It will be remembered that during the period of the Missouri Struggle, 1818-1820, the Territory of Arkansas was formed by an Act of Congress out of that part of the Missouri Territory not included in the proposed State of Missouri, and that the Act so creating the Territory of Arkansas contained no provision restricting Slavery.  Early in 1836, the people of Arkansas Territory met in Convention and formed a Constitution under which, “and by virtue of the treaty of cession by France to the United States, of the Province of Louisiana,” they asked admission to the Union as a State.  Among other provisions of that Constitution was a section rendering the State Legislature powerless to pass laws for the emancipation of slaves without the consent of the owners, or to prevent emigrants to that State from bringing with them slaves.  On June 15th of the same year, Arkansas was, under that Constitution, admitted to the Union as a Slave State, with the sole reservation, that nothing in the Act of admission should be “construed as an assent by Congress to all or any of the propositions contained” in the said Constitution.

Long ere this, all the Northern and Middle States had made provision for the emancipation of such slaves as remained within their borders, and only a few years previous (in 1829 and 1831-32) Virginia had made strong but insufficient efforts toward the same end.  The failure to free Virginia of Slavery ­the effort to accomplish which had been made by some of the greatest of her statesmen ­only served to rivet the chains of human bondage more securely throughout all the Slave States, and from that time on, no serious agitation occurred in any one of them, looking toward even the most gradual emancipation.  On the other hand, the advocates of the extension of the Slave-Power by the expansion of Slave-territory, were ever on the alert, they considered it of the last importance to maintain the balance of power between the Slave States and the Free States.  Hence, while they had secured in 1819 the cession from Spain to the United States of the Slave-holding Floridas, and the organization of the Slave Territory of Florida in 1822 ­which subsequently came in as a Slave State under the same Act (1845) that admitted the Free State of Iowa ­their greedy eyes were now cast upon the adjoining rich territories of Mexico.

Efforts had (in 1827-1829) been made to purchase from Mexico the domain which was known as Texas.  They had failed.  But already a part of Texas had been settled by adventurous Americans under Mexican grants and otherwise; and General Sam Houston, an adherent of the Slave Power, having become a leading spirit among them, fomented a revolution.  In March, 1836, Texas, under his guidance, proclaimed herself a Republic independent of Mexico.

The War that ensued between Texas and Mexico ended in the flight of the Mexican Army and the capture of Santa Anna at San Jacinto, and a treaty recognizing Texan independence.  In October, 1836, General Houston was inaugurated President of the Republic of Texas.  Close upon this followed (in August, 1837) a proposition to our Government from the Texan envoy for the annexation of Texas to the United States.  President Van Buren declined the offer.  The Northern friends of Freedom were as much opposed to this annexation project as the advocates of Slavery were anxious for it.  Even such conservative Northern Statesmen as Daniel Webster strongly opposed the project.  In a speech delivered in New York , after showing that the chief aim of our Government in the acquisition of the Territory of Louisiana was to gain command of the mouths of the great rivers to the sea, and that in the acquisition of the Floridas our policy was based on similar considerations, Mr. Webster declared that “no such necessity, no such policy, requires the annexation of Texas,” and that we ought “for numerous and powerful reasons to be content with our present boundaries.”  He recognized that Slavery already existed under the guarantees of the Constitution and those guarantees must be fulfilled; that “Slavery, as it exists in the States, is beyond the power of Congress.  It is a concern of the States themselves,” but “when we come to speak of admitting new States, the subject assumes an entirely different aspect.  Our rights and our duties are then both different.  The Free States, and all the States, are then at liberty to accept or to reject;” and he added, “In my opinion the people of the United States will not consent to bring into the Union a new, vastly extensive and Slaveholding country, large enough for a half a dozen or a dozen States.  In my opinion, they ought not to consent to it.”

Farther on, in the same speech ­after alluding to the strong feeling in the Northern States against the extension of Slavery, not only as a question of politics, but of conscience and religious conviction as well-he deems him a rash man indeed “who supposes that a feeling of this kind is to be trifled with or despised.”  Said he:  “It will assuredly cause itself to be respected.  It may be reasoned with; it may be made willing ­I believe it is entirely willing ­to fulfill all existing engagements and all existing duties ­to uphold and defend the Constitution as it is established, with whatever regrets about some provisions which it does actually contain.  But to coerce it into silence, to endeavor to restrain its free expression, to seek to compress and confine it, warm as it is, and more heated as such endeavors would inevitably render it, ­should this be attempted, I know nothing, even in the Constitution or in the Union itself, which would not be endangered by the explosion which might follow.”

