mously renominated Mr. Van Buren for the Presidency.

No candidate

for the vice-presidency was put forward, it being resolved to allow each state to make its own nomination. Richard M. Johnson was understood to be the favorite. The result of the election was the success of the Whig candidates, Harrison and Tyler, by a large majority. The electoral votes stood as follows: Harrison, two hundred and thirty-four; Van Buren, sixty. For vice president: Tyler, two hundred and thirty-four; R. M. Johnson, forty-eight; L. W. Tazewell, eleven; and James K. Polk, one.

Some changes had taken place in President Van Buren's cabinet in addition to those already mentioned. In 1838, Benjamin F. Butler resigned as attorney-general, and Felix Grundy of Tennessee, was appointed to fill his place. In 1840, Mr. Grundy resigned and Henry D. Gilpin of Pennsylvania, received the appointment to the office. Amos Kendall having resigned the office of postmaster-general, John M. Niles of Connecticut, was appointed to his place on the twenty-fifth day of May, 1840.

Of the character of Mr. Van Buren's administration, it is difficult to speak impartially, even to-day. It was a political failure, and to a degree Whose was the fault? His friends con

a failure in a more serious sense. tend that he completed the work commenced by General Jackson, namely, the separation of the bank and state, and that this was a real benefit to the highest interests of the country. His opponents hold him responsible for the destruction of the business of the country. All must admit that he was unequal to the emergency he met.

After his surrender of his seat, March 4, 1841, he retired to Kinderhook, where was situated his fine estate of Lindenwold. There he resided, surrounded by an admiring circle of friends, and conscious of possessing the confidence of a large political party.

At the Democratic convention of 1844, strenuous efforts were made to secure his nomination for another Presidential term. The rules of the convention, however, required a two-thirds vote for this purpose and Mr. Van Buren could not attain so large a degree of strength, by reason of his well known opposition to the annexation of Texas, then being agitated. Consequently, James K. Polk of Tennessee, received the nomination. To him Mr. Van Buren gave his cordial support, securing a triumph for the party by his influence, which was final in carrying New York state.

In 1848, Van Buren was nominated for the Presidency by the "Freesoil Democrats," in convention at Buffalo, New York. General Cass was the nominee of the regular convention of the Democratic party, but his nomination was said to have been unfairly secured, and, besides, a large number of Democrats in the north were opposed to the extension of slavery, and in favor of the abolition of the slave trade in the District of Columbia, in which views the body of the party would not acquiesce.

Mr. Van Buren coincided with the "Freesoil Democrats" and therefore accepted their nomination. The party did not succeed in procuring the electoral vote of any state, but it mustered over three hundred thousand votes at the polls, defeated Cass and elected Taylor. During the canvass, John Van Buren, the active and eloquent son of the ex-President, advocated from the stump the cause of the Buffalo nominees.

After this campaign Van Buren retired again to Kinderhook, where he passed the remainder of his days in elegant and peaceful rural life, surrounded by every luxury, enjoying the conversation of his friends and giving the benefit of his counsel to the leaders of his party. He died near Kinderhook, July 24, 1862.

In person, he was of about the middle size; his form was erect, in later years rather inclined to corpulence, and very hardy. His hair and eyes were light; his features lively and expressive; his eyes bright and sparkling, indicating penetration and readiness of apprehension; his forehead was broad, high and intellectual.

His private character was above all censure or suspicion. In the relations of father and son, of husband, brother, and friend, he always displayed such excellences of character and feeling as adorn human nature. Rarely did any man win a stronger hold upon the confidence and affection. of those with whom he was associated. The purity of his motives, the integrity of his character and the steadfastness of his friendships, attained and hold for him a rare measure of good-will and affection, even from his political opponents.

His manner was easy and frank, his conversation felicitous. His real amiability made him the centre of a charming social circle. He united in his character, firmness, forbearance and a delicate regard for the feelings of others, which no amount of annoyance could ever overcome. He was perhaps not very great man, but he was a very good one.

