THE CINCINNATI VICE PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE.

——"Finer or fatterNe'er roamed in the forest,Or smoked in a platter."

So—

"Hi, ho, Chevy,Hark away, hark away, tantivy,Here rests the burthen of my song,Thistimea stag must die."

But Democracy have commenced their old game of brag, by puffing their ticket as a national and conservative ticket, the very thing they denied. Now let us look into the soundness and nationality of the HEAD of the ticket. We have before us a copy of a work published in 1839, by Robert Mayo, M. D., entitled,"Political Sketches of Eight Years in Washington, in four parts." This work has gone through various editions, having been published by Fielding Lucas, Jr., of Baltimore; Garret Anderson, of Washington; J. R. Smith, of Richmond; Carey, Hart & Co., of Philadelphia, and by others in New York and Boston. On page 38 of this work, which Mr. Buchanan has never contradicted, he is reported to have denounced the visions, patronage, and corruptions of the Democratic Administrations, while he, Buchanan, was a member of the Old Federal Party.

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 LancasterRegister, published in the immediate vicinity of Mr. Buchanan's residence, asksby whomwas he elected? and thus supplies the record for 1815:

ForJAMES BUCHANAN,Federal3051"Molton O. Rogers,Democrat2502

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 LancasterRegisterinquires if he were elected as aDemocrat, and answers the inquiry by the following historical facts:

1820—James Buchanan, Federal4642"Jacob Hibsman, Democrat36661822—James Buchanan, Federal2153"Jacob Hibsman, Democrat19401824—James Buchanan, Federal3560"Samuel Houston, Democrat30461826—James Buchanan, Federal2760"Dr. John McCamant, Democrat23071828—James Buchanan, Jackson5203"William Hiester, Adams3904

The LancasterRegisterthen pursues its criticism as follows:

"On the 4th of July, 1815, Mr. Buchanan, when he was a candidate for Assembly on theFederal ticket, delivered 'an oration' in Lancaster, in whichhe showed hisloveof Federalism andhatredof 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?'"

"'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 therank old Federalistswho had come over to the Democratic ranks, and was battling withCol. 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, chargedFederalismupon 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 anold Federalist of the first water?

On the subject ofSlaverythe 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.

"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 theFederal anti-slavery, anti-Democratic, turn-coat characterof Mr. Buchanan, after this fashion:

"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 reëlected 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, andconsented 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 ofputting downthe 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."

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

"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 reëlected 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.'"

"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."

"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, andconsented 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."

"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."

"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 ofputting downthe 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 cansee 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 thataristocracywhich has characterized his course in life, and giving vent to the old and bitter feelings of theroyalistsin Pennsylvania, by advocating theoppressive British doctrine, that TEN CENTS PER DAYis 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 aKnow-Nothing,which he has now to repudiate in stepping upon theAnti-American Catholic Platformprepared 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 beenone 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 forthe Mexican war. On both of these measures he was known to be opposed to the wishes of Mr. Polk."

"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 forthe 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 certainlypreferthat 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 arguingagainst the motion, 'that the whole spirit of the resolution hinged upon that wordreligious.'"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. (CongressionalGlobe, vol. 6, page 62.)Mr. Buchanan's name stands recorded in the affirmative."On a subsequent occasion, Mr. Calhoun, with a view to infuse vitality into Mr. Clay's amendment, moved to insert that any attempt of Congress to abolish slavery in the Territories, 'would be a dangerous attack upon the States in which slavery exists.' Mr. Buchanan opposed the amendment, and it was in reply to his speech that Mr. Calhoun made the remarks which may be found in the third volume of his works, pages 194 to 196, and which he commenced by saying that 'the remarks of the Senator from Pennsylvania were of such a character that he could not permit them to pass in silence.'"From these votes, and this language of Mr. Buchanan, it is clear:"1st. That he was not opposed to thereligiousagitation of the slavery question—a species of agitation which Mr. Calhoun justly regarded as more fatal than any other."2d. That he recognized the constitutional power of Congress to abolish slavery in the District of Columbia, opposing its existence only on the ground of its inexpediency—a proposition which the position of Mr. Van Buren shows affords no reliable protection to Southern institutions."3d. That he refused to commit himself fully on the great question as to the power of Congress over the Territories of the United States, and as far as he did go, evidently left it to be understood that the abolition of slavery by Congress in those Territories would be no attack on the States in which it exists.'"If his opinions, in these respects, have undergone any material change, the country has not yet been authoritatively apprised of the fact. The reflections cast by him on the institution of slavery, in one of his speeches in England, and the studied design he has manifested to keep aloof from the excitement growing out of the repeal of the Missouri Compromise, are not well calculated to inspire confidence, that if his views have undergone any change, it has been a change for the better."