In 1840, General Harrison, the Whig candidate, was elected to the Presidency, but died within a few weeks after his inauguration in 1841, and was succeeded by John Tyler.  The latter favored the Slave Power; and on April 12th, 1844, John C. Calhoun, his Secretary of State, concluded with Texas a treaty of annexation ­which was, however, rejected by the Senate.  Meanwhile the public mind was greatly agitated over the annexation and other, questions.

[In the London Index, a journal established there by Jefferson Davis’s agents to support the cause of the rebellious States, a communication appeared during the early part of the war, Dec. 4, 1861, supposed to have been written by Mr. Mason, of Virginia, in which he said:  “To tell the Norths, the Butes, the Wedderburns of the present day, that previous to the year 1839 the sovereign States of the South had unalterably resolved on the specific ground of the violation of the Federal Constitution by the tariff of spoliation which the New England States had imposed upon them ­to secede from the Union; to tell them that in that year the leader of the South, Calhoun, urged an English gentleman, to whom he had fully explained the position of the South, and the intolerable tyranny which the North inflicted upon it, to be the bearer of credentials from the chief persons of the South, in order to invite the attention of the British Government to the coming event; that on his death-bed (Washington, March 31, 1850), he called around him his political friends ­one of whom is now in England ­warned them that in no event could the Union survive the Presidential election of 1860, though it might possibly break up before that urged them to be prepared; leaving with his dying words the sacred cause of Southern secession a solemn legacy in their hands ­to have told this to the Norths and Dartmouths of the present day, with more and even stronger evidence of the coming events of November, 1860, would have been like speaking to the stones of the street.  In November, 1860, they were thoroughly ignorant of all the momentous antecedents of secession ­of their nature, their character, their bearing, import, and consequences.”

In the same correspondence the distinguished Rebel emissary substantially let out the fact that Calhoun was indirectly, through himself (Mason), in secret communication with the British Government as far back as 1841, with a view to securing its powerful aid in his aforesaid unalterable resolve to Secede from the Union; and then Mr. Mason pleads ­but pleads in vain ­for the armed intervention of England at this later day.  Said he: 

“In the year 1841 the late Sir William Napier sent in two plans for subduing the Union, to the War Office, in the first of which the South was to be treated as an enemy, in the second as a friend and ally.  I was much consulted by him as to the second plan and was referred to by name in it, as he showed by the acknowledgment of this in Lord Fitzroy Somerset’s letter of reply.  This plan fully provided for the contingency of an invasion of Canada, and its application would, in eighteen or twenty months, have reduced the North to a much more impotent condition than it exhibits at present.  At this very moment the most difficult portion of that plan has been perfectly accomplished by the South itself; and the North, in accordance with Sir William Napier’s expectations, now lies helpless before England, and at our absolute mercy.  Nor is there any doubt of this, and if Lord Palmerston is not aware of it Mr. Seward certainly is.  We have nothing remaining to do but to stretch out our arm in the way Sir William Napier proposed, and the Northern power ­power as we ignorantly call it ­must come to an end.  Sir William knew and well estimated the elements of which that quasi power consisted; and he knew how to apply the substantive power of England to dissolve it.  In the best interest of humanity, I venture to say that it is the duty of England to apply this power without further delay ­its duty to itself, to its starving operatives, to France, to Europe, and to humanity.  And in the discharge of this great duty to the world at large there will not even be the dignity of sacrifice or danger.”]

Threats and counter-threats of Disunion were made on either hand by the opponents and advocates of Slavery-extension through annexation; nor was it less agitated on the subject of a Protective Tariff.

The Compromise Tariff of 1833, together with President Jackson’s upheaval of our financial system, produced, as has already been hinted, terrible commercial disasters.  “In 1840,” says competent authority, “all prices had ruinously fallen; production had greatly diminished, and in many departments of industry had practically ceased; thousands of working men were idle, with no hope of employment, and their families suffering from want.  Our farmers were without markets, their products rotted in their barns, and their lands, teeming with rich harvests, were sold by the sheriff for debts and taxes.  The Tariff, which robbed our industries of Protection failed to supply Government with its necessary revenues.  The National Treasury in consequence was bankrupt, and the credit of the Nation had sunk very low.”