His habits of thought and modes of expression were full of strength, and yet not so assertive and provocative of antagonism as might have been expected of one of his force of character. As an example not only of one phase of his political belief but as illustrating the points alluded to immediately in the above, the following brief outline of his views upon the Constitutional right of congress to interfere with or abolish slavery in the District of Columbia, as given on March 6, 1836, in response to an open letter from a number of citizens, will be pertinent in this connection:

"I am not only willing but desirous, gentlemen," he declared, after a formal acknowledgment of their query, "that you should have the most thorough knowledge of my views and feelings upon the delicate and interesting subject with which your question is connected; and I shall endeavor to acquaint you with them in the fullest manner in my power. Not having, therefore, had the honor of being in political communication

with you, I am not advised whether the sentiments relating to it, which have been avowed by myself and by my authority within the last two years, have come to your knowledge. I deem it therefore proper to furnish you with the substance of them before I reply to your more specific inquiry. The avowals to which I refer were:

"First, An opinion that congress has no right to interfere, in any manner or to any extent, with the subject of slavery in the states.

"Second, Against the propriety of their doing so in the District of Columbia.

"Third, The statement of my full concurrence in the sentiments expressed by the citizens of Albany, in public meeting, the most important of which are as follows, viz.: That the Constitution of the United States carries with it an adjustment of all questions involved in the deliberations which led to its adoption, and that the compromise of interests in which it was founded, binding in honor and good faith, independently of the force of agreement, on all who live under its protection and participate in the benefits of which it is the source; that the relation of master and slave is a matter exclusively belonging to the people of each state within its own boundary, and that any attempt by the government or people of any other state, or by the general government, to interfere with or disturb it, would violate the spirit of that compromise, which lies at the basis of the Federal compact; that we can only hope to maintain the union of the states by abstaining from all interference with the laws, domestic policy and peculiar interests of every other state. . . .

"These views, thus expressed and sanctioned by myself, appear to me to cover the whole ground, save the abstract question to which you have been pleased to call my attention, and I cheerfully embrace the opportunity you have felt it your duty to afford me to explain myself fully on that also. As anxious as you can possibly be to arrest all agitation upon this disturbing subject, I have considered the question you have propounded to me, with a sincere desire to arrive at the conclusion, that the subject in respect to the District of Columbia can be safely placed on the same ground on which it stands in regard to the states, viz. the want of constitutional power in congress to interfere in the matter. I owe it, however, to candor to say to you that I have not been able to satisfy myself that the grant to congress, in the Constitution, of the power of 'exclusive legislation in all cases whatsoever' over the Federal district, does not confer on that body the same authority over the subject that would otherwise have been possessed by the states of Maryland and Virginia; or that congress might not, in virtue thereof, take such steps upon the subject in this district as those states might themselves take within their own limits, and consistently with their rights of sovereignty. "Thus viewing the matter, I would not, from the lights now before me,

feel myself safe in pronouncing that congress does not possess the power of interfering with or abolishing slavery in the District of Columbia. But, whilst such are my present impressions upon the abstract question of the legal power of congress-impressions which I shall at all times be not only ready but disposed to surrender upon conviction of error-I do not hesitate to give it to you as my deliberate and well-considered opinion that there are objections to the exercise of this power, against the wishes of the slaveholding states, as imperative in their nature and obligation, in regulating the conduct of public men, as the most palpable want of constitutional power would be. . . . The peculiar importance of the subject, and a desire (which you will allow me to feel) that my views of it should be correctly understood, make it proper that I should explain the grounds of the opinions above expressed. They are founded, amongst others, on the following considerations, viz. :

"First, I believe that if it had been foreseen, at the time of the adoption of the Constitution, that the seat of the Federal government would be fixed in a slaveholding region, that the subject of slavery would be there agitated to the prejudice of those holding this species of property, the right to do so would, with the assent of the non-slaveholding states, have been made an exception to the unrestricted legislative power given to congress over the district to be ceded.

"Second, I cannot but regard the agitation of this subject in the District of Columbia as a surprise upon the people of Maryland and Virginia, being very confident that if the state of things which now exists had been at all apprehended by those states, the cession of the district would not. have been made except upon the express condition that congress should exercise no such power; and that with such a condition the cession would, in the then state of public opinion, have been readily accepted.

"Third, I do therefore believe that the abolition of slavery in the Dis trict of Columbia, against the wishes of the slaveholding states (assuming that congress has the power to effect it), would violate the spirit of that compromise of interests which lies at the basis of our social compact; and I am thoroughly convinced that it could not be so done without imminent peril, if not certain destruction, to the union of the states. Viewing the matter in this light, it is my clear and settled opinion that the Federal government ought to abstain from doing so, and that it is the sacred duty of those whom the people of the United States entrust with the control of its action, so to use the constitutional power with which they are invested, as to prevent it."