UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA 
 AT LOS ANGELES
 
 THE WORKS 
 
 OF 
 
 JOHN C. CALHOUN. 
 
 VOL. II. 
 
 NEW YORK: 
 D. APPLETON AND COMPANY, 
 
 448 A 445 BUOADWAY. 
 M.DCCC.I.XIV. 
 
 * ? 5 " 
 
 -
 
 SPEECHES 
 
 JOHN C. CALHOUN, 
 
 DELIVERED IN TUB 
 
 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, 
 
 SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 
 
 EDITED BY 
 
 RICHAED K. CRALLE, 
 
 NEW YORK: 
 D. APPLETON AND COMPANY, 
 
 443 & 445 BROADWAY.
 
 ENTERED, according to act of Congress, by 
 JAMES E. CALHOUN, 
 
 In the Clerk's Office of the District Court of the United States for the district 
 of South Carolina.
 
 3:37/8 
 
 ADVERTISEMENT. 
 
 THE collection of the Speeches of Mr. Calhoun, here offered to the 
 public, includes, it is believed, all delivered by him in Congress of any 
 general interest or rather, all, of which any reliable reports have been 
 preserved. Many, no doubt, especially during the war of 1812, 
 through carelessness and the want of competent reporters in the 
 House of Representatives, have been lost a fact the more to be re- 
 gretted, as the period was marked by events of much moment to the 
 country. For the comparatively few which have been preserved, the 
 public is chiefly indebted to the Hon. Mr. Simkins, at that time a 
 member of the House from South Carolina, who, for his own gratifi- 
 cation, took notes aud drew out the sketches (for they are by no 
 means full reports) which appear in this collection. For the use of 
 these, the Editor is indebted to the kindness of the Hon. Francis W. 
 Pickens to whom he takes this occasion to return his acknowledg- 
 ments. Others, belonging to the same period, have been copied from 
 manuscripts found among the papers of Mr. Calhoun, though not in 
 his handwriting. 
 
 Of the Speeches delivered in the Senate, between the years 1833 
 and 1850, a much larger number has been preserved. They are, for 
 the most part, better reported ; and not a few were published in pam- 
 phlet form at the time, under his own inspection. Still, so constant 
 and pressing were his engagements so incessant the demands on his 
 
 25400O
 
 Vi ADVEKTISEMENT. 
 
 time, that it is impossible he could have bestowed much attention, 
 except on those connected with the more important subjects of discus- 
 sion. Many were left to be drawn out by the reporters ; and his pe- 
 culiar position, in regard to the two great contending parties of the 
 country, was any thing but favorable to fulness and fidelity. Not a 
 few (and among them some on questions of much interest) were never 
 reported at all, or otherwise so mangled and garbled, to serve a tem- 
 porary purpose, as to render them unworthy of this collection. A suffi- 
 cient number, however, it is hoped, has been preserved from the ravages 
 of time, and the still more ruthless spirit of party, to insure, as a tribute 
 to his virtues, the love of the Patriot, the admiration of the Statesman, 
 and the gratitude of the Historian and the Philosopher. 
 
 As many of the questions discussed during the war of 1812, both 
 of a foreign and domestic character, have probably, to some extent, 
 faded from the public memory, the Editor has prepared a brief intro- 
 ductory note to the Speeches delivered in the House of Representa- 
 tives, which he hopes will be acceptable to the general reader. It 
 was deemed unnecessary to adopt the same course in regard to 
 Speeches of a more recent date. 
 
 April 8, 1858.
 
 CONTENTS OF VOLUME II. 
 
 Speech on the Resolution of the Committee on 
 
 Foreign Relations, Dec. 12, 1811. 
 
 Speech on the Petition of the Citizens of Albany, May 6, 1812. 
 
 Speech on the Repeal of the Non-importation Act, June 24. 1812. 
 
 Speech on the subject of Merchants' Bonds, . Dec. 4, 1812. 
 
 Speech on the new Army Bill, .... Jan. 14, 1813. 
 
 Speech on the Bill to encourage Enlistments, . Jan. 17, 1814. 
 
 Speech on the Loan Bill. Feb. 25, 1814. 
 
 Speech on the Repeal of the Embargo, . . April 6, 1814. 
 
 Speech on the Increase of the Direct Tax, . . Oct. 25, 1814. 
 
 Speech on the Military Peace Establishment, . Feb. 27, 1815. 
 
 Speech on the Commercial Convention with Great 
 
 Britain, Jan. 9, 1816. 
 
 Speech on the Repeal of the Direct Tax, . . Jan. 31, 1816. 
 
 Speech on the United States Bank Bill, . . Feb. 26, 1816. 
 
 Speech on the Tariff Bill, . . . April 6, 1816. 
 
 Speech on the Compensation Bill, . . . Jan. 17, 1817. 
 
 ^Speech on the Internal Improvement Bill, . . Feb. 4, 1817. 
 
 Speech on the Revenue Collection (Force) Bill, Feb. 15-1 o, 1833.197 
 
 Speech on his Resolutions in support of State 
 
 Rights, Feb. 26, 1833. 
 
 Speech on the RemovaT of the Public Deposits, . Jan. 13, 1834.
 
 VU1 
 
 CONTENTS. 
 
 511- 
 
 N/Speech on the Bill to recharter the United States 
 
 Bank, . 
 
 -^Speech on the Bill to Repeal the Force Act. . 
 Speech on the President's Protest, 
 Speech on the subject of Removals from Office, 
 Speech on the Report relating to Executive Pa- 
 tronage, 7*- . .. . . .'' 
 
 Speech on Abolition Petitions, *". 
 
 Speech on the Bill to preserve the Public Records, 
 
 Speech on the Power of the States in respect to 
 
 Aliens, 
 
 Speech on the Circulation of Incendiary Papers, 
 Speech on the Bill to regulate the Public Deposits, 
 Speech on the Bill to extend the provisions of the 
 
 Deposit Act, 
 
 Speech on the Application of the Surplus Revenues, 
 Speech on the Bill for the Admission of Michigan, 
 Speech on the same subject, .... 
 Speech on the Motion to recommit the Land Bill, 
 Speech on the Reception of Abolition Petitions, 
 Speech on the Bill to cede the Public Lands, . 
 
 ATarch 21, 1834. 
 April 9, 1834. 
 May 6, 1834. 
 Feb. 1835. f426 
 
 Feb. 13, 1835. 
 March 9, 1836. 
 March 26, 1836. 
 
 April 2, 1836. 
 April 12, 1836. 
 May 28, 1836. 534 
 
 Dec. 21, 1836. 
 Dec. 28, 1836. 
 Jan. 2, 1837. 
 Jan. 5, 1837. 
 Feb. 4, 1837. 
 Feb. 6, 1837. 
 Feb. 7, 1837. 
 
 75
 
 SPEECHES. 
 
 SPEECH 
 
 On the second Kesolution reported by the Committee 
 on Foreign Relations, delivered in the House of 
 Representatives, Dec. 12, 1811. 
 
 [NOTE. The Committee on Foreign Relations, on the 29th of 
 November, 1811, submitted a report, which, after an able examination 
 of the causes of war with Great Britain, concluded by recommending 
 to the House the adoption of a series of resolutions, among which was 
 the following : 
 
 " 2. Resolved, That an additional force of ten thousand regulai 
 troops ought to be immediately raised to serve for three years ; and 
 that a bounty in lands ought to be given to encourage enlistments." 
 
 This resolution having been amended in committee of the Whole, 
 by striking out the word " ten? was reported to the House, where an 
 animated debate ensued. A majority of the committee avowed their 
 object to be a preparation for war ; and the discussion took the widest 
 range, embracing almost every topic of foreign and domestic policy. 
 The principal speaker, on the part of the opposition, was Mr. Randolph 
 of Virginia, to whose remarks Mr. Calhoun seems to have confined 
 his reply. The resolution was finally adopted Yeas, 109 ; Nays, 22.] 
 
 MB. SPEAKER : I understood the opinion of the Com- 
 mittee on Foreign Relations, differently from what the gen- 
 tleman from Virginia (Mr. Randolph) has stated to be his 
 
 VOL. II. 1
 
 SPEECHES. 
 
 impression. I certainly understood that the committee re- 
 commended the measures now before the House, as a pre- 
 paration for war ; and such, in fact, was its express resolve, 
 agreed to, I believe, by every member, except that gentleman. 
 I do not attribute any wilful misstatement to him, but 
 consider it the effect of inadvertency or mistake. Indeed, 
 the Eeport could mean nothing but war or empty menace. 
 1 1iope no member of this House is in favor of the latter. A 
 bullying, menacing system, has every thing to condemn and 
 nothing to recommend it. In expense, it almost rivals war. 
 It excites contempt abroad, and destroys confidence at home. 
 Menaces are serious things ; and ought to be resorted to with 
 as much caution and seriousness, as war itself ; and should, 
 if not successful, be invariably followed by it. It was not 
 the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Grrundy) who made this 
 a war question. The resolve contemplates an additional 
 regular force ; a measure confessedly improper but as a pre- 
 paration for war, but undoubtedly necessary in that event. 
 
 Sir, I am not insensible to the weighty importance of 
 the proposition, for the first time submitted to this House, 
 to compel a redress of our long list of complaints against one 
 of the belligerents. According to my mode of thinking, 
 the more serious the question, the stronger and more unalter- 
 able ought to be our convictions before we give it our support. 
 War, in our country, ought never to be resorted to but 
 when it is clearly justifiable and necessary ; so much so, 
 as not to require the aid of logic to convince our understand- 
 ings, nor the ardor of eloquence to inflame our passions. 
 There are many reasons why this country should never resort 
 to war but for causes the most urgent and necessary. It is 
 sufficient that, under a government like ours, none but such 
 will justify it in the eyes of the people ; and were I not satis- 
 fied that such is the present case, I certainly would be no 
 advocate of the proposition now before the House. 
 
 Sir, I might prove the war, should it ensue, justifiable,
 
 SPEECHES. 3 
 
 by the express admission of the gentleman from Virginia ; 
 and necessary, by facts undoubted, and universally admitted ; 
 such as he did not pretend to controvert. The extent, 
 duration, and character of the injuries received ; the failure 
 of those peaceful means heretofore resorted to for the redress 
 of our wrongs, are my proofs that it is necessary. Why should 
 I mention the impressment of our seamen ; depredations on 
 every branch of our commerce, including the direct export 
 trade, continued for years, and made under laws which pro- 
 fessedly undertake to regulate our trade with other nations ; 
 negotiation resorted to, again and again, till it is become hope- 
 less ; the restrictive system persisted in to avoid war, and in 
 the vain expectation of returning justice ? The evil still grows, 
 and, in each succeeding year, swells in extent and pretension 
 beyond the preceding. The question, even in the opinion and 
 by the admission of our opponents is reduced to this single 
 point Which shall we do, abandon or defend our own com- 
 mercial and maritime rights, and the personal liberties of our 
 citizens employed in exercising them ? These rights are 
 vitally attacked, and war is the only means of redress. 
 The gentleman from Virginia has suggested none, unless we 
 consider the whole of his speech as recommending patient 
 and resigned submission as the best remedy. Sir, which al- 
 ternative this House will embrace, it is not for me to say. 
 I hope the decision is made already, by a higher authority 
 than the voice of any man. It is not for the human tongue 
 to instil the sense of independence and honor. This is the 
 work of nature ; a generous nature that disdains tame sub- 
 mission to wrongs. 
 
 This part of the subject is so imposing as to enforce 
 silence even on the gentleman from Virginia. He dared 
 not deny his country's wrongs, or vindicate the conduct of 
 her enemy. Only one part of his argument had any, the 
 most remote relation to this point. He would not say, 
 we had not a good cause for war ; but insisted, that it was
 
 SPEECHES. 
 
 our duty to define that cause. If he means that this House 
 ought, at this stage of its proceedings, or any other, to specify- 
 any particular violation of our rights to the exclusion of all 
 others, he prescribes a course, which neither good sense nor 
 the usage of nations warrants. When we contend, let us 
 contend for all our rights ; the doubtful and the certain ; the 
 unimportant and essential. It is as easy to struggle, or even 
 more so, for the whole as for a part. At the termination of the 
 contest, secure all that our wisdom and valor and the fortune 
 of the war will permit. This is the dictate of common sense ; 
 such also is the usage of nations. The single instance allu- 
 ded to, the endeavor of Mr. Fox to compel Mr. Pitt to define 
 the object of the war against France, will not support the 
 gentleman from Virginia in his position. That was an ex- 
 traordinary war for an extraordinary purpose, and was not 
 governed by the usual rules. It was not for conquest, or for 
 redress of injury, but to impose a government on France, 
 which she refused to receive ; an object so detestable that an 
 avowal dared not be made. 
 
 Sir, I might here rest the question. The affirmative of the 
 proposition is established. I cannot but advert, however, to 
 the complaint of the gentleman from Virginia when he was 
 first up on this question. He said he found himself reduced 
 to the necessity of supporting the negative side of the ques- 
 tion, before the affirmative was established. Let me tell 
 the gentleman, that there is no hardship in his case. It is 
 not every affirmative that ought to be proved. Were I to 
 affirm, that the House is now in session, would it be reason- 
 able to ask for proof ? He who would deny its truth, on 
 him would be the proof of so extraordinary a negative. How 
 then could the gentleman, after his admissions, with the facts 
 before him and the country, complain ? The causes are such 
 as to warrant, or rather make it indispensable, in any nation 
 not absolutely dependent, to defend its rights by force. Let 
 him, then, show the reasons whv we ought not so to defend
 
 SPEECHES. 5 
 
 ourselves. On him lies the burden of proof. This he has 
 attempted ; he has endeavored to support his negative. Be- 
 fore I proceed to answer him particularly, let me call the at- 
 tention of the House to one circumstance; that is, that 
 almost the whole of his arguments consisted of an enumera- 
 tion of evils always incident to war, however just and neces- 
 sary ; and which, if they have any force, are calculated to 
 produce unqualified submission to every species of insult and 
 injury. I do not feel myself bound to answer arguments of 
 this description ; and if I should touch on them, it will be 
 only incidentally, and not for the purpose of serious refuta- 
 tion. 
 
 The first argument of the gentleman which I shall notice, 
 is the unprepared state of the country. Whatever weight this 
 argument might have in a question of immediate war, it 
 surely has little in that of preparation for it. If our country 
 is unprepared, let us remedy the evil as soon as possible. 
 Let the gentleman submit his plan ; and if a reasonable one, 
 I doubt not it will be supported by the House. But, Sir, let 
 us admit the fact and the whole force of the argument. I 
 ask whose is the fault ? Who has been a member, for many 
 years past, and seen the defenceless state of his country 
 even near home, under his own eyes, without a single en- 
 deavor to remedy so serious an evil ? Let him not say, " I 
 have acted in a minority." It is no less the duty of the minor- 
 ity than a majority to endeavor to defend the country. For 
 that purpose we are sent here, and not for that of opposition. 
 
 We are next told of the expenses of the war ; and that 
 the people will not pay taxes. Why not ? Is it from want 
 of means ? What, with 1,000,000, tons of shipping ; a com- 
 merce of $100,000,000 annually; manufactures yielding 
 a yearly product of $150,000,000 ; and agriculture of thrice 
 that amount, shall we be told the country wants capacity to 
 raise and support ten thousand or fifteen thousand additional 
 regulars ? No ; it has the ability ; that is admitted ; and
 
 6 SPEECHES. 
 
 will it not have the disposition ? Is not the cause a just 
 and necessary one ? Shall we then utter this libel on the 
 people ? Where will proof be found of a fact so disgrace- 
 ful ? It is answered ; in the history of the country twelve 
 or fifteen years ago. The case is not parallel. The ability of 
 the country is greatly increased since. The whiskey-tax was 
 unpopular. But on this, as well as my memory serves me, 
 the objection was not to the tax or its amount, but the mode 
 of collection. The people were startled by the number of 
 officers ; their love of liberty shocked with the multiplicity 
 of regulations. We, in the spirit of imitation, copied from 
 the most oppressive part of European laws on the^ subject 
 of taxes, and imposed on a young and virtuous people all the 
 severe provisions made necessary by corruption and long- 
 practised evasions. If taxes should become necessary, I do 
 not hesitate to say the people will pay cheerfully. It is for 
 their government and their cause, and it would be their 
 interest and their duty to pay. But it may be, and I be- 
 lieve was said, that the people will not pay taxes, because 
 the rights violated are not worth defending ; or that the de- 
 fence will cost more than the gain. Sir, I here enter my 
 solemn protest against this low and " calculating avarice " 
 entering this hall of legislation. It is only fit for shops 
 and counting-houses ; and ought not to disgrace the seat of 
 power by its squalid aspect. Whenever it touches sovereign 
 power, the nation is ruined. It is too short-sighted to defend 
 itself. It is a compromising spirit, always ready to yield a 
 part to save the residue. It is too timid to have in itself the 
 laws of self-preservation. It is never safe but under the shield 
 of honor. There is, Sir, one principle necessary to make us a 
 great people, to produce not the form, but real spirit of 
 union ; and that is, to protect every citizen in the lawful pur- 
 suit of his business. He will then feel that he is backed by the 
 government ; that its arm is his arm ; and will rejoice in ita 
 increased strength and prosperity. Protection and patriot-
 
 ism are reciprocal. This is the way which has led nations to 
 greatness. Sir, I am not versed in this calculating policy ; 
 and will not, therefore, pretend to estimate in dollars and 
 cents the value of national independence. I cannot measure 
 in shillings and pence the misery, the stripes, and the slavery 
 of our impressed seamen ; nor even the value of our shipping, 
 commercial and agricultural losses, under the orders in coun- 
 cil, and the British system of blockade. In thus expressing 
 myself, I do not intend to condemn any prudent estimate of 
 the means of a country, before it enters on a war. This is 
 wisdom, the other folly. The gentleman from Virginia has 
 not failed to touch on the calamity of war, that fruitful source 
 of declamation by which humanity is made the advocate of 
 submission. If he desires to repress the gallant ardor of our 
 countrymen by such topics, let me inform him, that true 
 courage regards only the cause, that it is just and necessary ; 
 and that it contemns the sufferings and dangers of war. If 
 he really wishes to promote the cause of humanity, let his elo- 
 quence be addressed to Lord Wellesley or Mr. Percival, and 
 not the American Congress. Tell them if they persist in such 
 daring insult and injury to a neutral nation, that, however 
 inclined to peace, it will be bound in honor and safety to 
 resist ; that their patience and endurance, however great, will 
 be exhausted ; that the calamity of war will ensue, and that 
 they, in the opinion of the world, will be answerable for all 
 its devastation and misery. Let a regard to the interests of 
 humanity stay the hand of injustice, and my life on it, the 
 gentleman will not find it difficult to dissuade his country 
 from rushing into the bloody scenes of war. 
 
 We are next told of the dangers of war. I believe we 
 are all ready to acknowledge its hazards and misfortunes ; 
 but I cannot think we have any extraordinary danger to 
 apprehend, at least none to warrant an acquiescence in the 
 injuries we have received. On the contrary, I believe, no 
 war can be less dangerous to the internal peace, or safety
 
 8 SPEECHES. 
 
 of the country. But we are told of the black population of 
 the Southern States. As far as the gentleman from Virginia 
 speaks of his own personal knowledge, I shall not question 
 the correctness of his statement. I only regret that such is 
 the state of apprehension in his particular part of the country. 
 Of the Southern section, I, too, have some personal know- 
 ledge ; and can say, that in South Carolina no such fears in 
 any part are felt. But, Sir, admit the gentleman's state- 
 ment ; will a war with Great Britain increase the danger ? 
 Will the country be less able to suppress insurrection ? Had 
 we any thing to fear from that quarter (which I do not be- 
 lieve), in my opinion, the period of the greatest safety is dur- 
 ing a war ;,. unless, indeed, the enemy should make a lodg- 
 ment in the country. Then the country is most on its guard ; 
 our militia the best prepared ; and our standing army the 
 greatest. Even in our revolution no attempts at insurrection 
 were made by that portion of our population ; and however 
 the gentleman may alarm himself with the disorganizing ef- 
 fects of French principles, I cannot think our ignorant blacks 
 have felt much of their baneful influence. I dare say more 
 than one half of them never heard of the French revolution. 
 But as great as he regards the danger from our slaves, the 
 gentleman's fears end not there the standing army is not less 
 terrible to him. Sir, I think a regular force raised for a period 
 of actual hostilities cannot properly be called a standing army. 
 There is a just distinction between such a force, and one raised 
 as a permanent peace establishment. Whatever would be the 
 composition of the latter, I hope the former will consist of some 
 of the best materials of the country. The ardent patriotism of 
 our young men, and the reasonable bounty in land which is pro- 
 posed to be given, will impel them to join their country's stan- 
 dard and to fight her battles ; they will not forget the citizen 
 in the soldier, and in obeying their officers, learn to contemn 
 their government and constitution. In our officers and sol- 
 diers we will find patriotism no less pure and ardent than in the
 
 SPEECHES. 9 
 
 private citizen ; but if they should be depraved as represented, 
 what have we to fear from twenty-five thousand or thirty thou- 
 sand regulars ? Where will be the boasted militia of the gen- 
 tleman ? Can one million of militia be overpowered by thirty 
 thousand regulars ? If so, how can we rely on them against 
 a foe invading our country ? Sir, I have no such contemptuous 
 idea of our militia their untaught bravery is sufficient to 
 crash all foreign and internal attempts on their country's lib- 
 erties. 
 
 But we have not yet come to the end of the chapter 
 of dangers. The gentleman's imagination, so fruitful on 
 this subject, conceives that our constitution is not calculated 
 for war, and that it cannot stand its rude shock. This is 
 rather extraordinary. If true, we must then depend upon the 
 commiseration or contempt of other nations for our existence. 
 The constitution, then, it seems, has failed in an essential ob- 
 ject, "to provide for the common defence." No, says the gentle- 
 man from Virginia, it is competent for a defensive, but not for 
 an offensive war. It is not necessary for me to expose the er- 
 ror of this opinion. Why make the distinction in this instance ? 
 Will he pretend to say that this is an offensive war ; a war 
 of conquest ? Yes, the gentleman has dared to make this as- 
 sertion ; and for reasons no less extraordinary than the asser- 
 tion itself. He says our rights are violated on the ocean, and 
 that these violations affect our shipping, and commercial rights, 
 to which the Canadas have no relation. The doctrine of re- 
 taliation has been much abused of late by an unreasonable 
 extension ; we have now to witness a new abuse. The gentle- 
 man from Virginia has limited it down to a point. By his 
 rule if you receive a blow on the breast, you dare not re- 
 turn it on the head ; you are obliged to measure and return 
 it on the precise point on which it was received. If you do 
 not proceed with this mathematical accuracy, it ceases to be 
 just self-defence ; it becomes an unprovoked attack. 
 
 In speaking of Canada the gentleman from Virginia intro-
 
 1Q SPEECHES. 
 
 duced the name of Montgomery with much feeling and inter- 
 est. Sir, there is danger in that name to the gentleman's argu- 
 ment. It is sacred to heroism. It is indignant of submis- 
 sion ! It calls our memory back to the tune of our revolu- 
 tion, to the Congress of '74 and '75. Suppose a member 
 of that day had risen and urged all the arguments which we 
 have heard on this subject ; had told that Congress, your 
 contest is about the right of laying a tax ; and that the 
 attempt on Canada had nothing to do with it ; that the war 
 would be expensive ; that danger and devastation would 
 overspread our country, and that the power of Great Britain 
 was irresistible. With what sentiment, think you, would such 
 doctrines have been then received ? Happy for us, they had 
 no force at that period of our country's glory. Had such 
 been then acted on, this hall would never have witnessed a great 
 people convened to deliberate for the general good ; a mighty 
 empire, with prouder prospects than any nation the sun ever 
 shone on, would not have risen in the west. No ; we would 
 have been base subjected colonies ; governed by that impe- 
 rious rod which Britain holds over her distant provinces. 
 
 The gentleman from Virginia attributes the preparation 
 for war to every thing but its true cause. He endeavored 
 to find it in the probable rise in the price of hemp. He re- 
 presents the people of the Western States as willing to plunge 
 our country into war from such interested and base motives. I 
 will not reason on this point. I see the cause of their ardor, 
 not in such unworthy motives, but in their known patriotism 
 and disinterestedness. 
 
 No less mercenary is the reason which he attributes to 
 the Southern States. He says that the Non-Importation 
 Act has reduced cotton to nothing, which has produced 
 a feverish impatience. Sir, I acknowledge the cotton of 
 our plantations is worth but little ; but not for the cause 
 assigned by the gentleman from Virginia. The people of that 
 section do not reason as he does ; they do not attribute it to
 
 SPEECHES. 11 
 
 the efforts of their government to maintain the peace and in- 
 dependence of their country. They see, in the low price of 
 their produce, the hand of foreign injustice ; they know well 
 without the market to the continent, the deep and steady 
 current of supply will glut that of Great Britain ; they are 
 not prepared for the colonial state to which again that pow- 
 er is endeavoring to reduce us, and the manly spirit of that 
 section of our country will not suhmit to be regulated by any 
 foreign power. 
 
 The love of France and the hatred of England have 
 also been assigned as the cause of the present measures. 
 France has not done us justice, says the gentleman from 
 Virginia, and how can we, without partiality, resist the ag- 
 gressions of England. I know, Sir, we have still causes of 
 complaint against France ; but they are of a different charac- 
 ter from those against England. She professes now to re- 
 spect our rights, and there cannot be a reasonable doubt but 
 that the most objectionable parts of her decrees, as far as they 
 respect us, are repealed. We have already formally acknow- 
 ledged this to be a fact. But I protest against the princi- 
 ple from which his conclusion is drawn. It is a novel doc- 
 trine, and nowhere avowed out of this House, that you can- 
 not select your antagonist without being guilty of partiality. 
 Sir, when two invade your rights, you may resist both or 
 either at your pleasure. It is regulated by prudence and 
 not by right. The stale imputation of partiality for France 
 is better calculated for the columns of a newspaper, than 
 for the walls of this House. 
 
 The gentleman from Virginia is at a loss to account for 
 what he calls our hatred to England. He asks how can 
 we hate the country of Locke, of Newton, Hampden, and 
 Chatham ; a country having the same language and cus- 
 toms with ourselves, and descending from a common ances- 
 try. Sir, the laws of human affections are steady and uni- 
 form. If we have so much to attach us to that country,
 
 12 SPEECHES. 
 
 potent indeed must be the cause which has overpowered 
 it. Yes, there is a cause strong enough ; not in that oc- 
 cult courtly affection which he has supposed to be enter- 
 tained for France ; but it is to be found in continued and 
 unprovoked insult and injury a cause so manifest, that 
 the gentleman from Virginia had to exert much ingenuity 
 to overlook it. But, the gentleman, in his eager admira- 
 tion of that country, has not been sufficiently guarded in 
 his argument. Has he reflected on the cause of that admi- 
 ration ? Has he examined the reasons of our high regard 
 for her Chatham ? It is his ardent patriotism, the heroic 
 courage of his mind, that could not brook the least insult 
 or injury offered to his country, but thought that her in- 
 terest and honor ought to be vindicated at every hazard 
 and expense. I hope, when we are called upon to admire, 
 we shall also be asked to imitate. I hope the gentleman 
 does not wish a monopoly of those great virtues for England. 
 The balance of power has also been introduced, as an 
 argument for submission. England is said to be a barrier 
 against the military despotism of France. There is, Sir, 
 one great error in our legislation. We are ready, it would 
 seem from this argument, to watch over the interests of for- 
 eign nations, while we grossly neglect our own immediate 
 concerns. This argument of the balance of power is well 
 calculated for the British Parliament, but not at all suited 
 to the American Congress. Tell the former that they have 
 to contend with a mighty power, and that if they persist 
 in insult and injury to the American people, they will 
 compel them to throw their whole weight into the scale of 
 their enemy. Paint the danger to them, and if they will 
 desist from injuring us, we, I answer for it, will not disturb 
 the balance of power. But it is absurd for us to talk about 
 the balance of power, while they, by their conduct, smile 
 with contempt at what they regard our simple, good-natured 
 vanity. If, however, in the contest, it should be found that
 
 SPEECHES. 13 
 
 they underrate us which I hope and believe and that we 
 can affect the balance of power, it will not be difficult for us 
 to obtain such terms as our rights demand. 
 
 I, Sir, will now conclude by adverting to an argument of 
 the gentleman from Virginia, used in debate on a preceding 
 day. He asked, why not declare war immediately ? The 
 answer is obvious : because we are not yet prepared. But, 
 says the gentleman, such language as is here held, will pro- 
 voke Great Britain to commence hostilities. I have no such 
 fears. She knows well that such a course would unite all 
 parties here a thing which, above all others, she most 
 dreads. Besides, such has been our past conduct, that she 
 will still calculate on our patience and submission, until 
 war is actually commenced. 
 
 SPEECH 
 
 On the Petition of the Citizens of Albany to repeal 
 the Embargo, delivered in the House of Kepre- 
 sentatives, May 6th, 1812. 
 
 [NOTE. On the 4th of April, 1812, a bill, on the recommenda- 
 tion of the President, was passed by Congress, laying an embargo, 
 for sixty days, on all vessels then in port, or thereafter arriving. Soon 
 after its passage, petitions were presented from various parts of the 
 Union for its repeal or modification. Among these, was one from the 
 citizens of Albany, presented by Mr. Bleecker of New-York, praying 
 a repeal of the act. Motions were made to postpone it indefinitely, 
 and to refer it to the Committee on Foreign Relations. On these 
 motions, a debate of considerable interest ensued, involving the whole 
 course of policy recommended by the Executive, and pursued by the 
 majority during the session. The principal speakers for the postpone- 
 ment were, Messrs. Calhoun, Rhea of Tennessee, Johnson of Ken- 
 tucky, Grundy of Tennessee, and Wright of Maryland. In opposi-
 
 14 SPEECHES. 
 
 tion, were Messrs. Randolph of Virginia, Bleecker of New- York, and 
 Fisk of Vermont. On the motion to postpone indefinitely, Mr. Calhoun 
 submitted the following remarks.] 
 
 MR. SPEAKER : It is not my intention to discuss the 
 merits of the embargo law, or to follow the gentleman from 
 Virginia in that maze of arguments and assertions through 
 which he has thought proper to wander. The House must 
 be wearied, and can receive no additional light on a subject 
 which, through the zeal of some gentlemen in opposition, 
 has been so frequently dragged into discussion. I cannot 
 suppose that our opponents, in their importunity, are gov- 
 erned by an expectation that a change will be made in the 
 opinions of any individual of the majority. This, they must 
 see, is hopeless. The measure has been too recently adopted, 
 and after too much deliberation, to leave to the most san- 
 guine any hope of change. To reply, then, to the arguments 
 of gentlemen on the general merits of the embargo, would 
 be an useless consumption of time, and an unwarranted in- 
 trusion on the patience of the House. This, as I have 
 already stated, is not my intention ; but it is my object to 
 vindicate the motion now under discussion from unmerited 
 censure, and to prove that it cannot be justly considered as 
 treating the petitioners with contempt. I am aware that 
 the right to petition this body is guaranteed by the Consti- 
 tution, and that it is not less our interest than our duty to 
 receive petitions expressed in proper terms, as this is, with 
 respect. 
 
 Two propositions have been made relative to the dis- 
 position of the petition now before us : one, to refer it to a 
 committee ; the other that now under consideration to 
 postpone the further consideration to a day beyond the 
 termination of the embargo. It is contended, not by argu- 
 ment, but assertion, that the former would have been more 
 respectful to the petitioners ; but the reasons have been left 
 to conjecture. I ask, then, why would it be more respect-
 
 SPEECHES. 15 
 
 fill ? Would it present stronger hopes of success, or admit 
 as great latitude of discussion on its merits ? Gentlemen 
 know that it would not ; they well know, when the House 
 wishes to give the go-by to a petition, it has been usual to 
 adopt the very motion which, in this instance, they advocate. 
 On a motion of reference, debate on the merits is precluded ; 
 and, when referred, the committee, where there are no hopes 
 of success, usually allow it to sleep. But, Sir, I ask what is 
 the necessity for referring this petition to a committee ? 
 What are the objects of a reference ? I conceive them to 
 be two : one to investigate some matter of fact, and the 
 other when a subject is much tangled with detail, to digest 
 and arrange the parts, so the House may more easily com- 
 prehend the whole. This body is too large for either of those 
 operations, and therefore a reference is had to smaller ones. 
 In the present case, neither of these furnishes a good reason 
 for the reference asked for. The facts are not denied, and 
 as to detail, there is none ; it ends in a point the repeal of 
 the embargo law and it has been so argued in opposition. 
 This House is as fully competent to discuss its merits now, 
 as it would be after the report of any committee, and the 
 motion to postpone admits of the greatest latitude of discus- 
 sion on its merits. This, the speech of the gentleman from 
 Virginia (Mr. Randolph) has proved. He has argued not 
 only on the merits of the petition, but on the embargo, and 
 almost every subject, however remotely connected. I know 
 that the motion is tantamount to that of rejection, in the 
 present instance. In fact, it has been vindicated by the 
 mover on that ground. He has justly said : as we cannot 
 grant the relief prayed for, we ought to act with promptitude 
 and decision, so that the petitioners may know what to ex- 
 pect. This motion has that character ; it leaves no expecta- 
 tion where there can be no relief. I know, Sir, we might 
 have acted very differently : we might have spun out the 
 hopes of the petitioners. Some may think that it would be
 
 16 SPEECHES. 
 
 sound policy ; but, in my opinion, it would be unworthy of 
 this House. Candor, in our government, is one of the first 
 of political virtues. Let us always do directly, what we in- 
 tend shall finally be done. 
 
 Since there can be no objection to the motion now before 
 the House, it remains to be considered whether the relief 
 
 ' jf 
 
 prayed for ought to be granted. I am sensible that the 
 maxim is generally correct, that individual profit is national 
 gain ; and that the party interested is the best judge of the 
 hazard and propriety of a speculation. But there are ex- 
 ceptions ; there are cases in which the government is the best 
 judge ; and such are those where the future conduct of gov- 
 ernment is the cause of the hazard. It certainly is the best 
 judge of what it intends ; and, in those cases, where it fore- 
 sees a hazard, it ought, in humanity to the party interested, to 
 restrain speculations. Such is the present case. Many of 
 our merchants labor under a delusion as to the measures of 
 government : nor can this seem strange, since some gentle- 
 men, even in this House, have taken up such mistaken views 
 of things. With such conceptions of the course of events, 
 as the gentleman from New- York (Mr. Bleecker) entertains, 
 I am not surprised that he should advocate the prayer of the 
 petition. He believes that the embargo will be permitted to 
 expire without any hostile measure being taken against Great 
 Britain ; and that, in the present state of our preparations, 
 it would be madness to think of war in sixty days, or any 
 short period. When I hear such language on this floor, I 
 no longer wonder that merchants are petitioning you to aid 
 them in making speculations, which in a short time must end 
 in their ruin. I ask the gentleman from New- York, who 
 are the true friends to the petitioners the majority who, 
 foreseeing the hazard to which they would be exposed, re- 
 strain them from falling into the hands of British cruisers, 
 or the minority, who, by suppressing the evidences of danger, 
 induce them to enter into the most ruinous speculations ?
 
 SPEECHES. 17 
 
 By the one, the merchants still retain their property, depre- 
 ciated, it is true, in a small degree ; by the other, it will be 
 lost to themselves and their country, and will go to augment 
 the resources of our enemy. For, Sir, let me assure the gen- 
 tleman that he makes a very erroneous estimate of our pre- 
 parations, and of the time at which we will act. Our army 
 and measures are not merely on paper, as he states. And 
 were this the proper time and subject, it could be shown that 
 very considerable advances have been made to put the coun- 
 try into a posture of defence, and to prepare our forces for 
 an attack on our enemy. We will not, I hope, wait the ex- 
 piration of the embargo to take our stand against England 
 that stand which the best interests and honor of this coun- 
 try have so loudly demanded. With such a prospect, I again 
 ask, would it be humanity or cruelty to the petitioners to 
 grant their prayer, and, by relaxing the embargo in their fa- 
 vor, to entice them to certain destruction ? 
 
 The gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Kandolph) stated, 
 to induce us to repeal the embargo law, and to make it odi- 
 ous, I suppose, with the community, that it operated less 
 severely on the merchant than on the farmer and miller. He 
 did not prove very distinctly how this unequal pressure was 
 produced. But I understood him to say, that eastern vessels 
 could be had with so much facility to make shipments to any 
 European port, and that flour had risen so much already in 
 consequence of the embargo, that the rise in price nearly 
 compensated for the additional risk and costs of exportation. 
 I observe the gentleman shakes his head in disapprobation 
 of the statement. I suppose I misunderstood him. How- 
 ever, I could not mistake the conclusion which he drew, 
 that the merchants, by eluding the embargo, had prevented 
 the depreciation of the price of wheat and flour on hand. 
 This, Sir, is sufficient for my purpose. The gentleman from 
 Virginia must know that, from the character of trade, the 
 profit of such trade, if it really exists, cannot be confined to 
 VOL. n. 2
 
 18 SPEECHES. 
 
 the merchant. It would soon raise the price of breadstuffs 
 in the hands of the other classes of the community, and 
 would prove that his statement of the distressed condition of 
 the millers and farmers cannot be correct. 
 
 In his zeal against the embargo, the gentleman from Vir- 
 ginia says, it was engendered between the Committee on For- 
 eign Kelations and the Executive. Engendered ! The gen- 
 tleman must be sensible of the impropriety of such language, 
 as applied to the Executive, or a Committee of this House. 
 No, Sir, it was not engendered, but adopted by both the Ex- 
 ecutive and committee, from its manifest propriety as a pre- 
 lude to war. There is no man in his reason, and uninflu- 
 enced by party feelings, but must acknowledge that a war, 
 in this country, ought, almost invariably, to be preceded by 
 an embargo. The very persons most loud against that mea- 
 sure, would be the most clamorous had it not preceded the 
 war. There has been, Sir, much false statement in rela- 
 tion to the embargo. I remember, when it was under dis- 
 cussion on a former occasion, that a gentleman then observed, 
 he had certain information that the French minister had 
 been importuning our government to stop the exportation of 
 breadstuifs to the Peninsula. I know not whether he in- 
 tended to insinuate this as one of the causes of the embargo. 
 Be it as it may, I assert, from the highest authority, that 
 no such application has ever been made, directly or indirectly, 
 on the part of the French government. The statement was 
 of such a nature as induced me to inquire into its correct- 
 ness ; and the result is such as I have declared. I can 
 scarcely suppose, that the gentleman intended to convey the 
 idea that French influence had any thing to do with the 
 measure. He must know that the Executive, as well as a 
 majority of this body, would resist, with the greatest indig- 
 nation, any attempt to influence the measures of govern- 
 ment. But such has been the use made of it by certain 
 prints, either from the manner in which it was connected in
 
 SPEECHES. 19 
 
 debate with the embargo, or the very imperfect and unfair 
 reports of the secret proceedings of Congress. 
 
 One would suppose, from the language of the gentleman 
 from Virginia, that he was much in the secrets of govern- 
 ment. He says, the plan now is, to disband the army and 
 cany on a predatory war on the ocean. I can assure him, if 
 such is the plan, I am wholly ignorant of it ; and that, 
 should it be proposed, it will not meet with my approbation. 
 I am decidedly of opinion that the best interests of the coun- 
 try will be consulted by calling out the whole force of the 
 community to protect its rights. Should this course fail, 
 the next best would be to submit to our enemy with as good 
 a grace as possible. Let us not provoke where we cannot 
 resist. The mongrel state neither war nor peace is 
 much the worst. 
 
 The gentleman from Virginia has told us much of the 
 signs of the times. I had hoped, that the age of superstition 
 was past, and that no attempt would be made to influence 
 the measures of government, which ought to be founded 
 in wisdom and policy, by the vague, I may say, supersti- 
 tious feelings of any man, whatever may be the physical ap- 
 pearances which may have given birth to them. Are we to 
 renounce our reason ? Must we turn from the path of jus- 
 tice and experience, because a comet has made its appear- 
 ance in our system, or the moon has passed between the sun 
 and the earth ? If so, the signs of the times are bad in- 
 deed. It would mark a fearful retrograde in civilization it 
 would show a dreadful declension towards barbarism. Sir, 
 if we must examine the auspices ; if we must inspect the 
 entrails of the times, I would pronounce the omens good. It 
 is from moral, and not from brutal or physical omens, that 
 we ought to judge ; and what more favorable could we desire 
 than that the country is, at last, roused from its lethargy, and 
 that it has determined to vindicate its interest and honor. 
 On the contrary, a nation so sunk in avarice, and so corrupt-
 
 20 SPEECHES. 
 
 ed by faction, as to be insensible to the greatest injuries, and 
 lost to all sense of its independence, would be a sight more por- 
 tentous than comets, earthquakes, eclipses, or the whole cata- 
 logue of omens, which I have heard the gentleman from Virgi- 
 nia enumerate. I assert, and gentlemen know it, if we submit 
 to the pretensions of England, now openly avowed, the inde- 
 pendence of this country is lost we will be, as to our com- 
 merce, re-colonized. This is the second straggle for our lib- 
 erty ; and if we but do justice to ourselves, it will be no less 
 glorious and successful than the first. Let us but exert our- 
 selves, and we must meet with the prospering smile of 
 Heaven. Sir, I assert it with confidence, a war, just and 
 necessary in its origin, wisely and vigorously carried on, and 
 honorably terminated, would establish the integrity and pros- 
 perity of our country for centuries. 
 
 SPEECH 
 
 On the proposition to* repeal the Non-Importation 
 Act, delivered in the House of Kepresentatives, 
 June 24th, 1812. 
 
 [NOTE. On June 23d, 1812, immediately after the Declaration 
 of War, Mr. Cheves, Chairman of the Committee of Ways and Means, 
 reported a Bill, " Partially to suspend, for a limited time, the several 
 acts prohibiting importations from Great Britain, her dominions, 
 colonies, and dependencies; and of the produce and manufactures 
 thereof:" which was read, and referred to the Committee of the 
 Whole on the state of the Union. 
 
 Mr. Richardson of Massachusetts moved to amend the first sec- 
 tion, by striking out all the words after the enacting clause, and in- 
 serting others proposing a total repeal of the whole restrictive 
 system, as being no longer applicable to the existing state of the
 
 SPEECHES. 21 
 
 country. This proposition was negatived by a vote of 69 to 53, when 
 Mr. Williams of South Carolina moved to strike out the first section 
 of the Bill, without proposing to insert. Mr. Johnson opposed, and 
 Mr. Macon supported the motion ; when the committee rose, reported 
 progress, and asked leave to sit again ; which the House refused to 
 grant. Mr. Richardson then renewed his motion to amend ; and Mr. 
 Williams moved an indefinite postponement of the Bill. This latter 
 motion was lost by the same vote, and the House adjourned. 
 
 June 24. The House resumed the consideration of the Bill 
 Mr. Richardson's proposition being under consideration. It was sup- 
 ported by Messrs. Pearson, Widgery, and Calhoun, and opposed by 
 Mr. Wright of Maryland, and finally negatived Ayes, 58; Noes, 61. 
 
 On the failure of Mr. Richardson's proposition, Mr. Goldsborough 
 moved to amend the Bill, so as to permit the importation of all goods 
 not owned by British subjects. This was lost by a vote of 59 to 60. 
 Mr. McKim then moved to postpone the Bill to 1st of February, 1813 
 (a virtual rejection), and the motion prevailed. Mr. Richardson, how- 
 ever, on the day following, offered a resolution for the appointment 
 of a Select Committee to bring in a Bill to repeal the Non-Importa- 
 tion Act ; which, after a warm debate, was lost by the casting vote of 
 the speaker, Mr. Clay.] 
 
 MR. SPEAKER : I am in favor of the amendment pro- 
 posed by the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Richard- 
 son) ; and, as I differ from many of my friends on the sub- 
 ject, I feel it a duty to present the reasons that will govern 
 my vote. But, before I proceed to discuss the question, I 
 wish it to be distinctly understood that, to avoid taxes, forms 
 no part of my inducement to advocate the proposed repeal. 
 I am ready to meet them. We are at war. It is wisdom 
 to make it efficient ; and that system will meet with my 
 hearty support which renders it the most so, be it more or 
 less burthensome. I fear not the effect of taxes on the 
 public mind. The people will support any taxes short of 
 oppression. Sir, I am not disposed to deny that the Non- 
 Importation Act has a very sensible eifect on the resources of 
 the enemy ; and am willing to admit, that restrictions on
 
 22 SPEECHES. 
 
 commerce, as a means of annoyance, ought not to be neglect- 
 ed. I cannot, however, agree with the gentlemen who op- 
 pose this amendment, that a repeal of this act would leave 
 the trade with Great Britain unembarrassed, or would afford 
 a great relief to her manufacturers. A state of war is itself 
 a severe restriction on commerce. The new and circuitous 
 channel through which trade is compelled to flow ; the ad- 
 ditional hazard and expenses incident to that state ; and the 
 double duties proposed to be laid on imports, present very 
 serious impediments equal, or nearly so, to the Non-Impor- 
 tation Act itself. If, Sir, in some parts of this country, 
 English goods can now be had at 60 per cent, on the invoice 
 price, as I have been informed by some commercial gentle- 
 men, by repealing this act you will produce no relaxation ; 
 for the expense and hazard of introduction will, at least, equal 
 that per cent. By the repeal, the price of such goods will 
 not sink ; the consumption will not be increased ; nor will 
 the manufacturer be relieved. We are in the habit of think- 
 ing that prohibition in law is prohibition in fact. It is a 
 great mistake, which I daily see contradicted in our mer- 
 chants' shops, lined with English manufactures. So far 
 from entirely preventing their introduction, I believe that 
 to prohibit is not the most effectual mode to exclude them. 
 I venture the assertion with confidence, that duties are, at 
 least, equally effectual. The greatest commercial pressure 
 that can be obtained, I believe, will be found in duties as 
 high as the articles introduced can bear, that is, as high as 
 possible without smuggling. Goods can be introduced 
 cheaper (of course more abundantly and with a greater con- 
 sumption) under the Non-Importation Act by smuggling, 
 than under such duties. It is a fact of importance, that 
 smuggling is more easy under the former than the latter sys- 
 tem ; and, consequently, can be carried on at a less cost. 
 I beg the attention of the House while I establish this point. 
 The hazard of smuggling depends on the laws against it,
 
 SPEECHES. 23 
 
 their rigid execution, the puhlic sentiment, and the in- 
 terests of the mercantile class to permit it. I begin with 
 the last, for it is the most important, as it controls the others. 
 Where duties are not so high as to drive the honest trader 
 from the market, the merchants, as a body, have an interest to 
 prevent smuggling. Goods, so introduced, not only defraud 
 the revenue, but the honest and regular trader. The higher 
 the duty, the more powerful this principle ; and in this country, 
 where there is not much competition between many articles 
 of foreign supply and of domestic manufacture, the duties 
 may be made very high. In this state of things every honest 
 merchant becomes a vigilant custom-house officer, stimulated 
 by a sense of interest. It was this principle which made 
 smuggling unknown to your laws, previous to the commence- 
 ment of the restrictive system. It was not the number, or 
 vigilance of your officers. They bore no proportion to the 
 extent of your coast. But it was hard to smuggle, where 
 every merchant considered each bale of goods, or cask of 
 wine, so introduced, as so much loss to his profit. Very 
 different is the effect of entire prohibition. I cannot speak 
 of it more concisely or justly than to say, it is the reverse. 
 Under it, the honest trader of necessity disappears. The 
 desperate adventurer supplies his place. Commerce ceases 
 to be a trade a business of fair and regular gain ; it be- 
 comes a matter of hazard and adventure. The whole class 
 concerned in carrying it on have one common interest to 
 discover flaws in your revenue laws, or elude their operation ; 
 to lull the vigilance of your custom-house officers, or corrupt 
 their integrity. Smuggling ceases to be odious. It is no 
 longer the occupation of an insulated individual, who care- 
 fully conceals from all the world his violation of the laws. 
 No, it becomes the business of a society, of an entire class of 
 men, who make a jest of fraud, and consider ingenuity, in 
 this lawless occupation, as the highest honor. The corrup- 
 tion ends not here ; its infectious influence spreads and con-
 
 24 SPEECHES. 
 
 taminates public opinion. But, Sir, under the operation of 
 heavy duties only, it is reversed. Interest, it is true, con- 
 trols opinion in this, as well as in the other cases, but it pro- 
 duces the opposite effect. Here the smuggler is ranked 
 with the thief, or with that description of men, who, in 
 violation of the law, live on the honest gains of others. 
 From the merchant, the rest of the community takes the 
 impression, and the smuggler becomes universally odious. 
 Interest has wonderful control over sentiment. Even the 
 more refined and elevated the moral and religious senti- 
 ment may be considered as ultimately resting on it ; not, 
 it is true, on that of any one individual, or class of men, but 
 on the enlarged interest of our kind. Correspondent to 
 public sentiment will hfe the laws, or, what is of more import- 
 ance, their execution. / In all free governments the laws, or 
 their execution, cannot be much above the tone of public 
 opinion. Under the restrictive system, the laws are either 
 cried down for oppression, or are not executed, j Under the 
 operation of duties only, the merchant himself demands 
 severe laws, and aids in their rigid execution. He is a 
 party concerned with his country, and has a common interest 
 with government. He sees in the laws a friend and pro- 
 tector, and not an oppressor. 
 
 Sir, I think the conclusion is strong, that you cannot 
 extend your commercial pressure on the enemy, beyond, or 
 at least much beyond, the operation of high duties. It 
 seems to me to be the ultimate point ; and, if it is a fact 
 that the double duties are as high as can be borne (of which 
 I pretend not to have certain knowledge), then, the con- 
 tinuation of the Non-Importation Act will not give much 
 additional pressure. The repeal, so far from relieving the 
 English manufacturer, will be scarcely felt in that country. 
 It is by no means like a repeal in peace, and, without addi- 
 tional burthens, would be unfelt. 
 
 But, Sir, I may be asked, Why change, why repeal the
 
 SPEECHES. 25 
 
 Non-Importation Act ? If it does not produce any good, it 
 will not much harm. As it regards our enemy, I readily 
 admit there is not much reason for its repeal or continuation, 
 I feel not much solicitude on that point. But, Sir, as it 
 regards ourselves, the two systems are essentially different. 
 In the one, the whole gain is profit to the adventurer and 
 smuggler. The honest dealer is driven out of employment, 
 and government is defrauded of its revenue. In the other, 
 an honest and useful class of citizens is maintained in com- 
 fort and ease, and the treasury enriched. Even suppose the 
 difference in the pressure on the enemy to be considerable, 
 yet these incidental advantages ought not to be disregarded. 
 I would not give up for revenue what I suppose to be a good 
 system ; but when the effects of two measures are nearly 
 equal in other respects, I would not overlook the exchequer. 
 It is there, after all, we will find the funds, the sinews of 
 war. I know the zeal and resources of the country are 
 great ; but we have not been in the habit of paying taxes ; 
 we have no system of internal revenue ; and the nature of 
 the country, and the conflict between the States and general 
 government, render it difficult, I may say impossible, to 
 originate one that will not excite discontent. The measure 
 I advocate will yield you more additional revenue than the 
 whole of the internal taxes ; and this on goods which would 
 be introduced in spite of your laws. Consider the relief it 
 would afford you. The internal taxes might, in a great 
 measure, be dispensed with ; or, if we choose to give it to 
 our gallant little navy, the millions thus gained from com- 
 merce, would add to it considerable strength. Bestowed on 
 our army, it would be better appointed, and enabled to act 
 with greater vigor and promptitude. Or, if you choose a 
 different destination, you might keep down the increas- 
 ing volume of public debt ; a tiling that ought so nearly 
 to interest each one of us. The sum of my opinion 
 then is, that a repeal of the Non-Importation Act will' not,
 
 26 SPEECHES. 
 
 under existing circumstances, afford much relief to the dis- 
 tresses of England ; and that a commercial pressure, equally 
 sure and as entire prohibition, and far more salutary for 
 this country, may be produced by the operation of heavy 
 duties. There are many who are ready to acknowledge the 
 truth of this opinion, but fear that the effect on the public 
 mind both here and in England would be unfortunate. 
 They dread a change. But I will not admit, that the repeal 
 would be a material change. Our fixed determination is to 
 resist England. Can war, can all the impediments to trade 
 incidental to that state, be considered a change, a yielding ? 
 No, if they imply a change, it is a wise one one advancing 
 from a lower to a higher degree of resistance. We need not 
 fear any evil effect on public opinion. If there should be 
 any, it will be but momentary. Our duty is, to pursue the 
 wisest and the most efficient measures ; it is the duty of 
 the people to understand their character to condemn the 
 pernicious, and to approve the wise. This they will finally 
 do. Delusion cannot long exist. As to the impression on 
 our enemy, he will not find much relief to his starving 
 manufacturers in a war with this country. He will under- 
 stand the impediments in the way of commerce, and they 
 present but little to encourage his hopes. 
 
 But, Sir, I condemn this mode of legislating, which does 
 not adopt or reject measures because in themselves good or 
 bad, but because of some supposed effect they may produce 
 on the opinion of our enemy. In all games it is hazardous 
 to play on the supposed ignorance of your opponent. In 
 a few instances, it may succeed ; but, in most, he sees your 
 intention and turns it against yourself. 
 
 Sir, I am in hopes, if the measure I advocate should 
 succeed, it will tend to produce harmony at home. It will 
 go far to reconcile the mercantile class. Your restrictive 
 measures have become odious to them ; and though they 
 may not approve the war, yet they cannot but respect the
 
 SPEECHES. 27 
 
 motives which dictated it. The merchants, I hope, will come 
 to reflect that this is the favorable moment to assert their 
 rights. The single fact that the parts of the country most 
 remote from the ocean and least connected with commerce 
 have entered into this contest for commercial rights with an 
 ardor and .disinterestedness which does them the greatest 
 honor, proves it to be, of all others the most auspicious 
 moment. It more than counterbalances all want of prepa- 
 ration. For it is more easy to prepare for war than to 
 obtain union ; and the former is not more necessary to 
 victory than the latter. I now teU the commercial gentle- 
 men, if their rights are not protected, theirs is the fault. 
 With hearty co-operation on their part, victory is certain. 
 
 It now remains for me to touch on another and far more 
 interesting topic ; one which, I confess, has the principal 
 weight in the formation of my opinions on this subject. 
 The restrictive system, as a mode of resistance, and a means 
 of obtaining a redress of our wrongs, has never been a 
 favorite one with me. I wish not to censure the motives 
 which dictated it, or to attribute weakness to those who 
 first resorted to it for a restoration of our rights. Though 
 I do not think the embargo a wise measure, yet I am far 
 from thinking it a pusillanimous one. To lock up the 
 whole commerce of this country ; to say to the most trading 
 and exporting people in the world, " You shall not trade ; 
 You shall not export ; " to break in upon the schemes of 
 almost every man in society, is far from weakness, very far 
 from pusillanimity. Sir, I confess while I disapprove this 
 more than any other measure, it proves the strength of your 
 government and the patriotism of the people. The arm of 
 despotism, under similar circumstances, could not have 
 coerced its execution more effectually, than the patience 
 and zeal of the people. But, I object to the restrictive 
 system ; and for the following reasons : Because it does 
 not suit the genius of our people, or that of our govern-
 
 28 SPEECHES. 
 
 mentj or the geographical character of the country. We 
 are a people essentially active. I may say we are pre- 
 eminently so. Distance and difficulties are less to us than 
 any people on earth. Our schemes and prospects extend 
 every where and to every thing. No passive system can suit 
 such a people ; in action superior to all others ; in 
 patience and endurance inferior to many. Nor does it suit 
 the genius of our institutions. Our government is founded 
 on freedom and hates coercion. To make the restrictive 
 system effectual, requires the most arbitrary laws. Eng- 
 land, with the severest penal statutes, has not been able to 
 exclude prohibited articles ; and even Bonaparte, with all 
 his power and vigilance, was obliged to resort to the most 
 barbarous laws to enforce his continental system. Burning has 
 furnished the only effectual remedy. The peculiar geography 
 of our country, added to the freedom of its government, greatly 
 increases the difficulty. With so great an extent of sea- 
 coast ; with so many rivers, bays, harbors and inlets ; with 
 neighboring English provinces, which stretch for so great an 
 extent along one of our frontiers, it is impossible to prevent 
 smuggling to a large amount. 
 
 Besides, there are other and strong objections to this 
 system. It renders government odious. People are not in 
 the habit of looking back beyond immediate causes. The 
 farmer, who inquires why he cannot get more for his produce, 
 is told that it is owing to the embargo, or to commercial 
 restrictions. In this he sees only the hands of his own gov- 
 ernment. He does not look to those acts of violence and 
 injustice, which this system is intended to counteract. His 
 censures fall on his government. To its measures he at- 
 tributes the cause of his embarrassment, and in their removal 
 he expects his relief. This is an unhappy state of the public 
 mind ; and even, I might with truth say, in a government 
 resting essentially on opinion, a dangerous one. In war it 
 is different. The privation, it is true, may be equal, or
 
 SPEECHES. 29 
 
 greater ; but the public mind, under the strong impulses of 
 such a state, becomes steeled against sufferings. The differ- 
 ence is great between the passive and active state of mind. 
 Tie down a hero, and he feels the puncture of a pin ; but, 
 throw him into battle, and he is scarcely sensible of vital 
 gashes. So in war. Impelled, alternately, by hope and 
 fear ; stimulated by revenge ; depressed with shame, or ele- 
 vated by victory, the people become invincible. No priva- 
 tions can shake their fortitude ; no calamity can break their 
 spirit. Even where equally successful, the contrast is 
 striking. War and restriction may leave the country equally 
 exhausted ; but the latter not only leaves you poor, but, 
 even when successful, dispirited, divided, discontented, with 
 diminished patriotism, and the manners of a considerable 
 portion of your people corrupted. Not so in war. In that 
 state the common danger unites all ; strengthens the bonds 
 of society, and feeds the flame of patriotism. The national 
 character acquires energy. In exchange for the expenses of 
 war you obtain military and naval skill, and a more perfect 
 organization of such parts of your government as are connected 
 with the science of national defence. You also obtain the 
 habits of freely advancing your purse and strength in the 
 common cause. Sir, are these advantages to be counted as 
 trifles in the present state of the world ? Can they be meas- 
 ured by a moneyed valuation ? 
 
 But, it may be asked, why not unite war and restriction, 
 and thus call the whole energy of the country into action ? 
 It is true there is nothing impossible in such an union ; but 
 it is equally true, that what is gained to the latter is lost to 
 the former ; and, Sir, the reverse is also true, that what 
 is lost to restrictions is gained to the war. My objections to 
 restrictions without war, equally hold against them in con- 
 junction with it. Sir, I would prefer a single victory over 
 the enemy, by sea or land, to all the good we shall ever 
 derive from the continuation of the Non-Importation Act.
 
 30 SPEECHES. 
 
 I know not that it would produce an equal pressure on the 
 enemy ; but I am certain of what is of greater consequence, 
 it would be accompanied with more salutary effects on 
 ourselves. /^The memory of a Saratoga or Eutaw is immortal. 
 It is there you will find the country's boast and pride : the 
 inexhaustible source of great and heroic actions. But what 
 will history say of restrictions ? What examples worthy of 
 imitation will it furnish posterity ? What pride, what 
 pleasure will our children find in the events of such tunes ? 
 Let me not be considered as romantic. This nation ought 
 to be taught to rely on its own courage, its fortitude, its 
 skill, and virtue, for protection. These are the only safe- 
 guards in the hour of danger. Man was endowed with these 
 great qualities for his defence. / There is nothing about him 
 that indicates that he must conquer by enduring. He is 
 not incrusted in a shell ; he is not taught to rely on his 
 insensibility, his passive suffering, for defence. No, no ; it 
 is on the invincible mind ; on a magnanimous nature, that 
 he ought to rely. Herein lies the superiority of our kind ; 
 it is these that make man the lord of the world. It is the 
 destiny of our condition, that nations should rise above 
 nations, as they are endued, in a greater degree, with these 
 shining qualities./ Sir, it is often repeated, that if the Non- 
 Importation Act 'is continued, we shall have a speedy peace. 
 I believe it not. I fear the delusive hope. It will debilitate 
 the springs of war. It is for this reason, in part, that I wish 
 it repealed. It is the fountain of fallacious expectations. 
 I have frequently heard another remark, with no small mor- 
 tification, from some of those who have supported the war ; 
 viz., that it is only by restrictions we can seriously affect 
 our enemies. Why then declare war ? Is it to be an ap- 
 pendage only of the Non-Importation Act ? If so, I disclaim 
 it. It is an alarming idea to be in a state of war, and not 
 to rely on our courage or energy, but on a measure of peace. 
 If the Non-Importation Act is our chief reliance, it will soon
 
 SPEECHES. 31 
 
 direct our council. Let us strike away this false hope ; let 
 us call out the resources of the country for its protection. 
 England will soon find that seven millions of freemen, with 
 every material of war in abundance, are not to be despised 
 with impunity. I would be full of hope if I saw our sole 
 reliance placed on the vigorous prosecution of the war. But 
 if we are to paralyze it ; if we are to trust, in the moment 
 of danger, to the operation of a system of peace, I greatly 
 fear. If such is to be our course, I see not that we have 
 bettered our condition. We have had a peace like a war. 
 In the name of Heaven, let us not have the only thing that 
 is worse a war like a peace. I trust my fears will not be 
 realized. 
 
 SPEECH 
 
 On the Eeport of the Committee of Ways and Means, 
 in reference to Merchants' Bonds, delivered in the 
 House of Representatives, Dec. 4th, 1812. 
 
 [NOTE. This speech so fully explains the circumstances under 
 which it was delivered, as to make a note unnecessary. It will suffice 
 to say, for the satisfaction of the reader, that the Committee of the 
 Whole refused to agree to the Report of the Committee of Ways and 
 Means, by a vote of 52 to 49 : and that, subsequently (Dec. 15th, 
 1812), a Bill was passed by the Senate, directing the Secretary of the 
 Treasury to remit the forfeitures incurred by the merchants, which, 
 after considerable opposition, was finally agreed to by the House 
 Yeas, 64; Nays, 61.] 
 
 MB. CHAIRMAN : The subject now under discussion was 
 first brought to the notice of Congress, by the following para- 
 graph in the President's Message at the commencement of 
 the present session :
 
 32 SPEECHES. 
 
 " A considerable number of American vessels, which were 
 in England when the revocation of the Orders in Council 
 took place, were laden with British manufactures under an 
 erroneous impression that the Non-Importation Act would 
 immediately cease to operate, and have arrived in the United 
 States. It did not appear proper to exercise on unforeseen 
 cases of such magnitude, the ordinary power vested in the 
 Treasury Department, to mitigate forfeitures, without pre- 
 viously affording to Congress an opportunity of making, on 
 the subject, such provision as they may think proper. In 
 their decision they will doubtless equally consult what is due 
 to equitable considerations and the public interest." 
 
 So much of the message as has been just read, was re- 
 ferred to the Committee of Ways and Means. Their report 
 constitutes the subject of present deliberation, the material 
 part of which is as follows : 
 
 " On a view of the whole subject, the committee are of 
 opinion that the Secretary of the Treasury has full power to 
 remit or mitigate the penalties and forfeitures incurred, should 
 an interposition, in either way, be called for by the circum- 
 stances of the case ; and, therefore, recommend that it be 
 
 " Resolved, That it is inexpedient to legislate upon the 
 subject, and that the petitions with the accompanying docu- 
 ments be referred to the Secretary of the Treasury." 
 
