Americanism Contrasted with Foreignism, Romanism, and Bogus Democracy in the Light of Reason, History, and Scripture;

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.

"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 the religious agitation 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 the slavery issue, Mr. Irving thus turns to the Tariff 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! The latest record 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 these explicit and memorable words:

"In arriving at the conclusion to support this treaty, I had to encounter but 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, and there 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 by Southern slaveholders, made a speech in Congress, eleven years after his 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.)

MORE BUCHANAN ANTECEDENTS

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 Senate fifty-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, and one from each of the States of Tennessee and Mississippi. There were twenty-five other petitions praying for "A General Bankrupt Law;" fifteen of 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 his State desired 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 a Boy Tory of the war of the Revolution, from the Committee on the Judiciary, reported a bill to establish a uniform law of Bankruptcy throughout the United States! If these facts should not turn out to be a sufficient justification of Mr. 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 Democratic company:

NUMBER 1. On the 5th of September, 1837, Mr. Van Buren's Democratic Secretary of the Treasury made a report to Congress, praying the passage of a uniform 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 a General 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 vote against the 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 the petitioners, 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 the principle in 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 was open 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 a General Bankrupt Law for the relief of rich, extravagant, and aristocratic gentlemen, 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."

How will the Free Trade Democracy of 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!

CLAY AND BUCHANAN

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 witnessing what 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 the earnest 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. That letter, 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!