Mr. Clay himself stated “the average depression in the value of property under that state of things which existed before the Tariff of 1842 came to the rescue of the country, at fifty per cent.”  And hence it was that Protection was made the chief issue of the Presidential campaign of 1840, which eventuated in the election of Harrison and Tyler, and in the Tariff Act of August 30, 1842, which revived our trade and industries, and brought back to the land a full measure of prosperity.  With those disasters fresh in the minds of the people, Protection continued to be a leading issue in the succeeding Presidential campaign of 1844 ­but coupled with the Texas-annexation issue.  In that campaign Henry Clay was the candidate of the Whig party and James K. Polk of the Democratic party.  Polk was an ardent believer in the annexation policy and stood upon a platform declaring for the “re-occupation of Oregon and the re-annexation of Texas at the earliest practicable moment” ­as if the prefix “re” legitimatized the claim in either case; Clay, on the other hand, held that we had “fairly alienated our title to Texas by solemn National compacts, to the fulfilment of which we stand bound by good faith and National honor;” that “Annexation and War with Mexico are identical,” and that he was “not willing to involve this country in a foreign War for the object of acquiring Texas.”

As to the Tariff issue also, Clay was the acknowledged champion of the American system of Protection, while Polk was opposed to it, and was supported by the entire Free-trade sentiment, whether North or South.

As the campaign progressed, it became evident that Clay would be elected.  Then occurred some of those fatalities which have more than once, in the history of Presidential campaigns, overturned the most reasonable expectations and defeated the popular will.  Mr. Clay committed a blunder and Mr. Polk an equivocation ­to use the mildest possible term.  Mr. Clay was induced by Southern friends to write a letter ­[Published in the North Alabamian, Aug. 16, 1844.] ­in which, after stating that “far from having any personal objection to the annexation of Texas, I should be glad to see it ­without dishonor, without War, with the common consent of the Union, and upon just and fair terms,” he added:  “I do not think that the subject of Slavery ought to affect the question, one way or the other.”  Mr. Polk, on the other hand, wrote a letter in which he declared it to be “the duty of the Government to extend, as far as it may be practicable to do so, by its revenue laws and all other means within its power, fair and just Protection to all the great interests of the whole Union, embracing Agriculture, Manufactures, the Mechanic Arts, Commerce and Navigation.”  This was supplemented by a letter (August 8, 1844) from Judge Wilson McCandless of Pennsylvania, strongly upholding the Protective principle, claiming that Clay in his Compromise Tariff Bill had abandoned it, and that Polk and Dallas had “at heart the true interests of Pennsylvania.”  Clay, thus betrayed by the treachery of Southern friends, was greatly weakened, while Polk, by his beguiling letter, backed by the false interpretation put upon it by powerful friends in the North, made the North believe him a better Protectionist than Clay.

Polk was elected, and rewarded the misplaced confidence by making Robert J. Walker his Secretary of the Treasury, and, largely through that great Free Trader’s exertions, secured a repeal by Congress of the Protective Tariff of 1842 and the enactment of the ruinous Free Trade Tariff of 1846.  Had Clay carried New York, his election was secure.  As it happened, Polk had a plurality in New York of but 5,106 in an immense vote, and that slim plurality was given to him by the Abolitionists throwing away some 15,000 on Birney.  And thus also it curiously happened that it was the Abolition vote which secured the election of the candidate who favored immediate annexation and the extension of the Slave Power!

Emboldened and apparently sustained by the result of the election, the Slave Power could not await the inauguration of Mr. Polk, but proceeded at once, under whip and spur, to drive the Texas annexation scheme through Congress; and two days before the 4th of March, 1845, an Act consenting to the admission of the Republic of Texas as a State of the Union was approved by President Tyler.

In that Act it was provided that “New States of convenient size, not exceeding four in number, in addition to the said State of Texas, and having sufficient population, may hereafter, by the consent of said State, be formed out of the territory thereof, which shall be entitled to admission under the provisions of the Federal Constitution; and such States as may be formed out of that portion of said territory lying south of thirty-six degrees thirty minutes north latitude, commonly known as the Missouri Compromise line, shall be admitted into the Union with or without Slavery, as the people of each State asking admission may desire.  And in such State or States as shall be formed out of said territory north of said Missouri Compromise line, Slavery or involuntary servitude (except for crime) shall be prohibited.”  As has been lucidly stated by another, ­[Greeley’s History] ­“while seeming to curtail and circumscribe Slavery north of the above parallel (that of 36 30’ north latitude), this measure really extended it northward to that parallel, which it had not yet approached, under the flag of Texas, within hundreds of miles.  But the chief end of this sham Compromise was the involving of Congress in an indirect indorsement of the claim of Texas to the entire left bank of the Rio Grande, from its mouth to its source; and this was effected.”