 My object in presenting to the view of this committee 
 the President's Message and the Report, is, to call their at- 
 tention to a total want of accordance between them. It is 
 almost an abuse of language to call it a report. A report 
 ought to comprehend the subject of reference, and be, to it, 
 as a conclusion is to its premises. On reading the report 
 only, the natural conclusion would be, that we were consulted 
 as lawyers, and not as statesmen ; that the point of doubt, 
 in the Executive mind, turned on the construction of our 
 acts, and not on what justice, humanity, and sound policy 
 demand. The report informs us, that the Secretary of the
 
 SPEECHES. 33 
 
 Treasury has power to remit or mitigate the penalties incur- 
 red ; and, from this fact, it draws that negative proposition 
 on which we are now deliberating. It is not a little curious 
 to observe how formally and fully the committee have decid- 
 ed on this power of the Treasury Department, doubted 
 neither by the President nor Secretary, nor, indeed, by any 
 one ; while they overlook those interesting considerations, 
 towards which the Executive has directed the attention of 
 Congress, viz. : " What is due to equitable considerations 
 and to the public interest," in relation to "unforeseen cases of 
 such magnitude." They are, in truth, cases of magnitude. 
 Twenty millions of property await your decision ; a sum 
 equal nearly to half of the annual exports of this country ; 
 and quite equal to the entire export, in the best years, of the 
 whole country between Washington and New Orleans. It is 
 difficult to realize magnitude when expressed in numbers 
 only. To form a just conception, we must aggregate the 
 whole annual products of cotton, rice and tobacco, with a 
 large proportion of the breadstuff's of this country. I would 
 be happy to know on what principle of policy or reason so 
 large an amount is to be left to the decision of any individual. 
 Is more wisdom, more virtue, or public confidence to be found 
 in the Treasury Department, than in the assembled represen- 
 tatives of the Union ? What constitutes a feature in this 
 report, still more extraordinary and objectionable, is, the 
 apparent understanding between the committee and the 
 Treasury Department. They coyly refuse to recommend any 
 positive act of legislation ; while they, indirectly, intimate 
 what they wish and expect the Secretary of the Treasury to 
 do ; or, in other words, we are called on, really and virtually, 
 to legislate ; while, at the same time, we are informed that 
 it is improper for us so to do. For, among the documents 
 reported by the Committee of Ways and Means, as forming 
 the basis of their opinion, is a letter of the Secretary of the 
 
 VOL. II. 3
 
 34 SPEECHES. 
 
 Treasury of the 23d of November, which contains the follow- 
 ing paragraph : 
 
 " Upon the whole, I continue in the opinion, submitted 
 with great deference to the committee, that one-half of 
 the forfeitures which would otherwise fall to the collectors, 
 ought to be remitted ; but that, with respect to the one-half 
 belonging to the United States, justice to the community re- 
 quires, that, when remitted, at least an equivalent may be 
 secured to the public for the extra profit beyond that on 
 common importations, which arises from the continuation of 
 the Non-Importation Act." 
 
 Here, Sir, the opinion of the Secretary is explicitly stated 
 relative to these unforeseen cases of such magnitude, and the 
 conclusion is irresistible, that the committee, in referring 
 them to his decision, must have known and approved of it. 
 
 The true question, then, before the committee, is not to 
 be found in that negative resolution reported by the Commit- 
 tee of Ways and Means,' that it is inexpedient to legislate 
 on these cases, but in that part of the letter of the Secre- 
 tary of the Treasury which I have just read. Yes, Sir ; 
 we are now deliberating, in effect, on the proposition whether 
 it is proper to exact of the merchants their extra profit ; 
 and whether, in such case, this ought to be done through the 
 agency of the Treasury Department. I presume the truth 
 of this opinion will not be controverted ; should it be, how- 
 ever, ample proof will be found in almost every sentence of 
 the report of the speeches of the gentlemen in support of it. 
 They are literally compounded of laborious investigations to 
 ascertain the extra profit of the merchants on their late im- 
 portations. 
 
 Now, Sir, without pretending to controvert the policy 
 of taking extra profit, I assert that it cannot be legally ef- 
 fected through the Secretary of the Treasury. It exceeds 
 his powers. The Non-Importation Act, under which the for- 
 feitures accrued, refers to the Act of 1797 to ascertain the
 
 SPEECHES. oO 
 
 powers of the Secretary in relation to cases of this kind. On 
 reference to that act, his power will be found to be strictly 
 a mitigating and remitting power, and has for its object the 
 remedy of an imperfection incidental to all human laws. The 
 best worded act must comprehend many cases within the let- 
 ter, that are not within its spirit or intention. In every well 
 regulated government, an equity exists somewhere to remedy 
 this defect to mitigate the rigor of the law. The act of 
 '97, for greater security of the revenue, vests this power, in 
 relation to our revenue laws, in the head of the Treasury 
 Department. The real object of those laws is, to punish 
 only the negligent or wilful violators ; but, like other penal 
 acts, they are couched in general terms, and comprehend 
 those who by necessity or ignorance violate them. That the 
 Treasury might be secured, and the law, at the same time, 
 administered in its spirit and intention only, and not in its 
 letter merely, this power was delegated to the Secretary of 
 the Treasury. To establish the correctness of this exposi- 
 tion, I will read the Act of '97. 
 
 [Here Mr. C. read the Act] 
 
 . Now, Sir, though I admit, with the report, "that the 
 Secretary of the Treasury has power to mitigate or remit," 
 I do most unequivocally deny, that he has legal power to ef- 
 fect what is proposed to be done by the committee ; viz.: 
 to levy the extra profit. The two powers are essentially dif- 
 ferent. The one is' of a judicial and equitable character, and 
 has for its object guilt or innocence ; the other that of as- 
 sessment or taxation, and has for its object, not guilt or 
 innocence, but profit. The latter is strictly a moneyed trans- 
 action ; the former relates to the administration of the 
 penal laws of the country. The one is fully and faithfully 
 administered, when due regard is had to all the circumstan- 
 ces as they constitute guilt or innocence, and the law applied 
 accordingly ; the other, when a proper and correct estimate
 
 36 SPEECHES. 
 
 is made of the actual profits of trade, compared with thoss 
 on the late importations, and the difference only levied. 
 
 The power of the Secretary, under the Act of '97, is not 
 arhitrary ; to be exercised or not according to his pleasure ; 
 but he is bound to exercise it according to the rules of a 
 sound discretion. If guilt appear, he cannot arrest the law ; 
 if innocence, he cannot apply it. The effects of the two 
 powers strangely mark their contrariety. When circum- 
 stances of guilt or innocence only, govern the Treasury in 
 the exercise of this power, the consequence is, love and rev- 
 erence for the laws ; but if they are disregarded, and the 
 profits of the merchants only considered, in the place of such 
 sentiments, there will be disgust and hatred. You may, in- 
 deed, have a full treasury, but you will find empty affections. 
 More need not be said, I hope, to prove that the extra pro- 
 fits cannot be taken from the merchants, under the power of 
 the Treasury Department to mitigate or remit forfeitures. 
 If it be essentially a taxing power, it not only has not been 
 delegated to the Secretary of the Treasury by the Act of '97, 
 but cannot be by any act of ours. It is a power which the con- 
 stitution has sacredly deposited in Congress. It is incommu- 
 nicable. I am aware, that the extra profit may be taken under 
 the semblance of the mitigating power ; that the forfeiture 
 may be made subject to its operation. But this cannot change 
 the nature of the transaction. The question will still be, Is 
 it a moneyed transaction, or a fair administration of the penal 
 laws of the country ? Is the object profit, or the execution of 
 the laws ? The circumstances of the case will readily decide 
 its character. Profit and justice are not easily confounded. 
 It is not an unusual thing for power to assume a guise ; and 
 even to appear to be the very opposite of what it really is. 
 I impute no blame to the Committee of Ways and Means. 
 They have overlooked the character of the power which they 
 wish the Secretary of the Treasury to exercise. It is an act 
 of inadvertence ; but not the less, on that account, to be re-
 
 SPEECHES. 37 
 
 sisted. Precedent is a dangerous thing ; and it is not unu- 
 sual for executive power, unknown even to those who exercise 
 it, to make encroachments of this kind. What has been the 
 end of all free governments, but open force, or the gradual 
 undermining of the legislative by the executive power ? The 
 peculiar construction of ours by no means exempts it from 
 this evil ; but, on the contrary, were it not for the habits of 
 the people, would naturally tend that way. The operation 
 of this government is an interesting problem. I wish to see 
 the whole in full possession of its primitive power, but all of 
 the parts confined to their respective spheres. These, Sir, 
 are my reasons for rejecting the report of the committee. I 
 know, it will be said, that it is much easier to censure than 
 to advise to reject the report, than to point out what 
 ought to be done. I am ready to acknowledge it, and to 
 confess, that I have felt much solicitude and difficulty on 
 this subject. But the view which the committee has pre- 
 sented, has constituted no part of my embarrassment. I am 
 entirely averse to taking any part of the extra profit, whe- 
 ther through the agency of the Treasury Department, or of 
 this House. 
 
 If our merchants are innocent, they are welcome to their 
 good fortune ; if guilty, I scorn to participate in their profits. 
 I will never consent to make our penal code the basis of our 
 Ways and Means, or to establish a partnership between the 
 Treasury and the violators of the Non-Importation Act. The 
 necessity of causing our restrictive system to be respected, 
 while in existence, and the difficulty of applying its penal- 
 ties to " cases of such magnitude" constitute my embarrass- 
 ment. On the one hand, if the law should be rigidly en- 
 forced, thousands will be involved in ruin ; on the other, if 
 an act of grace should be done, your restrictive system will 
 be endangered. Had the conduct of the merchants been 
 dictated by any open contempt of the laws, or had it been 
 entirely free from blame, our course would have been plain.
 
 38 SPEECHES. 
 
 No one would have hesitated, in the one case, to have let the 
 vengeance of the law fall on the guilty ; or, in the other, to 
 extend its protection to the innocent. I am ready to ac- 
 knowledge that the importers were not sufficiently circum- 
 spect and guarded. The nature of the restrictive system, 
 the posture of affairs, the decision of this House on a motion 
 to repeal the Non-Importation Act, ought to have put them 
 on their guard. Candor also compels me to state, that I 
 cannot admit any arguments on this question to prove the 
 impolicy of the Non-Importation Act, or the advantages to 
 the community from the late importations. I can never ad- 
 mit, as an apology for the violation of the law, what was 
 considered as an insufficient reason for its suspension. 
 Neither can I doubt that even the worst of laws ought to be 
 respected, while they remain laws. But, Sir, the difficulty 
 on the other side appears to me more formidable. An indis- 
 criminate forfeiture would not, I fear, be considered as pun- 
 ishment. It would be thought oppression. Punishment, 
 by the infliction of a partial evil, proposes to avoid a greater 
 by making some the subjects of its pains, to make all the 
 subjects of its terrors. The culprits, in this case, are too nu- 
 merous for example ; particularly as the infraction of the law 
 is of a doubtful character. This is by no means an unusual 
 case ; numbers have often brought impunity. It is so in 
 the worst of crimes, even in treason, where, in some instances, 
 a considerable portion of the community is involved. Some 
 gentlemen who have felt this embarrassment, have proposed 
 to distinguish for punishment the head and leaders of this 
 infraction of the law. My friend from Kentucky (the 
 Speaker) has designated two classes to be favored the pur- 
 chasers of British goods before the 2d of February, 1811, 
 and the shippers before the first of August last ; that is, be- 
 fore the declaration of war had reached England. The first 
 class is to be favored, from a supposed innocence of pur- 
 chase ; the other, from innocence of shipments. It is not
 
 SPEECHES. 3J> 
 
 necessary to prove the error of the discrimination. If true, 
 it does not extend as far as it ought to do. For, if innocence 
 of purchase is a sufficient reason for exemption, how can we 
 condemn the goods purchased before the first of August ? 
 If shipments might be made before that period, surely pur- 
 chases might ; and if the last, then, according to the dis- 
 tinction in favor of purchases before the 2d of February, 
 they also ought to be exempted from the forfeitures. The 
 cases, then, are too uniform for discrimination, and nothing 
 remains but to condemn or acquit the whole. I feel myself 
 compelled to yield to the magnitude of the case. I cannot 
 find it in me to reduce thousands to beggary by a single 
 stroke, nor do I suppose there is one in this House in favor 
 of so stern a policy. I am ready to acknowledge that an act 
 of grace will weaken the non-importation law ; but this is 
 a less evil than the alienation of the whole mercantile class. 
 It is left us to regret, that the wise foresight of my two 
 honorable friends and colleagues was not adopted at the last 
 session. It was then proposed to suspend the law for the 
 introduction of this very property ; but the proposition was 
 borne down by the clamor of the day. Had that been 
 done, we would not have been reduced to our present state. 
 Our laws would have been saved, and our merchants con- 
 tented. 
 
 A subject not necessarily involved in that under dis- 
 cussion, has been introduced by those who have preceded me 
 in the debate. In imitation of the example, I will be ex- 
 cused, I hope, in offering my sentiments on the restrictive 
 system. It is known that I have not been a friend to that 
 system to the extent to which it has been carried. My ob- 
 jection, however, is neither against the inequality nor the 
 greatness of its pressure. It is the duty of every section to 
 bear whatever the general interest may demand ; and I, Sir, 
 am proud in representing a people pre-eminent in the exer- 
 cise of this virtue. Carolina makes no complaint about the
 
 40 SPEECHES. 
 
 difficulties of the times. If she feel emoarrassments, she 
 turns her indignation not against her own government, but 
 against the common enemy. She makes no comparative 
 estimate of her sufferings with those of the other States. She 
 would be proud to stand pre-eminent in suffering, if, by this, 
 the general good could be promoted ; and she, this day, pre- 
 sents the noble spectacle of a people acquiring increased 
 union and energy from the force of the pressure ; and, so far 
 from growing tired of the restrictive system, or war, as inti- 
 mated by the gentleman from Kentucky, she would willingly 
 bear a superadded embargo, if the public interest should de- 
 mand it. But, Sir, my objections are of a general and 
 national character. Your character, your government and 
 country, forbid a resort to this system for a redress of wrongs. 
 It requires a sternness of execution approaching despotism. 
 It first offers a vast premium for its violation, and then 
 has to combat with the spirit of speculation, the cupidity 
 and capital of the mercantile classes. To render its execu- 
 tion perfect, you must not only remove the inducement, but 
 arrest speculations, particularly those which are founded on 
 the probable course of political events. The subject before 
 us is in point ; and you will, from the same causes, be in- 
 volved in this very dilemma annually ; nay, more frequently, 
 should the treasury participate in the profits. To render 
 your system perfect, you must imitate its successful execu- 
 tion in another countiy. Bonaparte is the only man who 
 has a perfect knowledge of its genius. Burning and confis- 
 cation are the only effectual securities. A partial execution 
 involves the most pernicious consequences. The conclusion 
 is irresistible. The system does not suit you. You are too 
 enterprising, too free, and your coast too extended, with too 
 many indentations of rivers, bays, and harbors. The effects 
 of a few years' operation will change your mercantile charac- 
 ter. In such a state of things, the honest merchant must 
 retire. He cannot live ; but his place will not be unoccu-
 
 SPEECHES. 41 
 
 pied. The desperate adventurer and the smuggler will suc- 
 ceed him. Unaided by the virtue of the citizen, no law, 
 however severe its sanctions, will be able to stem the torrent. 
 There is, indeed, one species of restriction, which, in a British 
 war, ought never to be neglected. Whatever pressure can 
 be produced on her manufacturing and commercial interests, 
 through heavy duties, ought to be effected. The reason is 
 obvious : it is both restriction and revenue. So much of 
 the capital of this country is turned towards foreign com- 
 merce, that you cannot safely neglect this source of revenue. 
 Nor is its restrictive character inconsiderable. The assertion 
 may seem strange ; but, in my opinion, this system secures 
 the highest practical and continued pressure that can be pro- 
 duced. To say nothing of the perpetual violations of pro- 
 hibitory acts by smuggling, they are subject to occasional re- 
 laxations, by which the country becomes inundated with 
 British goods. At the end of the last session, I recommended 
 high duties as a substitute for the Non-Importation Act. Un- 
 der that system, the quantity of goods imported would not 
 have been greater than it now is ; but your treasury would 
 have been in a much better condition ; nor should we have 
 had the present contest about extra profits ; they would have 
 passed into the treasury in the shape of duties. High duties 
 have no pernicious effects, and are consistent with the genius 
 of the people and the institutions of the country. It is thus 
 we would combine, in the greatest degree, the active resources 
 of the country with pressure on the manufactures of the 
 enemy. Your army and navy would feel the invigorating 
 effect. The war would not sicken the patriot's hope, and de- 
 feat some of its most valuable anticipated consequences. 
 You would have the means of filling the ranks of the regular 
 army, and be no longer compelled to rely on the hazardous 
 aid of volunteers and militia. Victory, peace, and national 
 honor, I was going to say, glory, (but experience has 
 taught me how that word is received in this House), would
 
 42 SPEECHES. 
 
 be the welcomed result of a vigorous war. ^5ut, Sir, if we 
 must have one or the other, either all war far all restrictions. 
 I would prefer the former. Suppose either would bring 
 the enemy to our terms. Even in victory they are unequal. 
 By restriction, you have nothing but the success ; while the 
 assertion of our national rights by arms, creates those quali- 
 ties which amply compensate for the privation and expense 
 incidental to that state. Admit that the Tripolitans could 
 have been coerced to terms by non-importation acts, and that 
 we had resorted to restriction rather than arms, could we have 
 this day boasted of our naval victories ? The Mediterranean 
 war was the school of our naval virtue. It has elevated the 
 hopes of our country.! We may now look forward to the day, 
 with confidence, when we shall be no longer insulted and in- 
 jured on the high road of nations, with impunity. Besides, 
 the non-importation system, as a redress of wrongs, is radi- 
 cally defective. You may meet commercial restrictions with 
 commercial restrictions ; but you cannot safely confront pre- 
 meditated insult and injury with commercial restrictions 
 alone. I utter not this from the fervor of my feelings, but 
 it is the deliberate result of my best judgment. It sinks the 
 nation in its own estimation ; it counts as nothing what is 
 ultimately connected with our best hopes the union of 
 these States. Our Union cannot safely stand on the cold cal- 
 culations of interest alone. It is too weak to withstand politi- 
 cal convulsions. We cannot, without hazard, neglect that 
 which makes men love to be members of an extensive com- 
 munity the love of greatness the consciousness of strength. 
 So long as American is a proud name, we are safe ; but the 
 day we are ashamed of it, the Union is more than half 
 destroyed.
 
 SPEECHES. 43 
 
 SPEECH 
 
 On the New Army Bill, delivered in the House of 
 Eepresentatives, January 14th, 1813. 
 
 [NOTE. Dec. 14th, 1812. The Committee on Military Affairs 
 reported to the House, a Bill to raise twenty additional regiments of 
 infantry to serve for one year, unless sooner discharged. This Bill, 
 both in Committee of the "Whole and in the House, had a very full 
 discussion, which, as usual, turned more on questions connected with 
 the policy and expediency of the war, than on its own intrinsic 
 merits. Mr. Calhoun delivered this speech near the close of the 
 debate. The Bill passed by a vote of ayes, 77 ; nays, 42.] 
 
 MR. SPEAKER : I can offer nothing more acceptable, 
 I presume, to the House, than a promise not to discuss the 
 Orders in Council, French decrees, blockades, or embargoes. 
 I am induced to avoid these topics for several reasons. In 
 the first place, they are too stale to furnish any interest to 
 this House or the country. Gentlemen who have attempted 
 it, with whatever abilities, have failed to command attention ; 
 and it would argue very little sagacity on my part, not to 
 be admonished by their want of success. Indeed, whatever 
 interest may have been at one time attached to these sub- 
 jects, is now lost. They have passed away ; and will not 
 soon, I hope, return into the circle of politics. Yes, Sir, 
 reviled as have been our country's efforts to curb belligerent 
 injustice weak and contemptible as she has been repre- 
 sented to be in the scale of nations, she has triumphed in 
 breaking down the most dangerous monopoly ever attempted 
 by one nation against the commerce of another. I will not 
 stop to inquire whether their triumph is attributable to the 
 Non-Importation Act, or to the menace of war, or, (what is 
 more probable,) to the last, operating on the pressure pro-
 
 44 SPEECHES. 
 
 duced by the former, the fact is certain that the Orders in 
 Council "of 1807 and 1809, which our opponents have 
 often said, that England would never yield, as they made a 
 part of her commercial system, are now no more. The 
 same firmness, if persevered in, which has carried us thus far 
 with success, will, as our cause is just, end in final victory. 
 A further reason why I shall not follow our opponents into 
 the region of documents and records, is, that I am afraid of 
 a decoy ; as I am induced to believe, from appearances, that 
 their object is to draw our attention from the merits of the 
 question. Gentlemen have literally buried their arguments 
 under a huge pile of quotations ; and wandered so far into 
 this realm of paper, that neither the vision of this House has 
 been, nor that of the country will be, able to follow them. 
 There the best and worst reasons share an equal fate. The 
 truth of the one, and the error of the other, are covered in 
 like obscurity. 
 
 Before I proceed further, I will make a few observations 
 in reply to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Kandolph), 
 who spoke yesterday. He complained of the desertion of 
 his former associates from the minority principles of '98. 
 These principles, he said, consisted in an opposition to the 
 general government, in relation to the States, and to poli- 
 tical rights, in relation to individuals. 
 
 I was, at one moment, almost induced to suspect the 
 gentleman of a desertion of his own principles ; for scarcely 
 had he finished this part of his subject, before he passed a 
 highly-wrought eulogy on the Father of his Country on that 
 man whose whole life indicated the strongest leaning on the 
 side of the government of his country. I beg the gentleman 
 to reflect whether his definition of minority principles suits 
 the character of Washington's administration ? and if not, 
 with what propriety both can be praised almost in the same 
 breath. Whether, indeed, the principles of '98 are such as 
 the gentleman has represented them to be, I will not inquire,
 
 SPEECHES. 45 
 
 because not necessary to my argument. But if they are, in 
 truth, those of the gentleman and his present associates, 
 I should be happy to know with what countenance they 
 can request the people of tin's country to put the government 
 into their hands. Trust the government to those who are 
 hostile to it ! who prefer their own interest and rights, to 
 its interest and rights ! If our opponents are, in reality, in 
 favor of such principles, patriotism ought to persuade them to 
 add one other, and that is, ever to remain in a minority. 
 There they may, perhaps, be of some use ; at least, they 
 will not be dangerous ; but put them in power, and let them 
 act up to what they profess, and destruction would be cer- 
 tain. If the gentleman from Virginia is anxious to know 
 the real cause of the separation of his former associates from 
 him, he must look for it in his present political creed, and 
 that of those with whom he is now united. He will there 
 find an article which had no place in his, in '98 ; and which, 
 then, as well as now, was reprobated by those who consti- 
 tute the present majority. This article is only an enlarge- 
 ment of the minority principles, as defined by the gentleman ; 
 it is, opposition to our country in relation to England. 
 The proof of this article is of the same kind, and no less 
 clear than the others. For, what encroachment of England 
 on our neutral rights, from the interruption of our carrying 
 trade, down to the moment that war was declared which 
 one of the innumerable insults and injuries to which we have 
 been subjected, has the opposition either not palliated or 
 justified ? and what effort of our country to resist, which has 
 not been reprobated and opposed ? 
 
 I will not multiply proofs on a course of conduct, the 
 bad eifect of which was too sensibly felt to be easily for- 
 gotten, and the continuation of which was but too apparent 
 in the present discussion. For what is the object of the 
 opposition in this debate ? To defeat the passage of this 
 bill ? It has been scarcely mentioned ; and contains no-
 
 46 SPEECHES. 
 
 thing to raise that storm which has been excited against it. 
 The bill proposes to raise twenty thousand men only, and 
 that for one year ; and surely there is nothing in that calcu- 
 lated to lay such strong hold on the jealousies or fears of the 
 community. What, then, is the object of the opposition ? 
 Gentlemen certainly do not act without an intention ; and 
 wide as has been the range of debate, it cannot Ipe so lawless 
 as to be without an object. It is not, I repeat, to defeat the 
 passage of this bill ; no, but what is much more to be 
 dreaded, to thwart that which the bill proposes to advance 
 the final success of the war ; and, to effect this purpose, I 
 must do the opposition the credit to say, they have resorted 
 to the most effectual means. In a free government, in a 
 government of laws, two things are necessary for the effec- 
 tual prosecution of any great measure : the law, by which 
 the executive officer is charged with the execution, and 
 vested with suitable powers ; and the co-operating zeal and 
 union of the people, who are always indispensable agents. 
 Opposition, to be successful, must direct its efforts against 
 the passage of the law ; or, what is more common, and gen- 
 erally more effectual, to destroy the union and the zeal of 
 the people. Either, if successful, is effectual. The former 
 would, in most cases, be seen and reprobated ; the latter, 
 much the more dangerous, has, to the great misfortune of 
 republics, presented, at all times, a ready means of defeating 
 the most salutary measures. To this point the whole argu- 
 ments of opposition have converged. This gives a meaning 
 to every reason and assertion which has been advanced, 
 \ however wild and inconsistent. No topic has been left un- 
 touched ; no passion unessayed. The war has been repre- 
 sented as unjust in its origin, disastrous hi its progress, and 
 desperate in its further prosecution. As if to prevent the 
 possibility of doubt, a determination has been boldly asserted 
 not to support it. 
 
 Such is the opposition to the war, which was admitted,
 
 SPEECHES. 47 
 
 on all sides, to be just ; and which, in a manner, received 
 the votes even of those who now appear to be willing to ruin 
 the country in order to defeat its success. For, let it be 
 ever remembered, that the bill to raise twenty-five thousand 
 men passed this House (January, 1812) almost unanimously, 
 though it was distinctly announced for what object it was 
 intended. How will gentlemen relieve themselves from this 
 dilemma ? Was it their object to embarrass the adminis- 
 tration ? Will they dare to make a confession, which would 
 so strongly confirm the motive that has been assigned to 
 them ? A gentleman from New- York (Mr. Emmot) felt 
 the awkwardness of the situation ; and, in his endeavor to 
 explain, has made an admission which ought ever to exclude 
 him and his friends from power. He justified his vote on 
 the ground that he was in favor of the force as a peace es- 
 tablishment. A peace establishment of thirty-five thousand 
 men ! [Mr. E. explained that he did not mean as a peace 
 establishment ; but that the posture of affairs, at that time, 
 demanded it.] At any rate (continued Mr. C.), I hope to 
 hear nothing more about the enormous expense of the war ; 
 since the principal expense ought to have been incurred, in 
 the gentleman's opinion, even had it not been resorted to. 
 Well might the opposition admit the justice of the war. For 
 years the moderation of the government (I might almost 
 say), its excessive love of peace, strove to avoid the contest. 
 We bore all that an independent nation could bear ; not, 
 indeed, with patience, but in the hopes of returning justice 
 on the part of our enemy. 
 
 I cannot omit noticing the attempt made by the gentle- 
 man from New- York, to palliate the conduct of England in 
 relation to one of the causes of the war. I allude to the 
 blockade of 1806. The gentleman contended that it was a 
 relaxation of the law of nations in our favor ; and, of conse- 
 quence, must be considered by us in the light of a benefit. 
 It surely cannot be necessary to trace the gentleman through
 
 48 SPEECHES. 
 
 his laborious discussion on this point, in order to expose the 
 error of so extraordinary a conclusion. What ? That an 
 advantage to this country, which we have struggled so much 
 to avoid ! That a relaxation on the part of England, which 
 she has so obstinately refused to yield ! Flushed with his 
 supposed victory on this subject, the gentleman undertook, 
 what might be considered even a more difficult task, to 
 remove the Orders in Council as a cause of war. Sir, I de- 
 spair of replying to such arguments. 
 
 But it is objected, that the report of the Committee on 
 Foreign Eelations has stated the orders of 1807, as a cause 
 of war, though repealed by those of 1809. It is a sufficient 
 justification of the report, that it has stated the facts on 
 this, as well as all other points, precisely as they existed ; 
 and well might the report enumerate the orders of 1807 as a 
 cause of war, when those of 1809 openly avow the principles 
 of the former, and only modify their operation to the then 
 existing circumstances. But, says another gentleman from 
 New- York (Mr. Bleecker), we were inveigled into the war by 
 the perfidy of France. She did not fairly repeal her decrees. 
 Be it so ; and what then ? Were we bound to submit to 
 England, because France refused to do us justice ? Have we 
 no power of election between ruffians ? Where will the 
 absurdity of such arguments end ? The right to select was 
 perfect in us ; and, without reference to the conduct of 
 France, the selection might, and ought to have fallen on 
 England. 
 
 If, Sir, the origin of the war furnish no sufficient justifi- 
 cation for opposition to it, in vain will our opponents fly for 
 refuge to its continuation. The Orders in Council, say they, 
 are now no more ; and why should the war be persisted in, 
 after its cause is removed ? My reply to the question is, 
 that it is continued from no project of ambition, or desire of 
 conquest ; but from a cause far more sacred, the liberty of 
 our sailors, and their redemption from slavery. Yet the war
 
 SPEECHES. 49 
 
 is opposed even attempted to be defeated by the friends, 
 connections and neighbors of these brave defenders of our 
 national rights and honor. It is even asked, why should we 
 feel so lively an interest in their fate ? In vain are such ar- 
 guments urged. The country will not forget its duty, the 
 first of political duties, that of protection. Our opponents 
 may find no motive in connection or neighborhood ; but the 
 country will in its obligations. The friends of commerce 
 may evince their attachment to its profits and luxuries 
 only ; but the government will not, on that account, cease 
 to respect the liberty of the citizen, and the enlarged in- 
 terests of commerce, by protecting from English slavery 
 the sailors, by whose toil and peril it is extended to every 
 sea. Provided they have commerce and profit, it seems the 
 injury and insult go for nothing with the opposition. Such 
 a commerce may, indeed, bloat the country, but it will not 
 contribute to its real strength. It subtracts more from the 
 spirit, than it adds to the wealth of the community. 
 
 But, say our opponents, as they were opposed to the war, 
 they are not bound to support it ; and so far has this opin- 
 ion been carried, that we have been accused almost of vio- 
 lating the right of conscience in denying the position as- 
 sumed by gentlemen. The right to oppose the efforts of our 
 country, while in war, ought to be established beyond the 
 possibility of doubt, before it can be justly adopted as the 
 basis of conduct. How conscience can be claimed in this 
 case, cannot be very easily imagined. We propose no Bill 
 of pains and penalties ; we only assert, that the opposition 
 experienced cannot be dictated by love of country ; and that 
 it is inconsistent with the obligation which every citizen is 
 under to promote the prosperity of the republic. Its neces- 
 sary tendency is, to prostrate the country at the feet of the 
 enemy, and to elevate a party on the ruins of the republic. 
 Until our opponents can prove that they have a right which 
 is paramount to the public interest, we must persist in deny-
 
 50 SPEECHES. 
 
 ing that they are justified in their attempts to thwart the 
 success of the war. War has been declared by a law of 
 the land ; and what would be thought of similar attempts to 
 defeat any other law, however inconsiderable its object ? 
 Who would dare to avow an intention to defeat its opera- 
 tion ? Can that, then, be true in relation to war which 
 would be reprobated in every other case ? Can that course 
 be right, which, when the whole physical force of the country 
 is needed, withdraws half of that force ? Can that be true 
 which gives the greatest violence to party animosity ? What 
 would have been thought of such conduct in the war of the 
 Revolution ? Many good citizens, friendly to the liberty of 
 the country, were opposed to the declaration at the time ; 
 but could they have been justified in such opposition as we 
 now experience ? To terminate the war through discord and 
 weakness is a hazardous experiment. But, in the most un- 
 just and inexpedient war, it can scarcely be possible that 
 disunion and defeat can have a salutary operation. In the 
 numerous examples which history furnishes, let an instance 
 be pointed out, in any war, where the public interest has 
 been promoted by divisions, or injured by concord. Hun- 
 dreds of instances may be cited of the reverse. Why, then, 
 will gentlemen persist in that course where danger is almost 
 unavoidable, and shun that where safety is almost certain ? 
 
 But, Sir, we are told that peace is in our power without 
 a farther prosecution of the war. Appeal not, say our oppo- 
 nents, to the fear, but to the generosity of our enemy. Eng- 
 land yields nothing to her fears ; stop, therefore, your prepa- 
 rations, and throw yourself on her mercy, and peace will be 
 the result. We might indeed have pardon, but not peace on 
 such terms. They, who think the war a sacrilege or a crime, 
 might consistently adopt such a course ; but we, who know 
 it to be in maintenance of the just rights of the community, 
 never can. We are further told, that impressment of sea- 
 men was not considered a sufficient cause of war ; and are
 
 SPEECHES. 51 
 
 asked, why should it be continued on that account ? Indi- 
 vidually (said Mr. Calhoun) I do not feel the force of the 
 argument ; for it has been my opinion, that the nation was 
 bound to resist so deep an injury, even at the hazard of war. 
 But, admitting its full force, the difference is striking be- 
 tween the commencement and the continuance of hostilities. 
 War ought to be continued until its rational object a per- 
 manent and secure peace, is obtained. Even the friends 
 of England ought not to desire the termination of the war, 
 without a satisfactory adjustment of the subject of impress- 
 ment. It would leave the root, that must necessarily shoot 
 up in future animosity and hostilities. America can never 
 quietly submit to the deepest of injuries. Necessity may 
 compel her to yield for a moment, but it will be to watch 
 the growth of national strength, and to seize the first favor- 
 able opportunity to seek redress. The worst enemy to the 
 peace of the two countries, could not desire a more effectual 
 means to propagate eternal enmity. 
 
 But it is said, that we ought to offer to England suitable 
 regulations on this subject, to secure to her the use of her 
 own seamen ; and, because we have not, we are the aggres- 
 sors. Sir, I deny that we are bound to tender any regula- 
 tions. England is the party injuring. She ought to confine 
 her seamen to her own services ; or, if that be impractica- 
 ble, propose such arrangements, that she might exercise her 
 right without injury to us. This is the rule that governs all 
 analogous cases in private life. But we have made our offer ; 
 it is, that the ship should protect the sailor. It is the most 
 simple and only safe rule. But to secure so desirable a 
 point, the most liberal and effectual provisions ought and 
 have been proposed to be made on our part, to guard the 
 British government against the evil it apprehended, viz., the 
 loss of its seamen. 
 
 The whole doctrine of protection, heretofore relied on, 
 and still recommended by the gentleman from Connecticut
 
 52 SPEECHES. 
 
 (Mr. B.), is false and derogatory to our honor ; and under no 
 possible modification can effect the desirable object of afford- 
 ing safety to our sailors, and securing the future harmony of 
 the two countries. Nor can it be doubted, that if governed 
 by justice, England would yield to the offer of our govern- 
 ment, particularly, if what the gentleman from New- York 
 (Mr. Bleecker) says, be true, that there are ten thousand of 
 her seamen now in our service. She would be greatly the 
 gainer by the arrangement. Experience, it is to be feared, 
 however, will teach that gentleman, that the evil lies much 
 deeper. The use of her seamen is a mere pretence. The 
 blow is aimed at our commercial greatness. It is this which 
 has animated and directed all of her injurious councils to- 
 wards this country. England is at the same time a trading 
 and a fighting nation ; two occupations naturally at variance, 
 and most difficult to be united. War limits the number 
 and extent of the markets of a belligerent makes a variety of 
 regulations necessary and produces heavy taxes, which are 
 inimical to the prosperity of manufactures, and consequently 
 commerce. These causes combined give to trade new chan- 
 nels, which direct it naturally to neutral nations. To coun- 
 teract this tendency, England, under various, but flimsy 
 pretences, has endeavored to support her commercial supe- 
 riority by monopoly. It has been our fortune to resist with 
 no inconsiderable success this spirit of monopoly. Her prin- 
 cipal object in contending for the right of impressment, is to 
 have, in a great measure, the monopoly of the sailors of the 
 world. A fixed resistance will compel her to yield this point, 
 as she has already done her Orders in Council. Success will 
 amply reward our exertions. Our future commerce will feel 
 its invigorating effects. 
 
 But, say gentlemen, England will never yield this point, 
 and every effort on our part to secure it is hopeless. To 
 confirm this prediction and secure our reverence, the proph- 
 ecies of the last session are relied on. I feel no disposition
 
 SPEECHES. 53 
 
 to disparage the talents of our opponents in this line ; yet I 
 very much doubt whether the whole chapter of woes has been 
 fulfilled. I ask, for instance, whether so much as related to 
 sacked towns, bombarded cities, ruined commerce, and revolt- 
 ing blacks, has been realized ? I am sorry to find a gentle- 
 man from Virginia (Mr. Sheffey) not yet cured of his fears 
 in relation to this last prediction. I would be glad to know 
 what are his intentions. His assertions give equal notice to 
 the House, the enemy and the country. If danger indeed 
 exist, he has acted with such imprudence as ought to subject 
 him to the censure of every reflecting man ; but I acquit the 
 gentleman, as I do not apprehend any danger. I cannot 
 admit an increased danger from a state of war a state in 
 which the public force and vigilance are, of necessity, the 
 greatest. But to return to the point, our cause is not so 
 hopeless as represented by our opponents. On the contrary, 
 if we only persevere, we have every reason, under present 
 circumstances, to anticipate ultimate success. The enemy 
 is engaged in a contest in Europe, which requires his whole 
 power. We have already compelled him to yield a point, 
 which, but the last year, it was prophesied, he never 
 would. The Orders in Council are now no more that sys- 
 tem by which it was vainly attempted to monopolize our 
 trade, and to recolonize the American people. But if Eng- 
 land will not yield, we can perish as well as she. Our 
 republican virtue is as obstinate as her imperial pride, and 
 our duty to our citizens as unyielding, as her prerogative 
 over her subjects. 
 
 An attempt has been made to shake our fortitude by a 
 cry of French alliance. It has been boldly said, that we are 
 already united with that country. We united with France ? 
 We have the same cause ? No ; her object is dominion, 
 and her impulse, ambition. Ours is the protection of the 
 liberty of our sailors. But, say our opponents, we are con- 
 tending against the same country. What then ? Must we
 
 54 SPEECHES. 
 
 submit to be outlawed by England, in order that she may 
 not be by France ? Is the independence of England dearer 
 to us than our own ? Must we enter the European struggle 
 not as an equal, consulting our peculiar interest, but be 
 dragged into it as the low dependant, the slave of England ? 
 The gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Randolph) has told 
 us, that we are contending against religion in the person of 
 England that she is, in a word, the patroness of Christianity. 
 Unhappy country ! Doomed to submission to preserve the 
 purity of religion ! Doomed to slavery, that England may 
 be independent ! Because Bonaparte is not a Protestant, 
 you must surrender your rights ! Because he is a despot, 
 you dare not resist ! What does the gentleman intend ? Is 
 it his wish, by thus dragging into the heat of political debate 
 the sacred cause of religion, to promote its interests or that 
 of a faction ? If the former, let him point out an instance in 
 ancient or modern times when the junction of religion and 
 politics has not been fatal to the interest of both. It is this 
 unnatural union which has engendered the foulest progeny of 
 human woes. History is full of its disasters, and the gentle- 
 man is too familiar with its pages to require a particular 
 recital. If the gentleman's intention is not to advance the 
 cause of religion, but to promote the views of a party, words 
 cannot truly describe its real character. It is a trick that 
 has been, and still continues to be practised on the too easy 
 credulity of our nature. Its frequency, however, does not 
 change its nature ; it may indeed furnish some apology, that 
 those who practise it are led into it without due reflection on 
 its character ; but when understood, what can be more shock- 
 ing, than that this, the most sacred of all things, the medium 
 of divine communion, our consolation as mortals, should be 
 prostrated to the gratification of some of the worst feelings 
 of the human heart ? Such then is the cause of the war 
 and of its continuation ; and such the nature of the opposi- 
 tion experienced, and its justification. It remains to be seen
 
 SPEECHES. 55 
 
 whether the intended effect will be produced ; whether ani- 
 mosity and discord will be fomented, and the zeal and union 
 of the people to maintain the rights and indispensable duties 
 of the community, will abate ; or, describing it under another 
 aspect, whether it is the destiny of our country to sink under 
 the blows of our enemy or not. I am not without my fears 
 and my hopes. 
 
 On the one hand, our opponents have manifestly the ad- 
 vantage. The love of present ease and enjoyment, the love 
 of gain, and party zeal, are on their side. These constitute 
 a part of the weakness of our nature. We naturally lean 
 that way without the arts of persuasion. Far more difficult . 
 is the task of the majority. It is theirs to support the dis- 
 tant but lasting interest of our country. It is theirs to ele- 
 vate the minds of the people, and to call up all of those qual- 
 ities by which present sacrifices are made to secure a future 
 good. On the other hand, our cause is not without hope. 
 The interest of the people, and that of the leaders of a party, 
 are, as observed by a gentleman from New- York (Mr. Stow), 
 often at variance. The people are always ready, unless led 
 astray by ignorance or delusion, to participate in the success 
 of the country, or to sympathize in its adversity. .Very dif- 
 ferent are the feelings of the leaders of the opposition : on 
 every great measure they stand pledged against its success, 
 and almost invariably consider that their political conse- 
 quence depends on its defeat. The heat of debate, the spirit 
 of settled opposition, and the confident prediction of disas- 
 ter, are among the causes of this opposition between the in- 
 terest of a party and of the country ; and in no instance un- 
 der our own government have they existed in a greater degree 
 than in relation to the present war. The evil is deeply root- 
 ed in the constitution of ,all free governments, and is the 
 principal cause of their weakness and destruction. It has 
 but one remedy : the virtue and intelligence of the people. 
 It behooves them, as they value the blessings of their free-
 
 56 SPEECHES. 
 
 dorn, not to permit themselves to be drawn into the vortex 
 of party rage. For if, by such opposition, the firmest gov- 
 ernment should prove incompetent to maintain the rights of 
 the nation against foreign aggression, they will realize too 
 late the truth of the proposition, that government is protec- 
 tion, and that it cannot exist where it fails of this great and 
 primary object. The authors of the weakness are common- 
 ly the first to take the advantage of it, and to turn it to the 
 destruction of liberty. 
 
 SPEECH 
 
 On the Bill making further provisions for filling the 
 ranks of the regular Army, encouraging enlist- 
 ments, &c., delivered in the House of Representa- 
 tives, January 17th, 1814. 
 
 [NOTE. On the 10th of January, 1814, Mr. Troup, from the Com- 
 mittee on Military Affairs, reported to the House, among others, a 
 Bill to authorize the President to raise for five years' service, or dur- 
 ing the war, fourteen of the regiments of infantry which had been au- 
 thorized by the act of the 29th of January, 1813, and for other pur- 
 poses. Being referred to the Committee of the Whole, it was called 
 up, successively, on the 13th, 14th, 15th, and l*7th, and discussed with 
 much warmth. Party feelings were highly excited, and every effort 
 was made to embarrass the Administration by defeating the Bill. But 
 in vain ; it was ordered to a third reading on January 21st, and final- 
 ly passed the House by a vote of 90 to 15.] 
 
 MK. CHAIKMAN : I do not rise to examine on what 
 terms the President has assented to negotiate with the Brit- 
 ish government ; because I conceive it neither pertinent to 
 the present question, nor proper at this time. I deem it,
 
 SPEECHES. 57 
 
 however, my duty to state, that I wholly dissent from the 
 construction which our opponents give to the documents 
 connected with this subject. If a proper opportunity should 
 hereafter occur, I will be happy to present the reasons for 
 my opinion on this point. 
 
 I am induced to occupy the time of the committee at 
 present, to correct two essential errors, which gentlemen in 
 the opposition have introduced into the discussion of this 
 question ; and, although not immediately connected with the 
 merits of the bill, I think it proper that they should be an- 
 swered ; because, from all that I have ever heard, as well on 
 this as on former occasions, it seems to me that they consti- 
 tute the basis on which the minority rest their justification. 
 I allude to the character which they give to the war ; and 
 the claim set up, in a political and constitutional point of 
 view, to justify their opposition. Gentlemen contend, that 
 this is not a defensive, but an offensive war ; and under this 
 character undertake its denunciation, without ever conde- 
 scending to state what, in their opinion, constitutes the 
 characteristic difference between the two. I claim the at- 
 tention of the committee while I examine this point ; and I 
 hope that it will not be considered as a mere verbal criticism, 
 since our opponents have made the distinction the foundation 
 of so much declamation against the war. The inquiry, in 
 another point of view, I believe, will be useful. The people 
 of this country have an aversion to an offensive war (which, 
 I suppose, interprets the meaning of the vehemence of the 
 opposition on this subject) ; while they readily acknowledge 
 the possible necessity and justice of one that is defensive. 
 It is therefore proper, that our ideas on this point should be 
 fixed with precision and certainty. 
 
 I will lay it down as an universal criterion, that a war is 
 offensive or defensive, not by the mode of carrying it on, 
 which is an immaterial circumstance, but by the motive and 
 cause which lead to it. If it has its origin in ambition,
 
 58 SPEECHES. 
 
 avarice, or any of the like passions, then it is offensive ; but 
 if, on the contrary, designed to repel insult, injury, or op- 
 pression, it is of an opposite character, and is defensive. 
 The truth of this position will not require much discussion. 
 I conceive that it may be safely rested either on the authori- 
 ty of the best writers on the subject, or on its own internal 
 evidence. It is only in this view that the prevalent feelings 
 on this subject can be explained. If the distinction taken 
 be a correct one ; if the two species of war are distinguish- 
 able in their cause and motive, then our condemnation of the 
 one and approval of the other is no longer a mystery ; it is 
 founded in the nature of things. But if, on the contrary, it 
 be true that they are distinguished by the mere accidental 
 circumstance of the mode of carrying them on ; that the 
 scene of action should make them the one or the other ; then 
 the feelings of the country, by which it condemns or approves 
 of either species, are a profound mystery never to be ex- 
 plained. In the view which I have presented, the difference 
 between an offensive and a defensive war is of the moral 
 kind ; and that sense of justice which marks the American 
 people, accounts for their feelings. Their exemption from 
 ambition and love of justice preserve them from the former ; 
 while their manly spirit and good sense will always make 
 them cheerfully meet the other whenever it becomes neces- 
 sary. What, then, is the character of the war in which we 
 are now engaged ? Was it dictated by avarice or love of 
 conquest ? I appeal to our opponents for a decision. They 
 have already decided. When the resolutions of the gentle- 
 man from New Hampshire were under discussion at the last 
 session, it was repeated, till the ear was fatigued, by every 
 one on that side of the House who took any part in the de- 
 bate, that if the repeal of the Berlin and Milan decrees had 
 been communicated in time to the British government, the 
 Orders in Council would have been repealed also ; and had 
 the last event happened, the war would not have been de-
 
 SPEECHES. 59 
 
 clared. They then have acknowledged, that the Orders in 
 Council, and not the conquest of Canada, as they now pre- 
 tend, were the cause of the war ; and it would be idle to in- 
 quire whether, to resist them, was in its nature offensive or 
 defensive. It would be to inquire whether they were or were 
 not an injury to our commerce a point I have never heard 
 denied by the most obstinate debater. It would be equally 
 so to examine whether the cause of continuing the war, to 
 protect our seamen from impressment, is of an offensive or 
 defensive character. Very few have the hardihood to deny 
 that this is an injury of the most serious kind, both as re- 
 gards the government, and the unhappy subjects of its ope- 
 ration. It involves the most sacred obligation which can 
 bind the body politic to the citizen ; I mean that of protec- 
 tion, due alike to all ; to the beggar in the street, and much 
 more, if susceptible of degrees, to our sailors, that class of 
 the community who have added so much to the wealth and 
 renown of this country. 
 
 Having thus established the character of the war, in 
 its origin and continuance, I lay it down as a rule not less 
 clear, that a defensive war does not become offensive by being 
 carried beyond the limits of our territory. The motive and 
 cause will ever give the character ; all the rest are mere 
 unessential incidents. When once declared, the only question, 
 even in a defensive war, is, how can it be carried on with the 
 greatest effect ? The reverse of this involves the most glaring 
 absurdity. It supposes that we have determined to compel 
 our enemy to respect our rights ; and, at the same time, 
 voluntarily renounced, what is acknowledged to be the best 
 and most effectual mode of producing that effect. On this 
 point, as well as the cause of the war, the opinion of our 
 opponents may be arrayed against themselves. /What have 
 they advised as to the mode of carrying on the war ? With- 
 draw your troops from Canada, reduce your army, and limit 
 your operations to the ocean. What ! to the ocean ? Carry
 
 60 SPEECHES. 
 
 the war beyond our own territory ! make it offensive ! The 
 gentlemen surely do not intend to support an offensive war ? 
 To use their own language, it is too immoral for a virtuous 
 and religious people. It is then admitted that it does not 
 cease to be defensive by its being waged at sea ; how then 
 can the carrying it into Canada change its character ?/ I 
 again remark that it is a mere question of expediency where 
 and h6w the war ought to be prosecuted. For my part, so 
 long as it continues^ I think no effort should be spared to 
 reduce Canada.' Should success accompany our arms, we 
 will be indemnified for the privations and expenses of the 
 war, by the acquisition of an extensive and valuable territory, 
 and by the permanent peace and security which it would 
 afford to a large portion of our country ; and, even in the 
 worst event, should we fail of conquest, the attempt will not 
 be without great advantages. The war in Canada is the 
 best security to every part of our country. We have a very 
 extended, and, from the thinness of the population, in many 
 places weak, sea-coast. I do not believe that it has been 
 neglected, as has been represented by the gentleman from 
 New Hampshire ; but I do believe that many points are, 
 and must, from necessity, be without efficient protection. Let 
 me, however, ask that gentleman, how it happens that this 
 coast, so easily assailed by a maritime power, has sustained 
 little or no damage, in a war that has continued upwards of 
 eighteen months. If he is at a loss for an answer, the 
 scheme of his political friend from Virginia (Mr. Sheffey), 
 to confine our troops to the defensive, should it be adopted, 
 would, in the next summer, amply explain the fact. The 
 truth is, that the war in Canada is the security of the coast. 
 It compels the enemy to concentrate the whole of his dispo- 
 sable force there, for the defence of his own territory. Should 
 the absurd policy be adopted of confining the operations of 
 our troops within our own limits, the whole of the enemy's 
 force in Canada will be liberated from its defence, and the
 
 SPEECHES. 61 
 
 entire line of our sea-coast menaced with destruction. The 
 enemy, master on the ocean, could act with such celerity, 
 that it would be either impossible to defend ourselves, or it 
 must be done at an expense greater than would be necessary 
 to reduce his possessions. Thus, even under this limited 
 view of defence, the most effectual mode is that which has 
 been adopted : to carry the war into the enemy's country ; 
 and our opponents ought, according to their own distinction, 
 to grant every aid in men and money. 
 
 Although not immediately in point, I cannot refrain from 
 observing that, of all the arguments I have ever heard since 
 I have had the honor of a seat in this House, those were by 
 far the most extravagant, which have been urged against the 
 conquest of Canada. I have heard it characterized by even* 
 epithet of crime or weakness. The advancers of such argu- 
 ments surely do not reflect, that in their zeal to assail the 
 majority, they are uttering libels on the founders of our 
 freedom and independence. This scheme of conquest, this 
 project of ambition, this offspring of folly and vice, as it has 
 been liberally called, originated with those men to whom 
 America owes so much, and whose wisdom and virtue is 
 acknowledged by the world. It was by them thought an 
 object worthy the expense of the treasures and the best blood 
 of the country ; and finally relinquished by them with reluc- 
 tance, and from necessity only. 
 
 It now remains to consider the defence which gentlemen 
 have made for their opposition to the war and the policy of 
 their country, a subject which I conceive to be of the greatest 
 importance, not only as affecting the result of the present 
 contest, but our lasting peace and prosperity. They as 
 sume as a fact, that opposition is in its nature harmless ; 
 and that the calamities which have afflicted free states, 
 have originated in the blunders and folly of the government, 
 and not from the perverseness of opposition. Opposition, 
 say they, is a very convenient thing ; a wicked and foolish
 
 62 SPEECHES. 
 
 administration never fail to attribute all of their miscarriages 
 to it ; and, in support of this doctrine, they appeal to Lord 
 North's administration. I do not intend to examine the 
 particular case, to which gentlemen have, with so much 
 parade referred, as it is not in the course of my argument ; but 
 I think it could be easily proved, that the opposition in 
 the case cited, was essentially different, in character and 
 consequence, from the opposition in this country. I conceive, 
 however, that it will be proper, before I examine the general 
 position taken by gentlemen on the other side, to make a 
 single remark in relation to the British government on this 
 subject. It strikes me, that all arguments drawn from it, 
 on this point, must be essentially erroneous. A more deter- 
 mined and vehement opposition there is not only justifiable, 
 but in some measure required. The difference in the two 
 governments, in this respect, results from a difference in the 
 organization of their respective executives. In England, 
 such is the power, patronage, and consequent influence, of 
 the executive ; such the veneration, which its hereditary 
 quality and long descent possess over the subjects of that 
 empire, that her most enlightened statesmen have ever 
 thought that it endangered the other branches of her govern- 
 ment, and have, with much wisdom, ever since the dawn of 
 liberty in that country, strenuously opposed its encroach- 
 ments. Very different is the case here, in a government 
 purely republican. Our Executive presents neither the cause 
 to justify such vehemence of opposition, nor possesses the 
 means of restraining it when excited. But, even as applied 
 to our government, I will readily acknowledge that there is 
 a species of opposition both innocent and useful. Opposition 
 simply implies contrariety of opinion ; and, when used in 
 the abstract, admits of neither censure nor praise. It cannot 
 be said to be either good or bad ; useful or pernicious. It is 
 not from itself, but from the connected circumstances, that 
 it derives its character. When it is simply the result of that
 
 SPEECHES. 63 
 
 diversity in the structure of our intellect, which conducts to 
 different conclusions on the same subject, and is confined 
 within those bounds which love of country and political 
 honesty prescribe, it is one of the most useful guardians of 
 liberty. It excites gentle collision ; prompts to due vigilance, 
 a quality so indispensable, and, at the same time, so opposite 
 to our nature, and results in the establishment of an enlight- 
 ened policy and useful laws. Such are its equalities when 
 united with patriotism and moderation. xBut, in many 
 instances, it assumes a far different character. Combined 
 with faction and ambition, it bursts those limits, within 
 which it may usefully act, and becomes the first of political 
 evils.) If, Sir, the gentlemen on the other side of the House 
 intended to include this last species of opposition, as I am 
 warranted in inferring they did, from their expressions when 
 they spoke of its harmless character, then have they made an 
 assertion in direct contradiction to reason, experience, and 
 all history. A factious opposition is compounded of such 
 elements that no reflecting man will ever consider it as 
 harmlesSj/The fiercest and most ungovernable passions of 
 our nature ambition, pride, rivalry, and hate enter into 
 its dangerous composition ; made still more so by its power 
 of delusion, by which its projects against government are 
 covered in most instances, even to the eyes of its victims, by 
 the specious show of patriotism. Thus constituted, who can 
 estimate its force ? Where can benevolent and social feel- 
 ings be found sufficiently strong to counteract its progress ? 
 Is love of country ? Alas ! the attachment to a party be- 
 comes stronger than that to our country. A factious oppo- 
 sition sickens at the sight of the prosperity and success of 
 the country. Wide-spread adversity is its life ; general 
 prosperity its death. Nor is it only over oj*r moral senti- 
 ments that this bane of freedom triumphs. Even the selfish 
 passions of our nature, planted in our bosom for our individual 
 safety, afford no obstacle to its progress." It is this opposi-
 
 SPEECHES. 
 
 tion, which gentlemen call harmless, and treat with so much 
 respect ; it is this moral treason, to use the language of my 
 friend from Tennessee (Mr. Grundy), which has, in all ages 
 and countries, ever proved the most deadly foe to freedom. 
 Nor is it then only dangerous when it breaks forth into open 
 treason and rebellion. Without resort to violence, it is 
 able, in a thousand ways, to counteract and deaden all the 
 motions of government, to render its policy wavering, and 
 to compel it to submit to schemes of aggrandizement on the 
 part of other governments ; or, if resistance be determined on, 
 to render it feeble and ineffectual. Do gentlemen ask for 
 instances ? Unhappily they are but too numerous. Where 
 can they not be found ? Admired and lamented republics 
 of antiquity ! Athens, Carthage, and Home, you are the 
 victims and witnesses of the fell spirit of factious opposition ! 
 Fatal fields of Zama and Cheronaea, you can attest its de- 
 structive cruelty ! What is the history of Polybius, and 
 that of the other historians of the free states of antiquity ? 
 what the political speeches of Cicero and the orations of 
 Demosthenes, those models of eloquence and wisdom, but 
 volumes of evidence, attesting that an opposition founded 
 in faction, unrestrained by moderation and a regard to the 
 general welfare, is the most dangerous of political evils. Nor 
 does antiquity alone testify. The history of modern times 
 is pregnant with examples. What, I would ask, has be- 
 come of the free states of modern Italy, which once flourished 
 in wealth and power Florence, Genoa, Venice, and many 
 others ? what of the United Provinces and Switzerland ? 
 Gone ; perished under the deadly feuds of opposition. Even 
 England, with her deep-rooted and powerful executive, has 
 not been free from its pernicious effect. What arrested the 
 war of Marlborough, when France was so humbled, that, had 
 it been continued, Europe might have been free from the 
 danger which she has experienced from that power ? What 
 stayed the conquering hand of Chatham, when before his
 
 SPEECHES. 65 
 
 genius and power the throne of the Bourbons trembled to 
 its centre ? The spirit of factious opposition, that common 
 cause of calamity, that, without which, liberty might be 
 eternal, and free states irresistible. 
 
 Our country, as young as she is, has her examples also. 
 In the war of the Revolution, had she been united to a man 
 had there been no apologists of opposition had no one 
 opposed his will to the general determination would the 
 enemy ever have had a hold in our country ? or would that 
 contest have lasted for a year ? or would we have been in- 
 debted to foreign aid for the establishment of our indepen- 
 dence ? Even in this war, how much has it debilitated the 
 energies of our country ? The gentleman from New Hamp- 
 shire, who spoke with ingenuity on this subject, told us, that 
 if we were united, the Canadas would be reduced in thirty 
 days ; and that in consequence of the disasters springing 
 from our divisions, we had been disgraced. 
 
 What more can I say on the fatal effects of opposition ? 
 I appeal to that gentleman to state the cause of our 
 divisions ; and would ask him whether, with the certain 
 knowledge of its pernicious effects, every means that could 
 excite opposition have not been unceasingly applied ? To 
 obviate the natural conclusion, the gentleman from New 
 Hampshire was compelled to deny that the party now in 
 power is a majority in this country; and to contend that 
 the representation in this body furnishes no evidence of that 
 fact. He argued, that many who are opposed to the war 
 were, from party motives, induced to vote for those in favor 
 of it. Even admitting the argument to be well-founded, 
 which I cannot think, might it not be retorted ? I would 
 be glad to know why the rule does not apply to the minority 
 in an equal degree ? Until he assigns some reason why it 
 does not, I must continue to consider the majority here, as 
 representing a great majority of the people ; and the 
 minority, as opposing the will of that majority. 
 
 VOL. II. 5
 
 66 SPEECHES. 
 
 The pretensions and declarations of the gentlemen on 
 the other side of the House, have compelled me to make 
 these general observations. I know not how else they can 
 be met, and I consider them as fraught with doctrines so 
 erroneous and dangerous, that it is my duty to present their 
 falsity, in the best manner in my power, to this House and 
 to the country. From the same sense of duty, I feel bound 
 to offer my sentiments on a subject of greater delicacy ; I 
 mean, on the character of the opposition which the govern- 
 ment has experienced, since the commencement of the present 
 difficulties, in 1806 ; and to inquire under which of the two 
 species of opposition the moderate and useful, or factious 
 and dangerous it ought to be arranged ? It is with pain I 
 make this inquiry. I take no pleasure in perceiving the 
 faults of any part of our citizens, much less in presenting 
 them to the public. -"My object is not to expose, but to re- 
 form to admonish of a danger so incident to free states, into 
 which all opposition, even of the most virtuous kind, so easily 
 degenerates, if not incessantly watched ; and to call on them, 
 while yet possible, to arrest its fatal career. It is important 
 to know that there is a stage in the progress of opposition, 
 which gentlemen consider so harmless, which, when once at- 
 tained, no power can arrest not love of country not even 
 the certainty of being involved in the common destruction. 
 Has it made any progress in this country to so dangerous a 
 state .?> I fear there are appearances which will justify such 
 a belief. One of its most natural symptoms is, a settled and 
 fixed character, which, as its object is to embarrass and 
 weaken government, loses no opportunity to throw impedi- 
 ments hi the way of every measure. It has two other con- 
 comitants : the one, a violence and vehemence not warranted 
 by any considerations of expediency ; and the other, the 
 urging of measures which, if adopted, must lead to national 
 ruin. It seems to me that there are reasons to believe that 
 all of these exist in the present opposition. Is it not set-
 
 SPEECHES. 67 
 
 tied and fixed ? In an unexampled state of national diffi- 
 culties, from the first belligerent decree against our neutral 
 commerce down to this day, I ask, what one of all the 
 measures of" our government to resist this almost universal 
 depredation, has not, under one pretext or another, been op- 
 posed, ridiculed, and weakened ? Yes, opposed with a vio- 
 lence that would lead to a belief that the constituted 
 authorities, instead of opposing the most gross and out- 
 rageous injustice, sought only the destruction of their coun- 
 try. Again ; what have been the measures that opposition 
 has virtually urged ? What is it at this moment ? To 
 withhold the laws to withhold the loans to withhold the 
 men who are to fight our battles or, in other words, to de- 
 stroy public faith, and to deliver the country unarmed to the 
 mercy of the enemy. Suppose all of these objects accom- 
 plished, and what would be the situation of the country ? 
 I appeal to the people for a decision. Nor are those morbid 
 symptoms confined to this body. The contagion has gone 
 forth into the community, and wherever it has appeared, has 
 exhibited the same dangerous characteristics. The inquiry 
 might be pushed much farther ; but I abstain from it, as it 
 is to me by no means a pleasant task. 
 
 But, say the gentlemen on the other side of the House, 
 what right have we to object ?. The constitution justifies 
 and secures them in an opposition to the measures of govern- 
 ment. They claim to be not only above laws, but beyond 
 animadversion. It is in their eyes fair and proper that 
 the majority who act under the undoubted and express 
 sanction of the constitution, should be subjected to every 
 species of abuse and impediment ; but, should any one ques- 
 tion the right or the expediency of the opposition, we hear 
 an immediate cry of oppression. For my part, I think that 
 a fair and moderate opposition ought at all times to be re- 
 spected ; but, that our constitution authorized that danger- 
 ous and vicious Jspecigs whjdbjnjuive attempted to describe,
 
 68 SPEECHES. 
 
 I utterly deny. I call on those who make the claim to so 
 extravagant a power, to point out the article of that instru- 
 ment which warrants such a construction. Will they cite 
 that which establishes the liberty of speech here ? Its ob- 
 ject is far different, and it furnishes not the shadow of such 
 a power. Will they rely on its general spirit ? It knows 
 no object but the general good, and must for ever condemn 
 all factious opposition to measures emanating from its own 
 authority. It is then not authorized either by the letter or 
 the spirit of the constitution. If, then, our opponents have 
 the right, it is because it is not expressly forbidden. In this 
 sense there is no limitation to their constitutional rights. A 
 right might be thus derived to violate the whole decalogue. 
 The constitution forbids almost no crimes ; nor ought it to 
 be considered in the light of a voluminous penal code, whose 
 object is the definition and prohibition of all acts injurious to 
 society. Even were this the case, the argument that what 
 is not forbidden is justifiable, would be fallacious ; for there 
 are many acts of the most dangerous tendency (of which an 
 unprincipled opposition is one), which in their very nature 
 are not susceptible of that rigid definition necessary to sub- 
 ject them to punishment. ' How absurd, then, the argument, 
 as applied to the constitution, whose object is the mere 
 enumeration, distribution, and organization of the powers 
 of the body politic, t 
 
 / I have been compelled by the great and dangerous errors 
 of the gentleman on the other side, to take a view more 
 general, than is usually proper, of a subject on which it is so 
 important to think correctly ; and I cannot take my seat 
 without reiterating my admonition to this body and the 
 country, to guard against the pernicious effects of a factious 
 opposition. Universal experience and the history of all ages 
 furnish ample testimony of its dangerous consequences, par- 
 ticularly in a state of war. Could any certain remedy be 
 applied to restrain it within the bounds of moderation, then,
 
 SPEECHES. 69 
 
 indeed, might our liberty be immortal. I know of none but 
 the good sense and the virtue of the people. The triumph 
 of a party can be nothing to them. They can have no 
 interest but in the general welfare./ 
 
 SPEECH 
 
 On the Loan Bill, delivered in the House of Repre- 
 sentatives, February 25th, 1814. 
 
