been denied? I think not.

the human mind is so constituted, that no party can reach to the audacity of doing this.

"Think, if you can, of a single instance in which a plainly written provision of the Constitution has ever been denied. If, by the mere force of numbers, a majority should deprive a minority of any clearly written constitutional right, it might, in a moral point of view, justify revolution; it certainly would if such right were a vital one. But such is not our case.

Happily If a minority in such a case will secede rather than acquiesce, they make a precedent which in turn will ruin and divide them, for a minority of their own will secede from them whenever a majority refuses to be controlled by such a minority. For instance, why not any portion of a new confederacy, a year or two hence, arbitrarily secede again, precisely as portions of the present Union now claim to secede from it? All who cherish disunion sentiments are now being educated to the exact temper of doing this. Is there such perfect identity of interests among the States to compose a new Union as to produce harmony only, and prevent renewed secession? Plainly the central idea of secession is the essence of anarchy.

"All the vital rights of minorities and of individuals are so plainly assured to them by affirmations and negations, guarantees and prohibitions in the Constitution, that controversies never arise concerning them. But no organic law can ever be framed with a provision specifically applicable to every question which may occur in practical administration. No foresight can anticipate, nor any document of reasonable length contain, express provisions for all possible questions. Shall fugitives from labor be surrendered by national or by State authorities? The Constitution does not expressly say. Must Congress protect slavery in the Territories? The Constitution does not expressly say. From questions of this class spring all our constitutional controversies, and we divide upon them into majorities and minorities.

"If the minority will not acquiesce, the majority must, or the Government must cease. There is no alternative for continuing the Government but acquiescence on the one side or the other.

"A majority held in restraint by constitutional check and limitation, and always changing easily with deliberate changes of popular opinions and sentiments, is the only true sovereign of a free people. Whoever rejects it, does, of necessity, fly to anarchy or to despotism. Unanimity is impossible; the rule of a majority, as a permanent arrange. ment, is wholly inadmissible. So that, rejecting the majority principle, anarchy or despotism in some form is all that is left.

"I do not forget the position assumed by some, that constitutional questions are to be decided by the Supreme Court, nor do I deny that such decisions must be binding in any case upon the parties to a suit as to the object of that suit, while they are also entitled to very high respect and consideration in all parallel

IMPOSSIBILITY OF SEPARATION.

cases by all other departments of the Government; and while it is obviously possible that such decision may be erroneous in any given case, still the evil effect following it, being limited to that particular case, with the chance that it may be overruled and never become a precedent for other cases, can better be borne than could the evils of a different practice.

117

great body of the people abide by the dry legal obligation in both cases, and a few break over in each. This, I think, cannot be perfectly cured, and it would be worse in both cases after the separation of the sections than before. The foreign slave trade, now imperfectly suppressed, would be ultimately revived, without restriction, in one section; while fugitive slaves, now only partially surrendered, would not be surrendered at all by the other.

"Physically speaking, we cannot sepa

"At the same time the candid citizen must confess that if the policy of the Government upon the vital questions affecting the whole people is to be irre-rate--we cannot remove our respective vocably fixed by the decisions of the Supreme Court, the instant they are made, as in ordinary litigation between parties in personal actions, the people will have ceased to be their own masters, unless having to that extent practically resigned their government into the hands of that eminent tribunal.

"Nor is there in this view any assault upon the court or the judges. It is a duty from which they may not shrink, to decide cases properly brought before them; and it is no fault of theirs if others seek to turn their decisions to political purposes. One section of our country believes slavery is right and ought to be extended, while the other believes it is wrong and ought not to be extended; and this is the only substantial dispute; and the fugitive slave clause of the Constitution, and the law for the suppression of the foreign slavetrade, are each as well enforced, perhaps, as any law can ever be in a community where the moral sense of the people imperfectly supports the law itself. The

sections from each other, nor build an impassable wall between them. A husband and wife may be divorced, and go out of the presence and beyond the reach of each other, but the different parts of our country cannot do this. They cannot but remain face to face; and intercourse, either amicable or hostile, must continue between them. Is it possible, then, to make that intercourse more advantageous or more satisfactory after separation than before? Can aliens make treaties easier than friends can make laws? Can treaties be more faithfully enforced between aliens than laws can among friends? Suppose you go to war, you cannot fight always; and when, after much loss on both sides and no gain on either, you cease fighting, the identical questions as to terms of intercourse are again upon you.

