Calhoun, 1831. Calhoun, 1833. rights. His opinions are, at least, consistent."1 Such was Calhoun down to 1822. What a different picture Adams draws of him in 1831! Writing then, he says that during the early part of Monroe's administration Calhoun pursued a course "from which I anticipated that he would prove . . . a blessing to his country. I have been deeply disappointed in him, and now expect nothing from him but evil."2 It is not at all necessary to accept this statement entirely as Adams intended it. It is quoted simply to show how, to a man who began political life as a warm admirer, Calhoun appeared to change. Adams could only with great difficulty recognize the broad patriotic statesman of 1817 in the Senator who was well on towards the point where he could proclaim that he appeared, not as the representative of the whole people, but as a representative of one of the States of the Union, sent to watch over its particular interests, and to promote the general welfare so far as was constitutional.3 The Calhoun who advocated protection in 1814 and 1816 was very different from the Calhoun who, in 1833, embodied in formal resolution the proposition that Congress had no power to encourage manufactures, and that it could do no more than levy import duties to execute the inspection laws.1 Of course, it does not follow that Calhoun should be censured for advocating the tariff act of 1816, and then turning about and opposing the measures that were offered later. It is not the part of true statesmanship to adhere blindly to a given policy: a statesman will note every alteration in the political and economic situation. Protection in moderation may be beneficial; any further application of the principle may 1 John Quincy Adams, Memoirs, VI. 75. 2 Ibid., VIII. 411. Cong. Globe, 25 Cong., 2 sess., Appendix, 246 (1837-38). 4 Senate Documents, 22 Cong., 2 sess., I, No. 57 (1832–33). 1816, 1831.] CALHOUN'S INCONSISTENCY. 13 on the tariff. be harmful. It was open to Calhoun to advocate the tariff bill of 1816 on grounds of expediency, and to Calhoun's inconsistency oppose that of 1828 on the same grounds; but he could not consistently assume in 1816 that Congress had power to levy protective duties, and then in 1828 utterly deny the existence of such a power. Yet he did do precisely that; and his admirers will hardly succeed in making his conduct at this time appear altogether satisfactory. The truth of the matter seems to be that Calhoun did not foresee what would be the consequences of the policy inaugurated in 1816. He had not felt called upon to define his views, and to hedge them about. It was not politically convenient for him so to do. It was not till after the passage of the tariff act of 1828 that he felt it necessary to define what really were his permanent views. on slavery. In this connection it may be well to contrast Cal- Calhoun houn's earlier views on the question of slavery with those which he held after his "diligent scrutiny of the Constitution" in 1828, in order to show that his views had changed all along the line. In 1816 it covered him. with confusion even to state the fact in Congress that it had been the plain intention of the Constitution to tolerate the slave trade till 1808. "He felt ashamed of such a tolerance, and took a large part of the disgrace, as he represented a part of the Union by whose influence it might be supposed to have been introduced." It was an "odious traffic." Four years later, he was in favor of the Missouri Compromise.2 In the thirties, when the abolition struggle was on, we find him regretting that he had not followed the lead of Randolph in the Missouri Compromise struggle. At the time he had regarded Randolph as too uncompromising, but experi 1 Annals of Cong., 14 Cong., I sess., 531 (1815-16). Calhoun on Louisiana purchase. Precedents ignored. ence had taught him his error; and now, in 1837, he would redeem himself by his devotion to an interest he had put in jeopardy in his less experienced days. He would proclaim that slavery, as it actually existed, was a good thing for the white as well as for the black; and that, "in fact, the defence of human liberty against the aggressions of despotic power had been always the most efficient in states where domestic slavery was found to prevail." 1 One more specific instance of the radical change in Calhoun's views may here be conveniently mentioned. Attention has already been called to the argument in which Calhoun cited the Louisiana purchase as a precedent for appropriating money without reference to the enumerated powers.2 That reference he introduced, he said, "to prove the uniform sense of Congress and the country... as to our powers." "And surely," said he, "they furnish better evidence of the true interpretation of the Constitution than the most refined and subtle arguments." As John Quincy Adams says: "Calhoun thought the case of Louisiana had settled the Constitutional question." It is almost impossible to believe that the following sentences, which occurred in the exposition drawn up in 1828 for the committee of the South Carolina Legislature could have been penned by the man who made use of the language quoted above. "In the absence of arguments drawn from the Constitution itself, the advocates of the power [to levy protective duties] have attempted to call in the aid of precedent. The Committee will not waste their time in examining instances quoted. If they were strictly in point, they would be entitled to little weight. Ours is not a government of precedent; nor can they be admitted, 1 Cong. Debates, 24 Cong., 2 sess., 719 (1836-37). 2 See above, p. 10. 8 John Quincy Adams, Memoirs, VI. 72. 1828.] PRECEDENTS IGNORED. 15 except to a very limited extent, and with great caution, in the interpretation of the Constitution, without changing, in time, the entire character of the instrument." 1 Or, in plainer language, no precedents can have weight which prejudice South Carolina's case. One wishes that the South Carolina leaders in this Southern liberals period might have had an opportunity to reach the subdued. highest development of their powers, unhampered by the selfish local interests of contending sections. Their natural conceptions were noble and their spirit was admirable; and one feels that they might have accomplished much for the nation. At least, one regrets that they did not have a chance to make the attempt; and that they were crushed by the weight of local interests that pressed down upon them and around them from every side and from every section. One scarcely knows which to regret most, the excessive disregard of general interest which met them, or the lack of moderation which they displayed when they turned to contend against it. It is to the grasping, selfish spirit of a large class of Northern manufacturers and their allies that we must attribute a considerable share of the responsibility for the disagreeable events of the period between 1816 and 1833. 1 Exposition, in Works, VI. 3. Theory of the Constitution shifting. Supports for the new theory. The Federalist. CHAPTER II. THEORIES OF THE CONSTITUTION IN SOUTH THE change in attitude on the tariff and allied subjects, is only one of several evidences that the whole theory of the Constitution was shifting in South Carolina. The process ended in 1828, when the doctrine of nullification was enunciated. To support it, Calhoun and his school appealed to the Federalist; cited the Virginia and Kentucky Resolutions; recalled the proceedings in New England during the war of 1812; pointed to the controversy between Georgia and the general government, not then settled; and, finally, rested upon the understanding that South Carolina had had from the beginning as to the nature of the Union. It will be profitable, therefore, to go over this ground with some care, and to inquire whether any of the authorities or cases appealed to really furnished substantial support for the doctrine. First in order is the Federalist. For a subtle and systematic discussion of the abstract question of sovereignty, of the nature of the Union, and the like, we should look in vain in the Federalist or in any of the early documents. The framers of the Constitution and the advocates of its adoption were engaged in a very practical, common-sense, and extremely urgent undertaking. The existence of the Union itself was at stake. They devoted all their faculties in the first place to devising a plan that would |