Part 19

On page 6 of this work, in the preface, the author says, in speaking of Buchanan before he turned Democrat:

"The declarations of some of these new disciples of Democracy in past times are striking enough. MR. BUCHANAN of PENNSYLVANIA, while he acted in his true character, DECLARED THAT IF HE HAD A DROP OF DEMOCRATIC BLOOD IN HIS VEINS, HE WOULD LET IT OUT! He put his royal declaration on paper, and it has risen up against him."

A recent brief memoir of Mr. Buchanan, put forth in Pennsylvania, states that he was elected to the Legislature in 1815, where he distinguished himself by those exhibitions of intellect which gave promise of future eminence. The Lancaster _Register_, published in the immediate vicinity of Mr. Buchanan's residence, asks _by whom_ was he elected? and thus supplies the record for 1815:

ASSEMBLY.

For JAMES BUCHANAN, Federal 3051 " Molton O. Rogers, Democrat 2502

The memoir sets forth that Mr. Buchanan was elected to Congress in 1820, and that he retained his position in that body for ten years, voluntarily retiring.

The Lancaster _Register_ inquires if he were elected as a _Democrat_, and answers the inquiry by the following historical facts:

CONGRESS.

1820--James Buchanan, Federal 4642 " Jacob Hibsman, Democrat 3666 1822--James Buchanan, Federal 2153 " Jacob Hibsman, Democrat 1940 1824--James Buchanan, Federal 3560 " Samuel Houston, Democrat 3046 1826--James Buchanan, Federal 2760 " Dr. John McCamant, Democrat 2307 1828--James Buchanan, Jackson 5203 " William Hiester, Adams 3904

The Lancaster _Register_ then pursues its criticism as follows:

"On the 4th of July, 1815, Mr. Buchanan, when he was a candidate for Assembly on the _Federal ticket_, delivered 'an oration' in Lancaster, in which he showed his _love_ of Federalism and _hatred_ of Democracy, by attacking the Administration of James Madison. He said:

"'Time will not allow me to enumerate all the other evils and wicked projects of the Democratic administration.'

"And again, in the same oration, he said:

"'What must be our opinion of an opposition whose passions were so dark and malignant as to be gratified in endeavoring to blast the character and imbitter the old age of Washington? After thus persecuting the saviour of his country, _how can the Democratic party dare to call themselves his disciples_?'"

And who does not recollect, in Tennessee, with what force and effect JAMES C. JONES used to point out JAMES BUCHANAN as one of the _rank old Federalists_ who had come over to the Democratic ranks, and was battling with _Col. Polk_, side by side, while he was consuming half his time in abuse of the Federal party? When the Democratic candidate for Congress in this District, JULIUS W. BLACKWELL, charged _Federalism_ upon the Whig party, who does not recollect with what effect and spirit JOHN H. CROZIER ran over the list of ODIOUS OLD FEDERALISTS, then fighting under the Democratic flag, among them naming out JAMES BUCHANAN? And will not the files of the KNOXVILLE POST, edited by Capt. JAMES WILLIAMS, show how he held up JAMES BUCHANAN and others as an _old Federalist of the first water_?

On the subject of _Slavery_ the memoir is not definite, and the Lancaster Register comes to its aid by publishing the following proceedings of a public meeting held in that city on the 23d of November, 1819:

"WHEREAS, the people of this State, pursuing the maxims and animated by the beneficence of the great founder of Pennsylvania, first gave effect to the gradual abolition of slavery by a national act, which has not only rescued the unhappy and helpless African within their territory from the demoralizing influence of slavery, but ameliorating his state and condition throughout Europe and America; and whereas, it would illy comport with those humane and Christian efforts to be silent spectators when this great cause of humanity is about to be agitated in Congress, by fixing the destiny of the new domains of the United States: therefore,

"_Resolved_, That the representatives in Congress from this district be and they are hereby most earnestly requested to use their utmost endeavors, as members of the National Legislature, to prevent the existence of slavery in any of the Territories or new States which may be created by Congress.

"_Resolved_, As the opinion of this meeting, that as the Legislature of this State will shortly be in session, it will be highly deserving of their wisdom and patriotism to take into their early and most serious consideration the propriety of instructing our representatives in the National Legislature to use the most zealous and strenuous exertions to inhibit the existence of slavery in any of the Territories or States which may hereafter be created by Congress; and that the members of Assembly from this county be requested to embrace the earliest opportunity of bringing this subject before both Houses of the Legislature.

"_Resolved_, That, in the opinion of this meeting, the members of Congress who at the last session sustained the cause of justice, humanity, and patriotism, in opposing the introduction of slavery into the State then endeavored to be formed out of the Missouri Territory, are entitled to the warmest thanks of every friend of humanity.

