished the materials. Indeed, I often
  thought of this.

  I am deeply and gratefully sensible of your friendship, and
  therefore most reluctantly adopt the course towards you which I
  have done to all other friends under like circumstances.

  In the cursory glance I have been able to take of your manuscript,
  I observed one or two errors. In page 37 of No. 1, my allusion was
  to Mrs. Adams, and not to Mrs. Jackson. I entered college at the
  age of sixteen, not of fourteen, having been previously prepared
  for the Junior class. It is not the fact that I accepted no
  compensation for trying the widow’s cause. “Millions for defence,
  but not a cent for tribute,” was not original with me.

  I am so surrounded, I regret I cannot write more, and still more
  deeply regret that my omission to sanction your very able
  manuscript may give you pain. I sincerely wish you had referred it
  to the National Committee, or to the committee in your own State.

  We are fighting the battle in this State almost solely _on the
  great issue_, with energy and confidence. I do not think there is
  any reason to apprehend the result, certainly none at the
  Presidential election, so far as Pennsylvania is concerned.

  In haste, I remain always, very respectfully, your friend,

                                                     JAMES BUCHANAN.

                      [TO WILLIAM B. REED, ESQ.]

                                       WHEATLAND, September 8, 1856.

  MY DEAR SIR:—

  I have received your favor of the 5th inst. I do not recollect the
  names of the two members of the Society of Friends to whom you
  refer; but should you deem it important, I can, with some trouble,
  find the original letter. I have no doubt Dr. Parrish was one of
  them. He, William Wharton and Joseph Foulke were the three
  gentlemen referred to in my remarks on the 25th April, 1836, in
  presenting the petition of the Society of Friends against the
  admission of Arkansas, etc. They not only acquiesced in my course,
  but requested me to procure for them a number of copies of the
  _National Intelligencer_ containing my remarks, and left
  Washington entirely satisfied. (Vide the volume of the Register of
  Debates, to which you refer, pages 1277 and 1278.)

  I cannot procure the _London Quarterly_ in Lancaster. I took the
  Reviews in England, but neglected to order them since my return. I
  have no doubt it does me great injustice. I was so popular
  personally in England, that whenever I appeared at public dinners,
  etc., I was enthusiastically cheered; but now they are all for
  Fremont ......, and a dissolution of the Union.

  I am gratified that you have sent me Mr. Stevenson’s letter. I
  have no doubt he is a gentleman of fastidious honor as well as
  much ability. Although a patient and much-enduring man, I have
  never had patience about “the bargain and sale story.” So far as I
  am concerned, it all arose from the misapprehension by General
  Jackson of as innocent a conversation on the street, on my part,
  as I ever had with any person. I cannot charge myself even with
  the slightest imprudence. And then, as a rebutter, a conversation
  equally innocent, in Letcher’s room, about the particulars of
  which I have no more recollection than if it had never taken
  place. Still, I have not the least doubt it has been stated
  accurately; because it is just what I would have said under the
  circumstances, and in entire ignorance of the nature of the
  personal relations between General Jackson and Mr. Clay. Blair’s
  exposé has fallen dead, so far as I can learn.

 (Private and confidential.)              WHEATLAND, September 14, 1856.

  MY DEAR SIR:—

  I have at length found, and now enclose, the letter to which you
  refer. I have very often spoken in the Senate on the subject of
  slavery in the different forms which the question has assumed, but
  have not the time at the present moment to look over the debates.

  I have recently received a letter from Governor Wright, of
  Indiana, who informs me it would be of great importance in that
  State should the _National Intelligencer_ come out in favor of the
  Democratic candidates. He had heard, as we have done, that such
  was the intention of its editors, after the adjournment of
  Congress. But they have at length come out in favor of Fremont. I
  say this, because they scout the idea that the Union would be in
  danger from his election...... Better they had at once raised the
  Republican flag. This opinion they have expressed, notwithstanding
  I am in the daily receipt of letters from the South, which are
  truly alarming, and these from gentlemen who formerly opposed both
  nullification and disunion. They say explicitly that the election
  of Fremont involves the dissolution of the Union, and this
  immediately. They allege that they are now looking on calmly for
  the North to decide their fate. When I say from the South, I refer
  to the States south of the Potomac. These evidences of public
  determination first commenced in the extreme South; but now the
  same calm and determined spirit appears to pervade Virginia.
  Indeed, the most alarming letter I have received has been from
  Virginia, and this, too, from a prudent, tranquil and able man,
  who has for some years been out of public life from his own
  choice. The remarks of the _National Intelligencer_ will either
  serve to delude the Northern people, or the Southrons are
  insincere. God save the Union! I do not wish to survive it.

                        From your friend, very respectfully,
                                                     JAMES BUCHANAN.

  P.S.—I refer to the article in the _Intelligencer_ of the 11th
  instant, headed, “The Balance Wheels of the Government.” One
  gentleman informs me that the men who were our contemporaries when
  the States lived in peace with each other, before the slavery
  excitement commenced, have passed away, and they have been
  succeeded by a new generation, who have grown up pending the
  slavery agitation. He says that they have been constantly assailed
  by the North, and now have as much hatred for the people of New
  England as the latter have for them; and many now deem that it
  would be for the mutual advantage of all parties to have a
  Southern Confederation, in which they can live at peace. I have
  received such communications with regret and astonishment.

                    [TO A CITIZEN OF CALIFORNIA.]

                   WHEATLAND, near LANCASTER, PENN., Sept. 17, 1856.

  SIR:—

  I have received numerous communications from sources in
  California, entitled to high regard, in reference to the
  proposed Pacific Railroad. As it would be impossible for me to
  answer them all, I deem it most proper and respectful to
  address you a general answer in your official capacity. In
  performing this duty to the citizens of California, I act in
  perfect consistency with the self-imposed restriction
  contained in my letter accepting the nomination for the
  Presidency, not to answer interrogatories raising new and
  different issues from those presented by the Cincinnati
  convention, because that convention has itself adopted a
  resolution in favor of this great work. I, then, desire to
  state briefly that, concurring with the convention, I am
  decidedly favorable to the construction of the Pacific
  Railroad; and I derive the authority to do this from the
  constitutional power “to declare war,” and the constitutional
  duty “to repel invasions.” In my judgment, Congress possess
  the same power to make appropriations for the construction of
  this road, strictly for the purpose of national defence, that
  they have to erect fortifications at the mouth of the harbor
  of San Francisco. Indeed, the necessity, with a view to repel
  foreign invasion from California, is as great in the one case
  as in the other. Neither will there be danger from the
  precedent, for it is almost impossible to conceive that any
  case attended by such extraordinary and unprecedented
  circumstances can ever again occur in our history.

                                   Yours very respectfully,
                                                     JAMES BUCHANAN.

  To B. F. WASHINGTON, Esq., Chairman of the Democratic State
  Central Committee of California.

                   [TO JOSHUA BATES, ESQ., LONDON.]

                            WHEATLAND, near LANCASTER, Nov. 6, 1856.

  MR DEAR SIR:—

  I received in due time your kind congratulatory letter of the 10th
  July, which I should have immediately answered had I been able to
  express a decided opinion as to the result of the Presidential
  election. It was one of the most severe political struggles
  through which we have ever passed. The preachers and fanatics of
  New England had excited the people to such a degree on the slavery
  questions, that they generally prayed and preached against me from
  their pulpits on Sunday last, throughout that land of “isms.” Your
  information from Massachusetts was entirely unfounded—Boston is a
  sad place. In that city they have re-elected to Congress a
  factious fanatic, ...... who, in a public speech, said that we
  must have an anti-slavery Constitution, an anti-slavery Bible, and
  an anti-slavery God.

  Whilst the British press, by their violent attacks, did me much
  good service, I very much regretted their hostile publications,
  because it was and is my sincere desire to cultivate the most
  friendly relations with that country. The _Times_ does England
  much injury, at least in foreign nations; it has made the English
  unpopular throughout the continent, and keeps alive the ancient
  prejudice which still exists in large portions of our country. In
  very many of the Democratic papers, throughout the late canvass,
  beautiful extracts from the _Thunderer_, the _Chronicle_, and
  other English journals, were kept standing at the head of their
  columns. But enough of this. I most sincerely hope the Central
  American questions may be settled before the 4th of March. I know
  nothing of their condition at present. I never doubted in regard
  to the true construction of the treaty, nor did I ever consider it
  doubtful. The purest and the wisest statesmen I met in England
  agreed with me in regard to the construction of the treaty. If we
  are to be as good friends as I desire we may be, your government
  ought to be careful to select the proper man as minister, and not
  send us some government pet simply because they have no other
  provision for him. I have said much to Lord Clarendon on this
  subject before I had the slightest idea of becoming President. By
  the bye, I like his lordship personally very much, as well as Lord
  Palmerston. They are both agreeable and witty companions, as well
  as great statesmen. I should like them much better, however, if
  their friendly feelings were a little stronger for this country. I
  have no doubt they both, as you say, expressed their satisfaction
  at the prospect of my becoming President. This was, however, at an
  early day. They have probably since changed their opinion. I have
  been a good deal quizzed by private friends since I came home,
  [because] I spoke in strong and warm terms of the kindness and
  civility which had been extended to me in England, and of the vast
  importance to both countries and to the world that friendly
  feelings between the two countries should be cherished by the
  governments and people of each. How often have the articles from
  British newspapers been cast up to me as a comment upon my
  remarks. They have, however, produced no effect upon my feelings.
  I was delighted to see Sir Henry Holland, and to gossip with him
  about valued friends and acquaintances on the other side of the
  water. Please to remember me very kindly to Mrs. Bates, and Miss
  Lane desires me to present her warm regards to you both. It is
  long since I have heard from Mr. and Mrs. Lawrence.

                        From your friend, very respectfully,
                                                     JAMES BUCHANAN.

                   [FROM THE HON. EDWARD EVERETT.]

                                             BOSTON, Dec, 8th, 1856.

