while the sentiment of the Republican party generally was that of boastful defiance; and it was some time after that election before they came to believe that the South was really in earnest in its threats of secession. In their estimation it was only bluster and bravado for political effect, and this idea was not entirely relinquished until the attack on Fort Sumter. Although such was the opinion of the Republican party, as expressed through the press and its public speakers, up to the time and even after Mr. Lincoln's election to the Presidency, it is no uncommon thing now to hear Mr. Buchanan condemned because he did not crush the rebellion at the start; and many no doubt honestly believe that the reason why this was not done was, that, if not at heart a traitor, he failed on account of inexcusable weakness and timidity. Any such belief is wholly without foundation.

There were two circumstances which gave rise to many complaints and no little prejudice against Mr. Buchanan outside of any mere partisan considerations. The most serious of these related to his declaration that "the Constitution has conferred no power on the Federal Government to coerce a State;" and the other grew out of his being held responsible for the treasonable utterances of the Constitution newspaper in the fall of 1860, and until that paper was finally discontinued on the 30th of January, 1861. That newspaper, published at the seat of government, had been looked upon as the organ of the administration; and although its active editor, Mr. William M. Browne, a good-looking and well-educated Englishman, from time to time declared that he alone was responsible for its opinions, the fact that it continued to receive the advertising patronage of the Government, solely through the favor of the President, went far toward satisfying the opposition, at least, that the denial of the editor was only a weak subterfuge, especially as he sustained the President in many of his public acts, including his course touching

coercion. It is needless to deny that the best friends of the President were embarrassed and not a little displeased with this state of things, which existed for nearly three months before the President rescinded his order giving the Government advertising to that paper. It might have been somewhat different had the paper obtained the advertising by reason of its large circulation, the law authorizing it to be given to two of the city papers having the largest subscription list and to such other paper as the President might designate. I never could understand why the President so long delayed to rescind his order, except that his forbearance came from his fixed purpose to avoid, as far as possible, exciting Southern hostility to the end of relinquishing the reins of government to his successor without bloodshed.

In his book entitled "Mr. Buchanan's administration on the Eve of the Rebellion," speaking of the political aspect of affairs at the time of Mr. Lincoln's election on the 6th of November, 1860, and of the "virulence, uncommon even in our own history," with which "his administration had been pursued by the triumphant party from the beginning," -how "his every act had been misrepresented and condemned," plainly showing" that whatever course he might pursue he was destined to encounter their bitter hostility," —Mr. Buchanan further truthfully remarks: "No public man was ever placed in a more trying and responsible position. Indeed, it was impossible for him to act with honest independence without giving offence to both the anti-slavery and secession parties, because both had been clearly in the wrong." Since that time a new generation has come into active life; and it is not strange that prejudices should have been imbibed by the younger class, on the one side and on the other in politics, without that full knowledge of the causes by which such prejudices were superinduced possessed by those whose experience reaches back to the dawn of abolitionism under the administrations of Presidents

Jackson and Van Buren. There are now living comparatively few who can remember with what disfavor the Abolitionists were then regarded by both of the great political parties of the country,-a feeling which underwent little change until after the election of James K. Polk to the Presidency in 1844. The discussion on the admission of Texas, and subsequently of California, now gave marked impetus to the Abolition party for several years; but the compromise measures of 1850, although condemned by the Garrison Abolitionists, were acquiesced in by the Democratic and Whig parties, and the public mind for the time being was quieted on the slavery question. The platform of both the great political parties in the Presidential campaign of 1852 contained resolutions in favor of maintaining that compromise, and, in the language of the Whig platform, declared that "We deprecate all further agitation of the question thus settled, as dangerous to our peace, and will discountenance all efforts to continue or renew such agitation, whenever, wherever, or however the attempt may be made." This, however, did not silence the Abolitionists, then odious to both the Whig and Democratic parties on account of their unjust interference with the constitutional rights of the South, and of their openly declared disunion sentiments. These agitators were thus characterized by Mr. Webster in his famous cabinet circular of October, 1850: "In the Northern and Eastern States," he says, "these sentiments of disunion are espoused principally by persons of heated imaginations, assembling together and passing resolutions of such a wild and violent character as to render them nearly harmless." So they appeared at the time to the great body of the people in all sections of the country opposed to them; yet their continued promulgation afforded just the fuel required to feed the flames of disunion in the slave States. In the words of Mr. Buchanan, "When Congress assembled after the

election of President Pierce, on the first Monday in December, 1853, although the abolition fanatics had not ceased to agitate, crimination and recrimination between the sectional parties had greatly subsided, and a comparative political calm everywhere prevailed. But how short-lived and delusive was this calm!" The "long and angry debate" upon the Kansas and Nebraska bill, introduced by Senator Douglas on the 23d of January, 1854, and its passage with a section repealing the Missouri Compromise in May following, " reopened the floodgates of sectional strife, which it was fondly imagined had been closed forever." This continued to increase "in violence and malignity" until the country became involved "in the greatest and most sanguinary civil war in history."

President Buchanan went no further in sustaining what he considered the clear constitutional rights of the South than did Mr. Webster in his great seventh of March speech. Both were alike condemned by the Republicans for the doctrines they advanced and their efforts at conciliation. In his eulogy on Daniel Webster at the Marshfield celebration, on the 12th of October, 1882, President Allen, of the Webster Historical Society, well remarked: "Who can deny to-day that the extremists of the South were as logical in their claims for the maintenance of slavery as were the Abolitionists of the North for its unconditional overthrow? Webster stood alone, but Webster was consistent. He claimed to maintain the Constitution and the laws of the land in good faith, and he acted up to his belief. . . . For this he was reviled and maltreated both in the North and South. He dreaded (and the result has proved the divinity of his prescience) that disunion would be forcibly attempted by the South, and that the country, plunged in all the horrors of a civil war, would be deluged with the blood of its citizens. Who can now say that he was not right?" Undoubtedly there are few among the reflecting of the community,

especially of those conversant with public affairs as far back as 1835, who will not say he was right. Yet, how often do we hear even the Garrison Abolitionists extolled for "their work so well begun, and which finally culminated in the abolition of slavery in the United States!" It is difficult to see how their "work," which, in the judgment of the great body of the people, was treasonable and consequently highly reprehensible before the war, can now be regarded as entitling them to the gratitude of the present and future generations, unless at the same time they are to be commended for bringing on the most terrible war that ever afflicted mankind. For my own part, rather than have any share in such commendation, I feel much better satisfied to retain my true position with Daniel Webster, James Buchanan, and the million of other patriots. throughout the country who also agreed with them in condemning the course of the Abolitionists, and doing everything in their power to quiet agitation and prevent bloodshed.

Said President Buchanan in his last annual message:

"The long-continued and intemperate interference of the Northern people with the question of slavery in the Southern States has at length produced its natural results. The different sections of the Union are now arrayed against each other, and the time has arrived, so much dreaded by the Father of his Country, when hostile geographical parties have been formed. I have long foreseen and often forewarned my countrymen of the now impending danger."

Who will deny the correctness of this statement?

Decided, however, as was President Buchanan in his censure of Northern interference with the question of slavery, he was equally earnest in his appeals to the Southern States not to allow this interference to drive them into secession, which he likewise condemned as wholly indefensible. In his message to Congress, he said:

"In order to justify secession as a constitutional remedy, it must be on the principle that the Federal Government is a mere voluntary association