"_Resolved_, That the proceedings of this meeting be published in the newspapers in this city.

"JAMES HOPKINS, WM. JENKINS, JAMES BUCHANAN."

"The foregoing resolutions being read were unanimously adopted, after which the meeting adjourned. (Signed)

WALTER FRANKLIN, Ch'n.

"Attest--WM. JENKINS, Sec'y."

The "Perry County Democratic Press," for April 9th, 1856, an able paper published at Bloomfield in Pennsylvania, shows up the _Federal anti-slavery, anti-Democratic, turn-coat character_ of Mr. Buchanan, after this fashion:

JAMES BUCHANAN'S SOMERSETS.

"No man in the United States has turned his political coat as often as James Buchanan. He has espoused the principles of every party that has had an existence since the memorable Hartford Convention, and has been on all sides of political questions.

"A brief reference to his history will establish conclusively our assertions."

HIS FEDERALISM.

"He entered political life in 1814 as a rank Federalist, and by the Federal party he was elected to the Legislature of the State. He was re-elected in 1815, defeating Molton C. Rogers, the Democratic candidate, and afterwards one of the Supreme Judges of the State.

"In 1820, he was the Federal candidate for Congress, and was elected over Jacob Hibsman, the Democratic candidate, by 976 majority. In 1822, he was reelected over the same man by 813 majority. In 1824, he was the Federal candidate for Congress, and elected over Samuel Houston, the Democratic candidate, by 519 votes. In 1826, he was re-elected over Dr. John McCamant, the Democratic candidate, by 453 votes. His majorities were becoming less each time, and in order to satisfy his Federal friends of his fidelity to the party, he had to declare that 'if he had a drop of Democratic blood in his veins, he would open them and let it out.'"

HE BECOMES A DEMOCRAT.

"Two years after this, he changed his coat and became a full-blooded Democrat, and ran for Congress as the Democratic candidate, and was elected by virtue of General Jackson's popularity. He was afraid to run a second term, and he declined."

HIS TEN CENT SPEECH.

"In 1843, in the United States Senate, he made a speech advocating the principle that ten cents is a sufficient compensation for a day's labor. Hence he is called 'Ten Cent Jimmy.'

"In 1845, he became Secretary of State under Polk's administration, and consented to give away about half of the Territory of Oregon to the British government, after he had proven that they had not a spark of title to it.

"He extolled the Federal administration of John Adams, and endorsed the abominable Alien and Sedition laws of the Federal reign of terror. He bitterly denounced the administration of that pure Democrat, James Madison, and ridiculed what he termed the follies of Thomas Jefferson."

HIS SLAVERY SOMERSETS.

"In 1819, at a meeting in Lancaster, he reported resolutions favoring resistance to the extension of slavery and the admission of the State of Missouri as a slave State.

"In 1847, he wrote to the Democracy of Berks county, saying that the Missouri Compromise had given peace to the country, and that instead of repealing it he was in favor of its extension and maintenance.

"In 1850, in a letter to Col. Forney, he rejoiced over the settlement of the slavery agitation by the passage of the compromise measures during Fillmore's administration, and hoped that before a dissolution of the Union he might be gathered to his fathers, and never be permitted to witness the sad catastrophe.

"In 1852, he wrote to Mr. Leake, of Virginia, concerning Fillmore's compromise measures of 1850, which had been passed by Congress, and said, 'that the volcano has been extinguished, and the man who would apply the firebrand to the combustible materials still remaining, will produce an eruption that will overwhelm the Constitution and the Union."

BUCHANAN'S LAST SOMERSET.

"On the 28th of December, 1855, about three months ago, Mr. Buchanan, in a letter to John Slidell, of Louisiana, says: 'The Missouri Compromise is gone, and gone for ever. It has departed. The time for it has passed away, and the best, nay, the only mode now left of _putting down_ the fanatical and reckless spirit of the North is to adhere to the existing settlement without the slightest thought or appearance of wavering, and without regarding any storm which may be raised against it."

Here, then, is an authentic record--if the reader please, a GILT-FRAME PENNSYLVANIA LOOKING-GLASS, in which the Democracy of the South who admire the nominee of the late Cincinnati Convention can _see him as he is_! Heretofore, to use the language of Holy Writ, they have seen him "through a glass darkly, but now face to face." Here they see him standing erect upon the floor of the United States Senate, in all the pride of that _aristocracy_ which has characterized his course in life, and giving vent to the old and bitter feelings of the _royalists_ in Pennsylvania, by advocating the _oppressive British doctrine_, that TEN CENTS PER DAY _is enough for a poor white man as a day-laborer_! And here, too, our hard-fisted working-men, North and South, can see what sort of a man the Democracy are asking them to vote for for the Presidency!