  MY DEAR SIR:—

  ....... I can hardly congratulate you on your election, first,
  because I did not vote for you (unless upon the theory that every
  vote given to Fillmore was in effect given to you), and second,
  because I fear that to be chosen President is not a thing upon
  which a friend is to be congratulated, in the present state of the
  country.

  You have my best wishes, however, for a prosperous administration.
  I devoutly hope that you will be able to check the progress of
  sectional feeling. The policy of the present administration has
  greatly impaired (as you are well aware) the conservative feeling
  of the North, has annihilated the Whig party, and seriously
  weakened the Democratic party in all the free States.

  Though much opposed to the repeal of the Missouri Compromise, we
  could have stood that, but the subsequent events in Kansas gave us
  the _coup de grace_. Those events, and the assault on Mr. Sumner,
  gave its formidable character and strength to the Republican
  nomination. You can do nothing directly to prevent the occurrence
  of events like the assault, but you may, even in advance of the
  4th of March, do much to bring about a better state of things in
  Kansas, and prevent the enemies of the Constitution from
  continuing to make capital out of it.

  I am, dear sir, with much regard and sincere good wishes,

                                      Very truly yours,
                                                     EDWARD EVERETT.

                     [TO THE HON. JOHN Y. MASON.]

                       WHEATLAND, near LANCASTER, December 29, 1856.

  MY DEAR SIR:—

  Ere this can reach Paris, you will doubtless have received my
  letter to Miss Wight. I shall not repeat what I have said to her,
  because such is the pressure now upon me that I have scarce time
  to say my prayers. This I can say in perfect good faith, that the
  man don’t live whom it would afford me greater pleasure to serve
  than yourself. In this spirit I have determined that you shall not
  be disturbed during the next year, no matter what may be the
  pressure upon me. I am not committed, either directly or
  indirectly, to any human being for any appointment, but yet I
  cannot mistake the strong current of public opinion in favor of
  changing public functionaries, both abroad and at home, who have
  served a reasonable time. They say, and that, too, with
  considerable force, that if the officers under a preceding
  Democratic administration shall be continued by a succeeding
  administration of the same political character, this must
  necessarily destroy the party. This, perhaps, ought not to be so,
  but we cannot change human nature.

  The great object of my administration will be to arrest, if
  possible, the agitation of the slavery question at the North, and
  to destroy sectional parties. Should a kind Providence enable me
  to succeed in my efforts to restore harmony to the Union, I shall
  feel that I have not lived in vain.

  I beg of you to say nothing to any of your colleagues in Europe
  about your continuance in office during the next year. Had it been
  announced I had informed you, in answer to Miss Wight, that you
  should continue indefinitely in office, this would have done both
  you and myself injury. We know not what may transpire in 1857, and
  therefore, in reference to the mission after that period, I can
  say nothing. “Sufficient unto the day is the evil thereof.”

  Even if I had the time, I could not communicate any news to you
  which you will not see in the papers. The pressure for office
  will be nearly as great as though I had succeeded a Whig
  administration.

  With my kind and affectionate regards to Mrs. Mason and your
  excellent family, and cordially wishing you and them many a happy
  Christmas and many a prosperous New Year, I remain, always,

                              Very respectfully your friend,
                                                     JAMES BUCHANAN.

  P.S.—In reading over my letter, I find it is quite too cold in
  reference to Mary Ann, and therefore I beg to send her my love.

                              CHAPTER IX.
                               1857-1858.

INAUGURATION AS PRESIDENT—SELECTION OF A CABINET—THE DISTURBANCES IN
    KANSAS—MR. BUCHANAN’S CONSTRUCTION OF THE KANSAS-NEBRASKA ACT,
    AND OF THE “PLATFORM” ON WHICH HE WAS ELECTED—FINAL ADMISSION OF
    KANSAS INTO THE UNION.

From the communication which has been furnished to me by Mr. James
Buchanan Henry, I select the following account of the period
preceding the inauguration of his uncle as President, on the 4th of
March, 1857:

  Soon after Mr. Buchanan’s election to the Presidency, he sent for
  me—I was in Philadelphia, where I had begun the practice of the
  law—to come to Wheatland. He then told me that he had selected me
  to be his private secretary, and spoke to me gravely of the
  temptations by which I should probably be assailed in that
  position. Soon afterwards prominent men and politicians began to
  make their way to Wheatland in great numbers, and the stream
  increased steadily until the departure of Mr. Buchanan for
  Washington.

  In addition to personal attendance upon the President-elect, I
  soon had my hands full of work in examining and briefing the daily
  mails, which were burdened with letters of recommendation from
  individuals, committees and delegations of various States, in
  regard to the cabinet appointments and a few of the more important
  offices. Mr. Buchanan was also preparing his inaugural address
  with his usual care and painstaking, and I copied his drafts and
  recopied them until he had it prepared to his satisfaction. It
  underwent no alteration after he went to the National Hotel in
  Washington, except that he there inserted a clause in regard to
  the question then pending in the Supreme Court, as one that would
  dispose of a vexed and dangerous topic by the highest judicial
  authority of the land. When the time came to leave Wheatland for
  the capital, preliminary to his inauguration, Mr. Buchanan, Miss
  Lane, Miss Hetty and I drove into Lancaster in his carriage,
  escorted all the way to the railway station by a great and
  enthusiastic crowd of Lancaster citizens and personal friends,
  with a band of music, although it was very early on a bleak winter
  morning. I remember his modestly remarking upon the vast crowd
  thus doing reverence to a mortal man. At the station he was met by
  an ardent personal and political friend, Robert Magraw, then
  president of the Northern Central Railroad, and received into a
  special car, built for the occasion, and the windows of which were
  in colors and represented familiar scenes of and about Wheatland.
  After receiving ovations all along the way, especially at
  Baltimore, the President-elect and party arrived safely in
  Washington. We were somewhat fearful that Mr. Buchanan might be
  seriously embarrassed during the inaugural ceremonies from the
  effects of what was then known as the National Hotel disease, a
  disorder which, from no cause that we could then discover, had
  attacked nearly every guest at the house, and from the dire
  effects of which many never wholly recovered. Dr. Foltz, a naval
  surgeon, whose appointment in the service, many years before, Mr.
  Buchanan had assisted, was in constant attendance upon him, and I
  remember that he and I went together to the Capitol in a carriage
  just behind the one that conveyed the retiring President and the
  President-elect, and that he had occasion to administer remedies.
  The inauguration ceremonies, the ball, and the first reception at
  the White House by the new President, were very largely attended
  and successful. It happened that they took place during a short
  era of good feeling among all shades of politics and party, but
  unhappily an era of peace destined soon to terminate in bitter
  discord over the Lecompton Constitution, or Kansas question, and
  by the more disastrous following appeal to the passions of the two
  great political sections of the North and the South, which so
  nearly ended the administration in blood. The dinners at the White
  House, during the first year, were attended by Republicans as well
  as Democrats, with great seeming friendship and good-will.

The Inaugural Address of the new President was as follows:

  FELLOW-CITIZENS: I appear before you this day to take the solemn
  oath “that I will faithfully execute the office of President of
  the United States, and will, to the best of my ability, preserve,
  protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States.”

  In entering upon this great office, I most humbly invoke the God
  of our fathers for wisdom and firmness to execute its high and
  responsible duties in such a manner as to restore harmony and
  ancient friendship among the people of the several States, and to
  preserve our free institutions throughout many generations.
  Convinced that I owe my election to the inherent love for the
  Constitution and the Union which still animates the hearts of the
  American people, let me earnestly ask their powerful support in
  sustaining all just measures calculated to perpetuate these, the
  richest political blessings which Heaven has ever bestowed upon
  any nation. Having determined not to become a candidate for
  re-election, I shall have no motive to influence my conduct in
  administering the government except the desire ably and faithfully
  to serve my country, and to live in the grateful memory of my
  countrymen.

  We have recently passed through a presidential contest in which
  the passions of our fellow-citizens were excited to the highest
  degree by questions of deep and vital importance; but when the
  people proclaimed their will, the tempest at once subsided, and
  all was calm.

  The voice of the majority, speaking in the manner prescribed by
  the Constitution, was heard, and instant submission followed. Our
  own country could alone have exhibited so grand and striking a
  spectacle of the capacity of man for self-government.

  What a happy conception, then, was it for Congress to apply this
  simple rule—that the will of the majority shall govern—to the
  settlement of the question of domestic slavery in the Territories!
  Congress is neither “to legislate slavery into any Territory or
  State, nor to exclude it therefrom, but to leave the people
  thereof perfectly free to form and regulate their domestic
  institutions in their own way, subject only to the Constitution of
  the United States.” As a natural consequence, Congress has also
  prescribed that, when the Territory of Kansas shall be admitted as
  a State, it “shall be received into the Union, with or without
  slavery, as their constitution may prescribe at the time of their
  admission.”

  A difference of opinion has arisen in regard to the point of time
  when the people of a Territory shall decide this question for
  themselves.

  This is, happily, a matter of but little practical importance.
  Besides, it is a judicial question, which legitimately belongs to
  the Supreme Court of the United States, before whom it is now
  pending, and will, it is understood, be speedily and finally
  settled. To their decision, in common with all good citizens, I
  shall cheerfully submit, whatever this may be, though it has ever
  been my individual opinion that, under the Nebraska-Kansas act,
  the appropriate period will be when the number of actual residents
  in the Territory shall justify the formation of a constitution
  with a view to its admission as a State into the Union. But be
  this as it may, it is the imperative and indispensable duty of the
  government of the United States to secure to every resident
  inhabitant the free and independent expression of his opinion by
  his vote. This sacred right of each individual must be preserved.
  That being accomplished, nothing can be fairer than to leave the
  people of a Territory free from all foreign interference, to
  decide their own destiny for themselves, subject only to the
  Constitution of the United States.

