candidate for the Presidency were to come forward with the Harrisburg tariff in his hand, nothing could resist his pretensions, if his adversary were opposed to this unjust system of oppression. Yes, sir, that bill would be a talisman which would give a charmed existence to the candidate who would pledge himself to support it. And although he were covered with all the "multiplying villainies of nature," the most immaculate patriot and profound statesman in the nation could hold no competition with him, if he should refuse to grant this new species of imperial donative."

Allusions were constantly made to the combination of manufacturing capitalists and politicians in pressing this bill. There was evidently foundation for the imputation. The scheme of it had been conceived in a convention of manufacturers in the State of Pennsylvania, and had been taken up by politicians, and was pushed as a party measure, and with the visible purpose of influencing the presidential election. In fact these tariff bills, each exceeding the other in its degree of protection, had become a regular appendage of our presidential elections-coming round in every cycle of four years, with that returning event. The year 1816 was the starting point: 1820, and 1824, and now 1828, having successively renewed the measure, with successive augmentations of duties. The South believed itself impoverished to enrich the North by this system; and certainly a singular and unexpected result had been seen in these two sections. In the colonial state, the Southern were the rich part of the colonies, and expected to do well in a state of independence. They had the exports, and felt secure of their prosperity not so of the North, whose agricultural resources were few, and who expected privations from the loss of British favor. But in the first half century after Independence this expectation was reversed. The wealth of the North was enormously aggrandized: that of the South had declined. Northern towns had become great cities: Southern cities had decayed, or become stationary; and Charleston, the principal port of the South, was less considerable than before the Revolution. The North became a money-lender to the South, and southern citizens made pilgrimages to northern cities, to raise money upon the hypothecation of their patrimonial estates. And this in the face of a southern export since the Revolution to the value of eight hundred millions of dollars-a sum equal to the product of the Mexican mines since the days of Cortez! and twice or thrice the amount of their product in the same fifty years. The Southern States attributed this result to the action of the federal government-its double action of levying revenue upon the industry of one section of the Union and expending it in another

and especially to its protective tariffs. To some degree this attribution was just, but not to the degree assumed; which is evident from the fact that the protective system had then only been in force for a short timesince the year 1816; and the reversed condition of the two sections of the Union had commenced before that time. Other causes must have had some effect: but for the present we look to the protective system; and, without admitting it to have done all the mischief of which the South complained, it had yet done enough to cause it to be condemned by every friend to equal justice among the States-by every friend to the harmony and stability of the Union-by all who detested sectional legislation-by every enemy to the mischievous combination of partisan politics with national legislation. And this was the feeling with the mass of the democratic voters who voted for the tariff of 1828, and who were determined to act upon that feeling upon the overthrow of the political party which advocated the protective system; and which overthrow they believed to be certain at the ensuing presidential election.

JOHN CALHOUN

JOHN CALDWELL CALHOUN was born in the district of Abbeville, March 18, 1782. His father, Patrick Calhoun, was an Irishman. In 1804 he graduated from Yale College. After being admitted to the bar he became interested in politics and was elected a Representative from South Carolina in 1811.

He was a strong Democrat, or Republican, as the party was then called. He supported the War of 1812, the United States Bank, and the Moderate Tariff of 1816. In 1817 he was appointed Secretary of War by Monroe. The compromise of 1820 received his support. In 1824 he was elected Vice-President under Adams almost unanimously, the adherents of both Adams and Jackson supporting him. He was reelected Vice-President, this time under Jackson, in 1828. Jackson and Calhoun quarrelled because of the growing influence of Van Buren with the Administration, and Calhoun resigned from the Vice-Presidency. Before this the hard feeling in the South over questions of the tariff passed in accordance with Clay's "American Policy," led Calhoun

VIII 14

to seek a way by which the State could make void the law. The outcome was his doctrine of Nullification first developed in 1828. The best exposition of this doctrine is to be found in some of his general addresses and in his letter to General Hamilton, Aug. 28, 1832, rather than in his celebrated speech on the Force Bill. Calhoun would not support Jackson in 1832 and South Carolina threw away her electoral vote. In November the South Carolina Convention passed the famous Nullification Ordinance declaring void the tariff of 1828 and 1832.

Calhoun took Hayne's seat in the Senate, as it was thought he would be a stronger opponent of Webster, and Hayne became Governor of the State. Jackson was a Democratic Republican and did not believe in high tariffs, but he immediately flew in the face of all party precedent by making vigorous preparations to enforce the laws by National troops if necessary, and was said to have an ardent longing to hang Calhoun as a traitor.

The Nullification Ordinance was not carried out, and Jackson's vigorous policy made any nullification or secession by any one state thereafter impossible.

