compelled that country to arms. The first speech of Mr. Calhoun, in reply to a formidable antagonist, John Randolph, and in support of the administration of Mr. Madison, fully developed his extraordinary powers. We shall not now speak of that admirable speech. It has been preserved, and has, doubtless, been extensively read by the admirers of Mr. Calhoun. It is more ornate, has more vivacity, more of impassioned declamation, we think, than any of his later and maturer efforts; yet it is distinguished by the same characteristics of style-the same curt, nervous, compact sentences-the same severe propriety of diction-the same logical method, and intense energy of language, which mark all the best specimens of his oratory. Soon after his entrance into Congress, he was made Chairman of the Committee on Foreign Affairs, and with Messrs. Clay, Lowndes, Cheves, and others, vigorously sustained the war to its close, and none rendered more efficient service than he.

The creation of an immense national debt, a disordered commerce, and disordered finances, were the immediate results of the war of 1812. The charter of the old United States Bank had expired, and an unsuccessful attempt had been made, in 1811, to revive it. To relieve the pressing necessities of the country, and to provide what, in the judgment of the financiers of that period, should be, if not a sovereign panacea, at least a temporary relief to the embarrassments of the currency, a national bank was again proposed. Mr. Calhoun, then Chairman of the Committee on Currency, to whom the President's recommendation on the subject had been referred, presented, on the 8th of January, 1816, an able and elaborate report, recommending the creation of such an institution, and detailing its operation. The bill subsequently reported was sustained also by Mr. Clay, and became a law. Fifteen years afterwards, Mr. Clay and Mr. Calhoun were found separating upon this great financial questionthe one advocating it with a zeal quickened and re-invigorated by years, the other opposing it with all the earnestness of a deep and thorough conviction. It is no part of our design to attempt a defence, or even an explanation, of any apparent inconsistency of action in the public career of this distinguished statesman. His political life speaks for itself, and its record is his best interpreter and his best defender. Not only upon this financial question, but also upon the protective policy, is the allegation of change and inconsistency charged against him. It is certainly true that, on the 12th of March, 1816, Mr. Lowndes, of South Carolina, from the Committee of Ways and Means, made a report relative to the policy of increasing the revenue by heavy duties; and that Mr. Calhoun, in opposition to Mr. Webster, sustained the bill, which was subsequently reported. The interests embraced in the question and its political aspect, were doubtless different then from now; but of course the constitutional question involved was the same. We have not Mr. Calhoun's speech at hand, and do not now recollect whether the constitutional question was discussed at all, or, indeed, whether his speech extended so far as to advocate the imposition of duties for protection beyond the revenue limit. If so, we regard his views, as we are free to say we do his course upon the bank question, as an error-an error, however, not without strong and cogent reasons for its commission. Mr. Madison himself, under his constitu

*Mr. Clay's Address to the Senate on the occasion of the death of Mr. Calhoun.

1850.1

John C. Calhoun.

tional oath of office, recommended to Congress the establishment of a
bank, "as the best, and perhaps the only adequate resource to relieve the
country and the government from the present embarrassment;" and how-
ever much, with the light of past experience shining on our path, we may
regard this opinion as unsound, and the recommendation as unwise, yet
it would be presumptuous to say that the measure, endorsed by such a
statesman as James Madison, was then manifestly unconstitutional. It
is not necessary, however, to vindicate Mr. Calhoun by any reference to
Mr. Madison's opinions upon this subject. His purity of character and
lofty patriotism need no vindication at our hands. If he erred, it was
simply an error of judgment; if he subsequently adopted different views,
it was under a change of circumstances which called for it, or upon a
thorough conviction of his error-not from sinister motives, far less from
fickleness of purpose or caprice.

In December, 1817, Mr. Calhoun was appointed by President Monroe, Secretary of War; and during the whole period of Mr. Monroe's administration, he conducted the business of that department with unparalleled energy and vigor. At the close of this administration, he was elected Vice President, by a vote of 182 out of 261 votes in the electoral college. The election of President, it is well known, went into the House of Representatives, and Mr. Adams was chosen. The honors of the VicePresidency were again conferred upon him, in the election which elevated Andrew Jackson to the Presidency.

This long period in the life of Mr. Calhoun we pass over without comment, not for the reason that it is not full of rich historical, as well as biographical incidents, but because, honorable and distinguished though it was by the noblest public service, it is not, in our judgments, so well calculated to illustrate his character as a statesman, for the reason that it afforded no opportunity for the exercise of those splendid parliamentary talents upon which his renown chiefly rests. We look upon this part of his career as to him the least fortunate. The honors of these distinguished positions can add but little additional lustre to his fame, and he passed there many of the most valuable years of his life-a period sufficiently long of itself to have enabled a genius like his, in a more appropriate sphere, to earn an immortality of renown. He was fitted by nature for the legislative, rather than the administrative branch of a free government; he was adapted to the Senate, rather than the Cabinet. We turn, therefore, without regret to the time when Mr. Calhoun laid aside the luxurious honors and inactivity of the Vice-Presidency, and placed his foot once more upon his "native heath," as a Senator in Congress, from South Carolina.