  The whole territorial question being thus settled upon the
  principle of popular sovereignty—a principle as ancient as free
  government itself—everything of a practical nature has been
  decided. No other question remains for adjustment; because all
  agree that, under the Constitution, slavery in the States is
  beyond the reach of any human power, except that of the respective
  States themselves wherein it exists. May we not, then, hope that
  the long agitation on this subject is approaching its end, and
  that the geographical parties to which it has given birth, so much
  dreaded by the Father of his Country, will speedily become
  extinct? Most happy will it be for the country when the public
  mind shall be diverted from this question to others of more
  pressing and practical importance. Throughout the whole progress
  of this agitation, which has scarcely known any intermission for
  more than twenty years, whilst it has been productive of no
  positive good to any human being, it has been the prolific source
  of great evils to the master, the slave, and to the whole country.
  It has alienated and estranged the people of the sister States
  from each other, and has even seriously endangered the very
  existence of the Union. Nor has the danger yet entirely ceased.
  Under our system there is a remedy for all mere political evils in
  the sound sense and sober judgment of the people. Time is a great
  corrective. Political subjects which but a few years ago excited
  and exasperated the public mind have passed away and are now
  nearly forgotten. But this question of domestic slavery is of far
  graver importance than any mere political question, because,
  should the agitation continue, it may eventually endanger the
  personal safety of a large portion of our countrymen where the
  institution exists. In that event, no form of government, however
  admirable in itself, and however productive of material benefits,
  can compensate for the loss of peace and domestic security around
  the family altar. Let every Union-loving man, therefore, exert his
  best influence to suppress this agitation, which, since the recent
  legislation of Congress, is without any legitimate object.

  It is an evil omen of the times that men have undertaken to
  calculate the mere material value of the Union. Reasoned estimates
  have been presented of the pecuniary profits and local advantages
  which would result to different States and sections from its
  dissolution, and of the comparative injuries which such an event
  would inflict on other States and sections. Even descending to
  this low and narrow view of the mighty question, all such
  calculations are at fault. The bare reference to a single
  consideration will be conclusive on this point. We at present
  enjoy a free trade throughout our extensive and expanding country,
  such as the world has never witnessed. This trade is conducted on
  railroads and canals—on noble rivers and arms of the sea—which
  bind together the north and the south, the east and the west of
  our confederacy. Annihilate this trade, arrest its free progress
  by the geographical lines of jealous and hostile States, and you
  destroy the prosperity and onward march of the whole and every
  part, and involve all in one common ruin. But such considerations,
  important as they are in themselves, sink into insignificance when
  we reflect on the terrific evils which would result from disunion
  to every portion of the confederacy—to the north not more than to
  the south, to the east not more than to the west. These I shall
  not attempt to portray; because I feel an humble confidence that
  the kind Providence which inspired our fathers with wisdom to
  frame the most perfect form of Government and Union ever devised
  by man will not suffer it to perish until it shall have been
  peacefully instrumental, by its example, in the extension of civil
  and religious liberty throughout the world.

  Next in importance to the maintenance of the Constitution and the
  Union is the duty of preserving the government free from the
  taint, or even the suspicion, of corruption. Public virtue is the
  vital spirit of republics; and history shows that when this has
  decayed, and the love of money has usurped its place, although the
  forms of free government may remain for a season, the substance
  has departed forever.

  Our present financial condition is without a parallel in history.
  No nation has ever before been embarrassed from too large a
  surplus in its treasury. This almost necessarily gives birth to
  extravagant legislation. It produces wild schemes of expenditure,
  and begets a race of speculators and jobbers, whose ingenuity is
  exerted in contriving and promoting expedients to obtain public
  money. The purity of official agents, whether rightfully or
  wrongfully, is suspected, and the character of the government
  suffers in the estimation of the people. This is in itself a very
  great evil.

  The natural mode of relief from this embarrassment is to
  appropriate the surplus in the treasury to great national objects,
  for which a clear warrant can be found in the Constitution. Among
  these I might mention the extinguishment of the public debt, a
  reasonable increase of the navy, which is at present inadequate to
  the protection of our vast tonnage afloat, now greater than that
  of any other nation, as well as to the defence of our extended
  seacoast.

  It is beyond all question the true principle, that no more revenue
  ought to be collected from the people than the amount necessary to
  defray the expenses of a wise, economical, and efficient
  administration of the government. To reach this point, it was
  necessary to resort to a modification of the tariff; and this has,
  I trust, been accomplished in such a manner as to do as little
  injury as may have been practicable to our domestic manufactures,
  especially those necessary for the defence of the country. Any
  discrimination against a particular branch, for the purpose of
  benefiting favored corporations, individuals, or interests, would
  have been unjust to the rest of the community, and inconsistent
  with that spirit of fairness and equality which ought to govern in
  the adjustment of a revenue tariff.

  But the squandering of the public money sinks into comparative
  insignificance as a temptation to corruption when compared with
  the squandering of the public lands.

  No nation in the tide of time has ever been blessed with so rich
  and noble an inheritance as we enjoy in the public lands. In
  administering this important trust, whilst it may be wise to grant
  portions of them for the improvement of the remainder, yet we
  should never forget that it is our cardinal policy to reserve
  these lands, as much as may be, for actual settlers, and this at
  moderate prices. We shall thus not only best promote the
  prosperity of the new States and Territories by furnishing them a
  hardy and independent race of honest and industrious citizens, but
  shall secure homes for our children and our children’s children,
  as well as for those exiles from foreign shores who may seek in
  this country to improve their condition, and to enjoy the
  blessings of civil and religious liberty. Such emigrants have done
  much to promote the growth and prosperity of the country. They
  have proved faithful both in peace and in war. After becoming
  citizens, they are entitled, under the Constitution and laws, to
  be placed on a perfect equality with native-born citizens, and in
  this character they should ever be kindly recognized.

  The Federal Constitution is a grant from the States to Congress of
  certain specific powers; and the question whether this grant
  should be liberally or strictly construed, has, more or less,
  divided political parties from the beginning. Without entering
  into the argument, I desire to state, at the commencement of my
  administration, that long experience and observation have
  convinced me that a strict construction of the powers of the
  Government is the only true, as well as the only safe, theory of
  the Constitution. Whenever, in our past history, doubtful powers
  have been exercised by Congress, these have never failed to
  produce injurious and unhappy consequences. Many such instances
  might be adduced, if this were the proper occasion. Neither is it
  necessary for the public service to strain the language of the
  Constitution; because all the great and useful powers required for
  a successful administration of the Government, both in peace and
  in war, have been granted, either in express terms or by the
  plainest implication.

  Whilst deeply convinced of these truths, I yet consider it clear
  that, under the war-making power, Congress may appropriate money
  towards the construction of a military road, when this is
  absolutely necessary for the defence of any State or Territory of
  the Union against foreign invasion. Under the Constitution,
  Congress has power “to declare war,” “to raise and support
  armies,” “to provide and maintain a navy,” and to call forth the
  militia to “repel invasions.” Thus endowed, in an ample manner,
  with the war-making power, the corresponding duty is required that
  “the United States shall protect each of them [the States] against
  invasion.” Now, how is it possible to afford this protection to
  California and our Pacific possessions, except by means of a
  military road through the Territories of the United States, over
  which men and munitions of war may be speedily transported from
  the Atlantic States to meet and to repel the invader? In the event
  of a war with a naval power much stronger than our own, we should
  then have no other available access to the Pacific coast, because
  such a power would instantly close the route across the isthmus of
  Central America. It is impossible to conceive that, whilst the
  Constitution has expressly required Congress to defend all the
  States, it should yet deny to them, by any fair construction, the
  only possible means by which one of these States can be defended.
  Besides, the Government, ever since its origin, has been in the
  constant practice of constructing military roads. It might also be
  wise to consider whether the love for the Union which now animates
  our fellow-citizens on the Pacific coast may not be impaired by
  our neglect or refusal to provide for them, in their remote and
  isolated condition, the only means by which the power of the
  States, on this side of the Rocky Mountains, can reach them in
  sufficient time to “protect” them “against invasion.” I forbear
  for the present from expressing an opinion as to the wisest and
  most economical mode in which the Government can lend its aid in
  accomplishing this great and necessary work. I believe that many
  of the difficulties in the way, which now appear formidable, will,
  in a great degree, vanish as soon as the nearest and best route
  shall have been satisfactorily ascertained.

  It may be proper that, on this occasion, I should make some brief
  remarks in regard to our rights and duties as a member of the
  great family of nations. In our intercourse with them there are
  some plain principles, approved by our own experience, from which
  we should never depart. We ought to cultivate peace, commerce, and
  friendship with all nations; and this not merely as the best means
  of promoting our own material interests, but in a spirit of
  Christian benevolence towards our fellow-men, wherever their lot
  may be cast. Our diplomacy should be direct and frank, neither
  seeking to obtain more nor accepting less than is our due. We
  ought to cherish a sacred regard for the independence of all
  nations, and never attempt to interfere in the domestic concerns
  of any, unless this shall be imperatively required by the great
  laws of self-preservation. To avoid entangling alliances has been
  a maxim of our policy ever since the days of Washington, and its
  wisdom no one will attempt to dispute. In short, we ought to do
  justice, in a kindly spirit, to all nations, and require justice
  from them in return.

  It is our glory that, whilst other nations have extended their
  dominions by the sword, we have never acquired any territory
  except by fair purchase, or, as in the case of Texas, by the
  voluntary determination of a brave, kindred, and independent
  people to blend their destinies with our own. Even our
  acquisitions from Mexico form no exception. Unwilling to take
  advantage of the fortune of war against a sister republic, we
  purchased these possessions, under the treaty of peace, for a sum
  which was considered at the time a fair equivalent. Our past
  history forbids that we shall in the future acquire territory,
  unless this be sanctioned by the laws of justice and honor. Acting
  on this principle, no nation will have a right to interfere or to
  complain if, in the progress of events, we shall still further
  extend our possessions. Hitherto, in all our acquisitions, the
  people, under the protection of the American flag, have enjoyed
  civil and religious liberty, as well as equal and just laws, and
  have been contented, prosperous, and happy. Their trade with the
  rest of the world has rapidly increased, and thus every commercial
  nation has shared largely in their successful progress.

