Franklin Repository

The greatest war of modern history has ended in triumph. The country has demonstrated the vastness of its power. We knew it was great: now all the world knows it. Our neighbors across the water, who said our very greatness was our weakness--that we should never hold together--that we must fall to pieces, and very small pieces at that--none take off their hats and beg to assure us of their "most distinguished consideration." Verily! a young nation that can raise two millions of fighting men and two thousand millions of money, just for the asking, is worthy of being "considered." They told us we could not carry on the war six months without begging for loans in European markets. We did carry on such a war as they never dreamed of; for four years, and never asked for a dollar; and they now wish to buy our bonds at an advance of fifty per cent over last year's prices. Government stocks are quoted as brisk and in demand, and well they may be, for the time will soon come when no more will be offered. The national expenses will soon be down to a peace footing; and, instead of a Treasury budget of nine hundred millions, Secretary McCulloch will ask us for about a third of that sum. And how much easier it will be to raise this in peace than in war! The millions of soldiers who have so long made it a business to destroy life and property will return to pursuits of industry, and the now ravaged fields will whiten with new harvests. Instead of reading every morning that so many miles of railroad have been destroyed, it will be that "so many new avenues of material wealth have been opened." The South itself will be compelled to bear its share of the burden it imposed on the country, and its cotton--so much greater than gold, and still so much less than king--will have no attribute of royalty but what it pays into the revenue. A tax on Southern cotton will be quite as easily collected as on Northern petroleum or manufactures, and besides the article must be had--the world wants it.

It would take but a fraction of our property to pay our national debt now; but if we do not pay a dollar of the principle in ten years, that fraction will be reduced one half--by the development of the national resources. We shall doubtless wind up the war and square all accounts with a national debt of less than three thousand millions on about 18 per cent. of the present national wealth; but, according to its rate of increase (127 per cent.) from 1850 to 1860--in 1875 this debt will be less than nine per cent. But our ability to pay the national debt needs no demonstration; but as some of us have looked upon the dark side, we may as well have a glance at the sunshine.

The national loans will soon be out of the market,--but for a short time the Government will need money to pay off the army and settle up the expenses of the war. Only about two hundred millions more of the second series of the 7-30 Loan remain to be taken, and when it is finally withdrawn, there is no doubt that it will rise to a handsome premium, and at the rate it is now going, some time within the next sixty days will see the last of this series. Mr. Jay Cooke, the subscription agent, announced in February "that the first two hundred millions of 7-30s will probably be taken in at par in the U. S. Loan, bearing seven and three-tenths annual interest, and in three years convertible into a 5-20 six per cent gold interest bond should make their preparations accordingly. Many of the financial authorities believe that the Government will be able to fund such portions of its debt, and it may not be ready to pay as it falls due at 1 1/2 per cent.

By reference to the Constitution of New York, New Hampshire, Massachusetts, New Jersey, Virginia, Maryland and North Carolina, formed before the date of the Constitution of the United States, and in force at the period of its adoption, and also to the Constitution of Georgia and Pennsylvania, formed soon after its adoption, it will be found that in respect to "the qualifications of electors for the most numerous branch of the State Legislatures," there was no distinction on account of color in those nine states. Connecticut and Rhode Island, being under the old Royal charters, could have had none. Even South Carolina, by its Constitution of 1776, allowed negroes to vote; but in '78 it restricted the privilege to "every white man," &c. In Delaware, by act of February 3, 1786, emancipated slaves and their issue were debarred "the privilege of voting at elections or being elected." And even this seems, like most of the laws of slavery, a violation of the letter of the Constitution of that state.

It is well known among informed men, that the practice of admitting free persons of color to vote, obtained universally at first, under the general qualifications prescribed for electors, among all the original "Old Thirteen." In Virginia, negroes voted, side by side with white men, until 1850! In Louisiana, a few blacks exercised the franchise even later.

We are glad to hear from James Buchanan. We have once in a while heard that he was writing a book in vindication of his life; but as yet the prospectus has not appeared before the public. Knowing how sadly his administration needs to be commended to the popular judgement, we have looked with interest for the fruition of the promise; but it comes not. Again we heard of him in a controversy with Gen. Scott, in which he neither did himself uncommon credit. Scott's fidelity was clouded by his inordinate egotism, and Buchanan's special pleading but illy concealed his perfidy to his country in a period of great peril. At another time we heard that he was honored with a notice not to attend the funeral of a once devoted friend--Maj. General Reynolds, who fell a martyr to the Republic Mr. Buchanan endeavored vainly to destroy; but at last we hear from him by a letter to the Tribune.