Texas quickly consented to the Act of annexation, and in December, 1845, a Joint Resolution formally admitting her as a State of the Union, reported by Stephen A. Douglas, was duly passed.

In May, 1846, the American forces under General Taylor, which had been dispatched to protect Texas from threatened assault, were attacked by the Mexican army, which at Palo Alto was badly defeated and at Resaca de la Palma driven back across the Rio Grande.

Congress immediately declared that by this invasion a state of War existed between Mexico and the United States.  Thus commenced the War with Mexico ­destined to end in the triumph of the American Army, and the acquisition of large areas of territory to the United States.  In anticipation of such triumph, President Polk lost little time in asking an appropriation of over two million dollars by Congress to facilitate negotiations for peace with, and territorial cession from, Mexico.  And a Bill making such appropriation was quickly passed by the House of Representatives ­but with the following significant proviso attached, which had been offered by Mr. Wilmot:  “Provided.  That as an express and fundamental condition to the acquisition of any territory from the Republic of Mexico by the United States, by virtue of any treaty that may be negotiated between them, and to the use by the Executive of the moneys herein appropriated, neither Slavery nor involuntary servitude shall ever exist in any part of said territory, except for crime, whereof the party shall first be duly convicted.”

The debate in the Senate upon the Wilmot proviso, which immediately ensued, was cut short by the expiration of the Session of Congress ­and the Bill accordingly failed of passage.

In February, 1848, the treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo was made between Mexico and the United States, and Peace reigned once more.  About the same time a Bill was passed by the Senate providing Territorial Governments for Oregon, California and New Mexico, which provided for the reference of all questions touching Slavery in such Territories to the United States Supreme Court, for arbitration.  The Bill, however, failed in the House.  The ensuing Presidential campaign resulted in the election of General Taylor, the Whig candidate, who was succeeded upon his death, July 10, 1850, by Fillmore.  Meanwhile, on the Oregon Territory Bill, in 1848, a strong effort had been made by Mr. Douglas and others to incorporate a provision extending to the Pacific Ocean the Missouri Compromise line of 36 30’ of north latitude and extending to all future organizations of Territories of the United States the principles of said Compromise.  This provision was adopted by the Senate, but the House struck it from the Bill; the Senate receded, and Oregon was admitted as a Free Territory.  But the conflict in Congress between those who would extend and those who would restrict Slavery still continued, and indeed gathered vehemence with time.  In 1850, California was clamoring for admission as a Free State to the Union, and New Mexico and Utah sought to be organized under Territorial Governments.

In the heated discussions upon questions growing out of bills for these purposes, and to rectify the boundaries of Texas, it was no easy matter to reach an agreement of any sort.  Finally, however, the Compromise of 1850, offered by Mr. Clay, was practically agreed to and carried out, and under it:  California was admitted as a Free State; New Mexico and Utah were admitted to Territorial organization without a word pro or con on the subject of Slavery; the State of Texas was awarded a pecuniary compensation for the rectification of her boundaries; the Slave Trade in the District of Columbia was abolished; and a more effectual Fugitive Slave Act passed.

By both North and South, this Compromise of 1850, and the measures growing out of it, were very generally acquiesced in, and for a while it seemed as though a permanent settlement of the Slavery question had been reached.  But in the Fugitive Slave law, thus hastily enacted, lay embedded the seed for further differences and excitements, speedily to germinate.  In its operation it proved not only unnecessarily cruel and harsh, in the manner of the return to bondage of escaped slaves, but also afforded a shield and support to the kidnapping of Free Negroes from Northern States.  The frequency of arrests in the Northern States, and the accompanying circumstances of cruelty and brutality in the execution of the law, soon made it especially odious throughout the North, and created an active feeling of commiseration for the unhappy victims of the Slave Power, which greatly intensified and increased the growing Anti-Slavery sentiment in the Free States.