 [NOTE. January 31st, 1814. Mr. Eppes from the Committee of 
 
 Ways and Means, reported a Bill to authorize a loan of millions of 
 
 dollars, which was read and referred to the Committee of the Whole. 
 The debate on this Bill, in which almost all the leading men of both par- 
 ties participated, took a wide range ; embracing all the great questions of 
 the day, which were elaborately discussed. On the character of the dis- 
 cussion, a shrewd contemporary makes the following pertinent remarks : 
 
 "The debate (not on the Loan Bill, but suffered while it was be- 
 fore a Committee of the Whole of the House of Representatives) has 
 had an unlimited range. Every question of politics that has agitated the 
 United States for fifteen or twenty years past, and every one that 
 may be expected for twenty years to come, appears to have been 
 embodied in the speeches of the members : some of whom, it is 
 said, have spoken three hours, without mentioning the Bill at all." 
 
 The principal grounds of the opposition were, the inexpediency of 
 the war to carry on which the loan was asked and the impos- 
 sibility, if granted, of obtaining the money. Mr. Calhoun spoke to 
 these objections and in favor of the Bill.] 
 
 MK. CHAIRMAN : It is now more than two weeks since 
 the commencement of this debate ; the greater part of which 
 time has been consumed by the opposition in attempting to 
 prove the bad faith, poverty, folly, and injustice of our 
 government and country : for all of their arguments and de- 
 clamation, however variant and contradictory, are reducible to
 
 70 SPEECHES. 
 
 two objections against the passage of this bill. First That 
 such is the want of capital, or of public credit, that the loan 
 cannot be had, or if at all, only at an extravagant interest ; and 
 secondly If the amount can be obtained, the bill ought to 
 be rejected ; because, in then: opinion, the war is unjust and 
 inexpedient. The last of these objections I propose to dis- 
 cuss. To examine both at lajge would occupy too much 
 time. Without, therefore, discussing the question whether 
 the loan can or cannot be had, I will merely offer a few re- 
 flections incidentally connected with it. 
 
 It is a little remarkable that not one of the minority has 
 discussed the material points on this part of the subject; 
 I mean the question, is the money proposed to be raised by 
 this bill, indispensable for the service of the year ? And, if 
 so, is a loan, the only, or the best mode of obtaining it ? The 
 chairman of the Committee of Ways and Means has presented 
 an estimate of the expenditures already ordered, or which 
 must be incurred, by which it appears, that the sum proposed 
 to be raised by this bill, with other sources of revenue, will 
 be absolutely necessary to meet them. The silence of the 
 opposition sanctions the correctness of the estimate ; and as 
 no other mode has been indicated of obtaining the necessary 
 supplies, this may be presumed to be the only or the best 
 one. It ceases, then, to be a question, whether the loan can 
 be had at this or that interest. It is necessary ; it must be 
 had ; and the rate per centum will depend principally on the 
 state of the money market and not on arguments used 
 here. Again ; on comparing the two objections to the pas- 
 sage of this bill, one of them destroys all confidence in the 
 other. Our opponents contend, not only that the loan can- 
 not be had, but that it ought not to be granted. To defeat the 
 passage of the bill in, or to prevent its successful operation out 
 of this House, is the declared object of their policy. It 
 is true that all have not made the latter declaration ; but 
 none, as far as my memory serves, have disavowed it. When,
 
 SPEECHES. VI 
 
 then, they argue that the loan must fail, they must be con- 
 sidered either as dupes of their wishes, or, what is more pro- 
 bable, as aiming to destroy the confidence of moneyed men in 
 the public faith ; for it cannot be presumed that they have 
 any hope of defeating the passage of the bill. 
 
 But to proceed to the objection which I proposed to dis- 
 cuss. The war, say our opponents, is unjust and inexpedient, 
 and, therefore, this bill ought to be rejected. The facts of the 
 supposed injustice and inexpediency of the war, on which this 
 objection rests, have claimed the exclusive attention of the op- 
 position. The inference deduced fronvthem that they justify 
 the rejection of this bill, though far from being a self-evident 
 proposition, has received no part of their arguments or elucida- 
 tions. For my part, I consider it not only false but dangerous ; 
 and shall, therefore, not only consider the alleged injustice and 
 inexpediency of the war, but also the inference assumed 
 from these charges. I trust, with the attention of the com- 
 mittee, to prove that both are equally unfounded. I must 
 beg an attentive and deliberate hearing ; for a correct mode 
 of thinking on this subject, I sincerely believe to be necessary 
 to the lasting prosperity of our country. I say an attentive 
 and deliberate hearing, for it is not sufficient that the mind 
 be fixed on the discussion ; but it should also be free from 
 those passions and prejudices unfavorable to the reception of 
 truth. The fact that discussion here assumes the form of 
 debate produces a state of things unfavorable to dispassionate 
 attention. In debate here, as between two individuals, the 
 opposite sides are much more disposed to find objections to 
 an argument, be it ever so clear, than to receive it with a 
 proper degree of assent. In their zeal, the interest of the 
 country is too often forgotten ; and mere recriminations made 
 to take the place of earnest endeavors to discover and en- 
 force the claims of truth. I hope what I have to say will 
 not be viewed as a mere exercise of skill in discussion, in 
 which those who hear me have little or no interest ; frit as
 
 72 SPEECHES. 
 
 containing principles believed to be essential to the public in- 
 terest. I trust I hold in proper contempt the spirit of idle 
 debate. Its heat and zeal are momentary. Not so with our 
 principles and measures. On them must depend our future 
 prosperity and happiness. 
 
 Is the war unjust and inexpedient ? This is the question 
 which I now propose to discuss. The eagerness and zeal 
 with which our opponents endeavor to prove this point, seem 
 to me not at all consistent with sound principles, or due love 
 of country. In their zeal they often presume that we are 
 wrong, and our enemy right ; and that the burden lies on 
 us to prove their charges false before they have attempted 
 to prove them true. How contrary this to the maxims of 
 Koman wisdom ! That wise and virtuous people, so far from 
 presuming their country to be wrong, considered it as a 
 crime in a citizen to doubt the justice of the public cause. 
 In a state of war, how worthy of our imitation ! It was at 
 the root of Koman greatness. Without it, a free state must 
 ever lose much of its native and peculiar strength ; the sponta- 
 neous and concurring zeal of its citizens. The charge of in- 
 justice and inexpediency in respect to the war, necessarily 
 leads me to investigate its cause. It originated, as agreed on 
 all sides, in certain commercial aggressions on the part of 
 England, and her practice of impressing American seamen 
 from American vessels on the high seas. Though I have 
 named commercial injuries first, it is my intention to give 
 impressment the preference in the order of discussion ; not 
 only because the war is continued for it, but because it is of 
 greater intrinsic importance. The life and liberty of "a cit- 
 izen are more important to him and his country than his pro- 
 perty ; and consequently the obligation to protect the for- 
 mer is more sacred than the latter. To the truth of this 
 position, our political institutions bear testimony. A single 
 judicial process determines a question of property ; but it re- 
 quires a double investigation, first, before a grand and then a
 
 SPEECHES. 73 
 
 petit jury, before the humblest and most suspected citizen 
 can be deprived of life or liberty. This mode of thinking is 
 worthy of a free people, and, in fact, essential to the perma- 
 nent existence of their freedom. Yes ; life and liberty, 
 those precious gifts of Heaven, are, by our laws and constitu- 
 tions, guaranteed to all. They may be abused, and thus be- 
 come forfeited to the country ; but cannot be taken away by 
 the hand of arbitrary power. Let us bear these sentiments in 
 our minds, and bring them in our bosoms to this discussion. 
 It is fortunate that the facts, connected with impress- 
 ment, are few and undoubted. I set aside, for the present, 
 the pretext and principle on which Great Britain acts in 
 relation to it. None can deny that a great number of 
 American sailors have been impressed from on board Amer- 
 ican vessels on the high seas, and, by force, compelled to 
 serve a sovereign to whom they owe no allegiance, and to 
 fight battles in which they have no interest. It is equally 
 certain, that the practice is now of long continuance ; and 
 that negotiation has often, but in vain, been resorted to for 
 redress. I say, a great number, without attempting to be 
 more specific because I do not conceive the exact number 
 to be material ; and also, because I do not wish to incorpo- 
 rate any thing the least doubtful in the statement. On this 
 point, however, the two governments are pretty well agreed. 
 Ours estimates the entire number taken at something more 
 than 6,000 ; and the British government acknowledges that, 
 at the breaking out of the war, they had sixteen hundred, 
 at least, on board their public vessels. After deducting 
 from our list the dead by battle and disease, the deserters 
 and the liberated, it will be found that theirs exceeded our 
 estimate. To the shame of the minority, they alone have 
 attempted to throw any doubt on this point, and to dimin- 
 ish the injury of the enemy below their own acknowledg- 
 ment. On this simple statement, there are two inferences so 
 clear, that I feel it almost an insult to the understanding of
 
 74 SPEECHES. 
 
 this committee to state them. I must seek for my apology 
 in the efforts of our opponents to render that doubtful, which, 
 in itself, is so manifest ; I mean the violation of the rights 
 and liberty of the impressed American seamen, and the cor- 
 respondent duty imposed on their country to protect them. 
 I know of no illustration of a proposition so perfectly clear. 
 No head can be so impenetrable as not to perceive its truth ; 
 no heart so callous as not to feel its obligation. For, who, 
 in this community of freemen, is willing to renounce the 
 claim of protection which he has on all, or withhold the duty 
 which he is under to all ? It is the essence of civil society. 
 
 Such, and so simple is the truth on which the cause of 
 our country stands. On these essential facts and inferences 
 we are on all sides agreed. The obligation of the govern- 
 ment is established. How, then, are we to be absolved from 
 so sacred a duty ? The impressed, the enslaved seamen 
 have invoked the protection of their country. Shall it be 
 extended to them, or shall it be withheld ? This is the 
 question now proposed for our consideration, and which 
 naturally introduces the various arguments of the minority 
 on this important subject. They combat against inferences 
 the most clear and powerful ; and proportionally perspicu- 
 ous and strong must be the reasons to justify their conduct. 
 I will commence with that which I believe to be most relied 
 on, because most frequently and zealously urged in justifi- 
 cation of our enemy. It is said that they take American 
 seamen by mistake, and not on principle ; their object is 
 to take their own seamen but, from the impossibility of 
 distinguishing them, the American seaman is impressed. 
 The answer is plain and decisive. The argument is founded 
 in a misconception. The duty which the country owes to 
 the impressed sailor originates in a single fact, that he is 
 unjustly deprived, by a foreign nation, of his liberty. The 
 principle on which this is done, or the manner in which it is 
 effected, is immaterial. Whether done on principle or by
 
 SPEECHES. 75 
 
 mistake, may, it is true, have a bearing on the continuance 
 of the practice and its future extent ; for what is done by 
 mistake or accident generally leaves the consolation that it 
 will not probably occur again ; but what is done on principle 
 may be expected to continue. We have not even this hope. 
 The evil is inveterate. The mistake, if one it is, must for 
 ever happen, so long as the present practice is continued of 
 impressing from American vessels. It, therefore, operates, 
 as it regards us, as if it were the result of principle. I, 
 however, deny the fact on which this justification rests. 
 The object of England is not to take her seamen only. By 
 recurring to official documents on this subject, it will be 
 found, that she impresses persons on board of our vessels, 
 who could not be mistaken for British sailors. She takes, 
 indiscriminately, Dane, Dutch, Spaniard, and seamen of 
 any nation. To speak another language and to wear a 
 different complexion are, it seems, no evidence with the 
 British government that they are not English sailors. What, 
 then, is the principle of that government on this subject ? 
 If we are to judge by facts, and not by pretexts (which will 
 never be wanting, if we are simple enough to believe them), 
 it is this : they claim, at least as far as we are concerned, 
 that every seafaring person found on the ocean is presump- 
 tively an Englishman, and bound to serve the crown of 
 Great Britain. They admit, it is true, that this presump- 
 tion maybe rebutted in a single case ; and in this only by the 
 seaman proving himself to belong to the same country with 
 the flag under which he sails. If, for instance, the vessel is 
 American, that he was born in the United States. The 
 impressing officer, the very person interested against him, 
 is, however, the judge and jury who presides in this mock 
 trial of nativity. It is thus the American flag is insulted. 
 It is thus the American citizen is stripped of his liberty 
 under its protection ! At home, he holds his liberty under 
 the protection of the most sacred laws ; abroad no, I will
 
 76 SPEECHES. 
 
 not admit the distinction for while under our flag he is 
 still at home he holds life and liberty at the mercy of every 
 insignificant, drunken midshipman ! But let us attend, for 
 a moment longer, to the object of this principle of the 
 British government, as illustrated by practice. A war in 
 Europe, in which England is engaged, sooner or later 
 extends to all the other powers in that part of the globe. 
 In consequence of her superiority at sea, the navigation 
 and commerce of other states are destroyed or suspended 
 in a state of war ; and their seamen, who cannot readily 
 change their habits, are compelled to seek employment in 
 foreign service. Until lately, the United States remaining 
 neutral, and offering high wages, they naturally preferred 
 ours. To this state of facts, her principle of impressing all 
 foreign seamen was applied ; and, by its operation, she 
 forced those, who were by their own consent employed in 
 our vessels, to serve, by compulsion, in her navy. Thus, by 
 a single process, under the pretext of taking her own seamen, 
 the commerce and navigation of the world are converted 
 into a nursery to support the British navy ; and the practice 
 of impressment from neutrals, on investigation, is discovered 
 to be, like all her other encroachments, a system of universal 
 monopoly. TJnless resisted by the steady and persevering 
 efforts of other nations, she must eventually draw the com- 
 merce of the world into the vortex of her system. 
 
 It is next urged that this is an ancient custom on the 
 part of England and Europe generally that it is a part of 
 the law of nations to impress on board of neutral vessels on 
 the high seas. Those who urge this argument ought to sub- 
 stantiate it by a reference to the facts and to elementary 
 writers on public law. Till this is done, it cannot be considered 
 in a stronger light than a mere assertion. I, for my own 
 part, do not believe that it ever constituted the custom of 
 Europe, nor that of England, till since the period of the 
 American war. If it were a general custom, why is it not
 
 SPEECHES. 77 
 
 recognized by some of the many writers on the law of nations ? 
 They minutely state the cases in which a belligerent may 
 enter a neutral vessel for the purpose of search. Why is not 
 this also mentioned ? None of the rights of search could be 
 more important, or better deserve their attention than this, 
 if any such really existed. Their silence, then, is decisive 
 against the custom. I know that some English writers 
 have set up an old claim, founded on the orders of their gov- 
 ernment ; but there is no proof of acquiescence on the part of 
 other powers ; and if there were, it could not be obligatory 
 on us. The law of nations is composed, principally, of usages 
 originating in mutual convenience. Among the nations of 
 modern Europe, who are distinguishable by their language 
 and countenances, it is possible that impressment on board 
 of neutral vessels may not be liable to the mistakes and 
 abuses of which we complain ; and that it might even be a 
 mutual convenience. Such a custom, then, would not be 
 extraordinary. But were those nations related, as are the 
 United States and England, and the practice thus, from 
 necessity, attended with incessant abuse, it never could 
 exist. If our opponents, then, had proved, and not merely 
 asserted, such a custom among European nations, as between 
 us and England, our country would have formed an exception. 
 It is not applicable to our condition ; it is unequal, not 
 reciprocal, and attended with grievous and constant abuses. 
 As applied to us, then, the general usage if such there be 
 ought to be modified by treaty, so as to suit the mutual 
 convenience of both parties ; an object which this country 
 has ever been anxious to effect, but which has been studiously 
 avoided by our enemy. If, however, our opponents still 
 insist that it is a right under the law of nations, and must, 
 notwithstanding the argument which I have advanced, be 
 considered as applicable to us, we may meet usage with 
 usage ; or, rather, a doubtful uncertain usage, and opposed 
 to reason, by that which is undoubted and founded in the
 
 78 SPEECHES. 
 
 very nature of civil society. If to impress in neutral vessels 
 be an usage of England and the rest of Europe, how much 
 more general and indisputable is the custom of affording 
 protection to their subjects against foreign violence ! This 
 is the usage which is certain and universal not confined to 
 any particular nation, nor originating in accidental circum- 
 stances. All States, the most weak and contemptible claim 
 it ; and it is so interwoven with the very elements of society, 
 that it cannot be relinquished without certain destruction. 
 On this custom, which combines both right and duty, we may 
 oppose any pretext or claim of our enemy. 
 
 But, say some of our opponents, we are willing to defend 
 native-born American seamen, but not the naturalized. I 
 know not how they who make this distinction can answer 
 a simple question founded on an admitted fact. American 
 seamen sixteen hundred at least native-born American 
 seamen by the acknowledgment of the British government, 
 are impressed and held in bondage. If, then, you are willing 
 to defend such, why not support the war, now carried on 
 solely in defence of right, outraged in the persons of these 
 unfortunate citizens ? What avail is the declaration, that 
 you are willing to defend them, when you will not move a 
 finger in their cause ? But the distinction, between native 
 and naturalized, is without truth or reason. It constitutes 
 no part of the controversy between the two countries. We 
 contend for the defence of American seamen generally. The 
 enemy has not distinguished between the two classes. He 
 insists on continuing a custom which makes both equally 
 liable to his oppression. We have not we shall not hear 
 of a distinction, till some security is afforded against the 
 abuses of which we complain. Till then, I can consider it 
 only as an equivocation, which acknowledges the duty of the 
 government to protect, but evades the discharge of it. We 
 are told that our seamen ask no protection and that it is 
 strange those, who are most remote and least interested,
 
 SPEECHES. 79 
 
 should discover the greatest anxiety in their behalf. As to 
 the first part of this statement, I deny its truth. Our sailors 
 have claimed our protection. They have importuned and 
 invoked their country. We have had their applications for 
 protection laid before this House in the form of a document. 
 It forms a large volume. Considering the cold indifference 
 with which we have heard their prayer, I wonder that they 
 have not, long since, ceased to consider us as their guardians. 
 But we who stand forth to discharge this sacred duty, are 
 charged with being backwoodsmen, men who never saw a 
 ship till convened here in our legislative capacity. Admit 
 the fact ; and what then ? Such generous sympathy for 
 those who stand connected with us only by the ties of citizen- 
 ship, does honor to our country. I hope it is not strange. 
 It is usual. / Our history abounds with many instances of this 
 sympathy t>f the whole with any and every part. When it 
 ceases to be natural, we shall cease to be one nation. It 
 constitutes our real union. The rest is fonn/ The wonder 
 is, in fact, on the other side. Since it cannot be denied, 
 that American citizens are held in foreign bondage, how 
 strange that those who boast of being neighbors and relations, 
 should be dead to all sympathy should not have the manly 
 spirit to make a generous effort for their relief. There was 
 a time when our opponents, to their honor, were not so cold 
 on this subject. The venerable gentleman from Massachu- 
 setts, and another gentleman high in the ranks of his party, 
 formerly felt and spoke on it, as we now do like Americans. 
 How unhappy the change ! How unaccountable ! Unless, 
 indeed, we look to the poisonous effects of the spirit of sys- 
 tematic opposition a spirit which, I lately observed on 
 another occasion, clings more strongly to the cause of a party, 
 than to that of the country. 
 
 But great frauds, we are told, are committed in the 
 certificates of protection. I will not spend much time on this 
 frivolous argument. What right has England to complain
 
 80 SPEECHES. 
 
 of frauds, if they really do exist ? Whether they do or not, 
 I do not think worth the inquiry. The argument, taken at 
 the best, can have no weight, except with those who think 
 that the freeborn citizens of this country, under our own flag, 
 are to be protected like a slave, by a pass in his pocket. To 
 give weight to it, we must forget our rights and duties as an 
 independent nation. The framers of the law under which 
 the protections are taken out, did not design them as safe- 
 guards while navigating the ocean. The object was to iden- 
 tify the seamen, as Americans, in the ports of foreign 
 countries ; and this construction has been given to it by our 
 Government in its negotiations with the British. In this 
 view, the law is not unworthy of the wisdom and independence 
 of our country ; but I can scarcely conceive a greater na- 
 tional degradation, than would be involved in the scheme of 
 affording protection to our seamen on the high seas, and 
 under our flag, by a pass. 
 
 On the subject of impressment, one argument only re- 
 mains to be replied to. The practice of taking seamen from 
 our vessels is necessary, say our opponents, to the existence 
 of England. I would be happy to know the reason why it 
 is necessary. We have pledged ourselves by a law, which 
 we offer to make the basis of a treaty, not to employ a single 
 British sailor. The provisions of the bill are ample ; and we 
 are willing to give her every reasonable security on this 
 point. When the assertion, then, is made, in the face of 
 this law, designed to exclude British seamen, that the prac- 
 tice of impressing on board of our vessels is necessary to her 
 existence, it must be meant if any thing be meant in re- 
 lation to American seamen. If so, before we disregard our 
 duty and surrender our rights to the disposition of a foreign 
 power, I think it would be prudent to establish two points 
 connected with this subject. In the first place, it ought to 
 be clearly proved to be necessary to the existence of England. 
 I, for one, will not agree to yield our independence on mere
 
 SPEECHES. 81 
 
 assertion, however respectable the authority by which it is 
 made. In the next place, it ought to be proved to be our 
 duty to submit. The sense of moral obligation is peculiarly 
 strong in the bosoms of the American people. However 
 great the sacrifice, if our opponents can clearly establish it 
 to be their duty, I dare pledge myself they will make it. 
 Till both are satisfactorily proved, it would be highly un- 
 reasonable on their part to demand of the country an acqui- 
 escence in a practice so ruinous. Our existence is at stake, 
 no less than that of England ; or, rather, the danger to her is 
 imaginary ; to us, real and certain. An undeviating devotion 
 to its duty is the blood and life of a free state. Habitual depar- 
 ture from it must, sooner or later, prove fatal. It infuses a 
 poison into the system, which will corrupt and destroy. Take 
 this very case. It is our duty, most sacredly our duty, to 
 protect the lives and liberties of our citizens against foreign 
 oppression. Instead of doing this, we have, for many years, 
 quietly beheld them forced into a hateful foreign service. 
 What has been the reason of this conduct on our part ? 
 The want of power ? No ; a vigorous and decisive eifort, in 
 the very first instance, before the enemy had learned to be 
 arrogant by our submission, would have strangled the pre- 
 tension in its birth. We yielded because we wished to en- 
 joy the blessings of peace ; its ease, its comforts, above all, 
 its means of making money. The practical language of the 
 Government to the people was it is better to be rich than 
 to be virtuous. Can we, then, wonder at the alarming 
 growth of avarice ? It is to be traced back, in part, to this 
 original sin of our Government. The first American citizen 
 impressed and not immediately liberated, was good cause, 
 in my opinion imperious cause, of war. No calculation of 
 gain should have prevented it. To do our duty is more im- 
 portant than to be rich. 
 
 Before I take my leave of this subject I will present to the 
 committee, what I consider a confession of the justice of our 
 VOL. u. 6
 
 82 SPEECHES. 
 
 cause, and the correctness of our policy. I allude to the 
 habitual and obvious misstatements which our opponents 
 make on this subject. They say, we are continuing the war in 
 order to compel Great Britain to renounce the right of im- 
 pressing her own subjects. They must know that this is not 
 the fact ; and that the charge is calculated to mislead the 
 public mind. Why not state the matter as it really is ? 
 Why not say, what they must know to be true, that the 
 war is continued, in order to protect from impressment 
 American seamen ? Is it not from a fear of the public sen- 
 timent ? And is this not a strong indirect acknowledgment 
 that the principles we contend for, if understood, would meet 
 with kind and congenial feelings in the bosom of the Ame- 
 rican people ? When the head is right, there is, among a 
 free people, but little danger of the heart. When they are 
 agreed in facts and inferences, they will never disagree in 
 sentiment. 
 
 I will now proceed to consider the next cause of the war, 
 the injuries done by Great Britain to our commerce. It is 
 not my intention to speak of them in detail, or to consider 
 them as particular acts injurious to our trading interests. 
 This view has been often presented, and is well understood. 
 
 /I propose to ascend to their origin, and to point out the 
 ^spirit and principles of the government from which they have 
 
 (proceeded. This view has not yet been taken, though it is 
 of the most interesting nature. The detail of British in- 
 justice may rouse our indignation, but it is only by reflecting 
 on the principles and character of her government, that we 
 can justly appreciate the extent of our danger, and the mea- 
 sures best calculated to counteract it. Even the repeal of 
 the Orders in Council, and the consequent suspension of 
 commercial injuries, do not strip this view of the subject of 
 any of its interest. For, it ought ever to be remembered, 
 that the revocation (June 23d, 1812) of the celebrated 
 orders of 1807 and 1809, expressly retains their principles.
 
 SPEECHES. 83 
 
 They, then, only slumber ; and, as sure as we exist, her tem- 
 per and policy will rouse them into action on the first suit- 
 able occasion, unless prevented by the firm and spirited con- 
 duct of this and other nations interested in a free trade. 
 
 The commercial policy of Great Britain, which has vexed // ' . 
 and annihilated the commerce of every other nation, began <*/ 
 distinctly to develop itself in the year 1756 ; from which ft 
 time to the present, I assert, without the fear of contradic- / 
 tion, she has habitually struggled to enlarge what she terms AI 
 her maritime and belligerent rights on the ocean, at the ex- 
 pense of neutrals. The assertion is based on historical facts, 
 which the general information of most of the members of 
 this committee will enable them to decide for themselves. 
 I have neither the inclination nor the time to recite and 
 examine the whole series in connection. I will content my- 
 self with taking a brief notice of some of the leading and 
 most characteristic. At their head, in point of time, is the 
 order which takes its name from the year already mentioned, 
 and which distinctly marks the commencement of this policy. 
 The character of this celebrated rule or order is so well 
 known as to require no comment. ^Inthe war of our Revolu- 
 tion, she still further enlarged her maritime and belligerent 
 policy, particularly in the shape of blockades, since so enor- 
 mously extended. This, with other encroachments at the 
 time, produced that association of nations called " THE 
 ARMED NEUTRALITY." The object of this was, to check 
 further encroachments, and to remedy those that already 
 existed. It was acceded to by almost every nation of 
 Europe. On the breaking out of the French Revolution, 
 pursuing the same line of policy, she made further encroach- 
 ments. One of the most considerable, and which was severe- 
 ly felt by this country, was, an enlargement of articles con- 
 traband of war, so as to extend them to the numerous and 
 important articles of breadstuff's. This was during Washing- 
 ton's administration ; and constituted the principal one of
 
 84 SPEECHES. 
 
 that period of our history. Preparations were then made to 
 appeal to arms for the redress of so serious an injury ; but 
 this was prevented by England's agreeing to make compen- 
 sation for the injuries which we had sustained. With such 
 spirit did our Government then act, although the injury then 
 sustained dwindles into nothing, compared with the present ; 
 and with so little accuracy has a gentleman from New- York 
 (Mr. Grosvenor) spoken, who not only magnified the ag- 
 gressions of that period above those of the present, but 
 stated that Washington was unwilling to resort to arms for 
 redress. In the present war with France, her maritime and 
 commercial policy has hastened to its perfection. In the 
 year 1805, it assumed an aspect most threatening to our 
 commerce. It fell on our carrying trade, at that time in a 
 most flourishing condition. Be it remarked let it be laid, 
 up in your memory that the old rule of '56, the parent of / 
 all these aggressions, was then, after many years, revived,/ 
 and made the apology for premeditated wrongs. Just so 
 r^ay-w^e^rjectjhe^cevoked ordersj^^evive. Blockades and 
 Orders in Council followed fheclestraction of our carrying 
 trade. They have been too recent and too severely felt, to 
 need a particular recital. Negotiation was tried negotia- 
 tion failed ; and the injuries continuing, have ended in the 
 present relation between the two countries. 
 
 The English maritime and belligerent policy is not only 
 such as I have stated it to be, but it is a policy peculiar to 
 her, and is in opposition to the interests of the rest of the 
 world. It is the interest and wish of all other civilized na- 
 tions to ameliorate, or, if the expression is justifiable, to hu- 
 manize belligerent rights on the ocean. England stands alone. 
 To establish this position, it would be necessary to consider, a 
 little more in detail, the series of facts to which I have already 
 alluded ; but, as I am fearful of being tedious, I must check 
 my inclination, and confine myself to a few observations only. 
 
 A signal proof of the peculiar policy of England may
 
 SPEECHES. 85 
 
 be found in the history of the armed neutrality, which 
 had for its object, as already observed, the restriction of 
 some of those pretended belligerent rights. Russia, Swe- 
 den, Denmark, Portugal, Spain, and even France, though 
 then a belligerent power, acceded to it. England alone re- 
 fused. It may, however, be said, that France, too, has often 
 committed injuries on neutral trade. The fact is admitted. 
 But, without wishing to apologize for her, I conceive there 
 has been a marked distinction (arising out of her situation) 
 between her conduct and that of England. The latter has 
 steadily pursued a policy hostile to neutral commerce on es- 
 tablished principles ; the former has been irregular in her 
 hostilities, indicating more of passion than of system. Be- 
 sides, she has always expressed a regret for her injuries, and 
 represented them, however unjustifiable, as intended to coun- 
 teract schemes of England. 
 
 It remains now to prove what is the tendency of the 
 British maritime and commercial pofoy ; and in what, if not 
 counteracted, it must terminate. -^Reason and the general 
 convenience of nations have for centuries established cer- 
 tain usages, by which belligerent powers are, in many in- 
 stances, restrained from doing all the injury they can to 
 each other, from a regard to the interest of others. These 
 usages constitute the rights of neutrals, which are, for the 
 most part, well defined by the many writers on the laws of 
 nations. Under the cover of, what she calls, her belligerent 
 and maritime rights, the object and tendency of the British 
 policy is, to throw off those restraints on the ocean." It is, 
 in fact, to undo all that has been done in favor of civiliza- 
 tion on that element, and to return to the lawless state of 
 barbarous ages. It is the interest of every other power to 
 restrain her within the limits of the ancient barriers ; for if 
 they are once transcended, there are no limits but what her 
 power or interest may prescribe. Neutral commerce, as such, 
 will be annihilated. yShe will judge and decide, according to
 
 86 SPEECHES. 
 
 her pleasure, what is beneficial to her enemy, and what tc 
 herself. The former will be destroyed, the latter spared. Nor 
 will the evil stop here. The waves of power are incessantly 
 washing away the mounds that restrain them. The transi- 
 tion is easy from this boundless extension of her belligerent 
 policy, to a system of universal monopoly, in peace as well as 
 in war a system which considers the ocean as her peculiar 
 domain. 
 
 I omitted, in its proper place, an argument which 
 strongly illustrates this part of the subject ; I allude to the 
 great changes made in the British courts of admiralty. 
 Formerly, they held jurisdiction, like all similar tribunals in 
 other countries, under the laws of nations only. They were 
 as the creatures of those laws, and intended only to carry 
 their rules into execution. They were, of course, not under 
 the municipal laws of the country where they happened to 
 be located, as far as it regarded the rules of their decisions. 
 Thus constituted, they were one of the principal ornaments 
 of the civilization of modern times. The whole of this is 
 now reversed. The courts of admiralty receive laws as regu- 
 larly from the British Government, as those of Westminster. 
 The only difference is, that the statutes of Parliament pre- 
 scribe the rules of decision to the one, and the Orders in 
 Council to the other. It is thus that England legislates for 
 the ocean, and, consequently, for the world, on that great 
 highway, and has her proper tribunals, with commensurate 
 jurisdiction, to carry into effect her laws. But why should 
 I consume time to prove her maritime policy ? Who is 
 there so stupid as not to see and feel its effect ? You can- 
 not look towards her shores and not behold it. You may 
 see it in her parliament, her prints, her theatres, and in her 
 very songs. It is scarcely disguised. It is her pride and 
 boast. The nature of her policy is then manifest and ad- 
 mitted ; but it will be asked, how can you counteract it ? 
 I answer, by the measures now being pursued ; by force, by
 
 SPEECHES. 87 
 
 war ; not by remonstrance, not by negotiation, and still less 
 by leaving it to itself. The nature of its growth indicates 
 its remedy. It originated in power has grown in propor- 
 tion as opposing power has been removed and can only be 
 restrained by power. Nations^ a,re, for the most art, not re- 
 strained by moral principles, but by fear. It is an old max- 
 im, that they have heads, but no hearts. They see their 
 own interests, but do not sympathize in the wrongs of oth- 
 ers. Such is the fact in relation to England. When neu- 
 trals are numerous and powerful, their rights are, in some 
 degree, respected by her ; when few and inconsiderable, de- 
 spised. This last has been the unfortunate state of the 
 world for the last twenty years. That counteracting influ- 
 ence, that repulsive power by which she was bound to her 
 proper orbit, has been almost wholly removed. This coun- 
 try alone was left to support the rights which belong to neu- 
 trals. Perilous was the condition, and arduous the task. 
 We were not intimidated. C We stood opposed to her usurpa- 
 tion, and, by our spirit and efforts, have done all in our pow- 
 er to save the last vestiges of neutral rights. Embargoes, 
 non-intercourse, non-importation, and, finally, war, were all 
 manly exertions to preserve the rights of this, and of all 
 other nations, from the deadly grasp of British maritime 
 policy.7 
 
 But, say our opponents, these efforts are vain and our 
 condition hopeless. If so, it only remains for us to assume 
 the habit of our condition. We must submit humbly sub- 
 mit crave pardon and hug our chains. It is not wise to 
 provoke, where we cannot resist. But let us be well assured 
 of the hopeless nature of our condition before we sink into 
 submission. On what do our opponents rest this despondent 
 and slavish belief? On the recent events in Europe ? I ad- 
 mit they are great, and well calculated to impose on the 
 imagination. Our enemy never presented a more imposing 
 exterior. His fortune is at the flood. "Rnt T am arlmon- r
 
 88 SPEECHES. 
 
 ished bj universal experience, that such prosperity is the 
 most fickle of human conditions. From the flood the tide 
 dates its ebb ; from the meridian, the sun commences his 
 decline. There is more of sound philosophy than fiction in 
 the fickleness which poets attribute to fortune. Prosper- 
 it^MOSsISeaEnfifiS^adversity its strength. In many re- 
 spects our enemy has lost by those very changes which seem 
 to be so much in his favor. He can now no more claim to 
 be struggling for existence ; no more, to be fighting the bat- 
 tles of the world, in defence of the liberties of mankind. The 
 magic cry of French influence, is lost ./ Hence were drawn 
 those motives which stimulated her efforts into fiercest ac- 
 tion, which united the continent to her cause, and, in some 
 degree, damped the ardor of her rival in power. Even here, 
 in this very hall, we are not strangers to its magic tones. 
 Even here the cry of French influence, that baseless fiction, 
 that phantom of faction, though now banished, once often re- 
 sounded. I rejoice that the spell is broken, by which it was 
 attempted to bind the generous spirit of this country. The 
 minority can no longer act under cover ; but will be obliged 
 to defend their opposition on its intrinsic merits. 
 
 It is not in this respect only, that our enemy has lost by 
 the late events. The tremendous and exhausting conflicts 
 of this, and the preceding campaign, seem, at last, to dispose 
 the continental powers to peace. If they have a just con- 
 ception of their true interest, and are not prevented by Brit- 
 ish gold and intrigue, a continental peace will ensue. There 
 certainly is much alarm in England on the probability of 
 such an event. Should it, fortunately, be the case should 
 the allies prove content with their fortune, and France sub- 
 mit to her present limits, all Europe must speedily combine 
 against the British maritime policy. The great power on 
 land being crushed, to use the language of our opponents 
 but more properly being forced within proper limits, the 
 great monopolist of the ocean will, I trust, be the next ob-
 
 SPEECHES. 89 
 
 ject of fear and resistance. /The principle of the armed neu- 
 trality is not, and cannot be forgotten. It exists essentially 
 in the policy of modem Europe. Ever since the discovery 
 of the passage round the Cape of Good Hope, and of this 
 continent, on which we enjoy the proud pre-eminence of be- 
 ing the first great civilized power, a great change has been 
 gradually working in Europe. For two centuries, the char- 
 acter of that part of the world has been eminently trading 
 and commercial. The habits of every part are formed more 
 or less on this state of things. There lives scarcely a human 
 being, from the ice and snows of Siberia to the sunny plains 
 of Italy, who has not some habit, the gratification of which 
 depends on commerce. Hence it has become an object of 
 primary policy. The wars in Europe, for many years past, 
 have, with few exceptions, been, more or less, connected with 
 it. The policy of every court has been to obtain commercial 
 supplies on the best terms, and, as much as possible, through 
 the agency of their own subjects. With such habits and 
 policy, it is impossible they can behold with indifference the 
 monopoly of Great Britain. They will not quietly suffer 
 the common highway of nations, intended by a kind Provi- 
 dence for the common intercourse and benefit of all, to bo 
 converted into her exclusive domain. No ; the ocean cannot 
 become property. Like light and air, it is insusceptible of 
 the idea of property. Heaven has given it to man equally, 
 freely, bountifully ; and all empires attempted to be raised 
 on it, must partake of the fickleness of its waves. A policy 
 so injurious to the common interests of mankind, must, soon- 
 er or later, unite the world against herr For many years 
 her encroachments have advanced without exciting much jea- 
 lousy. The attention of all the nations of Europe has been 
 exclusively directed to the maintenance of their existence, 
 menaced by the power of France. To preserve 4 life was 
 more important than to acquire comfort ; so to resist that 
 power was more imperious than to oppose England. Libe-
 
 90 SPEECHES. 
 
 rated now from fear, they will soon have leisure to attend to 
 their interests. The difference between our policy and that 
 of other nations, in this respect, is only in appearance, and 
 not in reality. Each acted in a manner suited to the cir- 
 cumstances in which it found itself. Attachment to France, 
 as proclaimed by British partisans, formed no part of our 
 policy. We were safe from the danger with which her power 
 menaced other nations. A broad ocean was our immediate 
 security. We resisted the power which then and- now press- 
 es on us, and which will soon cause itself to be felt and re- 
 sisted by all. Should the course of events be such as I have 
 indicated, then will the wisdom and spirit of our country be 
 universally applauded. Our situation was trying and respon- 
 sible. We, alone, had to sustain all the rights and duties 
 which attach to the neutral character. We were not intim- 
 idated by its difficulties. We dared, single-handed as we were, 
 to make a stand against the favorite and obstinate policy of 
 our enemy. The present and temporary interests of commerce 
 were nobly surrendered for its permanent advantages. The 
 example can scarcely fail to produce its effect. But if, un- 
 fortunately, we should be left alone to maintain the contest ; 
 and if, in consequence (which may God forbid), necessity 
 should compel us to yield for the present, yet our generous 
 efforts will not have been in vain. A mode of thinking, and 
 a tone of sentiment have been excited, which must stimulate 
 to future and more successful struggles. What we may not 
 be able to effect with eight millions of people, will be done 
 with twenty. The great cause will not be yielded. No ; 
 never ! never ! We cannot renounce our rights to the ocean 
 which Providence has spread before our doors ; nor will we 
 ever hold that, which is the immediate gift of Heaven, under 
 the license of any nation. We have already had success 
 worthy of our cause./ The future is audibly pronounced by 
 the splendid victories over the Guerriere, Java, and Macedo- 
 nian. We and all nations, are, in them, taught a lesson
 
 SPEECHES. 91 
 
 never to be forgotten. Opinion is power. The charm of 
 British naval invincibility is broken. / 
 
 In this, the only just view of our contest, how pitiful 
 appear the objections of our opponents ! Some pecuniary 
 difficulties in Massachusetts, and in other places! And 
 must we, for them, renounce our lasting prosperity and 
 greatness ? Have we no fortitude ? no self-command ? 
 Must we, like children, yield to the impulse of present 
 pleasure, however fatal ? If the maritime parts of Massa- 
 chusetts suffer, let them remember, that if the war should 
 be successful if our future commerce and navigation should 
 be secured, they will partake most largely in the advan- 
 tages, common and great, indeed, to all, but peculiarly so to 
 them. 
 
 Suppose that our opponents, who object to every thing, 
 had been at the helm of government, and that an opposite 
 line of policy had been pursued : no embargoes no non- 
 intercourse no non-importation acts no war and, in fact, 
 no resistance to the injuries and aggressions of Great Britain ; 
 who can be ignorant of what would have been the conse- 
 quence ? They would have multiplied in number and de- 
 gree, till our commerce would have been annihilated. Unre- 
 sisted, they would have constituted future principles, and 
 our acquiescence been construed into an acknowledgment of 
 their truth. ^hen would we have felt what the experience 
 of all ages has taught that it is far more easy to maintain, 
 than to wrest back usurped rights. Wrongs, submitted to, 
 produce contrary effects in the oppressor and the oppressed. 
 Oppression strengthens and prepares for new oppression ; 
 submission debases to further submission^ The first wrong, 
 by the universal law of our nature/is most easily re- 
 sisted. It excites the greatest degree of union and indig- 
 nation. Let that be submitted to ; let the consequent 
 debasement and loss of national honor be felt ; and nothing 
 but the grinding hand of oppression can force to resistance.
 
 92 SPEECHES. 
 
 I know not which to pronounce the most guilty : the nation 
 that inflicts a wrong, or that which quietly submits to it. 
 In other respects, the difference is marked. The formed 
 may be hated, but is respected at least feared ; while the 
 latter is below pity, or any other feeling of the human heart 
 but sovereign contempt. In submission, then, there is no 
 remedy : our honor lost ; our commerce under the control of 
 our oppressor ; what next ? The hopes and fears (those 
 universal instruments of government) of the whole mercan- 
 tile section of this country, and all connected interests, 
 would be turned towards Great Britain ; for the power of 
 legislation over our commerce would be virtually transferred 
 from the American Congress to the King in Council. Need 
 I trace the consequence ? Need I paint the corrupt and 
 debasing influences ? The beams of the mid-day sun are 
 scarcely more clear. The very contempt which such base- 
 ness would excite -justly excite in our enemy, would in- 
 sure our subjugation. It is impossible to allow any right, 
 much less independence, to that which creeps and licks the 
 dust. Such is the condition of our nature. We must have 
 the spirit to resist wrong, or be slaves. Such were the alter- 
 natives presented to our country, and such would have 
 been the result of the opposite policy, now recommended and 
 applauded by our opponents. 
 
 ^fi' have now said all I intended on this most interesting 
 view of our cause. It has an elevation and clearness which 
 renders it attractive to my mind. I love to dwell on it, be- 
 cause it imparts a steady and clear conviction of the wisdom 
 and necessity of that course of measures, to the adoption of 
 which, it is my pride to have in part contributed. I feel 
 how little interesting all the common topics of opposition 
 are, after the view already taken. The descent gives a shock, 
 which I know the committee will partake with him who is 
 addressing them. If, however, they will continue their at- 
 tention, I will offer a few observations on a subject which
 
 SPEECHES. 93 
 
 has made a principal figure in the speeches of our opponents. 
 I allude to the character which they give to this war, as 
 offensive, and not defensive. On this point, I spoke fully 
 when the Army Bill was under consideration. What was 
 then said, has been introduced and objected to on this occa^ 
 sion. I then stated, that the difference between an offensive 
 and defensive war consisted in the motive and cause. If, for 
 instance, a war is forced on the nation waging it, by the op- 
 pression of that against which it is declared, it would be de- 
 fensive, however it might be carried on ; but if, on the con- 
 trary, it originated in ambition, or any other improper 
 motive, it would be offensive. This distinction is not only 
 supported by reason, but by the declamation of our oppo- 
 nents. They have, for almost two years, been in the habit 
 of denouncing offensive war. They, then, acknowledge that 
 such a war is wicked ; and how can it bear that character 
 but by its cause ? It seems, now, that they have changed 
 their grounds. We hear no more of the wickedness of 
 offensive war ; but, what is most strange, all their efforts are 
 directed to prove, that it may be an innocent and virtuous 
 thing. That nation, say they, is engaged in an offensive 
 war, who first assumes a warlike attitude. However just, 
 however necessary the cause, the war is still offensive. Be 
 it so. I care not for words. My answer is decisive. If my 
 conception be just, that an offensive war is to be tested by 
 the cause, I then pronounce ours not to be of that character ; 
 but, if their definition be correct, then an offensive war may 
 be most just, most virtuous, and necessary ; and all their 
 declamation against it is idle and unmeaning rant. I tender 
 an option, and care not which is taken. They who defend 
 a bad cause, act imprudently in descending to particulars. 
 Our opponents, by doing so in this case, have furnished the 
 best reply to their own arguments. 
 
 On expatriation and retaliation I will say nothing. The 
 hour is late, and I feel myself somewhat exhausted. I pass
 
 94 SPEECHES. 
 
 them by the more cheerfully, as the gentleman from Louisi- 
 ana (Mr. Kobertson) and my colleague have replied fully 
 to the objection urged on those subjects. Before I proceed 
 further, it will be necessary to restate the propositions with 
 which I commenced, so that the entire chain of the argument 
 both that which has already been advanced, and what 
 remains to be submitted may be distinctly seen. 
 
 It will be remembered that I reduced all the arguments 
 and objections of our opponents to the passage of this bill, 
 under two general heads. First, that the loan cannot be 
 had ; or must be obtained, if at all, at an exorbitant interest. 
 Second, that if it can be, still it ought not to be granted, 
 because the war is unjust and inexpedient. I also stated, 
 that the latter comprehended the assertion of the injustice 
 and inexpediency of the war, and the assumed inference, 
 that, if true, the minority would be justified in their oppo- 
 sition both to the bill and to the war. On the alleged in- 
 justice and inexpediency of the war I have presented my 
 opinions, and, I trust, satisfied the committee that its justice 
 is demonstrably clear, and its expediency unquestionable ; 
 or rather, its necessity imperious, if the preservation of the 
 independence of the country constitutes political necessity. 
 
 But is it justifiable to withhold the loan, even admitting 
 the war to be, as alleged by our opponents, unjust and inex- 
 pedient ? This is the question now proposed to be discussed. 
 It contains the practical consequence of all that has been 
 said in opposition. Few propositions involve principles so 
 deeply connected with the lasting prosperity of our repub- 
 lican institutions ; and, in regard to which, consequently, it 
 is more necessary to think correctly. Error here cannot be 
 indifferent. A false mode of thinking must endanger the 
 existence of the republic. I must, then, again entreat the 
 attentive and deliberate audience of the committee, while 
 I offer my opinions and reasons on so interesting a subject. 
 
 In considering the question, how far, in a war, thought
 
 SPEECHES. 95 
 
 to be unjust or improper by any portion of the people, they 
 would be warranted in their opposition, after it is constitu- 
 tionally declared, I shall leave out of view such as involve 
 extreme or flagrant injustice. A war, impious or sacrilegious, 
 cannot be governed by the general rules which apply to or- 
 dinary cases. At least, it is not necessary for me to consider 
 such extreme cases, as none can impute such a character to 
 the present. 
 
 I have already stated that the sum proposed to be raised 
 by this bill, is indispensably necessary to meet the expenses 
 of the ensuing year; and that, if it is withheld, it must 
 communicate a fatal shock to public credit. In that event, 
 not only the invasion of Canada would be prevented, which 
 some gentlemen state to be their object, but the whole oper- 
 ations of the war even viewed as defensive in the strictest 
 sense would be abandoned. Officers and soldiers will no 
 more serve in our garrisons than in Canada without pay. It 
 is idle to talk of only preventing the reduction of the enemy's 
 provinces by withholding the loan. Nor can gentlemen be 
 serious. They have opposed every attempt to raise supplies, 
 in whatever shape it has appeared. They appear to be bold 
 in facing bankruptcy. But have they reflected on the dis- 
 astrous effects of their efforts, should they be successful ? 
 The old and recent creditors of the Grovernment, the army, 
 the navy, which they boast of cherishing, in a word, every 
 individual would feel the calamity ; for private, no less than 
 public credit would partake of the shock. I am wholly at 
 a loss to perceive on what principle of expediency, policy, 
 or morality, such conduct can be justified. Surely it is not 
 a self-evident proposition, that, because the war is simply 
 unjust and inexpedient, in the opinion of the minority, there- 
 fore, they have a right to involve the country in ruin, and 
 place it, bound as a suppliant, at the feet of a haughty 
 enemy. They, then, ought to state some intelligible and 
 satisfactory principle on which this conduct may be justified.
 
 96 SPEECHES. 
 
 I have sought with attention,. but have not found, the sem- 
 blance of such an one. On the contrary, all the analogies 
 of private life, as well as of reason, forbid and condemn the 
 conduct of our opponents. Suppose a father to do some act, 
 which, in the opinion of a son, is not strictly just or proper, 
 by which he becomes involved in a contest with a stranger, 
 would the son be justified in taking part against him ? How 
 much less, then, can any party be in opposition to their 
 country in a war with another nation ? for it stands in the 
 place of the common parent of all ; and comprehends, to use 
 the language of a member from North Carolina (Mr. Gaston), 
 "att the charities of life." 
 
 But what must be thought of the motives and conduct 
 of the minority, when I state that much the greater part of 
 the expenses of the war, for which this bill is intended in 
 part to provide, has been incurred by their votes as much as 
 by those of the majority ? I hold in my hands the journal 
 of the first session of the Twelfth Congress ; by which it 
 appears, that the Keport of the Committee on Foreign Kela- 
 tions was supported not only by the votes on this side of the 
 House, but by a decided majority on the other. The report 
 ended in recommending six resolutions to the adoption of 
 the House : To fill up the old establishment ; to raise ten 
 thousand additional troops ; to increase the navy ; to provide 
 for calling out the militia ; and to authorize the arming of 
 private vessels. On the first of these, there was a minority 
 of eleven votes only : so unanimous was this House at that 
 time ! On some of the others, it is true, it was more con- 
 siderable ; but all met with the support of gentlemen on the 
 other side. What ought to be particularly noted is, that 
 when the Senate and this House disagreed on the second 
 resolution, to raise an additional number of regular troops, 
 the former supporting twenty-five thousand men, and the 
 latter, at first, ten thousand men, the Senate's proposition, 
 increasing the number, was passed by the votes of the mi-
 
 SPEECHES. 97 
 
 nority. The leading men on the side of the opposition at 
 that time among whom was a gentleman from Massachu- 
 setts, well known in this country (Mr. Quincy), and another 
 from New- York, of great influence (Mr. Emmot), and many 
 whom I now behold voted for the report. I have taken the 
 trouble to turn down the pages where the respective votes 
 are recorded, for the satisfaction of any member who may 
 desire to see them. With what countenance can our oppo- 
 nents, then, withhold the supplies for expenses incurred by 
 their own votes ? Will they say that they knew not the 
 object of the report ? Miserable the excuse and such as 
 it is, not founded on fact. War with Great Britain was un- 
 equivocally announced ; and even the invasion of Canada, 
 now so hateful to them, was distinctly avowed. Was their 
 object to embarrass, and, finally, to put the majority out of 
 power ? Will they dare to make an avowal so disgraceful 
 to their party ? The truth is, that the necessity of the war 
 was, at that time, almost universally acknowledged ; and, as 
 to its justice, no one doubted it. Its injustice was an inven- 
 tion of a period long subsequent. It is thus that consistency, 
 no less than reason, ought to check the minority in their 
 opposition, and to induce them to unite with us to carry on 
 the war to a successful issue. 
 
 I would be glad to know what limits our opponents have 
 prescribed to their opposition. If the supplies may be with- 
 held because the war is unjust and improper in their opinion, 
 will not the same reason justify every species of resistance, 
 both in and out of this House ? If the public faith solemnly 
 plighted if the happiness of the country, are no checks to 
 opposition, I see no reason why the laws or the constitution 
 should be. Let some intelligible limitation be prescribed. 
 I see none to me it appears lawless. I know it will be 
 said, Is all opposition to be proscribed ? Is none justi- 
 fiable ? We proscribe nothing. We propose no law, no 
 restraint on the conduct of the minority. We appeal to the 
 
 VOL. II. 7
 
 98 SPEECHES. 
 
 virtue and the intelligence of the community only. On the 
 people must finally fall the ruinous effects of erroneous and 
 dangerous principles. If our liberty be lost, theirs will be 
 the cost. Our constitution supposes a degree of good sense 
 and virtue in them adequate to self-government. If the 
 fact be not so, our system of government is founded in error. 
 They, only, can arrest the effects of dangerous opposition. 
 What they permanently condemn will meet with no support 
 here. 
 
 How far the minority in a state of war, may justly 
 oppose the measures of Government, is a question of the 
 greatest delicacy. On the one side, an honest man, if he 
 believe the war to be unjust or unwise, will not disavow his 
 opinion. But, on the other hand, an upright citizen will do 
 no act, whatever he may think of the war, to put his country 
 in the power of the enemy. It is this double aspect of the 
 subject which indicates the course that reason approves. 
 Among ourselves, at home, we may contend ; but whatever 
 may be requisite to give the reputation and arms of the 
 republic a superiority over its enemy, it is the duty of all, 
 the minority no less than the majority, to support. Like 
 the system of our State and General governments, within, 
 they are many, to the world but one, so it ought to be 
 with parties : among ourselves, we may divide, but in 
 relation to other nations, there ought to be only the Ameri- 
 can people. In some cases it may possibly be doubtful, even 
 to the most conscientious, how to act. This is one of the mis- 
 fortunes of differing from the rest of the community on the 
 subject of war. 
 
 I cannot refrain from alluding to an observation made 
 by a gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Gaston), con- 
 nected with this view of the subject. Speaking of the 
 reduction of Canada, he observed, that his judgment and 
 feelings were at variance ; that when he consulted the 
 former, he believed our efforts would be unsuccessful ; but
 
 SPEECHES. 99 
 
 when the latter, his regard to the interest of his country 
 led him to hope for success. I do not allude to this observa- 
 tion with a view to point out any contradiction between it and 
 his opposition to the passage of this bill ; though I think it 
 would be difficult to reconcile them. My object is to make 
 an open acknowledgment to him, for what I think the 
 commencement of a more correct mode of thinking in rela- 
 tion to the war. I thank the gentleman for his good wishes ; 
 and for that expressed in relation to the reduction of Canada. 
 I know it does not contain an approbation of the attempted 
 conquest ; but it comports with the conduqt of a good 
 citizen, since the attempt is determined on by the consti- 
 tuted authorities, to wish it well. This seems to me to 
 be in the true spirit of an honest opposition ; and I hope it 
 will be so extended as to influence the general conduct of the 
 minority. It is thus we may divide among ourselves, and 
 the national strength be left unimpaired. For I do not 
 agree with those members of the minority, who assert there 
 is no loss of strength by their opposition. We are asked by 
 them, " Why have you not effected your object ? You com- 
 mand the purse and the sword of the country, and can order 
 whatever is necessary to be done. I answer : Because we 
 have not your good wishes. This only can add heart to 
 heart./ G-overnment, it is true, can command the arm and 
 hand, the bone and muscle of the nation ; but these are 
 powerless nerveless, without the concurring good wishes of 
 the community. He who, in estimating the strength of a 
 people, looks only to their numbers and physical force, leaves 
 out of the reckoning the most material elements of power 
 union and zeal. Without these, the former is inert matter. 
 Without these, a free people is degraded to the miserable 
 rabble of a despotism ; but with these, they are irresistible./ 
 The same gentleman made an assertion which I am bound 
 to contradict. He asserted, without attempting to prove, 
 that this House has degenerated into .a mere registering
 
 100 SPEECHES. 
 
 body of executive edicts. A sense of decorum prevents ma 
 from speaking of the charge with merited severity. I will 
 not meet the assertion with arguments, but assertion. It is 
 easy to assert, but slow and difficult to prove : It were hope- 
 less to oppose the latter to the former ; the creeping pace 
 of the one is no match for the winged rapidity of the other. 
 I then assert, that what the gentleman has said is untrue in 
 fact. 
 
 [Here Mr. G. entered into some explanation, and denied the use 
 of the word " registering " ; and concluded by wishing to know, in 
 what sense Mr. C. used the word, untrue. 
 
 Mr. C. said, simply as implying, that the fact is not as Mr. G. 
 stated ; and that he had too much respect for him to have used it in 
 any other sense. He then proceeded.] 
 
 Some arguments and observations of mine on a former 
 occasion, in regard to the nature and character of opposition, 
 have, in this debate, called forth replies from many of the 
 minority, and particularly from the gentleman just alluded 
 to. He asserted that a majority might also be a faction, and 
 citing the Federalist in proof of this position, stated the ad- 
 ditional fact, that, when it is one, it is far more dangerous 
 than a factious minority. If the gentleman had been more 
 attentive, he would have found that there was nothing in my 
 arguments to contradict the position taken in the Federalist. 
 What I said was in reply ; and was intended to refute the 
 assertion of our opponents on that occasion-: that all the 
 misfortunes and miseries of free States originated in the 
 blunders and folly of majorities. The error of this opinion I 
 then sufficiently exposed, both by experience and reason. It 
 has found no advocate on this occasion. I will not again 
 repeat the reasons ; but simply restate that opposition, in 
 free States, is strongly inclined to degenerate into a struggle 
 for power and ascendency, in which attachment to party 
 becomes stronger than attachment to country. This opinion, 
 I conceive, is incontrovertibly established ; in fact, its truth
 
 SPEECHES. 101 
 
 is but too manifest to all who have looked into the character 
 of man, or are acquainted with his history. On the other 
 hand, I feel no disposition to deny that the majority may, 
 possibly, become factious that is, cease to consult the gen- 
 eral interest. I claimed no peculiar exemption for them it 
 made no part of my argument I stated principles, but left 
 their application to the good sense of the community. Much 
 less do I feel disposed to contest the position that, if such a 
 majority could, and should, by any misfortune, exist in this 
 country, it would be more dangerous than a factious minority. 
 I cannot doubt, for instance, that if the present minority 
 could be swelled into a majority by the addition of one-third 
 more to their ranks, and that they should, when in power, 
 retain all the principles which I hear them daily advance in 
 this House, they would not only be more dangerous than they 
 now are when their power is, to divide and distract ; but 
 that it would be the greatest calamity that could befall our 
 country. 
 
 A very important view of the subject yet remains to be 
 presented to the committee ; but I fear the hour is too 
 late, and I am too much exhausted to enter as fully into it 
 as it deserves. The topic aUuded to is the effects of this 
 war ; which has been pronounced so ruinous by our opponents. 
 On examination, strong reasons will be found for the opinion, 
 that it is daily producing the most solid and lasting advan- 
 tages to the community. 
 
 It has already liberated us from that dread of British 
 power, which was almost universal before the declaration of 
 war. If we have done little against our. enemy, he has done 
 still less against us. What the state of public feeling was on 
 this point, may be, in some degree, inferred from the debates 
 in this House before the declaration of war. I cannot but 
 express my surprise at an assertion of a gentlemen from 
 Virginia (Mr. Sheffey), that all his fears and predictions had 
 been realized. Has he already forgotten the speeches in
 
 102 
 
 which he and his friends portrayed the effects of the war in 
 glowing and terrific colors ? Kebellion, civil war, prostrated 
 liberty, and conflagrated towns, all mingled in one horrid 
 group. (Mr. Sheffey here explained.) It seems that the 
 gentleman has availed himself of the usual privilege of po- 
 litical prophets. If events turn out any thing like their 
 predictions, they are claimed as fulfilments ; but if entirely 
 the opposite, they are explained away. 
 
 There is no one who hears me, but will acknowledge, 
 that the dread of England was great and general Her 
 power over our hopes and our fears was too great for our 
 complete independence, and but illy comported with the 
 steady pursuit of our own peculiar interests. From this state 
 the war has liberated us, I hope for ever. 
 
 We have also acquired, in some degree, and are progres- 
 sively acquiring, what to me appears indispensable in the 
 present state of man and the world military skill and means, 
 combined with the tone of thinking and feeling necessary to 
 their use. Occasional privations are always to be encoun- 
 tered in the defence of national rights, and the habits neces- 
 sary to meet them with fortitude are of the greatest impor- 
 tance. I know how much this country is attached to peace 
 and quiet industry. I know how delightful repose and safety 
 are to our nature. But universal experience, and the history 
 of those nations with whom we are necessarily connected, 
 forbid me to indulge in the pleasing dream, that any degree 
 of prudence or justice on our part can render such a state 
 perpetual. The ambition of a single nation can destroy 
 the peace of the world. We must, then, submit to the in- 
 scrutable law of our nature, which forbids the hope, in this 
 world, of uninterrupted peace and enjoyment. We must, 
 also, as prudent men, rejoice in the acquisition of those na- 
 tional qualities necessary to meet the vicissitudes of war when 
 unavoidable. Connected with this subject, I rejoice to be- 
 hold the amazing growth of our manufacturing interest. I
 
 SPEECHES. 103 
 
 regret that I cannot present my thoughts fully on this im- 
 portant subject. It will more than indemnify the country 
 for all of its losses. I believe no country, however valuable 
 its staples, can reach a state of great and permanent wealth, 
 without the aid of manufactures. Reason and experience, 
 I conceive, support this position. Our internal strength and 
 means of defence are, by them, greatly increased. War, 
 when forced on us hereafter, will find us with ample means ; 
 and will not be productive of that distressing vicissitude 
 which follows it, where the industry of the country is founded 
 on commerce, and agriculture dependent on foreign markets. 
 Even our commerce, in the end, will partake of the benefits. 
 Kich means of exchange with all the world will be furnished 
 to it ; and the country will be in a much better condition to 
 extend to it efiicient protection. I have merely suggested 
 the topics for argument on this important branch of our 
 political economy ; and conclude by expressing the hope, 
 that, on some future occasion, they will receive a suitable 
 discussion. 
 
 SPEECH 
 
 On the repeal of the Embargo and Non-Importation 
 Act, delivered in the House of Representatives, 
 April 6th, 1814. 
 
 [NOTE. April 4th, 1814. The unfinished business being postpon- 
 ed with that view, Mr. Calhoun, the Chairman of the Committee of 
 Ways and Means, reported a Bill, " To repeal an Act laying an em- 
 bargo on all ships and vessels in the ports and harbors of the United 
 States, and so much of any act or acts, as prohibits the importation of 
 goods, wares and merchandise, of the growth, produce and manufac- 
 ture of Great Britain and Ireland, &c.," which having been twice read,
 
 104 SPEECHES. 
 
 was referred to the Committee of the Whole. Mr. Wright of Mary- 
 land objected to this reference, because, the Bill coupled two objects, 
 which ought to be kept separate ; and moved a recommittal to the 
 same committee, with instructions to report two separate bills. This 
 motion was overruled by the Speaker, and the question, on referring 
 the Bill to the Committee of the Whole, was carried by a large major- 
 ity. On Wednesday, April 6th, the House resolved itself into a Com- 
 mittee of the Whole on this Bill, when Mr. Calhoun made the following 
 speech in support of it. There were numerous amendments offered 
 which were negatived, and the Bill was ordered to a third reading and 
 passed the next day, by a vote of 115 to 3*7.1 
 
 IN order, Mr. Chairman, to judge of the propriety of the 
 measure embraced by the bill, it will be necessary to go back 
 to the nature and character of the war in which this coun- 
 try is engaged. It is, as has been emphatically and correctly 
 stated, a war for Free Trade and Sailors' Rights ; and such 
 must be the character of every war in which we may engage. 
 We are so far removed from European contests, that we shall 
 never enter into the straggles for continental power in that 
 quarter of the world. Not that we should be indifferent 
 spectators of the events in Europe because the changes 
 there may have a considerable bearing on the affairs and in- 
 terests of this country ; but the interest we feel in them is 
 not of such a character, as to make us a primary party in 
 any of their contests. But one circumstance always accom- 
 panying European straggles, will, more or less, involve the 
 rights of this country. Of such a character is the British 
 commercial or maritime policy, which, in its effects, tends to 
 destroy the free trade of this country, and also to infringe 
 the rights of our seamen. In this point of view, it is a mat- 
 ter of great importance that we should duly reflect on the 
 character of the present contest, to decide what part this 
 country ought to act, and what principles should now govern 
 our conduct. 
 