"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 arguingagainst the motion, 'that the whole spirit of the resolution hinged upon that wordreligious.'

"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. (CongressionalGlobe, vol. 6, page 62.)Mr. Buchanan's name stands recorded in the affirmative.

"On a subsequent occasion, Mr. Calhoun, with a view to infuse vitality into Mr. Clay's amendment, moved to insert that any attempt of Congress to abolish slavery in the Territories, 'would be a dangerous attack upon the States in which slavery exists.' Mr. Buchanan opposed the amendment, and it was in reply to his speech that Mr. Calhoun made the remarks which may be found in the third volume of his works, pages 194 to 196, and which he commenced by saying that 'the remarks of the Senator from Pennsylvania were of such a character that he could not permit them to pass in silence.'

"From these votes, and this language of Mr. Buchanan, it is clear:

"1st. That he was not opposed to thereligiousagitation of the slavery question—a species of agitation which Mr. Calhoun justly regarded as more fatal than any other.

"2d. That he recognized the constitutional power of Congress to abolish slavery in the District of Columbia, opposing its existence only on the ground of its inexpediency—a proposition which the position of Mr. Van Buren shows affords no reliable protection to Southern institutions.

"3d. That he refused to commit himself fully on the great question as to the power of Congress over the Territories of the United States, and as far as he did go, evidently left it to be understood that the abolition of slavery by Congress in those Territories would be no attack on the States in which it exists.'

"If his opinions, in these respects, have undergone any material change, the country has not yet been authoritatively apprised of the fact. The reflections cast by him on the institution of slavery, in one of his speeches in England, and the studied design he has manifested to keep aloof from the excitement growing out of the repeal of the Missouri Compromise, are not well calculated to inspire confidence, that if his views have undergone any change, it has been a change for the better."

After thus disposing of theslavery issue,Mr. Irvingthus turns to theTariff Question:

"So much for the slavery issue. How does Mr. Buchanan stand upon the tariff? Will the Sentinel say that he is sound, or justify his 'low wages' speech? How does he stand upon the French Spoliation bill, which President Polk and President Pierce vetoed? Everybody knows that he was in favor of it. How does he stand upon the Pacific Railroad? He declared himself in favor of an appropriation of public money to build it, as is notorious. In fact, is there a single Federal measure except that of the United States Bank, upon which he is not recorded against Democratic principles? How can we hope to carry the united South with such a record? Will Southern Democrats overlook this record? Will Northern Nebraska men overlook this ignoring of Pierce and Douglass? Is there no danger that in admitting the abolitionist Trumbull, we may not dishearten the gallant Douglass? Is there no fear that in reinstating the free-soil Hickman, who is in favor of Reeder, we may not palsy the arm of Richardson? In fine, is there no fear that in hoping for free-soil aid, we may not lose the few real friends the South has in the North? It is evident to the commonest understanding, that the first step of Northern Black Republicanism is to kill off all those influential men at the North, like Pierce or Douglass, who have actively participated in the fight for our rights. Is not the South aiding them in this first step, when it not only ignores its own sons, but also ignores, upon the ground of availability, those Northern men identified with the late Kansas-Nebraska bill? This is a question the South would do well to ponder. If Mr. Buchanan is to be nominated,and Pierce and Douglass in the North ignored, let the responsibility rest elsewhere than upon the State of Virginia. He may be, and probably is sound, but these are times when more than ordinary caution is necessary. It may become the duty of the South to support him. When that time arrives I can discharge the duty; but I do think that the reasons above stated exempt me from any blame for not advocating him until that responsibility devolves upon me. Very respectfully,Chas. Irving.