In 1852-53, an attempt was made in Congress to organize into the Territory of Nebraska, the region of country lying west of Iowa and Missouri.  Owing to the opposition of the South the Bill was defeated.  In 1853-4 a similar Bill was reported to the Senate by Mr. Douglas, but afterward at his own instance recommitted to the Committee on Territories, and reported back by him again in such shape as to create, instead of one, two Territories, that portion directly west of Missouri to be called Kansas, and the balance to be known as Nebraska ­one of the sections of the Bill enacting: 

“That in order to avoid all misconstruction it is hereby declared to be the true intent and meaning of this Act, so far as the question of Slavery is concerned, to carry into practical operation the following propositions and principles, established by the Compromise measures of 1850, to wit: 

“First, That all questions pertaining to Slavery in the Territories, and the new States to be formed therefrom, are to be left to the decision of the people residing therein through their appropriate representatives.

“Second, That ‘all cases involving title to slaves,’ and ’questions of personal freedom,’ are referred to the adjudication of the local tribunals with the right of appeal to the Supreme Court of the United States.

“Third, That the provisions of the Constitution and laws of the United States, in respect to fugitives from service, are to be carried into faithful execution in all the `organized Territories,’ the same as in the States.”

The sections authorizing Kansas and Nebraska to elect and send delegates to Congress also prescribed: 

“That the Constitution, and all laws of the United States which are not locally inapplicable, shall have the same force and effect within the said Territory, as elsewhere in the United States, except the section of the Act preparatory to the admission of Missouri into the Union, approved March 6th, 1820, which was superseded by the principles of the Legislation of 1850, commonly called the Compromise Measures, and is declared inoperative.”

And when “explaining this Kansas-Nebraska Bill” Mr. Douglas announced that, in reporting it, “The object of the Committee was neither to legislate Slavery in or out of the Territories; neither to introduce nor exclude it; but to remove whatever obstacle Congress had put there, and apply the doctrine of Congressional Non-intervention in accordance with the principles of the Compromise Measures of 1850, and allow the people to do as they pleased upon this as well as all other matters affecting their interests.”

A vigorous and able debate ensued.  A motion by Mr. Chase to strike out the words “which was superseded by the principles of the legislation of 1850, commonly called the Compromise Measures,” was defeated decisively.  Subsequently Mr. Douglas moved to strike out the same words and insert in place of them, these:  “which being inconsistent with the principles of Non-intervention by Congress with Slavery in the States and Territories, as recognized by the legislation of 1850 (commonly called the Compromise Measures), is hereby declared inoperative and void; it being the true intent and meaning of this Act not to legislate Slavery into any Territory or State, nor to exclude it therefrom, but to leave the people thereof perfectly free to form and regulate their domestic institutions in their own way, subject only to the Constitution of the United States” ­and the motion was agreed to by a vote of 35 yeas to 10 nays.  Mr. Chase immediately moved to add to the amendment just adopted these words:  “Under which, the people of the Territory, through their appropriate representatives, may, if they see fit, prohibit the existence of Slavery therein;” but this motion was voted down by 36 nays to 10 yeas.  This developed the rat in the meal-tub.  The people were to be “perfectly free” to act either way on the subject of Slavery, so long as they did not prohibit Slavery!  In this shape the Bill passed the Senate.

Public sentiment in the North was greatly stirred by this direct attempt to repeal the Missouri Compromise.  But by the superior parliamentary tactics of Southern Representatives in the House, whereby the radical friends of Freedom were shut out from the opportunity of amendment, a House Bill essentially the same as the Senate Bill was subsequently passed by the House, under the previous question, and afterward rapidly passed the Senate, and was approved by the President.  At once commenced that long and terrible struggle between the friends of Free-Soil and the friends of Slavery, for the possession of Kansas, which convulsed the whole Country for years, and moistened the soil of that Territory with streams of blood, shed in numerous “border-ruffian” conflicts.

The Territorial Government of Kansas was organized late in 1854, and an “election” for Delegate held, at which the Pro-Slavery candidate (Whitfield) was fraudulently elected.  On March 30, 1855, a Territorial Legislature was similarly chosen by Pro-Slavery voters “colonized” from Missouri.  That Legislature, upon its meeting, proceeded at once to enact most outrageous Pro-Slavery laws, which being vetoed by the Free-Soil Governor (Reeder), were passed over the veto, and the Free-Soil Governor had to give place to one who favored Slavery in Kansas.  But the Free-Soil settlers of Kansas, in Mass Convention at Big Springs, utterly repudiated the bogus Legislature and all its acts, to which they refused submission.

In consequence of these radical differences, two separate elections for Delegate in Congress were held by the opposing factions, at one of which was elected the Pro-Slavery Whitfield, and at the other the Free-Soiler Reeder.  Furthermore, under a call issued by the Big Springs Convention, a Free-State Constitutional Convention was held in October, 1855, at Topeka, which framed a Free-State Constitution, and asked admission under it to the Union.