 The policy of Britain, which is to contract and limit neu-
 
 SPEECHES. 105 
 
 tral rights, and which if not resisted must annihilate them, 
 will always have a strong bearing on the United States. But 
 that policy will not stop here ; it will affect the interests of 
 every country in Europe, and place them, more or less, on 
 the side of this country in resistance to it. It then becomes 
 a matter of policy to unite those countries, interested in the 
 cause of free trade, in the struggle which we are obliged to 
 make against the usurpations of the enemy. In this point 
 of view, the most liberal and generous policy ought to be 
 pursued by us as to the other countries of Europe, and par- 
 ticularly to the great Northern powers of Sweden and Kus- 
 sia. But it may be said, our past measures contradict this 
 leading principle of policy. I think not. The restrictive 
 system sprang from an unusual state of things : it was a pa- 
 cific policy arising from the extraordinary state of the world, 
 at the time we embarked in it ; and, of course, was a tempo- 
 rary, rather than, a permanent policy. On looking back to 
 its origin, gentlemen will find it to be such as I have stated. 
 It originated at a moment when every power on the conti- 
 nent of Europe was arrayed against Great Britain, and not one 
 of them was then interested in the support or defence of neu- 
 tral rights. There was scarcely a port in Europe, which, at the 
 commencement of our restrictive system, was not occluded to 
 British commerce. In this state of things the United States, in 
 order to avoid war (not having taken the resolution, at that 
 time, to declare war), resorted to the restrictive system resort- 
 ed to it because the extraordinary state of the European world 
 presented a prospect, that the strong pressure of this system on 
 Great Britain might save the country from the contest into 
 which we have since been reluctantly drawn. Such was the 
 character of the Embargo measure, originating from the posture 
 of the world at that day, when it was resorted to without the 
 prospect of its producing an impression on neutral powers for 
 there were then no neutrals. Gentlemen may say, that in this 
 view of the restrictive system, it ought to have terminated
 
 106 SPEECHES. 
 
 at the commencement of the war. To be candid, that was 
 my opinion ; and wnen a motion was made by a gentleman 
 from Massachusetts (Mr. Richardson) to that effect, I advo- 
 cated it on the ground, that the restrictive policy was opposed 
 to the war. That motion was not successful ; but it was re- 
 jected by a majority of one vote only, so many members of 
 the republican party agreeing with me in that opinion, as 
 almost to have carried the question at that time. But why 
 was the system not then terminated ? The reasons will be 
 obvious to all who revert to the circumstances of the period. 
 The state of the world which originally induced us to adopt 
 the system which gave great energy to it, remained un- 
 changed. All Europe was still occluded to British commerce ; 
 the war between Eussia and France had not then broken out 
 Russia had not then opened her ports to British commerce. 
 
 This, then, is the governing motive which prevented the 
 repeal of that system. Had the state of the world been 
 then what it now is ; had all the European world, France 
 excepted, been open to British commerce ; had there existed 
 neutral nations on the continent of Europe, of power and 
 influence ; had this state of things then existed, there is 
 the strongest reason to believe, from the small majority 
 against the resolution of the gentleman from Massachusetts, 
 to which I have alluded, that the restrictive system would 
 have been terminated by the war. As to my own views of 
 the system, I thought it ought to have terminated in war 
 earlier than it did. In this respect I disagreed with gentle- 
 men on the other side of the House, with whom I then voted. 
 They wished for neither war nor restriction. 
 
 But let us now attend to the present state of the world. 
 What is the condition of England ? As between us and 
 Great Britain, there are many nations of great power 
 now in a neutral condition : Russia, Sweden, all Germany, 
 Denmark, Prussia, Spain (for even she may be considered 
 neutral), and perhaps Holland. Under the entire change of
 
 SPEECHES. 10Y 
 
 the circumstances of Europe, ought not the restrictive system 
 to terminate ? Indubitably indubitably ; because all the 
 reasons which justified and recommended its continuance have 
 now ceased. It was originally resorted to as a pacific measure. 
 War having been declared, as a war measure it was continued 
 as a measure of force, because all Europe was shut against 
 our enemy. All Europe being now open to her, that reason 
 has ceased. Suppose we persist in the measure. Does any 
 one believe that England will feel its effects as she did when 
 the continent was shut ? Certainly not. But in addition 
 to this consideration, the fact is, that we are now contending 
 for free trade, and ought to propitiate, as much as possible, 
 every nation which has the same interest as ourselved in its 
 maintenance : in one word, it is our interest to attach the 
 friendship of Russia, Sweden, Denmark, Holland, and of all 
 nations who have a deep interest in free trade, to our cause. 
 I have a strong impression, that if we open our ports to 
 them, and the maritime usurpations of Britain continue, 
 they will, in time, make common cause with the United 
 States ; that, in time, their weight will be thrown into the 
 scale with us to counteract her policy. It will not be deco- 
 rous or wise for the United States, standing up for the freedom 
 of trade, to pursue a course of policy calculated to irri- 
 tate those nations with whom they may have common cause. 
 What said the Emperor of Russia in relation to our war with 
 Britain, when apprised of it ? He expressed his solicitude 
 for the trade with America, and regretted that our difference 
 with Great Britain would interrupt it. This sentiment he 
 expressed at the moment when France and her allies were 
 marching against him, and he did not know how soon they 
 would plant their standard in his capital. That sentiment 
 must have still greater influence with him now, when his 
 enemy is repelled. The same feeling which governed the 
 Emperor of Russia hi this respect, must, in a greater or less 
 degree, govern every nation on the continent of Europe,
 
 108 SPEECHES. 
 
 whose interests are the same. In the proposition which has 
 been made to France on the part of the allies, a solicitude 
 has been evinced on this subject, which, if this country shows 
 a disposition to extend the benefits of its commerce to the 
 European continent, must have weight in the British cabi- 
 net. We ought never to forget the reasons which forced us 
 into war. Anxious to maintain our neutral position, and 
 enjoy the benefits of neutral trade, we for years closed our 
 eyes to the aggressions on the part of the enemy ; suiferance 
 on our part provoked only further injury, which forced us to 
 arms in defence of neutral rights and free trade. Under 
 this view of the subject, I hope this committee will duly ap- 
 preciate the necessity of conciliating those nations, whose 
 interests are now the same as ours ; with whom we have now 
 some trade, which, in future, may be expected to be greatly 
 extended. 
 
 But it may be said, England will not permit this trade. 
 To what a situation will she then be reduced ! to an alter- 
 native the most awkward and perplexing : she must either 
 keep up her present mere cruising or paper blockade of our 
 sea-coast to prevent the entrance of those neutrals, or modify 
 her system in favor of all neutrals. Will not a persistence 
 in her present unlawful system of blockade and capture at 
 sea of neutral vessels destined for the United States, irritate 
 and vex those nations, and detach them from her cause ? 
 If, on the other hand, she modifies her system of blockade in 
 their favor, we may carry on a lucrative trade to the conti- 
 nent of Europe, not beneficial to England, but very much so 
 to the United States. The very option which will thus be 
 presented, will embarrass the British cabinet, and have a 
 stronger tendency to produce peace, than ten years' continu- 
 ance of the present system, when the prospect of its produ- 
 cing any pressure has become so very faint. I ask gentlemen 
 on the same side of the House with myself, whether, if the 
 restrictive system were now off, there would be ten votes
 
 SPEECHES. 109 
 
 in the House in favor of putting it on ? I contend there 
 would not. If it were to expire on the 10th of the present 
 month, would there be ten votes in favor of its renewal ? I 
 believe not. If the House would in neither case embrace it 
 under present circumstances, there is the strongest reason to 
 presume that, in its judgment, the restrictive system is not 
 now operative and wise. What, then, is the objection to its 
 repeal ? A regard to consistency. I know regard ought 
 always to be had to this trait, so valuable in governments 
 and individuals ; but it is not the duty of men to regulate 
 their conduct without any regard to events. True wisdom 
 consists in properly adapting our conduct to circumstances. 
 Two things may change our conduct on any particular point : a 
 change of our own opinion, or of exterior circumstances, which 
 entirely change the reason of our former conduct. Men can- 
 not always go straight forward, but must regard the obstacles 
 which impede their course. Inconsistency consists in a 
 change of conduct, when there is no change of circumstances 
 which justify it. Those who adapt their conduct to a change 
 of circumstances, act, not inconsistently, but otherwise. They 
 would be inconsistent, if they persisted in a course of mea- 
 sures after the reasons which called for them had so changed, 
 as to require a course directly the reverse. I respect the 
 firmness of many friends around me, because it indicates 
 their determination to persevere in any system, and adhere 
 to any measure, which they believe the interest of their 
 country requires. But, according to the view which I have 
 taken, I do not consider such a persistence in the restrictive 
 system as the dictate either of wisdom or of sound policy. 
 
 There are many other observations which I might make 
 on this subject, which I shall, at present, forbear to urge. 
 
 As to the manufacturing interest, in regard to which 
 some fears have been expressed, the resolution voted by the 
 House yesterday is a strong pledge, that it will not suffer the 
 manufacturers to be unprotected, in case of a repeal of the
 
 110 SPEECHES. 
 
 restrictive system. I hope that at all times, and under 
 every policy, they will be protected with due care. All far- 
 ther remarks I reserve, until I shall hear the objections to 
 the bill 
 
 SPEECH 
 
 On the Resolution reported by the Committee of 
 Ways and Means, to increase the Direct Tax, deliv- 
 ered in the House of Representatives, Oct. 25th, 
 1814. 
 
 [NOTE. After the capture of Washington by the British army 
 under the command of Gen. Boss, the President, by Proclamation, 
 called an extra session of Congress, which met on the 19th of Sept., 
 1814. The finances of the Government, as well as the currency of 
 the country, were in a deplorable state ; and the attention of Congress 
 was immediately directed to these subjects. The Committee of Ways 
 and Means recommended, among other measures, an addition of 50 
 per cent, on the Direct Taxes ; which was subsequently, in conformity 
 with the views of the Secretary of the Treasury, increased to one 
 hundred per cent. He also recommended the issue of treasury notes, 
 and the establishment of a National Bank, with a capital of fifty 
 millions, as necessary to the support of the public credit. 
 
 The first resolution of the committee, recommending the addition 
 of 100 per cent, on the Direct Taxes, was discussed on the 24th and 
 25th of October, by Messrs. Rhea, Fisk, and Calhoun in favor, and 
 by Messrs. Webster and Shipherd in opposition ; and decided in the 
 affirmative, by a vote of 89 to 38. The following is a sketch of Mr. 
 Calhoun's remarks.] 
 
 MB. CALHOUN said, he did not rise to consider whether 
 the war was originally just and necessary, or whether the ad- 
 ministration had abandoned the original objects of the con-
 
 SPEECHES. Ill 
 
 test ; much less, whether the opposition, according to the very 
 modest declaration of the member from New Hampshire 
 (Mr. Webster), possessed all the talent and confidence of the 
 country. His object was to call the attention of the House 
 to the necessity of prompt and vigorous measures for the 
 prosecution of the war. If ever a body of men, said he, 
 held the destinies of a country in their hands, it was that 
 which he was now addressing. You have, for an enemy, a 
 Power the most implacable and formidable ; who, now freed 
 from any other contest, will, the very next campaign, direct 
 the whole of his force against you. Besides his deep-rooted 
 enmity towards this country, which will urge him to exer- 
 tion, he is aware of the necessity, on his part, to bring the 
 contest to a speedy termination. He dreads its continuance ; 
 for he well knows that, should it be maintained by us with 
 vigor for only a few years, there will be other parties to the 
 struggle, which may again involve him in a war with all 
 Europe. He, then, will put forth, from spite and policy, the 
 whole of his strength the next summer to crush us, if pos- 
 sible, by one mighty effort. To meet this state of things, 
 the whole of our resources will have to be called into action ; 
 and, what is of equal importance, with such promptitude 
 as to be ready to act as soon as the season will admit. What, 
 then, are the duties which devolve on this House, and which 
 must be performed, in order that we may be in a state of 
 preparation to meet and maintain the struggle ? This is 
 the question which he proposed to consider, not indeed in 
 detail, but generally ; in -order that we may be aware of the 
 urgent necessity for dispatch. 
 
 First, then, it will be absolutely necessary to pass these 
 tax resolutions, or some others of equal vigor, into laws. Our 
 finances, it is acknowledged, are much deranged ; and it is 
 also admitted, on all sides, that they can only be restored by 
 a vigorous system of taxation. Has any member estimated 
 how much time this will consume ? It is now the 25th of
 
 112 SPEECHES. 
 
 October, and we have not passed even the resolutions. At 
 the same rate of proceeding, to settle all the complex details 
 of the bills, and pass them into laws, will require months. 
 In the next place, it will be necessary (he presumed no mem- 
 ber could doubt it) to take the state of the circulating me- 
 dium into consideration, and to devise some measure to ren- 
 der it more safe and better adapted to the purposes of finance. 
 The single fact, that we have no proper medium commensu- 
 rate in its circulation with the Union ; that it is all local 
 is calculated to produce much embarrassment in the opera- 
 tions of the treasury. But, Sir, after we have passed the taxes 
 and established an adequate circulating medium, which must 
 of necessity, with the closest attention, consume much time, 
 much still will remain to be done. The army, to which the 
 President had so strongly called our attention, has not yet 
 claimed a moment of our tune. He would not pretend to 
 anticipate the plan which the Military Committee would 
 doubtless submit to the House ; but he would state what ap- 
 peared to him indispensable to give to our arms the greatest 
 effect with the least expenditure. He did not wish to be 
 understood as the advocate of parsimony, but of economy, 
 combined with effective action. 
 
 The enemy, at present, presses the war both on our sea- 
 board and interior frontier. The nature of the contest on 
 either will, if properly considered, indicate the mode in which it 
 ought to be met. On the seaboard it must be strictly de- 
 fensive. The enemy can make no permanent conquest of 
 any importance there ; but he hopes, by alarming and har- 
 assing the country, and putting us to an enormous expense 
 in defending it, to break the spirit of the people, and bring 
 us to his own terms. The only remedy in our hands, with- 
 out a marching force, is to fortify as strongly as possible the 
 cities and exposed points, and to garrison them with a suffi- 
 cient number of experienced regular troops. In case of an 
 attack they must be aided by the militia of the cities and
 
 SPEECHES. 113 
 
 adjacent country, called out on the occasion en masse; which 
 can be done without much vexation or expense. By having 
 respectable garrisons of regular troops, thus aided on emer- 
 gencies, and supported by strong works, we will afford more 
 security, and save millions of expense. The present militia 
 force, he supposed, in actual service, could not be much short 
 of 100,000. Less than half that number of regulars could be 
 made abundantly adequate to the defence of our seaboard. 
 
 On the Canada frontier the war must assume an oppo- 
 site character. If we wish to act with effect, it must there 
 be wholly offensive. He had earnestly hoped that the 
 miserably stale and absurd objections against offensive opera- 
 tions in Canada had ceased, till he heard, yesterday, the 
 member from New Hampshire (Mr. Webster). It was so ob- 
 viously the cheapest and most effectual mode of operating on 
 our enemy, that thinking men, he believed, with few excep- 
 tions, of all parties, had agreed in its expediency. For, sup- 
 pose we should have, at the opening of the next campaign, a 
 sufficient force on the Canada frontier for its reduction, 
 what would be the result ? Our enemy must either call off 
 the whole of his force to defend himself in that quarter, or 
 he must permit it to fall into our possession. Either event 
 would be desirable. If he should adopt the former, as in all 
 probability he would be compelled to do, our seaboard would 
 be freed from danger and alarm, and we would have the fur- 
 ther advantage of meeting him on equal terms. He could 
 no longer avail himself of his maritime superiority. If, how- 
 ever, he should not strengthen himself in Canada, but con- 
 tinue the war on the coast, it would be still more to oui 
 advantage. The reduction of his possessions, besides shed- 
 ding a glory on our arms and producing, both here and in 
 England, the happiest effects in our favor would enable us 
 to maintain the struggle with half the expense in men and 
 money. After so desirable an event, our efforts might be 
 almost exclusively directed to the defence of the seaboard, 
 
 VOL. II. 8
 
 114 SPEECHES. 
 
 and the war would assume a new aspect highly favorable to 
 this country. To secure so desirable a state of things, a 
 regular force of, at least, 50,000 men ought to be ready 
 to act against Canada by the first of May or June, at 
 furthest. If they could be immediately raised and marched 
 to their proper depots for training, they could, in a few 
 months, -be well trained for service. He was well assured 
 that the brilliant battles of Bridgewater and Chippewa were 
 won by men three-fourths of whom had not been in the 
 ranks more than four months. With skilful officers, and 
 with the aptitude of the Americans to acquire the military 
 art, the finest army in a few months might be formed. He 
 said, he could not refrain from congratulating this House 
 and the country on the acquisition we had made, in so short a 
 tune, of military skill. It was wonderful, almost incredible, 
 that, in a year or two, with very little opportunity, such 
 generals should be formed as led, during the last summer, our 
 armies to victory. No country, under all the circumstances, 
 ever in so short a tune, developed so much military talent. 
 Put under their command, without delay, a sufficient force, 
 well appointed, and you will find yourself in the road to 
 honor and secure peace. But can this be done by idle de- 
 bate ? by discussing the origin of the war, and the relative 
 talent and virtue of the two great parties in this country ? 
 Now is our tune, not for debate, but action. Much is to be 
 done ; we have not a moment to lose. Time is to us every 
 thing men, money, honor, glory, and peace. Should we 
 consume it in debate, and let the moments for prepara- 
 tion glide away, our affairs must be irretrievably ruined. 
 Compare what remains to be done with the time for 
 action, and it is certain that, to act promptly is as im- 
 portant as to act at all. Under these impressions, he hoped 
 that the House would pass, this day, on all the resolutions ; 
 that they would be referred back to the committee, to report 
 bills immediately ; and that whatever was needful to our
 
 SPEECHES. 115 
 
 early and complete preparation, would be promptly dis- 
 patched. The enemy is already arrived, and, as soon as 
 permitted by the season, will strike with deadly intent. 
 Let us be ready to receive and return the blow with re- 
 doubled force. We are placed in circumstances the most 
 urgent and imperious. Our supposed weakness has tempted 
 him to make his extraordinary demands. Who, that bears 
 in his bosom the heart of an American, can think of them 
 without the most just indignation ? Surrender the lakes to 
 his control ; renounce the fisheries that nursery for sea- 
 men ; cede a part of Maine, and all beyond the Greenville 
 line ; and recognize the Indians as their allies, and under 
 their protection ! Such is his language. He relies not so 
 much in his own strength, as our divisions and consequent 
 weakness. Let it be our most serious business, by vigor and 
 promptitude, to baffle and destroy his vain hopes. If we 
 fail, it will not be for the want of means, but because we 
 have not used them. We have generals and troops that have 
 proved themselves an overmatch for the choicest of the ene- 
 my's battalions, commanded by his most boasted officers. 
 To this evidence of skill and courage, superadd preparations 
 on our part equal to our resources. By this means, you will 
 make him sensible of his presumption, and compel him to 
 listen to terms of peace, honorable to both nations. He has 
 it in his power, at all times, to make such a peace. Every 
 member who hears me knows this to be the fact, not- 
 withstanding the unjust and unfounded insinuations of 
 the member from New Hampshire (Mr. Webster) to the 
 contrary. 
 
 He observed, again, that England dreaded a continuance 
 of the contest. The affairs of Europe are far from being 
 settled. Her relation, in a commercial point of view, is cal- 
 culated to raise up powerful enemies on the continent. 
 Should she be foiled and disgraced here, which she must be, 
 if we but do our duty, the opportunity, so favorable, to hum-
 
 > 
 116 SPEECHES. 
 
 ble her, will be seized. Of these facts she is sensible, and 
 our very preparation for a vigorous war will make her dread 
 the contest. But suppose, instead of vigorous and prompt 
 preparation, we consume our time in debate here, and permit 
 our affairs to go on in the consequent slow and feeble way 
 where is the man so blind as to believe that England will 
 limit her views by her present demands, extravagant as they 
 are ? We are already told, that she will proportion her 
 future demands to the relative situation of the two countries. 
 She neither expected nor desired peace on the terms which 
 were offered. Her bosom is repossessed with the ambition 
 and projects that inspired her in the year seventy-six. It is 
 the war of the Eevolution revived ; we are again struggling 
 for our liberty and independence. The enemy stands ready, 
 and eagerly watches to seize any opportunity which our fee- 
 bleness or division may present, to realize his gigantic 
 schemes of conquest. In this struggle for existence, he must, 
 he said, entreat the members of the opposition though they 
 can reconcile it to their consciences to stand with folded 
 arms, and coldly look on not to impede, by idle and frivo- 
 lous debate, the efforts of those who are ready, by every sac- 
 rifice, to maintain the independence of the country. The 
 subject is weighty ; he felt himself pressed on all sides by 
 the most interesting topics ; but he would abstain from fur- 
 ther remarks, lest he who deprecated the consumption of the 
 tune of the House in long debate, should set an example of 
 it in himself. The time is precious, and he felt that he 
 owed an apology for having consumed so much of it as he 
 had done.
 
 SPEECHES. 117 
 
 SPEECH 
 
 On the Military Peace Establishment, delivered in 
 the House of Representatives, February 27th, 
 1815. 
 
 [NOTE. February 22d, 1815. Mr. Troup, from the Committee 
 on Military Affairs, reported a Bill to fix the Military Peace Establish- 
 ment. The Bill provided that it should not exceed Ten Thousand 
 men; which was read and referred to a Committee of the Whole. 
 When called up in committee, Mr. Desha moved to substitute Six 
 Thousand for Ten Thousand, which gave rise to considerable debate, 
 and the amendment was carried 69 to 50 ; and the Bill, after some 
 further amendments, was reported to the House, when on the question 
 of concurrence in the amendments, a debate arose, in which Mr. Cal- 
 houn took part, against the amendment. The following is only a 
 sketch of his remarks.] 
 
 MR. CALHOUN said, That on the question of fixing the 
 Military Peace Establishment, it appeared to him the House 
 was acting rather in the dark, having before them neither 
 the estimates, nor the facts on which they could be founded. 
 In determining the amount of the Military Establishment, 
 he said, the House ought to take into view three objects, and 
 to graduate the force to be retained accordingly, viz. : a pro- 
 per maintenance and garrison of our military posts and for- 
 tresses ; an establishment large enough to keep alive military 
 science and serve as a seminary for that purpose ; and the 
 adaptation of our military force to the policy of the enemy 
 in regard to this country. As regarded these objects, it 
 appeared to him, that the House was not in possession of 
 information to enable it to act understandingly. What 
 force would be necessary to guard our seaports, to protect 
 our northwestern and western frontier from Indian hosti-
 
 118 SPEECHES. 
 
 lity ? Of this there was no estimate, but every thing was left 
 to conjecture. As to the second point, practical military 
 men ought to be consulted, whether it would be proper to 
 keep up a military force to maintain military science. 
 
 The next question, said Mr. C., was more important. 
 Have we a sufficient knowledge of the force and policy of the 
 enemy, to enable us to decide on the reduction of our milita- 
 ry establishment ? He contended we had not. What would be 
 the feelings of England on receiving intelligence of the late 
 events, he did not know. Whether the soreness of her recent 
 defeat would produce a disposition to remain at peace or to re- 
 taliate, no gentleman could say. If there were any doubt on 
 this subject, we ought to act with caution in reducing our 
 military establishment. What course the enemy will pursue 
 we cannot determine : whether he will keep up a small peace 
 establishment or a large military force, we do not know. It 
 ought to be recollected, that he has abundance of military 
 means, and that living is as cheap in Canada as in England. 
 If the enemy should keep up, on our borders, a force of 
 30,000 or 40,000 men, instead of reducing it to four or five 
 thousand, would it be wise in us wholly to disarm? It 
 would not. If a large force should be retained in service in 
 our vicinity, it would be highly impolitic for us to reduce 
 ours as low as was proposed. The gentleman from Virginia 
 (Mr. Jackson) had on a former day remarked, that our situa- 
 tion was peculiarly felicitous, in having no enemy imme- 
 diately in our neighborhood. But it ought to be borne in 
 mind, that the most powerful nation in Europe possessed 
 provinces adjoining our territory, into which she could 
 readily pour an armed force. He hoped that she never 
 would, but she might do so. Suppose with forty thousand 
 men, she should choose, without notice, to make a hostile 
 movement against our territory ? Every strong position on 
 the Niagara frontier would fall at once into her hands, and
 
 SPEECHES. 119 
 
 the very expense we wish to avoid, must be quadrupled to 
 enable us to regain them. 
 
 Having neither estimates nor facts, as he had before 
 remarked, the House ought to act cautiously. It is easier to 
 keep soldiers, than to get them ; to retain officers of skill and 
 renown in your service, than to make them. Let us wait 
 a while before we reduce our army to a mere peace estab- 
 lishment. 
 
 [Several gentlemen then addressed the House on this question, pro 
 and con., when Mr. Calhoun again rose and said : ] 
 
 He was more and more convinced of the inexpediency of 
 breaking up, at once, our whole military establishment. 
 Had they before them, he asked, or could they have, at this 
 session, the necessary estimates whereby to fix the peace esta- 
 blishment. ' If they had, there would probably be little dif- 
 ference of opinion on the subject ; but they had not. Gentle- 
 men had said that to retain so great a force, would imply 
 a suspicion of the good faith of Great Britain, in regard to 
 the peace. His reply to that argument was, that if the 
 largest number, now proposed, be agreed to, we shall reduce 
 our army to one-sixth of the amount of our war establish- 
 ment ; that is to say, from sixty to ten thousand men, and 
 ultimately perhaps from ten thousand to six. He rose now, 
 however, principally to reply to the argument that our ratifi- 
 cation of the treaty amounted to an abandonment to Great 
 Britain of the right of impressment, &c. to an abandon- 
 ment of free trade and sailors' rights. 
 
 In the first place, he denied the position that this 
 country had ever set up a claim to the universality of the 
 flag. We had always been ready to make any arrange- 
 ment, by which our own seamen might be protected. 
 Although the Government, perhaps, ought to have done so, 
 it never made it a point that the flag should protect every 
 thing under it. It had been said, however, that unless the
 
 120 SPEECHES. 
 
 flag protected all sailing under it, it would be difficult to rem- 
 edy the abuse of the right of search for persons. We offered 
 the rale, that the flag should protect the seamen, as one sub- 
 ject to modification. This Government had always been 
 willing to make such reciprocal regulations as should, in this 
 respect, secure to each nation its rights. The celebrated 
 Seamen's Bill, as it was called, was the result of a dispo- 
 sition of this sort. We have denied the right of Great 
 Britain to take any other than her own seamen, and have we 
 made any stipulation, express or implied, by which we have 
 yielded the rights of our citizens to exemption from impress- 
 ment by her authority ? On the contrary, he maintained 
 that that right was substantially and for ever fixed. We 
 have exhibited, said Mr. C., during this war, a power and an 
 energy of character, which will prevent any nation from at- 
 tempting, hereafter, to take our, or any other seamen from 
 our decks. Mr. C. added, he had no doubt, but that Great 
 Britain would be willing, in order to guard against any 
 future collision on this subject, to enter into reciprocal 
 arrangements, which shall preclude, hereafter, any necessity 
 or pretence for searching our merchant vessels for her sea- 
 men. There is no abandonment on our part, by the treaty, 
 of any right. He had seen some assertions to the contrary 
 in newspapers ; but he had never expected to hear it gravely 
 said on this floor, that it would be something like a violation 
 of the treaty, if we should hereafter resist the practice of 
 impressing our seamen. The war, said Mr. C., had effected 
 all its great objects. The British claim of impressment, 
 which we resisted, ended with the European war. It was 
 a claim resulting from a state of war ; that state ceasing, 
 the operation of the claim ceased with it, and there was no 
 necessity for a treaty stipulation against a claim which was 
 extinct. If war should again break out in Europe, and 
 that claim be revived (which, he believed, would not be the 
 case), we shall be in a better condition than ever to assert
 
 SPEECHES. 121 
 
 the rights of our citizens ; though he believed we had made 
 such an impression on the British nation, that it would 
 never feel the same disposition hereafter, which it had here- 
 tofore evinced, to encroach on our rights. They were now 
 better secured than by paper or parchment stipulations. 
 They are secured, said Mr. C., by the vigor and energy of 
 the American people, who will again be ready to draw the 
 sword, if Britain again ventures to encroach on them. 
 
 [After some remarks by Mr. Hanson, Mr. Calhoun continued : ] 
 
 Nothing was more easy, than, by taking detached parts 
 of papers and omitting to take circumstances into view, en- 
 tirely to misrepresent any question. If the gentleman last 
 up, who had quoted a part of the instructions to our minis- 
 ters, had read a little more of that report, he would have seen 
 the gross error of the construction he has put upon it he 
 would have found, that our ministers were fully authorized 
 to have made a treaty containing a stipulation respecting 
 impressment to terminate at the conclusion of a general 
 peace ; the object being, to guard against the possible con- 
 tinuance of the practice of impressment during the war in 
 Europe. He would have seen further, that, when peace was 
 concluded, the necessity for such a stipulation ceased. What, 
 said Mr. 0., was the injury we complained of, and what was 
 the claim of the enemy? The claim was, that he had a right, 
 in time of war, to enter on board American (neutral) vessels, 
 and to judge who were American and who were British 
 seamen, and to take therefrom whomsoever he thought proper. 
 What was the ground of complaint on our part ? That the 
 enemy, in the exercise of this pretended right, frequently 
 took American seamen, to the detriment of the commerce 
 and the deprivation of the personal liberty -of American citi- 
 zens. At the time these instructions were sent to our 
 ministers, there was a war raging in Europe, which no gen- 
 tleman there pretended to think would come to a speedy ter-
 
 122 SPEECHES. 
 
 ruination. It appeared to be a contest, which would endure 
 for a series of years, having already, with little intermission, 
 lasted twenty. Those statements and those instructions, a 
 part of which had been quoted, were then given respecting 
 the question of impressment, as springing out of a state of 
 war ; and it was at that time, that the report was made to 
 this House, proclaiming the necessity of unceasing resistance 
 to so grievous an injury. This state of war, Mr. C. continued, 
 having ceased, and, with it, the evil of impressment, there 
 was no necessity to continue the contest of this ground. And 
 had we done so, what would have been the language of the 
 gentleman and his friends ? That statesmen go to war for 
 practical injuries that, as Great Britain never impresses in 
 time of peace in Europe, to continue the war on this account, 
 would be to fight against a mere speculative claim on the 
 part of the British Government. To have adopted this 
 course would have been exceedingly unwise ; and would have 
 met with the severest reprobation of the gentlemen on that 
 side of the House. Every one who heard him knew, said 
 Mr. C., that such would have been the clamor rung from 
 one end of the country to the other. Any one who adverted 
 to the very document, of which the gentleman had read a 
 part (viewed in connection with then existing circumstances), 
 would find his whole argument answered by it as completely 
 and demonstrably as any proposition in Euclid. The idea 
 that we had relinquished our rights in this respect, because 
 the matter was not recited in the treaty, was, in his opinion, 
 preposterous. It could not be maintained by the semblance 
 of an argument. They are not at all affected by it. But 
 they are strongly fortified by the events of the present war, 
 and the spirit with which it has been waged a spirit which 
 will probably make foreign powers more careful of invading 
 them. The benefit of the claim to Great Britain can never 
 compensate for the injury she might sustain, by provoking us 
 to war, in resistance to it, and in defence of the personal
 
 SPEECHES. 123 
 
 liberty of our citizens. In the late contest, this country has 
 acquired a character which will secure respect to its rights. 
 If ever an American citizen should be forcibly impressed, 
 said Mr. C., he would be ready again to draw the sword in 
 his defence : and no government could prosper, that would 
 with impunity permit so flagrant an outrage on the rights 
 of its citizens. Government itself is only protection ; and 
 they cannot be separated. I feel pleasure and pride, said 
 Mr. C., in being able to say, that I am of a party which 
 drew the sword on this question, and succeeded in the con- 
 test ; for, to all practical purposes, we have achieved com- 
 plete success. 
 
 SPEECH 
 
 On the Bill to regulate the commerce between the 
 United States and Great Britain, according to the 
 Convention of the 3d of July, 1815; delivered 
 in the House of Representatives, January 9th, 
 1816. 
 
 [NOTE. The Message of the President, of the 26tli of December, 
 
 1815, communicating to Congress the Commercial Convention with 
 Great Britain, and recommending such legislative provisions as might 
 be deemed necessary to carry it into effect, having been referred to 
 the Committee on Foreign Kelations, Mr. Forsyth, its chairman, on 
 December 29th, reported a Bill for the purpose, which was, on the 
 same day, referred to the Committee of the Whole, where it was dis- 
 cussed -with much animation and ability until the 9th of January, 
 
 1816. Involving, as in the case of Jay's Treaty, questions of moment, 
 as to the constitutional distribution of powers, between the two Houses, 
 the debate was resumed in the House all the leading men of both 
 parties participating in it. On no question, perhaps, during the 
 period, was there an equal display of eloquence and ability.
 
 124 SPEECHES. 
 
 On the 10th January, 1816, the Senate, in anticipation of the 
 action of the House, passed a Bill " enacting and declaring so much 
 of any act or acts as is contrary to the provisions " of the Treaty, " to 
 be of no force or effect." This was received by the House on the 
 same day ; when it was denounced as an " attempt to evade the ques- 
 tion before the House " and subsequently laid on the table. On the 
 13th, the House passed its Bill by a vote of 86 to 71, and sent it to 
 the Senate, where, on the 19th it was rejected by a vote of 21 to 10. 
 The House, February 6th, amended the Senate's Bill by striking out all 
 after the enacting clause, and inserting its own Bill ; on the ground that 
 it "interfered with the judicial power" and, at the same time, "de- 
 prived the House of its just powers in respect to provisions affecting the 
 public revenues." Thus amended the Bill was passed and sent to the 
 Senate ; where, on February 12, it was, after full debate, again rejected. 
 The two Houses being thus at issue, a Committee of Conference was 
 subsequently agreed to ; and, by compromise, the Senate's Bill, with 
 some modifications, was finally (February 24) adopted. Yeas, 100 ; 
 Nays, 15.] 
 
 MR. SPEAKER : The votes on this bill have been order- 
 ed to be recorded ; and the House will see, in my peculiar 
 situation, a sufficient apology for offering my reasons for the 
 rejection of the bill. I had no disposition to speak on this 
 bill ; as I was content to let it take that course, which, in 
 the opinion of the majority, it ought, till the members were 
 called on by the order of the House to record their votes. 
 
 The question presented for consideration is perfectly sim- 
 ple, and easily understood : Is this bill necessary to give valid- 
 ity to the late treaty with Great Britain ? It appears to me 
 that this question is susceptible of a decision, without con- 
 sidering whether a treaty can in any case set aside a law ; 
 or, to be more particular, whether the treaty which this bill 
 proposes to carry into effect, does repeal the discriminating 
 duties. The House will remember, that a law was passed 
 at the close of last session, conditionally repealing those 
 duties. That act proposed to repeal them in relation to any 
 nation, which would on its part agree to repeal similar duties
 
 SPEECHES. 125 
 
 as to this country. On the contingency happening, the law 
 became positive. It has happened, and it has been an- 
 nounced to the country, that England has agreed to repeal. 
 The President, in proclaiming the treaty, has notified the 
 fact to the House and to the country. Why, then, propose 
 to do that by this bill, which has already been done by a pre- 
 vious act ? I know it has been said in conversation, that 
 the provisions of the act are not as broad as the treaty. It 
 does not strike me so. They appear to me to be commen- 
 surate. I also infer from the appearance of this House, that 
 it is not very deeply impressed with the necessity of this bill. 
 I have never, on any important occasion, seen it so indiffer- 
 ent. Whence does this arise ? From its want of import- 
 ance ? If, indeed, the existence of the treaty depended on 
 the passage of this bill, nothing scarcely could be more in- 
 teresting. It would be calculated to excite strong feelings. 
 We all know how the country was agitated when Jay's 
 Treaty was before the House. The question then was on an 
 appropriation to carry it into effect ; a power acknowledged 
 by all to belong to the House ; and on the exercise of which, 
 the existence of the treaty was felt to depend. The feelings 
 manifested corresponded with this conviction. Not so on 
 this occasion. Further, the treaty has already assumed the 
 form of law. It is so proclaimed to the community ; the 
 words of the proclamation are not material ; it speaks of 
 itself ; and if it means any thing, it announces the treaty as 
 a rule of public conduct, as a law exacting the obedience of 
 the people. Were I of the opposite side, if I, indeed, be- 
 lieved this treaty to be a dead letter till it received the 
 sanction of Congress, I would lay the bill on the table and 
 move an inquiry into the fact, why the treaty has been pro- 
 claimed as a law before it received the proper sanction. It 
 is true, the Executive has transmitted a copy of the treaty 
 to the House ; but has he sent the negotiation ? Has he 
 given any light to show why it should receive the sanction of
 
 126 
 
 this body ? Do gentlemen mean to say that information is 
 not needed ; that though we have the right to pass laws, to 
 give validity to treaties, yet we are bound by a moral obli- 
 gation to pass such laws ? To talk of the right of this House 
 to sanction treaties, and at the same time to assert that it is 
 under a moral obligation not to withhold that sanction, is a 
 solecism. No sound mind that understands the terms, can 
 possibly assent to it. I would caution the House, while it is 
 extending its powers to cases which, I believe, do not belong 
 to it, to take care lest it lose its substantial and undoubted 
 power. I would put it on its guard against the dangerous 
 doctrine, that it can in any case become a mere registering 
 body. Another fact in regard to this treaty. It does not 
 stipulate that a law shall pass to repeal the duties proposed 
 to be repealed by this bill, which would be its proper form, 
 if in the opinion of the negotiators a law was necessary ; but 
 it stipulates in positive terms for their repeal without con- 
 sulting or regarding us. 
 
 I here conclude this part of the discussion, by stating that 
 it appears to me from the whole complexion of the case, 
 that the bill before the House is a mere form, and cannot 
 be supposed to be necessary to the validity of the treaty. 
 It will be proper, however, to reply to the arguments which 
 have been urged on the general nature of the treaty-making 
 power, and as it is a subject of great importance, I solicit 
 the attentive hearing of the House. 
 
 It is not denied, I believe, that the President, with the 
 concurrence of two-thirds of the Senate, has a right to make 
 commercial treaties ; it is not asserted that this treaty is 
 couched in such general terms as to require a law to carry 
 the details into execution. Why, then, is this bill neces- 
 sary ? Because, say gentlemen, the treaty of itself, without 
 the aid of this bill, cannot exempt British tonnage, and goods 
 imported in their bottoms, from the operation of the law lay- 
 ing additional duties on foreign tonnage and goods imported
 
 SPEECHES. 127 
 
 in foreign vessels ; or, giving the question a more general 
 form, because a treaty cannot annul a law. 
 
 The gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Barbour), who argued 
 this point very distinctly, though not satisfactorily, took as 
 his general position, that to repeal a law is a legislative act, 
 and can only be done by law /that in the distribution of the 
 legislative and treaty-making power, the right to repeal a law 
 fell exclusively under the former^ How does this comport 
 with the admission immediately made by him, that the trea- 
 ty of peace repealed the act declaring war ? If he admits 
 the fact in a single case, what becomes of his exclusive legis- 
 lative right ? He indeed felt that this rule failed him, and 
 in explanation assumed a position entirely new ; for he ad- 
 mitted, that when the treaty did that which was not author- 
 ized to be done by law, it did not require the sanction of 
 Congress, and might in its operation repeal a law inconsis- 
 tent with it. He said, Congress is not authorized to make 
 peace ; and for this reason, a treaty of peace repeals the act 
 declaring war. In this position, I understood his colleague 
 substantially to concur. I hope to make it appear, that in tak- 
 ing this ground, they have both yielded the point in discussion. 
 I shall establish, I trust, to the satisfaction of the House, that 
 tha^treaty-making power, when it is legitimately exercised, al- 
 ways does that which cannot be done by law^j and, that the rea- 
 sons advanced to prove that the treaty of peace repealed the act 
 declaring war, so far from being peculiar to that case, apply 
 to all treaties. They do not form an exception, but in fact con- 
 stitute the rule. Why then, I ask, cannot Congress make 
 peace ? They have the power to declare war. All acknowledge 
 this power. Peace and war are opposites. They are the 
 positive and negative terms of the same proposition ; and what 
 rule of construction more clear than that when a power is 
 given to do an act, the power is also given to repeal it ? By 
 what right do you repeal taxes, reduce your army, lay up your 
 navy, or repeal any law, but by the force of this plain rule of
 
 128 SPEECHES. 
 
 construction ? Why cannot Congress then repeal the act de- 
 claring war ? I acknowledge, with the gentleman, that they 
 cannot, consistently with reason. The solution of this ques- 
 tion explains the whole difficulty. The reason is plain ; one 
 power may make war ; it requires two to make peace. It is 
 a state of mutual amity succeeding one of mutual hos- 
 tility ; a state that cannot be created, but with the con- 
 sent of both parties. It requires a contract or a treaty be- 
 tween the nations at war. Is this peculiar to a treaty of 
 peace ? No, it is common to all treaties. It arises out of 
 their nature, and not from any accidental circumstance, at- 
 taching to a particular class. It is no more nor less than 
 that Congress cannot make a contract with a foreign nation. 
 Let us apply it to a treaty of commerce, to this very case. 
 Can Congress do what this treaty has done ? It has repeal- 
 ed the discriminating duties between this country and Eng- 
 land. Either country could by law repeal its own. But, by 
 law, they could go no farther ; and for the reason, that peace 
 cannot be made by law.// Whenever, then an ordinary sub- 
 ject of legislation can only be regulated by contract, it passes 
 from the sphere of the ordinary power of making laws, and 
 attaches itself to that of making treaties, wherever it is lodg- 
 ed. y^.11 acknowledge the truth of this conclusion, where 
 the subject, on which the treaty operates, is not expressly 
 given to Congress : but in other cases, they consider the two 
 powers as concurrent ; and conclude from the nature of such 
 powers, that such treaties must be confirmed by law. Will 
 they acknowledge the opposite that laws on such subjects 
 must be confirmed by treaties ? And if, as they state, a law 
 can repeal a treaty when concurrent, why not a treaty a law ? 
 Into such absurdities do false doctrines lead. The truth is, 
 the legislative and treaty-making powers are never, in the 
 strict sense, concurrent. They both may have the same sub- 
 ject, as in this case, viz., commerce ; but they discharge 
 functions entirely different in their nature in relation to it.
 
 SPEECHES. 129 
 
 When we speak of concurrent powers, we mean when 
 both can do the same thing ; but I contend that when the 
 two powers under discussion are confined to their proper 
 sphere, not only the law cannot do what could be done by 
 treaty, but the reverse is true ; that is, they never are nor 
 can be concurrent powers. It is only when we reason on 
 this subject that we mistake ; in all other cases the common 
 sense of the House and country decide correctly. It is pro- 
 posed to establish some regulation of commerce ; we imme- 
 diately inquire, does it depend on our will ? can we make 
 the desired regulation without the concurrence of any foreign 
 power ? If so, it belongs to Congress, and any one would 
 feel it to be absurd to attempt to effect it by treaty. On the 
 contrary, does it require the consent of a foreign power ? is 
 it proposed to grant a favor for a favor to repeal discriminat- 
 ing duties on both sides ? It is equally felt to belong to the 
 treaty-making power ; and he would be thought insane who 
 should propose to abolish the discriminating duties in any 
 case, by an act of the American Congress. It is calculated, 
 I feel, almost to insult the good sense of the House, to dwell 
 on a point evidently so clear. What then do I infer from 
 what has been advanced ? That, according to the argu- 
 ment of gentlemen, treaties, producing a state of things in- 
 consistent with the provisions of an existing law, annul such 
 provisions. But as I do not agree with them in the view 
 which they have taken, I will here present my own for con- 
 sideration. 
 
 Why, then, has a treaty the force which I attribute to 
 it ? Because it is an act, in its own nature, paramount to 
 laws made by the common legislative powers of the country. 
 It is in fact a law, and something more ; a law established 
 by contract between independent nations. By analogy to pri- 
 vate life, law has the same relations to treaty, as the resolution 
 taken by an individual to his contract. An individual may 
 make the most deliberate promise ; he may swear it in the 
 VOL. n. 9
 
 130 SPEECHES. 
 
 most solemn form, that he will not sell his house, or any 
 other property he may have ; yet, if he should afterward sell, 
 the sale would be valid in law ; he would not be admitted in 
 a court of justice to plead his oath against his contract. Take 
 the case of a government in its most simple form, where it 
 is purely despotic ; that is, where all power is lodged in the 
 hands of a single individual. Would not his treaties repeal 
 inconsistent edicts ? Let us now ascend from the instances 
 cited to illustrate the nature of the two powers, to the prin- 
 ciple on which the paramount character of a treaty rests. A 
 treaty always affects the interests of two ; a law only that of 
 a single nation. It is an established principle of politics and 
 morality, that the interest of the many is paramount to that 
 of the few. In fact, it is a principle so radical, that without 
 it no system of morality, no rational scheme of government, 
 could exist. It is for this reason that contracts, or that 
 treaties [which are only the contracts of independent na- 
 tions], or, to express both in two words, that plighted faith 
 has in all ages and nations been considered so solemn. But 
 it is said, in opposition to this position, that a subsequent 
 law can repeal a treaty ; and to this proposition, I under- 
 stand that the member from North Carolina (Mr. Gaston) 
 assents. Strictly speaking, I deny the fact. I know that a 
 law may assume the appearance of repealing a treaty ; but, 
 I insist, it is only in appearance, and that, in point of fact, 
 it is not a repeal. Whenever a law is proposed, declaring a 
 treaty void, I consider that the House acts not as a legisla- 
 tive body, but judicially. To illustrate my idea : If the 
 House is a moral body, that is, if it is governed by reason 
 and virtue, which must always be presumed, the only ques- 
 tion that ever can occupy its attention, whenever a treaty is 
 to be declared void, is whether, under all the circumstan- 
 ces of the case, the treaty is not already destroyed, by being 
 violated by the nation with whom it is made, or by the ex- 
 tetence of some other circumstance, if other there can be.
 
 SPEECHES. 131 
 
 The House determines this question : Is the country any 
 longer bound by the treaty ? Has it not ceased to exist ? 
 The nation passes judgment on its own contract ; and this 
 from the necessity of the case, as it admits no supreme 
 power to which it can refer for decision. If any other con- 
 sideration move the House to repeal a treaty, it can be con- 
 sidered only in the light of a violation of a contract acknow- 
 ledged to be binding on the country. A nation may, it is 
 true, violate its contract ; it may even do this under the form 
 of law ; but I am not considering what may be done, but 
 what may be rightfully done. It is not a question of power, 
 but of right. Why are not these positions, in themselves so 
 clear, universally assented to ? Gentlemen are alarmed at 
 imaginary consequences. They argue not as if seeking for 
 the meaning of the constitution, but as if deliberating on 
 the subject of making one ; not as members of the legisla- 
 ture, and acting under a constitution already established, but 
 as those of a convention about to frame one. For my part, 
 /I have always regarded the constitution as a work of great 
 I wisdom ; and, being the instrument under which we exist as 
 a body, it is our duty to bow to its enactments, whatever they 
 may be, with submission. We ought scarcely to indulge a 
 wish that its /provisions should be different from what they 
 in fact are. /The consequences, however, which appear to 
 work with so 'much terror on the minds of the gentlemen, I 
 consider to be without any just foundation. The treaty- 
 making power has many and powerful limits ; and it will be 
 found, when I come to discuss what those limits are, that it 
 cannot destroy the constitution, or our personal liberty, or 
 involve us, without the assent of this House, in war, or grant 
 away our money. The limits I propose to this power are 
 not the same, it is true ; but they appear to me much more 
 rational and powerful than those which were supposed to pre- 
 sent effectual guards against its abuse. Let us now consider 
 what they are
 
 132 SPEECHES. 
 
 The grant of the power to make treaties is couched in 
 the most general terms. The words of the constitution are, 
 that the President shall have power, by and with the advice 
 and consent of the Senate, to make treaties, provided two- 
 thirds of the Senators present concur. In a subsequent part 
 of the constitution, treaties are declared to be the supreme 
 law of the land. Whatever limits are imposed by these 
 general terms ought to be the result of a sound construc- 
 tion of the instrument. There are, apparently, but two re- 
 strictions on its exercise ; the one derived from the nature 
 of our government, and the other from that of the power 
 itself. Most certainly all grants of power under the consti- 
 tution must be construed by that instrument ; for, having 
 their existence from it, they must of necessity assume that 
 form which the constitution has imposed. This is acknow- 
 ledged to be true of the legislative power, and it is doubt- 
 less equally so of the power to make treaties. The limits of 
 the former are exactly marked ; it was necessary, to prevent 
 collision with similar co-existing State powers. This country 
 is divided into many distinct sovereignties. Exact enumera- 
 tion on this head is necessary, to prevent the most danger- 
 ous consequences. The enumeration of legislative powers in 
 the constitution has relation, then, not to the treaty-making 
 power, but to the powers of the States. In our relation to the 
 rest of the world the case is reversed. Here the States disap- 
 pear. Divided within, we present the exterior of undivided 
 sovereignty. The wisdom of the constitution, in this, appears 
 conspicuous. Where enumeration was needed, there we find 
 the powers enumerated and exactly defined ; where not, we 
 do not find what would be only vain and pernicious. What- 
 ever, then, concerns our foreign relations ; whatever requires 
 the consent of another nation, belongs to the treaty-making 
 power, and can only be regulated by it ; and it is competent to 
 regulate all such subjects, provided [and here are its true 
 limits] such regulations are not inconsistent with the consti-
 
 SPEECHES. 133 
 
 tution. If so, they are void. No treaty can alter the fabric 
 of our government, nor can it do that which the constitution 
 has expressly forbidden to be done ; nor can it do that differ- 
 ently which is directed to be done in a given mode, all other 
 modes being prohibited. For instance, the constitution says, 
 no money " shall be drawn out of the treasury but by an ap- 
 propriation made by law." Of course no subsidy can be 
 granted without an act of law ; and a treaty of alliance 
 could not involve the country in war without the consent of 
 this House. With this limitation, it is easy to explain the 
 case put by my colleague, who said, that according to one 
 limitation, a treaty might have prohibited the introduction 
 of a certain description of persons before the year 1808, not- 
 withstanding the clause in the constitution to the contrary. 
 I will speak plainly on this point : it was the intention of 
 the constitution that the slave trade should be tolerated till 
 the time mentioned. It covers me with confusion to name 
 it here ; I feel ashamed of such a tolerance, and take a large 
 part of the disgrace, as I represent a part of the Union by 
 whose influence it might be supposed to have been intro- 
 duced. Though Congress alone is prohibited, by the words 
 of the clause, from suppressing that odious traffic, yet my col- 
 league will admit that it was intended to be a general pro- 
 hibition on the Government of the Union. I perceive my 
 colleague indicates his dissent. It will be necessary to be 
 more explicit. 
 
 [Here Mr. C. read that part of the constitution, and showed that 
 the word " Congress " might be left out, in conformity with other parts 
 of the constitution, without injury to the sense of the clause ; and he 
 insisted that the plain meaning of the parties to the constitution was, 
 that the trade should continue till 1808, and that a prohibition by 
 treaty would be equally against the spirit of the instrument.] 
 
 Besides these constitutional limits, the treaty-making pow- 
 er, like all powers, has others derived from its nature and ob-
 
 134 SPEECHES. 
 
 jects. It has for its object, contracts with foreign nations ; as 
 the powers of Congress have for their object, whatever may be 
 done in relation to the powers delegated to it, without the 
 consent of foreign nations. Each, in its proper sphere, ope- 
 rates with general influence ; but when they become erratic, 
 then they are portentous and dangerous. A treaty never 
 can legitimately do that which can be done by law ; and the 
 converse is also true. Suppose the discriminating duties re- 
 pealed on both sides by law, still what is effected by this 
 treaty would not even then be done ; for the plighted faith 
 of both would be wanting. Either side might repeal its law 
 without breach of contract. It appears to me, that gentle- 
 men are too much influenced on this subject by the example of 
 Great Britain. Instead of looking to the nature of our own, 
 they have been swayed in their opinions by the practice of 
 that government, to which we are but too much in the habit 
 of looking for precedents. Much anxiety has recently been 
 evinced, to be independent of English broadcloths and mus- 
 lins ; I hope it indicates the approach of a period when we 
 shall also throw off the thraldom of thought. The truth is, 
 but little analogy exists between this and any other govern- 
 ment. It is the pride of ours, to be founded in reason and 
 equity ; all others have originated, more or less, in fraud, 
 violence, or accident. The right to make treaties, in Eng- 
 land, can only be determined by the practice of the govern- 
 ment ; as she has no written constitution. Her practice 
 may be wise in regard to her government, when it would be 
 very imprudent here. Admitting the fact to be, that 
 the king refers all commercial treaties affecting the munici- 
 pal regulations of the country, to parliament, for its sanction ; 
 the argument drawn from this would be very feeble to prove 
 that this, also, was the intention of our constitution. Strong 
 differences exist between the forms of the two governments. 
 The king is hereditary ; he alone, without the participation of 
 either house of parliament, negotiates and makes treaties.
 
 SPEECHES. 135 
 
 England has no constitution emanating from the people, alike 
 superior to the legislature and the king. Not so here. The 
 President is elected for a short period ; he is amenable to 
 the public opinion ; he is liable to be impeached for corrup- 
 tion ; he cannot make treaties without the concurrence of 
 two-thirds of the Senate a fact very material to be remem- 
 bered which body is in like manner responsible to the 
 people at periods not very remote. Above all, as the laws 
 and constitution are here perfectly distinct, and the latter is 
 alike superior to laws and treaties, the treaty-making power 
 cannot change the form of government, or encroach on the 
 liberties of the country, without encroaching on that instru- 
 ment, which, so long as the people are free, will be watched 
 with vigilance. 
 
 SPEECH 
 
 On the motion to Repeal the Direct Tax, delivered 
 in the House of Representatives, January 31st, 
 1816. 
 
 [NOTE. January 9th, 1816. The Committee of Ways and 
 Means, to whom was referred that portion of the President's Mes- 
 sage relating to the revenue, reported, among others, the following 
 resolution : 
 
 " Resolved, That it is expedient so to amend an act, entitled, 'An 
 act to provide additional revenues for defraying the expenses of 
 Government and maintaining public credit, by laying a direct tax 
 upon the United States, and to provide for assessing and collecting 
 the same,' passed on the 9th of January, 1815, as to reduce the tax 
 to be levied for the year 1816, and succeeding years, to $3,000,000, 
 with a similar provision in regard to the direct tax on the District of 
 Columbia. This resolution being called up in Committee of the
 
 136 SPEECHES. 
 
 Whole, caused much debate. Mr. Clay moved to amend it, so as to 
 limit its operation to one year, with a view to place it under the 
 annual control of the House. This was carried ; and then Mr. Har- 
 den of Kentucky moved to amend it, by declaring it expedient to 
 repeal the laws laying a direct tax, altogether. This called forth dis- 
 cussion for several days successively, in which many of the most promi- 
 nent men in the House took part. The motion was finally negatived 
 by a vote of 81 to 73.] 
 
 ME. CHAIKMAN : There are in the affairs of nations, 
 not less than in those of individuals, moments, on the proper 
 use of which depend their fame, duration, and prosperity. 
 Such I conceive to be the present situation of this country. 
 Recently emerged from a war, we find ourselves in possession 
 of a physical and moral power of great magnitude ; and im- 
 pressed by the misfortunes which have resulted from want of 
 forecast heretofore, we are disposed to apply our means to 
 purposes most valuable to the country. In a situation of 
 such interest, I hope we shall be guided by the dictates of 
 truth and wisdom only ; that we shall prefer the lasting hap- 
 piness of our country to present ease ; its security to its 
 pleasure ; fair honor and reputation to inglorious and in- 
 active repose. 
 
 We are now called on to determine what amount of 
 revenue is necessary for this country in time of peace. This 
 involves the additional question : what are the measures 
 which the true interests of this country demand ? The 
 principal expense of our Government grows out of measures 
 necessary for its defence ; and in order to decide what those 
 measures ought to be, it will be proper to inquire, what 
 ought to be our policy towards other nations ? and what will 
 probably be theirs towards us ? I intentionally leave out 
 of consideration the financial questions, which some gentle- 
 men have examined in the debate, and also the question of 
 retrenchments ; on which I will only remark, that I hope, 
 whatsoever of economy shall enter into the measures of Con-
 
 SPEECHES. 137 
 
 gress, they will at least be divested of the character of par- 
 simony. 
 
 Beginning with the policy of the country. T'his ought 
 to correspond with the character of its political institutions. 
 What, then, is their character ? They are founded on 
 reason and justice. These being the foundations of our 
 Government, its policy ought to comport with them. It is 
 the duty of all nations, especially of one whose institutions 
 recognize no principle of force, but appeal to virtue for 
 their strength, to act with justice and moderation with 
 moderation approaching to forbearance. In all possible con- 
 flicts with foreign powers, our Government should be able to 
 make it manifest to the world, that it has justice on its side. 
 We should always forbear, if possible, until all shall be satis- 
 fied, that when we take up arms, it is not for the purpose of 
 conquest, but for the maintenance of our essential rights. 
 Our Government, moreover, is also founded on equality ; it 
 permits none to exercise violence ; it permits no one to trample 
 on the rights of his fellow-citizens with impunity. These 
 maxims we should also carry into our intercourse with 
 foreign nations ; and as we render justice to all, so we should 
 be prepared to exact it from all. 
 
 Our policy should not only be moderate and just, but as 
 high-minded as it is moderate and just. This appears to me 
 to be, for our country, the true line of conduct. In the policy 
 of nations there are two extremes : one, in which justice and 
 moderation may sink into feebleness another, in which that 
 lofty spirit which ought to animate all nations, particularly 
 free states, may mount up to military violence. These ex- 
 tremes ought to be equally avoided ; but, of the two, I 
 consider the first far the most dangerous, far the most fatal. 
 There are two splendid examples of nations which have ulti- 
 mately sunk by military violence ; the Romans in ancient 
 tunes the French in modern. But how numerous are the 
 instances of nations that have gradually sunk into insignifi-
 
 138 SPEECHES. 
 
 cance through imbecility and apathy. They have not, in- 
 deed, struck the mind so forcibly as the two former ; because 
 they have sunk ingloriously, without any thing in their de- 
 scent to excite either admiration or respect. I consider this 
 extreme weakness not only the most dangerous in itself 
 but one to which the people of this country are peculiarly 
 liable. The people, indeed, are high-minded ; and, there- 
 fore, it may be thought that my fears are unfounded. But 
 they are blessed with much happiness, moral, political, and 
 physical. These operate on the dispositions and habits of 
 the people with something like the effects attributed to 
 southern climates : they dispose them to pleasure and to inac- 
 tivity, except in pursuit of wealth. I need not appeal to 
 the past history of the country ; to the indisposition of our 
 people to war, from the commencement of the Government ; 
 arising from the nature of our habits, and the disposition to 
 pursue those courses which contribute to swell our private for- 
 tunes. We incline, not only from the causes already men- 
 tioned, but from the nature of our foreign relations, to that 
 feeble policy, which I consider as more dangerous than 
 the other extreme. We have, it is true, dangers to appre- 
 hend from abroad but they are far off, at the distance of 
 three thousand miles ; which prevents that continued dread 
 which they would excite, if in our immediate neighborhood. 
 Besides, we can have no foreign war which we should 
 dread or fear to meet, save a war with England ; for a 
 war with her breaks in on the whole industry of the 
 country, and affects all its private pursuits. On this ac- 
 count WK prefer suffering very great wrongs from her, 
 rather than to redress them by arms. The gentleman from 
 Pennsylvania asks, if the country did forbear till it felt dis- 
 grace, whose fault was it ? Not, he said, of the administra- 
 tions of Washington or Adams ; for neither of them had left 
 it in such condition. A few words on this point. The fault 
 can be ascribed to neither of our several administrations
 
 SPEECHES. 139 
 
 to neither of the two great parties. It arose from the indis- 
 position of the people to resort to arms, for the reason al- 
 ready assigned. It arose, also, in part, from two incidental 
 circumstances- 1 the want of preparation, and the untried 
 character of our Government in war. But there were other 
 circumstances, too, connected with the party to which the 
 gentleman belongs, which, doubtless, contributed to prolong 
 forbearance. That party took advantage of the indisposition 
 of the people to an English war, and preached up the ad- 
 vantages of peace when it had become ignominious, and un- 
 til we had scarcely the ability to defend ourselves. The gen- 
 tleman from Pennsylvania further said, that, if peace had 
 not been made when it was, we should not have been here 
 deliberating at this time. This assertion is a fearful one, if 
 true. If the nation was on the verge of ruin, the errors 
 which brought it to that situation ought to be known, probed 
 and corrected even if they rose out of the constitution. 
 But it is an assertion that ought not to be lightly made. 
 The effects are dangerous ; for what man hereafter, with such 
 consequences before his eyes, would venture to propose a 
 war ? If such were the admitted fact, a future enemy would 
 persist in war, expecting the country to sink before his ef- 
 forts ; his arms would be nerved, his exertions doubly 
 strengthened against us. In every view, the position is one 
 of such t dangerous bearing on the future relations of the 
 country, that it ought not to be admitted without the strong- 
 est proof. What was the fact ? What had been the pro- 
 gress of events for a few months preceding the termination 
 of the war ? At Baltimore, at Plattsburg, at New Orleans, 
 the invaders had been signally defeated a new spirit was 
 diffused through the whole mass of the community. Can it 
 be believed, then, that the Government was on the verge of 
 dissolution ? No, Sir, it never stood firmer on its basis than 
 at that moment. It is true, indeed, that we labored under 
 great difficulties ; but it is an observation made by a states-
 
 140 SPEECHES. 
 
 man of great sagacity, Edmund Burke, when Pitt was an- 
 ticipating the downfall of France, through the failure of her 
 finances, that an instance is not to be found of a high-minded 
 nation sinking under financial difficulties; and its truth would 
 have been exemplified in our country had the war continued. 
 Men on all sides began to unite in defence of the country ; 
 parties in this House began to rally on this point ; and if 
 the gentleman from Pennsylvania had been a member at 
 that time, he also, from what he has said, would have taken 
 that ground. The gentleman has taken, on this point, a 
 position as erroneous as it is dangerous ; and I have thought 
 proper thus to notice it. 
 