  I shall now proceed to take the oath prescribed by the
  Constitution, whilst humbly invoking the blessing of Divine
  Providence on this great people.

In the selection of his cabinet, the President followed the
long-established custom of making it a representation of the
different portions of the Union, so far as might be consistent with
a proper regard for personal qualifications for the different posts.
The cabinet, which was confirmed by the Senate on the 6th day of
March, 1857, consisted of Lewis Cass, of Michigan, Secretary of
State; Howell Cobb, of Georgia, Secretary of the Treasury; John B.
Floyd, of Virginia, Secretary of War; Isaac Toucey, of Connecticut,
Secretary of the Navy; Aaron V. Brown, of Tennessee, Postmaster
General; Jacob Thompson, of Mississippi, Secretary of the Interior;
and Jeremiah S. Black, of Pennsylvania, Attorney General. So far as
was practicable within the limits of a selection which, according to
invariable usage and sound policy was confined to the Democratic
party, this cabinet was a fair representation of the Eastern, the
Middle, the Western and the Southern States.

The state of the country, however, when this administration was
organized, was ominous to its internal peace and welfare. The
preceding administration of President Pierce had left a legacy of
trouble to his successor in the repeal of the Missouri Compromise.
Had it not been for this ill-advised step, the country might have
reposed upon the settlement of all the slavery questions that was
made by the “Compromise Measures” of 1850. How the flood-gates of
sectional controversy were again opened by the repeal of the earlier
settlement of 1820, and how this repeal tended to unsettle what had
been happily settled in 1850, is a sad chapter in our political
history.

The repeal of the Missouri Compromise was effected in the following
manner: In the session of 1854, Senator Douglas, chairman of the
Senate Committee on Territories, reported a bill for the
establishment of a Territorial government in Nebraska. It did not
touch the Missouri Compromise; and, being in the usual form, it
would probably have been passed without much opposition, but for the
intervention of a Senator from Kentucky, Mr. Dixon. He gave notice,
on the 16th of January, that when the bill should be reached in its
order, he would move a section repealing the Missouri Compromise,
both as to Nebraska and all other Territories of the United States.
Mr. Dixon was a Whig, and Mr. Douglas was a prominent and most
energetic Democrat, who had long been an aspirant to the Presidency.
Conceiving the idea that a new doctrine respecting the sovereign
right of the people of a Territory to determine for themselves
whether they would or would not have slavery while they were in the
Territorial condition, would better reconcile both sections of the
Union than the continuance of the Missouri Compromise, he introduced
a substitute for the original bill, which, after dividing Nebraska
into two Territories, calling one Nebraska and the other Kansas,
annulled the Missouri Compromise in regard to these and all other
Territories. This he called, “Non-intervention by Congress with
slavery in the States or Territories,” which his bill declared was
the principle of the settlement of 1850, although that settlement
had not only not invalidated the Missouri Compromise, but that
Compromise had been expressly recognized in the case of Texas. Mr.
Dixon expressed himself as perfectly satisfied with Mr. Douglas’s
new bill, and the latter, being a man of great power, both as a
debater and as a politician, carried his bill through the two
Houses, and persuaded President Pierce to approve it. It was long
and disastrously known as “the Kansas-Nebraska Act.”

Its discussion in Congress was attended with heats such as had not
been witnessed for many years. It laid the foundation for the
political success of the party then beginning to be known as the
Republican, and it produced the hopeless disruption of the
Democratic party when its nomination for the Presidency next after
Mr. Buchanan’s was to be made. Proud, disdainful of the predictions
made by others of the danger to the Union arising from his measure,
confident in his own energies and his ability to unite the
Democratic party in the South and in the North upon his principle of
“non-intervention,” Mr. Douglas gained a momentary triumph at the
expense of his own political future, of the future of his party, and
of the peace of the Union. For a time, however, it seemed as if he
had secured a following that would insure the acceptance of his
principle. All the Southern Senators, Whigs and Democrats, with two
exceptions,[29] and all the Northern Democratic Senators, with three
exceptions,[30] voted for his bill. The Whig Senators from the
North, and those who more distinctively represented the Northern
anti-slavery, or “Free-soil” sentiment, voted against it; but the
latter hailed it as a means that would consolidate the North into a
great political organization, with freedom inscribed upon its
banners. Mr. Buchanan, it will be remembered, was at this time in
England.

Footnote 29:

  Mr. Bell, of Tennessee, and Mr. Clayton, of Delaware.

Footnote 30:

  Messrs. Allen and James, of Rhode Island, and Mr. Walker, of
  Wisconsin.

He has said that although down to this period the anti-slavery party
of the North had been the assailing party and kept the people of the
South in constant irritation, yet, “in sustaining the repeal of the
Missouri Compromise the Senators and Representatives of the Southern
States became the aggressors themselves.”[31] And it was one of the
worst features of this aggression that it was made under the lead of
a Northern Democrat; for if the repeal of the Missouri Compromise
was a boon offered to the South, they could say that it was a boon
offered from the North.[32]

Footnote 31:

  Buchanan’s Defence, p. 28.

Footnote 32:

  It must be remembered that this took place long before the case of
  “Dred Scott” had been acted upon in the Supreme Court of the
  United States.

The fatal effects of this measure were two-fold; first in unsettling
what had been settled in 1850, and secondly in precipitating a
struggle in Kansas as between the pro-slavery and the anti-slavery
parties, which, although it was local, spread itself in opposite
sympathies throughout the North and the South. The Compromise
Measures of 1850 had settled every possible question in relation to
slavery on which Congress could then or ever afterwards act.

Such was the general repose of the country upon these topics when
President Pierce was inaugurated, that he congratulated the country
upon the calm security now evinced by the public mind, and promised
that it should receive no shock during his official term, if he
could prevent it. But the shock came within two years, and it came
because the repeal of the Missouri Compromise threw open again the
whole question of slavery in the Territories, to remain an unending
sectional controversy until it had divided one great national party,
built up a new and sectional party, and finally rent the Union into
a geographical array of section against section.

The more immediate and local effect remains to be described. Kansas
at once became the theatre where the extreme men of both sections
entered into a deadly conflict, the one party to make it a free, the
other to make it a slaveholding Territory and State. Congress having
abdicated its duty of fixing the character of the Territory by law,
one way or the other, the beauty of Mr. Douglas’s principle of
“non-intervention,” now become popularly known in the political
jargon of the day as “squatter sovereignty,” had ample room for
development. What one party could do, on this principle, the other
could do. The Southern pro-slavery settler, or his sympathizer in
the Southern State which he had left, could claim that his slaves
were property in Kansas as much as in Missouri, or Tennessee, or
Kentucky. The Northern anti-slavery settler, or his sympathizer in
the Northern State from which he had come, could contend that
slavery was local and confined to the States where it existed.
Fierce war arose between the parties in their struggle for local
supremacy; both parties were respectively upheld and supplied by
their sympathizers in the near and in the distant States, North and
South; scenes of bloodshed and rapine ensued; and the bitter fruits
of opening a fine Territory to such a contest were reaped in an
abundance that made sober men stand aghast at the spectacle.

It was when Mr. Buchanan entered upon the duties of the Presidency
that this condition of things in Kansas came to its culmination. The
pro-slavery party in the Territory, in general violent and lawless
enough, in one respect kept themselves on the side of law. They
sustained the Territorial government which had been organized under
the Act of Congress, and obtained control of its legislature. The
anti-slavery party repudiated this legislature, alleging, with some
truth, that frauds and violence had been committed in the election.

To meet this wrong they committed another. They held a convention at
Topeka, framed a State constitution, elected a governor and
legislature to take the place of those who were governing the
Territory under the organic law, and applied to Congress for
admission into the Union. They had thus put themselves out of pale
of law. Congress at the end of a violent struggle rejected the
application for admission into the Union, under the Topeka
constitution, and recognized the authority of the Territorial
government. This took place in the session of Congress which
terminated on the day before Mr. Buchanan’s inauguration. As
President of the United States, he had no alternative but to
recognize and uphold the Territorial government. The fact that the
legislature of that government was in the hands of the pro-slavery
party, made the course which he adopted seem as if he favored their
pro-slavery designs, while, in truth, he had no object to subserve
but to sustain, as he was officially obliged to sustain, the
government which Congress had recognized as the lawful government of
the Territory.

This government at once proceded to call a convention, to assemble
at Lecompton, and frame a State constitution. It was now the
President’s hope that the anti-slavery party would cease their
opposition to the Territorial government, obey the laws, and elect
delegates to the Lecompton convention in sufficient number to insure
a free constitution. But for the ten months which followed from the
4th of March, 1857, to the first Monday in January, 1858, this party
continued to adhere to their Topeka constitution, and to defy the
Territorial government. In the meantime the peace had to be kept by
troops of the United States to prevent open war between the two
parties.

The President, soon after his inauguration, sent the Hon. Robert J.
Walker to Kansas, as Territorial governor, in place of Governor
Geary, who had resigned. Governor Walker was directed, if possible,
to persuade the anti-slavery party to unite with their opponents in
forming a State constitution, and to take care that the election of
delegates to the convention should be conducted so as to express the
true voice of the people on the question of slavery or freedom. The
governor performed this duty with entire impartiality. The laws
which provided for the election of delegates to the convention, and
for the registration of voters, were just and equitable. The
governor administered them fairly; he exhorted the whole body of
registered electors to vote. Nevertheless, the party that adhered to
the Topeka government and refused to recognize the Territorial
legislature, stayed away from the polls. The consequence was that a
large majority of pro-slavery delegates were elected to the
convention which was alone authorized, under the principles which,
in this country, recognize the sovereignty of the people, and
require it to be exercised through the ballot-box, under the
superintendence of the existing government, to form a constitution.