In 1856, the House of Representatives ­which, after a protracted struggle, had elected N. P. Banks Speaker ­passed a Bill, by a bare majority, admitting Kansas under her Topeka Constitution; but the Senate defeated it.  July 4, 1856, by order of President Pierce, the Free-State Legislature, chosen under the Topeka Constitution to meet at Topeka, was dispersed by United States Troops.  Yet, despite all oppositions, discouragements, and outrages, the Free-State population of Kansas continued to increase from immigration.

In 1857, the Pro-Slavery Legislature elected by the Pro-Slavery voters at their own special election ­the Free-State voters declining to participate ­called a Constitutional Convention at Lecompton, which formed a Pro-Slavery Constitution.  This was submitted to the people in such dexterous manner that they could only vote “For the Constitution with Slavery” or “For the Constitution without Slavery” ­and, as the Constitution prescribed that “the rights of property in Slaves now in the Territory, shall in no manner be interfered with,” to vote “for the Constitution Without Slavery” was an absurdity only paralleled by the course of the United States Senate in refusing to permit the people of Kansas “to prohibit Slavery” while at the same time declaring them “perfectly free to act” as they chose in the matter.

The Constitution, with Slavery, was thus adopted by a vote of over 6,000.  But in the meanwhile, at another general election held for the purpose, and despite all the frauds perpetrated by the Pro-Slavery men, a Free-State Legislature, and Free-State Delegate to Congress had been elected; and this Legislature submitted the Lecompton Pro-Slavery Constitution to the people, January 4, 1858, so that they could vote:  “For the Lecompton Constitution with Slavery,” “For the Lecompton Constitution without Slavery,” or “Against the Lecompton Constitution.”  The consequence was that the Lecompton Constitution was defeated by a majority of over 10,000 votes ­the Missouri Pro-Slavery colonists declining to recognize the validity of any further election on the subject.

Meanwhile, in part upon the issues growing out of this Kansas conflict, the political parties of the Nation had passed through another Presidential campaign (1856), in which the Democratic candidate Buchanan had been elected over Fremont the “Republican,” and Fillmore the “American,” candidates.  Both Houses of Congress being now Democratic, Mr. Buchanan recommended them to accept and ratify the Lecompton Pro-Slavery Constitution.

In March, 1858, the Senate passed a Bill ­against the efforts of Stephen A. Douglas ­accepting it.  In the House, however, a substitute offered by Mr. Montgomery (Douglas Democrat) known as the Crittenden-Montgomery Compromise, was adopted.  The Senate refused to concur, and the report of a Committee of Conference ­providing for submitting to the Kansas people a proposition placing limitations upon certain public land advantages stipulated for in the Lecompton Constitution, and in case they rejected the proposition that another Constitutional Convention should be held ­was adopted by both Houses; and the proposition being rejected by the people of Kansas, the Pro-Slavery Lecompton Constitution fell with it.

In 1859 a Convention, called by the Territorial Legislature for the purpose, met at Wyandot, and framed a Free State Constitution which was adopted by the people in October of that year, and at the ensuing State election in December the State went Republican.  In April, 1860, the House of Representatives passed a Bill admitting Kansas as a State under that Constitution, but the Democratic Senate adjourned without action on the Bill; and it was not until early in 1861 that Kansas was at last admitted.

In the meantime, the Free Trade Tariff of 1846 had produced the train of business and financial disasters that its opponents predicted.  Instead of prosperity everywhere in the land, there was misery and ruin.  Even the discovery and working of the rich placer mines of California and the consequent flow, in enormous volume, of her golden treasure into the Eastern States, could not stay-the wide-spread flood of disaster.  President Fillmore, who had succeeded General Taylor on the latter’s death, frequently called the attention of Congress to the evils produced by this Free Trade, and to the necessity of protecting our manufactures “from ruinous competition from abroad.”  So also with his successor, President Buchanan, who, in his Message of 1857, declared that “In the midst of unsurpassed plenty in all the productions and in all the elements of national wealth, we find our manufactures suspended, our public works retarded, our private enterprises of different kinds abandoned, and thousands of useful laborers thrown out of employment and reduced to want.”  Further than this, the financial credit of the Nation was at zero.  It was financially bankrupt before the close of Buchanan’s Presidential term.