 As a proof that the situation of the country naturally 
 inclines us to too much feebleness rather than violence, I re- 
 fer to the fact, that there are, on this floor, men who are en- 
 tirely opposed to armies, to navies, to every means of defence. 
 Sir, if their politics prevail, the country will be disarmed 
 and at the mercy of any foreign power. On the other hand, 
 there is no excess of military fervor, no party inclining to 
 military despotism ; for though a charge of such a disposi- 
 tion has been made by a gentleman in debate, it is without 
 the shadow of foundation. What is the fact in regard to 
 the army ? Does it bear out his assertion ? Is it even 
 proportionally larger now than it was in 1801-2, the period 
 which the gentleman considers as the standard of political 
 perfection ? It was then about 4,000 men ; it was larger, 
 in proportion, than an army of 10,000 men would now be. 
 The charge of a disposition to make this a military govern- 
 ment finds its support only in the imaginations of gentlemen ; 
 it cannot be sustained by facts ; it is contrary to reason and 
 to evidence. 
 
 Dismissing this part of the subject, I will now proceed to 
 consider another, in my opinion, equally important, viz. : 
 what will probably be the policy of other nations. With the 
 world at large we are now at peace. I know of no nation
 
 SPEECHES. 141 
 
 with which we shall probably come in collision, unless it 
 be with Great Britain and Spain. With both these nations 
 we have many and important points of collision. I hope we 
 shall maintain, in regard to both, the strictest justice ; the 
 more so, as with both there is a possibility, sooner or later, 
 of our being engaged in war. As to Spain I will say nothing ; 
 because she is the inferior of the two, and the measures 
 which apply to the superior power, will include also the 
 inferior. I shall consider our relations, then, with England 
 only. Peace now exists between the two countries. As to 
 its duration, I will give no opinion, except that I believe it 
 will last the longer in consequence of the war, which has just 
 ended. Evidences have been furnished during the war, of 
 the capacity and character of this country, which will make 
 England indisposed to try her strength with us on slight 
 grounds. But what will be the probable course of events re- 
 specting the future relations between the two countries ? 
 England is the most formidable power in the world : she has 
 the most numerous army and navy at her command. We, on 
 the other hand, are the most growing nation on earth : most 
 rapidly improving in those very particulars in which she 
 excels. ^?his question, then, presents itself : will the greater 
 power permit the less to attain its destined greatness by 
 natural growth, or will she take measures to disturb it. 
 They who know the history of nations, will not believe that 
 a rival will look unmoved on this prosperity. It has been 
 said, that nations have heads, but no hearts. Every states- 
 man, every one who loves his country, who wishes to maintain 
 its dignity, to see it attain the summit of greatness and pros- 
 perity, regards the progress of other nations with a jealous 
 eye. The English statesmen have always so acted. I find 
 no fault with them on this account, but rather point to the 
 example as originating in a principle which ought also to 
 govern our conduct. Will Great Britain permit us to go o n 
 in an uninterrupted march to the height of national great-
 
 142 SPEECHES. 
 
 ness and prosperity ? I fear noty But, admitting the councils 
 on that side of the water to be governed by a degree of mag- 
 nanimity and justice which the world has never experienced 
 from them (and, I am warranted in saying, never will), may 
 not some unforeseen collision involve us in hostilities ? Gen- 
 tlemen on the other side have said, that there are points of 
 difference with that nation (existing prior to the war) which 
 are yet unsettled. I grant it. If such, then, be the fact, 
 does it not show that causes of conflict remain, and that 
 whenever the same condition of the world that excited them 
 into action before the war, shall recur, the same collisions 
 will probably take place again ? If Great Britain sees the 
 opportunity of enforcing the same doctrines we have already 
 contested, will she not seize it ? Admitting this country to 
 maintain that policy which it ought ; that its councils be 
 governed by the most perfect justice and moderation yet 
 we see that, by difference of views on essential points, the 
 peace between the two nations is liable to be jeopardized. 
 I am sure that future wars with England are not only pos- 
 sible, but, I will say more, they are highly probable nay, 
 that they will certainly take place. Future wars, I fear 
 (with the Honorable Speaker) future wars, long and bloody, 
 will exist between this country and Great Britain. I lament 
 it ; but I will not close my eyes on future events ; I will not 
 betray the high trust reposed in me ; I will speak what I 
 believe to be true. You will have to encounter British 
 jealousy and hostility in every shape ; not immediately mani- 
 fested by open force or violence, perhaps, but by indirect 
 attempts to check your growth and prosperity. As far as 
 she can, she will disgrace every thing connected with you. 
 Her reviewers, paragraphists, and travellers, will assail you 
 and your institutions ; and no means will be left untried to 
 bring you to contemn yourselves, and be contemned by others. 
 I thank God, they have not now the means they once possess- 
 ed of effecting their objects. No ; the late war has given
 
 SPEECHES. 143 
 
 you a tone of feeling and thinking which forbids the acknow- 
 ledgment of national inferiority that first of political evils. 
 Had we not encountered Great Britain, we should not have 
 had the brilliant points to rest on which we now have. We, 
 too, have now our heroes and illustrious actions. If Great 
 Britain has her Wellington, we have our Jackson, Brown 
 and Scott. If she has her naval heroes, we also have them, 
 not less renowned for they have plucked the laurel from 
 her brows. It is impossible that we can now be degraded by 
 comparisons : I trust we are equally above corruption and 
 intrigue ; and that when the contest comes, it will be tried 
 only by force of arms. 
 
 Let us now consider the measures of preparation which 
 sound policy dictates. First, then, as to the extent, without 
 reference to the kind. These measures ought to be graduated 
 by a reference to the character and capacity of both countries. 
 England excels in means all countries that now exist, or ever 
 did exist ; and has, besides, great moral resources. She is 
 intelligent, and renowned for masculine virtues. On our 
 part, our measures ought to correspond with that lofty policy, 
 which becomes freemen determined to defend their rights. 
 Thus circumstanced on both sides, we ought to omit no pre- 
 paration fairly within the compass of our means. Next, as 
 to the species of preparation a question which opens subjects 
 of great extent and importance. The navy, most certainly, 
 in any point of view, occupies the first place. It is the most 
 safe, most effectual and cheapest mode of defence. For let 
 the fact be remembered, our navy costs less per man, includ- 
 ing all the amount of extraordinary expenditures on the lakes, 
 than our army. 
 
 This is an important fact which ought to be fixed in the 
 memory of the House ; for, if the force be the safest and most 
 efficient, which is at the same tune the cheapest, on that 
 should be our principal reliance. We have heard much of 
 the danger of standing armies to our liberties : the objection
 
 144 SPEECHES. 
 
 cannot be made to the navy. Generals, it must be acknow- 
 ledged, have often advanced at the head of armies to imperial 
 rank and power ; but in what instance has an admiral 
 usurped the liberties of his country ? Put our strength in 
 the navy for foreign defence, and we shall certainly escape 
 the whole catalogue of possible ills painted by gentlemen on 
 the other side. A naval force attacks that country, from 
 whose hostilities, alone, we have any thing to dread, where 
 she is most assailable, and defends its own where it is weak- 
 est. Where is Great Britain most vulnerable? In what 
 point is she most accessible to attack ? In her commerce 
 in her navigation. There she is not only exposed, but the 
 blow is fatal. There is her strength there the secret of her 
 power. There, then, if it ever shall become necessary, we 
 ought to strike. And where are we most exposed? On 
 the Atlantic line ; a line so long and weak, that we are 
 peculiarly liable to be assailed on it. How is it to be de- 
 fended ? By a navy, and by a navy only, can it be efficiently 
 defended. Let us look back to the time when the enemy 
 was in possession of the whole line of the sea-coast, moored 
 hi our rivers, and ready to assault us at every point. The 
 facts are too recent to require a minute description. I will 
 only state, generally, that our commerce was cut up our 
 specie circulation destroyed our internal communication 
 interrupted our best and cheapest highway being entirely 
 in possession of the enemy our ports foreign the one to the 
 other our treasury exhausted in merely defensive prepara- 
 tions and militia requisitions for not knowing where we 
 would be assailed, we had, at the same moment, to stand 
 prepared at every point. A recurrence of this state of things, 
 so oppressive to the country, in the event of another war, 
 can be prevented only by the establishment and maintenance 
 of a sufficient naval force. I think it proper to press thjs 
 point thus strongly, because, though it is generally assented 
 to, that the navy ought to be increased, I find that assent too
 
 SPEECHES. 145 
 
 cold the approbation bestowed on it too negative in its char- 
 acter. The navy ought, it is said, to be gradually increased. 
 If the navy is to be increased at all, let its augmentation be 
 limited only by your ability to build, officer and man. If it 
 is the kind of force most safe, and at the same time most 
 efficient to guard against foreign invasion, or repel foreign 
 aggression, you ought to put your whole force on the seaside. 
 It is estimated that we have in our country eighty thousand 
 sailors. This would enable us to man a considerable fleet, 
 which, if well-directed, would give us the habitual command 
 on our own coast an object, in every point of view, so de- 
 sirable. Not that we ought hastily, without due preparation, 
 under present circumstances, to build a large number of 
 vessels ; but we ought to commence preparations establish 
 docks, collect timber and naval stores ; and, as soon as the 
 materials are prepared, to commence building, to the extent 
 which I have mentioned. If any thing can preserve the 
 country in its most imminent dangers from abroad, it is this 
 species of armament. If we desire to be free from future 
 wars (as I hope we may be), this is the only way to effect 
 it. We shall have peace then, and, what is of still higher 
 moment, peace with perfect security. 
 
 In regard to our present military establishment, it is 
 small enough. This the Honorable Speaker has fully demon- 
 strated. It is not, at present, sufficiently large to occupy 
 all our fortresses. Gentlemen have spoken in favor of the 
 militia, and against the army. In regard to the militia, 
 I will go as far as any gentleman, and considerably fur- 
 ther than those who are so violently opposed to our small 
 army. I desire not only to arm the militia, but to extend 
 their term of service, and make them efficient. To talk 
 about the efficiency of militia, called into service for six 
 months only, is to impose on the people, to ruin them with 
 false hopes. I am aware of the danger of large standing 
 armies, and I know that the militia constitutes the true force 
 VOL. n. 10
 
 146 SPEECHES. 
 
 of the country ; that no nation can be safe, at home and 
 abroad, which has not an efficient militia ; but the term of 
 service ought to be enlarged, to enable them to acquire a 
 knowledge of the duties of the camp, and to allow the 
 habits of civil life to be broken. For although militia, 
 freshly drawn from their homes, may, in a moment of en- 
 thusiasm, do great service, as at New Orleans ; yet, in 
 general, they are not calculated for service in the field, 
 until time is allowed them to acquire habits of discipline 
 and subordination. On land, your defence ought to depend 
 on a regular draught from the body of the people. You 
 will thus, in time of war, dispense with the business of re- 
 cruiting, a mode of defending the country every way uncon- 
 genial with our republican institutions. Uncertain, slow in 
 its operation and expensive, it draws from society only its 
 worst materials ; introducing into our army, of necessity, all 
 the severities which are exercised in that of the most des- 
 potic governments. Thus composed, our armies, in a great 
 degree, lose that enthusiasm with which citizen soldiers, 
 conscious of liberty and fighting in defence of their country, 
 have ever been animated. / All the free nations of antiquity 
 intrusted the defence of flie country, not to the dregs of 
 society, but to the body of its citizens ; and hence that 
 heroism, which nations, in modern times, may admire but 
 cannot equal: I know that I utter truths unpleasant to 
 those who wish to enjoy liberty without making the efforts 
 necessary to secure it. Her favor is never won by the cow- 
 ardly, the vicious, or indolent. It has been said by some 
 physicians, that life is a forced state. The same may be 
 said of freedom^. It requires efforts, it presupposes mental 
 and moraT^ualities of a high order to be generally diffused 
 in the society where it exists. At mainly stands on the 
 faithful discharge of two great/ duties which every citizen 
 of proper age owes the republic ; a wise and virtuous exer- 
 cise of the right of suffrage, and a prompt and brave
 
 SPEECHES. / 147 
 
 defence of the country in the hour of danger. / The first 
 symptom of decay has ever appeared in the ba/kward and 
 negligent discharge of the latter duty. Those who are 
 acquainted with the historians and orators of antiquity, 
 know the truth of this assertion. The least decay of 
 patriotism, the least verging towards pleasure and luxury, will 
 there immediately discover itself. Large standing and merce- 
 nary armies then become necessary ; and those who are unwil- 
 ling to render the military service adequate to the defence of 
 their rights, soon find, as they ought to do, a master. It is 
 the order of nature, and cannot be reversed. The plan I pro- 
 pose, will at once put an efficient force into your hands, and 
 render you secure. I cannot agree with those who think we 
 are free from danger, and need not prepare for it, because 
 we have no nation to dread in our immediate neighborhood. 
 Recollect that the nation with whom we have recently termi- 
 nated a severe conflict lives on the bosom of the deep ; that, 
 although three thousand miles of ocean intervene between us, 
 she can attack you with as much facility as if she had but 
 two or three hundred miles overland to march. She is as 
 near to you as if she occupied Canada instead of the British 
 Isles. You have the power of assailing, as well as of being 
 assailed ; her provinces border on your territory, the dread 
 of losing which, if you are prepared to attack them, will con- 
 tribute to that peace which every honest man is anxious to 
 maintain as long as possible. 
 
 I shall now proceed to a point of less, but still of great 
 importance, I mean the establishing of roads and the open- 
 ing of canals through various parts of the country. Your 
 country has certain points of feebleness and certain points 
 of strength about it. Your feebleness ought to be removed 
 your strength improved. Your population is widely dis- 
 persed. Though this be greatly advantageous in one respect, 
 that of preventing the country from being permanently 
 conquered, it imposes a great difficulty in defending it
 
 148 SPEECHES. 
 
 from invasion, because of the difficulty of transporta- 
 tion from one point to another of your widely extended 
 frontiers. We ought to contribute as much as possible to 
 the formation of good military roads, not only on the score 
 of general political economy, but to enable us, on emergencies, 
 to collect the whole mass of our military means on the point 
 menaced. The people are brave, great and spirited, but 
 they must be brought together in sufficient numbers, and 
 with a, certain promptitude, to enable them to act with 
 effect. / The importance of military roads was well known to 
 the Romans. The remains of their roads exist to this day, 
 some of them uninjured by the ravages of time. Let us 
 make great permanent roads ; not like the Romans with 
 views of subjecting and ruling provinces, but for the more 
 honorable purposes of defence, and of connecting more 
 closely the interests of various sections of this great country. 
 Let any one look at the vast cost of transportation during 
 the war, much of which is chargeable to the want of good 
 roads and canals, and he will not deny the vast importance 
 of a due attention to this object/ 
 
 Next, let us consider the proper encouragement to be 
 afforded to the industry of the country. In regard to the 
 question, how far manufactures ought to be fostered, it is 
 the duty of this country, as a means of defence, to encourage 
 its domestic industry, more especially that part of it which 
 provides the necessary materials for clothing and defence. Let 
 us look at the nature of the war most likely to occur. England 
 is in possession of the ocean ; no man, however sanguine, can 
 believe that we can soon deprive her of her maritime pre- 
 dominance. That control deprives us of the means of main- 
 taining, cheaply clad, our army and navy. The question re- 
 lating to manufactures must not depend on the abstract prin- 
 ciple, that industry, left to pursue its own course, will find, 
 in its own interests, all the encouragement that is necessary. 
 Laying the claims of manufacturers entirely out of view,
 
 SPEECHES. 149 
 
 on general principles, without regard to their interests, a cer- 
 tain encouragement should be extended, at least, to our wool- 
 len and cotton manufactures. 
 
 There is another point of preparation not to be over- 
 looked the defence of our coast, by means other than the 
 navy, on which we ought to rely mainly, but not entirely. 
 The coast is our weak part, which ought to be rendered 
 strong, if it be in our power to make it so. There are two 
 points on our coast particularly weak the mouths of the 
 Mississippi and the Chesapeake Bay which ought to be 
 cautiously attended to, not, however, neglecting others. The 
 administration which leaves these two points in another war 
 without fortifications, ought to receive the execration of the 
 country. Look at the facility afforded by the Chesapeake 
 Bay to maritime powers in attacking us. If we estimate 
 with it the margin of rivers navigable for vessels of war, it 
 adds fourteen hundred miles, at least, to the line of our sea- 
 coast, and that of the worst character ; for when an enemy 
 is there, it is without the fear of being driven from it : he 
 has, besides, the power of assaulting two shores at the same 
 time, and must be expected on both. Under such circum- 
 stances, no degree of expense would be too great for its de- 
 fence. Besides, the whole margin of the Bay is an extreme- 
 ly sickly one, and fatal to the militia of the upper country. 
 How it is to be defended, military and naval men will be 
 best judges ; but I believe that steam frigates ought at least 
 to constitute a part of the means ; the expense of which, 
 however great, the people ought and would cheerfully bear. 
 
 I might now call the attention of the committee to other 
 points, but, for the fear of fatiguing them, I will mention 
 only my views in regard to our finances, as connected with 
 preparatory measures. A war with Great Britain will im- 
 mediately distress your finances, so far as your revenue de- 
 pends on imports. It is impossible, during war, to prepare 
 a system of internal revenue in time to meet the defect thus
 
 150 SPEECHES. 
 
 occasioned. Will Congress then leave the nation wholly de- 
 pendent on foreign commerce for its revenue ? This Union 
 is rapidly changing the character of its industry. When a 
 country is agricultural, depending for supply on foreign mar- 
 kets, its people may be taxed through its imports almost to 
 the amount of its capacity. * The country, however, is rapid- 
 ly becoming, to a considerable extent, a manufacturing com- 
 munity. We find that exterior commerce (not including the 
 coasting trade) is every day bearing less and less proportion 
 to the entire wealth and strength of the nation. Its finan- 
 cial resources will, therefore, daily become weaker and weak- 
 er, instead of growing with its growth, if we do not resort to 
 other objects than our foreign commerce for taxation. But 
 gentlemen say, that the moral power of the nation ought not 
 to be neglected ; and that moral power is inconsistent with 
 oppressive taxes on the people. With oppressive taxes, moral 
 power certainly is inconsistent ; but, to make them oppres- 
 sive, they must be both heavy and unnecessary. I agree, 
 therefore, with gentlemen in their premises, but not in their 
 conclusion, that, because oppressive taxes destroy the whole 
 moral power of the country, there ought, therefore, to be no 
 taxes at all. Such a conclusion is certainly erroneous. Let 
 us examine the question, whether a tax laid for the defence, 
 security, and lasting prosperity of a country, is calculated to 
 destroy its moral power, and more especially of this country. 
 If such be the fact, indispensable as I believe these taxes to 
 be, I will relinquish them ; for of all the powers of the Gov- 
 ernment, the power of a moral kind is most to be cherished. 
 We had better give up all our physical power, than part with 
 this. But what is moral power ? The zeal of the country, 
 and the confidence it reposes in the administration of its 
 Government. Will it be diminished by imposing taxes 
 wisely and moderately ? If you suppose the people intelli- 
 gent and virtuous, this cannot be admitted. But if a ma- 
 jority of them be ignorant and vicious, then it is probable
 
 SPEECHES. 151 
 
 that a tax laid for the most judicious purpose may deprive 
 you of their confidence. The people, I believe, are intelli- 
 gent and virtuous. The more wisely, then, you act ; the less 
 you yield to the temptation of ignoble and false security, the 
 more you attract their confidence. The very existence of 
 your Government proves their intelligence ; for, let me say 
 to this House that, if one who knew nothing of this people 
 were made acquainted with its government, and with the 
 fact that it had sustained itself for thirty years, he would 
 know at once that this was a most intelligent and virtuous 
 people. Convince the people that measures are necessary 
 and wise, and they will maintain them. Already they go 
 far, very far before this House, in energy and public spirit. 
 If ever measures of this description become unpopular, it 
 will be by speeches here. Are any willing to lull the people 
 into false security ? Can they withdraw their eyes from 
 facts menacing the prosperity, if not the existence of the 
 country ? Are they willing to inspire them with sentiments 
 injurious to their lasting peace and prosperity ? The sub- 
 ject is grave ; it is connected with the happiness and exist- 
 ence of our institutions. I most sincerely hope that the 
 members of this House are the real agents of the people. 
 They are sent here, not to consult their ease and convenience, 
 but their general defence and common welfare. Such is the 
 language of the constitution. In discharge of the sacred 
 trust reposed in me by those for whom I act, I have faith- 
 fully pointed out those measures which our situation and re- 
 lation to the rest of the world render necessary for our secu- 
 rity and prosperity. They involve, no doubt, much expense ; 
 they require considerable sacrifices on the part of the people ; 
 but are they on that account to be rejected ? We are called 
 on to choose. On the one side is ease, it is true ; but, on 
 the other, the security of the country. We may dispense 
 with the taxes ; we may neglect every measure of precau- 
 tion, and feel no immediate disaster ; but, in such a state
 
 152 SPEECHES. 
 
 of things, what virtuous, what wise citizen, but must look 
 on the future with dread. I know of no situation so responsi- 
 ble, if properly considered, as ours. We are charged by Provi- 
 dence, not only with the happiness of this great and rising 
 people, but, in a considerable degree, with that of the human 
 race. We have a government of a new order, perfectly dis- 
 tinct from all others which have preceded it a government 
 founded on the rights of man ; resting, not on authority, not 
 on prejudice, not on superstition, but reason. If it shall 
 succeed, as fondly hoped by its founders, it will be the com- 
 mencement of a new era in human affairs. All civilized 
 governments must, in the course of time, conform to its 
 principles. Thus circumstanced, can you hesitate what 
 course to choose ? The road that wisdom indicates, leads, 
 it is true, up the steep, but leads also to security and lasting 
 glory. No nation that wants the fortitude to tread it, ought 
 ever to aspire to greatness. Such ought, and will sink into 
 the list of those that have done nothing to be known or re- 
 membered. It is immutable, it is in the nature of things. 
 The love of present ease and pleasure, indiiference about the 
 future, that fatal weakness of human nature, has never 
 failed, in individuals or nations, to sink to disgrace and ruin. 
 On the contrary, virtue and wisdom, which regard the future, 
 which spurn the temptations of the moment, however rugged 
 their path, end in happiness. Such are the universal senti- 
 ments of all wise writers, from the didactics of the philoso- 
 pher to the fictions of the poet. They agree and inculcate, 
 that pleasure is a flowery path, leading off among groves and 
 gardens, but ending in a dreary wilderness ; that it is the 
 siren's voice, that he who listens to is ruined ; that it is the 
 cup of Circe, of which whosoever drinks, is converted into a 
 swine. This is the language of fiction. Keason teaches the 
 same lesson. It is my wish to elevate the national senti- 
 ment to that which animates every just and virtuous mind. 
 No effort is needed here to impel us the opposite way. That
 
 SPEECHES. 153 
 
 also may be but too safely trusted to the frailties of our na- 
 ture. This country is now in a situation similar to that which 
 one of the most beautiful writers of antiquity ascribes to 
 Hercules in his youth. He represents the hero as retiring 
 into the wilderness to deliberate on the course of life which 
 he ought to choose. Two goddesses approach him ; one 
 recommending a life of ease and pleasure ; the other of la- 
 bor and virtue. The hero adopts the counsel of the latter, 
 and his fame and glory are known to the world. May this 
 country, the youthful Hercules, possessing his form and mus- 
 cles, be animated by similar sentiments, and follow his ex- 
 ample ! 
 
 SPEECH 
 
 On the Bill, to establish a National Bank, delivered 
 in the House of Representatives, February 26th, 
 1816. 
 
 [NOTE. A Bill " to incorporate the Subscribers to the Bank of 
 the United States," was reported by Mr. Calhoun, Chairman of the 
 Committee on National Currency, on the 8th of January, 1816, and 
 referred to the Committee of the Whole. It was not, it seems, called 
 up until the 26th of February following, when, on motion of Mr. Cal- 
 houn, the intervening orders were postponed for that purpose, and the 
 debate commenced, which continued, with little interruption, until the 
 14th of March, when it passed the House by a vote of 80 to 71. The 
 discussion embraced both principle and detail, and the ablest men of 
 both parties took part in it. The supporters of the Bill were Messrs. 
 Calhoun, Clay, Cuthbert, Sharp, Condict, Forsythe, Grosvenor, Wilde, 
 Telfair, Wright, and others ; its opponents, Messrs. Randolph, Webster, 
 Cady, Pickering, Pitkin, Sergeant, Hanson, Stanford, Hopkinson, 
 Culpepper, Gaston, Hardin, and others. A large majority of the
 
 154 SPEECHES. 
 
 Republican Party voted for the Bill ; influenced, no doubt, by the 
 peculiar circumstances of the tune.] 
 
 ME. CALHOUN rose to explain his views of a subject, so 
 interesting to the republic, and so necessary to be correctly 
 understood, as that of the bill now before the committee. 
 He proposed, at this time, only to discuss general principles, 
 without reference to details. He was aware, he said, that 
 principle and detail might be united ; but he should, at 
 present, keep them distinct. He did not propose to com- 
 prehend, in this discussion, the power of Congress to grant 
 bank charters ; nor the question whether the general ten- 
 dency of banks was favorable or unfavorable to the liberty 
 and prosperity of the country ; nor the question whether a 
 national bank would be favorable to the operations of the 
 Government. To discuss these questions, he conceived, 
 would be an useless consumption of time. The constitutional 
 question had been already so freely and frequently discussed, 
 that all had made up their minds on it. The question whe- 
 ther banks were favorable to public liberty and prosperity, 
 was one purely speculative. The fact of the existence of 
 banks, and their incorporation with the commercial concerns 
 and industry of the nation, prove that inquiry to come too 
 late. The only question was, on this hand, under what 
 modifications were banks most useful ; and whether the 
 United States ought, or ought not, to exercise the power to 
 establish a bank. As to the question whether a national 
 bank would be favorable to the administration of the finances 
 of the Government, it was one on which there was so little 
 doubt, that gentlemen would excuse him if he did not enter 
 into it. Leaving all these questions, then, Mr. C. said, he 
 proposed to examine the cause and state of the disorders of 
 the national currency, and the question whether it was in the 
 power of Congress, by establishing a national bank, to remove 
 these disorders. This, he observed, was a question of novelty,
 
 SPEECHES. 155 
 
 and vital importance ; a question which greatly affected the 
 character and prosperity of the country. 
 
 As to the state of the currency, Mr. 0. proceeded to re- 
 mark, that it was extremely depreciated, and, in degrees, 
 varying according to the different sections of the country. 
 All would assent, that this state of the currency was a stain 
 on public and private credit, and injurious to the morals of 
 the community. This was so clear a position that it required 
 no proof. There were, however, other considerations, arising 
 from the state of the currency, not so distinctly felt, nor so 
 generally assented to. The state of our circulating medium 
 was, he said, opposed to the principles of the federal consti- 
 tution. The power was given to Congress, by that instru- 
 ment, in express terms, to regulate the currency of the 
 United States. In point of fact, he said, that power, though 
 given to Congress, is not in their hands. The power is 
 exercised by banking institutions, no longer responsible for 
 the correctness with which they manage it. Gold and silver 
 have disappeared entirely. There is no money but paper 
 money ; and that money is beyond the control of Congress. 
 No one, he said, who referred to the constitution, could 
 doubt that the money of the United States was intended to 
 be placed entirely under the control of Congress. The only 
 object the framers of the constitution could have had in view, 
 in giving to Congress the power to coin money, regulate the 
 value thereof, and of foreign coins, must have been to give 
 a steadiness and fixed value to the currency of the United 
 States. The state of things, at the time of the adoption of 
 the constitution, afforded Mr. C. an argument in support of 
 his construction. There then existed, he said, a depreciated 
 paper currency, which could only be regulated and made 
 uniform by giving a power for that purpose to the General 
 Government. The States could not do it. He argued, 
 therefore, taking into view the prohibition against the States 
 issuing bills of credit, that there was a strong presumption
 
 156 ^ SPEECHES. 
 
 this power was intended to be given exclusively to Congress. 
 Mr. C. acknowledged there is no provision in the constitution 
 by which the States were prohibited from creating banks which 
 now exercise this power. But, he said, that banks were then 
 but little known. There was but one, the Bank of North 
 America, with a capital of only four hundred thousand 
 dollars, and the universal opinion was that bank-notes repre- 
 sented gold and silver ; and that, under this impression, there 
 could be no necessity to prohibit banking institutions, be- 
 cause their notes always represented gold and silver ; and 
 these could not be multiplied beyond the demands of the 
 country. Mr. C. drew the distinction between banks of 
 deposit and banks of discount ; the latter of which were then 
 but little understood, and their abuse not conceived of until 
 demonstrated by recent experience. No man, he remarked, 
 in the convention, as much talent and wisdom as it con- 
 tained, could possibly have foreseen the course of these in- 
 stitutions ; that they would have multiplied from one to two 
 hundred and sixty ; from a capital of four hundred thousand 
 dollars to one of eighty millions ; from being consistent with 
 the provisions of the constitution, and the exclusive right of 
 Congress to regulate the currency, that they would be directly 
 opposed to it ; that, so far from their credit depending on 
 their punctuality in redeeming their bills with specie, they 
 might go on ad infinitum in violation of their contract, with- 
 out a dollar in their vaults. There had indeed, Mr. C. said, 
 been an extraordinary revolution in the currency of the 
 country. By a sort of under-current, the power of Congress 
 to regulate the money of the country had caved in, and upon 
 its ruins had sprung up those institutions which now exer- 
 cised the right of making money for and in the United 
 States ; for gold and silver are not now the only money 
 whatever is the medium of purchase and sale must take 
 their place ; and, as bank paper alone was now employed 
 for this purpose, it had become the money of the country.
 
 SPEECHES. 157 
 
 v 
 
 A change great and wonderful has taken place, said he, 
 which divests you of your rights, and turns you back to the 
 condition of the revolutionary war, in which every State 
 issued bills of credit, which were made a legal tender, and 
 were of various values. 
 
 This then, Mr. C. said, was the evil. We have, in lieu 
 of gold and silver, a paper medium, unequally but gen- 
 erally depreciated, which affects the trade and industry of 
 the country ; which paralyzes the national arm ; which 
 sullies the faith, both public and private, of the United 
 States ; a medium no longer resting on gold and silver as its 
 basis. We have, indeed, laws regulating the currency of 
 foreign coins ; but they are, under present circumstances, a 
 mockery of legislation, because there is no coin in circulation. 
 The right of making money, an attribute of sovereign pow- 
 er, a sacred and important right, was exercised by two hun- 
 dred and sixty banks, scattered over every part of the Uni- 
 ted States, not responsible to any power whatever for their 
 issues of paper. ^ The next and great inquiry was, he said, 
 how this evil was to be remedied. Kestore, said he, these 
 institutions to their original use ; cause them to give up 
 their usurped power ; cause them to return to their legiti- 
 mate office of places of discount and deposit ; let them be 
 no longer mere paper machines ; restore the state of things 
 which existed anterior to 1813, which was consistent with 
 the just policy and interests of the country ; cause them to 
 fulfil their contracts to respect their broken faith ; resolve 
 that every where there shall be a uniform value to the nation- 
 al currency ; your constitutional control will then prevail. 
 
 How then, he proceeded to examine, was this desirable 
 end to be attained ? What difficulty stood in the way ? 
 The reason why the banks could not now comply with their 
 contracts, was that conduct, which, in private life, frequently 
 produces the same effect. It was owing to the prodigality 
 of their engagements, without means to fulfil them ; to their
 
 158 m SPEECHES 
 
 issuing more paper than they could possibly redeem with 
 specie. In the United States, according to the best estimate, 
 there were not in the vaults of all the banks more than fif- 
 teen millions of specie, with a capital amounting to about 
 eighty-two millions of dollars. Hence the cause of the de- 
 preciation of bank-notes the excess of paper in circulation 
 beyond that of specie in their vaults. This excess was visi- 
 ble to the eye, and almost audible to the ear ; so familiar 
 was the fact, that this paper was emphatically called "trash" 
 or "rags" According to estimation, also, he said there 
 were in circulation at the same date, within the United 
 States, two hundred millions of dollars of bank-notes, credit, 
 and bank paper in one shape or other. Supposing thirty 
 millions of these to be in possession of the banks themselves, 
 there were, perhaps, one hundred and seventy millions actu- 
 ally in circulation, or on which the banks draw interest. The 
 proportion between demand and supply, which regulates the 
 price of every thing, regulates also the value of this paper. 
 In proportion as the issue is excessive, it depreciates in value 
 and no wonder, when, since 1810 or 1811, the amount 
 of paper in circulation had increased from eighty or 
 ninety, to two hundred millions. Mr. C. here examined the 
 opinion entertained by some gentlemen, that bank paper 
 had not depreciated, but that gold and silver had appre- 
 ciated a position he denied by arguments, founded on the 
 portability of gold and silver, which would equalize their 
 value in every part of the United States ; and on the facts 
 that gold and silver coin had increased in quantity instead of 
 diminishing, and that exchange on Great Britain (at gold 
 and silver value) had been, for some time past, in favor of 
 the United States. Yet, he said, gold and silver were leav- 
 ing our shores. In fact we have degraded the metallic cur- 
 rency ; we have treated it with indignity ; it leaves us and 
 seeks an asylum on foreign shores. Let it become again the 
 basis of bank transactions and it will revisit us.
 
 SPEECHES. 159 
 
 Haviug established, as he conceived, in the course of his 
 remarks, that the excess of paper issue was the true and only 
 cause of depreciation of our paper currency, Mr. C. turned 
 his attention to the manner in which that excess had been 
 produced. It was intimately connected with the suspension 
 of specie payments. They stood as cause and effect. First, 
 the excessive issues caused the suspension of specie pay- 
 ments ; and advantage had been taken of that suspension to 
 issue still greater floods of it. The banks had undertaken to 
 do a new business, uncongenial with the nature of such insti- 
 tutions. They undertook to make loans to Government, 
 not as brokers, but as stockholders a practice wholly incon- 
 sistent with specie payments. After showing the difference 
 between the ordinary business of a bank, in discounts, and 
 the making loans for twelve years, Mr. C. said, indisputably 
 the latter practice was a great and leading cause of the sus- 
 pension of specie payments. Of this species of property 
 (public stock) the banks in the United States held, on the 30th 
 day of September last, about eighteen and a half millions, 
 and a nearly equal amount of treasury notes, besides stock 
 for long loans made to the State Governments ; amounting, 
 altogether, to nearly forty millions being a large proportion 
 of their actual capital. This, he said, was the great cause 
 of the suspension of specie payments. 
 
 Had the banks (he now discussed the question) the capacity 
 to resume specie payments ? If they have the disposition, 
 they may resume specie payments. The banks, he said, were 
 not insolvent : they never were more solvent. If so, the term 
 itself implies, that if time be allowed them they may, before 
 long, be in a condition to resume payments of specie. If the 
 banks would regularly and consentaneously begin to dispose 
 of their stock, to call in their notes for the treasury notes 
 they have, and moderately to curtail their private dis- 
 counts ; if they would act in concert in this manner, they 
 might resume specie payments. If they were to withdraw,
 
 160 SPEECHES. 
 
 by the sale of a part only of their stock and treasury notes, 
 twenty-five millions of their notes from circulation, the rest 
 would be appreciated to par, or nearly so ; and they would 
 still have fifteen millions of stock disposable to send to Eu- 
 rope for specie, &c. With $30,000,000 in their vaults, and 
 so much of their paper withdrawn from circulation, they 
 would be in a condition to resume payments in specie. The 
 only difficulty that of producing concert was one which 
 it belonged to Congress to surmount. The indisposition of 
 the banks, from motives of interest, obviously growing out 
 of the vast profits most of them have lately realized, by which 
 the stockholders have received from 12 to 20 per cent, on 
 their stock, would be, he showed, the greatest obstacle. 
 What, he asked, was a bank ? An institution, under present 
 uses, to make money. What was the instinct of such an 
 institution ? Gain, gain, nothing but gain : and they would 
 not willingly relinquish their gain, from the present state of 
 things (which was profitable to them), acting as they did 
 without restraint and without hazard. Those who believe 
 that the present state of things would ever cure itself, Mr. 
 C. said, must believe what is impossible. Banks must change 
 their nature, lay aside their instinct, before they will volun- 
 tarily aid in doing what it is not their interest to do. By this 
 process of reasoning he came to the conclusion that it rested 
 with Congress to make them return to specie payments, by 
 making it their interest to do so. This introduced the sub- 
 ject of the National Bank. 
 
 A national bank, he said, paying specie itself, would have 
 a tendency to make specie payments general, as well by its 
 influence as by its example. It will be the interest of the 
 National Bank to produce this state of things, because, other- 
 wise, its operations will be greatly circumscribed ; as it must 
 pay out specie or national bank-notes : for he presumed one 
 of the first rules of such a bank would be, to take the notes 
 of no bank which did not pay in gold or silver. A national
 
 SPEECHES. 161 
 
 bank of thirty-five millions, with the aid of those banks 
 which are at once ready to pay specie, would produce a 
 powerful effect all over the Union. Further; a national 
 bank would enable the Government to resort to measures 
 which would make it unprofitable to banks to continue the 
 violation of their contracts, and advantageous to return to the 
 observance of them. The leading measures, of this character, 
 would be to strip the banks, refusing to pay specie, of all the 
 profits arising from the business of the Government ; to pro- 
 hibit deposits with them ; and to refuse to receive their notes 
 in payment of dues to the Government. How far such 
 measures would be efficacious in producing a return to specie 
 payments, he was unable to say ; but it was as far as he was 
 willing to go, at the present session. If they persisted in re- 
 fusing to resume payments in specie, Congress must resort to 
 measures of a deeper tone, which they might rightfully do. 
 
 The restoration of specie payments, Mr. 0. argued, would 
 remove the embarrassments under which the industry of the 
 country labored, and the stains from its public and private 
 faith. It remained to see, whether this House, without 
 whose aid it was in vain to expect success in this object, 
 would have the fortitude to apply the remedy. If this was 
 not the proper remedy, he hoped such an one would be pro- 
 posed as a substitute, instead of opposing this by vague and 
 general declamation against banks. The disease, he said, 
 was deep : it affected public opinion, and whatever affects 
 public opinion, touches the vitals of the Government. Here- 
 after Congress would never stand in the same relation to this 
 measure in which they now did. The disease arose in time 
 of war the war had subsided, but left the disease, which it 
 was now in the power of Congress to eradicate : but if they 
 did not now exercise the power, they would become abettoss 
 of a state of things which was of vital consequence to pub- 
 lic morality, as he showed by various illustrations. He called 
 upon the House, as guardians of the public weal, of the 
 
 VOL. II. 11
 
 162 SPEECHES. 
 
 health of the body politic, which depended on public morals, 
 to interpose against a state of things which was inconsistent 
 with both. He appealed to the House, too, as the guardians 
 of public and private faith. In what manner, he asked, 
 were the public contracts fulfilled ? In gold and silver, in 
 which the Government had stipulated to pay ? No. In 
 paper issued by these institutions ; in paper greatly depre- 
 ciated ; in paper depreciated from five to twenty per cent, 
 below the currency in which the Government had contracted 
 to pay, &c. He added another argument the inequality 
 of taxation, in consequence of the state of the circulating 
 medium ; which, notwithstanding the taxes were laid with 
 strict regard to the constitutional provision for their equality, 
 made the people in one section of the Union pay, perhaps, 
 one-fifth more of the same tax than those in another. The 
 constitution having given Congress the power to remedy 
 these evils, they were, he contended, deeply responsible for 
 their continuance. 
 
 The evil he desired to remedy, Mr. 0. said, was a deep 
 one almost incurable, because connected with public opin- 
 ion, over which banks have a great control. They have, in 
 a great measure, a control over the press, for proof of which 
 he referred to the fact that the present wretched state of the 
 circulating medium had scarcely been denounced by a single 
 paper within the United States. The derangement of the 
 circulating medium, he said, was a joint thrown out of its 
 socket. Let it remain for a short time in that state, and the 
 sinews will be so knit that it cannot be replaced : apply the 
 remedy soon, and it is an operation easy, though painful. 
 The evil grows, while the resistance to it becomes weak, and 
 unless checked at once will become irresistible. Mr. C. con- 
 cluded the speech, of which the above is a mere outline, by 
 observing, that he could have said much more on this impor- 
 tant subject, but he knew how difficult it was to gain the 
 attention of the House to long addresses.
 
 SPEECHES. 163 
 
 SPEECH 
 
 On the New Tariff Bill, delivered in the House of 
 Representatives, April 6th, 1816. 
 
 [NoxE. Under a resolution of the House (February 23, 1815), the 
 Secretary of the Treasury, on the 12th of February, 1816, submitted 
 an elaborate Report to Congress, on the subject of a general tariff of 
 duties proper to be imposed on imported goods, wares, and merchan- 
 dise. On this a Bill was subsequently framed, reported, and referred 
 to the Committee of the' Whole. The details were discussed at great 
 length and the Bill, after various amendments, finally passed the 
 House, April 8th, 1816, by a vote of 88 to 54. During the debate, an 
 amendment was moved by Mr. Tucker (not Mr. Randolph, as is 
 frequently stated), to strike out the minimum price of 25 cents per 
 square yard on cottons, which was warmly discussed. Mr. Calhoun, 
 Chairman of the Committee on the National Currency, was, at the 
 time, very busily engaged in framing his celebrated Report ; when he 
 was suddenly called from the committee room, by the Chairman of 
 the Committee on Manufactures, to reply to the arguments of Mr. 
 Tucker and others. The sketch of his remarks is, of course, imper- 
 fect. The views expressed were uttered on the spur of the occasion, 
 without study or premeditation ; and were not such (as the Speaker 
 has since publicly declared) as received the sanction of his more ma- 
 tured experience and reflection. The same remark may be made, gen- 
 erally, of his speeches on the Bank and Internal Improvement.] 
 
 THE debate heretofore on this subject has been on the 
 degree of protection which ought to be afforded to our cot- 
 ton and woollen manufactures : all professing to be friendly 
 to those infant establishments, and to be willing to extend to 
 them adequate encouragement. The present motion assumes 
 a new aspect. It is introduced professedly on the ground 
 that manufactures ought not to receive any encouragement ; 
 and will, in its operation, leave our cotton establishments ex-
 
 164 SPEECHES. 
 
 posed to the competition of the cotton goods of the East 
 Indies, which, it is acknowledged on all sides, they are not 
 capable of meeting with success, without the proviso propos- 
 ed to be stricken out by the motion now under discussion. 
 Till the debate assumed this new form, he had determined 
 to be silent ; participating, as he largely did, in that general 
 anxiety which is felt, after so long and laborious a session, to 
 return to the bosom of our families. But, on a subject of 
 such vital importance, touching, as it does, the security and 
 permanent prosperity of our country, he hoped that the 
 House would indulge him in a few observations. He regret- 
 ed much Ins want of preparation ; he meant not a verbal 
 preparation, for he had ever despised such ; but that due 
 and mature meditation and arrangement of thought which 
 the House is entitled to on the part of those who occupy any 
 portion of their time. But, whatever his arguments might 
 want on that account in weight, he hoped might be made up 
 in the disinterestedness of his situation. He was no manu- 
 facturer ; he was not from that portion of our country sup- 
 posed to be peculiarly interested. Coming, as he did, from 
 the South ; having, in common with his immediate constitu- 
 ents, no interest, but in the cultivation of the soil, in selling 
 its products high, and buying cheap the wants and conven- 
 iences of life, no motives could be attributed to him but such 
 as were disinterested. 
 
 He had asserted that the subject before them was con- 
 nected with the security of the country. It would, doubt- 
 less, by some be considered a rash assertion ; but he con- 
 ceived it to be susceptible of the clearest proof; and he 
 hoped, with due attention, to establish it to the satisfac- 
 tion of the House. 
 
 The security of a country mainly depends on its spirit 
 and its means ; and the latter principally on its moneyed 
 resources. Modified as the industry of this country now is, 
 combined with our peculiar situation and want of a naval
 
 SPEECHES. 165 
 
 ascendency, whenever we have the misfortune to be involved 
 in a war with a nation dominant on the ocean and it is 
 almost only with such we can at present be the moneyed 
 resources of the country to a great extent must fail. He 
 took it for granted that it was the duty of this body to adopt 
 those measures of prudent foresight which the event of war 
 made necessary. We cannot, he presumed, be indifferent to 
 dangers from abroad, unless, indeed, the House is prepared 
 to indulge in the phantom of eternal peace, which seems to 
 possess the dream of some of its members. Could such a 
 state exist, no foresight or fortitude would be necessary to 
 conduct the affairs of the republic ; but as it is the mere 
 illusion of the imaginations/as every people that ever has 
 or ever will exist is subjected to the vicissitudes of peace 
 and war, it must ever be considered as the plain dictate of 
 wisdom in peace to prepare for war/ What, then, let us 
 consider, constitute the resources of this countiy, and what 
 are the effects of war on them ? Commerce and agriculture, 
 till lately almost the only, still constitute the principal, 
 sources of our wealth. So long as these remain uninterrupted, 
 the country prospers ; but war, as we are now circumstanced, 
 is equally destructive to both. They both depend on foreign 
 markets ; and our country is placed, as it regards them, in a 
 situation strictly insular ; a wide ocean rolls between. Our 
 commerce neither is nor can be protected by the present 
 means of the country. What, then, % are the effects of a war 
 with a maritime power with England ? Our commerce 
 annihilated, spreading individual misery and producing na- 
 tional poverty ; our agriculture cut off from its accustomed 
 markets, the surplus product of the farmer perishes on his 
 hands, and he ceases to produce because he cannot sell. 
 His resources are dried up, while his expenses are greatly 
 increased ; as all manufactured articles, the necessaries as 
 well as the conveniences of life, rise to an extravagant price. 
 The recent war fell with peculiar pressure on the growers of
 
 166 SPEECHES. 
 
 cotton and tobacco, and other great staples of the country ; 
 and the same state of things will recur in the event of 
 another, unless prevented by the foresight of this body. If 
 the mere statement of facts did not carry conviction to every 
 mind, as he conceives it is calculated to do, additional 
 arguments might be drawn from the general nature of 
 wealth. Neither agriculture, manufactures, nor commerce, 
 taken separately, is the cause of wealth ; it flows from the 
 three combined, and cannot exist without each. The 
 wealth of any single nation or an individual, it is true, may 
 not immediately depend on the three, but such wealth 
 always presupposes their existence. He viewed the words 
 in the most enlarged sense. Without commerce, industry 
 would have no stimulus ; without manufactures, it would be 
 without the means of production ; and without agriculture 
 neither of the others can subsist. When separated entirely 
 and permanently, they perish. War in this country pro- 
 duces, to a great extent, that effect ; and hence the great 
 embarrassment which follows in its train. The failure of the 
 wealth and resources of the nation necessarily involved the 
 ruin of its finances and its currency. It is admitted by the 
 most strenuous advocates, on the other side, that no country 
 ought to be dependent on another for its means of defence ; 
 that, at least, our musket and bayonet, our cannon and ball 
 ought to be of domestic manufacture. But what, he asked, 
 is more necessary to the defence of a country than its cur- 
 rency and finance ? Circumstanced as our country is, can 
 these stand the shock of war ? Behold the effect of the 
 late war on them. When our manufactures are grown to 
 a certain perfection, as they soon will under the fostering 
 care of Government, we will no longer experience these evils. 
 The farmer will find a ready market for his surplus produce ; 
 and, what is almost of equal consequence, a certain and 
 cheap supply of all his wants. His prosperity will diffuse 
 itself to every class in the community ; and, instead of that
 
 SPEECHES. 167 
 
 languor of industry and individual distress now incident to 
 a state of war and suspended commerce, the wealth and 
 vigor of the community will not be materially impaired. 
 The arm of Government will be nerved ; and taxes in the 
 hour of danger, when essential to the independence of the 
 nation, may be greatly increased ; loans, so uncertain and 
 hazardous, may be less relied on ; thus situated, the storm may 
 beat without, but within all will be quiet and safe. To give 
 perfection to this state of things, it will be necessary to add, 
 as soon as possible, a system of internal improvements, and 
 at least such an extension of our navy as will prevent the 
 cutting off our coasting trade. The advantage of each is so 
 striking as not to require illustration, especially after the 
 experience of the recent war. It is thus the resources of this 
 Government and people would be placed beyond the power 
 of a foreign war materially to impair. But it may be said 
 that the derangement then experienced, resulted, not from 
 the cause assigned, but from the errors of the weakness of 
 the Government. He admitted that many financial blun- 
 ders were committed, for the subject was new to us ; that 
 the taxes were not laid sufficiently early, or to as great an 
 extent as they ought to have been ; and that the loans were 
 in some instances injudiciously made ; but he ventured to 
 affirm that, had the greatest foresight and fortitude been 
 exerted, the embarrassment would have been still very great ; 
 and that even under the best management, the total derange- 
 ment which was actually felt would not have been post- 
 poned eighteen months, had the war so long continued. 
 How could it be otherwise ? A war such as this country 
 was then involved in, in a great measure dries up the re- 
 sources of individuals, as he had already proved ; and the 
 resources of the Government are no more than the aggregate 
 of the surplus incomes of individuals called into action by a 
 system of taxation. It is certainly a great political evil, 
 incident to the character of the industry of this country,
 
 168 SPEECHES. 
 
 that, however prosperous our situation when at peace, with 
 an uninterrupted commerce and nothing then could exceed 
 it the moment that we were involved in war the whole is 
 reversed. When resources are most needed, when indispen- 
 sable to maintain the honor, yes, the very existence of the 
 nation, then they desert us. Our currency is also sure to 
 experience the shock, and become so deranged as to prevent 
 us from calling out fairly whatever of means is left to the 
 country. The result of a war in the present state of our 
 naval power, is the blockade of our coast, and consequent 
 destruction of our trade. The wants and habits of the 
 country, founded on the use of foreign articles, must be 
 gratified ; importation to a certain extent continues, through 
 the policy of the enemy or unlawful traffic ; the exportation 
 of our bulky articles is prevented, too ; the specie of the 
 country is drawn to pay the balance perpetually accumulat- 
 ing against us ; and the final result is, a total derangement 
 of our currency. ^To this distressing state of things there 
 were two remedies and only two ; one in our power imme- 
 diately, the other requiring much time and exertion ; but 
 both constituting, in his opinion, the essential policy of thisi 
 country : he meant the navy and domestic manufactures/ 
 By the former, we could open the way to our markets ; by 
 the latter, we bring them from beyond the ocean, and natu- 
 ralize them. Had we the means of attaining an immediate 
 naval ascendency, he acknowledged that the policy recom- 
 mended by this bill would be very questionable ; but as that 
 is not the fact as it is a period remote, with any exertion, 
 and will be probably more so from that relaxation of exertion 
 so natural in peace, when necessity is not felt, it becomes 
 the duty of this House to resort, to a considerable extent, at 
 least as far as is proposed, to the only remaining remedy. 
 
 But to this it has been objected that the country is not 
 prepared, and that the result of our premature exertion 
 would be to bring distress on it without effecting the intend-
 
 SPEECHES. 169 
 
 ed object. Were it so, however urgent the reasons in its fa- 
 vor, we ought to desist, as it is folly to oppose the laws of 
 necessity. But he could not for a moment yield to the as- 
 sertion ; on the contrary, he firmly believed that the country 
 is prepared, even to maturity, for the introduction of manu- 
 factures. We have abundance of resources, and things natu- 
 rally tend at this moment in that direction. A prosperous 
 commerce has poured an immense amount of commercial 
 capital into this country. This capital has, till lately, found 
 occupation in commerce ; but that state of the world which 
 transferred it to this country, and gave it active employment, 
 has passed away, never to return. Where shall we now find 
 full employment for our prodigious amount of tonnage 
 where markets for the numerous and abundant products of 
 our country ? This great body of active capital, which for 
 the moment has found sufficient employment in supplying our 
 markets, exhausted by the war and measures preceding it, 
 must find a new direction ; it will not be idle. What chan- 
 nel can it take but that of manufactures ? This, if things 
 continue as they are, will be its direction. It will introduce 
 a new era in our affairs, in many respects highly advanta- 
 geous, and ought to be countenanced by the Government. Be- 
 sides, we have already surmounted the greatest difficulty that 
 has ever been found in undertakings of this kind. The cot- 
 ton and woollen manufactures are not to be introduced they 
 are already introduced to a great extent ; freeing us entirely 
 from the hazards, and, in a great measure, the sacrifices ex- 
 perienced in giving the capital of the country a new direc- 
 tion. The restrictive measures and the war, though not in- 
 tended for that purpose, have, by the necessary operation of 
 things, turned a large amount of capital to this new branch 
 of industry. He had often heard it said, both in and out of 
 Congress, that this effect alone would indemnify the country 
 for all of its losses. So high was this tone of feeling when 
 the want of these establishments was practically felt, that
 
 170 SPEECHES. 
 
 he remembered, during the war, when some question was agi- 
 tated respecting the introduction of foreign goods, that many 
 then opposed it, on the grounds of injuring our manufac- 
 tures. He then said that war alone furnished sufficient stim- 
 ulus, and perhaps too much, as it would make their growth 
 unnaturally rapid ; but that, on the return of peace, it would 
 then be time for us to show our affection for them. He at 
 that time did not expect an apathy and aversion to the ex- 
 tent which is now seen. But it will no doubt be said, if they 
 are so far established, and if the situation of the country is 
 so favorable to their growth, where is the necessity of afford- 
 ing them protection ? It is to put them beyond the reach 
 of contingency. Besides, capital is not yet, and cannot for 
 some time be, adjusted to the new state of things. There is, 
 in fact, from the operation of temporary causes, a great 
 pressure on these establishments. They had extended so 
 rapidly during the late war, that many, he feared, were with- 
 out the requisite surplus capital or skill to meet the present 
 crisis. Should such prove to be the fact, it would give a 
 back set, and might, to a great extent, endanger their ulti- 
 mate success. Should the present owners be ruined, and the 
 workmen dispersed and turned to other pursuits, the country 
 would sustain a great loss. Such would, no doubt, be the 
 fact to a considerable extent, if not protected. Besides, cir- 
 cumstances, if we act with wisdom, are favorable to attract 
 to our country much skill and industry. The country in 
 Europe having the most skilful workmen is broken up. It 
 is to us, if wisely used, more valuable than the repeal of the 
 Edict of Nantz was to England. She had the prudence to 
 profit by it : let us not discover less political sagacity. Af- 
 ford to ingenuity and industry immediate and ample protec- 
 tion, and they will not fail to give a preference to this free 
 and happy country. 
 
 It has been objected to this bill, that it will injure our 
 marine, and consequently impair our naval strength. How
 
 SPEECHES. 171 
 
 far it is fairly liable to this charge, he was not prepared to 
 say. He hoped and believed it would not, at least to any 
 alarming extent, have that effect immediately ; and he firm- 
 ly believed that its lasting operation would be highly benefi- 
 cial to our commerce. The trade to the East Indies would 
 certainly be much affected ; but it was stated in debate that 
 the whole of the trade employed but six hundred sailors. 
 But, whatever might be the loss in this or other branches of 
 our foreign commerce, he trusted it would be amply compen- 
 sated in our coasting trade, a branch of navigation wholly 
 in our own hands. It has at all times employed a great 
 amount of tonnage ; something more, he believed, than one- 
 third of the whole : nor is it liable to the imputation thrown 
 out by a member from North Carolina (Mr. Graston), that it 
 produced inferior sailors. It required long and dangerous 
 voyages ; and, if his information was correct, no branch of 
 trade made better or more skilful seamen. The fact that it 
 is wholly in our own hands is a very important one, while 
 every branch of our foreign trade must suffer from com- 
 petition with other nations. 
 
 Other objections of a political character were made to the 
 encouragement of manufactures. It is said they destroy the 
 moral and physical power of the people. This might former- 
 ly have been true, to a considerable extent, before the perfec- 
 tion of machinery, and when the success of the manufactures 
 depended on the minute subdivision of labor. At that time 
 it required a large portion of the population of a country to 
 be engaged in them ; and every minute subdivision of labor 
 is undoubtedly unfavorable to the intellect ; but the great 
 perfection of machinery has in a considerable degree obviated 
 these objections. In fact, it has been stated that the manu- 
 facturing districts in England furnish the greatest number of 
 recruits to her army ; and that, as soldiers, they are not ma- 
 terially inferior to the rest of her population. It has been 
 further asserted that manufactures are the fruitful cause of
 
 172 SPEECHES. 
 
 pauperism ; and England has been referred to as furnishing 
 conclusive evidence of its truth. For his part, he could per- 
 ceive no such tendency in them, hut the exact contrary, as 
 they furnished new stimulus and means of subsistence to the 
 laboring classes of the community. We ought not to look 
 to the cotton and woollen establishments of Great Britain 
 for the prodigious numbers of poor with which her population 
 was disgraced. Causes much more efficient exist. Her poor 
 laws, and statutes regulating the price of labor, with heavy 
 taxes, were the real causes. But, if it must be so if the 
 mere fact that England manufactured more than any other 
 country explained the cause of her having more beggars, it is 
 just as reasonable to refer to it her courage, spirit, and all her 
 masculine virtues, in which she excels all other nations, with 
 a single exception, he meant our own in which we might, 
 without vanity, challenge a pre-eminence. 
 
 Another objection had been made, which, he must acknow- 
 ledge, was better founded : that capital employed in manu- 
 facturing produced a greater dependence on the part of the 
 employed, than in commerce, navigation, or agriculture. It 
 is certainly an evil, and to be regretted ; but he did not 
 think it a decisive objection to the system ; especially when 
 it had incidental political advantages which, in his opinion, 
 more than counterpoised it. It produced an interest strictly 
 American, as much so as agriculture ; in which it had the 
 decided advantage of commerce or navigation. The country 
 will from this derive much advantage. Again, it is calcula- 
 ted to bind together more closely our widely-spread republic. 
 It will greatly increase our mutual dependence and inter- 
 course ; and will, as a necessary consequence, excite an in- 
 creased attention to Internal Improvements, a subject every 
 way so intimately connected with the ultimate attainment 
 of national strength and the perfection of our political insti- 
 tutions. He regarded the fact that it would make the parts 
 adhere more closely ; that it would form a new and most
 
 SPEECHES. 173 
 
 powerful cement, and outweighing any political objections 
 that might be urged against the system. In his opin- 
 ion the liberty and the union of this country were insepa- 
 rably united. That, as the destruction of the latter would 
 most certainly involve the former, so its maintenance will, 
 with equal certainty, preserve it. He did not speak lightly. 
 He had often and long revolved it in his mind, and he had crit- 
 ically examined into the causes that destroyed the liberty of 
 other states. There are none that apply to us, or apply 
 with a force to alarm. The basis of our republic is too 
 broad, and its structure too strong, to be shaken by them. 
 Its extension and organization will be found to afford effec- 
 tual security against their operation ; but let it be deeply im- 
 pressed on the heart of this House and country, that, while 
 they guarded against the old, they exposed us to a new and 
 terrible danger, Disunion. This single word comprehended 
 almost the sum of our political dangers ; and against it we 
 ought to be perpetually guarded. 
 
 SPEECH 
 
 On the Compensation Bill, delivered in the House 
 of Kepresentatives, Jan. 17th, 1817. 
 
 [NOTE. March 4th, 1816. Mr. Johnson of Kentucky moved 
 the appointment of a Special Committee to inquire into the expe- 
 diency of changing the mode of compensating Members of Congress, 
 from a per diem to an annual allowance ; and on March 6th, as its 
 chairman, reported a Bill fixing the amount at $1,500 per session. 
 The debate, which continued until late on March 8th, when it was 
 passed by a vote of 81 to 67, was animated and, in some respects, 
 acrimonious. No question, apparently so trivial, ever produced so 
 general an excitement through the country. The measure was de-
 
 174 SPEECHES. 
 
 nounced every where, from the hustings, in the primary assemblies 
 of the people, and even by the Legislatures of many of the States. The 
 storm raged so violently that, early in the ensuing session of Congress, 
 a Bill on the motion of Mr. Johnson was introduced to repeal the 
 obnoxious Act, which, after some opposition, passed January 23d, 
 1817.] 
 
 I HOPE the House will not agree to fill the blanks with 
 six dollars, as reported by the Committee of the Whole. 
 I have remained silent thus long, not that I agree with 
 those who think this a trivial question, but because I was 
 anxious, in ultimately making up my mind, to profit by the 
 observations of others. I have now, however, finally decided 
 on the course I intend to pursue. If the blank should be 
 filled with a sum fully equal to the present pay, I shall vote 
 for the bill on its passage ; not that, in itself, I prefer the 
 daily to the annual pay ; for on this point, my opinion 
 remains unaltered. I believe the latter, for several reasons 
 not necessary to repeat, to be in itself preferable. The 
 daily, however, has one advantage at present over the other 
 mode ; it has a better prospect of being permanent. If 
 the pay be left in its present form, it will most certainly be 
 repealed by the next Congress, whatever may be the feelings 
 of a majority of that body, as to the mode or amount. They 
 will not be free agents most of them being already com- 
 mitted in the canvass for a seat in this House. But should 
 the mode be changed and the amount retained, the very 
 men who have turned out the most of us, who have been the 
 agitators in the late elections will, in all probability, become 
 the pacificators ; for we may be perfectly assured of one fact, 
 that the feelings of those gentlemen are very different now 
 from what they were before the elections. If you change the 
 mode, they will seize the opportunity, and assert that you 
 have now done what ought originally to have been done. 
 Should the blank not be filled with an adequate sum, say 
 nine or ten dollars a day, I shall vote against the passage of
 
 SPEECHES. 175 
 
 the bill, so as to retain the present law. But if it must 
 come to a repeal, I would prefer it to take place after the 
 4th of March next, so as to leave the subject entirely open 
 for the next Congress. Such is the course which my judg- 
 ment admonishes me to pursue. 
 
 It has more than once been said, that this is not an im- 
 portant subject. If the observation be made in reference to 
 the members who now compose this body, I readily assent. 
 To them it is a trivial subject. They are free agents, and 
 if they find the sacrifice too considerable, they can, at any 
 moment, return to those private pursuits, so much more pro- 
 fitable, and, in many respects, desirable. We then, as indi- 
 viduals, have no right to complain, should the pay be 
 reduced to the smallest amount. But there is another aspect 
 of this subject, of a very different character. The question 
 of adequate, or inadequate compensation to the members of 
 Congress, is, if I am not greatly mistaken, intimately con- 
 nected with the very essence of our liberty. This House is 
 the foundation of the fabric of that liberty. So happy is its 
 constitution, that, in all instances of a general nature, its 
 duty and its interest are inseparable. If I understand cor- 
 rectly the structure of our Government, the prevailing prin- 
 ciple is not so much a balance of power as a well connected 
 chain of responsibility. This responsibility commences here, 
 and this House is the centre of its operation. The members 
 are elected for two years only ; and, at the end of that period, 
 are responsible to their constituents for the faithful discharge 
 of their public duties. Besides, the very structure of the House 
 is admirably calculated to unite interest and duty. The 
 members of Congress have, in their individual capacity, no 
 power or prerogative. These attach to the entire body 
 assembled here, and acting under certain set forms. We 
 then, as individuals, are not less amenable to the laws which 
 we enact, than the humblest citizen. Such is the responsi- 
 bility such the structure such the sure foundation of
 
 176 SPEECHES. 
 
 our liberty. If we turn our attention to what are called fhe 
 co-ordinate branches of our Government, we find them very 
 differently constructed. The judiciary is in no degree re- 
 sponsible to the people immediately. To Congress to this 
 body is the whole of their responsibility. Such too, in a 
 great measure, is the theory of our Government, as applied 
 to the executive branch. It is true the President is elected 
 for a term of years ; but that term is twice the length of 
 ours ; and, besides, his election is, in point of fact, removed 
 in all of the States three degrees from the people. The 
 electors in many of the States, are chosen by the State Legis- 
 latures ; and where that is not formally the case, it is never- 
 theless in point of fact effected through the agency of those 
 bodies. But what mainly distinguishes the legislative and 
 executive branches, as regards their actual responsibility to 
 the people, is the nature of their operation. It is the duty of 
 the former to enact laws, of the latter to execute them. 
 Every citizen of ordinary information, is capable, in a greater 
 or less degree, of forming an opinion of the propriety of the 
 law and, consequently, of judging whether Congress has or 
 has not done its duty ; but of the execution of the laws, 
 they are far less competent to judge. How can the com- 
 munity judge, whether the President, in appointing officers 
 to execute the laws, has in all cases been governed by fair 
 and honest motives, or by favor and corruption ? How 
 much less competent is it to judge whether the application 
 of the public money has been made with economy and fide- 
 lity, or with extravagance and dishonesty ! These are facts 
 that can be fully investigated, and brought before the public 
 by Congress, and Congress only. Hence it is that the con- 
 stitution has made the President responsible to Congress. 
 This, then, is the essence of our liberty : Congress is respon- 
 sible to the people immediately, and the other branches of 
 the Government are responsible to it. What, then, becomes 
 of the theory of the Government, if the President holds
 
 SPEECHES. 177 
 
 offices in his gift, which, as regards honor or profit, are more 
 desirable than a seat in this House, the only office imme- 
 diately in the gift of the people 
 
 [Here Mr. C. checked himself.] 
 