While these things were taking place in Kansas, in the summer of
1857, while a portion of the inhabitants were in a state of
rebellion against the only government that had any lawful authority;
while the friends of freedom were setting the example of disloyalty
to the established authority of the Territory, and the friends of
slavery were, in one respect, the law-abiding part of the community;
while the revolutionary Topeka legislature was in session, claiming
to be the lawful legislature, and a turbulent and dangerous military
leader was at the head of the anti-slavery party, in open opposition
to the only lawful government of the Territory, presses and pulpits
throughout the North teemed with denunciations of the new President,
who had not allowed revolutionary violence to prevail over the law
of the land. At length there came from the State of Connecticut a
memorial to the President, signed by forty-three of its
distinguished citizens, among them several eminent clergymen,
imputing to him a violation of his official oath, and informing him
that they prayed the Almighty to preserve him from the errors of his
ways. To this he replied with spirit and with a clear exposition of
the mistakes into which ignorant zeal in the cause of freedom had
led those who thus addressed him. His reply, dated August 15, 1857,
is worthy of being reproduced:

  “When I entered upon the duties of the Presidential office, on the
  fourth of March last, what was the condition of Kansas? This
  Territory had been organized under the Act of Congress of 30th
  May, 1854, and the government in all its branches was in full
  operation. A governor, secretary of the Territory, chief justice,
  two associate justices, a marshal, and district attorney had been
  appointed by my predecessor, by and with the advice and consent of
  the Senate, and were all engaged in discharging their respective
  duties. A code of laws had been enacted by the Territorial
  legislature, and the judiciary were employed in expounding and
  carrying these laws into effect. It is quite true that a
  controversy had previously arisen respecting the validity of the
  election of members of the Territorial legislature and of the laws
  passed by them; but at the time I entered upon my official duties,
  Congress had recognized this legislature in different forms and by
  different enactments. The delegate elected to the House of
  Representatives, under a Territorial law, had just completed his
  term of service on the day previous to my inauguration. In fact, I
  found the government of Kansas as well established as that of any
  other Territory. Under these circumstances, what was my duty? Was
  it not to sustain this government? to protect it from the violence
  of lawless men, who were determined either to rule or ruin? to
  prevent it from being overturned by force? in the language of the
  Constitution, to ‘take care that the laws be faithfully executed?’
  It was for this purpose, and this alone, that I ordered a military
  force to Kansas to act as a posse comitatus in aiding the civil
  magistrate to carry the laws into execution. The condition of the
  Territory at the time, which I need not portray, rendered this
  precaution absolutely necessary. In this state of affairs, would I
  not have been justly condemned had I left the marshal and other
  officers of a like character impotent to execute the process and
  judgments of courts of justice established by Congress, or by the
  Territorial legislature under its express authority, and thus have
  suffered the government itself to become an object of contempt in
  the eyes of the people? And yet this is what you designate as
  forcing ‘the people of Kansas to obey laws not their own, nor of
  the United States’; and for doing which you have denounced me as
  having violated my solemn oath. I ask, what else could I have
  done, or ought I to have done? Would you have desired that I
  should abandon the Territorial government, sanctioned as it had
  been by Congress, to illegal violence, and thus renew the scenes
  of civil war and bloodshed which every patriot in the country had
  deplored? This would, indeed, have been to violate my oath of
  office, and to fix a damning blot on the character of my
  administration.

  “I most cheerfully admit that the necessity for sending a military
  force to Kansas to aid in the execution of the civil law, reflects
  no credit upon the character of our country. But let the blame
  fall upon the heads of the guilty. Whence did this necessity
  arise? A portion of the people of Kansas, unwilling to trust to
  the ballot-box—the certain American remedy for the redress of all
  grievances—undertook to create an independent government for
  themselves. Had this attempt proved successful, it would of course
  have subverted the existing government, prescribed and recognized
  by Congress, and substituted a revolutionary government in its
  stead. This was a usurpation of the same character as it would be
  for a portion of the people of Connecticut to undertake to
  establish a separate government within its chartered limits for
  the purpose of redressing any grievance, real or imaginary, of
  which they might have complained against the legitimate State
  government. Such a principle, if carried into execution, would
  destroy all lawful authority and produce universal anarchy.”

  And again: “I thank you for the assurances that you will ‘not
  refrain from the prayer that Almighty God will make my
  administration an example of justice and beneficence.’ You can
  greatly aid me in arriving at this blessed consummation, by
  exerting your influence in allaying the existing sectional
  excitement on the subject of slavery, which has been productive of
  much evil and no good, and which, if it could succeed in attaining
  its object, would ruin the slave as well as his master. This would
  be a work of genuine philanthropy. Every day of my life I feel how
  inadequate I am to perform the duties of my high station without
  the continued support of Divine Providence, yet, placing my trust
  in Him and in Him alone, I entertain a good hope that He will
  enable me to do equal justice to all portions of the Union, and
  thus render me an humble instrument in restoring peace and harmony
  among the people of the several States.”

The condition of Kansas continued for some time longer to be
disturbed by the revolutionary proceedings of the adherents of the
Topeka constitution. The inhabitants of the city of Lawrence
undertook to organize an insurrection throughout the Territory. This
town had been mainly established by the abolition societies of the
Eastern States. It had some respectable and well behaved citizens,
but it was the headquarters of paid agitators, in the employment of
certain anti-slavery organizations. It became necessary for Governor
Walker to suppress this threatened insurrection. The military leader
of the Free State party undertook, in July, to organize his party
into volunteers, and to take the names of all who refused
enrollment. The professed purpose of this organization was to
protect the polls at an election in August of a new Topeka
legislature. Many of the conservative citizens, who had hitherto
acted with the Free State party, were subjected to personal outrages
for refusing to be enrolled. To meet this revolutionary military
organization, and to prevent the establishment of an insurrectionary
government at Lawrence, the Territorial Governor had to retain in
Kansas a large body of United States troops. The insurgent general
and his military staff denied the authority of the Territorial laws,
and counselled the people not to participate in the elections
ordered under the authority of the Lecompton convention.[33]

Footnote 33:

  Governor Walker’s despatches to the Secretary of State, July 15th,
  20th and 27th, 1857.

The Lecompton convention, which met for the second time on the 2d of
September, and then proceeded to frame a State constitution,
adjourned on the 7th of November. Although this constitution
recognized slavery, the convention took steps to submit the question
to the people of the Territory, in a free ballot, by all the white
male inhabitants, before it should be sent to Congress for admission
into the Union. It would have been more regular to have submitted
the whole constitution to the people, although the organic Act did
not require it; but on the question of slavery, which was the vital
one, it can not be pretended that the convention acted unfairly. The
election was directed to be held on the 21st of December, (1857),
and the ballots were to be “Constitution with Slavery,” and
“Constitution with no Slavery.” Thus the opportunity was again
presented for the people of the Territory to vote upon the question
on which they were divided; and again the anti-slavery party, with
the exception of a few hundred of the voters, abstained from voting.
The result was that there were 6,226 votes in favor of the
“Constitution with Slavery,” and only 569 against it.

The Lecompton constitution provided for holding an election of State
officers, a legislature and a member of Congress, on the first
Monday of January, 1858. The President sent instructions to the
Territorial governor which secured a peaceable election. A larger
vote was polled than at any previous election. The party which had
previously refused to vote, now changed their tactics. They elected
a large majority of the members of the legislature, and the
political power of the proposed new State was therefore in their
hands. But for their previous factional resistance to the authority
of the Territorial government, they might have attained this result
at a much earlier period.

On the 30th of January, 1858, the President received the so-called
Lecompton constitution from the president of the convention, with a
request that it be laid before Congress. And here it is necessary to
pause, for the purpose of a just understanding of the grounds on
which the President recommended the admission of Kansas with this
constitution. He was assailed with almost every epithet of
vituperation of which our language admits, as if he was responsible
for and in favor of the pro-slavery feature of this constitution. A
simple and truthful consideration of his official duty under the
organic Act by which the Territory was organized, and a candid
recital of the reasons on which he urged the admission of the State
with this constitution, will enable my readers to determine with
what justice he was treated in this matter.

Mr. Buchanan was elected President upon a political “platform,”
adopted by the Cincinnati Convention, which nominated him, and
which, like all the platforms of that period, dealt, among other
things, with the vexed subject of slavery in Territories. But the
Cincinnati platform of the Democratic party did not affirm the right
of a Territorial legislature to establish or to prohibit slavery:
nor did it admit the doctrine of “popular sovereignty,” as applied
to a people while in the Territorial condition. What it did affirm
was, that at the period when the people of a Territory should be
forming and adopting a State constitution, they should be allowed to
sanction or exclude slavery as they should see fit. This distinction
has of course no interest at the present day. But in the condition
of the Union in the year 1856, this distinction was of great
practical importance. The political men who framed the Cincinnati
platform had to consider how they could present to the people of the
United States a principle of action on this exciting topic of
slavery in the Territories, that would be consistent with the rights
of slave-holding and non-slaveholding States in the common property
of the Union, and at the same time affirm as a party doctrine a
basis of proceeding that could be safely applied in any Territory
and that would maintain its true relation as a Territory to the
Government of the United States. If they were in pursuit of votes
for their candidate, it should also be remembered that they were
preparing for a great national party a set of political principles
that would live and be active for a long time to come. Mr. Douglas
had caused the Missouri Compromise to be swept away; he had procured
the passage of the Kansas-Nebraska Act, which had affirmed something
that was both new and strange in the politics of this difficult
subject. This was, that in creating the body politic known as a
Territory of the United States, Congress should neither legalize nor
prohibit slavery while the Territorial condition continued, but that
the same species of “popular sovereignty” should be held to be
inherent in the people of a Territory that is inherent in the people
of a State, so that they could act on the subject of slavery for
themselves from the time of their first entry into the Territory and
before they had been authorized to form themselves into a State. The
ad captandum phrase “popular sovereignty” procured for this theory
many adherents. But it was irreconcilable with what others asserted
to be the true relation of a Territory to the Congress of the United
States, and equally irreconcilable with the claim of the Southern
slaveholder to go into a Territory with his property in slaves and
to maintain there that property until the State constitution had
sanctioned or prohibited it. The framers of the Cincinnati platform
did not propose to elect a President on this basis. They therefore
did not affirm that a Territorial legislature, or the people of a
Territory, should be allowed to act on the subject of slavery in any
way; but they proclaimed as their doctrine that when the people of a
Territory, acting under the authority of an organic law, should
frame and adopt a State constitution, they should be at liberty to
make their State free or slave as they might see fit.

