edged it to be "the duty of the Whigs, in and out of congress, to give to his official acts and measures fair and full consideration, approving them and cooperating in their support when they could, and differing from and opposing any of them only from a high sense of public duty."

While this reading the President out of the party by which he had been elected, received the approval of nearly all the Whig members of congress, beside many others, there yet remained a strong element which dissapproved of such precipitate action. Many held that time should have been given him for reflection. In his inaugural address, the President had expressed the intention of carrying forward the measures proposed by the party which had elected him. It was believed had he not first become embittered by the contents of the published letter of Mr. Botts, and then pushed to an immediate decision of the fiscal bill while yet remained the sting of unfriendly criticism, and the belief that the party was directly attempting to place him in an embarrassing position, that an explanation might have removed the immediate cause of difference; that were it found impossible to reconcile him to the conditions of the bill, it were better to withhold it until another session of congress, than imperil the efficiency and success of the administration. Subsequent events proved the latter class to be not far from the right in the view they held. Following the res ignation of his cabinet and the publication of the address of the Whig leaders, the President set about the formation of a new cabinet. Instead of selecting as his advisers leading men in the opposition, as it was feared he would do, he promptly appointed the following influential Whigs and Conservatives: Walter Forward of Pennsylvania, secretary of the treas ury; John McLean of Ohio, secretary of war; Abel P. Upshur of Virginia, secretary of the navy; Charles A. Wickliffe of Kentucky, postmaster-general; Hugh S. Legare of South Carolina, attorney-general. Previous to adjournment the senate confirmed all these nominations. In consequence of the disorganization caused by the differences existing between the President and the Whigs, the elections of the summer and autumn of 1841 were determined in favor of the Democratic party. This encouraged Mr. Tyler in the belief that his course in the veto of the bank bill was approved by the people.

The second session of the Twenty-seventh congress was an important one, in that more useful business was transacted than during any previous session since the formation of the government. Still further causes of difference developed between the executive and legislative branches. After returning two tariff bills with vetoes, the President signed a third, which provided for the revenue, and at the same time afforded ample protection. to American manufactures and other branches of industry. In his first message Mr. Tyler had recommended the distribution of the proceeds of the public lands. The two bills returned with his veto contained this clause

which was finally omitted in the third bill.

Great indignation was ex

pressed against the President, by the Whigs in congress, because of his action in discarding the distribution clause.

Several changes occurred in the cabinet in 1843. Mr. Forward resigned in March, Mr. Webster in May, and Mr. Legare in June. In July the President reorganized his cabinet, as follows: Abel P. Upshur, secretary of state; John C. Spencer, secretary of the treasury; James M. Porter, secretary of war; David Henshaw, secretary of the navy; Charles A. Wickliffe, postmaster general; John Nelson, attorney-general: Of these, two were Democrats-Messrs. Porter and Henshaw. The senate refusing to confirm them, the President substituted the names of William Wilkins for secretary of war, and Thomas W. Gilmer for secretary of the navy, both of whom were confirmed. Mr. Upshur and Mr. Gilmer lost their lives by the explosion of a gun in the steamship-of-war Princeton, on the twenty-eighth of February, 1844. John C. Calhoun was then appointed secretary of state, and John Y. Mason, secretary of the navy. Mr. Spencer resigned as secretary of the treasury in May, 1844, and George M. Bibb was appointed in his stead.

On the twelfth of April, 1844. a treaty of annexation was concluded between the United States and the republic of Texas, by Mr. Calhoun, the secretary of state, on the part of the United States, and Messrs. Van Zandt ard Henderson. The treaty was submitted to the senate by the President, in June, and was rejected. Mr. Benton then arose in the senate and introduced a bill for the annexation of Texas, the consent of Mexico being a condition precedent. The President then sent a message to the house announcing the refusal of the senate to ratify the treaty, and with the hope that some measure would be introduced to effect what to him was the desired end. The message of the President to the house, Mr. Benton declared in the senate to be an insult to that body that merited impeachment. The friends. of Mr. Tyler sought to strengthen him as a candidate for reëlection, by urging the annexation scheme, but their efforts resulted in failure.

In May, 1844, the Whig National convention placed in nomination Henry Clay for President and Theodore Frelinghuysen for vice-president. The Democratic convention met in Baltimore, May 27, 1844, and after several ballots nominated James K. Polk for President and George M. Dallas for vice-president. At the same time a convention of office-holders and friends of Mr. Tyier met in Baltimore, and re-nominated him for President. He accepted the nomination, but his election being hopeless, in August he withdrew, and threw the influence of the administration in favor of Polk and Dallas, who were elected after a close and exciting contest. The administration of John Tyler closed March 4, 1845. It was characterized by weakness, and terminated with no regrets. Whigs and Democrats alike assailed him until toward the close of his term, when the latter party found

in him a willing tool to further its interests.

At its close he retired to his

home-Sherwood Forest, Charles City county, Virginia.

Mr. Tyler was twice married: at the age of twenty-three to Miss Letitia Christian, daughter of Robert Christian of New Kent county, Virginia. She died at Washington, September 10, 1842, leaving a family of three sons and three daughters. On the twenty-sixth of June, 1844, Mr. Tyler was a second time married, to Miss Julia Gardiner of New York, whose father was killed by the explosion of a gun on the United States war steamship Princeton, in February, 1844.