 I find myself committing an unpardonable error, in pre- 
 senting arguments to this body. The ear of this House, on 
 this subject, is closed to truth and reason. What has pro- 
 duced this magic spell ? Instructions ! Well, then, has it 
 come to this ? Have the people of this counlry snatched 
 the power of deliberation from this body? Have they 
 resolved the Government into its original elements, and re- 
 sumed their primitive power of legislation ? Are we, then, 
 a body of individual agents, and not a deliberative one, with- 
 out the power, but possessing the form of legislation ? If 
 such be the fact, let gentlemen produce their instructions, 
 properly authenticated. Let them name the time and place 
 at which the people assembled and deliberated on this ques- 
 tion. Oh, no ! they have no written, no verbal instructions ; 
 but they have implied instructions. The law is unpopular, 
 arid they are bound to repeal it, in opposition to their con- 
 sciences and reason. Have gentlemen reflected on the conse- 
 quences of this doctrine ? Are we bound in all cases to do 
 what is popular ? If this be true, how are political errors, 
 once prevalent, ever to be corrected ? Suppose a party to 
 spring up in this country, whose real views should be the de- 
 struction of liberty ; suppose that, by management, by the 
 patronage of offices, by the corruption of the press, they 
 should delude the people, and obtain a majority (and surely 
 such a state of things is not impossible) ; what, then, will 
 be the effect of this doctrine ? Ought we to sit quiet ? 
 Ought we to be dumb ? or, rather, ought we to approve, 
 though we see that liberty is to be ingulfed ? This doctrine 
 of implied instruction, if I am not mistaken, is a new one, 
 for the first time broached in this House ; and, if I am not 
 
 VOL. II. 12
 
 178 SPEECHES. 
 
 greatly deceived, not more new than dangerous It is very 
 different in its character and effects from the old doctrine, 
 that the constituents have a right to assemble and formally 
 to instruct the representative ; and though I would not hold 
 myself bound to obey any such instructions, yet I con- 
 ceive that the doctrine is not of a very dangerous character, 
 as the good sense of the people has as yet prevented them 
 from exercising such a right, and will, in all probability, in 
 future prevent them. But this novel doctrine is of a far 
 different character. Such instructions may exist any day, 
 and on any subject. It may be always at hand to justify 
 any aberration from political duty. I ask its advocates, in 
 what do they differ in their actions from the mere trimmer 
 the political weathercock ? It is true, the one may have in 
 view his own advancement, in consulting his popularity ; 
 and the other may be governed by a mistaken but con- 
 scientious regard to duty ; yet, how is the country benefited 
 by this difference, since they equally abandon the plain road 
 of truth and reason, to worship at the shrine of this political 
 idol ? It was said by a member from Massachusetts (Mr. 
 Conner), that this right of instruction is only denied in 
 monarchies ; and in proof of it, he cited the opinion of Mr. 
 Burke, (whom he called a pensioner,) expressed at the Bristol 
 election. So far is he from being correct, that in none of 
 the free governments of antiquity can he point out the least 
 trace of his doctrine. It originated in the modern govern- 
 ments of Europe, particularly in that of Great Britain. The 
 English parliament had, at its origin, no other power or duty 
 but to grant money to the crown ; and as the members of 
 that body were frequently urgently pressed to enlarge their 
 money-grants, it was a very convenient excuse, to avoid the 
 squeeze, to say that they were not instructed. The gentle- 
 man was incorrect in calling Burke a pensioner, at the time 
 he delivered the celebrated speech at the Bristol polls. 
 Burke, at that time, whatever may have been his subsequent
 
 SPEECHES. 179 
 
 character, was a prominent champion in the cause of liberty 
 and of this country ; and if the gentleman will recur to the 
 points in which he refused to obey the instructions of his 
 constituents, it will not greatly increase his affection for 
 such doctrines. That mind must be greatly different from 
 mine, which can read that speech, and not embrace its 
 doctrines. 
 
 I, too, am an advocate for instruction. I am instructed. 
 The constitution is my letter of instruction. Written by 
 the hand of the people stamped with their authority it 
 admits of no doubt as to its obligations. Your very acts in 
 opposition to its authority, are null. This is the solemn 
 voice of the people, to which I bow in perfect submission. 
 It is here the vox populi is the vox Dei. This is the all- 
 powerful creative voice which spake our Government into 
 existence, and made us politically as we are. This body is 
 the first orb in the political creation, and stands next in au- 
 thority to the original creative voice of the people ; and any 
 attempt to give a different direction to its movement, from 
 what the constitution and the deliberate consideration of its 
 members point out, I consider as an innovation on the prin- 
 ciples of our Government. / This is necessary, to make the 
 people really happy ; and dny one invested with public au- 
 thority, ought to be as sensibly alive to the people's happi- 
 ness, as some gentlemen wish the House to be to mere 
 popularity. A. know that such is the structure of our 
 Government, that the permanent feeling of the community 
 will impress itself on this House. I rejoice that such is the 
 fact, as there would be no security for liberty, were it other- 
 wise. The sense of the people, operating fairly and consti- 
 tutionally through elections, will be felt on this very subject, 
 at the very next session/ but surely the question by whom 
 the repeal is to be effected, is one of no slight importance. 
 It can, by our successors, if they think proper, be at least 
 consistently done ; by us, it cannot. Should we reduce the
 
 180 SPEECHES. 
 
 compensation to the old rates, when it is well known that 
 the sense of a great majority of this House is wholly averse 
 to it, besides the great loss of individual character which we 
 must sustain, it is calculated to bring into suspicion the 
 political characters of all, to the great injury of the pub- 
 lic. You may rely on it, the public wish and expect us 
 to act on the convictions of our mind and will, and will not 
 tolerate the idea, that either on this or any other important 
 occasion you are acting a part, and that you studiously 
 shape your conduct to catch the applause of the audience. 
 
 I hope I shall not be misunderstood : that, while I com- 
 bat the idea that we are bound to do such acts as will render 
 us popular (for such I understand to be the doctrine), we 
 are to overlook the character of those for whom we arfe to 
 make laws. This is most studiously to be regarded, y The 
 laws ought, in all cases, to fit the permanent and settled 
 character of the community. The state of public feeling, 
 then, is a fact to be reasoned upon, and to receive that 
 weight on any particular question to which it may fairly be 
 entitled. But, for my part, I prefer that erectness of mind 
 which, in all cases, is disposed to embrace what is, in itself, 
 just and wise. Such a character of mind I think more use- 
 ful, under our form of government, than any other, and more 
 certain of the applause of after ages. If I be not mistaken, 
 it constitutes the very essence of the admired characters of 
 antiquity, such as Cato, Phocion, and Aristides ; and if we 
 could conceive them divested of this trait, they would cease 
 to be the objects of our admiration. 
 
 Taking it for granted that I have succeeded in proving 
 that this House is at liberty to decide on this question ac- 
 cording to the dictates of its best judgment, I now resume 
 the argument where I dropped it. I have- proved that this 
 House is the foundation of our liberty ; that it is responsible 
 to the people for the faithful discharge of its duties, and 
 that every other branch of Government is responsible to it, as
 
 SPEECHES. 181 
 
 the immediate representative of the people ; and, that it is 
 essential to the fair operation of the principles of our consti- 
 tution, that this body be not in any degree under the influ- 
 ence of the other branches of the Government. How then 
 stands the fact ? I beg that no one will attribute to me 
 factious views. I shall speak with relation to no particular 
 measure or men. I wish simply to illustrate general princi- 
 ples ; to speak to the constitution and the laws. How then, 
 I repeat, is the fact ? Are there not in the power of the 
 President a multitude of offices more profitable, and many 
 both more profitable and honorable, in public estimation, 
 than a seat in this House the only office in the General Gov- 
 ernment in the gift of the people ? Have we not seen, in 
 many instances, men attracted out of this house to fill subor- 
 dinate Executive offices, whose only temptation was pay ; 
 and what is far more dangerous, and in every respect much 
 more to be dreaded, do we not see the very best talents of 
 the House, men of the most aspiring character, anxious to 
 fill the departments or foreign missions ? Let me not be 
 understood to throw blame on them. The. fault is not so 
 much in them as in the system. Congress, then, is only the 
 first step in the flight of honorable distinction ; so high 
 the people can raise the aspirant ; to go beyond, to rise to 
 the highest, the Executive must take him by the hand. On 
 what side, then, must his inclination be ? on the side of his 
 constituents, who can do no more than keep him where he 
 is ? or on that of the Executive power, on whom his future 
 hopes must depend ? Setting corruption aside, which I be- 
 lieve has made no inroad on us, take human nature as it is, 
 can you expect in ordinary virtue, that vigilant and bold 
 oversight over the Executive power which the constitution 
 supposes, and which is necessary to coerce a power possessed 
 of so much patronage ? I am aware the evil is difficult to 
 be cured. It is the opinion of some, that no member of either 
 House ought to be capable of appointment to any office
 
 182 SPEECHES. 
 
 for the term for which, the President is elected. It is woi- 
 thy of reflection. For my part, but one objection occurs to 
 me, which I cannot surmount : I fear that so long as the 
 Executive offices which I have mentioned, continue to be 
 more desirable than a seat in this House, such a regulation 
 would tend still further to depress the legislature. The best 
 materials for politics would systematically avoid Congress, 
 and approach Executive favor through some other avenue. 
 Whether this or some other plan be adopted in part, I am 
 confident it is necessary to make a seat in Congress more de- 
 sirable than it is even at the present pay. What sum was 
 sufficient for that purpose I stated last year in debate, and I 
 have only to regret, that the country did not see the same 
 necessity with me on this point. Gentlemen say we ought 
 to come here for pure patriotism and honor. It sounds well ; 
 but, if the system be adopted to its full extent, there will 
 be found neither patriotism nor honor sufficient for continual 
 privations. We must regard human nature as it is, and par- 
 ticularly that portion for which wp legislate. Our country- 
 men, with many admirable qualities, are, in my opinion, 
 greatly distinguished by the love of acquisition I will not 
 call it avarice and the love of honorable distinction. I 
 object to neither of these traits. They both grow necessari- 
 ly out of the character of our country and institutions. Our 
 population advances beyond that of all other countries ; 
 marriages in all conditions of life take place at an early pe- 
 riod. Hence the duty imposed on almost every one to make 
 provision for a growing family ; hence our love of gain, which 
 in most instances, is founded on the purest virtues. The 
 love of distinction is not less deeply fixed. In a country 
 where qualities are so mixed, reliance ought not to be had 
 wholly on honor or on profit. They ought to be blended in 
 due proportion. The truth is, that no office requiring long- 
 continued privations will be honored, unless duly rewarded ; 
 for, if not, it ceases to be an object of pursuit. If these
 
 SPEECHES. 183 
 
 views be correct, the effect of an adequate reward is not only 
 to attract talent to the place where it is most needed the 
 legislature but to make it more stationary there, and, what 
 is more essential, to place it more beyond Executive control, 
 and thus to realize the full effects of the theory of your 
 Government. The additional expense would not be felt ; 
 and I know of no other objection, which has the least plausi- 
 bility, except, that we cannot plead the example of any other 
 country ; and that it is calculated to produce too much com- 
 petition for a seat in Congress. I acknowledge the want of 
 example in other countries, and I think it worth serious in- 
 vestigation, what effect it has had on the permanency of 
 their liberties. But why should we look for examples either 
 to the State legislatures or to other countries ? In what 
 other instance have the duties of legislation involved so great 
 a sacrifice of time and domestic pursuits ? Compare our 
 services here with those of a judge, or of Executive officers, 
 and they will be found not less burdensome. Nor do I fear 
 that the competition for a seat in Congress will be too ani- 
 mated. I believe that a sharply contested election, if cor- 
 ruption does not enter, is of public advantage. It brings 
 the proceedings of this body more fully before the people, 
 and makes them much better acquainted with their interest. 
 It even makes a seat here more honorable in public estima- 
 tion. Nor am I afraid that competition will produce corrup- 
 tion. Fifteen hundred or two thousand dollars a year will 
 not be sufficient for this purpose. An election to Congress 
 is, in this respect, more safe than that to a State legislature, 
 as it requires so many more to elect to the former than to 
 the latter. This security grows with the increasing growth 
 of the country ; as the number of constituents increase rela- 
 tively to the representatives. There are other and im- 
 portant considerations connected with a just compensation to 
 the members of this body ; but, as they have been fairly 
 presented by the report of the committee, I will not fully
 
 184 SPEECHES. 
 
 discuss them. By inadequate pay, you close the door of 
 public honor on some of the most deserving citizens. Tal- 
 ent in this country is principally from the middling and low- 
 er classes. These, in fact, constitute the great body of the 
 community. A young man of talents spends his property 
 and time in acquiring sufficient information to pursue a pro- 
 fession ; he proves worthy of public confidence ; ought he 
 not to receive indemnity for the application of his time and 
 talents to the service of his country ? It would be economy 
 with a vengeance, to exclude all such from the halls of legis- 
 lation, or to make them mere political adventurers, who 
 would enter here only for further promotion. The extent of 
 our country points out another and powerful reason why the 
 pay should be respectable. No one is fit for legislation who 
 does not constantly bear in mind that our republic is dis- 
 tinguished from all others that have ever existed, by the ex- 
 tent of its territory. While we derive from this distinction 
 many advantages, we are liable to great and menacing dan- 
 gers. While we behold our growth with pride, it must, at 
 the same time, impress us with awe. It is our duty to over- 
 come space by every means in. our power. We ought to at- 
 tract suitable talents from the most distant part of our re- 
 public by a full and generous allowance. Distance itself 
 constitutes a great objection with many to perform the 
 duties of this body. Should the men who, by nature and 
 study, are endowed with requisite qualities for public service, 
 be forced by a miserable parsimony either to direct their 
 talents to private pursuits, or to the affairs of the respective 
 States, and men of inferior capacity be sent to this body, 
 who can measure the public misfortune ? What will tend 
 more powerfully to dissever this Union ? Some have taken 
 up the idea, as extraordinary as it may seem, that the in- 
 creased pay to the members is, in its nature, aristocratical. 
 What ! is it aristocratical to compensate the public servant 
 for his services to the public? Can it be considered as
 
 SPEECHES. 185 
 
 favoring the power of a few, to extend the power and influ- 
 ence of the people in the affairs of the General Government ? 
 It enables them to select the best talents for their own im- 
 mediate service ; it raises them in the scale of influence, by 
 causing the most shining and aspiring talents to be depend- 
 ent on them for promotion and honor ; it makes their service 
 more desirable than that of the Executive employments ; 
 and, by a simple process, enables them, through their imme- 
 diate agents, this House, to hold a controlling power over 
 any department of the Government. Such is the aristocrat- 
 ical tendency of this reprobated measure. I might extend 
 my observations much further on this most important subject ; 
 but so much has been well said by others, that I will abstain. 
 I must, however, present to the House a reason, which, I 
 believe, has not as yet been touched on : I mean the happy 
 effect which an adequate compensation would have on the 
 tone of parties in our country. Make a seat in Congress 
 what it ought to be the first post in the community next 
 to the Presidency, and men of the greatest distinction in 
 every part of the country will seek it. The post, then, of 
 honor and distinction being in the people, and not in the 
 President, will be open to all parties, in proportion to their 
 ascendency in the Union. That entire monopoly of honor 
 and public profit by the majority will not be experienced, 
 which must be felt, when the honors of the country are 
 principally in the hands of the Chief Magistrate. Those 
 who best understand our nature, can the most fully appreci- 
 ate the consequences. Although it may not abate the heat 
 of party, it will greatly affect its feelings towards our happy 
 political institutions.
 
 186 SPEECHES. 
 
 SPEECH 
 
 On the Bill to set aside the Bank dividends and bo 
 nus as a permanent fund for the construction oi 
 Roads and Canals, delivered in the House of Repre- 
 sentatives, February 4th, 1817. 
 
 [NOTE. This Bill, pledging the bonus and dividends of United 
 States stock on the shares held by the Government in the National Bank, 
 was reported by the special committee, to whom the subject had been 
 referred, on December 23d, 1816; and on the 4th of February fol- 
 lowing, discussed at some length in Committee of the Whole, when 
 it was amended in several particulars. On the 7th of February, the 
 debate was renewed in the House, on the motion of Mr. King to post- 
 pone it indefinitely, and continued, with much animation, until late 
 the next day, when it passed by a vote of 86 to 84.] 
 
 MB. CHAIRMAN : It seems to be the fate of some mea- 
 sures to be praised, but not adopted. Such, 1 fear, will be 
 the fate of this on which we are now deliberating. From 
 the indisposition manifested by the House to go into commit- 
 tee on the bill, there is not much prospect of its success ; yet 
 it seems to me, when I reflect how favorable is the present 
 moment, and how confessedly important a good system of 
 roads and canals is to our country, I may be reasonably very 
 sanguine of success. / At peace with all the world ; abound- 
 ing in pecuniary means ; and, what is of the most import- 
 ance, and at which I rejoice, as most favorable to the coun- 
 try, party and sectional feelings merged in a liberal and 
 enlightened regard to the general concerns of the country. 
 Such are the favorable circumstances under which we are 
 now deliberating. Thus situated, to what can we direct our 
 resources and .attention more important than internal im- 
 provements ? /What can add more to the wealth, the strength,
 
 SPEECHES. 187 
 
 and the political prosperity of our country ?/ The manner 
 in which facility and cheapness of intercourse contribute to 
 the wealth of a nation, has been so often and ably discussed 
 by writers on political economy, that I presume the House to 
 be perfectly acquainted with the subject. It is sufficient to 
 observe, that every branch of national industry agricultu- 
 ral, manufacturing, and commercial is greatly stimulated 
 by it, and rendered more productive. The result is, that it 
 tends to diffuse universal opulence. It gives to the interior 
 the advantages possessed by the parts most eligibly situated 
 for trade. It makes the country price, whether in the sale 
 of the raw product, or in the purchase of articles for 
 consumption, approximate to that of the commercial towns. 
 In fact, if we look into the nature of wealth^we will find 
 tha^nothing can._^jnQrelj^oraHaJ^its-growth. tha,n .good 
 roads and canals. An article, to command^a price, must not 
 onljj^ useful, but must be the subject of demand ; and the 
 better the means of commercial intercourse, the larger is the 
 sphenrof demand. The truth of these positions is obvious, 
 and has been tested by all countries where the experiment 
 has been made. It has, particularly, been strikingly exempli- 
 fied in England ; and if the result there, in a country so 
 limited, and so similar in its products, has been to produce a 
 most uncommon state of opulence, what may we not expect 
 from the same cause in our country, abounding, as it does, in 
 the greatest variety of products, and presenting the greatest 
 facility for improvement ? Let it not be said that internal 
 improvements may be wholly left to the enterprise of the 
 States and of individuals. I know that much may justly 
 be expected to be done by them ; but, in a country so new 
 and so extensive as ours, there is room enough for all the 
 G-eneral and State Governments, and individuals, in which to 
 exert their resources. yTJut many of the improvements con- 
 templated are on too great a scale for the resources of the 
 States or individuals ; and many of such a nature as the rival
 
 188 SPEECHES. 
 
 jealousy of the States, if left alone, would prevent. They 
 require the resources and the general superintendence of this 
 Government to effect and complete theny 
 
 I But there are higher and more powerful considerations 
 why Congress ought to take charge of this subject. *If we 
 were only to consider the pecuniary advantages of a good 
 system of roads and canals, it might, indeed, admit of some 
 doubt whether they ought not to be left wholly to individual 
 exertions ; but, when we come to consider how intimately 
 the strength and political prosperity of the republic are con- 
 nected with this subject, we find the most urgent reasons 
 why we should apply our resources to them. ' In many re- 
 spects, no country, of equal population and wealth, possesses 
 equal materials of power with ours. The people, in muscu- 
 lar power, in hardy and enterprising habits, and in lofty and 
 gallant courage, are surpassed by none. In one respect, and, 
 in my opinion, in one only, are we materially weak. We oc> 
 cupjLjLSurface prodigiously great in proportion to our numbers. 
 The common strength is brought to bear with great difficulty 
 on the point that may be menaced by an enemy. It is our 
 duty,_then, as far as in the^nature of things it can be effect- 
 ed, to counteract this weakness. Good roads and canals, 
 juaTciously laid out",~are the~proper remedy. In the recent 
 war, howjnuch did we suffer for the~want of them ! 'Be- 
 sidelfthe tardiness ari3 the consequeritiHi inefficacy of our 
 military movements, to what an increased expense was the 
 country put for the article of transportation alone y In the 
 event of another war, the saving, in this particular, would go 
 far towards indemnifying us for the expense of constructing 
 the means of transportation. 
 
 It is not, however, in this respect only, that roads and 
 canals add to the strength of the country. Our pojeer of 
 raising revenue, in war particularly, depends mainly on them. 
 In pace, our revenue depends principally on the imports : 
 in war, this source, in a great measure, fails, and internal
 
 SPEECHES. 189 
 
 taxes, to a great amount, become necessary. Unless the 
 means of commercial intercourse are rendered much more 
 perfect than they now are, we shaff never " J Be~able^m~war, 
 to raise~fh"e~1tiecessary supplies. If taxes were collected in 
 kind ; "if, for instance, the farmer and mechanic paid in their 
 surplus produce, then the difficulty would not exist : as. in 
 no country on earth is there so great a surplus, in proportion 
 to its population, as in ours. But such a system of taxes is 
 impossible. They must be paid in money ; and, by the 
 constitution, must be laid uniformly. What, then, is the 
 effect ? The taxes are raised in every part of this extensive 
 country uniformly ; but the expenditure must, in its nature, 
 be principally confined to the scene of military operations. 
 This drains the circulating medium from one part, and accu- 
 mulates it in another, and, perhaps, a very distant one. The 
 result is obvious. Unless it can return through the opera- 
 tion of trade, the part from which the constant drain takes 
 place, must ultimately be impoverished. Commercial inter- 
 course is the true remedy for this weakness : and the means 
 by which this is to be effected, are roads, canals, and the 
 coasting trade. On these, combined with domestic manu- 
 factures, does the moneyed capacity of this country, in war, 
 depend. Without them, not only will we be unable to raise 
 the necessary supplies, but the currency of the country must 
 necessarily fall into the greatest disorder ; such as we lately 
 experienced. 
 
 ^But, on this subject of national power, what can be more 
 important than a perfect unity in every part, in feelings and 
 sentiments ? And what can tend more powerfully to pro- 
 duce it than overcoming the effects of distance/? 2$o statey 
 enjoying freedom, ever ono/gpied ajxy thing liVp *# gr^at.an 
 extent of country as this republic. One hundred years ago, 
 the most profound philosophers did not believe it to be even 
 possible. They dicijiot suppose it possible that a pure re- 
 public could exist on as great a scale even as the island of
 
 190 SPEECHES. 
 
 Great Britain ? What then was considered as chimerical, 
 we now have the felicity to enjoy ; and, what is more re- 
 markable, such is the happy mould of our Government so 
 wisely are thjLJJStftte ai1 ^ Gpnpr^] pnwprs arranged that 
 much of our political happiness derives its origin from the 
 extent of our republic. It has exempted Ufltrom most of 
 
 reuisea whinh ritstrfl.ntp.rj foft pynq.^ republics ofantiquitY. 
 
 ihft re 
 
 ^ /Let it not, however, be forgotten ; let it be for ever kept in 
 / mind, that it exposes us to the greatest of all calamities 
 next to the loss of liberty and even to that in its conse- 
 quence disunion/ We are great, and rapidly I was about 
 to say fearfully growing. This is our pride and our danger ; 
 our weakness and our strength/ Little does he deserve to 
 be intrusted with the liberties of this people, who does not 
 raise his mind to these truths/ We are under the most 
 imperious obligation to counteract every tendency to dis- 
 union. The strongest of all cements is, undoubtedly, the. 
 wisdom, justice, and above all, the moderation of this House/ 
 yet the great subject on which we are now deliberating, in 
 this respect deserves the most serious consideration. What- 
 ever impedes the intercourse of the extremes with this, the 
 centre of the republic, weakens the union. Themore en- 
 larged thesphere of commercial circulation trie more ex- 
 tended that of social intercourse the more strongly are we 
 bound together the more inseparable are our destinies. 
 who understand the human heart best know how 
 powerfully distance tends to break the sympathies of our 
 nature. Nothing not even dissimilarity of language tends 
 more to estrange man from man. Let us, then, bind the 
 republic together with a perfect system of roads and canals/ 
 Let us conquer space. It is thus the most distant parts of 
 the republic will be brought within a few days' travel of the 
 centre ; it is thus that a citizen of the W^est will read the 
 news of Boston still moist from the press. The mail and 
 the press are the nerves of the body politic. By them, the
 
 SPEECHES. 191 
 
 slightest impression made on the most remote parts, is com- 
 municated to the whole system ; and the more perfect the 
 means of transportation, the more rapid and true the vibra- 
 tion. To aid us in this great work to maintain the integ- 
 rity of this republic, we inhabit a country presenting the 
 most admirable advantages. Belted around, as it is, by 
 lakes and oceans -intersected in every direction by bays and 
 rivers, the hand of industry and art is tempted to improve- 
 ment/ So situated, blessed with a form of government at 
 once combining liberty and strength, we may reasonably 
 raise our eyes to a most splendid future, if we only act in a 
 manner worthy of our advantages. If, however, neglecting 
 them, we permit a low, sordid, selfish and sectional spirit to 
 take possession of this House, this happy scene will vanish. 
 We will divide ; and in its consequences will follow, misery 
 and despotism./ 
 
 /* o legislate for our country, requires not only the most 
 enlarged views, but a species of self-devotion not exacted in 
 any other. In a country so extensive, and so various in its 
 interests, what is necessary for the common good may appa- 
 rently be opposed to the interest of particular sections. It T 
 must be submitted to as the condition of our greatness. But 
 were we a small republic ; were we confined to the ten miles 
 square, the selfish instincts of our nature might, in most 
 cases, be relied on in the management of public affairs? 
 
 Such, then, being the obvious advantages of internal 
 improvements, why should the House hesitate to commence 
 the system ? I understand there are, with some members, 
 constitutional objections. The power of Congress is objected 
 to : first, that there is none to cut a road or canal through a 
 State, without its consent ; and next, that the public moneys 
 can only be appropriated to effect the particular powers 
 enumerated in the constitution. The first of these objections, 
 it is plain, does not apply to this bill. No particular road or 
 canal is proposed to be cut through any State. The bill
 
 192 SPEECHES. 
 
 simply appropriates money to the general purpose of im- 
 proving the means of intercommunication. When a bill is 
 introduced to apply the money to a particular object in any.-;' 
 State, then, and not till then, will the question be fairly 
 before us. I express no opinion on this point. In fact, 
 I scarcely think it worth the discussion, since the good sense 
 of the States may be relied on. They will, in all cases, 
 readily yield their assent. The fear is in a different direc- 
 tion : in too great a solicitude to obtain an undue share to 
 be expended within their respective limits. In fact, as I un- 
 derstand it, this is not the objection insisted on. It is mainly 
 urged, that the Congress can only apply the public money in 
 execution of the enumerated powers. I am no advocate for 
 refined arguments on the constitution. The instrument was 
 not intended as a thesis for the logician to exercise his inge- 
 nuity on. It ought to be construed with plain, good sense ; 
 and what can be more express than the constitution on this 
 very point ? The first power delegated to Congress is com- 
 prised in these words : " To lay and collect taxes, duties, 
 imposts, and excises, to pay the debts, and provide for the 
 common defence and general welfare of the United States ; 
 but all duties, imposts, and excises, shall be uniform through- 
 out the United States." First, the power is given to lay 
 taxes ; next, the objects are enumerated to which the money 
 accruing from the exercise of this power, may be applied 
 viz., to pay the debts, provide for the defence, and promote 
 the general welfare ; and last, the rule for laying the taxes 
 is prescribed to wit, that all duties, imposts, and excises, 
 shall be uniform. If the framers had intended to limit the 
 use of the money to the powers afterwards enumerated and 
 defined, nothing could have been more easy than to have 
 expressed it plainly. I know it is the opinion of some, that 
 the words " to pay the debts, and provide for the common 
 defence and general welfare," which I have just cited, were 
 not intended to be referred to the power of laying taxes,
 
 SPEECHES. 193 
 
 contained in the first part of the section, but that they are 
 to be understood as distinct and independent powers, granted 
 in general terms ; and are qualified by a more detailed enu- 
 meration of powers in the subsequent part of the constitu- 
 tion. If such were, in fact, the meaning intended, surely 
 nothing can be conceived more bungling and awkward than 
 the manner in which the framers have communicated their 
 intention. If it were their intention to make a summary of 
 the powers of Congress in general terms, which were after- 
 wards to be particularly defined and enumerated, they should 
 have told us so plainly and distinctly ; and if the words " to 
 pay the debts, and provide for the common defence and gen- 
 eral welfare " were intended for this summary, they should 
 have headed the list of our powers, and it should have been 
 stated that, to effect these general objects, the following 
 specific powers were granted. I ask members to read the 
 section with attention ; and it will, I conceive, plainly appear 
 that such could not have been the intention. The whole 
 section seemed to me to be about taxes. It plainly com- 
 mences and ends with it ; and nothing could be more strained 
 than to suppose the intermediate words " to pay the debts, 
 and provide for the common defence and general welfare," 
 were to be taken as independent and distinct powers. Forced, 
 however, as such a construction was, I might admit it, and 
 urge that the words do constitute a part of the enumerated 
 powers. The constitution gives to Congress the power to 
 establish post-offices and post-roads. I know the interpreta- 
 tion usually given to these words confines our powers to that 
 of designating only the post-roads ; but it seems to me that 
 the word "establish" comprehends something more. But 
 suppose the constitution to be silent, why should we be con- 
 fined in the application of moneys to the enumerated powers ? 
 There is nothing in the reason of the thing, that I can per- 
 ceive, why it should be so restricted ; and the habitual and 
 uniform practice of the Government coincides with my opinion. 
 
 VOL. II. 13
 
 194 SPEECHES. 
 
 Our laws are full of instances of money appropriated without 
 any reference to the enumerated powers. We granted, by 
 an unanimous vote, or nearly so, $50,000 to the distressed 
 inhabitants of Caraccas, and a very large sum, at two dif- 
 ferent times, to the St. Domingo refugees. If we are re- 
 stricted in the use of our money to the enumerated powers, 
 on what principle can the purchase of Louisiana be justified ? 
 To pass over many other instances, the identical power, which 
 is now the subject of discussion, has, in several instances, 
 been exercised. To look no further back at the last session 
 a considerable sum was granted to complete the Cumberland 
 Road. In reply to this uniform course of legislation, I expect 
 it will be said, that our constitution is founded on positive 
 and written principles, and not on precedents. I do not 
 deny the position ; but I have introduced these instances to 
 prove the uniform sense of Congress, and the country (for 
 they have not been objected to), as to our powers ; and 
 surely they furnish better evidence of the true interpretation 
 of the constitution than the most refined and subtle argu- 
 ments. 
 
 Let it not be argued, that the construction for which I 
 contend gives a dangerous extent to the powers of Congress. 
 In this point of view, I conceive it to be more safe than the 
 opposite. By giving a reasonable extent to the money power, 
 it exempts us from the necessity of giving a strained and 
 forced construction to the other enumerated powers. For 
 instance, if the public money could be applied to the pur- 
 chase of Louisiana, as I contend it may be, then there was 
 no constitutional difficulty in that purchase ; but if it could 
 not, then are we compelled either to deny that we had the 
 power to purchase, or to strain some of the enumerated 
 powers, to prove our right. It has, for instance, been said, 
 that we had the right to purchase, under the power to ad- 
 mit new States ; a construction, I venture to say, far more
 
 SPEECHES. 195 
 
 forced than the one for which I contend. Such are my 
 views as to our power to pass this bill. 
 
 I believe that the passage of the bill would not be much 
 endangered by a doubt of the power ; for I conceive, on that 
 point, there are not many who were opposed. The mode is 
 principally objected to. A system, it is contended, ought to 
 be presented before the money is appropriated. I think dif- 
 ferently. To set apart the fund, appears to me to be, 
 naturally, the first act ; at least I take it to be the only 
 practicable course. A bill filled with details would have but 
 a faint prospect of passing. The enemies to any possible sys- 
 tem in detail, and those who are opposed in principle, would 
 unite and defeat it. Though I am unwilling to incorporate 
 details in the bill, yet I am not averse to presenting my 
 views on that point. The first great object is to perfect the 
 communication from Maine to Louisiana. This may be 
 fairly considered as the principal artery of fche whole system. 
 The next is the connection of the Lakes with the Hudson 
 River. In a political, commercial, and military point of 
 view, few objects can be more important. The next object 
 of chief importance is, to connect all the great commercial 
 points on the Atlantic, Philadelphia, Baltimore, Washing- 
 ton, Richmond, Charleston, and Savannah, with the West- 
 ern States ; and finally, to perfect the intercourse between 
 the West and New Orleans. These seem to me to be the 
 great objects. There are others, no doubt, of great import- 
 ance, which would receive the aid of Grovernment. The fund 
 proposed to be set apart in this bill is about $650,000 a year, 
 which is, doubtless, too small to effect such great objects of 
 itself ; but it will be a good beginning ; and I have no doubt, 
 when it is once begun, the great work will be completed. If 
 the bill succeed, at the next session the details may be arranged 
 and the system commenced. I cannot regard those who ob- 
 ject merely to the mode, as being very heartily in favor 
 of the system. Every member must know that, in all
 
 196 SPEECHES. 
 
 great measures, it is necessary to concede something ; as it 
 is impossible to make all think alike on the minutiae of the 
 measure, who are agreed in principle. A deep conviction of 
 the importance of the thing itself is almost sure to be accom- 
 panied with a liberal spirit of concession. The committee 
 who introduced this bill gave it the shape, in their opinion, 
 the most proper in itself, and the most likely to succeed. If 
 it cannot pass in its present form, and under the present 
 circumstances, it is certainly very doubtful whether it ever 
 will. I feel a deep solicitude in relation to it. I am anx- 
 ious that this Congress shall have the reputation of it ; and 1 
 am the more so, on account of the feelings which have been 
 created against it. No body of men, in my opinion, ever better 
 merited, than this Congress, the confidence of the country. 
 For wisdom, firmness, and industry, it has never been ex- 
 celled. To its acts, I appeal for the truth of my assertions. 
 The country already begins to experience the benefits of 
 its foresight and firmness. The diseased state of the cur- 
 rency, which many thought incurable, and most thought 
 could not be healed in so short a time, begins to exhibit 
 symptoms of speedy health. Uninfluenced by any other 
 considerations than love of country and duty, let us add this 
 to the many useful measures already adopted. The money 
 cannot be appropriated to a more exalted use. Every por- 
 tion of the community the farmer, mechanic, and merchant 
 will feel its good effects ; and, what is of the greatest im- 
 portance, the strength of the community will be augmented, 
 and its political prosperity rendered more secure.
 
 SPEECHES 197 
 
 SPEECH 
 
 On the Revenue Collection Bill (commonly called the 
 Force Bill), in reference to the Ordinance of the 
 South Carolina Convention, delivered in the 
 Senate, February 15th and 16th, 1833. 
 
 MK. PRESIDENT : I know not which is most objection- 
 able, the provisions of the bill, or the temper in which its 
 adoption has been urged. If the extraordinary powers with 
 which the bill proposes to clothe the Executive, to the utter 
 prostration of the constitution and the rights of the States, 
 be calculated to impress our minds with alarm at the rapid 
 progress of despotism in our country ; the zeal with which 
 every circumstance calcuated to misrepresent or exaggerate 
 the conduct of Carolina in the controversy, is seized on with 
 a view to excite hostility against her, but too plainly indi- 
 cates the deep decay of that brotherly feeling which once ex- 
 isted between these States, and to which we are indebted for 
 our beautiful federal system, and by the continuance of 
 which alone it can be preserved. It is not my intention to 
 advert to all these misrepresentations ; but there are some so 
 well calculated to mislead the mind as to the real character 
 of the controversy, and to hold up the State in a light so 
 odious, that I do not feel myself justified in permitting them 
 to pass unnoticed. 
 
 Among them, one of the most prominent is, the false 
 statement that the object of South Carolina is to exempt 
 herself from her share of the public burdens, while she par- 
 ticipates in the advantages of the Government. If the 
 charge were true if the State were capable of being actuated 
 by such low and unworthy motives, mother as I consider her, 
 I would not stand up on this floor to vindicate her conduct.
 
 198 SPEECHES. 
 
 Among her faults, and faults I will not deny she has, no 
 one has ever yet charged her with that low and most sordid 
 of vices avarice. Her conduct, on all occasions, has been 
 marked with the very opposite quality/ 1 From the com- 
 mencement of the Revolution from its first breaking out at 
 Boston till this hour, no State has been more profuse of its 
 blood in the cause of the country ; nor has any contributed 
 so largely to the common treasury in proportion to wealth 
 and population. She has, in that proportion, contributed 
 more to the exports of the Union, on the exchange of which 
 with the rest of the world the greater portion of the public 
 burden has been levied, than any other State. No : the 
 controversy is not such as has been stated ; the State does 
 not seek to participate in the advantages of the Government 
 without contributing her full share to the public treasury. 
 Her object is far different. A deep constitutional question 
 lies at the bottom of the controversy. The real question at 
 issue is : Has this Government a right to impose burdens on 
 the capital and industry of one portion of the country, not 
 with a view to revenue, but to benefit another, And I must 
 be permitted to say that, after the long and deep agitation 
 of this controversy, it is with surprise that I perceive so 
 strong a disposition to misrepresent its real character. To 
 correct the impression which those misrepresentations are cal- 
 culated to make, I will dwell on the point under consider- 
 ation for a few moments longer. 
 
 The Federal Government has, by an express provision of 
 the constitution, the right to lay on imports. The State 
 has never denied or resisted this right, nor even thought of so 
 doing. The Government has, however, not been contented 
 with exercising this power as she had a right to do, but has 
 gone a step beyond it, by laying imposts, not for revenue, but 
 protection. This the State considers as an unconstitutional 
 exercise of power-*-highly injurious and oppressive to her and 
 the other staple States, and has, accordingly, met it with the
 
 SPEECHES. 199 
 
 most determined resistance. I do not intend to enter, at 
 this time, into the argument as to the unconstitutionally of 
 the protective system. It is not necessary. It is sufficient 
 that the power is nowhere granted; and that, from the 
 journals of the Convention which formed the constitution, it 
 would seem that it was refused. In support of the journals, 
 I might cite the statement of Luther Martin, which has al- 
 ready been referred to, to show that the Convention, so far 
 from conferring the power on the Federal Government, left 
 to the State the right to impose duties on imports, with the 
 express view of enabling the several States to protect their 
 own manufactures..; Notwithstanding this, Congress has as- 
 sumed, without any warrant from the constitution, the right 
 of exercising this most important power ; and has so exer- 
 cised it as to impose a ruinous burden on the labor and capi- 
 tal of the State, by which her resources are exhausted the 
 enjoyments of her citizens curtailed the means of education 
 contracted and all her interests essentially and injuriously 
 affected. We have been sneeringly told that she is a small 
 State ; that her population does not much exceed half a 
 million of souls ; and that more than one-half are not of 
 the European race. The facts are so. I know she never can 
 be a great State, and that the only distinction to which she 
 can aspire must be based on the moral and intellectual ac- 
 quirements of her sons. To the development of these much 
 of her attention has been directed ; but this restrictive sys- 
 tem, which has so unjustly exacted the proceeds of her labor, 
 to be bestowed on other sections, has so impaired her re- 
 sources, that, if not speedily arrested, it will dry up the 
 means of education, and with it, deprive her of the only 
 source through which she can aspire to distinction. 
 
 There is another misstatement, as to the nature of the 
 controversy, so frequently made in debate, and so well calcu- 
 lated to mislead, that I feel bound to notice it. It has been 
 said that South Carolina claims the right to annul the con-
 
 200 SPEECHES. 
 
 stitution and laws of the United States ; and to rebut this 
 supposed claim, the^ gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Rives) 
 has gravely quoted the constitution, to prove that the con- 
 stitution, and the laws made in pursuance thereof, are the 
 supreme laws of the land as if the State claimed the right 
 to act contrary to this provision of the constitution. No- 
 thing can be more erroneous : her object is not to resist 
 laws made in pursuance of the constitution, but those made 
 without its authority, and which encroached on her reserved 
 powers. She claims not even the right of judging of the de- 
 legated powers, but of those that are reserved ; and to resist 
 the former, when they encroach upon the lattev I will 
 pause to illustrate this important point. 
 
 All must admit that there are delegated and reserved 
 powers, and that the powers reserved are reserved to the 
 States respectively. The powers, then, of the system are 
 divided between the General and the State Governments ; 
 and the point immediately under consideration is, whether 
 a State has any right to judge as to the extent of its reserved 
 powers, and to defend them against the encroachments of 
 the General Government. Without going deeply into this 
 point at this stage of the argument, or looking into the 
 nature and origin of the Government, there is a simple view 
 of the subject which I consider as conclusive. The very idea 
 of a divided power implies the right on the part of the State 
 for which I contend. The expression is metaphorical when 
 applied to power. Every one readily understands that the 
 division of matter consists in the separation of the parts. 
 But in this sense it is not applicable to power. { What, then, 
 is meant by a division of power ?/ I cannot conceive of a 
 division, without giving an equM right to each to judge of 
 the extent of the power allotted to each. Such right I hold 
 to be essential to the existence of a division ; and that, to 
 give to either party the conclusive right of judging, not only 
 of the share allotted to it, but of that allotted to the other,
 
 SPEECHES. 201 
 
 is to annul the division, and to confer the whole power on the 
 party vested with such right. 
 
 But it is contended that the constitution has conferred 
 on the Supreme Court the right of judging between the 
 States and the General Government. Those who make this 
 objection, overlook, I conceive, an important provision of the 
 constitution. By turning to the 10th amended article, it 
 will be seen that the reservation of power to the States is not 
 only against the powers, delegated to Congress, but against 
 the United States themselves ; and extends, of course, as 
 well to the judiciary as to the other departments of the 
 Government. The article provides, that all powers not de- 
 legated to the United States, or prohibited by it to the 
 States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the peo- 
 ple. This presents the inquiry, What powers are delegated 
 to the United States ? They may be classed under four 
 divisions : first, those that are delegated by the States to 
 each other, by virtue of which the constitution may be alter- 
 ed or amended by three-fourths of the States, when, without 
 which, it would have required the unanimous vote of all ; 
 next, the powers conferred on Congress ; then those on the 
 President ; and finally, those on the judicial department 
 all of which are particularly enumerated in the parts of the 
 constitution which organize the respective departments. 
 The reservation of powers to the States is, as I have said, 
 against the whole ; and is as full against the judicial as it 
 is against the executive and legislative departments of the 
 Government. It cannot be claimed for the one without 
 claiming it for the whole, and without, in fact, annulling this 
 important provision of the constitution. 
 
 Against this, as it appears to me, conclusive view of the 
 subject, it has been urged that this power is expressly con- 
 ferred on the Supreme Court by that portion of the constitu- 
 tion which provides that the judicial power shall extend to all 
 cases in law and equity arising under the constitution, the
 
 202 SPEECHES. 
 
 laws of the United States, and treaties made under their au- 
 thority. I believe the assertion to be utterly destitute of any 
 foundation./lt obviously is the intention of the constitution 
 simply to make the judicial power commensurate with the 
 law-making and treaty-making powers ; and to vest it with 
 the right of applying the constitution, the laws, and the 
 treaties, to the cases which might arise under them ; and not 
 to make it the judge of the constitution, the laws, and the 
 treaties themselves. In fact, the power of applying the laws 
 to the facts of the case, and deciding upon such application, 
 constitutes, in truth, the judicial power. /The distinction 
 between such power, and that of judging of the laws, will 
 be perfectly apparent when we advert to what is the acknow- 
 ledged power of the court in reference to treaties or compacts 
 between sovereigns. /It is perfectly established, that the 
 courts have no right to judge of the violation of treaties ; 
 and that, in reference to them, their power is limited to the 
 right of judging simply of the violation of rights under them ; 
 and that the right of judging of infractions belongs exclu- 
 sively to the parties themselves, and not to the courts : of 
 which we have an example in the French treaty, which was 
 declared by Congress null and void, in consequence of its vi- 
 olation by the Government of France. Without such de- 
 claration, had a French citizen sued a citizen of this country 
 under the treaty, the court could have taken no cognizance 
 of its infraction ; nor, after such a declaration, would it have 
 heard any argument or proof going to show that the treaty 
 had not been violated. 
 
 The declaration, of itself, is conclusive on the court. But 
 it will be asked how the court obtained the power to pro- 
 nounce a law or treaty unconstitutional, when it comes in 
 conflict with that instrument. I do not deny that it pos- 
 sesses the right ; but I can by no means concede that it was 
 derived from the constitution. It had its origin in the ne- 
 cessity of the case. Where there are two or more rules es-
 
 SPEECHES. 203 
 
 tablished, one from a higher, the other from a lower author- 
 ity, which may come into conflict in applying them to a par- 
 ticular case, the judge cannot avoid pronouncing in favor of 
 the superior against the inferior. It is from this necessity, 
 and this alone, that the power which is now set up to over- 
 rule the rights of the States against an express provision of 
 the constitution was derived. It had no other origin. That 
 I have traced it to its true source, will be manifest from the 
 fact that it is a power which, so far from being conferred ex- 
 clusively on the Supreme Court, as is insisted, belongs to 
 every court inferior and superior State and General and 
 even to foreign courts. 
 
 But the senator from Delaware (Mr. Clayton) relies on 
 the journals of the Convention to prove that it was the in- 
 tention of that body to confer on the Supreme Court the 
 right of deciding, in the last resort, between a State and the 
 General Government. I will not follow him through the 
 journals, as I do not deem that to be necessary to refute his 
 argument. It is sufficient for this purpose to state, that Mr. 
 Kutledge reported a resolution, providing expressly that the 
 United States and the States might be parties before the 
 Supreme Court. If this proposition had been adopted, I 
 would ask the senator whether this very controversy between 
 the United States and South Carolina might not have been 
 brought before the court ? I would also ask him whether it 
 can be brought before the court as the constitution now 
 stands ? If he answers the former in the affirmative, and 
 the latter in the negative, as he must, then it is clear, his 
 elaborate argument to the contrary notwithstanding, that the 
 report of Mr. Rutledge was not, in substance, adopted as he 
 contended ; and that the journals, so far from supporting, 
 are in direct opposition to the position which he attempts to 
 maintain. I might push the argument much farther against 
 the power of the court, but I do not deem it necessary, at 
 least in this stage of the discussion. If the views which
 
 204 SPEECHES. 
 
 have already been presented be correct, and I do not see how 
 they can be resisted, the conclusion is inevitable, that the 
 reserved powers were reserved equally against every depart- 
 ment of the Government, and as strongly against the judicial 
 as against the other departments, and, of course, weie left 
 under the exclusive will of the States. 
 
 There still remains another misrepresentation of the con- 
 duct of the State, which has been made with the view of excit- 
 ing odium. I allude to the charge, that South Carolina sup- 
 ported the tariff of 1816, and is, therefore, responsible foi 
 the protective system./ To determine the truth of this 
 charge, it becomes necessary to ascertain the real character 
 of that law whether it was a tariff for revenue or for pro- 
 tection and, as involved in this, to inquire, What was the 
 condition of the country at the period ? The late war with 
 Great Britain had just terminated, which, with the restric- 
 tive system that preceded it, had diverted a large amount 
 of capital and industry from commerce to manufacturers, 
 particularly to the cotton and woollen branches. There was 
 a debt, at the same time, of one hundred and thirty millions 
 of dollars hanging over the country, and the heavy war duties 
 were still in existence. Under these circumstances, the ques- 
 tion was presented, as to what point the duties ought to be 
 reduced ? This question involved another at what time 
 the debt ought to be paid ? which was a question of policy, 
 involving in its consideration all the circumstances connected 
 with the then condition of the country. Among the most 
 prominent arguments in favor of an early discharge of the 
 debt was, that the high duties which it would require to ef- 
 fect it would have, at the same time, the effect of sustaining 
 the infant manufactures, which had been forced up under the 
 circumstances to which I have adverted. This view of the 
 subject had a decided influence in determining in favor of an 
 early payment of the debt. The sinking fund was, accord- 
 ingly, raised from seven to ten millions of dollars, with the
 
 SPEECHES. 205 
 
 provision to apply the surplus which might remain in the 
 treasury as a contingent appropriation to that fund ; and the 
 duties were graduated to meet this increased expenditure. 
 It was thus that the policy and justice of protecting the 
 large amount of capital and industry which had been diverted 
 by the measures of the Government into new channels, as I 
 have stated, was combined with the fiscal action of the Gov- 
 ernment, and which, while it secured a prompt payment of 
 the debt, prevented the immense losses to the manufacturers 
 which would have followed a sudden and great reduction. 
 Still, revenue was the main object, and protection but the 
 incidental. The bill to reduce the duties was reported by the 
 Committee of Ways and Means, and not of Manufactures, 
 and it proposed a heavy reduction on the then existing rate 
 of duties. But what of itself, without other evidence, is de- 
 cisive as to the character of the bill, is the fact that it fixed 
 a much higher rate of duties on the unprotected than on the 
 protected articles. I will enumerate a few leading articles 
 only. Woollen and cotton above the value of 25 cents on 
 the square yard, though they were the leading objects of pro- 
 tection, were subject to a permanent duty of only 20 per cent. 
 Iron, another leading article among the protected, had a pro- 
 tection of not more than 9 per cent, as fixed by the act, and 
 of but fifteen as reported in the bill. These rates were all 
 below the average duties as fixed in the act, including 
 the protected, the unprotected, and even the free articles. I 
 have entered into some calculation, in order to ascertain the 
 average rate of duties under the act. There is some uncer- 
 tainty in the data, but I feel assured that it is not less than 
 thirty per cent, ad valorem : showing an excess of the ave- 
 rage duties above that imposed on the protected articles 
 enumerated of more than 10 per cent., and thus clearly es- 
 tablishing the character of the measure that it was for 
 revenue, and not protection. 
 
 Looking back, even at this distant period, with all our
 
 206 SPEECHES. 
 
 experience, I perceive but two errors in the act : the one in 
 reference to iron, and the other the minimum duty on coarse 
 cottons. As to the former, I conceive that the bill, as re- 
 ported, proposed a duty relatively too low, which was still 
 farther reduced in its passage through Congress. The duty, 
 at first, was fixed at seventy-five cents the hundredweight ; 
 but, in the last stage of its passage, it was reduced, by a sort 
 of caprice, occasioned by an unfortunate motion, to forty-five 
 cents. This injustice was severely felt in Pennsylvania, the 
 State, above all others, most productive of iron ; and was the 
 principal cause of that great reaction which has since thrown 
 her so decidedly on the side of the protective policy. The 
 other error was that as to coarse cottons, on which the duty 
 was as much too high as that on iron was too low. It intro- 
 \ duced, besides, the obnoxious minimum principle, which has 
 1 since been so mischievously extended ; and to that extent, I 
 am constrained in candor to acknowledge, as I wish to dis- 
 j guise nothing, the protective principle was recognized by the 
 act of 1816. How this was overlooked at the time, it is not 
 in my power to say. It escaped my observation, which I can 
 account for only on the ground that the principle was then 
 new, and that my attention was engaged by another impor- 
 tant subject the question of the currency, then so urgent, 
 and with which, as chairmam of the committee, I was par- 
 ticularly charged. With these exceptions, I again repeatf I 
 see nothing in the bill to condemn ; yet it is on the ground 
 that the members from the State voted for the bill, that the 
 attempt is now made to hold up Carolina as responsible for 
 the whole system of protection which has since followed, 
 though she has resisted its progress in every stage. Was 
 there ever greater injustice ?/ And how is it to be accounted 
 for, but &s forming a part 01 that systematic misrepresenta- 
 tion and calumny which has been directed for so many years, 
 without interruption, against that gallant and generous 
 State ? / And why has she thus been assailed ? Merely be-
 
 SPEECHES. 207 
 
 cause she abstained from taking any part in the Presidential 
 canvass believing that it had degenerated into a mere sys- 
 tem of imposition on the people controlled, almost exclu- 
 sively, by those whose object it is to obtain the patronage of 
 the Government, and that without regard to principle or 
 policy. Standing apart from what she considered a contest 
 in which the public had no interest, she has been assailed by 
 both parties with a fury altogether unparalleled ; but which, 
 pursuing the course which she believed liberty and duty re- 
 quired, she has met with a firmness equal to the fierceness 
 of the assault. In the midst of this attack, I have not escaped. 
 With a view'of inflicting a wound on the State through me, 
 I have been held up as the author of the protective system, 
 and one of its most strenuous advocates. It is with pain 
 that I allude to myself on so deep and grave a subject as that 
 now under discussion, and which, I sincerely believe, involves 
 the liberty of the country. I now regret that, under the 
 sense of injustice which the remarks of a senator from Penn- 
 sylvania (Mr. Wilkins) excited for the moment, I hastily 
 gave my pledge to defend myself against the charge which 
 has been made in reference to my course in 1816 : not that 
 there will be any difficulty in repelling the charge, but be- 
 cause I feel a deep reluctance in turning the discussion, in 
 any degree, from a subject of so much magnitude to one of 
 so little importance as the consistency or inconsistency of my- 
 self, or any other individual, particularly in connection with 
 an event so long since passed. But for this hasty pledge, 
 I would have remained silent as to my own course on this 
 occasion, and would have borne with patience and calm- 
 ness this, with the many other misrepresentations with which 
 I have been so incessantly assailed for so many years. 
 
 The charge that I was the author of the protective sys- 
 tem has no other foundation but that I, in common with the 
 almost entire South, gave my support to the tariff of 1816. 
 It is true that I advocated that measure, for which I may
 
 208 SPEECHES. 
 
 rest my defence, without taking any other, on the ground 
 that it was a tariff for revenue, and not for protection, which 
 I have established beyond the power of controversy. But 
 my speech on the occasion has been brought in judgment 
 against me by the senator from Pennsylvania. I have since 
 cast my eyes over the speech ; and I will surprise, I have no 
 doubt, the senator, by telling him that, with the exception 
 of some hasty and unguarded expressions, I retract nothing 
 I uttered on that occasion. I only ask that I may be judged, 
 in reference to it, in that spirit of fairness and justice which 
 is due to the occasion : taking into consideration the circum- 
 stances under which it was delivered, and bearing in mind 
 that the subject was a tariff for revenue, and not for protec- 
 tion ; for reducing, and not raising the duties. But, before 
 I explain the then condition of the country, from which my 
 main arguments in favor of the measure were drawn, it is 
 nothing but an act of justice to myself that I should state a 
 fact in connection with my speech, that is necessary to ex- 
 plain what I have called hasty and unguarded expressions. 
 My speech was an impromptu ; and, as such, I apologized to 
 the House, as appears from the speech as printed, for offering 
 my sentiments on the question without having duly reflected 
 on the subject. It was delivered at the request of a friend, 
 when I had not previously the least intention of addressing 
 the House. I allude to Samuel D. Ingham, then and now, 
 as I am proud to say, a personal and political friend a man 
 of talents and integrity with a clear head, and firm and 
 patriotic heart ; then among the leading members of the 
 House ; in the palmy state of his political glory, though now 
 for a moment depressed ; depressed, did I say ? no ! it is 
 his State which is depressed Pennsylvania, and not Samuel 
 D. Ingham ! Pennsylvania, which has deserted him under 
 circumstances which, instead of depressing, ought to have 
 elevated him in her estimation. He came to me, when sit- 
 ting at my desk writing, and said that the House was falling
 
 SPEECHES. 209 
 
 into some confusion, accompanying it with a remark, that I 
 knew how difficult it was to rally so large a body when once 
 broken on a tax bill, as had been experienced during the late 
 war. Having a higher opinion of my influence than it de- 
 served, he requested me to say something to prevent the 
 confusion. I replied that I was at a loss what to say ; that 
 I had been busily engaged on the currency, which was then 
 in great confusion, and which, as I have stated, had been 
 placed particularly under my charge, as the chairman of the 
 committee on that subject. He repeated his request, and 
 the speech which the senator from Pennsylvania has compli- 
 mented so highly was the result. 
 
 I will ask whether the facts stated ought not, in justice, 
 to be borne in mind by those who would hold me accounta- 
 ble, not only for the general scope of the speech, but for 
 every word and sentence which it contains ? But, in asking 
 this question, it is not my intention to repudiate the speech. 
 All I ask is, that I may be judged by the rules which, in 
 justice, belong to the case. Let it be recollected that the 
 bill was a revenue bill, and, of course, that it was constitu- 
 tional. I need not remind the Senate that, when the meas- 
 ure is constitutional, all arguments calculated to show its 
 beneficial operation may be legitimately pressed into service, 
 without taking into consideration whether the subject to 
 which the arguments refer be within the sphere of the con- 
 stitution or not. If, for instance, a question were before this 
 body to lay a duty on Bibles, and a motion were made to re- 
 duce the duty, or admit Bibles duty free, who could doubt 
 that the argument in favor of the motion that the increased 
 circulation of the Bible would be in favor of the morality 
 and religion of the country, would be strictly proper ? But 
 who would suppose that he who adduced it had committed 
 himself on the constitutionality of taking the religion or 
 morals of the country under the charge of the Federal Gov- 
 ernment ? Again : suppose the question to be, to raise the 
 
 VOL. II. 14
 
 210 SPEECHES. 
 
 duty on silk, or any other article of luxury ; and that it should 
 be supported on the ground that it was an article mainly con- 
 sumed by the rich and extravagant could it be fairly inferred 
 that in the opinion of the speaker, Congress had a right to pass 
 sumptuary laws ? I only ask that these plain rules may be 
 applied to my argument on the tariff of 1816. They turn 
 almost entirely on the benefits which manufactures conferred 
 on the country in time of war, and which no one could doubt. 
 The country had recently passed through such a state. The 
 world was at that time deeply agitated by the effects of the 
 great conflict which had so long raged in Europe, and which 
 no one could tell how soon again might return. Bonaparte 
 had but recently been overthrown ; the whole southern part 
 of this continent was in a state of revolution, and threat- 
 ened with the interference of the Holy Alliance, which, had it 
 occurred, must almost necessarily have involved this country in 
 a most dangerous conflict. It was under these circumstances 
 that I deli vered the speech, in which I urged the House that, 
 in the adjustment of the tariff, reference ought to be had to a 
 state of war as well as peace, and that its provisions ought to 
 be fixed on the compound views of the two periods making 
 some sacrifice in peace, in order that less might be made in 
 war. Was this principle false ? and, in urging it, did I com- 
 mit myself to that system of oppression since grown up, and 
 which has for its object the enriching of one portion of the 
 country at the expense of the other ? 
 
 The plain rule in all such cases is, that when a measure 
 is proposed, the first thing is to ascertain its constitutionality; 
 and, that being ascertained, the next is its expediency ; 
 which last opens the whole field of argument for and against. 
 Every topic may be urged calculated to prove it wise or 
 unwise : so in a bill to raise imposts. It must first be ascer- 
 tained that the bill is based on the principles of revenue, 
 and that the money raised is necessary for the wants of the 
 country. These being ascertained, every argument, direct
 
 SPEECHES. 211 
 
 and indirect, may be fairly offered, which may go to show 
 that, under all the circumstances, the provisions of the bill 
 are proper or improper. Had this plain and simple rule been 
 adhered to, we should never have heard of the complaint of 
 Carolina. Her objection is not against the improper modi- 
 fication of a bill acknowledged to be for revenue, but that, 
 under the name of imposts, a power essentially different from 
 the taxing power is exercised partaking much more of the 
 character of a penalty than a tax. Nothing is more common 
 than that things closely resembling in appearance should 
 widely and essentially differ in their character. Arsenic, for 
 instance, resembles flour, yet one is a deadly poison, and the 
 other that which constitutes the staff of life. So duties im- 
 posed, whether for revenue or protection, may be called 
 imposts ; though nominally and apparently the same, yet 
 they differ essentially in their real character. 
 
 I shall now return to my speech on the tariff of 1816. 
 To determine what my opinions really were on the subject of 
 protection at that time, it will be proper to advert to my 
 sentiments before and after that period. My sentiments pre- 
 ceding 1816, on this subject, are a matter of record. I came 
 into Congress in 1812, a devoted friend and supporter of 
 the then administration ; yet one of my first efforts was to 
 brave the administration, by opposing its favorite measure, 
 the restrictive system embargo, non-intercourse, and all 
 and that upon the principle of free trade. The system re- 
 mained in fashion for a time ; but, after the overthrow of 
 Bonaparte, I reported a bill from the Committee on Foreign 
 Relations, to repeal the whole system of restrictive measures. 
 While the bill was under consideration, a worthy man, then 
 a member of the House (Mr. M'Kim of Baltimore), moved 
 to except the Non-Importation Act, which he supported on 
 the ground of encouragement to manufactures. I resisted 
 the motion on the very grounds on which Mr. M'Kim sup- 
 ported it. I maintained that the manufacturers were then
 
 212 SPEECHES. 
 
 receiving too much protection, and warned its friends that 
 the withdrawal of the protection which the war and the high 
 duties then afforded would cause great embarrassment ; and 
 that the true policy, in the mean time, was to admit foreign 
 goods as freely as possible, in order to diminish the antici- 
 pated embarrassment on the return of peace ; intimating, at 
 the same time, my desire to see the tariff revised, with a 
 view of affording a moderate and permanent protection. 
 
 Such was my conduct before 1816. Shortly after that 
 period I left Congress, and had no opportunity of making 
 known my sentiments in reference to the protective system, 
 which shortly after began to be agitated. But I have the 
 most conclusive evidence that I considered the arrangement 
 of the revenue, in 1816, as growing out of the necessity of 
 the case, and due to the consideration of justice. But, even 
 at that early period, I was not without my fears that even 
 that arrangement would lead to abuse and future difficulties. 
 I regret that I have been compelled to dwell so long on my- 
 self; but trust that, whatever censure may be incurred, will 
 not be directed against me, but against those who have 
 drawn my conduct into the controversy ; and who may hope, 
 by assailing my motives, to wound the cause with which I am 
 proud to be identified. 
 
 I may add, that all the Southern States voted with South 
 Carolina in support of the bill : not that they had any in- 
 terest in manufactures, but on the ground that they had 
 supported the war, and, of course, felt a corresponding ob- 
 ligation to sustain those establishments which had grown up 
 under the encouragement it had incidentally afforded ; whilst 
 most of the New England members were opposed to the 
 measure principally, as I believe, on opposite principles. 
 