Before this period the Cincinnati platform was silent; and it was
silent because its framers did not see fit to trammel themselves or
their candidate with a doctrine of “popular sovereignty”
irreconcilable with the governing authority of Congress, and also
because in this matter of slavery there was a question of property
involved. When, therefore, Mr. Buchanan accepted the Cincinnati
platform, and was elected upon it, he went into the office of
President without being in any way committed to the doctrine of
“popular sovereignty,” as expounded by Mr. Douglas.

But the Kansas-Nebraska Act was both a bone of contention between
two portions of the Democratic party and a law of the land. As
President, Mr. Buchanan had only to construe and administer it. It
contained, as explanatory of the purpose of Congress in abolishing
the Missouri Compromise restriction, the following declaration: “It
being the true intent and meaning of this Act not to legislate
slavery into any Territory or State, nor to exclude it therefrom,
but to leave the people thereof perfectly free to form and regulate
their domestic institutions in their own way, subject only to the
Constitution of the United States.” This was in one respect
ambiguous, and in another not so. It was ambiguous in not clearly
defining the time at which this right to form their own domestic
institutions was to be considered as inhering in the people of a
Territory. It was unambiguous in subordinating the exercise of this
right to the Constitution of the United States. In carrying out the
law, the President had to consider what was the limitation imposed
by the Constitution of the United States upon the operation of this
newly created right. This brought before him the action of the
Supreme Court of the United States on the subject of slave property
in the Territories, which had occurred a few days after his
inauguration.

Whatever may be said of the action of the Supreme Court in the
well-known case of “Dred Scott,” in regard to its being technically
a judicial decision, there can be no doubt as to what a majority of
the judges meant to affirm and did affirm in their respective
opinions.[34] This was that property in slaves, being recognized as
a right of property by the Constitution of the United States,
although established only by the local law of a particular State,
travelled with the person of the owner into a Territory; and while
the Territorial condition continued, such property could not be
abolished by the legislation of Congress or the legislation of the
Territorial government. Mr. Buchanan always regarded this as a
judicial decision of this question of property; and as the
construction of the Kansas-Nebraska Act was by its express terms to
be determined by the court, he considered it his duty to regard the
period of time on which the people of Kansas were to decide the
question of slavery or no slavery to be at the formation and
adoption of a State constitution. This was the clear deduction to be
drawn from the constitutional doctrine which had been enunciated by
a majority of the judges.

Footnote 34:

  I have more than once publicly expressed my belief that there was,
  technically speaking, no judicial decision in that case. But
  others, among them President Buchanan, always regarded it as a
  “decision.”

Hence it was that all his official influence was exerted, through
the Territorial government, to induce the people of Kansas to act on
the question of slavery at the proper time and in the only practical
way: namely, by voting for delegates to the convention called under
the authority of the Territorial laws, and then voting on the
constitution which that convention should frame. It certainly was no
wish of his to have Kansas become a slaveholding State; he could
have no motive in the whole matter but to get it decided what her
domestic condition was to be, by the ballot-box instead of the
rifle, by voting and not by fighting. He could, by no sort of
justice, be held responsible for the result which was produced by
the refusal of the anti-slavery party to vote; and when the
Lecompton constitution reached him, he could not avoid submitting it
to Congress. He submitted it with a strong recommendation that
Kansas be received into the Union under it. His reasons for this
recommendation are now to be stated.

1. The Lecompton constitution was republican in form, and it had
been framed and voted upon in a free and open ballot, which the
convention had directed to be taken on the all-important question of
slavery. 2. The question of slavery was thus localized, confined to
the people whom it immediately concerned, and banished from the
halls of Congress, where it had been always exerting a baneful
influence upon the country at large. 3. If Congress, for the sake of
those who had refused to exercise their power of excluding slavery
from the constitution of Kansas, should now reject it because
slavery remained in it, the agitation would be renewed everywhere in
a more alarming form than it had yet assumed. 4. After the admission
of the State, its people would be sovereign over this and every
other domestic question; they could mould their institutions as they
should see fit, and if, as the President had every reason to
believe, a majority of the people were opposed to slavery, the
legislature already elected under this constitution could at once
provide for amending it in the proper manner. 5. If this
constitution should be sent back by Congress because it sanctioned
slavery, a second constitution would have to be framed and sent to
Congress, and there would be a revival of the slavery agitation,
both in Congress and throughout the Union. 6. The speedy admission
of Kansas, which would restore peace and harmony to the whole
country, was of infinitely greater consequence than the small
difference of time that would be required for the people to exercise
their own sovereign power over the whole subject after they had
become a State, compared with the process of a new convention to be
held under the auspices of the Territorial government.[35]

Footnote 35:

  See the President’s message of February 28, 1858, submitting the
  Lecompton constitution. In describing the President’s views on
  this subject I have not only relied upon his messages and other
  official papers, but I have drawn them also from an elaborate
  private paper in his hand-writing, which is of too great length to
  be inserted textually in this work. It relates to the construction
  of the Kansas-Nebraska Act, a construction which he felt bound to
  adopt in consequence of the views taken of the subject of slavery
  in Territories by the Supreme Court, as he said in his inaugural
  address that he should do. In this MS., he speaks of “The infamous
  and unfounded assertion of Mr. ——, that in a conversation with
  Chief Justice Taney, he [the Chief Justice] had informed him in
  advance of the inaugural what the opinion [of the court] would
  be.”

“This message,” says Mr. Buchanan, “gave rise to a long, exciting,
and occasionally violent debate in both Houses of Congress, between
the anti-slavery members and their opponents, which lasted for three
months. In the course of it, slavery was denounced in every form
which could exasperate the Southern people, and render it odious to
the people of the North; whilst on the other hand, many of the
speeches of Southern members displayed characteristic violence. Thus
two sessions of Congress in succession had been in a great degree
occupied with the same inflammatory topics, in discussing the
affairs of Kansas.”[36] At length, however, an Act which had been
reported by a committee of conference of both Houses, admitting
Kansas into the Union as a State under the Lecompton constitution,
was passed in the Senate by a vote of 31 to 22, and in the House by
a vote of 112 to 103, and was signed by the President on the 4th of
May, 1858.[37] The validity of the proceedings in Kansas which had
produced the Lecompton constitution was expressly admitted by the
preamble of this statute.

Footnote 36:

  Buchanan’s Defence, p. 45.

Footnote 37:

  II U. S. Laws, p. 269. In the Senate, Mr. Douglas voted with the
  minority, as did a few anti-Lecompton Democrats in the House.
  [_Congressional Globe_, 1857-8, pp. 1899, 1905.] The Act was
  carried by a party vote.

But the Act annexed a condition precedent to the final admission of
the State under this constitution. This related, not to slavery, but
to the public lands within the territory. The ordinance of the
convention which accompanied the Lecompton constitution demanded for
the State a cession of the public lands more than six times the
quantity that had ever been granted to any other State, when
received into the Union. Congress would not assent to such an
exaction. It was therefore provided that the people of the State
should vote upon a proposition reducing the number of acres to be
ceded to the same number that had been granted to other States; and
that when this proposition should have been ascertained by the
President’s proclamation to have been accepted, the admission of the
State, upon an equal footing with all the other States, should be
complete and absolute. But the condition was never fulfilled. The
people of Kansas rejected it on the 2d of August, 1858, and the
Lecompton constitution thus fell to the ground. “Notwithstanding
this,” Mr. Buchanan observes, “the recognition by Congress of the
regularity of the proceedings in forming the Lecompton constitution,
did much good, at least for a season. It diverted the attention of
the people from fighting to voting, a most salutary change.”[38]

Footnote 38:

  Buchanan’s Defence, p. 46.

In his next annual message, of December 6, 1858, the President said:

  When we compare the condition of the country at the present day
  with what it was one year ago, at the meeting of Congress, we have
  much reason for gratitude to that Almighty Providence which has
  never failed to interpose for our relief at the most critical
  periods of our history. One year ago the sectional strife between
  the North and the South on the dangerous subject of slavery had
  again become so intense as to threaten the peace and perpetuity of
  the confederacy. The application for the admission of Kansas as a
  State into the Union fostered this unhappy agitation, and brought
  the whole subject once more before Congress. It was the desire of
  every patriot that such measures of legislation might be adopted
  as would remove the excitement from the States and confine it to
  the Territory where it legitimately belonged. Much has been done,
  I am happy to say, towards the accomplishment of this object
  during the last session of Congress.

  The Supreme Court of the United States had previously decided that
  all American citizens have an equal right to take into the
  Territories whatever is held as property under the laws of any of
  the States, and to hold such property there under the guardianship
  of the Federal Constitution, so long as the Territorial condition
  shall remain. This is now a well-established position, and the
  proceedings of the last session were alone wanting to give it
  practical effect.

  The principle has been recognized, in some form or other, by an
  almost unanimous vote of both Houses of Congress, that a Territory
  has a right to come into the Union either as a free or a slave
  State, according to the will of a majority of its people. The just
  equality of all the States has thus been vindicated, and a
  fruitful source of dangerous dissension among them has been
  removed.

  While such has been the beneficial tendency of your legislative
  proceedings outside of Kansas, their influence has nowhere been so
  happy as within that Territory itself. Left to manage and control
  its own affairs in its own way, without the pressure of external
  influence, the revolutionary Topeka organization, and all
  resistance to the Territorial government established by Congress,
  have been finally abandoned. As a natural consequence, that fine
  Territory now appears to be tranquil and prosperous, and is
  attracting increasing thousands of immigrants to make it their
  happy home.