The Southern Dough-faces of the Foreign Catholic party pretend to hold Mr. Fillmore responsible for a letter he wrote more than twenty years ago, in which he answers certain interrogatories in reference to slavery,affirmatively, and in opposition to the extension of slavery! Thelatestrecord of Buchanan is in 1844, and proves him to be an ABOLITIONIST OF THE BLACKEST DYE. About the last speech he ever made in Congress, was IN OPPOSITION TO SLAVERY, in secret session of the Senate, just before Mr. Polk, in opposition to the wishes of Gen. Jackson, gave him a seat in his cabinet. This speech will be found in the Congressional Globe for 1844, an extract from which is in theseexplicitandmemorablewords:

"In arriving at the conclusion to support this treaty, I had to encounterbut one serious obstacle,and that was the question of slavery. Whilst I have ever maintained, and ever shall maintain, in their full force and vigor, the constitutional rights of the Southern States over their slave property, I yet feel a strong repugnance by any act of mine to extend the limits of the Union over a new slaveholding territory. After mature reflection, however, I overcame these scruples, and now believe that the acquisition of Texas will be the means of limiting, not enlarging, the dominion of slavery."In the government of the world, Providence generally produces great changes by gradual means. There is nothing rash in the counsels of the Almighty. May not, then, the acquisition of Texas be the means of gradually drawing the slaves far to the South to a climate more congenial to their nature; and may they not finally pass off into Mexico, andthere mingle with a race where no prejudice exists against their color? The Mexican nation is composed of Spaniards, Indians, and Negroes, blended together in every variety, who would receive our slaves on terms of perfect social equality. To this condition they never can be admitted in the United States."That the acquisition of Texas would ere long convert Maryland, Virginia, Kentucky, Missouri, and probably others of the more Northern Slave States, into free States, I entertain not a doubt...."But should Texas be annexed to the Union, causes will be brought into operation which must inevitably remove slavery from what may be called the farming States. From the best information, it is no longer profitable to raise wheat, rye, and corn, by slave labor. Where these articles are the only staples of agriculture, in the pointed and expressive language of Randolph, if the slave does not run away from his master, the master must run away from the slave. The slave will naturally be removed from such a country, where his labor is scarcely adequate to his own support, to a region where he can not only maintain himself, but yield large profits to his master. Texas will open an outlet; and slavery itself may thus finally pass the Del Norte, and be lost in Mexico. One thing is certain, the present number of slaves cannot be increased by the annexation of Texas."I have never apprehended the preponderance of the slave States in the councils of the nation. Such a fear has always appeared to me visionary. But those who entertain such apprehensions need not be alarmed by the acquisition of Texas. More than one-half of its territory is wholly unfit for the slave labor; and, therefore, in the nature of things must be free. Mr. Clay, in his letter of the 17th of April last, on the subject of annexation, states that, according to his information—"'The Territory of Texas is susceptible of a division into five States of convenient size and form. Of these, two only would be adapted to those peculiar institutions (slavery) to which I have referred; and the other three, lying west and north of San Antonio, being only adapted to farming and grazing purposes, from the nature of their soil, climate, and productions, would not admit of these institutions. In the end, therefore, there would be two slave and three free States probably added to the Union.'"And here permit me to observe, that there is one defect in the treaty which ought to be amended if we all did not know that it is destined to be rejected. The treaty itself ought to determine how many free and how many slave States should be made out of this territory."

"In the government of the world, Providence generally produces great changes by gradual means. There is nothing rash in the counsels of the Almighty. May not, then, the acquisition of Texas be the means of gradually drawing the slaves far to the South to a climate more congenial to their nature; and may they not finally pass off into Mexico, andthere mingle with a race where no prejudice exists against their color? The Mexican nation is composed of Spaniards, Indians, and Negroes, blended together in every variety, who would receive our slaves on terms of perfect social equality. To this condition they never can be admitted in the United States.

"That the acquisition of Texas would ere long convert Maryland, Virginia, Kentucky, Missouri, and probably others of the more Northern Slave States, into free States, I entertain not a doubt....

"But should Texas be annexed to the Union, causes will be brought into operation which must inevitably remove slavery from what may be called the farming States. From the best information, it is no longer profitable to raise wheat, rye, and corn, by slave labor. Where these articles are the only staples of agriculture, in the pointed and expressive language of Randolph, if the slave does not run away from his master, the master must run away from the slave. The slave will naturally be removed from such a country, where his labor is scarcely adequate to his own support, to a region where he can not only maintain himself, but yield large profits to his master. Texas will open an outlet; and slavery itself may thus finally pass the Del Norte, and be lost in Mexico. One thing is certain, the present number of slaves cannot be increased by the annexation of Texas.

