may revolutionize, and make their own of so much of the territory as they inhabit."

Could language be stronger? Did any secessionist ever claim more? The remarkably clear style of Lincoln made his meaning unmistakable. How could a man with such views deny the right of secession, even, if this right could not be logically derived from the Constitution? But to make the case stronger. Lincoln had declared that the Union cannot long endure half slave and half free. Taken in the light of his utterance in Congress, what could this mean? There could be but three hypotheses. The Union must be all slave, all free, or there must be a separation. Surely, Lincoln would not consent to its being all slave. He declared that he did not contemplate the abolition of slavery by any act of the United States. So emphatic is he in this position that in his inaugural address he summed up his expressions on this subject, as follows:

"It is found in nearly all the published speeches of him who now addresses you. I do but quote from one of these speeches when I declare that I have no purpose, directly or indirectly, to interfere with the institution of slavery in the States where it now exists. I believe that I have no lawful right to do so, and I have no inclination to do so.'

Surely, then, he did not expect that the Union would be all free. But it could not endure "half slave and half free." What, then, was the logical consequence, according to his own theories? Separation. There could be nothing else. Here was separation ready at his hands. Seven States had seceded, and formed a government of their own, Texas having joined the Confederacy two days before this address was delivered. Their commissioners were in Washington awaiting an audience, ready to propose terms of peaceable adjustment. Would he deny the right which he had declared to be a sacred right? Would he give peace, or would he resort to coercion, invasion and war? The country was not long to be in doubt. The end of President Buchanan's term was near at hand. The sentiments of the president now in

office were well known. They were such as became a wise and good man, and were in accord with the views which he had always entertained and often expressed during a long life of public service. They were expressed in his fourth annual message, December 3, 1860, and are summed up in his special message, January 8, 1861. He expresses sympathy with the grievances of the South, but he denies the right of secession. He urges the preservation of the Union, but believes that the executive has no power of coercion, or war. If this power is possessed by the government at all it can be exercised only by Congress. He believes that the Union can be preserved by peaceful means, and urges peace. The following extract from his special message of January 8, 1861, gives his opinion in brief:

"I certainly had no right to make aggressive war upon any State, and I am perfectly satisfied that the Constitution has wisely withheld that power even from Congress. But the right and duty to use military force defensively against those who resist the Federal officers in the execution of their legal functions and against those who assail the property of the Federal government is clear and undeniable.

"But the dangerous and hostile attitude of the States toward each other has already far transcended and cast in the shade the ordinary executive duties already provided for by law, and has assumed such vast and alarming proportions as to place the subject entirely above and beyond executive control. The fact can not be disguised that we are in the midst of a great revolution. In all of its various bearings, therefore, I commend the question to Congress as the only human tribunal under Providence possessing the power to meet the existing emergency. To them exclusively belongs the power to declare war or to authorize the employment of military force in all cases contemplated by the Constitution, and they alone possess the power to remove grievances which might lead to war and to secure peace and union to this distracted country. On them, and on them alone, rests the responsibility."

It has been the custom of a certain class of speakers and writers to ridicule Buchanan as "weak and vacillating." If there be anything weak in the opinion that the President of the United States had no power to use coercion against a State, that weakness is in the Constitution and not in Buchanan. The arguments upon which he based his opinion may be seen by the reader in his fourth annual message. They were in accord with the opinions of the chief justice of the United States. These arguments have been sneered at, but have never been answered. He would not violate the Constitution. Those who subsequently used coercion did not scruple to violate the Constitution, for which they justified themselves by specious pleas which will not bear the analysis of logic. Buchanan believed that the sober second thought would bring about a compromise or adjustment of the pending difficulty, and with this conviction he opposed anything calculated to precipitate a crisis. He was not alone in this opinion. It was the almost unanimous belief in the Border States that a settlement of all differences could be made. There seemed some reason for this belief in a nation created by compromise, which throughout its national existence had cured all its quarrels by compromise.

The only question which seemed to threaten a disturbance of peace during the remainder of Buchanan's administration was the question of Fort Sumter. This question, however, by mutual forbearance, was delayed for the present, and came up for settlement in the next administration. President Buchanan closed his administration in peace. As a measure of precaution he accumulated a large military force in Washington, to guard the inauguration of his successor.