"This country, with its institutions, belongs to the people who inhabit it. Whenever they shall grow weary of the existing government, they can exercise

or their revolutionary right to dismember or overthrow it. I cannot be ignorant of the fact that many worthy and patriotic citizens are desirous of having the national Constitution amended. While I make no recommendation of amendment, I fully recognize the full authority of the people over the whole subject, to be exercised in either of the modes prescribed in the instrument itself, and I should, under existing circumstances, favor, rather than oppose, a fair opportunity being afforded the people to act upon it.

their constitutional right of amending, authority from the people, and they have conferred none upon him to fix the terms for the separation of the States. The people themselves, also, can do this if they choose, but the Executive, as such, has nothing to do with it. His duty is to administer the present Government as it came to his hands, and to transmit it unimpaired by him to his successor. Why should there not be a patient confidence in the ultimate justice of the people? Is there any better or equal hope in the world? In our present differences, is either party without faith of being in the right? If the Almighty Ruler of nations, with his eternal truth and justice, be on your side of the North, or on yours of the South, that truth and that justice will surely prevail by the judgment of this great tribunal, the American people. By the frame of the Government under which we live, this same people have wisely given their public servants but little power for mischief, and have with equal wisdom provided for the return of that little to their own hands at very short intervals. While the people retain their virtue and vigilance, no administration, by any extreme wickedness or folly, can very seriously injure the Government in the short space of four years.

"I will venture to add, that to me the convention mode seems preferable, in that it allows amendments to originate with the people themselves, instead of only permitting them to take or reject propositions originated by others not especially chosen for the purpose, and which might not be precisely such as they would wish either to accept or refuse. I understand that a proposed amendment to the Constitution (which amendment, however, I have not seen) has passed Congress, to the effect that the Federal Government shall never interfere with the domestic institutions of States, including that of persons held to service. To avoid misconstruction of what I have said, I depart from my purpose not to speak of particular amendments, so far as to say that, holding such a provision to now be implied constitutional law, I have no "If there be an object to hurry any objection to its being made express and of you, in hot haste, to a step which you irrevocable. would never take deliberately, that ob"The chief magistrate derives all his ject will be frustrated by taking time;

"My countrymen, one and all, think calmly and well upon this whole subject. Nothing valuable can be lost by taking time.

EFFECT OF LINCOLN'S MESSAGE.

but no good object can be frustrated momentous issue of civil war.
by it.
Government will not assail you.

Such of you as are now dissatisfied still have the old Constitution unimpaired, and on the sensitive point, the laws of your own framing under it; while the new administration will have no immediate power, if it would, to change either.

"If it were admitted that you who are dissatisfied hold the right side in the dispute, there is still no single reason for precipitate action. Intelligence, patriotism, Christianity, and a firm reliance on Him who has never yet forsaken this favored land, are still competent to adjust, in the best way, all our present difficulties.

"In your hands, my dissatisfied fellow-countrymen, and not in mine, is the

119

The

"You can have no conflict without being yourselves the aggressors. You have no oath regis ered in heaven to destroy the Gover.ment, while I shall have the most solemn one to "preserve, protect, and defend" it.

"I am loth to close. We are not enemies, but friends. We must not be enemies. Though passion may have strained, it must not break our bonds of affection.

"The mystic cords of memory, stretching from every battle-field and patriot grave to every living heart and hearthstone all over this broad land, will yet swell the chorus of the Union, when again touched, as surely they will be, by the better angels of our nature."

CHAPTER X.

The opinion of the Secessionists on the Message.--The opinion of the Unionists.-Unanimous satisfaction at the exit of Buchanan.-The fate of Buchanan.-A Nation's Reproach.-Difficulty of forming a Judgment.-What were the Motives of his conduct.-A fatal Administration.-Life of Buchanan.-Birth.-Origin.-Early Education.-Political Career. Member of the Legislature.-Minister to Russia.-United States Senator.-Adherent of General Jackson.--Opposed to Nullification.-Political friend of Van Buren.-Supporter of his Policy.-Rallies to the support of Tyler. ---In favor of the Recognition of Texas.-An advocate of the War with Mexico.-Secretary of State under Polk.Retirement to Private Life.-Opposed to the Wilmot Proviso.-Advocates Compromises.--Ambassador to Great Britain. The famous Ostend Conference.-Its Manifesto.-Return to the United States.-Candidate for President.Elected President.--Public Confidence.-His conduct in regard to Kansas.--Charged with Partisanship.-Secession of Six States from the Union.-Historic importance of Buchanan.-Could Buchanan have checked the Rebellion ?— Why he did not.-Last act of his Administration.-Opinion of Free Traders of his signing the Morrill Tariff.—The two Patriots in his Cabinet.-Lincoln's Cabinet.---Its party character.-William H. Seward.-His Life.-Education. -Political Career.-Character and Personal Appearance.-Salmon Portland Chase. His Birth.-Education.-Professional success.-Opinions on Slavery.-Political Career.-Character.-Simon Cameron.-His Origin.-Influence in Pennsylvania.-His Character.-Gideon Welles: his Career and Character.-Montgomery Blair: his Career and Character.-Edward Bates: his Career and Character.-Caleb B. Smith: his Career and Character

WHILE the secessionists pronounced the message of President Lincoln warlike, and affected great indignation, and

even in Baltimore some of the daily journals declared it "sectional and mischievous," the unionists accepted the

document as firm, but conservative. direful results of his administration, Those in North Carolina who were still clear of the heresy of secession, welcomed it as a hopeful indication of the peace policy of the administration; and while in Missouri the exponent of one party declared that it "met the highest expectations of the country, both in point of statesmanship and patriotism," that of another expressed its disappointment at not having "a more conservative and conciliatory expression of sentiments."