"I have never apprehended the preponderance of the slave States in the councils of the nation. Such a fear has always appeared to me visionary. But those who entertain such apprehensions need not be alarmed by the acquisition of Texas. More than one-half of its territory is wholly unfit for the slave labor; and, therefore, in the nature of things must be free. Mr. Clay, in his letter of the 17th of April last, on the subject of annexation, states that, according to his information—

"'The Territory of Texas is susceptible of a division into five States of convenient size and form. Of these, two only would be adapted to those peculiar institutions (slavery) to which I have referred; and the other three, lying west and north of San Antonio, being only adapted to farming and grazing purposes, from the nature of their soil, climate, and productions, would not admit of these institutions. In the end, therefore, there would be two slave and three free States probably added to the Union.'

"And here permit me to observe, that there is one defect in the treaty which ought to be amended if we all did not know that it is destined to be rejected. The treaty itself ought to determine how many free and how many slave States should be made out of this territory."

On the 11th of April, 1826, James Buchanan, who is now being supported bySouthern slaveholders, made a speech in Congress,eleven years afterhis Fourth of July oration, from which the following is taken:

"Permit me here, Mr. Chairman, for a moment, to speak upon a subject to which I have never before adverted upon this floor, and to which, I trust, I may never again have occasion to advert. I mean the subject of slavery. I BELIEVE IT TO BE A GREAT POLITICAL AND A GREAT MORAL EVIL. I THANK GOD, MY LOT HAS BEEN CAST IN A STATE WHERE IT DOES NOT EXIST.... IT HAS BEEN A CURSE ENTAILED UPON US BY THAT NATION WHICH MAKES IT A SUBJECT OF REPROACH TO OUR INSTITUTIONS." (See Gales and Seaton's Register of Debates, page 2180, vol. ii., part 2.)

When a "Uniform Bankrupt Law" was enacted by Congress, after the election of General Harrison, there were on the files of the Judiciary Committee of the Senatefifty-one petitions, praying for the passage of such a law. Twenty-nine of these were from New York, five from New Jersey, three from Ohio, two from Indiana, two from Massachusetts, andonefrom each of the States of Tennessee and Mississippi. There weretwenty-fiveother petitions praying for "A General Bankrupt Law;"fifteenof which were from New York, and eight from Pennsylvania; and how will the Democracy like to see it hereafter proven that BUCHANAN presented these petitions, and voted for the law? If it shall turn out that "Old Buck" did really go for the "odious Bankrupt Law," let his friends defend him on the ground that hisStatedesired it, and had always favored the measure!

In the House of Representatives, in Congress, January 3, 1815,Mr. Ingersoll, a notorious Democrat from Pennsylvania, and aBoy Toryof the war of the Revolution, from the Committee on the Judiciary, reported a bill to establisha uniform law of Bankruptcy throughout the United States! If these facts should not turn out to be a sufficient justification ofMr. Buchanan's course, provided he went for this Bankrupt Law, let his friends present these facts, and show that he was in good old Federal Democraticcompany:

NUMBER 1. On the 5th of September, 1837, Mr. Van Buren'sDemocraticSecretary of the Treasury made a report to Congress, praying the passage of auniform Bankrupt Law, which was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary.

NUMBER 2. On the 13th day of January, 1840,Mr. Norvell, a Democratic Senator from Michigan, moved that the Judiciary be instructed to inquire into the expediency of reporting a bill for the establishment of aGeneral Bankrupt Law.

NUMBER 3. On the 22d of April, 1840,Garret D. Wall, a flaming Democratic Senator in Congress, reported certain amendments to a Bankrupt Law, from a minority of the Committee; which were referred to the Senate's select Committee, and reported by Mr. Wall, and passed—21 to 19—and sent to the House.

NUMBER 4. In the Senate, July 23, 1841,Mr. Nicholson, a Democratic Senator from Tennessee, delivered an able speech in favor of a uniform system of Bankruptcy, and moved to amend the bill then pending, by inserting "BANKS AND OTHER CORPORATIONS;" which motion was lost by a vote of 34 to 16.

NUMBER 5. That great light of Democracy,Col. Richard M. Johnson, late Vice-President of the United States, wrote and spoke in favor of a General Bankrupt Law. In a letter of his, now before us, dated Washington, January 18, 1841, he says, speaking of such a law: "My opinion is that it will redound to the honor of our country."

But we will do Mr. Buchanan justice, by stating that he said he would voteagainstthe Bankrupt Law of 1840, because he did not like its features. When Mr. Webster spoke in favor of the law, and of the character of thepetitioners, many of whom presented their petitions through Mr. Buchanan, the latter spoke on the 24th of February, 1840; and, to satisfy Mr. Webster and others that he was not opposed to theprinciplein former days, stated, "He came to the other House of Congress, many years since, A FRIEND OF A BANKRUPT LAW. The subject was before the House when he entered the body twenty years ago." He added, "He wasopen to conviction, and might change his purpose!"