It is not our design to revive the personal controversies and political animosities of that period; and if we allude to them at all, it is solely with a view to illustrate the character and opinions of the departed statesman who is the subject of this sketch. It is well known that during the administration of General Jackson, a personal disagreement occurred between the President and Mr. Calhoun, the nature and merits of which it is not necessary now to discuss. The breach was widened by the famous nullification controversy, which sprang up during Mr. Calhoun's VicePresidency, and which led him eventually to resign his place as President of the Senate, for the purpose of becoming a member of that body.

The passage of the tariff act of 1828-that "bill of abominations," as

its opponents styled it-led to the nullification resolutions of South Carolina. The excitement of the contest which followed is yet fresh in the minds of all who entertain any reminiscence of that period. In November, 1832, the Legislature of South Carolina ratified an ordinance, declaring the tariff act utterly unconstitutional and void, on the ground of its being a protective, and not a revenue act. The state claimed the right, in virtue of its own sovereignty, to pronounce upon the unconstitutionality of a law of the general government, or, in other words, to determine upon for itself, and, if necessary, resist any infraction of the constitutional compact existing between the states. South Carolina threatened to oppose by force the execution of the revenue laws. It is unnecessary to add the fact so well known, that Mr. Calhoun fully coincided in these extreme views. Hitherto he had given them countenance only by the silent influence of his character, and in private conversation. He was about to become their open advocate in a more conspicuous position.

The State of South Carolina was at this period represented in the Senate by an able and distinguished gentleman, the late GENERAL HAYNE. Mr. Hayne was a man of splendid talents and genius, a ready and skilful debater, and every way fitted by study and acquirements, as well as by the force of his natural abilities, to occupy the very first rank as a parliamentary leader. He had encountered Mr. Webster in debate, and the friends of each had claimed the victory. The contest had been no idle flourish of rhetoric-no strife of pigmies-no tilting of knights with blunted weapons in the lists of the tournament-but a war of the giants; a stern encounter of determined and nearly equal opponents, with sharp steel and pointed spears. It is no disparagement even to the splendid abilities of Mr. Hayne to say, that he was scarcely a match in debate for the massive intellect and brawny strength of Webster. In the preliminary skirmishes, the rapid advance, the attack and the skillful retreat, he sometimes gained the advantage; but in the stern hand-to-hand encounter, when the cooler nature of the Massachusetts senator was fully aroused, and nothing but superior strength and manhood was to decide the combat, it was then that the senator from South Carolina was made to feel the stunning weight of the blows which fell from the potent arm of his antagonist. The ardor of Mr. Hayne's temper sometimes beguiled him into an imprudent expression, and laid him open to a scathing retort from his adversary. In the memorable debate in the Senate, in 1830, he hurled the sarcastic taunt at his opponent: "Has the gentleman discovered, in former controversies with the gentleman from Missouri, that he is overmatched by that senator?-and does he hope for an easy victory over a more feeble adversary?" while the excited and angry tone of the speaker robbed the expression of its irony, and left only its bitterness behind. The reply of Webster was overwhelming. In its power of sarcasm and its scathing, yet perfectly dignified invective, it has rarely been surpassed -superior, in our judgment, to the celebrated reply of Pitt to Walpole, and equal to the best of Brougham's former efforts in the House of Commons.

The contest between these two great men was about to cease. Hayne was elected chief magistrate of his native state, in the crisis of its affairs with the general government, and a greater than Hayne was selected to fill his place in the Senate of the United States. In December, 1832, soon after the passage of the famous South Carolina ordinance, Mr. Cal

1850.]

John C. Calhoun.

houn resigned the Vice Presidency, and was elected a senator in Con-
gress. In no event of his life did he ever exhibit more decisively his moral
courage and independence of character. His state was upon the eve
of rebellion. His own views, as to the right of her resistance, were well
known. He stood in a position of hostility to the administration, and
many of the friends with whom he had formerly acted. It was even con-
jectured by some, that he would be arrested on his journey to Washing-
ton. But he did not falter for an instant. Like the remarkable man,
then at the head of the government, he had that determined will, and
energy of purpose, which never could suffer a compromise of principle,
through fear of the danger of asserting it. Between these two men, we
may think there may be traced certain striking points of resemblance, as
well as of contrast. Both are ardent, determined, resolute, strong-willed.
Calhoun had the concentrated energy of thought; Jackson, the concen-
trated energy of action. The one acted as promptly as the other spoke,
and both with the same fearless independence, and the same lofty stern-
ness of purpose. It was thought that a difficulty would rest with Mr.
Calhoun in taking the Constitutional oath; but that question he had him-
self settled, and decisively settled in his own mind. He had resolved not
to violate any provision of the Constitution. Had he conceived state re-
sistance to a law which he believed manifestly unconstitutional, to be an
infraction of the Constitution, John C. Calhoun was the last man in the
Union, who would have taken upon his lips that solemn oath, no matter
what private or public interests were to be subserved by it. There was
no quibble, no mental reservation on his part, as he calmly, yet seriously
repeated the oath to support the Constitution of the United States. Not
a senator on that floor designed more religiously to observe it than he.

