The national era. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1847-1860, 1858-07-22
ans, and prided himself on his Federalism. Tn

the controversy between Pickering and the
Adamses, Mr.. Buchanan's intense Federalism
impelled him to follow the former, and hate the
more modified views of the latter. 1t was this
ultra Federal partisanship, in fact, that caused
him to oppose John Quincy Adams in 1924.
So far as the Republicans had an organization
at that time, they rallied on Mr.. Crawford, who
was the regular caucus candidate; but Mr.. Blu.
chanan's federalism precluded him from sup.
porting the distinctive State Rights candidate
yet his partisan amnesty was 30 vehement
against John Quincy Adams, whom he consid-
cred faithless to the extreme centralism of Ham
iton and Pickering, that he preferred almost any
one to that gentleman. There was class of
embittered partissns of the Federal school in
certain localities, who continued local organ.
ization for some years after that party had
ceased to have q national existence. The
county of Lancaster was one of these localities,
and Mr.. Buchanan was its representative man,
distinguished as violent partisan, rather than
Q liberal and enlightened politician. These
Federalists, in giving their support to General
jackson, did not anticipate the issues that en-
sued On his accession, and were embarrassed by
them. Most of them, who had been unequivo-
cally committed to the bank and high protect
i've policy that had grown up subsequent to the
war, abandoned the Administration and the
new organization, which, under the name of
Democracy, was opposed to those measures.
Mr.. Buchanan occupied for period an equiv
pcal position, uncertain whether to surrender
his early and established principles and convic-
lions, or forfeit his new party relations. For
tunately for one who was calculating and
weighing political chances, he was soon with
drawn from Congress, and in condition to
escape responsibility.
Ultimately, after the bank was vetoed, and
jackson sustained, he became fully committed
to the policy Of the Democratic party, and yet
he failed to impress his associates with conf
dence in his political principles. In their
party Conventions he was no favorite, although
his partisans were Jealous and active in his
behalf in 1874, lS48, and 1852. But after the
final adjustment of the financial issues, which
really determined the issues on which parties
had been based from 80, and the introduc.
ton of new questions relating to the Tsrrito.
rial policy of the Government, Mr.. Buchanan
was again aaost without any fixed principles.
There was, however, an opportunity at this
juncture, when, if capable, unselfsh, and pa
triotic, he had an opportunity of exhibiting
the higher qualities of craftsmanship. The
financial issues were settled by the final estab-
lishment of the Independent Treasury. He
was member of the Polk Cabinet, and an
avowed candidate to succeed him. The dawn
of a new phase of parties began to appear in
the horizon. In anticipation of acquisitions of
territory from Mexico, there was already dis
turbing element in the political waters in re.
gard to the government of those acquisitions
and, as the fret officer of the Cabinet, desrous
of higher distinction, Mr.. Buchanan was prompt
to take position that should give him notori-
ETY. and character. He therefore awaited him.
self of an opportunity to address letter to q
committee in Berks county, in the summer of
l847, declaring himself unequivocally in favor
of the Missouri Compromise, which prohibited
Slavery north of the parallel of go 3O/ of north
latitude. There was nothing original, sagacious,
attractive, or profound, in the suggestion. The
Compromise had been effected more than q
quarter of a century before, as an expedient to
allay then highly.exciting excitement, was of
questionable constitutionality, unsatisfactory to
men of all parties, but reluctantly acquiesced
in by all, as an expedient, when adopted. The
present Chief Magistrate in lS47 proposed the
application of this Compromise to all newly.
acquired territory. Unerring history will de.
termine whether it was proposition made to
promote the interest of the country, or himself
personally. 1t exhibited not only the scope of
his mind, but the strength of his ability, on
subject of momentous national Importance.
1t was statesmanship, or it was partisanship.
Neither the country nor his party, however,
responded to his suggestion and at the Con.
vention which assembled at Baltimore the fol.
lowing year, both the man and his measure
were rejected by his party, and Congress-, the
States, and the People, were still more decisive
against them.