to govern it, and to substitute their own will for that of the people. Perhaps another example is not upon earth of a free people voluntarily relinquishing the elective franchise in a case so great as that of electing their own chief magistrate, and becoming the passive followers of an irresponsible body, juggled, baffled and governed by a few dexterous contrivers always looking to their own interests in the game which they play in putting up and putting down men. In the meantime the friends of popular elections should press the constitutional amendment, which should give the presidential election to the people, and discard the use of an intermediate body which disregards the public will and reduces the people to the condition of political automatons." On the same subject General Jackson concludes his last message of 1835 in these words:

"I felt it to be my duty in the first message which I communicated to Congress, to urge upon its attention the propriety of amending that part of the Constitution which provides for the election of the President and Vice-President of the United States. The leading object which I had in view was the adoption of some new provision which would secure to the people the performance of this high duty, without any intermediate agency. In my annual communications since, I have unfolded the same views, from a sincere conviction, that the best interests of the country would be promoted by their adoption."

* "The experience of the country demonstrates that the people cannot too soon adopt some stronger safeguard for their right to elect the highest officers known to the Constitution than is contained in that sacred instrument as it now stands."

One other quotation on this subject ought to be added. It is an extract from a report of a committee of the House of Representatives in 1824:

"The only effectual mode of preserving our government from the corruptions which have undermined the liberties of so many nations, is to confide the election of our Chief Magistrate to those who are furthest removed from the influence of his patronage, that is to say, to the whole body of American citizens."

In the light of our recent experience, it would seem that the ideas expressed on this subject by these great leaders of American democracy are worthy the careful consideration of every person calling himself a Democrat of the present day.

CHAPTER II.

THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY-1830 To 1860.

Its Disruption Causes the Civil War-Mr. Calhoun and South Carolina— Party Defeat in 1840-Annexation of Texas-Disunion Sentiment in Massachusetts-Election of James K. Polk-War with Mexico-California-Popularity of War and Results-General Z. Taylor Elected President-John Tyler's Administration-Overwhelming Election of Franklin Pierce, 1852-End of the Whig Party-Troubles in Kansas -John Brown's Raid in Virginia.

THE history of the Democratic party now leads to the consideration of the various events which led to secession, the great civil war, and the abolition of slavery. We have already seen that the Southern leaders had threatened-one of them as early as 1812-in the event of being unable to control the Democratic party, to resort to the dissolution of the Union. We now come to the time when that event was deemed necessary, and the initiatory steps to secure that result were taken. Among the first of these were the disruption and defeat of the Democratic party, which from the days of Franklin and Jefferson had been the very bulwark of the Union, and was now led by a man, General Jackson, who had not hesitated at a banquet (ostensibly given to celebrate Jefferson's birthday, but really to disseminate disunion sentiments), to give as a toast, "The Union: it must be preserved."

As it is now the fashion of the leaders of the opposing party to stigmatize the Democracy as having favored disunion and secession, the records of this period will possess peculiar interest. As in the nullification movement, so also in the movements that led to secession, South Carolina led off. At first she simply interposed passive acts, declining to participate in the Presidential elections of 1829 and 1832 and 1836, or rather throwing away her vote on citizens who were not candidates, in 1832 voting for John Floyd, and in 1836 for W. P. Mangum. In this latter election the cloven foot began to appear, for Mr. Hugh L. White, instigated thereto by Mr. Calhoun, in order to divide the Democratic party and defeat Mr. Van Buren, had stood for the Presidency, carrying two States, Tennessee and Georgia. At the election in 1840 Mr. Van Buren and General Harrison, as in 1836, were the opposing candidates, but with opposite results. For though the Democratic candidate received 364,000 more votes than in 1836, he was easily defeated by General Harrison, only receiving 60 out of 294 electoral votes. This defeat, the first the party had sustained in a Presidential contest since 1798, was attributed to various causes, one of the principal of which was the growing opposition of the Southern party to Mr. Van Buren.

And now comes a curious chapter in this history. General Harrison died after occupying the

Presidential chair one short month, and was succeeded by John Tyler, the Vice-President, elected with him as a Whig. But having been long a Democrat, the new President was not deeply rooted in his new faith, and scon fell from grace, or rather to the secession wing under the leadership of Mr. Calhoun, whom he now invited. into his Cabinet as Secretary of State.

And now was executed one of those political schemes unsurpassed by the genius of Tallyrand or William Pitt. The annexation of Texas-at this time, 1843, struggling for independencewas seized upon as a measure which would strengthen the slave States in the coming struggle, and the popularity of which would enable Calhoun perhaps to capture the next Democratic convention and achieve his life-long ambition to reach the Presidency. The scheming, and logrolling, and letter writing which were developed as accessories to this scheme covered a period of several years, and included a large number of persons. But in case of the failure of this enterprise, Mr. Calhoun had provided another "String to his bow." A great meeting was held in South Carolina in May, 1844, at which a series of resolutions were adopted, of which the following was one:

"That the President of the United States be requested by the general convention of slave States to call Congress together immediately, when the final issue shall be made up and the