from the United States Bank. Although he acted with the Whigs at this time, he declined to be considered as a member of that party, and when Mr. Van Buren, in 1837, proposed the establishment of the treasury, he abandoned the Whig side and went to his support. This was made the occasion by Mr. Clay of a severe attack on Calhoun, to which he rejoined, and the ensuing debate is yet remembered as the occasion of a splendid display of the powerful genius and unrivalled talents of these foremost orators of their day, into which Mr. Webster was also drawn.

In this debate Mr. Calhoun disclaimed entertaining or being connected with any party that entertained disunion sentiments. On the contrary, he claimed to be animated with an ardent desire to preserve the Union, and gave his adhesion to the Democratic party unreservedly, attending its caucuses and influencing his State to vote for Mr. Van Buren in 1840.

In 1843 his name was prominently mentioned as a candidate for the Presidential nomination of the Democratic party, to which he now claimed to belong. But finding he could not be nominated, he withdrew his name, for the ostensible reason that the principles upon which the convention was to be organized were wrong.

The death of General Harrison having placed the Vice-President, Mr. Tyler, in the chair, he called Mr. Calhoun into his Cabinet as Secretary

of State, which enabled them to take the initiative steps toward the annexation of Texas, a measure which Mr. Calhoun had strongly advocated.

It has since been claimed that the measure was got up to defeat the nomination of Mr. Van Buren, which it certainly accomplished, Mr. Polk being taken up and elected on an annexation platform. On the expiration of Mr. Tyler's term, he was offered the place of Minister to England, which he declined, and was again sent to the Senate from South Carolina.

In the debates upon the conduct of the war with Mexico, he was active and strongly opposed the "Wilmot Proviso," which stipulated that in no territory to be acquired from Mexico should slavery be allowed. Several of the Northern States having repealed the law which enabled slave owners to reclaim their slaves, he advocated "retaliation" instead of "disunion"the violation of the Constitution by a part of the North to be met by preventing their ships and commerce from entering the ports of the South.

His last speeches, in 1818-9, were mainly occupied with the endeavor to arouse his Southcrn friends to the necessity of concert of action to resist the encroachments of the North, which he said had gone on until the Union. was in danger. In his last speech, which he was too ill to deliver, and was read by a

friend, he proposed an amendment to the Constitution which embraced the idea of two Presidents, which he seemed to suppose would obviate all danger to the permanency of the Union. He died after an attempt to make some explanation of his position, in which effort he was exhausted, and was carried to his lodgings in March, 1849.

The private life of Mr. Calhoun was irreproachable, and his probity and honesty of purpose unassailable. In his domestic relations of husband, father and friend and master, he was all that could be desired; and the worst that can be said of him is, that believing that the institution of slavery, in the midst of which he was born and reared, was recognized as right by the laws of God and his country, he supported and defended it with all his ability. We may not agree with him in his opinions, but we should exercise much charity towards honest convictions honorably avowed. For, who of us, for instance, if the accident of birth had first opened our eyes in Turkey would have escaped being a Mohammedan?

It may be said, that while this is so there is yet no excuse for his disunion sentiments in his nullification schemes. To which there is but

one

answer-that he was wrong. But other men at the North as well as the South, notably J. Q. Adams and Wendell Phillips, have been found capable of identical sentiments.

He had one failing, in common with Webster and Clay, an inordinate desire to be President. Failing in this, le dissolved all connection with parties and devoted himself to what he thought the particular interests of his State and section. His remarks in the United States Senate in 1835 on this subject are well remembered:

"He had voluntarily put himself in the very small minority to which he belonged, and that he had done this to serve the gallant and patriotic State of South Carolina; he had abandoned party voluntarily, freely, and he would tell every Senator he would not turn on his heel for the administration of the affairs of this government."

CHAPTER X.

DANIEL WEBSTER.

Born of Patriotic Stock-Works His Way Through College-Sent to Congress-His Abilities at once Recognized-Important Law Cases and Great Orations-In United States Senate-Debate with HayneSecretary of State-Expounder of the Constitution.

Or all the great men whose genius and virtues have endeared them to the country which they have served, none have displayed greater abilities than Daniel Webster. Born of good Revolutionary stock, the fires of patriotism glowed brightly in his breast; endowed with superior intellect, he has achieved a most honorable mention in the history of his country.

He was born in Salisbury, New Hampshire, in 1782. His parents were in somewhat straitened circumstances, and he paid his way through college by teaching school in the intervals. He thus acquired a good education, especially in the classics, and was the foremost man of his class at Dartmouth until he graduated in 1801. He was then variously employed in the study of law, teaching school and copying deeds until 1806, when he was admitted to practice in the Superior Court, when he at once began to secure a large practice. By 1812 he had so