  The past unfortunate experience of Kansas has enforced the lesson,
  so often already taught, that resistance to lawful authority,
  under our form of government, cannot fail in the end to prove
  disastrous to its authors.

The people of Kansas, from this time forward, “left to manage their
own affairs in their own way, without the presence of external
influence,” found that they could decide this question of slavery by
their own votes, and that the stimulus and the materials for
fighting, which had been supplied to them from the Northern or the
Southern States, were poor means in comparison with the ballot-box.
The anti-slavery party were numerically the strongest; and having
now given up all factious resistance to the Territorial government,
they were able, under its auspices, to establish a free
constitution, under which the State was admitted into the Union on
the 29th of January, 1861. But the effect of this struggle,
precipitated by the repeal of the Missouri Compromise, and carried
on for a period of seven years, was most disastrous to the peace and
harmony of the Union. It fixed the attention of both sections of the
Union upon a subject of the most inflammatory nature. On the one
hand, the Democratic party, which extended throughout all the
States, slaveholding and non-slaveholding, and which had elected Mr.
Buchanan by the votes of both free and slave States, no longer had a
common bond of party union in a common principle of action on the
question of slavery in Territories. A portion of the party, under
the lead of Mr. Douglas, and known as “the Northern Democracy,”
rejected the doctrine enunciated by the Judges of the Supreme Court,
and still adhered to their principle of “popular sovereignty.” The
residue of the party, calling themselves “the Old Democracy,”
adhered to what they regarded as the decision of the court,
maintained that the time for the people of a Territory to act on the
subject of slavery was when forming and adopting a State
constitution, and that in the previous period, the equal right of
all the States in the common property of the Union could be
respected only by confining the power of the people of a Territory
to the time of adopting a constitution. On the other hand, the new
party, to which these events had given birth, and into which were
now consolidating all the elements of the anti-slavery feeling of
the free States, rejected entirely the principle enunciated by a
majority of the Supreme Court, maintained that the Southern
slave-holder could have no right to hold as property in a Territory
that which was property at all only under the local law of a
slave-holding State, and proclaimed that Congress must, by positive
statute, annul any such supposed right in regard to all existing and
all future Territories. If these conflicting sectional feelings and
interests could have been confined to the practical question of what
was to be done in the Territories before they should become States,
there might have been less danger resulting from their agitation. In
the nature of things, however, they could not be so confined. They
brought into renewed discussion the whole subject of slavery
everywhere, until the North and the South became involved in a
struggle for the Presidency that was made to turn almost exclusively
upon this one topic. But how this came about, and how it resulted in
an attempted disruption of the Union, must be related hereafter.

                               CHAPTER X.
                               1857-1861.

      FOREIGN RELATIONS DURING MR. BUCHANAN’S ADMINISTRATION.

The internal affairs of the country during the administration of Mr.
Buchanan occupied so much of the public attention at the time, and
have since been a subject of so much interest, that his management
of our foreign relations has been quite obscured. Before I approach
the troubled period which witnessed the beginning of the Southern
revolt, I shall describe, with as much brevity as I can use,
whatever is most important in the relations of the United States
with other countries, that transpired during his Presidency.

It will be seen, hereafter, from what he recorded in his private
papers at the time of the resignation of General Cass from the State
Department, in the latter part of the year 1860, that Mr. Buchanan
had to be virtually his own Secretary of State, until Judge Black
succeeded to that office. This was less irksome to him than it might
have been to other Presidents, because of his great familiarity with
the diplomatic history of the country, and his experience in the
diplomatic service. His strong personal regard for General Cass,
whose high character, as well as his political standing in the party
of which they were both members, and the demand of the Western
States, had been the reasons for offering to him the Department of
State, made Mr. Buchanan patient and kind towards one who did not
render him much aid in the business of that office. Mr. Buchanan,
too, was a man who never shrank from labor. His industry was
incessant and untiring; it did not flag with his advancing years;
and it was an industry applied, in foreign affairs, to matters of
which he had a fuller and more intimate knowledge than any American
statesman of his time who was living when he became President of the
United States. His private papers bear ample testimony to the minute
and constant attention which he gave to the foreign relations of the
country, and to the extent of his employment of his own pen. He
wrote with great facility, precision and clearness, from a mind
stored with historical information and the principles of public law.
There was no topic and no question in the foreign relations of the
United States on which his knowledge did not come readily and
promptly to his hand. In this respect, with the exception of Mr.
Jefferson and Mr. John Quincy Adams, we have as yet had no President
who was his superior, or his equal. Like them, he had passed through
the office of Secretary of State, as well as through very important
foreign missions; an advantage which always tells in the office of
President, when it is combined with the qualifications that are
peculiar to American statesmanship.

First in importance, if not in dignity, the relations of the United
States with England, at any period of our history, and the mode in
which they were handled, are topics of permanent interest. How often
these two kindred nations have been on the verge of war, and how
that peril has been encountered and averted cannot cease to be
instructive. Nor is it of less consequence to note the course of a
President, who, during an administration fraught with the most
serious hazards to the internal relations of the United States with
each other, kept steadily in view the preservation of peace and good
will between the United States and Great Britain, while he abated
nothing from our just claims or our national dignity. Mr. Buchanan
left to his successor no unsettled question between these two
nations, that was of any immediate importance, and he left the
feeling between them and their respective governments in a far
better condition than he found it on his accession to the
Presidency, and in a totally different state from that which ensued
after the beginning of our civil war.

But when he became President, two irritating and dangerous questions
were pending, inherited from former administrations. The first of
these related, as we have seen, to the British claim of a
protectorate over the Mosquito coast, and to the establishment of
colonial government over the Bay Islands; territories that belonged
respectively to the feeble republics of Nicaragua and Honduras. It
has been seen in a former chapter how the ambiguity of the
Clayton-Bulwer treaty had led the British government to adopt a
construction of it which would support these claims, and which would
justify the pretension that by that treaty the United States had
receded from what was called the “Monroe Doctrine.” This treaty,
concluded in 1850 by the administration of General Taylor, was
supposed in this country to have settled these questions in favor of
the United States, and that Great Britain would withdraw from the
territories of Nicaragua and Honduras. But she did not withdraw. Her
ministers continued to claim that the treaty only restrained her
from making future acquisitions in Central America, and that the
true inference from this was that she could hold her existing
possessions. It was, as has been seen, in the hope of settling this
question, that Mr. Buchanan accepted the mission to England in 1853.
Why it was not settled at that time, has been already stated in
detail. It remained to be amicably and honorably settled, under his
advice and approbation, after he became President, by treaties
between Great Britain and the two Central American States, in
accordance with the American construction of the Clayton-Bulwer
treaty.

The long standing question in regard to the right of search came
into the hands of President Buchanan at a moment and under
circumstances that required the most vigorous action. The
belligerent right of search, exercised by Great Britain in the
maritime wars of 1812, had been a cause of constant irritation to
the people of this country. In progress of time, England undertook
to assert a right to detain and search merchantmen on the high seas,
in time of peace, suspected of being engaged in the slave trade.
There was no analogy, even, in this to the belligerent right of
visitation and search, whatever the latter might comprehend. An
accommodation, rather than a settlement, of this claim was made in
the treaty of 1842, negotiated between Lord Ashburton and Mr.
Webster, by which each nation agreed to keep a squadron of its own
on the coast of Africa, for the suppression of the slave trade when
carried on under their respective flags, or under any claim or use
of their flags, or by their subjects or citizens respectively.
Although this stipulation was accompanied by a very forcible
declaration made by Mr. Webster, under the direction of President
Tyler, that the American Government admitted of no right of
visitation and search of merchant vessels in time of peace, England
did not wholly abandon or renounce her claim of a right to detain
and search all vessels on the high seas which the commanders of her
cruisers might suspect to be slave traders. In the spring of 1858, a
number of small cruisers which had been employed in the Crimean war
was despatched by the British government to the coast of Cuba and
the Gulf of Mexico, with orders to search all merchantmen suspected
to be engaged in the slave trade. The presence of these cruisers,
acting under such orders, in waters traversed in all directions by
American vessels engaged in the foreign and coastwise trade, became
most alarming. Nor was the alarm lessened by the manner in which the
orders were carried out. Many American vessels were stopped and
searched rudely and offensively. A loud call was made upon the
President to interfere. A general indignation broke forth in all
quarters of the Union. President Buchanan, always vigilant in
protecting the commerce of the country, but mindful of the
importance of preventing any necessity for war, remonstrated to the
English government against this violation of the freedom of the
seas.

Still, the occasion required, in the opinion of the President, that
remonstrance should be backed by force. Great Britain had thought
proper, without warning, to send a force into waters filled with
American commerce, with orders to do what she had not the smallest
right to do. It was a very aggressive proceeding to be taken against
the commerce of a nation that had always denied the alleged right of
search as a right to be exercised in time of peace for any purpose
whatever. A very large naval force was at once despatched to the
neighborhood of Cuba, by order of the President, with instructions
“to protect all vessels of the United States on the high seas from
search or detention by the vessels of war of any other nation.” Any
one of the cruisers sent on this mission could have resisted a ship
of the largest class. The effect was most salutary. The British
government receded, recalled their orders, abandoned the claim of
the right of search, and recognized the principle of international
law in favor of the freedom of the seas. This was the end of a long
controversy between the two governments.[39]

Footnote 39:

  The Senate, although at a late period, unanimously approved of the
  instructions given to the Secretary of the Navy, and by him
  carried out. (See _Congressional Globe_, 1858-9, p. 3061; Senate
  Documents, vol. IV, p. 3, Report of the Secretary of the Navy.)