Thus, it will be seen that Mr. Buchanan, in this, as in every thing else,was on both sides! And how does it look in a Presidential candidate, to have supported aGeneral Bankrupt Lawforthe relief ofrich, extravagant, and aristocraticgentlemen, and then to turn round and advocate "ten cents per day" for poor folks and laboring men? It will look rather bad; but, then, Sag Nicht Democracy can go any thing! This old "ten cents per day" champion of Democracy advocated, in so many words, the reduction of all paper money prices to the real Cuba standard of solid money! We take extracts from his speech, which will be found in the Appendix to the Congressional Globe, page 135:

"In Germany, where the currency is purely metallic, and the cost of every thing is REDUCED to a hard money standard, a piece of broadcloth can be manufactured for fifty dollars; the manufacture of which in our country, from the expansion of paper currency, would cost one hundred dollars. What is the consequence? The foreign French and German manufacturer imports this cloth into our country, and sells it for a hundred. Does not every person perceive that the redundancy of our currency is equal to a premium of one hundred per cent. in favor of the manufacturer?""No tariff of protection, unless it amounted to prohibition, could counteract this advantage in favor of foreign manufactures. I would to heaven that I could arouse the attention of every manufacturer of the nation to this important subject.""What is the reason that, with all these advantages, and with the protective duties which our laws afford to the domestic manufacturer of cotton, we cannot obtain exclusive possession of the home market, and successfully contend for the markets of the world? It is simply because we manufacture at the nominal prices of our inflated currency, and are compelled to sell at the real prices of other nations. REDUCE OUR NOMINAL STANDARD OF PRICES THROUGHOUT THE WORLD, and you cover our country with blessings and benefits.""The comparative LOW PRICES of France and Germany have afforded such a stimulus to their manufactures, that they are now rapidly extending themselves, and would obtain possession, in no small degree, even of the English home market, IF IT WERE NOT FOR THEIR PROTECTING DUTIES. While British manufactures are now languishing, those of the continent are springing into a healthy and vigorous existence."

"No tariff of protection, unless it amounted to prohibition, could counteract this advantage in favor of foreign manufactures. I would to heaven that I could arouse the attention of every manufacturer of the nation to this important subject."

"What is the reason that, with all these advantages, and with the protective duties which our laws afford to the domestic manufacturer of cotton, we cannot obtain exclusive possession of the home market, and successfully contend for the markets of the world? It is simply because we manufacture at the nominal prices of our inflated currency, and are compelled to sell at the real prices of other nations. REDUCE OUR NOMINAL STANDARD OF PRICES THROUGHOUT THE WORLD, and you cover our country with blessings and benefits."

"The comparative LOW PRICES of France and Germany have afforded such a stimulus to their manufactures, that they are now rapidly extending themselves, and would obtain possession, in no small degree, even of the English home market, IF IT WERE NOT FOR THEIR PROTECTING DUTIES. While British manufactures are now languishing, those of the continent are springing into a healthy and vigorous existence."

How will theFree Trade Democracyof the South relish these "protecting duties" of an old Federal politician? They are about as consistent in their support of the Cincinnati nominee as "Clay Whigs" are, when they know that Buchanan was the only man living who had it in his power to do Clay justice, in reference to the "bargain and intrigue" calumny, and obstinately refused!

In 1825, Mr. Buchanan, then a member of the House, entered the room of Mr. Clay, who was at the time in company with his only messmate, Hon. R. P. Letcher, also a member of the House, and since Governor of Kentucky. Buchanan introduced the subject of the approaching Presidential election, Letcher witnessingwhat was said; and after that, when Mr. Clay was hotly assailed with the charge of "bargain, intrigue, and corruption," notified Mr. Buchanan of his intention to publish the conversation, but was induced, by theearnest entreaties of Buchanan, to forbear. And Mr. Clay died with a letter in his possession, from Buchanan, which, if published, as it should be, would place Buchanan without the pale of Democracy, and disgrace him in the eyes of all honorable men.Thatletter, too, would explain why Gen. Jackson had no confidence in him, and was opposed to his taking a seat in Polk's cabinet. Let it come!

Keep it before the People, That it was the vote of James Buchanan which, in the Senate, in 1832, secured the passage of the "Black Tariff," so offensive to the "Free Trade" Democracy of Tennessee, South Carolina, and other Southern States, and which Gov. JONES threw up to Col. Polk with so much effect in their race of 1843!

