The American History Leafle

For Schools.

The attention of Normal instructors, Superintendents and Teach is invited to the peculiar educative value of the American Hist Leaflets series when used for supplementary reading and referenc adjuncts to the regular text-book in United States history.

The matter comprised in the Leaflets consists of reprints of fam documents that were the mainspring of political action, or the res ants of such activity. The American History Leaflets are thus great value for giving that particularity and local color to the import events of our history which the limited space of most text-books forb Pupils using them will thus obtain a more intelligent idea of the ep under consideration.

The American History Leaflets are issued under the edito supervision of Albert Bushnell Hart and Edward Channing, Pro sors of American History in Harvard University, and each num contains an Introduction by the Editors, with a bibliography for use further investigation.

The numbers more particularly adapted for common school use are : No. 1.-The Letter of Columbus to Luis de Sant Ang announcing his Discovery, with Extracts fro his Journal.

A familiar letter addressed to the Spanish gentleman who befrie ed Columbus.

No. 8.-The Exact Text of the Constitution of the Unit

States.

107729

An exact reprint reproducing the peculiar capitalization, punctu tion and spelling then in vogue. It is prefaced by a valual

editorial introduction.

Reprints of the secession ordinances passed by the Southern Stat at the opening of the Civil War.

No. 18. -Lincoln's Inaugural and First Message to Co gress 1861.

Excellent as reading material, as well as for its historical value. No. 20.- -The Articles of Confederation, with prelim nary Documents. 1776-1781.

The most important sources on the foundation of the first Feder government.

Bound in stout paper covers, price 10 Cents per copy.

A. LOVELL & CO., Publishers,

70 Fifth Avenue, NEW YORK

No discussion in Congress aroused so much public interest, between 1820 and 1850, as the series of debates on the nature of the Union, in 1830 and 1833. In both cases the Northern champion was Daniel Webster; in 1830 he chose out Hayne as his adversary, but his real object was to force him to a clear statement of the doctrine of nullification which had been set forth by Calhoun in 1828. The evidence shows that Webster had carefully read the "Exposition of 1828"; and his argument was intended to meet it. In 1833, he had the opportunity to confront Calhoun in the senate and they crossed swords in the masterly fashion shown in the extracts below.

The issue was, whether or no a state could be compelled to accept an act of Congress which it believed to be unconstitutional. The immediate effect of these speeches was to concentrate the arguments of that critical period; but the later effects were even more important. South Carolina continued at intervals to reassert the right of nullification, or if need be of secession, down to 1861; and Webster's line of argument became the standard defense of the Union, and had great influence in determining the North to resist secession in 1861.

The extracts are made from the collected writings,-Daniel Webster, Works, and John C. Calhoun, Works-as being the most authoritative texts; and from the records of debates in Congress-Hayne's speech. A set of extracts from three of these speeches will be found printed in Alexander Johnston, Representative American Orations, I.

The Virginia and Kentucky Resolutions, to which both sides frequently allude, and the secession ordinances, which illustrate the farthest point reached in States Rights, are printed in American History Leaflets, Nos. 12, 15; Lincoln's doctrine as to the Union in the same series, No. 18.

Brief accounts of the controversy over nullification (including these speeches) may be found in H. von Holst, John C. Calhoun, ch. iv ; H. C. Lodge, Daniel Webster, chs. vi, vii; Woodrow Wilson, Division and Reunion, ch. ii; W. G. Sumner, Andrew Jackson, chs. x, xiii. More exhaustive accounts in George T. Curtis, Life of Daniel Webster, I, chs. xvi-xix; George Tucker, History of the United States, IV, chs. xxvi, xxvii; H. Von Holst, Constitutional History, I, ch. xii.

Special works on the subject are David F. Houston, Critical Study of Nullification in South Carolina (Harvard Historical Studies, III.); Caleb W. Loring, Nullification, Secession, Webster's Argument. A brief bibliography on the subject is Channing and Hart, Guide to the Study of American History, § 183, with references to other bibliographies.

I-1828. Calhoun's South Carolina Exposition.

Our system, then, consists of two distinct and independent Governments. The general powers, expressly delegated to the General Government, are subject to its sole and separate control; and the States cannot, without violating the constitutional compact, interpose their authority to check, or in any manner to counteract its movements, so long as they are confined to the proper sphere. So, also, the peculiar and local powers reserved to the States are subject to their exclusive control; nor can the General Government interfere, in any manner, with them, without violating the Constitution.

In order to have a full and tutions, it will be proper to

clear conception of our instiremark that there is, in our

system, a striking distinction between Government and

Sovereignity. The separate governments of the several States are vested in their Legislative, Executive, and Judi cial Departments; while the sovereignty resides in the peo ple of the States respectively. The powers of the General Government are also vested in its Legislative, Executive, and Judicial Departments, while the sovereignty resides in the people of the several States who created it. But, by an express provision of the Constitution, it may be amended or changed by three fourths of the States; and thus each State, by assenting to the Constitution with this provision, has modified its original right as a sovereign, of making its individual consent necessary to any change in its political condition; and, by becoming a member of the Union, has placed this important power in the hands of three fourths of the States, in whom the highest power known to the Constitution actually resides. Not the least portion of this high sovereign authority resides in Congress, or any of the departments of the General Government. They are but the creatures of the Constitution, and are appointed but to execute its provisions; and, therefore, any attempt by all, or any of these departments, to exercise any power which, in its consequences, may alter the nature of the instrument, or change the condition of the parties to it, would be an act of usurpation....

......

As a substitute for the rightful remedy, in the last resort, against the encroachments of the General Government on the reserved powers, resort has been had to a rigid construction of the Constitution. A system like ours, of divided powers, must necessarily give great importance to a proper system of construction; but it is perfectly clear that no rule of construction, however perfect, can, in fact, prescribe bounds to the operation of power. All such rules constitute, in fact, but an appeal from the minority to the justice and reason of the majority; and if such appeals were sufficient of themselves to restrain the avarice or ambition of those vested with power, then may a system of technical construction be sufficient to protect against the encroachment of power; but, on such supposition, reason and justice might alone be relied on, without the aid of any constitutional or artificial restraint whatever..

If it be conceded, as it must be by every one who is the