Kansas, but he was for Douglas and I for Lincoln, while the
south was brooding over secession, if either Lincoln or Douglas
should be elected.

I went into most of the congressional districts of Ohio and perceived
a strong leaning in favor of Lincoln, but Douglas also had many
supporters. The Democratic party of Ohio was satisfied with Douglas'
popular sovereignty, especially as it, as they alleged, had secured
freedom for Kansas. Breckenridge had no great following in Ohio,
and Bell and Everett less.

I spent several days in the canvass in Pennsylvania, Indiana, New
Jersey and Delaware, all warmly contested states, the votes of
which would determine the election. It soon became apparent that
Lincoln was the only candidate who could secure a majority of the
electoral vote. This fact, and the known difficulty of securing
an election by the House in case of failure of an election by the
Electoral College, greatly aided Mr. Lincoln. I presented this
argument with care and fullness in a speech delivered at Philadelphia
on the 12th of September, 1860. It was printed at the time and
largely circulated. I quote a paragraph, which contains the one
fact upon which my argument rested:

"Owing to the division of the Democratic party, the Republican
party is the only one that can hope to succeed by a direct vote of
the people. This is a fact I need not discuss, for it was written
at the threshold of the contest by the conventions of Charleston
and Baltimore. If the election were to be determined by the rule
of plurality--a rule now adopted in every state in the Union--
intelligent men would consider it already decided; but the rule of
the majority is fixed by the constitution, and if Pennsylvania does
not vote for Lincoln, then the election devolves upon the House of
Representatives. In that event the constitution requires the House
to choose immediately, by ballot, a President from the persons,
not exceeding three, having the highest number of electoral votes.
The vote must be taken by states, and not by Representatives. The
three millions of people of Pennsylvania will have only the same
political power as the one hundred thousand people of Delaware."

I recently read this speech, and, in view of the events that followed
I can say that every prophecy made, and every argument stated, has
been verified and sustained by the march of events. My opening
criticism of Mr. Buchanan's administration may seem to be partis