Keep it before the People, That the Cincinnati Platform unblushingly affirms that "the Constitution does not confer upon the Federal government authority to assume the debts of the several States, contracted for local internal improvements, or for other State purposes;" while the Democratic members of Congress annually violate this principle by voting away hundreds of acres of public lands to the States, for purposes of railroads and other improvements.

Keep it before the People, That the same Platform hypocritically asserts, that "it is the duty of every branch of our Government to enforce and practice the most rigid economy in conducting our public affairs;" when the expenditures of Pierce's administration are TWENTY MILLIONS PER ANNUM over that of MILLARD FILLMORE!

Keep it before the People, That the 8th of the series in this Platform declares, that "the attempt to abridge the privilege of becoming citizens and owners of soil amongst us ought to be resisted with the same spirit which swept the alien and sedition laws from our statute book:" and then the hypocritical builders of the platform turned about and nominated James Buchanan, who commenced public life as the advocate of the "alien and sedition laws," and sustained, in and out of Congress, the Federal party, who passed these laws.

Keep it before the People, That the Cincinnati Platform, which prates so loudly about the privilege of becoming "owners of the soil," and which rebukes all efforts to amend our naturalization laws as oppressive to foreigners, nominated a man for the Presidency who spoke publicly in this language: "Above all, we oughtto drive from our shores foreign influence, which has been in every age the curse of republics!"

Keep it before the People, That this Cincinnati Platform pledges itself to the "Acts known as the Compromise Measures," and then resolves "to resist all attempts at renewing, in Congress or out of it, the agitation of slavery;" while the second best nags before the Convention were Douglass and Pierce, who brought forward the bill repealing the Missouri Compromise line, and opening up anew the slavery agitation, while Pierce signed the bill and adopted it as an Administration measure!

Keep it before the People, That this same Platform asserts, as an indispensable article of the Democratic faith, that "the proceeds of the public lands ought to be sacredly applied to the national objects specified in the Constitution;" and yet a majority of the Democracy, in one branch of Congress, unhesitatingly voted for a bill introduced by Robert M. T. Hunter, a leader of "the most straitest sect" of Democratic Pharisees, which proposed to give away the whole body of the public lands to squatters, at the nominal price of ninepence an acre, and at five years' credit!

Keep it before the People, That this same platform deprecates a policy which legislates for the few at the expense of the many; yet its builders nominated a man for the Presidency who has avowed himself on the floor of the Senate in favor of reducing the wages of poor white men to the Cuban standard of TEN CENTS per day!

Keep it before the People, That this Cincinnati Platform utterly fails to come up to that high Southern standard, which the country looked for from a party so lavish of promises, and that it has deliberately and completely shirked the slavery issue, the only apology for which is found in their having nominated an old anti-slavery Federalist.

Keep it before the People, ThatJames Buchananwas opposed to the war of 1812, but is in favor of the next war—while a Federalist he was conservative in his views, but is now square upon a Filibustering Platform—his nomination, an overture to the Sumner Wing of Democracy, is the very nomination for the Nullifiers, Fire-eaters, and Disunionists of the South—that while we cry North, shout South, every faction is united.

John C. Breckenridge, of Kentucky, is now the Democratic candidate for the Vice Presidency; and in our devotion to theheadof the ticket, we do not wish to neglect thetail. Mr. Breckenridge is a good speaker, and is about as good a selection as his party could make. He has not been long enough in public life to attain any experience as a statesman, nor has he been guilty of any great indiscretion in his short Congressional career. He will be unable to carry Kentucky for his party, though he has some elements of strength. Standing out in violent opposition to his relatives upon theKnow Nothingissues, he will be acceptable to all Foreigners, and the Catholics in particular! Being on the very best of terms withCassius M. Clay, and voting with the Emancipationists of Kentucky, he will be rather acceptable to the Anti-Slavery men than otherwise! He was a zealous supporter of the bill in Congress appropriating a million or two dollars to works of Internal Improvement, which wasvetoedby Pierce. That bill provided $50,000 for the improvement of the Kentucky River, to which he urged an amendment insisting on $150,000. This will give him strength with the Democracy of the North and North-West, who advocated the doctrine of Internal Improvements by the General Government!

On May 20th, 1856, theCharleston Mercurycame out advising the South as to the selection of candidates, which advice, if adhered to, would prove ruinous alike to Buchanan and Breckenridge. A brief extract from that article is in these words:

Back to Index Next