During the stirring events of the seventeen years following his retirement Mr. Tyler remained at his home. The principles of nullification and state rights still found in him an able advocate, and when came the great slaveholders rebellion he was earnest in urging secession. Elected a member of the Confederate congress, while active in promoting measures to destroy the Union he was taken sick and after a short illness died, lamented by few beyond the immediate circle of his friends and relations. He died at Richmond, Virginia, June 17, 1862.

That Mr. Tyler was an earnest believer in the sentiments which, during all his life, he enunciated and that led him at last to take part in the attempted overthrow of the government of which he had been the head, must be conceded, no matter what criticisms can be passed upon his record as a politician, or what opposition can be raised to his views. tinct declaration of his views upon the great questions of nullification and states rights was given in an extended speech delivered in the senate, in February, 1833. The following portions of that address are given as illustrating not only those views but the position taken at that time by that portion of the south which he represented: "I came into political life," said he, "the advocate of certain great principles, which I cannot and will not abandon; and if those principles were to be yielded, I should take my departure from the senate with only one regret, which would be that my state had surrendered the position she had always maintained, and relinquished those doctrines on the maintenance of which I believe the safety, the liberty and enduring happiness of the country mainly depend. If I could hesitate as to my course, now that the storm is raging, the battlements rocking and our institutions trembling to their foundations, I should be derelict to my highest duty, and recreant to the great trust confided to me. . The pernicious doctrine that this is a National and not a Federal government has received countenance from the late proclamation and message of the President. The people are regarded as one mass, and the states as constituting one nation. I desire to know when this chemical process occurred? When were the states welded together into one mass? Was it before or since the Revolution? At what time was Virginia fused into an integral mass with the other states? Was

it when she set herself up in opposition to Cromwell and refused to recognize the Commonwealth; asserted her independence of the Protector's government; declared that the ligament which bound her to England was a ligament which bound her to the crown of England, and that, when the head which wore that crown was severed from the body, the tie of her allegiance was also broken? Or was it at the accession of Charles the Second, when she renewed her allegiance by and through a resolution of her house of burgesses? Or did it occur at a later period? Was it in 1775 when she adopted her state constitution, and exercised complete and sovereign power? Or did it occur when the colonies then became free, sovereign and independent states; united their common energies and resources to make good their Declaration of Independence? The conclusion to which this false assumption leads is that all sovereignty is vested in this government. And yet it is but a creation of the states; an emanation of their will. . . . Who created you a government? You hold your existence at the pleasure of these states, and yet are sovereign over them. They may strike you out of existence by a word, demolish the Constitution and scatter its fragments to the winds; and yet this government, the breath of their nostrils, dares proclaim itself the only sovereign, and declares the sovereignty of the states a mere nonentity. For my part, I utterly renounce this doctrine. It is not only untrue and illogical, but anti-American. The great American idea was, and is, that sovereignty resides alone with the people, and that public servants were but their agents." Mr. Tyler, at a later point in his speech, declared that "secession was not now regularly under consideration," and that "it would be highly improper now to agitate it." He then continued:

"I will throw out no remark, limited as would be the influence which my opinions would have over the conduct of others, which could by possibility be construed, however remotely, into an inducement to any state in this Union to withdraw from it. I will rather take instruction, in this respect, from the course which the legislature of Virginia has but recently adopted, who left out of her decision this question, when she had the subject of Federal relation under consideration. It was a great, a vital question, and should not be decided hastily or precipitately I protest however, against the right of the President to decide it for congress. It is a question which exclusively refers itself to the co-states, or their representatives here. The President announced his decision, somewhat authoritatively, to the public, and this constitutes with me no inconsiderable reason against voting him military power to carry into execution this foregone conclusion. To arm him with military power is to give him authority to crush South Carolina should she adopt secession. When the question comes up (I trust it never will), should the decision be formally pronounced against the right of secession, it would come to be a subject

worthy of all reflection, whether the military arm should be exerted, or other measures of a milder nature, but equally efficacious, be resorted to. It would probably be found that the course of commercial restrictions on the commerce of a seceding state would be more effectual to bring her back into the Union than the employment of an hundred thousand armed men. These are weighty subjects, and their decision should never be anticipated. I cannot believe, sir, that any state will ever consent to forego the blessings of union, without the greatest pressure and extremity of suffering.

"But my advice is disregarded. You rush on to the contest; you subdue South Carolina; you drive her citizens into the morasses, where Marion and Sumter found refuge; you level her towns and cities in the dust; you clothe her daughters in mourning and make helpless orphans. of her rising sons; where, then, is your glory? Glory comes not from the blood of slaughtered brethren. Are we to satisfy the discontents of the people by force; by shooting some and bayoneting others? Force may convert freemen into slaves, but, after you have made them slaves, will they look with complacency on their chains? When you have subdued South Carolina, lowered her proud flag and trampled her freedom in the dust, will she love you for the kindness you have shown her? . . . You who are in the majority have the des tinies of the country in your hands. If war shall grow out of this measure, you are alone responsible. I will wash my hands of the business. Rather than give my aid I would surrender my station here, for I aspire not to imitate the rash boy who set fire to the Ephesian dome. I will not yet despair; Rome had her Curtius, Sparta her Leonidas, and Athens her band of devoted patriots, and shall it be said that the American senate contains not one man who will step forward to rescue his country in this, her moment of peril? Although that man may never wear an earthly crown or sway an earthly sceptre, eternal fame shall wreathe an evergreen, around his brow, and his name shall rank with those of the proudest patriots of the proudest climes."