 I have now, I trust, satisfactorily repelled the charge 
 against the State, and myself personally, in reference to the 
 tariff of 1816. Whatever support the State has given the 
 bill, originated in the most disinterested motives. There was
 
 SPEECHES. 213 
 
 not within the limits of the State, so far as my memory serves 
 me, a single cotton or woollen establishment. Her whole 
 dependence was on agriculture, and the cultivation of two 
 great staples, rice and cotton. Her obvious policy was to 
 keep open the market of the world unchecked and unrestrict- 
 ed ; to buy cheap, and to sell high : but from a feeling of 
 kindness, combined with a sense of justice, she added her 
 support to the bill. We had been told by the agents of the 
 manufacturers that the protection which the measure afforded 
 would be sufficient ; to which we the more readily conceded, 
 as it was considered a final adjustment of the question. 
 
 Let us now turn our eyes forward, and see what has been 
 the conduct of the parties to this arrangement. Have Caro- 
 lina and the South disturbed this adjustment ? No ; they 
 have never raised their voice in a single instance against it, 
 even though this measure, moderate, comparatively, as it is, 
 was felt with no inconsiderable pressure on their interests. 
 Was this example imitated on the opposite side ? Far 
 otherwise. Scarcely had the President signed his name, 
 before application was made for an increase of duties, which 
 was repeated, with demands continually growing, till the 
 passage of the act of 1828. What course now, I would ask, 
 did it become Carolina to pursue in reference to these de- 
 mands ? Instead of acquiescing in them, because she had 
 acted generously in adjusting the tariff of 1816, she saw, in 
 her generosity on that occasion, additional motives for that 
 firm and decided resistance which she has since made against 
 the system of protection. She accordingly commenced a 
 systematic opposition to all further encroachments, which con- 
 tinued from 1818 till 1828 ; by discussions and by resolu- 
 tions, by remonstrances and by protests through her legis- 
 lature. These all proved insufficient to stem the current of 
 encroachment : but, notwithstanding the heavy pressure on 
 her industry, she never despaired of relief till the passage of 
 the act of 1828 that bill of abominations engendered by
 
 214 SPEECHES. 
 
 avarice and political intrigue. Its adoption opened the eyes 
 of the State, and gave a new character to the controversy. 
 Till then, the question had been, whether the protective 
 system was constitutional and expedient ; but, after that, 
 she no longer considered the question whether the right of 
 regulating the industry of the States was a reserved or dele- 
 gated power, but what right a State possesses to defend her 
 reserved powers against the encroachments of the Federal 
 Government : a question on the decision of which the value 
 of all the reserved powers depends. The passage of the act 
 of 1828, with all its objectionable features, and under the 
 circumstances connected with it, almost, if not entirely, 
 closed the door of hope through the General Government. 
 It afforded conclusive evidence that no reasonable prospect 
 of relief from Congress could be entertained ; yet, the near 
 approach of the period of the payment of the public debt, and 
 the elevation of General Jackson to the Presidency, still 
 afforded a ray of hope not so strong, however, as to prevent 
 the State from turning her eyes for final relief to her reserved 
 powers. 
 
 Under these circumstances commenced that inquiry into 
 the nature and extent of the^reserved powers of a State, and 
 the means which they afford of resistance against the en- 
 croachments of the General Government, which has been 
 pursued with so much zeal and energy, and, I may add, in- 
 telligence. Never was there a political discussion carried on 
 with greater activity, and which appealed more directly to 
 the intelligence of a community. Throughout the whole, no 
 address has been made to the low and vulgar passions ; but, 
 on the contrary, the discussion has turned upon the higher 
 principles of political economy, connected with the operations 
 of the tariff system, calculated to show its real bearing on 
 the interests of the State, and on the structure of our polit- 
 ical system ; and to show the true character of the relations 
 between the State and the General Government, and the
 
 ' ! 
 
 SPEECHES. 215 
 
 means which the States possess of defending those powers 
 which they reserved in forming the Federal Government. 
 
 In this great canvass, men of the most commanding 
 talents and acquirements have engaged with the greatest 
 ardor ; and the people have been addressed through every 
 channel by essays in the public press, and by speeches in 
 their public assemblies until they have become thoroughly 
 instructed on the nature of the oppression, and on the rights 
 which they possess, under the constitution, to throw it off. 
 
 If gentlemen suppose that the stand taken by the people 
 of Carolina rests on passion and delusion, they are wholly 
 mistaken. The case is far otherwise. No community, from 
 the legislator to the ploughman, were ever better instructed 
 in their rights ; and the resistance on which the State has 
 resolved, is the result of mature reflection, accompanied with 
 a deep conviction that their rights have been violated, and 
 that the means of redress which they have adopted are con- 
 sistent with the principles of the constitution. 
 
 But while this active canvass was carried on, which looked 
 to the reserved powers as the final means of redress if all 
 others failed, the State at the same tune cherished a hope, as 
 I have already stated, that the election of General Jackson 
 to the presidency would prevent the necessity of a resort to 
 extremities. He was identified with the interests of the 
 staple States ; and, having the same interest, it was believed 
 that his great popularity a popularity of the strongest 
 character, as it rested on military services would enable him, 
 as they hoped, gradually to bring down the system of pro- 
 tection, without shock or injury to any interest. Under these 
 views, the canvass in favor of General Jackson's election to 
 the Presidency was carried on with great zeal, in conjunction 
 with that active inquiry into the reserved powers of the States 
 on which final reliance was placed, j But little did the people i: 
 of Carolina dream that the man whom they were thus striv- 
 ing to elevate to the highest seat of power would prove so
 
 216 SPEECHES. 
 
 utterly false to all their hopes. Man is, indeed, ignorant of 
 the future ; nor was there ever a stronger illustration of the 
 observation than is afforded by the result of that election ! 
 The very event on which they had built their hopes has been 
 turned against them ; and the very individual to whom they 
 looked as a deliverer, and whom, under that impression, they 
 strove for so many years to elevate to power, is now the most 
 powerful instrument in the hands of his and their bitterest 
 opponents to put down them and their cause ! 
 
 Scarcely had he been elected, when it became apparent, 
 from the organization of his cabinet and other indications, 
 that all their hopes of relief through him were blasted."] The 
 admission of a single individual into the cabinet, under the 
 circumstances which accompanied that admission, threw all 
 into confusion. The mischievous influence over the Presi- 
 dent, through which this individual was admitted into the 
 cabinet, soon became apparent. Instead of turning his eyes 
 forward to the period of the payment of the public debt, 
 which was then near at hand, and to the present dangerous 
 political crisis, which was inevitable unless averted by a 
 timely and wise system of measures, the attention of the 
 President was absorbed by mere party arrangements, and 
 circumstances too disreputable to be mentioned here, except 
 by the most distant allusion. 
 
 Here I must pause for a moment to repel a charge which 
 has been so often made, and which even the President has 
 reiterated in his proclamation the charge that I have been 
 actuated, in the part which I have taken, by feelings of dis- 
 appointed ambition. I again repeat, that I deeply regret 
 the necessity of noticing myself in so important a discussion ; 
 and that nothing can induce me to advert to my own course 
 but the conviction that it is due to the cause, at which a blow 
 is aimed through me. It is only in this view that I no- 
 tice it. 
 
 It illy became the chief magistrate to make this charge.
 
 SPEECHES. 217 
 
 The course which the State took, and which led to the 
 present controversy between her and the General Government, 
 was taken as far back as 1828 in the very midst of that 
 severe canvass which placed him in power and in that very 
 canvass Carolina openly avowed and zealously maintained 
 those very principles which he, the chief magistrate, now 
 officially pronounces to be treason and rebellion. That was 
 the period at which he ought to have spoken. Having 
 remained silent then, and having, under his approval, im- 
 plied by that silence, received the support and the vote of 
 the State, I, if a sense of decorum did not prevent it, might 
 recriminate with the double charge of deception and ingrati- 
 tude. My object, however, is not to assail the President, but 
 to defend myself against a most unfounded charge. The 
 tune alone when that course was taken, on which this charge 
 of disappointed ambition is founded, will of itself repel it, in 
 the eye of every unprejudiced and honest man. The doc- 
 trine which I now sustain, under the present difficulties, I 
 openly avowed and maintained immediately after the act of 
 1828, that "bill of abominations," as it has been so often 
 and properly termed. Was I, at that period, disappointed 
 in any views of ambition which I might be supposed to enter- 
 tain ? I was Vice-President of the United States, elected by 
 an overwhelming majority. I was a candidate for re-election 
 on the ticket with General Jackson himself, with a certain 
 prospect of the triumphant success of that ticket, and with 
 a fair prospect of the highest office to which an American 
 citizen can aspire. What was my course under these pros- 
 pects ? Did I look to my own advancement, or to an honest 
 and faithful discharge of my duty ? Let facts speak for 
 themselves. When the bill to which I have referred came 
 from the other House to the Senate, the almost universal 
 impression was, that its fate would depend upon my casting 
 vote. It was known that, as the bill then stood, the Senate 
 was nearly equally divided ; and as it was a combined
 
 218 SPEECHES. 
 
 measure, originating with the politicians and manufacturers, 
 and intended as much to bear upon the Presidential election 
 as to protect manufactures, it was believed that, as a stroke 
 of political policy, its fate would be made to depend on my 
 vote, in order to defeat General Jackson's election, as well as 
 my own. The friends of General Jackson were alarmed, and 
 I was earnestly entreated to leave the chair in order to avoid 
 the responsibility, under the plausible argument that, if the 
 Senate should be equally divided, the bill would be lost 
 without the aid of my casting vote. The reply to this en- 
 treaty was, that no consideration personal to myself could 
 induce me to take such a course ; that I considered the 
 measure as of the most dangerous character, and calculated 
 to produce the most fearful crisis ; that the payment of the 
 public debt was just at hand ; and that the great increase 
 of revenue which it would pour into the treasury would ac- 
 celerate the approach of that period, and that the country 
 would be placed in the most trying of situations with an 
 immense revenue without the means of absorption upon any 
 legitimate or constitutional object of appropriation, and com- 
 pelled to submit to all the corrupting consequences of a large 
 surplus, or to make a sudden reduction of the rates of duties, 
 which would prove ruinous to the very interests which were 
 then forcing the passage of the bill. Under these views I 
 determined to remain in the chair, and if the bill came to me, 
 to give my casting vote against it, and in doing so, to give my 
 reasons at large ; but at the same time I informed my friends 
 that I would retire from the ticket, so that the election of 
 General Jackson might not be embarrassed by any act of 
 mine. Sir, I was amazed at the folly and infatuation of that 
 period. So completely absorbed was Congress in the game of 
 ambition and avarice from the double impulse of the manu- 
 facturers and politicians that none but a few appeared to 
 anticipate the present crisis, at which all are now alarmed, 
 but which is the inevitable result of what was then done.
 
 SPEECHES. 219 
 
 As to myself, I clearly foresaw what has since followed. The 
 road of ambition lay open before me I had but to follow the 
 corrupt tendency of the times but I chose to tread the 
 rugged path of duty. 
 
 It was thus that the reasonable hope of relief through the 
 election of General Jackson was blasted ; but still one other 
 hope remained, that the final discharge of the public debt 
 an event near at hand would remove our burden. That 
 event would leave in the treasury a large surplus : a surplus 
 that could not be expended under the most extravagant 
 schemes of appropriation, having the least color of decency 
 or constitutionality. That event at last arrived. At the 
 last session of Congress, it was avowed on all sides that the 
 public debt, as to all practical purposes, was in fact paid, the 
 small surplus remaining being nearly covered by the money 
 in the treasury and the bonds for duties which had already 
 accrued ; but with the arrival of this event our last hope was 
 doomed to be disappointed. After a long session of many 
 months, and the most earnest effort on the part of South 
 Carolina and the other Southern States to obtain relief, all 
 that could be effected was a small reduction in the amount 
 of the duties ; but a reduction of such a character, that, 
 while it diminished the amount of burden, distributed that 
 burden more unequally than even the obnoxious act of 1828 : 
 reversing the principle adopted by the bill of 1816, of laying 
 higher duties on the unprotected than the protected articles, 
 by repealing almost entirely the duties laid upon the former, 
 and imposing the burden almost entirely on the latter. It 
 was thus that, instead of relief instead of an equal distri- 
 bution of the burdens and benefits of the Government, on the 
 payment of the debt, as had been fondly anticipated the 
 duties were so arranged as to be, in fact, bounties on one side 
 and taxation on the other ; thus placing the two great sec- 
 tions of the country in direct conflict in reference to its 
 fiscal action, and thereby letting in that flood of political
 
 220 SPEECHES. 
 
 corruption Which threatens to sweep away our constitution 
 and our liberty. 
 
 This unequal and unjust arrangement was pronounced, 
 both by the administration, through its proper organ, the 
 Secretary of the Treasury, and by the opposition, to be a per- 
 manent adjustment ; and it was thus that all hope of relief 
 through the action of the General Government terminated ; 
 and the crisis so long apprehended at length arrived, at which 
 the State was compelled to choose between absolute acquies- 
 cence in a ruinous system of oppression, or a resort to her re- 
 served powers powers of which she alone was the rightful 
 judge, and which only, in this momentous juncture, could 
 save her. She determined on the latter. 
 
 The consent of two-thirds of her legislature was necessa- 
 ry for the call of a convention, which was considered the 
 only legitimate organ through which the people, in their sov- 
 ereignty, could speak. After an arduous struggle the State 
 Bights party succeeded : more than two-thirds of both branch- 
 es of the legislature favorable to a convention were elected ; 
 a convention was called the ordinance adopted. The con- 
 vention was succeeded by a meeting of the legislature, when 
 the laws to carry the ordinance into execution were enacted : 
 all of which have been communicated by the President, have 
 been referred to the Committee on the Judiciary, and this 
 bill is the result of their labor. 
 
 Having now corrected some of the prominent misrepre- 
 sentations as to the nature of this controversy, and given a 
 rapid sketch of the movement of the State in reference to it, 
 I will next proceed to notice some objections connected with 
 the ordinance and the proceedings under it. 
 
 The first and most prominent of these is directed against 
 what is called the test oath, which an effort has been made 
 to render odious. So far from deserving the denunciation 
 which has been levelled against it, I view this provision of 
 the ordinance as but the natural result of the doctrines en-
 
 SPEECHES. 221 
 
 tertained by the State, and the position which she occupies. 
 The people of Carolina believe that the Union is a union of 
 States, and not of individuals ; that it was formed by the 
 States, and that the citizens of the several States were bound 
 to it through the acts of their several States ; that each 
 State ratified the constitution for itself, and that it was only 
 by such ratification of a State that any obligation was im- 
 posed upon its citizens. Thus believing, it is the opinion of 
 the people of Carolina that it belongs to the State which has 
 imposed the obligation to declare, in the last resort, the ex- 
 tent of this obligation, as far as her citizens are concerned ; 
 and this upon the plain principles which exist in all analo- 
 gous cases of compact between sovereign bodies. On this 
 principle, the people of the State, acting in their sovereign 
 capacity in convention, precisely as they did in the adoption 
 of their own and the federal constitution, have declared, by 
 the ordinance, that the acts of Congress which imposed du- 
 ties under the authority to lay imposts, are acts, not for rev- 
 enue, as intended by the constitution, but for protection, and 
 therefore null and void. The ordinance thus enacted by the 
 people of the State themselves, acting as a sovereign commu- 
 nity, is as obligatory on the citizens of the State as any por- 
 tion of the constitution. In prescribing, then, the oath to 
 obey the ordinance, no more was done than to prescribe an 
 oath to obey the constitution. It is, in fact, but a particular 
 oath of allegiance, and in every respect similar to that which 
 is prescribed, under the constitution of the United States, to 
 be administered to all the officers of the State and Federal 
 Governments ; and is no more deserving the harsh and bitter 
 epithets which have been heaped upon it, than that, or any 
 similar oath. It ought to be borne in mind, that, according 
 to the opinion which prevails in Carolina, the right of resist- 
 ance to the unconstitutional acts of Congress belongs to the 
 State, and not to her individual citizens ; and that, though 
 the latter may, in a mere question of meum and tuum, resist,
 
 222 SPEECHES. 
 
 through the courts, an unconstitutional encroachment upon 
 their rights, yet the final stand against usurpation rests not 
 with them, but with the State of which they are members ; 
 and such act of resistance by a State binds the conscience 
 and allegiance of the citizen. But there appears to be a 
 general misapprehension as to the extent to which the State 
 has acted under this part of the ordinance. Instead of sweep- 
 ing every officer by a general proscription of the minority, as 
 has been represented in debate, as far as my knowledge ex- 
 tends, not a single individual has been removed. The State 
 has, in fact, acted with the greatest tenderness, all circum- 
 stances considered, towards citizens who differed from the 
 majority ; and, in that spirit, has directed the oath to be 
 administered only in case of some official act directed to be 
 performed, in which obedience to the ordinance is involved. A 
 It has been further objected, that the State has acted 
 precipitately. What ! precipitately ! after making a strenu- 
 ous resistance for twelve years by discussion here and in 
 the other House of Congress by essays in all forms by 
 resolutions, remonstrances, and protests on the part of her 
 legislature and, finally, by attempting an appeal to the 
 judicial power of the United States ? I say attempting, for 
 they have been prevented from bringing the question fairly 
 before the court, and that by an act of that very majority in 
 Congress who now upbraid them for not making that ap- 
 peal ; of that majority who, on a motion of one of the mem- 
 bers in the other House from South Carolina, refused to give 
 to the act of 1828 its true title that it was a protective, 
 and not a revenue act. The State has never, it is true, re- 
 lied upon that tribunal, the Supreme Court, to vindicate its 
 reserved rights ; yet they have always considered it as an 
 auxiliary means of defence, of which they would gladly have 
 availed themselves to test the constitutionality of protection, 
 had they not been deprived of the means of doing so by the 
 act of the majority.
 
 SPEECHES. 223 
 
 Notwithstanding this long delay of more than ten years, 
 under this continued encroachment of the Government, we 
 now hear it on all sides, by friends and foes, gravely pro- 
 nounced that the State has acted precipitately that her 
 conduct has been rash ! /That such should be the language 
 of an interested majority, who, by means of this unconstitu- 
 tional and oppressive system, are annually extorting millions 
 from the South, to be bestowed upon other sections, is not 
 at all surprising. Whatever impedes the course of avarice 
 and ambition, will ever be denounced as rash and precipi- 
 tate ;/and had South Carolina delayed her resistance fifty 
 instead of twelve years, she would have heard from the same 
 quarter the same language ; but it is really surprising, that 
 those who are suffering in common with herself, and who 
 have complained equally loud of their grievances ; who have 
 pronounced the very acts which she has asserted within her 
 limits to be oppressive, unconstitutional, and ruinous, after 
 so long a struggle a struggle longer than that which pre- 
 ceded the separation of these States from the mother-coun- 
 try longer than the period of the Trojan war should now 
 complain of precipitancy ! No, it is not Carolina which has 
 acted precipitately ; but her sister States, who have suffered 
 in common with her, have acted tardily. Had they acted as 
 she has done ; had they performed their duty with equal en- 
 ergy and promptness, our situation this day would be very 
 different from what we now find \yf Delays are said to be 
 dangerous ; and never was the mAxim more true than in the 
 present case, a case of monopoly. It is the very nature of 
 monopolies to grow. If we take from one side a large por- 
 tion of the proceeds of its labor, and give it to the other, 
 the side from which we take must constantly decay, and that 
 to which we give must prosper and increase. Such is the 
 action of the protective system. It exacts from the South 
 a large portion of the proceeds of its industry, which it be- 
 stows upon the other sections, in the shape of bounties to
 
 224 SPEECHES. 
 
 manufactures, and appropriations in a thousand forms / pen- 
 sions, improvement of rivers and harbors, roads and canals, 
 and in every shape that wit or ingenuity can devise. Can 
 we, then, be surprised that the principle of monopoly grows, 
 when it is so amply remunerated at the expense of those who 
 support it ? And this is the real reason of the fact which 
 we witness, that all acts for protection pass with small mi- 
 norities, but soon come to be sustained by great and over- 
 whelming majorities. Those who seek the monopoly en- 
 deavor to obtain it in the most exclusive shape ; and they 
 take care, accordingly, to associate only a sufficient number 
 of interests barely to pass it through the two Houses of Con- 
 gress, on the plain principle, that the greater the number 
 from whom the monopoly takes, and the fewer on whom it 
 bestows, the greater is the advantage to the monopolists. 
 Acting in this spirit, we have often seen with what exact 
 precision they count : adding wool to woollens, associating 
 lead and iron, feeling their way, until a bare majority is ob- 
 tained, when the bill passes, connecting just as many inter- 
 ests as are sufficient to ensure its success, and no more. In 
 a short time, however, we have invariably found that this 
 lean becomes a decided majority, under the certain operation 
 which compels individuals to desert the pursuits which the 
 monopoly has rendered unprofitable, that they may partici- 
 pate in those which it has rendered profitable. It is against 
 this dangerous and growing disease that South Carolina has 
 acted a disease, whose cancerous action would soon have 
 spread to every part of the system, if not arrested. 
 
 There is another powerful reason why the action of the 
 State could not have been safely delayed. The public debt, 
 as I have already stated, for all practical purposes, has already 
 been paid ; and, under the existing duties, a large annual 
 surplus of many millions must come into the treasury. It is 
 impossible to look at this state of things without seeing the 
 most mischievous consequences ; and, among others, if not
 
 SPEECHES. 225 
 
 speedily corrected, it would interpose powerful and almost in- 
 superable obstacles to throwing off the burden under which 
 the South has been so long laboring. The disposition of the 
 surplus would become a subject of violent and corrupt strug- 
 gle, and could not fail to rear up new and powerful interests 
 in support of the existing system, not only in those sections 
 which have been heretofore benefited by it, but even in the 
 South itself. I cannot but trace to the anticipation of this 
 state of the treasury the sudden and extraordinary move- 
 ments which took place at the last session in the Virginia 
 Legislature, in which the whole South is vitally interested.* 
 It is impossible for any rational man to believe that that 
 State could seriously have thought of effecting the scheme to 
 which I allude by her own resources, without powerful aid 
 from the General Government. 
 
 It is next objected, that the enforcing acts have legislated 
 the United States out of South Carolina. I have already 
 replied to this objection on another occasion, and will now 
 but repeat what I then said : that they have been legislated 
 out only to the extent that they had no right to enter. The 
 constitution has admitted the jurisdiction of the United 
 States within the limits of the several States only so far as 
 the delegated powers authorize ; beyond that they are in- 
 truders, and may rightfully be expelled ; and that they have 
 been efficiently expelled by the legislation of the State 
 through her civil process, as has been acknowledged on all 
 sides in the debate, is only a confirmation of the truth of 
 the doctrine for which the majority in Carolina have con- 
 tended. 
 
 The very point at issue between the two parties there is, 
 whether nullification is a peaceable and an efficient remedy 
 against an unconstitutional act of the General Government, 
 and may be asserted, as such, through the State tribunals. 
 
 * Having for their object the emancipation and colonization of slaves. 
 
 VOL. II. 15
 
 226 SPEECHES. 
 
 Both parties agree that the acts against which it is directed 
 are unconstitutional and oppressive. The controversy is only 
 as to the means by which our citizens may be protected 
 against the acknowledged encroachments on their rights. 
 This being the point at issue between the parties, and the 
 very object of the majority being an efficient protection of 
 the citizens through the State tribunals, the measures adopt- 
 ed to enforce the ordinance, of course received the most deci- 
 sive character. We were not children, to act by halves. 
 Yet for acting thus efficiently the State is denounced, and 
 this bill reported, to overrule, by military force, the civil tri- 
 bunals and civil process of the State ! /Sir, I consider this 
 bill, and the arguments which have been urged on this floor 
 in its support, as the most triumphant acknowledgment 
 that nullification is peaceful and efficient, and so deeply in- 
 trenched in the principles of our system, that it cannot be 
 assailed but by prostrating the constitution, and substituting 
 the supremacy of military force in lieu of the supremacy of 
 the laws. In fact, the advocates of this bill refute their own 
 argument. They tell us that the ordinance is unconstitu- 
 tional ; that it infracts the constitution of South Carolina, 
 although, to me, the objection appears absurd, as it was 
 adopted by the very authority which adopted the- constitu- 
 tion itself. They also tell us that the Supreme Court, is the 
 appointed arbiter of all controversies between a State and 
 the General Government. Why, then, do they not leave 
 this controversy to that tribunal ? Why do they not confide 
 to them the abrogation of the ordinance, and the laws made 
 in pursuance of it, and the assertion of that supremacy which 
 they claim for the laws of Congress ? The State stands 
 pledged to resist no process of the court. Why, then, confer 
 on the President the extensive and unlimited powers provided 
 in this bill ? Why authorize him to use military force to 
 arrest the civil process of the State ? But one answer can 
 be given : That, in a contest between the State and the Gen-
 
 SPEECHES. 227 
 
 eral Government, if the resistance be limited on both sides 
 to the civil process, the State, by its inherent sovereignty, 
 standing upon its reserved powers^will prcrwe too powerful in 
 such a controversy, and must triumph over the Federal Gov- 
 ernment, sustained by its delegated and limited authority ; 
 and hi this answer we have an acknowledgment of the truth 
 of those great principles for which the State has so firmly 
 and nobly contended. 
 
 Having made these remarks, t^ie great question is now 
 presented, Has Congress the right to pass this bill ? which 
 I will next proceed to consider. The decision of this ques- 
 tion involves an inquiry into the provisions of the bill. 
 
 , 
 
 What are they ? It puts at the disposal of the President 
 
 the army and navy, and the entire militia of the country ; it , ( -^^A 
 
 enables him, at his pleasure, to subject every man in the I "^Uftfi 
 
 United States, not exempt from militia duty, to martial law ; fftl r 
 
 to call him from his ordinary occupation to the field, and un- 
 
 der the penalty of fine and imprisonment, inflicted by a 
 
 court martial, to imbrue his hand in his brother's blood. 
 
 There is no limitation on the power of the sword ; and that 
 
 over the purse is equally without restraint ; for among the 
 
 extraordinary features of tjie bill, it contains no appropria- 
 
 tion, which, under existing circumstances, is tantamount to 
 
 an unlimited appropriation. The President may, under its 
 
 authority, incur any expenditure, and pledge the national 
 
 faith to meet it. He may create a new national debt, at the 
 
 very moment 'of the termination of the former-^a debt of 
 
 millions, to be paid out of the proceeds of the labor of that 
 
 section of the country whose dearest constitutional* rights 
 
 this bill prostrates ! Thus exhibiting the extraordinary spec- 
 
 tacle, that the very section of the country which is urging 
 
 this measure, and carrying the sword of devastation against 
 
 us, is, at the same tune, .incurring a new clebt, to be paid 
 
 by those whose rights are violated ; while those who violate
 
 228 SPEECHES. 
 
 them are to receive the benefits, in the shape of bounties and 
 expenditures. 
 
 And for wha,t purpose is the unlimited control of the 
 purse and of the sword thus placed at the disposition of the 
 Executive ? To make war against one of the free and sov- 
 ereign members of this confederation, which the bill proposes 
 to 'deal with, not as a State, but as a collection of banditti or 
 outlaws. Thus exhibiting the impious spectacle of this Gov- 
 ernment, the creature of the States, making war against the 
 power to which it owes its existence. 
 
 The bill violates the constitution, plainly and palpably, 
 in many of its provisions, ^^authorizing the President at 
 his pleasure, to place the different ports of this Union on an 
 unequal footing, contrary to that provision of ihe> constitu- 
 tion which declares that no preference shall be give%to one 
 port over another. It also violates the constitutiblt'lby au- 
 thorizing him, at his discretion, to impose cash duties on one 
 port, while credit is allowed in others^Jy enabling the Pres- 
 ident to regulate commerce, a power vested in Congress 
 alone ; and by drawing within the jurisdiction of the United 
 States Courts, powers never intended to be conferred on then)/ 
 As great as these objections are, they become insignificant in 
 the provisions of a bill which, by a single blow by treating 
 the States as a mere lawless mass of individuals prostrates 
 all the barriers of the constitution. I will pass over the mi- 
 nor considerations, and proceed directly to the great point. 
 This bill proceeds on the ground that the entire sovereignty 
 of this country belongs to the American people, as forming 
 one great community, and regards the States as mere frac- 
 tions or counties, and not as integral parts of the Union ; 
 having no more right to resist the encroachments of the Gov- 
 ernment than a county has to resist the authority of a State ; 
 and treating such resistance as the lawless acts of so many 
 individuals, without possessing sovereignty or political rights, 
 i J It has been said that the bill declares war against South Car-
 
 SPEECHES. 229 
 
 olina. No. It decrees a massacre of her citizens ! War 
 has something ennobling about it, and, with all its horrors, 
 brings into action the highest qualities, intellectual and 
 moral. It was, perhaps, in the order <of Providence that it 
 should be permitted for that very purpose. But this bill de- 
 clares no war, except, indeed, it be that which savages wage 
 a war, not against the community, but the citizens of 
 whom that community is composed. But I regard it as 
 worse than savage warfare as an attempt to take away life 
 under the color of law, without the trial by jury, or any other 
 safeguard which the constitution has thrown around the life 
 of the citizen ! It authorizes the President, or even his de- 
 puties, when they may suppose the law to be violated, with- 
 out the intervention of a court or jury, to kill without mercy 
 or discrimination ! 
 
 It has been said by the senator from Tennessee (Mr. 
 Grundy) to be a measure of peace ! Yes, such peace as the 
 wolf gives to the lamb the kite to the dove ! Such peace 
 as Russia gives to Poland, or death to its victim ! A peace, 
 by extinguishing the political existence of the State, by aw- 
 ing her into an abandonment of the exercise oJLevery power 
 which constitutes her a sovereign communitj^lt is to South 
 Carolina a question of self-preservation ; and I proclaim it, 
 that, should this bill pass, and an attempt be made to en- IJMJ& * 
 force it, it will be resisted, at every hazard even that of ^a 0J& 
 death itself. Death is not the greatest calamity : there are Ufr*^ 
 others still more terrible to the free and brave, and among 'o*^*\ ^ 
 them may be placed the loss of liberty and honor. There are _ 
 thousands of her brave sons who, if need be, are prepared 
 cheerfully to lay down their lives in defence of the State, and 
 the great principles of constitutional liberty for which she is 
 contending/; God forbid that this should become necessary ! 
 It never can be, unless this Government is resolved to bring 
 the question to extremity, when her gallant sons will stand 
 prepared to perform the last duty to die nobly.
 
 230 SPEECHES. 
 
 /> <*.c o I go on the ground that this constitntion was made by 
 States ; that it is a federal union of the States, in which 
 several States 'still retain their sovereignty. If these views 
 be correct, I have not characterized the bill too strongly ; 
 and the question is, whether they be or be not. I jaqll 
 not enter into the discussion of this question now. I will 
 rest it, for the present, on what I 'have said on the intro- 
 duction of the resolutions now on the table, under a hope 
 that another opportunity will be Afforded for more ample dis- 
 cussion. I will, for the present, confine my remarks to the 
 objections which have been raised to the* views which I pre- 
 sented when I introduced them. The authority of Luther 
 Martin has been adduced by the Senator from Delaware, to 
 prove that the citizens of a State, acting under the author- 
 ity of a State, are liable to be punished as traitors by this 
 government. Eminent as Mr. Martin was as a lawyer, and 
 high as his authority may be considered on a legal point, 
 I cannot accept it in determining the point at issue. The 
 attitude which he occupied, if taken into view, would lessen, 
 if not destroy, the weight of his authority. He had been 
 violently opposed in convention to the constitution, and the 
 very letter from which the Senator has quoted was intended 
 to dissuade Maryland from its adoption. With this view, it 
 was to be expected ^that every consideration calculated to ef- 
 fect that object should be urged ; that real objections should 
 be exaggerated ; and that those having no foundation, ex- 
 cept mere plausible deductions, should be presented. It is 
 to this spirit that I attribute the opinion of Mr. Martin in 
 reference to the point under consideration. But if his au-' 
 thority be good on one point, it must be admitted to be 
 equally so on another. If his opinion be sufficient te prove 
 that a citizen of a State may be punished as a traitor when 
 acting under allegiance to the State, it is also sufficient to 
 show that no authority was intended to be given in the con- 
 etitution for the protection of manufactures by the General
 
 SPEECHES. . 231 
 
 Government, and that the provision in the constitution per- 
 mitting a State to lay an impost duty, with the consent of 
 Congress, was intended to reserve the right of protection to 
 the States themselves, and that each State should protect its 
 own 'industry. Assuming his opinion to be of equal author- 
 ity on both points, how embarrassing would be the attitude 
 in which it would place the Senator from Delaware, and those 
 with whom he is acting that of using the sword and bayo- 
 net to enforce the execution, of an unconstitutional act of 
 Congress. I must express my surprise that the slightest au- 
 thority in favor of power should be received as the most 
 conclusive evidence, while that which is, at least, equally 
 strong in favor of right and liberty, is wholly overlooked or 
 rejected. 
 
 Notwithstanding all that has been said, I may say that 
 neither the Senator from Delaware (Mr. Clayton), nor any 
 other who has spoken on the same side, has directly and 
 fairly met the great question at issue : Is this a federal 
 union ? a union 'of States, as distinct from that of indivi- 
 duals ? Is the sovereignty in the several States, or in the 
 American people in the aggregate ? The_jery- language 
 which we are compelled to use when speaking of our poli- 
 tical institutions, affords proof conclusive as to its real cha- 
 rafiier,. T^he terms union, federal, united, all imply a 
 combination of sovereignties, a, confederation of States. They 
 are never applied to an association of individuals. '-"Who 
 ever heard of the United State of New- York, of Massachu- 
 setts, or of Virginia ? Who ever heard the term federal or 
 union applied to "the aggregation of individuals into one 
 community ? Nor is the other point less clear that the 
 sovereignty is in the several States, and that our system is 
 a union of twenty-four sovereign powers, under a constitu- 
 tional compact, and jiot of a divided sovereignty between 
 the States severally and the United States. } In spite of all 
 that has been said, I maintain that sovereignty 7 is In~lts
 
 232 SPEECHES. 
 
 nature indivisible. It is the supreme power in a State, and 
 we might just as well speak of half a square, or half of 
 a triangle, as of half a sovereignty. It is a gross error to 
 confound the exercise of sovereign powers with sovereignty 
 itself, or the delegation of such powers with the surrender of 
 them. A sovereign may delegate his powers to be exercised 
 by as many agents as he may think proper, under such con- 
 ditions and with such limitations as he may impose ; but to 
 surrender any portion of his sovereignty to another is to 
 annihilate the whole. The Senator from Delaware (Mr. Clay- 
 ton) calls this metaphysical reasoning, which he says he 
 cannot comprehend. If by metaphysics he means that 
 scholastic refinement which makes distinctions without dif- 
 ference, no one can hold it in more utter contempt than I 
 do ; but if, on the contrary, he means the power of analysis 
 and combination that power which reduces the most com- 
 plex idea into its elements, which traces causes to their first 
 principle, and, by the power of generalization and com- 
 bination, unites the whole in one harmonious system then, so 
 far from deserving contempt, it is the highest attribute of 
 the human mind. It is the power which raises man above 
 the brute which distinguishes his faculties from mere saga- 
 city, which he holds in common with inferior animals. It 
 is this power which has raised the astronomer from being a 
 mere gazer at the stars to the high intellectual eminence of 
 a Newton or a Laplace, and astronomy itself from a mere 
 observation of insulated facts into that noble science which 
 displays to our admiration the system of the universe. 
 And shall this high power of the mind, which has effected 
 such wonders when directed to the laws which control the 
 material world, be for ever prohibited, under a senseless cry 
 of metaphysics, from being applied to the high purpose of 
 political science and legislation ? I hold them to be subject 
 to laws as fixed as matter itself, and to be as fit a subject 
 for the application of the highest intellectual power. Denun-
 
 SPEECHES. 23S 
 
 ciation may, indeed, fall upon the philosophical inquirer 
 into these first principles, as it did upon Galileo and Bacon 
 when they first nnfolded the great discoveries which have 
 immortalized their names ; but the tune will come when 
 truth will prevail in spite of prejudice and denunciation, and 
 when politics and legislation will be considered as much a 
 science as astronomy and chemistry. 
 
 In connection with this part of the subject, I understood 
 the Senator from Virginia (Mr. Rives) to say that sove- 
 reignty was divided, and that a portion remained with the 
 States severally, and that the residue was vested in the 
 Union. By Union, I suppose the Senator meant the United 
 States. If such be his meaning if he intended to affirm 
 that the sovereignty was in the twenty-four States, in what- 
 
 r light he may view them, our opinions will not disagree ; 
 
 t according to my conception, the whole sovereignty is in 
 the several States, while the exercise of sovereign powers is 
 divided ajpart being exercised under compact, through this 
 General Government, and the residue through the separate 
 State Governments. But if the Senator from Virginia (Mr. 
 Rives) means to assert that the twenty-four States form but 
 one community, with a single sovereign power as to the 
 objects of the Union, it will be but the revival of the. old 
 question, of whether the Union is a union between States, 
 as distinct communities, or a mere aggregate of the Ameri- 
 can people, as a mass of individuals ; and in this light his 
 opinions would lead directly to consolidation: 
 
 But to return to the bill. It is said mat the bill ought 
 to pass, because the law must be enforced. The law_must 
 be enforced ! The imperial edict must be executed/ It is 
 under such sophistry, couched in general terms, without 
 looking to the limitations which must ever exist in the prac- 
 tical exercise of power, that the most cruel and despotic 
 acts ever have been covered/ It was such sophistry as this 
 that cast Daniel into the lion's den, and the three Innocents
 
 234 SPEECHES. 
 
 into the fiery furnace. / Under the same sophistry the bloody 
 edicts of Nero and Caligula were executed?: The law must 
 be enforced. Yes, the act imposing the " tea-tax must be 
 executed/' y/This was the very argument which impelled 
 Lord North and his administration to that mad career which 
 for ever separated us from the British crown/ Under a 
 similar sophistry, " that religion must be protected," how 
 many massacres have been perpetrated .? and how many 
 martyrs have been tied to the stake ?/What ! acting on 
 this vague abstraction, are you prepared to enforce a law 
 without considering whether it be just or unjust, constitu- 
 tional or unconstitutional ? Will you collect money when 
 it is acknowledged that it is not wanted ? He who earns 
 the money, who digs it from the earth with the sweat of his 
 brow, has a just title to it against the universe. No one has 
 a right to touch it without his consent except his govern- 
 ment, and this only to the extent of its legitimate wants-; 
 to take more is robbery ? and you propose by this bill to 
 enforce robbery by murdery/Yes : to this result you must 
 come, by this miserable sophistry, this vague abstraction of 
 enforcing the law, without a regard to the fact whether the 
 law ye just or unjust, constitutional or unconstitutional. 
 
 [n the same spirit, we are told that the Union must be 
 ^served, without regard to the means. And how is it pro- 
 posed to preserve the Union ? By force ! Does any man 
 in his senses believe that this beautiful structure this har- 
 monious aggregate of States, produced by the joint consent 
 of all can -be preserved by force ? Its very introduction 
 will be certain destruction to this Federal Union. No, no. 
 You cannot keep the States united in their constitutional 
 "and federal bonds by force..' 'Force may, indeed, hold the 
 parts together, but such union would be the bond between 
 master and slave a union of exaction on one side and of 
 unqualified obedience on the other. \ That obedience which, 
 we are told by the Senator from Pennsylvania (Mr. Wilkins),
 
 SPEECHES. 235 
 
 is the Union ! [ Yes, exaction on the side of the master ; ' 
 for this very bill is intended to collect what can be no longer ^ 
 called taxes the voluntary contribution of a free people 
 but tribute -tribute to be collected under the mouths of the 
 cannon !/ Your custom-house is already transferred to a 
 garrison, and that garrison with its batteries turned, not 
 against the enemy of your country, but on subjects (I will 
 not say citizens), on whom you propose to levy contributions. 
 Has reason fled- from our borders ? Have we ceased to 
 reflect ? It is madness to suppose that the Union can be 
 preserved by force/ I tell you plainly, that the bill, should 
 it pass, cannot be enforced. It will prove only a blot upon 
 your statute-book, a reproach to the year, and a disgrace to 
 the American Senate. I repeat, it will not be executed ; it 
 will rousethe dormant spirit of the people, and open their eyes 
 to the approach of despotism. The country has sunk into 
 avarice and political corruption, "from wnjch nothing can 
 arouse, it buT some measure, on the part of the Government, 
 of folly" and madness, such as that now under consideration. 
 ^/Disguise it as you may, the controversy is one between 
 ^Xpower and liberty ; and I tell the gentlemen who are opposed 
 to me, that, as strong as may be the love of power on their 
 side, the love of liberty is still stronger en ours. History 
 furnishes many instances of similar struggles, where the love 
 of liberty has prevailed against power under every disadvan- 
 tage, and among them few more striking than that of our 
 own Revolution ; where, as strong as was the parent country, 
 and feeble as were the colonies, yet, under the impulse of 
 liberty, and the blessing of God, they gloriously triumphed 
 in the contest. There are, indeed, many and striking analo- 
 gies between that and the present controversy. They both 
 originated substantially in the same cause with this dif- 
 ierencer in the present case, the power of taxation is con- 
 verted into that of regulating ' industry ; in the other, the 
 power of regulating industry, by the regulation of commerce,
 
 236 SPEECHES. 
 
 was attempted to be converted into the power of taxation. 
 Were I to trace the analogy further, we should find that the 
 perversion of the taxing power, in the one case, has given 
 precisely the same control to the Northern section over the 
 industry of the Southern section of the Union, which the 
 power to regulate commerce gave to Great Britain over the 
 industry of the colonies in the other ; and that the very 
 articles in which the colonies were permitted to have a free 
 trade, and those in which the mother-country had a monop- 
 oly, are almost identically the same as those in which the 
 Southern States are permitted to have a free trade by the 
 act of 1832, and in which the Northern States have, by the 
 same act, 'secured a monopoly. The only difference is in the 
 means. In the former, the colonies were permitted to have 
 a free trade with all countries south of Cape Finisterre, a 
 cape in the northern part of Spain ; while north of that, 
 the trade of the colonies was prohibited, except through the 
 mother-country, by means of her commercial regulations. 
 If we compare the products of the country north and south 
 of Cape Finisterre, we shall find them almost identical with 
 the list of the protected and unprotected articles contained 
 in the act of last year. Nor does the analogy terminate 
 here. The very arguments resorted to at the commence- 
 ment of the American Revolution, and the measures adopted, 
 and the motives assigned to bring on that contest (to enforce 
 the law), are almost identically the same. 
 
 But to return from this digression to' the consideration 
 of the bill. Whatever difference of opinion may exist upon 
 other points, there is one on which I should suppose there 
 can be none : that this bill rests on principles which, if car- 
 ried out, will ride over State sovereignties, and that it will 
 be idle for any of its advocates hereafter to talk of State 
 rights. The Senator from Virginia (Mr. Eives) says that 
 he is the advocate of State rights ; but he must permit me 
 to tell him that, although ne may differ in premises from
 
 SPEECHES. 237 
 
 the other gentlemen with whom he acts on this occasion, yet, 
 in supporting this bill, he obliterates every vestige of dis- 
 tinction between him and them, saving only that, professing 
 the principles of '98, his example will be more pernicious 
 than that of the most open and bitter opponents of the rights 
 of the States. I will also add, what I am compelled to say, 
 that I must consider him (Mr. Eives) as less consistent than 
 our old opponents, whose conclusions were fairly drawn from 
 their premises, while his premises ought to have led him to 
 opposite conclusions. The gentleman has told us that the 
 new-fangled doctrines, as he chooses to call them, have 
 brought State rights into disrepute. I must tell him, in 
 reply, that what he calls new-fangled are but the doctrines 
 of '98 ; and that it is he (Mr. Eives), and others with him, 
 who, professing these doctrines, have degraded them by ex- 
 plaining away their meaning and efficacy. He (Mr. E.) has 
 disclaimed, in behalf of Virginia, the authorship of nullifi- 
 cation. I will not dispute that point. If Virginia chooses 
 to throw away one of her brightest ornaments, she must not 
 hereafter complain that it has become the property of 
 another. But while I have, as a representative of Carolina, 
 no right to complain of the disavowal of the Senator from 
 Virginia, I must believe that he (Mr. E.) has done his native 
 State great injustice by declaring on this floor, that when 
 she gravely resolved, in '98, that " in cases of deliberate and 
 dangerous infractions of the constitution, the States, as par- 
 ties to the compact, have the right, and are in duty bound, 
 to interpose to arrest the progress of the evil, and to main- 
 tain withiii their respective limits the authorities, rights, and 
 liberties, appertaining to them," she meant no more than to 
 proclaim the right to protest and to remonstrate. To sup- 
 pose that, in putting forth so solemn a declaration, which 
 she afterwards sustained by so able and elaborate an argu- 
 ment, she meant no more than to assert what no one had 
 ever denied, would be to suppose that the State had been
 
 238 SPEECHES. 
 
 guilty of the most egregious trifling that ever was exhibited 
 on so solemn an occasion. 
 
 <In reviewing the ground, over which I have passed, it 
 dll be apparent that the question in controversy involves 
 that most deeply important of all political questions, whether 
 ours is a federal or a .consolidated government ', a question, 
 on the decision of which depend, as I solemnly believe, the 
 liberty of the people, their happiness, and the place which 
 we are destined to hold in the moral and intellectual scale 
 of nations. Never was there a controversy in which more 
 important consequences were involved ; not excepting that 
 between Persia and Greece, decided by the battles of Mara- 
 thon, Platea, and Salamis which gave . ascendency to the 
 genius of Europe .over that of Asia and which, in its con- 
 sequences, has continued to "affect the destiny of so large a 
 portion of the world even to this day. There are often close 
 analogies between events apparently very remote, which are 
 strikingly illustrated in this case. In the great contest be- 
 tween Greece and Persia, between European and Asiatic 
 polity and civilization, the very question between the federal 
 and consolidated form of government was involved. . The 
 Asiatic governments, from, the remotest time, with some 
 exceptions on the eastern shore of the Mediterranean, have 
 been based on the principle of consolidation, which considers 
 the whole community asT)ut a unit, and consolidates its powers 
 in a central point. The opposite principle has prevailed in 
 Europe Greece, throughout all her states, was based on a 
 federal system. All were united in One common but loose bond, 
 and the governments of the several States partook, for the 
 most part, of .a complex organization, which distributed 
 political power among different members of the community. 
 The same, principles prevailed- in ancient Italy ; and, if we 
 turn to the Teutonic race, our great ancestors the race 
 which occupies the first place in power, civilization, and 
 science, and which possesses the largest and the fairest part 
 
 V T
 
 SPEECHES. 239 
 
 of Europe we shall find that their governments were based 
 on federal organization, as has been clearly illustrated by a 
 recent and able writer on the British Constitution (Mr. Pal- 
 grave), from whose works I take the following extract : ' 
 
 " In this manner the first establishment of the Teutonic States was 
 effected. They were assemblages of septs, clans, and tribes ; they were 
 confederated hosts and armies, kd on by princes, magistrates, and chief- 
 tains ; each of whom was originally independent, and each of whom tost 
 a portion of his pristine independence in proportion as he and his compeers 
 became united under the supremacy of a sovereign, who was superinduced 
 upon the state, first as a military commander and afterward as a king. 
 Yet, notwithstanding this political connection, each member of the state 
 continued to retain a considerable portion of the rights of sovereignty. 
 Every ancient Teutonic monarchy must be considered as a federation ; it 
 is not a unit, of which the smaller bodies politic therein contained are the 
 fractions, but they are the integers, and the state is the multiple which 
 results from them. l)ukedoms and counties, burghs and baronies, towns 
 and townships, and shires, form the kingdom ; all, in a certain degree, 
 strangers to each other, and separate in jurisdiction, though all obedient 
 to the supreme executive authority. This general description, though not 
 always strictly applicable in terms, is always so substantially and in 
 effect ; and hence it becomes necessary to discard the language which has 
 been very generally employed in treating on the English Constitution. It 
 has been supposed that the kingdom was reduced into a regular and 
 gradual subordination of government, and that the various legal districts 
 of which it is composed, arose from the divisions and subdivisions of the 
 country. But this hypothesis, which tends greatly to perplex oilr history, 
 cannot be supported by fact ; and, instead of viewing the constitution as a 
 whole, and then proceeding to its parts, we must examine it synthetically, 
 and assume that the supreme authorities of the state were created by the 
 concentration of the powers originally belonging to the members and cor- 
 porations of which it is composed." 
 
 [Here Mr. C. gave way for a motion to adjourn.] 
 
 On the next day Mr. Calhoun said : I have omitted at 
 the proper place, in the course of my observations yesterday, 
 two or three points, to which I will now advert, before I re- 
 sume the discussion- where I left off. I have stated that the 
 ordinance and acts of South Carolina were directed, not
 
 240 SPEECHES. 
 
 against the revenue, but against the system of protection. 
 But it may be asked, if such was her object, how happens it 
 that she has declared the whole system void revenue as 
 well as protection, without discrimination ? It is this ques- 
 tion which I propose to answer. Her justification will be 
 found in the necessity of the case ; and if there be any 
 blame, it cannot attach to her. The two are so blended, 
 throughout the whole, as to make the entire revenue system 
 subordinate to the protective, so as to constitute a complete 
 system of protection, in which it is impossible to discrimi- 
 nate the two elements of which it is composed. South 
 Carolina, at least, could not make the discrimination ; and 
 she was reduced to the alternative of acquiescing in a system 
 which she believed to be unconstitutional, and which she 
 felt to be oppressive and ruinous, or to consider the whole 
 as one, equally contaminated through all its parts, by the 
 unconstitutionality of the protective portion, and as such, to 
 be resisted by the act of the State. I maintain that the 
 State has a right to regard it in the latter character, and that, 
 if a loss of revenue follow, the fault is not hers, but of this 
 Government, which has improperly blended together, in a 
 manner not to be separated by the State, two systems 
 wholly dissimilar. If the sincerity of the State be doubted ; 
 if it be supposed that her action is against revenue as well 
 as protection, let the two be separated let so much of the 
 duties as are intended for revenue be put hi one bill, and the 
 residue intended for protection be put in another, and I 
 pledge myself that the ordinance and the acts of the State 
 will cease as to the former, and be directed exclusively against 
 the latter. 
 
 I also stated, in the course of my remarks yesterday, and 
 I trust that I have conclusively shown, that the act of 1816, 
 with the exception of a single item, to which I have alluded, 
 was, in reality, a revenue measure ; and that Carolina and 
 the other States, in supporting it, have not incurred the
 
 SPEECHES. 241 
 
 slightest responsibility in relation to the system of protection 
 which has since grown up, and which now so deeply distracts 
 the country. Sir, I am willing, as one of the representatives 
 of Carolina, and I believe I speak the sentiment of the State, 
 to take that act as the basis of a permanent adjustment of the 
 tariff, simply reducing the duties, in an average proportion, 
 on all the items to the revenue point. I make that offer 
 now to the advocates of the protective system ; but I must, 
 in candor, inform them that such an adjustment would dis- 
 tribute the revenue between the protected and unprotected 
 articles more favorably to the State, and to the South, and 
 less to the manufacturing interest, than an average uniform 
 ad valorem, and, accordingly, more so than that now proposed 
 by Carolina through her convention. After such an offer, no 
 man who values his candor will dare accuse the State, or 
 those who have represented her here, with inconsistency in 
 reference to the point under consideration. 
 
 I omitted, also, on yesterday, to notice a remark of the 
 Senator from Virginia (Mr. Kives), that the only difficulty 
 in adjusting the., tariff grew out of the ordinance and the 
 acts of South Carolina. I must attribute an assertion, so in- 
 consistent with the facts, to an ignorance of the occurrences 
 of the last few years in reference to this subject, occasioned 
 by the absence of the gentleman from the United States, to 
 which he himself has alluded in his remarks. If the Senator 
 will take pains to inform himself, he will find that this pro- 
 tective system advanced with a continued and rapid step, in 
 spite of petitions, remonstrances, and protests, of not only 
 Carolina, but also of Virginia and of all the Southern States, 
 until 1828, when Carolina, for the first time, changed the 
 character of her resistance, by holding up her reserved rights 
 as the shield of her defence against further encroachment. 
 This attitude alone, unaided by a single State, arrested the 
 further progress of the system, so that the question from 
 that period to this, on the part of the manufacturers, has 
 
 VOL. II. 16
 
 242 SPEECHES. 
 
 been, not how to acquire more, but to retain that which they 
 have acquired. I will inform the gentleman that, if this at- 
 titude had not been taken on the part of the State, the ques- 
 tion would not now be how duties ought to be repealed, but 
 a question, as to the protected articles, between prohibition 
 on one side and the duties established by the act of 1828 on 
 the other. But a single remark will be sufficient in reply to, 
 what I must consider, the invidious remark of the Senator 
 from Virginia (Mr. Rives). The act of 1832, which has not 
 yet gone into operation, and which was passed but a few 
 months since, was declared by the supporters of the system 
 to be & permanent adjustment, and the bill proposed by the 
 Treasury Department, not essentially different from the act 
 itself, was in like manner declared to be intended by the ad- 
 ministration as a permanent arrangement. What has oc- 
 curred since, except this ordinance, and these abused acts of 
 the calumniated State, to produce this mighty revolution in 
 reference to this odious system ? Unless the Senator from 
 Virginia can assign some other cause, he is bound, upon 
 every principle of fairness, to retract this -unjust aspersion 
 upon the acts of South Carolina. 
 
 The Senator from Delaware (Mr. Clayton), as well as 
 others, has relied with great emphasis on the fact that we 
 are citizens of the United States. I do not object to the ex- 
 pression, nor shall I detract from the proud and elevated 
 feelings with which it is associated ; but I trust that I may 
 be permitted to raise the inquiry, In what manner are we 
 citizens of the United States ? without weakening the pa- 
 triotic feeling with which, I trust, it will ever be uttered. 
 If by citizen of the United States he means a citizen at 
 large, one whose citizenship extends to the entire geo- 
 graphical limits of the country, without having a local citi- 
 zenship in some State or territory, a sort of citizen of the 
 world, all I have to say is, that such a citizen would be a 
 perfect nondescript ; that not a single individual of this de-
 
 SPEECHES. 243 
 
 scription can be found in the entire mass of our population. 
 Notwithstanding all the pomp and display of eloquence on 
 the occasion, every citizen is a citizen of some State or terri- 
 tory, and, as such, under an express provision of the consti- 
 tution, is entitled to all privileges and immunities of citizens 
 in the several States ; and it is in this, and in no other sense, 
 that we are citizens of the United States. The Senator from 
 Pennsylvania (Mr. Dallas), indeed, relies upon that provision 
 in the constitution which gives Congress the power to estab- 
 lish an uniform rule of naturalization ; and the operation of 
 the rule actually established under this authority, to prove 
 that naturalized citizens are citizens at large, without being 
 citizens of any of the States. I do not deem it necessary to 
 examine the law of Congress upon this subject, or to reply to 
 the argument of the Senator, though I cannot doubt that he 
 (Mr. D.) has taken an entirely erroneous view of the subject. 
 It is sufficient that the power of Congress extends simply to 
 the establishment of a uniform rule by which foreigners may 
 be naturalized in the several States or territories, without in- 
 fringing, in any other respeot, in reference to naturalization, 
 the rights of the States/as they existed before the adoption 
 of the constitution. >/ 
 
 Having suppjiea the omissions of yesterday, I now re- 
 sume the subject at the point where my remarks then termi- 
 nated. The Senate will remember that I stated, at their 
 close, that the great question at issue is, whether ours is a 
 federal or a consolidated system of government ; a system in 
 which the parts, to use the emphatic language of Mr. Pal- 
 grave, are the integers, and the whole the multiple, or in 
 which the whole is an unit and the parts the fractions. I 
 stated, that on the decision of this question, I believed, de- 
 pended not only the liberty and prosperity of this country, 
 but the place which we are destined to hold in the intellectual 
 and moral scale of nations. I stated, also, in my remarks on 
 this point, that there is a striking analogy between this
 
 244 SPEECHES. 
 
 and the great struggle between Persia and Greece, which 
 was decided by the battles of Marathon, Platea, and Salamis, 
 and which immortalized the names of Miltiades and Themis- 
 tocles. I illustrated this analogy by showing that centralism 
 or consolidation, with the exception of a few nations along 
 the eastern borders of the Mediterranean, has been the per- 
 vading principle in the Asiatic governments, while the fede- 
 ral system, or, what is the same in principle, that system 
 which organizes a community in reference to its parts, has 
 prevailed in ~Etmope.^^ 
 
 Among the ^exceptions in the Asiatic nations, the 
 government of the twelve tribes of Israel, in its early period, 
 is the most striking. Their government, at first, was a mere 
 confederation without any central power, till a military chief- 
 tain, with the title of king, was placed at its head, without, 
 however, merging the original organization of the twelve dis- 
 tinct tribes. This was the commencement of that central 
 action among that peculiar people which, in three genera- 
 tions, terminated in a permanent division of their tribes.^ It 
 is impossible even for a careless reader to peruse the history 
 of that event without being forcibly struck with the analogy 
 in the causes which led to their separation, and those which / 
 now threaten us with a similar calamity. With the estab-* 
 lishment of the central power in the king commenced a sys- 
 tem of taxation, which, under King Solomon, was greatly 
 increased, to defray the expenses of rearing the temple, of 
 enlarging and embellishing Jerusalem, the seat of the central 
 government, and the other profuse expenditures of his magnifi- 
 cent reign. Increased taxation was followed by its natural 
 consequences discontent and complaint, which, before his 
 death, began to excite resistance. On the succession of his 
 son, Kehoboam, the ten tribes, headed by Jeroboam, demand- 
 ed a reduction of the taxes ; the temple being finished, and 
 the embellishment of Jerusalem completed, and the money 
 which had been raised for that purpose being no longer Ye-
 
 SPEECHES. 245 
 
 quired, or, in other words, the debt being paid, they de- 
 manded a reduction of the duties a repeal of the tariff. 
 The demand was taken under consideration, and after consult- 
 ing the old men, the counsellors of '98, who advised a reduc- 
 tion, he then took the opinion of the younger politicians, who 
 had since grown up, and knew not the doctrines of their 
 fathers ; he hearkened unto their counsel, and refused to 
 make the reduction, and the secession of the ten tribes under 
 Jeroboam followed. The tribes of Judah and Benjamin, 
 which had received the disbursements, alone remained to the 
 house of David. 
 
 But to return to the point immediately under considera- 
 tion. I know that it is not only the opinion of a large 
 majority of our country, but it may be said to be the opinion 
 of the age, that the very beau ideal of a perfect government 
 is the government of a majority, acting through a representa- 
 tive body, without check or limitation on its power ; yet, if 
 we may test this theory by experience and reason, we shall 
 find that, so far from being perfect, the necessary tendency 
 of all governments, based upon the will of an absolute ma- 
 jority, without constitutional check or limitation of power, is 
 to faction, corruption, anarchy, and despotism ; and this, 
 whether the will of the majority be expressed directly 
 through an assembly of the people themselves, or by their 
 representatives. I know that, in venturing this assertion, I 
 utter what is unpopular both within and without these walls ; 
 but where truth and liberty are concerned, such considera- 
 tions should not be regarded. I will place the decision of 
 this point on the fact that no government of the kind, among 
 the many attempts which have been made, has ever endured 
 for a single generation, but, on the contrary has invariably 
 experienced the fate which I have assigned to it. Let a 
 single instance be pointed out, and I will surrender my 
 opinion. But, if we had not the aid of experience to direct 
 our judgment, reason itself would be a certain guide. The
 
 246 SPEECHES. 
 
 view which considers the community as an unit, and all its 
 parts as having a similar interest, is radically erroneous. 
 However small the community may be, and however homo- 
 geneous its interests, the moment that government is put 
 into operation as soon as it begins to collect taxes and to 
 make appropriations, the different portions of the community 
 must, of necessity, bear different and opposing relations in 
 reference to the action of the government. There must 
 inevitably spring up two interests a direction and a stock- 
 holder interest an interest profiting by the action of the 
 government, and interested in increasing its powers and 
 action ; and another, at whose expense the political machine 
 is kept in motion. I know how difficult it is to communi- 
 cate distinct ideas on such a subject, through the medium 
 of general propositions, without particular illustration ; and 
 in order that I may be distinctly understood, though at the 
 hazard of being tedious, I will illustrate the important prin- 
 ciple which I have ventured to advance, by examples. 
 
 Let us, then, suppose a small community of five persons, 
 separated from the rest of the world ; and, to make the ex- 
 ample strong, let us suppose them all to be engaged in the 
 same pursuit, and to be of equal wealth. Let us further sup- 
 pose that they determine to govern the community by the 
 will of a majority ; and, to make the case as strong as pos- 
 sible, let us suppose that the majority, in order to meet the 
 expenses of the government, lay an equal tax, say of one 
 hundred dollars on each individual of this little community. 
 Their treasury would contain five hundred dollars. Three 
 are a majority ; and they, by supposition, have contributed 
 three hundred as their portion, and the other two (the mi- 
 nority), two hundred. The three have the right to make the 
 appropriations as they may think proper. The question is, 
 How would the principle of the absolute and unchecked ma- 
 jority operate, under these circumstances, in this little com- 
 munity ? If the three be governed by a sense of justice if
 
 SPEECHES/ 247 
 
 they should appropriate the money to the objects for which 
 it was raised, the common and equal benefit of the five, then 
 the object of the association would be fairly and honestly 
 effected, and each would have a common interest in the 
 government. But, should the majority pursue an opposite 
 course should they appropriate the money in a manner to 
 benefit their own particular interest, without regard to the 
 interest of the two (and that they will so act, unless there be 
 some efficient check, he who best knows human nature will 
 least doubt), who does not see that the three and the two 
 would have directly opposite interests in reference to the action 
 of the government ? The three who contribute to the common 
 treasury but three hundred dollars, could, in fact, by appro- 
 priating the five hundred to their own use, convert the action 
 of the government into the means of making money, and, of 
 consequence, would have a direct interest in increasing the 
 taxes. They put in three hundred and take out five ; that 
 is, they take back to themselves all that they put in, and, in 
 addition, that which was put in by their associates ; or, in 
 other words, taking taxation and appropriation together, 
 they have gained, and their associates have lost, two hundred 
 dollars by the fiscal action of the government. Opposite 
 interests, in reference to the action of the government, are 
 thus created between them : the one having an interest in 
 favor, and the other against the taxes ; the one to increase, 
 and the other to decrease the taxes ; the one to retain the 
 taxes when the money is no longer wanted, and the other to 
 repeal them when the objects for which they were levied 
 have been secured. 
 
 Let us now suppose this community of five to be raised 
 to twenty-four individuals, to be governed, in like manner, 
 by the will of a majority : it is obvious that the same prin- 
 ciple would divide them into two interests into a majority and 
 a minority, thirteen against eleven, or in some other propor- 
 tion ; and that all the consequences which I have shown to
 
 248 SPEECHES. 
 
 be applicable to the small community of five would be ap- 
 plicable to the greater, the cause not depending upon the 
 number, but resulting necessarily from the action of the 
 government itself. Let us now suppose that, instead of gov- 
 erning themselves directly in an assembly of the whole, with- 
 out the intervention of agents, they should adopt the repre- 
 sentative principle ; and that, instead of being governed by a 
 majority of themselves, they should be governed by a major- 
 ity of their representatives. It is obvious that the operation 
 of the system would not be affected by the change : the re- 
 presentatives being responsible to those who chose them, 
 would conform to the will of their constituents, and would 
 act as they would do were they present and acting for them- 
 selves ; and the same conflict of interest, which we have 
 shown would exist in one case, would equally exist in the 
 other. In either case, the inevitable result would be a system 
 of hostile legislation on the part of the majority, or the 
 stronger interest, against the minority, or the weaker inter- 
 est ; the object of which, on the part of the former, would 
 be to exact as much as possible from the latter, which would 
 necessarily be resisted by all the means in their power. War- 
 fare, by legislation, would thus be commenced between the 
 parties, with the same object, and not less hostile than that 
 which is carried on between distinct and rival nations the 
 only distinction would be in the instruments and the mode. 
 Enactments, in the one case, would supply what could only 
 be effected by arms in the other ; and the inevitable opera- 
 tion would be to engender the most hostile feelings between 
 the parties, which would merge every feeling of patriotism 
 that feeling which embraces the whole and substitute in its 
 place the most violent party attachment ; and instead of 
 having one common centre of attachment, around which the 
 affections of the community might rally, there would in fact 
 be two the interests of the majority, to which those who 
 constitute that majority would be more attached than they
 
 SPEECHES. 249 
 
 would be to the whole, and that of the minority, to \vhich 
 they, in like manner, would also be more attached than to 
 the interests of the whole. Faction would thus take the place 
 of patriotism ; and, with the loss of patriotism, corruption 
 must necessarily follow, and in its train, anarchy, and, finally, 
 despotism, or the establishment of absolute power in a single 
 individual, as a means of arresting the conflict of hostile in- 
 terests ; on the principle that it is better to submit to the 
 will of a single individual, who by being made lord and mas- 
 ter of the whole community, would have an equal interest in 
 the protection of all the parts. 
 