During the whole of Mr. Buchanan’s administration our relations with
Mexico were in a complicated and critical position, in consequence
of the internal condition of that country and of the danger of
interference by European powers. Mr. Buchanan has himself concisely
and accurately described the state of things in Mexico at the time
of his accession to the Presidency, and down to the end of the year
1859, and I therefore quote his description, rather than make one of
my own:

  That republic has been in a state of constant revolution ever
  since it achieved its independence from Spain. The various
  constitutions adopted from time to time had been set at naught
  almost as soon as proclaimed; and one military leader after
  another, in rapid succession, had usurped the government. This
  fine country, blessed with a benign climate, a fertile soil, and
  vast mineral resources, was reduced by civil war and brigandage to
  a condition of almost hopeless anarchy. Meanwhile, our treaties
  with the republic were incessantly violated. Our citizens were
  imprisoned, expelled from the country, and in some instances
  murdered. Their vessels, merchandise, and other property were
  seized and confiscated. While the central government at the
  capital were acting in this manner, such was the general
  lawlessness prevailing, that different parties claiming and
  exercising local authority in several districts were committing
  similar outrages on our citizens. Our treaties had become a dead
  letter, and our commerce with the republic was almost entirely
  destroyed. The claims of American citizens filed in the State
  Department, for which they asked the interposition of their own
  Government with that of Mexico to obtain redress and indemnity,
  exceeded $10,000,000. Although this amount may have been
  exaggerated by the claimants, still their actual losses must have
  been very large.[40]

Footnote 40:

    List of Claims, Senate Executive Documents, p. 18, 2d session
    35th Congress, President’s Message.

  In all these cases as they occurred our successive ministers
  demanded redress, but their demands were only followed by new
  injuries. Their testimony was uniform and emphatic in reference to
  the only remedy which in their judgments would prove effectual.
  “Nothing but a manifestation of the power of the Government of the
  United States,” wrote Mr. John Forsyth, our minister in 1856, “and
  of its purpose to punish these wrongs will avail. I assure you
  that the universal belief here is, that there is nothing to be
  apprehended from the Government of the United States, and that
  local Mexican officials can commit these outrages upon American
  citizens with absolute impunity.”

  In the year 1857 a favorable change occurred in the affairs of the
  republic, inspiring better hopes for the future. A constituent
  congress, elected by the people of the different States for this
  purpose, had framed and adopted a republican constitution. It
  adjourned on the 17th February, 1857, having provided for a
  popular election to be held in July for a president and members of
  congress. At this election General Comonfort was chosen president
  almost without opposition. His term of office was to commence on
  the 1st of December, 1857, and to continue for four years. In case
  his office should become vacant, the constitution had provided
  that the chief justice of Mexico, then General Juarez, should
  become president, until the end of the term. On the 1st December,
  1857, General Comonfort appeared before the congress then in
  session, took the oath to support the constitution, and was duly
  inaugurated.

  But the hopes thus inspired for the establishment of a regular
  constitutional government soon proved delusive. President
  Comonfort, within one brief month, was driven from the capital and
  the republic by a military rebellion headed by General Zuloaga;
  and General Juarez consequently became the constitutional
  president of Mexico until the 1st day of December, 1861. General
  Zuloaga instantly assumed the name of president with indefinite
  powers; and the entire diplomatic corps, including the minister
  from the United States, made haste to recognize the authority of
  the usurper without awaiting instructions from their respective
  governments. But Zuloaga was speedily expelled from power. Having
  encountered the resistance of the people in many parts of the
  republic, and a large portion of the capital having “pronounced”
  against him, he was in turn compelled to relinquish the
  presidency. The field was now cleared for the elevation of General
  Miramon. He had from the beginning been the favorite of the
  so-called “Church party,” and was ready to become their willing
  instrument in maintaining the vast estates and prerogatives of the
  Church, and in suppressing the Liberal constitution. An assembly
  of his partisans, called together without even the semblance of
  authority, elected him president, but he warily refused to accept
  the office at their hands. He then resorted to another but
  scarcely more plausible expedient to place himself in power. This
  was to identify himself with General Zuloaga, who had just been
  deposed, and to bring him again upon the stage as president.
  Zuloaga accordingly reappeared in this character, but his only act
  was to appoint Miramon “president substitute,” when he again
  retired. It is under this title that Miramon has since exercised
  military authority in the city of Mexico, expecting by this
  stratagem to appropriate to himself the recognition of the foreign
  ministers which had been granted to Zuloaga. He succeeded. The
  ministers continued their relations with him as “president
  substitute” in the same manner as if Zuloaga had still remained in
  power. It was by this farce, for it deserves no better name, that
  Miramon succeeded in grasping the presidency. The idea that the
  chief of a nation at his own discretion may transfer to whomsoever
  he please the trust of governing, delegated to him for the benefit
  of the people, is too absurd to receive a moment’s countenance.
  But when we reflect that Zuloaga, from whom Miramon derived his
  title, was himself a military usurper, having expelled the
  constitutional president (Comonfort) from office, it would have
  been a lasting disgrace to the Mexican people had they tamely
  submitted to the yoke. To such an imputation a large majority
  proved themselves not to be justly exposed. Although, on former
  occasions, a seizure of the capital and the usurpation of power by
  a military chieftain had been generally followed, at least for a
  brief season, by an acquiescence of the Mexican people, yet they
  now rose boldly and independently to defend their rights.

  President Juarez, after having been driven from the city of Mexico
  by Zuloaga, proceeded to form a constitutional government at
  Guanajuato. From thence he removed to Vera Cruz, where he put his
  administration in successful operation. The people in many
  portions of the republic rallied in its support and flew to arms.
  A civil war thus began between the friends of the constitution and
  the partisans of Miramon. In this conflict it was not possible for
  the American people to remain indifferent spectators. They
  naturally favored the cause of President Juarez, and expressed
  ardent wishes for his success. Meanwhile Mr. Forsyth, the American
  minister, still continued at the city of Mexico in the discharge
  of his official duties until June, 1858, when he suspended his
  diplomatic relations with the Miramon government, until he should
  ascertain the decision of the President. Its outrages towards
  American citizens and its personal indignities towards himself,
  without hope of amendment or redress, rendered his condition no
  longer tolerable. Our relations, bad as they had been under former
  governments, had now become still worse under that of Miramon.
  President Buchanan approved the step which Mr. Forsyth had taken.
  He was consequently directed to demand his passports, to deposit
  the archives of the legation with Mr. Black, our consul at the
  city of Mexico, and to proceed to Vera Cruz, where an armed
  steamer would be in readiness to convey himself and family to the
  United States.[41]

Footnote 41:

    Letter of General Cass to Mr. Forsyth, July 15th, 1858. Senate
    Documents, 1858-1859, vol. i., p. 48

  Thus was all diplomatic intercourse finally terminated with the
  government of Miramon, whilst none had been organized with that of
  Juarez. The President entertained some hope that this rupture of
  diplomatic relations might cause Miramon to reflect seriously on
  the danger of war with the United States, and might at least
  arrest future outrages on our citizens. Instead of this, however,
  he persisted in his course of violence against the few American
  citizens who had the courage to remain under his power. The
  President, in his message of December, 1859,[42] informs Congress
  that “murders of a still more atrocious character have been
  committed in the very heart of Mexico, under the authority of
  Miramon’s government, during the present year. Some of these were
  worthy only of a barbarous age, and if they had not been clearly
  proven, would have seemed impossible in a country which claims to
  be civilized.” And in that of December, 1860, he says: “To cap the
  climax, after the battle of Tacubaya, in April, 1859, General
  Marquez ordered three citizens of the United States, two of them
  physicians, to be seized in the hospital at that place, taken out
  and shot, without crime, and without trial. This was done,
  notwithstanding our unfortunate countrymen were at the moment
  engaged in the holy cause of affording relief to the soldiers of
  both parties who had been wounded in the battle, without making
  any distinction between them.”

Footnote 42:

    House Journal, p. 207.

  “Little less shocking was the recent fate of Ormond Chase, who was
  shot in Tepic, on the 7th August, by order of the same Mexican
  general, not only without a trial, but without any conjecture by
  his friends of the cause of his arrest.” He was represented to
  have been a young man of good character and intelligence, who had
  made numerous friends in Tepic, and his unexpected execution
  shocked the whole community. “Other outrages,” the President
  states, “might be enumerated; but these are sufficient to
  illustrate the wretched state of the country and the unprotected
  condition of the persons and property of our citizens in Mexico.”

  “The wrongs which we have suffered from Mexico are before the
  world, and must deeply impress every American citizen. A
  government which is either unable or unwilling to redress such
  wrongs, is derelict to its highest duties.”

  Meanwhile, the civil war between the parties was conducted with
  various success, but the scale preponderated in favor of the
  constitutional cause. Ere long the government of Juarez extended
  its authority, and was acknowledged in all the important ports and
  throughout the sea-coasts and external territory of the republic;
  whilst the power of Miramon was confined to the city of Mexico and
  the surrounding States.

  The final triumph of Juarez became so probable, that President
  Buchanan deemed it his duty to inquire and ascertain whether,
  according to our constant usage in such cases, he might not
  recognize the constitutional government. For the purpose of
  obtaining reliable information on this point, he sent a
  confidential agent to Mexico to examine and report the actual
  condition and prospects of the belligerents. In consequence of his
  report, as well as of intelligence from other sources, he felt
  justified in appointing a new minister to the Mexican republic.
  For this office Mr. Robert M. McLane, a distinguished citizen of
  Maryland, was selected. He proceeded on his mission on the 8th
  March, 1859, invested “with discretionary authority to recognize
  the government of President Juarez, if on his arrival in Mexico he
  should find it entitled to such recognition, according to the
  established practice of the United States.” In consequence, on the
  7th of April, Mr. McLane recognized the constitutional government
  by presenting his credentials to President Juarez, having no
  hesitation, as he said, “in pronouncing the government of Juarez
  to be the only existing government of the republic.” He was
  cordially received by the authorities at Vera Cruz, who have ever
  since manifested the most friendly disposition toward the United
  States.

  Unhappily, however, the constitutional government, though
  supported by a large majority, both of the people and of the
  several Mexican States, had not been able to expel Miramon from
  the capital. In the opinion of the President, it had now become
  the imperative duty of Congress to act without further delay, and
  to enforce redress from the government of Miramon for the wrongs
  it had committed in violation of the faith of treaties against
  citizens of the United States.