The New York Evening Post in a recent article on the origin of the rebellion, charged that the National Convention of 1856, of which Mr. Buchanan was the nominee for the Presidency, selected the sage of Wheatland as its candidate with the distinct pledge given by his Northern friends, through Judge Black of this State, that the right of secession should be recognized by his administration in the event of a Republican being chosen as his successor. To this Mr. Buchanan replies that Judge Black was not a member of the convention; was not in attendance, and did not make any such "infamous pledge," nor did any other man. Mr. Buchanan is right for once in his life in stating that Judge Jeremiah S. Black made no such speech; but Col. Samuel W. Black, of Pittsburg, did make a speech that would read most oddly just now. We do not think that he meant to give any such pledge. He imagined that the danger of disunion was in the North, and he sealed his conversion with his life's blood when the treason he was warming into life in Cincinnatti confronted him and his country's flag in the field. The error of the Post in attributing the formal pledge to Judge Black, gives Mr. Buchanan an opportunity to rush into the public journals to get a feeble word in defence of his administration; but in his haste to seize a straw in the current of public opinion that is sweeping him to infamy, he evades the material point, the essence of the charge made against him.

We wish that Mr. Buchanan had been as candid as he is ardent in defining his relations with the leading traitors while he administered the government. We should be glad to know whether, in his correspondence with Mason, Slidell and others who were then conspiring to overthrow the government whenever they should fail to have an Executive as Mr. Buchanan, he did not before his election assure them that the election of a Republican President, or a sectional President as he would term it, would entirely justify secession. He knew the sentiments of the Cincinnati Convention, and we entreat Mr. Buchanan to say whether his friends in that convention did not there, and hereafter in the contest declare that the election of Mr. Fremont would not only result in secession, but would warrant secession and make it justifiable in history? Did not Mr. Buchanan himself so say to the South in his confidential correspondence? We affirm that he did; that he taught them then the remedy of secession, and was compelled by the cruel task-masters who gave him the Presidency, to violate his own faith to Col. Forney and stain himself with the blackest ingratitude, solely because the traitors who were supporting him demanded it? They feared Col. Forney as an able and independent journalist, and because he would not serve the interests of treason, and he was stricken down at their behest, when Mr. Buchanan was yet green with the garlands of his victory.

But the record of his administration is blotted with the complete vindication of the charge. That he was the great parent of treason--the man of all others who nourished it into life and colossal power, is a truth that impartial history must affirm. We will not do him the injustice to assume that he was perfidious only because he loved to betray a Nation that had showered its richest honors upon him; and it is charitable to believe that it was so denominated in the bond, and he tremblingly, hesitatingly fulfilled it. True, he at least, when he was powerless for good, seemed to feel that he owed some fidelity to our common nationality, and the closing days of his administration gave it a shade of loyalty. But for his redeeming record--this oasis on the desert of his treachery, he is indebted to others--not to himself. Will he tell the public why Gen. Cass left his cabinet? We affirm that he resigned because Mr. Buchanan declined to strengthen and defend the forts when the old soldier and patriot of Michigan demanded it. Gen. Cass gave Mr. Buchanan the alternative to discharge his duty as the sworn Executive, or allow him to retire, and he chose the latter. Will he tell the public what he desired to do when Maj. Anderson evacuated Fort Moultre and occupied Sumter? Will he state whether he did not insist upon ordering him back, in obedience, to the demands of traitors, until overruled by his cabinet and more loyal counselors from the North? And last but not least will he give to the world his answer to the rebels who were in Washington as commissioners, to demand the fulfilment of his plighted faith by acknowledging the right of secession? It has never yet been published. It will be the best vindication of the truth of history; and we call upon the ex-President, since he has appealed to the public, to let the people who once delighted to honor him, know just to what extent he is charged with complicity in the treachery of 1860-1 by giving them the text of his answer to the rebel commissioners. We affirm that it conceded the right of secession and denied the power of the Nation to defend its own life. That it does not now stain the record of his administration is due to others more faithful than himself. He would have surrendered everything to treason--the country and its holy cause would have perished by his hand but for the bolder and better hearts which made him totter from his crowning perfidy to the semblance of patriotism. Only when he saw that he would be deserted by every loyal friend and left to the pitiless scorn of a betrayed people, did he take heed to the warning voice of the faithful members of his cabinet. The answer that was finally made to the rebel commissioners owes nothing to Mr. Buchanan but his forced, reluctant sanction, and yet it is to that document he points in his controversy with General Scott as a triumphant vindication of his fidelity. Who wrote it? We beg Mr. Buchanan to inform us, and at the same time to give the world his original answer as prepared by himself. He cannot save his reputation--that is gone beyond redemption. A loyal people who have sacrificed their blood and treasure unsparingly to rescue the Nation from the treason that he made powerful, will never learn to respect him while living or to revere his memory when he shall have passed away. But let him be truthful to history, and not attempt to shield his own memory by robbing others of their just honors. Will Mr. Buchanan explain?