In his Fourth of July oration in 1815, delivered in the hearing of an immense crowd, and afterwards published in all the leading papers of Pennsylvania, Mr. Buchanan came out as a _Know-Nothing_, which he has now to repudiate in stepping upon the _Anti-American Catholic Platform_ prepared for him at Cincinnati! Here is what he said in that celebrated oration:

"The greater part of those foreigners who would not be thus affected by it, have long been the warmest friends of the party. They had been _one of the great means of elevating the present ruling_ (Democratic) party, and it would have been ungrateful for that party to have abandoned them. To secure this foreign feeling has been the labor of their leaders for more than twenty years, and well have they been paid for their trouble, for it has been one of the principal causes of introducing and continuing them in power. Immediately before the war this foreign influence had completely embodied itself with the majority, particularly in the West, and its voice was heard so loud at the seat of government, that President Madison was obliged either to yield to its dictates or retire from office. The choice was easily made by a man who preferred his private interests to the public good, and therefore hurried us into a war for which we were utterly unprepared."

And then again:

"We ought to use every honest exertion to turn out of power those weak and wicked men whose wild and visionary theories have been tested and found wanting. Above all, we ought to drive from our shores foreign influence, and cherish American feeling. Foreign influence has been in every age the curse of republics--its jaundiced eye sees every thing in false colors--the thick atmosphere of prejudice by which it is ever surrounded, excluding from its sight the light of reason. Let us then learn wisdom from experience, and for ever banish this fiend from our country."

And here is what JACKSON thought of BUCHANAN. The Democratic Washington correspondent of the New York Evening Post, who was favorable to the nomination of Pierce, makes this statement--a statement we have often heard before, and never heard contradicted:

"On the night before leaving Nashville to occupy the White House, Mr. Polk, in company with Gen. Robert Armstrong, called at the Hermitage to procure some advice from the old hero as to the selection of his cabinet. Jackson strongly urged the President-elect to give no place in it to Buchanan, as he could not be relied upon. It so happened that Polk had already determined to make that very appointment, having probably offered the situation to the statesman of Pennsylvania. This fact induced Gen. Armstrong subsequently to tell Jackson that he had given Polk a rather hard rub, as Buchanan had already been selected for Secretary of State. 'I can't help it,' said the old man: 'I felt it my duty to warn him against Mr. Buchanan, whether it was agreeable or not. Mr. Polk will find Buchanan an unreliable man. I know him well, and Mr. Polk will yet admit the correctness of my prediction.'

"It was the last visit ever made by Mr. Polk to the old hero when this unavailing remonstrance was delivered, but the new President, long before the end of his administration, had reason to acknowledge its propriety and justice, and in the diary kept by him during that period may still be read a most emphatic declaration of his distrust of Mr. Buchanan. Every one is aware of two marked instances in which, as Secretary of State, the latter failed to support the policy of the administration, viz., on the question of the tariff of 1846, and the requisition of the ten regiments voted by Congress for the Mexican war. On both of these measures he was known to be opposed to the wishes of Mr. Polk."

_Mr. Charles Irving_, the Democratic editor of the Lynchburg Republican, and a delegate at Richmond in the State Convention, thus disposes of Mr. Buchanan in a long and able letter, dated May 7th, 1856:

"If silence during the battle constitutes a claim for office, how can the South expect Northern statesmen to uphold her banner, when abolitionists are seeking to tear it to tatters? If an ability to get free-soil votes makes a candidate available, and that species of availability is recognized as a merit at the South, Northern statesmen should court free-soilers, and not struggle with them, if they wish to be Presidents. Such availability may be very desirable to those who wish success alone, but those who look to the interests of the country may well be excused if they prefer a different standard. I certainly _prefer_ that the South shall PREFER the selection, not only of a sound man, but that she shall vote for the nomination of no man upon any such ground of availability. The coming election must settle the slavery agitation. I do not wish a single free-soiler to vote the Democratic ticket, nor will I willingly afford them the slightest excuse for so doing. A prominent North-West Democrat told me to-day, that the nomination of Mr. Buchanan would enable Trumbull, Wentworth, and other free-soilers to come back into the party. I am not anxious to get back such characters. These are some reasons for not preferring Mr. Buchanan.

"But there is still another reason. That reason is in his record. To carry the entire South, we must have not only a sound man, but one who is above impeachment--whose record is as stainless as the principles he advocates. Is such the case with Mr. Buchanan? Let the record answer.

"On the 27th of December, 1837, Mr. Calhoun submitted to the Senate that celebrated series of resolutions, the great objects of which were to set forth with precision and force the constitutional rights of the slaveholding States, and to attract to their support an enlightened public opinion against the attacks of Northern fanaticism. The second resolution was in these words: (Calhoun's Works, volume 3, page 140.)

