s, grieved by the conduct of Southern men whom
he had implicitly trusted, overwhelmed by the realization of the
evils which had obviously followed his official declarations, hoping
earnestly for the safety of the Union, and yet more disturbed and
harrowed in his mind than the mass of loyal people who did not
stand so near the danger as he, or so accurately measure its alarming
growth. The President of December with Cobb and Floyd and Thompson
in his Cabinet, and the President of January with Dix and Stanton
and Holt for his councilors, were radically different men. No true
estimate of Mr. Buchanan in the crisis of his public career can
ever be reached if this vital distinction be overlooked.

It was Mr. Buchanan's misfortune to be called to act in an emergency
which demanded will, fortitude, and moral courage. In these
qualities he was deficient. He did not possess the executive
faculty. His life had been principally devoted to the practice of
law in the most peaceful of communities, and to service in legislative
bodies where he was borne along by the force of association. He
had not been trained to prompt decision, had not been accustomed
to exercise command. He was cautious and conservative to the point
of timidity. He possessed ability of a high order, and, though he
thought slowly, he could master the most difficult subject with
comprehensive power. His service of ten years in the House and an
equal period in the Senate was marked by a conscientious devotion
to duty. He did not rank with the ablest members of either body,
but always bore a prominent part in important discussions and
maintained himself with credit.

PERSONAL CHARACTER OF MR. BUCHANAN.

It was said of Mr. Buchanan that he instinctively dreaded to assume
responsibility of any kind. His keenest critic remarked that in
the tentative period of political issues assumed by his party, Mr.
Buchanan could always be found two paces to the rear, but in the
hour of triumph he marched proudly in the front rank. He was not
gifted with independence or self-assertion. His bearing towards
Southern statesmen was derogatory to him as a man of spirit. His
tone towards administrations of his own party was so deferential
as almost to imply a lack of self-respect. He was not a leader
among men. He was always led. He was led by Mason and Soule into
the imprudence of signing the Ostend Manifesto; he was led by the
S