A history of the debates which followed Mr. Calhoun's entrance into the
Senate, would lead us far beyond our limits. The chief antagonist whom
he found to encounter, was Daniel Webster. The first question of de-
bate between them was, in one sense, an abstract question-a theory,
merely; but it was a theory, on the stability of which, the whole frame-
work of Mr. Calhoun's argument rested. It involved the profoundest
question, perhaps, which can occupy the attention of the American
statesman-the question as to the nature of our government, and the
true character of the instrument which we call the Constitution. The
views of Mr. Webster were strongly federal; those of Mr. Calhoun went
to the furthest verge of the States-rights doctrines of Mr. Jefferson, and
even so far beyond, as, if pushed to their last consequence, would result
in making the Union of these States a mere temporary league, to be dis-
solved at the pleasure of any member. In order to explain the Con-
stitutional construction of Mr. Calhoun, which led him to infer the re-
sistance of the right in a state, to nullify the action of the general gov-
ernment, as opposed to the fundamental doctrines laid down in that
magnificent proclamation of General Jackson, believed to have been
penned by Edward Livingston-what other pen could have produced it?
-and distinguished not less for its elegance of style, and beauty of dic-
tion, than for its cogent and conclusive argument, we yet deem it but fair
to state, briefly, the point at issue between him and Mr. Webster, as we
find it developed in the debates.

The Senator from Massachusetts maintained that the Constitution was not merely a compact between the States, but a fundamental law-the

supreme sovereign law of the land—and that its ratification rendered it binding, not merely as a league or confederation between the States, as independent sovereignties, but between the American people, in the aggregate, forming, to the extent of its delegated power, a nation one and indivisible. The contrary of this proposition was maintained by Mr. Calhoun, in a speech of transcendent ability, which brought into full play all his acuteness as a dialectitian, and his close and subtle logic. He contended that the adoption of the Constitution wrought no such change in the political condition of the States as Mr. Webster had assumed, and that they retained, precisely, the same elements of sovereignty, save in respect to the exercise of certain powers which they had voluntarily yielded, as under the old confederation. That the Constitution was strictly a compact between sovereign bodies, not a union of the people of the States, and that in virtue of its sovereignty, a state can declare the nature and extent of her obligation under this constitution or compact, the same as in the analogous case of a league, or a treaty of alliance existing between two independent nations. Upon the strength of this position it will be perceived, the whole theory of nullification rested. If Mr. Webster's view was the true one, the forcible position of South Carolina in the execution of the revenue laws was rebellion. If Mr. Calhoun's construction was correct, then the ordinance of South Carolina was not an infraction of the Constitution, and that state, or any state was at liberty to annul an act of the general government, or to withdraw from the Union. The discussion of this momentous question was conducted with equal ability on both sides. It will not disparage the acknowledged talent of Mr. Webster, in the opinion of his warmest admirer to say, that he found his equal in debate— perhaps under circumstances somewhat modified, he would have found his superior-in the logical acumen and argumentative power of his great rival. The speeches delivered in this memorable discussion, make an instructive chapter in our political history. They form a text-book upon the nature of our Constitution and government, which may be profitably studied, even by statesmen, and will rank among the best speeches of American oratory.

A part of these discussions is Mr. Calhoun's celebrated speech on the Force bill. We regard this, on the whole, as one of the best specimens of his eloquence, combining, as it does, all striking characteristics of his style and manner-intense earnestness-close and compact logic-subtle disquisition-dignified invective-a tone and spirit not haughty, but proud and firm as that of a man conscious of the purity of his own motives, and the injustice of his assailants. The portion of his speech wherein he repels the charge of disappointed ambition, is admirably fine. It is Miss Martineau, we believe, who calls Mr. Calhoun "the cast iron man, who looks as though he had never been born." Speaking of his oratorical powers, which she does in terms of judicious admiration, she qualifies her remarks by alluding to the changed manner, the hoarse voice, and the angry emphasis with which he repelled those personal charges brought against him, of aspiring to the Presidency. On such occasions, doubtless, Mr. Calhoun spoke with an intense feeling, which his manner and action exhibited; but it was the feeling of a proud and sensitive spirit; a feeling of impatience and indignation, at the groundless charge; the feeling of the caged lion, goaded by tormentors who are beyond his reach, and the language in which he hurled back the charge-impetuous as the mountain torrent, and burning as a flame