"'_Resolved_, That in delegating a portion of their powers to be exercised by the Federal Government, the States retained severally the exclusive and sole right over their own domestic institutions and police, and are alone responsible for them, and that any intermeddling of any one or more States, or a combination of their citizens, with the domestic institutions and police of the others, on any ground or under any pretext whatever, political, moral, or religious, with a view to their alteration or subversion, is an assumption of superiority not warranted by the Constitution, insulting to the States interfered with, tending to endanger their domestic peace and tranquillity, subversive of the objects for which the Constitution was formed, and, by necessary consequence, tending to weaken and destroy the Union itself.'

"Mr. Morris of Ohio, who was then the only avowed Abolitionist in the Senate, moved to strike out the words 'moral and religious.' Had the motion prevailed, the effect would have been to encourage agitation in the form in which it would be most likely to be fatal to the South. It would have been a direct encouragement to the Abolitionized clergy of the North to take the very course which was taken by the 'three thousand and fifty divines' who, in 1854, sacrilegiously assumed, 'in the name of Almighty God, and in his presence,' to denounce the repeal of the Missouri Compromise as 'a violation of plighted faith and a breach of a national compact.' Subsequent events have abundantly attested the truth of what Mr. Calhoun said, when arguing against the motion, 'that the whole spirit of the resolution hinged upon that word _religious_.'

"The vote taken on Mr. Morris's amendment stood as follows: (Congressional Globe, volume 6, page 74.)

"Yeas--Messrs. Bayard, BUCHANAN, Clayton, Davis, McKeon, Morris, Prentiss, Robbins, Ruggles, Smyth of Indiana, Southward, Swift, Tipton, and Webster--14.

"Nays--Messrs. Allen, Black, Brown, Calhoun, Clay of Alabama, Clay of Kentucky, Cuthbert, Fulton, Hubbard, King, Knight, Linn, Lumpkin, Lyon, Nicholas, Niles, Norvell, Pierce, Preston, Rives, Roane, Robinson, Sevier, Smyth of Connecticut, Strange, Walker, Wall, White, Williams, Wright, and Young--31.

"The fifth resolution to which Mr. Calhoun here referred, and which he justly regarded as the most important of all, and struggled most perseveringly to have passed without amendment, was strictly as follows:

"'Resolved, That the intermeddling of any State or States, or their citizens, to abolish slavery in this District, or in any of the Territories, on the ground, or under the pretext, that it is immoral or sinful, or the passage of any act or measure of Congress, with that view, would be a direct and dangerous attack on the institutions of all the slaveholding States.'

"This resolution covered the whole premises. It met the issue boldly and fully. No Southern Democrat can hesitate to say that it embodied a great truth, to which events have borne emphatic testimony. Mr. Clay, of Kentucky, moved to strike it out, and insert the following as a substitute:

"'Resolved, That when the District of Columbia was ceded by the States of Virginia and Maryland to the United States, domestic slavery existed in both of those States, including the ceded territory; and that, as it still continues in both of them, it could not be abolished within the District without a violation of that good faith which was implied in the cession, and in the acceptance of the territory, nor unless compensation were made for the slaves, without a manifest infringement of an amendment of the Constitution of the United States, nor without exciting a degree of just alarm and apprehension in the States recognizing slavery, far transcending, in mischievous tendency, any possible benefit which would be accomplished by the abolition.' (Congressional Globe, vol. 6, page 58.)

"The utter insufficiency of this temporizing amendment scarcely need be pointed out. Objectionable as it was in conceding to Congress the constitutional power to abolish slavery in the District of Columbia, and declaring against the exercise of that power only on the ground of inexpediency, it was still more so in this, that it made no reference whatever to the territories of the United States. The passage of Mr. Calhoun's resolution would have committed the Senate, not only against the abolition of slavery in the District of Columbia, but against the application of the Wilmot Proviso and kindred measures to the Territories. Mr. Clay's amendment was entirely silent on the subject. It is true, that in another resolution which he proposed to have adopted as an additional amendment, it was declared that the abolition of slavery in the Territory of Florida would be highly inexpedient, for the principal reason 'that it would be in violation of a solemn compromise made at a memorable and critical period in the history of this country, by which, while slavery was prohibited north, it was admitted south of the line of thirty-six degrees thirty minutes north latitude.' The defect in the first amendment can hardly be considered by Southern men as remedied by another which recognized the binding force of the Missouri Compromise.

"On the question to strike out Mr. Calhoun's resolution, and insert Mr. Clay's as an amendment, after it had been modified by striking out the part relating to compensation for slaves, the vote stood--yeas 19, nays 18. (Congressional Globe, vol. 6, page 62.) _Mr. Buchanan's name stands recorded in the affirmative._