About this time the Whig party was formed, led by Clay and Webster. The Republicans that followed Jackson were called first Democratic Republicans and then simply Democrats. Calhoun at first acted with the Whigs on account of his opposition to Jackson, but soon became the leader of the Democrats.

In 1844 he was appointed Secretary of State by Tyler, who had been elected Vice-President by the Whigs, but really belonged to the Southern branch of the party sometimes called the "State Right Whigs." At this time he pushed forward the annexation of Texas, but later as a Senator, opposed the war with Mexico as unnecessary.

In 1847 Calhoun brought forward resolutions to the effect that Congress did not have the right to discriminate by keeping slavery out of the Territories. This was the principle of the "Dred Scott Decision" ten years later and the opposing views of the North and South upon it were irreconcilable.

Calhoun died March 31, 1850. He left a work suggesting the election of two Presidents, one from the North and one from the South, and defending slavery as a positive good. He probably did more than any one man to force the issues that eventually brought on the Civil War. He was a logical thinker from given premises, but his love for his State rather than the Nation threw his influence in direct opposition to the onward sweep of history.

ADDRESS

ON THE RELATION WHICH THE STATES AND GENERAL GOVERNMENT BEAR TO EACH OTHER

The question of the relation which the States and General Government bear to each other is not one of recent origin. From the commencement of our system, it has divided public sentiment. Even in the Convention, while the Constitution was struggling into existence, there were two parties as to what this relation should be, whose different sentiments constituted no small impediment in forming that instrument. After the General Government went into operation, experience soon. proved that the question had not terminated with the labors of the Convention. The great struggle that preceded the political revolution of 1801, which brought Mr. Jefferson into power, turned essentially on it, and the doctrines and arguments on both sides were embodied and ably sustained-on the one, in the Virginia and Kentucky Resolutions, and the Report to the Virginia Legislature; and on the other, in the replies of the legislature of Massachusetts and some of the other States. These resolutions and this report, with the decision of the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania about the same time (particularly in the case of Cobbett, delivered by Chief Justice McKean, and concurred in by the whole bench), contain what I believe to be the true doctrine on this important subject. I refer to them in order to avoid the necessity of presenting my views, with the reasons in support of them, in detail.

As my object is simply to state my opinions, I might pause with this reference to documents that so fully and ably state all the points immediately connected with this deeply important subject; but as there are many who may not have the opportunity or leisure to refer to them, and as it is possible, however clear they may be, that different persons may place different interpretations on their meaning, I will, in order that my sentiments may be fully known, and to avoid all ambiguity, proceed to state, summarily, the doctrines which I conceive they embrace.

The great and leading principle is that the General Government emanated from the people of the several States, forming distinct political communities, and acting in their separate and sovereign capacity, and not from all of the people forming one aggregate political community; that the Constitution of the United States is, in fact, a compact, to

which each State is a party, in the character already described; and that the several States, or parties, have a right to judge of its infractions; and in case of a deliberate, palpable and dangerous exercise of power not delegated, they have the right, in the last resort, to use the language of the Virginia Resolutions, "to interpose for arresting the progress of the evil, and for maintaining, within their respective limits, the authorities, rights, and liberties appertaining to them." This right of interposition, thus solemnly asserted by the State of Virginia, be it called what it may-State right, veto, nullification, or by any other name. -I conceive to be the fundamental principle of our system, resting on facts historically as certain as our revolution itself, and deductions as simple and demonstrative as that of any political or moral truth whatever; and I firmly believe that on its recognition depend the stability and safety of our political institutions.

I am not ignorant that those opposed to the doctrine have always, now and formerly, regarded it in a very different light, as anarchical and revolutionary. Could I believe such, in fact, to be its tendency, to me it would be no recommendation. I yield to none, I trust, in a deep and sincere attachment to our political institutions and the union of these States. I never breathed an opposite sentiment; but, on the contrary, I have ever considered them the great instruments of preserving our liberty, and promoting the happiness of ourselves and our posterity; and next to these I have ever held them most dear. Nearly half of my life has been passed in the service of the Union, and whatever public reputation I have acquired is indissolubly identified with it. To be too national has, indeed, been considered by many, even of my friends, my greatest political fault. With these strong feelings of attachment, I have examined, with the utmost care, the bearing of the doctrine in question; and, so far from anarchical or revolutionary, I solemnly believe it to be the only solid foundation of our system, and of the Union itself; and that the opposite doctrine, which denies to the States the right of protecting their reserved powers, and which would vest in the General Government (it matters not through what department) the right of determining, exclusively and finally, the powers delegated to it, is incompatible with the sovereignty of the States, and of the Constitution itself, considered as the basis of a Federal Union. As strong as this language is, it is not stronger than that used by the illustrious Jefferson, who said, to give to the General Government the final and exclusive right to judge of its powers, is to make "its discretion, and not the Con