 Let us next suppose that, in order to avert the calami- 
 tous train of consequences, this little community should adopt 
 a written constitution, with limitations restricting the will of 
 the majority, in order to protect the minority against the 
 oppression which I have shown would necessarily result with- 
 out such restrictions. It is obvious that the case would not 
 be in the slightest degree varied, if the majority be left in 
 possession of the right of judging exclusively of the extent 
 of its powers, without any right on the part of the minority 
 to enforce the restrictions imposed by the constitution on 
 the will of the majority. The point is almost too clear for 
 illustration. Nothing can be more certain than that, when a 
 constitution grants power, and imposes limitations on the ex- 
 ercise of that power, whatever interests may obtain posses- 
 sion of the government, will be in favor of extending the 
 power at the expense of the limitation ; and that, unless 
 those in whose behalf the limitations were imposed have, 
 in some form or mode, the right of enforcing them, the 
 power will ultimately supersede the limitation, and the gov- 
 ernment must operate precisely in the same manner as if the 
 will of the majority governed without constitution or limita- 
 tion of power. 
 
 I have thus presented all possible modes in which a gov- 
 ernment founded upon the will of an absolute majority will
 
 250 SPEECHES. 
 
 be modified ; and have demonstrated that, in all its forms, 
 whether in a majority of the people, as in a mere Democra- 
 cy, or in a majority of their representatives, without a con- 
 stitution or with a constitution, to be interpreted as the will 
 of the majority, the result will be the same : two hostile in- 
 terests will inevitably be created by the action of the govern- 
 ment, to be followed by hostile legislation, and that by fac- 
 tion, corruption, anarchy, and despotism. 
 
 The great and solemn question here presents itself, Is 
 there any remedy for these evils ? on the decision of which 
 depends the question, whether the people can govern them- 
 selves, which has been so often asked with so much skepti- 
 cism and doubt. There is a remedy, and but one, the effect 
 of which, whatever may be the form, is to organize society 
 in reference to this conflict of interests, which springs out of 
 the action of government ; and which can only be done by 
 giving to each part the right of self-protection ; which, in a 
 word, instead of considering the community of twenty-four 
 a single community, having a common interest, and to be 
 governed by the single will of an entire majority, shall upon 
 all questions tending to bring the parts into conflict, the 
 thirteen against the eleven, take the will, not of the twenty- 
 i four as a unit, but of the thirteen and of the eleven sepa- 
 rately, the majority of each governing the parts, and where 
 they concur, governing the whole, and where they disagree, 
 arresting the action of the government. This I will call the 
 concurring, as distinct from the absolute majority. In either 
 way the number would be the same, whether taken as the 
 absolute or as the concurring majority. Thus, the majority 
 of the thirteen is seven, and of the eleven six ; and the two 
 together make thirteen, which is the majority of twenty-four. 
 But, though the number is the same, the mode of counting 
 is essentially different : the one representing the strongest 
 interest, and the other, the entire interests of the community. 
 /The first mistake is, in supposing that the government of
 
 SPEECHES. 251 
 
 the absolute majority is the government of the people that 
 beau ideal of a perfect government which has been so enthu- 
 siastically entertained in every age by the generous and pa- 
 trotic, where civilization and liberty have made the smallest 
 progress. There can be no greater error : the government 
 of the people is the government of the whole community 
 of the twenty-four the self-government of all the parts 
 too perfect to be reduced to practice in the present, or any 
 past stage of human society. The government of the abso- 
 lute majority, instead of being the government of the peo- 
 ple, is but the government of the strongest interests, and, 
 when not efficiently checked, is the most tyrannical and op- 
 pressive that can be devised. Between this ideal perfection 
 on the one side, and despotism on the other, no other system 
 can be devised but that which considers society in reference to 
 its parts, as differently affected by the action of the government, 
 and which takes the sense of each part separately, and there- 
 by the sense of the whole, in the manner already illustrated. 
 These principles, as I have already stated, are not affect- 
 ed by the number of which the community may be com- 
 posed, but are just as applicable to one of thirteen millions 
 the number which composes ours as of the small communi- 
 ty of twenty-four, which I have supposed for the purpose of 
 illustration ; and are not less applicable to the twenty-four 
 States united in one community, than to the case of the 
 twenty-four individuals. There is, indeed, a distinction be- 
 tween a large and a small community, not affecting the prin- 
 ciple, but the violence of the action. In the former, the 
 similarity of the interests of all the parts will limit the op- 
 pression from the hostile action of the parts, in a great de- 
 gree, to the fiscal action of the government merely ; but in 
 the large community, spreading over a country of great ex- 
 tent, and having a great diversity of interests, with different 
 kinds of labor, capital, and production, the conflict and op- 
 pression will extend, not only to a monopoly of the appropri-
 
 252 SPEECHES.^ 
 
 ations on the part of the stronger interests, but will end in 
 unequal taxes, and a general conflict between the entire in- 
 terests of conflicting sections, which, if not arrested by the 
 most powerful checks, will terminate in the most oppressive 
 tyranny that can be conceived, or in the destruction of the 
 community itself. 
 
 If we turn our attention from these supposed cases, and 
 direct it to our government and its actual operation, we shall 
 find a practical confirmation of the truth of what has been 
 stated, not only of the oppressive operation of the system of 
 an absolute majority, but also a striking and beautiful illus- 
 tration, in the formation of our systeqif, of the principle of 
 the concurring majority, as distinct from the absolute, which 
 I have asserted to be the only means of efficiently checking 
 the abuse of power, and, df course, the only solid foundation 
 of constitutional libertW That our government, for many 
 years, has been graduallyt-verging to consolidation ; that the 
 constitution has gradually become a dead letter ; and that 
 all restrictions upon the power of government have been vir- 
 tually removed, so as practically to convert the General Gov- 
 ernment into a government of an absolute majority, without 
 check or limitation, cannot be denied by any one who has im- 
 partially observed its operation/ 
 
 It is not necessary to trace/ the commencement and grad- 
 ual progress of the causes which have produced this change 
 in our system ; it is sufficient to state that the change has 
 taken place within the last few years. What has been the 
 result ? Precisely that which might have been anticipated : 
 the growth of faction, corruption, anarchy, and, if not des- 
 potism itself, its near approach, as witnessed in the provi- 
 sions of this bill. And from what have these consequences 
 sprung ? We have been involved in no war. We have 
 been at peace with all the world. We have been visited 
 with no national calamity. Our people have been advancing 
 in general intelligence, and, I will add, as great and alarm-
 
 SPEECHES. 253 
 
 ing as has been the advance of political corruption among 
 the mercenary corps who look to Government for support, the 
 morals and virtue of the community at large have been ad- 
 vancing in improvement. What, I again repeat, is the 
 cause ? No other can be assigned but a departure from the 
 fundamental principles of the constitution, which has con- 
 verted the Government into the will of an absolute and irre- 
 sponsible majority, and which, by the laws that must inevi- 
 tably govern in all such majorities, has placed in conflict the 
 great interests of the country, by a system of hostile legis- 
 lation, by an oppressive and unequal imposition of taxes, by 
 unequal and profuse appropriations, and by rendering the 
 entire labor and capital of the weaker interest subordinate to 
 the stronger. 
 
 This is the cause, and these the fruits, which have con- 
 verted the Government into a mere instrument of taking 
 money from one portion of the community, to be given to 
 another ; and which has* rallied around it a great, a powerful, 
 and mercenary corps of office-holders, office-seekers, and ex- 
 pectants, destitute of principle and patriotism, and who have 
 no standard of morals or politics but the will of the Execu- 
 tive the will of him who has the distribution of the loaves 
 and the fishes. I hold it impossible for any one to look at 
 the theoretical illustration of the principle of the absolute 
 majority in the cases which I have supposed, and not be 
 struck with the practical illustration in the actual operation 
 of our Government. Under every circumstance, the absolute 
 majority will ever have its American system (I mean nothing 
 offensive to any Senator) ; but the /eal meaning of the 
 American system is, that system of plunder which the 
 strongest interest has ever waged, and will ever wage, against 
 the weaker, where the latter is not armed with some efficient 
 and constitutional check to arrest its action. Nothing but 
 such check on the part of the weaker interest can arrest it : 
 mere constitutional limitations are wholly insufficient; What-
 
 254 SPEECHES. 
 
 ever interest obtains possession of the Government, will, from 
 the nature of things, be in favor of the powers, and against 
 the limitations imposed by the constitution, and will resort 
 to every device that can be imagined to remove those re- 
 straints. On the contrary, the opposite interest, that which 
 I have designated as the stockholding interest, the tax-pay- 
 ers, those on whom the system operates, will resist the abuse 
 of powers, and contend for the limitations. And it is on this 
 point, then, that the contest between the delegated and the 
 reserved powers will be waged ; but in this contest, as the 
 interests in possession of the Government are organized and 
 armed by all its powers and patronage, the opposite interest, 
 if not in like manner organized and possessed of a power to 
 protect themselves under the provisions of the constitution, 
 will be as inevitably crushed as would be a band of unorgan- 
 ized militra when opposed by a veteran and trained corps of 
 regulars. / Let it never be forgotten, that power can only be 
 opposed oy power, organization by organization ; and on this 
 theory stands our beautiful federal system of Government. 
 No free system was ever further removed from the principle 
 that the absolute majority, without check or limitation, ought 
 to govern. To understand what our Government is, we must 
 look to the constitution, which is the basis of the system/ I 
 do not intend to enter into any minute examination 01 the 
 origin and the source of its powers : it is sufficient for my 
 purpose to state, what I do fearlessly, that it derived its 
 power from the people of the separate States, each ratifying 
 by itself, each binding itself by its own separate majority, 
 through its separate convention,- the concurrence of the ma- 
 jorities of the several States forming the constitution ; thus 
 taking the sense of the whole by that of the several parts, 
 representing the various interests of the entire community. 
 It was this concurring and perfect majority which formed the 
 constitution, and not that majority which would consider the 
 American people as a single community, and which, instead
 
 SPEECHES. 255 
 
 of representing fairly and fully the interests of the whole, 
 would but represent, as has been stated, the interests of the 
 stronger section. No candid man can dispute that I have 
 given a correct description of the constitution-making power : 
 that power which created and organized the Government, 
 which delegated to it, as a common agent, certain powers, in 
 trust for the common good of all the States, and which im- 
 posed strict limitations and checks against abuses and usurpa- 
 tions. In administering the delegated powers, the constitu- 
 tion provides, very properly, in order to give promptitude 
 and efficiency, that the Government shall be organized upon 
 the principle of the absolute majority, or, rather, of two ab- 
 solute majorities combined : a majority of the States consid- 
 ered as bodies politic, which prevails in this body ; and a ma- 
 jority of the people of the States, estimated in federal num- 
 bers, in the other House of Congress. A combination of the 
 two prevails in the choice of the President, and, of course, 
 in the appointment of Judges, they being nominated by the 
 President and confirmed by the Senate. It is thus that the 
 concurring and the absolute majorities are combined in one 
 complex system : the one in forming the constitution, and 
 the other in making and executing the laws ; thus beauti- 
 fully blending the moderation, justice, and equity of the 
 former, and more perfect majority, with the promptness and 
 energy of the latter, but less perfect. 
 
 To maintain the ascendency of the constitution over the 
 law-making majority is the great and essential point, on 
 which the success of the system must depend. Unless that 
 ascendency can be preserved, the necessary consequence 
 must be, that the laws will supersede the constitution ; and, 
 finally, the will of the Executive, by the influence of his 
 patronage, will supersede the laws indications of which are 
 already perceptible. This ascendency can only be preserved 
 through the action of the States as organized bodies, having 
 their own separate governments, and possessed of the right,
 
 256 SPEECHES. 
 
 under the structure of our system, of judging of the extent 
 of their separate powers, and of interposing their authority 
 to arrest the unauthorized enactments of the General Gov- 
 ernment within their respective limits. I will not enter, at 
 this time, into the discussion of this important point, as it 
 has been ably and fully presented by the Senator from Ken- 
 tucky (Mr. Bibb), and others who preceded him in this 
 debate on the same side, whose arguments not only remain 
 unanswered, but are unanswerable. It is only by this power 
 of interposition that the reserved rights of the States can be 
 peacefully and efficiently protected against the encroach- 
 ments of the General Government that the limitations 
 imposed upon its authority can be enforced, and its move- 
 ments confined to the orbit allotted to it by the con- 
 stitution. 
 
 It has, indeed, been said in debate, that this can be 
 effected by the organization of the General Government 
 itself, particularly by the action of this body, which repre- 
 sents the States and that the States themselves must look 
 to the General Government for the perservation of many of 
 the most important of their reserved rights. I do not 
 underrate the value to be attached to the organic arrange- 
 ment of the General Government, and the wise distribution 
 of its powers between the several departments, and, in par- 
 ticular, the structure and the important functions of this 
 body ; but to suppose that the Senate, or any department 
 of this Government, was intended to be the only guardian of 
 the reserved rights, is a great and fundamental mistake. 
 The Government, through all its departments, represents the 
 delegated, and not the reserved powers ; and it is a viola- 
 tion of the fundamental principle of free institutions to sup- 
 pose that any but the responsible representative of any 
 interest can be its guardian. The distribution of the powers 
 of the General Government, and its organization, were 
 arranged to prevent the abuse of power in fulfilling the
 
 SPEECHES. 257 
 
 important trusts confided to it, and not, as preposterously 
 supposed, to protect the reserved powers, which are confided 
 wholly to the guardianship of the several States. 
 
 Against the view of our system which I have presented, 
 and the right of the States to interpose, it is objected that 
 it would lead to anarchy and dissolution. I consider the 
 objection as without the slightest foundation ; and that, so 
 far from tending to weakness or disunion, it is the source 
 of the highest power and of the strongest cement. Nor is 
 its tendency in this respect difficult of explanation. The 
 government of an absolute majority, unchecked by efficient 
 constitutional restraints, though apparently strong, is, in 
 reality, an exceedingly feeble government. That tendency 
 to conflict between the parts, which I have shown to be 
 inevitable in such governments, wastes the powers of the 
 state in the hostile action of contending factions, which 
 leaves very little more power than the excess of the strength 
 of the majority over the minority. But a government based 
 upon the principle of the concurring majority, where each great 
 interest possesses within itself the means of self-protection, 
 which ultimately requires the mutual consent of all the 
 parts, necessarily causes that unanimity in council, and 
 ardent attachment of all the parts to the whole, which give 
 an irresistible energy to a government so constituted. I 
 might appeal to history for the truth of these remarks, of 
 which the Boman furnishes the most familiar and striking 
 proofs. It is a well-known fact, that, from the expulsion of 
 the Tarquins to the time of the establishment of the tri- 
 bunitian power, the government fell into a state of the 
 greatest disorder and distraction, and, I may add, corrup- 
 tion. How did this happen ? The explanation will throw 
 important light on the subject under consideration. The 
 community was divided into two parts the Patricians and 
 the Plebeians ; with the power of the state principally in 
 the hands of the former, without adequate checks to protect 
 VOL. ii.- 17
 
 258 SPEECHES. 
 
 the rights of the latter. The result was as might be ex- 
 pected. The patricians converted the powers of the govern- 
 ment into the means of making money, to enrich themselves 
 and their dependants. They, in a word, had their Ameri- 
 can system, growing out of the peculiar character of the 
 government and condition of the country. This requires 
 explanation. At that period, according to the laws of 
 nations, when one nation conquered another, the lands of the 
 vanquished belonged to the victor ; and, according to the 
 Roman law, the lands thus acquired were divided into two 
 parts one allotted to the poorer class of the people, and the 
 other assigned to the use of the treasury, of which the patri- 
 cians had the distribution and administration. The patri- 
 cians abused their power by withholding from the plebeians 
 that which ought to have been allotted to them, and by 
 converting to their own use that which ought to have gone 
 to the treasury. In a word, they took to themselves the 
 entire spoils of victory, and had thus the most powerful 
 motive to keep the state perpetually involved in war, to the 
 utter impoverishment and oppression of the plebeians. After 
 resisting the abuse of power by all peaceable means, and 
 the oppression becoming intolerable, the plebeians, at last, 
 withdrew from the city they, in a word, seceded ; and 
 to induce them to reunite, the patricians conceded to them, 
 as the means of protecting their separate interests, the very 
 power, which I contend is necessary to protect the rights 
 of the States, but which is now represented as necessarily 
 leading to disunion. They granted to them the right of 
 choosing three tribunes from among themselves, whose 
 persons should be sacred, and who should have the right of 
 interposing their veto, not only against the passage of laws, 
 but even against their execution a power which those, who 
 take a shallow insight into human nature, would pronounce 
 inconsistent with the strength and unity of the state, if not 
 utterly impracticable ; yet so far from this being the effect,
 
 259 
 
 from that day the genius of Eome became ascendant, and 
 victory followed her steps till she had established an almost 
 universal dominion. How can a result so contrary to all 
 anticipation be 'explained ? The explanation appears to me 
 to be simple. No measure or movement could be adopted 
 without the concurring assent of both the patricians and 
 plebeians, and each thus became dependent on the other ; 
 and, of consequence, the desire and objects of neither could 
 be effected without the concurrence of the other. To obtain 
 this concurrence, each was compelled to consult the good- 
 will of the other, and to elevate to office, not those only who 
 might have the confidence of the order to which they be- 
 longed, but also that of the other. The result was, that 
 men possessing those qualities which would naturally com- 
 mand confidence moderation, wisdom, justice, and patriot- 
 ism were elevated to office ; and the weight of their 
 authority and the prudence of their counsel, combined with 
 that spirit of unanimity necessarily resulting from the con- 
 curring assent of the two orders, furnish the real explana- 
 tion of the power of the Roman State, and of that extraordi- 
 nary wisdom, moderation, and firmness which in so remarkable 
 a degree characterized her public men. I might illustrate 
 the truth of the position which I have laid down by a refe- 
 rence to the history of all free states ancient and modern, 
 distinguished for their power and patriotism, and conclu- 
 sively show, not only that there was not one which had not 
 some contrivance, under some form, by which the concurring 
 assent of the different portions of the community was made 
 necessary in the action of government, but also that the 
 virtue, patriotism, and strength of the state were in direct 
 proportion to the perfection of the means of securing such 
 assent. 
 
 In estimating the operation of this principle in our 
 system, which depends, as I have stated, on the right of 
 interposition on the part of a State, we must not omit to
 
 260 SPEECHES. 
 
 take into consideration the amending power, by which new 
 powers may be granted, or any derangement of the system 
 corrected, by the concurring assent of three-fourths of the 
 States ; and thus, in the same degree, strengthening the 
 power of repairing any derangement occasioned by the eccen- 
 tric action of a State. In fact, the power of interposition, 
 fairly understood, may be considered in the light of an appeal 
 against the usurpations of the General Government, the joint 
 agent of all the States, to the States themselves, to be 
 decided under the amending power, by the voice of three- 
 fourths of the States, as the highest power known under the 
 system. I know the difficulty, in our country, of establish- 
 ing the truth of the principle for which I contend, though 
 resting upon the clearest reason, and tested by the universal 
 experience of free nations. I know that the governments of 
 the several States, which, for the most part, are constructed 
 on the principle of the absolute majority, will be cited 
 as an argument against the conclusion to which I have 
 arrived ; but, in my opinion, the satisfactory answer can be 
 given, that the objects of expenditure which fall within the 
 sphere of a State Government are few and inconsiderable, so 
 that be their action ever so irregular, it can occasion but 
 little derangement. If, instead of being members of this 
 great confederacy, they formed distinct communities, and 
 were compelled to raise armies, and incur other expenses 
 necessary to their defence, the laws which I have laid down 
 as necessarily controlling the action of a State where the 
 will of an absolute and unchecked majority prevailed, would 
 speedily disclose themselves in faction, anarchy, and corrup- 
 tion. Even as the case is, the operation of the causes to 
 which I have referred is perceptible in some of the larger 
 and more populous members of the Union, whose govern- 
 ments have a powerful central action, and which already show 
 a strong moneyed tendency, the invariable forerunner of cor- 
 ruption and convulsion.
 
 SPEECHES. 261 
 
 But, to return to the General Government. We have 
 now sufficient experience to ascertain that the tendency to 
 conflict in its action is between the southern and other sec- 
 tions. The latter having a decided majority, must habitually 
 be possessed of the powers of the Government, both in this 
 and in the other House ; and, being governed by that in- 
 stinctive love of power so natural to the human breast, they 
 must become the advocates of the power of Government, and 
 in the same degree opposed to the limitations ; while the 
 other and weaker section is as necessarily thrown on the side 
 of the limitations. One section is the natural guardian of 
 the delegated powers, and the other of the reserved ; and the 
 struggle on the side of the former will be to enlarge the 
 powers, while that on the opposite side will be to restrain 
 them within their constitutional limits. The contest will, in 
 fact, be a contest between power and liberty, and such I 
 consider the present a contest in which the weaker section, 
 with its peculiar labor, productions, and institutions, has at 
 stake all that can be dear to freemen. Should we be able to 
 maintain in their full vigor our reserved rights, liberty and 
 prosperity will be our portion ; but if we yield, and permit 
 the stronger interest to concentrate within itself all the pow- 
 ers of the Government, then will our fate be more wretched 
 than that of the aborigines whom we have expelled. In this 
 great struggle between the delegated and reserved powers, 
 so far from repining that my lot, and that of those whom I 
 represent, is cast on the side of the latter, I rejoice that such 
 is the fact ; for, though we participate in but few of the 
 advantages of the Government, we are compensated, and 
 more than compensated, in not being so much exposed to its 
 corruptions. Nor do I repine that the duty, so difficult to be 
 discharged, of defending the reserved powers against appa- 
 rently such fearful odds, has been assigned to us. To 
 discharge it successfully requires the highest qualities, 
 moral and intellectual ; and should we perform it with a
 
 262 SPEECHES. 
 
 zeal and ability proportioned to its magnitude, instead of 
 mere planters, our section will become distinguished for 
 its patriots and statesmen. But, on the other hand, if 
 we prove unworthy of the trust if we yield to the steady 
 encroachments of power, the severest calamity and most 
 debasing corruption will overspread the land. Every Southern 
 man, true to the interests of his section, and faithful to the 
 duties which Providence has allotted him, will be for ever 
 excluded from the honors and emoluments of this Government, 
 which will be reserved for those only who have qualified 
 themselves, by political prostitution, for admission into the 
 Magdalen Asylum. 
 
 SPEECH 
 
 In reply to Mr. Webster, on the Resolutions respect- 
 ing the Rights of the States, delivered in the Sen- 
 ate, Feb. 26th, 1833. 
 
 [THE following resolutions, submitted by Mr. Calhoun, came up for 
 consideration, viz. : 
 
 "Resolved, That the people of the several States composing these 
 United States are united as parties to a constitutional compact, to 
 which the people of each State acceded as a separate and sovereign 
 community, each binding itself by its own particular ratification ; and 
 that the Union, of which the said compact is the bond, is a union 
 between the States ratifying the same. 
 
 " Resolved, That the people of the several States thus united by 
 the constitutional compact, in forming that instrument, and in creating 
 a General Government to carry into effect the objects for which it was 
 formed, delegated to that Government, for that purpose, certain definite 
 powers, to be exercised jointly, reserving, at the same time, each State 
 to itself, the residuary mass of powers, to be exercised by its own sep-
 
 SPEECHES. 263 
 
 arate government; and that, whenever the General Government 
 assumes the exercise of powers not delegated by .he compact, its acts 
 are unauthorized, void, and of no effect ; and that the said Government 
 is not made the final judge of the powers delegated to it, since that 
 would make its discretion, and not the constitution, the measure of 
 its powers ; but that, as in all other cases of compact among sovereign 
 parties, without any common judge, each has an equal 'right to judge 
 for itself, as well of the infraction, as of the mod^. and measure of 
 redress. 
 
 "Resolved, That the assertions that the people of these United 
 States, taken collectively as individuals, are now, or ever have been, 
 united on the principle of the social compact, and, as such, are now 
 formed into one nation or people, or that they have ever been so 
 united, in any one stage of their political existence ; that the people 
 of the several States composing the Union have not, as members 
 thereof, retained their sovereignty ; that the allegiance of their citizens 
 has been transferred to the General Government; that they have 
 parted with the right of punishing treason through their respective 
 State Governments ; and that they have not the right of judging, in 
 the last resort, as to the extent of powers reserved, and, of consequence, 
 of those delegated, are not only without foundation in truth, but are 
 contrary to the most certain and plain historical facts, and the clearest 
 deductions of reason ; and that all exercise of power on the part of the 
 General Government, or any of its departments, deriving authority 
 from such erroneous assumptions, must of necessity be unconstitu- 
 tional must tend directly and inevitably to subvert the sovereignty of 
 the States to destroy the federal character of the Union, and to rear 
 on its ruins a consolidated government, without constitutional check 
 or limitation, which must necessarily terminate in the loss of lib- 
 erty itself." 
 
 Which, being read, Mr. Calhoun said :] 
 
 WHEN the bill with which the resolutions are connected 
 was under discussion, the Senator from Massachusetts (Mr 
 Webster) thought proper to give his remarks a personal 
 bearing in reference to myself. I had said nothing to justify 
 this course on the part of that gentleman. I had, it is true, 
 denounced the bill in strong language, but not stronger than
 
 264 SPEECHES. 
 
 the rules which govern parliamentary proceedings permit t 
 nor stronger than the character of the bill, and its bearing on 
 the State which it is my honor to represent, justified. I am 
 at a loss to understand what motive governed the Senator in 
 giving a personal character to his remarks. If he intended 
 any thing unkind (here Mr. Webster said, audibly, Certainly 
 not ; and Mr. C. replied, I will not, then, say what I in- 
 tended, if such had been his motive) but still I must be 
 permitted to ask, If he intended nothing unkind, what was 
 the object of the Senator ? Did he design to strengthen a 
 cause which he feels to be weak, by giving the discussion a 
 personal direction ? If such was his motive, his experience 
 as a debater ought to have taught him that it was one of 
 those weak devices which seldom fail to react on those who 
 resort to them. If his motive was to acquire popularity by 
 attacking one who had voluntarily, and from a sense of duty 
 from a deep conviction that liberty and the constitution 
 -were at stake had identified himself with an unpopular 
 question, I would say to him that a true sense of dignity 
 would have impelled him in an opposite direction. Among 
 the possible motives which might have influenced him, there 
 is another, to the imputation of which he is exposed, but 
 which, certainly, I will not attribute to him a desire to 
 propitiate in a certain high quarter a quarter in which he 
 must know that no offering could be more acceptable than 
 the immolation of the character of him who now addresses 
 you. But whatever may have been the motive of the Sen- 
 ator, I can assure him that I will not follow his example. I 
 never had any inclination to gladiatorial exhibitions in the 
 halls of legislation, and if I now had, I certainly would not 
 indulge them on so solemn a question a question which, in 
 the opinion of the Senator from Massachusetts, as expressed 
 in debate, involves the union of these States and in mine, the 
 liberty and the constitution of the country. Before, how- 
 ever, I conclude these prefatory observations, I must allude
 
 SPEECHES. 265 
 
 to the remark which the Senator made at the termination of 
 the argument of my friend from Mississippi (Mr. Poindexter). 
 I understood the Senator to say that, if I chose to put at 
 issue his character for consistency, he stood prepared to vin- 
 dicate his course. I assure the Senator that I have no idea 
 of calling in question his consistency, or that of any other 
 member of this body. It is a subject in which I feel no 
 concern. But if I am to understand the remark of the Sen- 
 ator as intended, indirectly, as a challenge to put in issue the 
 consistency of my course as compared with his own, I have to 
 say that, though I do not accept it, yet, if he should think 
 proper to make a trial of character on that or any other point 
 connected with our public conduct, and will select a suitable 
 occasion, I stand prepared to vindicate my course, as com- 
 pared with his, or that of any other member of this body, for 
 consistency of conduct, purity of motive, and devoted at- 
 tachment to the country and its institutions. 
 
 Having made these remarks, which have been forced upon 
 me, I shall now proceed directly to the subject before the 
 Senate ; and, in order that it may, with all its bearings, be 
 fully understood, I must go back to the period at which I 
 introduced the resolutions. They were introduced in con- 
 nection with the bill which has passed this House, and is 
 now pending before the other. That bill was couched in 
 general terms, without naming South Carolina, or any other 
 State, though it was understood, and avowed by the com- 
 mittee, as intended to act directly on her. 
 
 Believing that the Government had no right to use force 
 in the controversy, and that the attempt to introduce it 
 rested upon principles utterly subversive of the constitution 
 and the sovereignty of the States, I drew up the resolutions, 
 and introduced them expressly with the view to test those 
 principles, with a desire that they should be discussed and 
 voted on before the bill came up for consideration.. The 
 majority ordered otherwise. The resolutions were laid on
 
 266 SPEECHES. 
 
 the table, and the bill taken up for discussion. Under this 
 arrangement, which, it was understood, originated with the 
 committee that reported the bill, I, of course, concluded that 
 its members would proceed in the discussion, and explain 
 the principles and the necessity for the bill, before the 
 other Senators would enter into the discussion, and par- 
 ticularly those from South Carolina. Understanding, how- 
 ever, that, by the arrangement of the committee, it was 
 allotted to the Senator from Tennessee to close the discussion 
 on the bill, I waited to the last moment, in expectation of 
 hearing from the Senator from Massachusetts. He is a 
 member of the committee. But, not hearing from him, I 
 rose to speak to the bill, and, as soon as I had concluded, 
 the Senator from Massachusetts arose I will not say to 
 reply to me and certainly not to discuss the bill, but the 
 resolutions, which had been laid on the table, as I have 
 stated. I do not state these facts in the way of complaint, 
 but in order to explain my own course. The Senator having 
 directed his argument against my resolutions, I felt myself 
 compelled to seize the first opportunity to call them up from 
 the table, and to assign a day for their discussion, in the hope 
 not only that the Senate would hear me in their vindication, 
 but would also afford me an opportunity of taking the sense 
 of this body on the great principles on which they are based. 
 The Senator from Massachusetts, in his argument against 
 the resolutions, directed his attack almost exclusively against 
 the first ; on the ground, I suppose, that it was the basis of 
 the other two, and that, unless the first could be demolished, 
 the others would follow of course. In this he was right. 
 As plain and as simple as the facts contained in the first are, 
 they cannot be admitted to be true without admitting the 
 doctrines for which I, and the State I represent, contend. 
 He (Mr. W.) commenced his attack with a verbal criticism 
 on the resolution, in the course of which he objected strongly 
 to two words, "constitutional" and "accede." To the former,
 
 SPEECHES. 267 
 
 on the ground that the word, as used (constitutional compact), 
 was obscure that it conveyed no definite meaning and that 
 the constitution was a noun-substantive, and not an adjec- 
 tive. I regret that I have exposed myself to the criticism 
 of the Senator. I certainly did not intend to use any ex- 
 pression of doubtful sense, and if I have done so, the Senator 
 must attribute it to the poverty of my language, and not to 
 design. I trust, however, that the Senator will excuse me, 
 when he comes to hear my apology. In matters of criticism, 
 authority is of the highest importance, and I have an au- 
 thority of so high a character, in this case, for using the 
 expression which he considers so obscure and so unconstitu- 
 tional, as will justify me even in his eyes. It is no less than 
 the authority of the Senator himself given on a solemn 
 occasion (the discussion on Mr. Foote's resolution), and 
 doubtless with great deliberation, after having duly weighed 
 the force of the expression. 
 
 [Here Mr. C. read from Mr. Webster's speech, in reply to Mr. Hayne, 
 in the Senate of the United States, delivered January 26, 1830, as 
 follows : ] 
 
 " The domestic slavery of the South I leave where I find it in the 
 hands of their own governments. It is their affair, not mine. Nor do 
 I complain of the peculiar effect which the magnitude of that population 
 has had in the distribution of power under the Federal Government. "We 
 know, Sir, that the representation of the States in the other House is not 
 equal. We know that great advantage, in that respect, is enjoyed by the 
 slaveholding States ; and we know, too, that the intended equivalent for 
 that advantage, that is to say, the imposition of direct taxes in the same 
 ratio, has become merely nominal : the habit of the Government being 
 almost invariably to collect its revenues from other sources and in other 
 modes. Nevertheless, I do not complain, nor would I countenance any 
 movement to alter this arrangement of representation. It is the original 
 bargain the compact let it stand ; let the advantage of it be fully en- 
 joyed. The Union itself is too full of benefits to be hazarded in propo- 
 sitions for changing its original basis. I go for the constitution as it is. 
 and for the Union as it is. But I am resolved not to submit in silence to 
 accusations, either against myself individually, or against the North.
 
 268 SPEECHES. 
 
 wholly unfounded and unjust accusations which impute to us a dispo- 
 sition to evade the CONSTITUTIONAL COMPACT, and to extend the power of 
 the Government over the internal laws and domestic condition of the 
 States." 
 
 It will be seen, by this extract, that the Senator not only 
 used the phrase " constitutional compact," which he now so 
 much condemns, but, what is still more important, he calls 
 the constitution itself a compact a bargain ; which con- 
 tains important admissions, having a direct and powerful 
 bearing on the main issue involved in the discussion, as will 
 appear in the sequel. But, strong as his objection is to the 
 word " constitutional," it is still stronger to the word " ac- 
 cede," which, he thinks, has been introduced into the resolu- 
 tion with some deep design, as I suppose, to entrap the Sen- 
 ate into an admission of the doctrine of State Eights. 
 Here, again, I must shelter myself under authority. But I 
 suspect the Senator, by a sort of instinct (for our instincts 
 often strangely run before our knowledge), had a prescience, 
 which would account for his aversion for the word, that this 
 authority was no less than Thomas Jefferson himself, the 
 great apostle of the doctrines of State Rights. The word 
 was borrowed from him. It was taken from the Kentucky 
 Resolution, as well as the substance of the resolution itself. 
 But I trust I may neutralize whatever aversion the author- 
 ship of this word may have excited in the mind of the Sen- 
 ator, by the introduction of another authority that of 
 Washington himself, who, in his speech to Congress, speak- 
 ing of the admission of North Carolina into the Union, uses 
 this very term, which was repeated by the Senate in their 
 reply. Yet, in order to narrow the ground between the Sen- 
 ator and myself as much as possible, I will accommodate my- 
 self to his strange antipathy against the two unfortunate 
 words, by striking them out of the resolution, and substitut- 
 ing in their place those very words which the Senator him- 
 self has designated as constitutional phrases. In the place
 
 SPEECHES. 269 
 
 of that abhorred adjective " constitutional," I will insert the 
 very noun-substantive " constitution ; " and in the place of 
 the word " accede/' I will insert the word " ratify/' which 
 he designates as the proper term to be used. 
 
 Let us now see how the resolution stands, and how it will 
 read after these amendments. Here Mr. C. said the resolu- 
 tion, as introduced, reads : 
 
 /" Resolved, That the people of the several States compos- 
 / ing these United States are united as parties to a constitu- 
 tional compact, to which the people of each State acceded 
 as a separate and sovereign community, each binding itself 
 
 its own particular ratification ; and that the Union, of 
 which the said compact is a bond, is a union between the States 
 ratifying the same. 
 
 As proposed to be amended : 
 
 Resolved, That the people of the several States compos- . 
 ing these United States are united as parties to a compact, 
 under the title of the Constitution of the United States, which 
 the people of each State ratified as a separate and sovereign 
 community, each binding itself by its own particular ratifica- 
 tion ; and that the Union of which the said compact is the 
 bond, is a union between the States ratifying the sam^r x 
 
 Where, Sir, I ask, is that plain case of revolution ? 
 Where that hiatus, as wide as the globe, between the prem- 
 ises and conclusion, which the Senator proclaimed would be 
 apparent if the resolution was reduced into constitutional 
 language ? For my part, with my poor powers of concep- 
 tion, I cannot perceive the slightest difference between the 
 resolution as first introduced, and as it is proposed to be 
 amended in conformity to the views of the Senator. And, 
 instead of that hiatus between the premises and conclusion, 
 which seems to startle the imagination of the Senator, I can 
 perceive nothing but a continuous and solid surface, sufficient 
 to sustain the magnificent superstructure of State Eights. 
 Indeed, it seems to me that the Senator's vision is distorted
 
 270 SPEECHES. 
 
 by the medium through which he views every thing connected 
 with the subject ; and that the same distortion which has 
 presented to his imagination this hiatus, as wide as the globe, 
 where not even a fissure exists, also presented that beautiful 
 and classical image of a strong man struggling in a bog with- 
 out the power of extricating himself, and incapable of being 
 aided by any friendly hand, while, instead of struggling in a 
 bog, he stands on the everlasting rock of truth. 
 
 Having now noticed the criticism of the Senator, I shall 
 proceed to meet and repel the main assault on the resolution. 
 He directed his attack against the strong point, the very 
 horn of the citadel of State Eights. The Senator clearly 
 perceived that, if the constitution be a compact, it was im- 
 possible to deny the assertions contained in the resolutions, or 
 to resist the consequences which I had drawn from them, 
 and, accordingly, directed his whole fire against that point ; 
 but, after so vast an expenditure of ammunition, not the 
 slightest impression, so far as I can perceive, has been made. 
 But, to drop the simile, after a careful examination of the 
 notes which I took of what the Senator said, I am now at a 
 loss to know whether, in the opinion of the Senator, our con- 
 stitution is a compact or not, though the almost entire argu- 
 ment of the Senator was directed to that point. At one 
 time he would seem to deny directly and positively that it 
 was a compact, while at another he would appear, in lan- 
 guage not less strong, to admit that it was. 
 
 I have collated all that the Senator has said upon this 
 point ; and, that what I have stated may not appear exagge- 
 rated, I will read hi& remarks in juxtaposition. He said that 
 
 " The constitution means a government, not a compact. Not a consti- 
 tutional compact, but a government. If compact, it rests on plighted faith, 
 and the mode of redress would be to declare the whole void. States may 
 secede if a league or compact." 
 
 I thank the Senator for these admissions, which I intend
 
 SPEECHES. 271 
 
 to use hereafter. (Here Mr. C. proceeded to read from his 
 notes.) 
 
 "The States agreed that each should participate in the sovereignty of 
 the other." 
 
 Certainly, a very correct conception of the constitution ; 
 but when did they make that agreement but by the consti- 
 tution, and how could they agree but by compact ? 
 
 " The system, not a compact between States in their sovereign capa- 
 city, hut a government proper, founded on the adoption of the people, and 
 creating individual relations between itself and the citizens." 
 
 This, the Senator lays down as a leading, fundamental prin- 
 ciple to sustain his doctrine, and, I must say, with strange 
 confusion and uncertainty of language ; not, certainly, to be 
 explained by any want of command of the most appropriate 
 words on his part. 
 
 "It does not call itself a compact, but a constitution. The constituy 
 tion rests on compact, but it is no longer a compact." 
 
 I would ask, To what compact does the Senator refer, as 
 that on which the constitution rests ? Before the adoption 
 of the present constitution, the States had formed but one 
 compact, and that was the old confederation ; and, certainly, 
 the gentleman does not intend to assert that the present 
 constitution rests upon that. What, then, is his meaning ? 
 What can it be, but that the constitution itself is a com- 
 pact ?f And how will his language read, when fairly inter- 
 preted, but that the constitution was a compact, but is no 
 longer a compact ? It had, by some means or another, 
 changed its nature, or become defunct. 
 
 He nexts states that 
 
 " A man is almost untrue to his country who calls the constitution a 
 compact." 
 
 I fear the Senator, in calling it " a compact, a bargain,"
 
 272 SPEECHES. 
 
 has called down this heavy denunciation on his own head. 
 He finally states that 
 
 "It is founded on compact, but not a compact results from it." "*' . 
 
 To what are we to attribute this strange confusion of 
 words ? The Senator has a mind of high order, and per- 
 fectly trained to the most exact use of language. No man 
 knows better the precise import of the words he uses. The 
 difficulty is not in him, but in his subject. He who under- 
 takes to prove that this constitution is not a compact, un- 
 dertakes a task which, be his strength ever so great, must 
 oppress him by its weight. Taking the whole of the argu- 
 ment of the Senator together, I would say that it is his im- 
 pression that the constitution is not a compact, and will now 
 proceed to consider the reason which he has assigned for this 
 opinion. 
 
 He thinks there is an incompatibility between constitu- 
 tion and compact. To prove this, he adduces the words 
 "ordain and establish," contained in the preamble of the 
 constitution. I confess I am not capable of perceiving in 
 what manner these words are incompatible with the idea 
 that the constitution is a compact. The Senator will admit 
 that a single State may ordain a constitution ; and where is 
 the difficulty, where the incompatibility, of two States con- 
 curring in ordaining and establishing a constitution ? As 
 between the States themselves, the instrument would be a 
 compact ; but in reference to the Government, and those on 
 whom it operates, it would be ordained and established 
 ordained and established by the joint authority of two, instead 
 of the single authority of one. 
 
 The next argument which the Senator advances to show 
 that the language of the constitution is irreconcilable with 
 the idea of its being a compact, is taken from that portion 
 of the instrument which imposes prohibitions on the author- 
 ity of the States. He said that tlie_Janguage used in im-
 
 SPEECHES. 273 
 
 posing the prohibitions is the language of a superior to an 
 inferior ; and that, therefore, it was not the language of a 
 compact, which implies the equality of the parties. As a 
 proof, the Senator cited several clauses of the constitution 
 which provide that no State shall enter into treaties of 
 alliance and confederation, lay imposts, &c., without the as- 
 sent of Congress. If he had turned to the articles of the 
 old confederation, which he acknowledges to have been a 
 compact, he would have found that those very prohibitory 
 articles of the constitution were borrowed from that instru- 
 ment ; that the language which he now considers as imply- 
 ing superiority was taken verbatim from it. If he had ex- 
 tended his researches still further, he would have found that 
 it is the habitual language used in treaties, whenever a 
 stipulation is made against the performance of any ac 
 Among many instances which I could cite if it were neces- 
 sary, I refer the Senator to the celebrated treaty negotiated 
 by Mr. Jay with Great Britain in 1793,, in which the very 
 language used in the constitution is employed. 
 
 To prove that the constitution is not a compact, the 
 Senator next observes that it stipulates nothing, and asks, 
 with an air of triumph, Where are the evidences of the 
 stipulations between the States ? I must express my sur- 
 prise at this interrogatory, coming from so intelligent a 
 source. Has the Senator never seen the ratifications of the 
 constitution by the several States ? Did he not cite them 
 on this very occasion ? Do they contain no evidence of 
 stipulations on the part of the States ? Nor is the assertion 
 less strange that the constitution contains no stipulations. 
 So far from regarding it in the light in which the Senator 
 regards it, I consider the whole instrument but a mass of 
 stipulations. What is that but a stipulation to which the 
 Senator refers when he states, in the course of his argument, 
 that each State had agreed to participate in the sovereignty 
 of the others. 
 
 VOL. II. 18
 
 Jut the principal argument on which the Senator relied to 
 low that the constitution is not a compact, rests on the 
 provision in that instrument which declares that " this con- 
 stitution, and laws made in pursuance thereof, and treaties 
 made under their authority, are the supreme laws of the 
 land." He asked, with marked emghasis, Can a compact be 
 the supreme law of the land ? I ask, in return, whether 
 treaties are not compacts, and whether treaties, as well as 
 the constitution, are not declared to be the supreme law of 
 the land ?\ His argument, in fact, as conclusively proves 
 that treaties are not compacts as that the constitution is not 
 a compact. I might rest the issue on this decisive answer ; 
 but, as I desire to leave not a shadow of doubt on this im- 
 portant point, I shall follow the gentleman in the course of 
 his reasoning. 
 
 He defines a constitution to be a fundamental law, which 
 organizes the government, and points out the mode of its 
 action. I will not object to the definition, though, in my 
 opinion, a more appropriate one, or, at least, one better 
 adapted to American ideas, could be given. My objection is 
 not to the definition, but to the attempt to prove that the 
 fundamental laws of a State cannot be a compact, as the 
 Senator seems to suppose. I hold the very reverse to be the 
 case ; and that, according to the most approved writers on 
 the subject of government, these very fundamental laws which 
 are now stated not only not to be compacts, but inconsistent 
 with the very idea of compacts, are held invariably to be com- 
 pacts ; and, in that character, are distinguished from the 
 ordinary laws of the country./ I will cite a single authority, 
 which is full and explicit on this point, from a writer of the 
 highest repute. 
 
 Burlamaqui says, vol. ii., part 1, chap i., sees. 35, 36, 
 37, 38 : 
 
 fc 'It entirely depends upon a free people to invest the sovereigns 
 whom they place over their heads with an authority either absolute or
 
 SPEECHES. 275 
 
 limited by certain laws. These regulations, by which the supreme au- 
 thority is kept within bounds, are called the fundamental laws of the 
 state." 
 
 " The fundamental laws of a state, taken in their full extent, are not 
 only the decrees by which the entire body of the nation determine the form 
 of government, and the manner of succeeding to the crown, but are like- 
 wise covenants between the people and the person on whom they confer 
 the sovereignty, which regulate the manner of governing, and by which 
 the supreme authority is limited." 
 
 " These regulations are called fundamental laws, because they are the 
 basis, as it were, and foundation of the state on which the structure of the 
 government is raised, and because the people look upon these regulations 
 as their principal strength and support." 
 
 " The name of laws, however, has been given to these regulations in an 
 improper and figurative sense, for, properly speaking, they are real cove- 
 nants. But as those- covenants are obligatory between the contracting 
 parties, they have the force of laws themselves." 
 
 The same, vol. ii., part 2, ch. i., sees. 19 and 22, in part. 
 
 " The whole body of the nation, in whom the supreme power originally 
 resides, may regulate the government by a fundamental law in such man- 
 ner as to commit the exercise of the different parts of the supreme power 
 to different persons or bodies, who may act independently of each other in 
 regard to the rights committed to them, but still subordinate to the laws 
 from which those rights are derived." 
 
 " And these fundamental laws are real covenants, or what the civilians 
 call pacta conventa, between the different orders of the republic, by 
 which they stipulate that each shall have a particular part of the sover- 
 eignty, and that this shall establish the form of government. It is evi- 
 dent that, by these means, each of the contracting parties acquires a right 
 not only of exercising the power granted to it, but also of preserving that 
 original right." 
 
 A reference to the constitution of Great Britain, with 
 which we are better acquainted than with that of any other 
 European government, will show that that is a compact. 
 Magna Charta may certainly be reckoned among the funda- 
 mental laws of that kingdom. Now, although it did not as- 
 sume, originally, the form of a compact, yet, before the 
 breaking up of the meeting of the barons which imposed it
 
 276 SPEECHES. 
 
 on King John, it was reduced into the form of a covenant 
 and duly signed by Eobert Fitzwalter and others, on the one 
 part, and the king on the other. 
 
 But we have a more decisive proof that the constitution 
 of England is a compact in the resolution of the Lords and 
 Commons in 1688, which declared that : 
 
 " King James the Second having endeavored to subvert the constitu- 
 tion of the kingdom, by breaking the original contract between the king 
 and people, and having, by the advice of Jesuits and other wicked per- 
 sons, violated the fundamental law, and withdrawn himself out of the 
 kingdom, hath abdicated the government, and that the throne is thereby 
 become vacant." 
 
 But why should I refer to writers upon the subject of 
 government, or inquire into the constitution of foreign states, 
 when there are such decisive proofs that our constitution is 
 a compact ? On this point the Senator is estopped. I 
 borrow from the gentleman, and thank him for the word. 
 His adopted State, which he so ably represents on this floor, 
 and his native State, the States of Massachusetts and New 
 Hampshire, both declared, in their ratification of the consti- 
 tution, that it was a compact. The ratification of Massa- 
 chusetts is in the following words : 
 
 s [ Here Mr - c - read 
 
 " In Convention of the Delegates of the People of the Commonwealth 
 of Massachusetts, February 6, 1788. 
 
 "The Convention having impartially discussed and fully considered 
 the Constitution of the United States of America, reported to Congress 
 by the Convention of Delegates from the United States of America, and 
 submitted to us by a resolution of the General Court of said Common- 
 wealth, passed the 25th day of October last past, and acknowledging, with 
 grateful hearts, the goodness of the Supreme Ruler of the Universe, in 
 affording the people of the United States, in the course of his providence, 
 an opportunity deliberately and peaceably, without fraud or surprise, of 
 entering into an explicit and SOLEMN COMPACT with each other, by assent- 
 ing to and ratifying a new Constitution, in order to form a more perfect 
 union, establish justice, ensure domestic tranquillity, provide for the com-
 
 SPEECHES. 277 
 
 mon defence, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of 
 liberty to themselves and of Massachusetts, assent to and ratify the said 
 Constitution for the United States of America." 
 
 The ratification of New Hampshire is taken from that of 
 Massachusetts, and almost in the same words. But proof, 
 if possible, still more decisive, may be found in the celebra- 
 ted resolutions of Virginia on the alien and sedition law, in 
 1798, and the responses of Massachusetts and the other 
 States. Those resolutions expressly assert that the consti- 
 tution is a compact between the States, in the following 
 language : 
 
 [Here Mr. C. read from the resolutions of Virginia as follows :] 
 " That this Assembly doth explicitly and peremptorily declare, that it 
 
 VIEWS THE POWERS OF THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT, AS RESULTING FROM 
 THE COMPACT, TO WHICH THE STATES ARE PARTIES, AS LIMITED BY THE 
 PLAIN SENSE AND INTENTION OF THE INSTRUMENT CONSTITUTING THAT 
 COMPACT, AS NO FARTHER VALID THAN THEY ARE AUTHORIZED BY THE 
 GRANTS ENUMERATED IN THAT COMPACT; AND THAT, IN CASE OF A DE- 
 LIBERATE, PALPABLE, AND DANGEROUS EXERCISE OF OTHER POWERS NOT 
 GRANTED BY THE SAID COMPACT, THE STATES WHO ARE PARTIES THERETO 
 HAVE THE RIGHT, AND ARE IN DUTY BOUND, TO INTERPOSE FOR ARREST- 
 ING THE PROGRESS OF THE EVIL, AND FOR MAINTAINING WITHIN THEIR 
 RESPECTIVE LIMITS THE AUTHORITIES, RIGHTS, AND LIBERTIES APPERTAIN- 
 ING TO THEM. 
 
 " That the General Assembly doth also express its deep regret that a 
 spirit has, in sundry instances, been manifested by the Federal Govern- 
 ment to enlarge its powers by forced constructions of the constitutional 
 charter, which defines them ; and that indications have appeared of a de- 
 sign to expound certain general phrases (which, having been copied from 
 the very limited grant of powers in the former articles of confederation, 
 were the less liable to be misconstrued), so as to destroy the meaning and 
 effect of the particular enumeration which necessarily explains, and limits 
 the general phrases, and so as to CONSOLIDATE THE STATES, BY DEGREES, 
 
 INTO ONE SOVEREIGNTY, THE OBVIOUS TENDENCY AND INEVITABLE RESULT 
 OF WHICH WOULD BE, TO TRANSFORM THE PRESENT REPUBLICAN SYSTEM 
 
 OF THE UNITED STATES INTO AN ABSOLUTE, OR, AT BEST, A MIXED 
 
 MONARCHY." *~~ 
 
 They were sent to the several States. We have the re-
 
 278 SPEECHES. 
 
 ply of Delaware, New- York, Connecticut, New Hampshire, 
 Vermont, and Massachusetts, not one of which contradicts 
 this important assertion on the part of Virginia ; and, by 
 their silence, they all acquiesce in its truth. The case is 
 still stronger against Massachusetts, which expressly recog- 
 nizes the fact that the constitution is a compact. 
 In her answer she says : 
 
 [Here Mr. C. read from the answer of Massachusetts as follows :] 
 
 " But they deem it their duty solemnly to declare that, while they 
 hold sacred the principle, that consent of the people is the only pure 
 source of just and legitimate power, they cannot admit the right of the 
 State Legislatures to denounce the administration of that Government, to 
 which the people themselves, by a solemn compact, have exclusively com- 
 mitted their national concerns. That, although a liberal and enlightened 
 vigilance among the people is always to be cherished, yet an unreasonable 
 jealousy of the men of their choice, and a recurrence to measures of ex- 
 tremity upon groundless or trivial pretexts, have a strong tendency to 
 destroy all rational liberty at home, and to deprive the United States of 
 the most essential advantages in their relations abroad. That this Legis- 
 lature are persuaded that the decision of all cases in law or equity, arising 
 under the Constitution of the United States, and the construction of all 
 laws made in pursuance thereof, are exclusively vested by the people in 
 the judicial courts of the United States." 
 
 " That the people, in that solemn compact, which is declared to be 
 the supreme law of the land, have not constituted the State Legislatures 
 the judges of the acts or measures of the Federal Government, but have 
 confided to them the power of proposing such amendments of the consti- 
 tution as shall appear to them necessary to the interests, or conformable 
 to the wishes, of the people whom they represent." 
 
 Now I ask the Senator himself I put it to his candor to 
 say, if South Carolina be estopped on the subject of the 
 protective system, because Mr. Burke and Mr. Smith pro- 
 posed a moderate duty on hemp, or some other article, I 
 know not what, nor do I care, with a view of encouraging its 
 production (of which motion, I venture to say, not one indi- 
 vidual in a hundred in the State ever heard), whether he 
 and Massachusetts, after this clear, full, and solemn recog-
 
 SPEECHES. 279 
 
 nition that the constitution is a compact (both on his part 
 and that of his State), be not for ever estopped on this im- 
 portant point ? ^ 
 
 There remains one more of the Senator's arguments, to \ 
 prove that the constitution is not a compact, to be con- 
 sidered. He says it is not a compact, because it is a govern- ' 
 ment ; which he defines to be an organized body, possessed 
 of the will and power to execute its purposes by its own 
 proper authority ; and which, he says, bears not the slightest 
 resemblance to a compact. But I would ask the Senator, 
 Who ever considered a government, when spoken of as the 
 agent to execute the powers of the constitution, and distinct 
 from the constitution itself, as a compact ? In that light it 
 would be a perfect absurdity. It is true that, in general 
 and loose language, it is often said that the Government is a 
 compact, meaning the constitution which created it, and 
 vested it with authority to execute the powers contained in 
 the instrument ; but Avhen the distinction is drawn between 
 the constitution and the Government, as the Senator has 
 done, it would be as ridiculous to call the Government a 
 compact, as to call an individual, appointed to execute the 
 provisions of a contract, a contract ; and not less so to sup- 
 pose that there could be the slightest resemblance between 
 them. In connection with this point, the Senator, to prove 
 that the constitution is not a compact, asserts that it is 
 wholly independent of the State, and pointedly declares that 
 the States have not a right to touch a hair of its head ; and 
 this, with that provision in the constitution that three- 
 fourths of the States have a right to alter, change, amend, 
 or even to abolish it, staring him in the face. 
 
 I have examined all of the arguments of the Senator 
 intended to prove that the constitution is not a compact ; 
 and I trust I have shown, by the clearest demonstration, 
 that his arguments are perfectly inconclusive, and that his 
 assertion is against the clearest and most solemn evidence
 
 280 SPEECHES. 
 
 evidence of record, and of such a character that it ought to 
 close his lips for ever. 
 
 I turn now to consider the other, and, apparently, contra- 
 dictory aspect in which the Senator presented this part of 
 the subject : I mean that in which he states that the Gov- 
 ernment is founded in compact, but is no longer a compact. 
 I have already remarked, that no other interpretation could 
 be given to this assertion, except that the constitution was 
 once a compact, but is no longer so. There was a vagueness 
 and indistinctness in this part of the Senator's argument, 
 which left me altogether uncertain as to its real meaning. 
 If he meant, as I presume he did, that the compact is an 
 executed, and not an executory one that its object was to 
 create a government, and to invest it with proper authority 
 and that, having executed this office, it had performed its 
 functions, and, with it, had ceased to exist, then we have the 
 extraordinary avowal that the constitution is a dead letter 
 that it has ceased to have any binding effect, or any practical 
 influence or operation. 
 
 It has, indeed, often been charged that the constitution 
 has become a dead letter ; that it is continually violated, and 
 has lost all its control over the Government ; but no one has 
 ever before been bold enough to advance a theory on the 
 avowed basis that it was an executed, and, therefore, an 
 extinct instrument. I will not seriously attempt to refute 
 an argument, which, to me, appears so extravagant. I 
 had thought that the constitution was to endure for ever ; 
 and that, so far from its being an executed contract, it con- 
 tained great trust powers for the benefit of those who created 
 it, and of all future generations, which never could be 
 finally executed during the existence of the world, if our 
 Government should so long endure. 
 
 I will now return to the first resolution, to see how the 
 issue stands between the Senator from Massachusetts and 
 myself. It contains three propositions. First, that the
 
 SPEECHES. 281 
 
 constitution is a compact ; second, that it was formed by 
 the States, constituting distinct communities ; and, lastly, 
 that it is a subsisting and binding compact between the 
 States. How do these three propositions now stand ? The 
 first, I trust, has been satisfactorily established ; the second, 
 the Senator has admitted, faintly, indeed, but still he has 
 admitted it to be true. This admission is something. It is 
 so much gained by discussion. Three years ago even this 
 was a contested point. But I cannot say that I thank him 
 for the admission : we.owe it to the force of truth. The fact 
 that these States were declared to be free and independent 
 States at the time of their independence ; that they were 
 acknowledged to be so by Great Britain in the treaty which 
 terminated the war of the Kevolution, and secured their in- 
 dependence ; that they were recognized in the same character 
 in the old articles of the confederation ; and, finally, that 
 the present constitution was formed by a convention of the 
 several States afterwards submitted to them for their re- 
 spective ratifications, and was ratified by them separately, 
 each for itself, and each, by its own act, binding its citizens, 
 formed a body of facts too clear to be denied, and too 
 strong to be resisted. , 
 
 It now remains to consider the third and last proposition 
 contained in the resolution that it is a binding and a sub- 
 sisting compact between the States. The Senator was not 
 explicit on this point. I understood him, however, as assert- 
 ing that, though formed by the States, the constitution was 
 not binding between the States as distinct communities, but 
 between the American people in the aggregate ; who, in 
 consequence of the adoption of the constitution, according 
 to the opinion of the Senator, became one people, at least 
 to the extent of the delegated powers. This would, indeed, 
 be a great change. All acknowledge that, previous to the 
 adoption of the constitution, the States constituted distinct 
 and independent communities, in full possession of their
 
 282 SPEECHES. 
 
 sovereignty ; and, surely, if the adoption of the constitu- 
 tion was intended to effect the great and important change 
 in their condition which the theory of the Senator supposes, 
 some evidence of it ought to be found in the instrument 
 itself. It professes to be a careful and full enumeration of 
 all the powers which the States delegated, and of every 
 modification of their political condition. The Senator said 
 that he looked to the constitution in order to ascertain its 
 real character ; and, surely, he ought to look to the same 
 instrument in order to ascertain what changes were, in fact, 
 made in the political condition of the States and the country. 
 But, with the exception of " we, the people of the United 
 States," in the preamble, he has not pointed out a single 
 indication in the constitution, of the great change which, as 
 he conceives, has been effected in this respect/ 
 
 Now, Sir, I intend to prove, that the only argument on 
 which the gentleman relies on this point, must utterly fail 
 him. I do not intend to go into a critical examination of 
 the expression of the preamble to which I have referred. I 
 do not deem it necessary. But if it were, it might be easily 
 shown that it is at least as applicable to my view of the 
 constitution as to that of the Senator ; and that the whole 
 of his argument on this point rests on the ambiguity of the 
 term thirteen United States ; which may mean certain ter- 
 ritorial limits, comprehending within them the whole of the 
 States and Territories of the Union. In this sense, the 
 people of the United States may mean all the people living 
 within these limits, without reference to the States or Terri- 
 tories in which they may reside, or of which they may be 
 citizens ; and it is in this sense only that the expression 
 gives the least countenance to the argument of the Senator. 
 
 But it may also mean, the States united, which inversion 
 alone, without further explanation, removes the ambiguity 
 to which I have referred. The expression, in this sense, 
 obviously means no more than to speak of the people of the
 
 SPEECHES. 283 
 
 several States in their united and confederated capacity ; 
 and, if it were requisite, it might be shown that it is only in 
 this sense that the expression is used in the constitution. 
 But it is not necessary. A single argument will for ever 
 settle this point. ^ Whatever may be the true meaning of 
 the expression, it is not applicable to the condition of the 
 States as they exist 'under the constitution, but as it was 
 under the old confederation, before its adoption. The consti- 
 tution had not yet been adopted, and the States, in ordaining 
 it, could only speak of themselves in the condition in which 
 they then existed, and not in that in which they would exist, 
 under the constitution.)/ So that, if the argument of the 
 Senator proves any thing, it proves, not (as he supposes) that 
 the constitution forms the American people into an aggregate 
 mass of individuals, but that such was their political con- 
 dition before its adoption, under the old confederation, di- 
 rectly contrary to his argument in the previous part of this 
 discussion. 
 
 But I intend not to leave this important point, the last 
 refuge of those who advocate consolidation, even on this con- 
 clusive argument. I have shown that the constitution 
 affords not the least evidence of the mighty change of the 
 political condition of the States and the country, which the 
 Senator supposed it effected ; and I intend now, by the most 
 decisive proof, drawn from the Instrument itself, to show 
 that no such change was intended, and that the people of 
 the States are united under it as States and not as individ- 
 uals/ On this point there is a very important part of the 
 constitution entirely and strangely overlooked by the Senator 
 in this debate, as it is expressed in the first resolution, which 
 furnishes conclusive evidence not only that the., constitution 
 is a compact, but a subsisting compact, binding between the 
 States. I allude to the seventh article, which provides that 
 " the ratification of the conventions of nine States shall be 
 sufficient for the establishment of this constitution between
 
 284 SPEECHES. 
 
 the States so ratifying the same." Yes, " between the States.'' 
 These little words mean a volume compacts, not laws, bind 
 between States ; and it here binds, not as between individuals, 
 but between the States : the States ratifying ; implying, as 
 strong as language can make it, that the constitution is 
 what I have asserted it to be a compact, ratified by the 
 States, and a subsisting compact, binding the States ratify- 
 ing it./. 
 
 But, Sir, I will not leave this point, all-important in es- 
 tablishing the true theory of our Government, on this argu- 
 ment alone, as demonstrative and conclusive as I hold it to 
 be. Another, not much less powerful, but of a different 
 character^ may be drawn from the tenth amended article, 
 which provides that " the powers not delegated to the United 
 States by the constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, 
 are reserved to the States respectively or to the people." 
 The article of ratification, which I have just cited, informs 
 us that the constitution, which delegates powers, was ratified 
 by the States, and is binding between them. This informs 
 us to whom the powers are delegated^ a most important 
 fact in determining the point immediately at issue between 
 the Senator and myself. According to his views, the consti- 
 tution created a union between individuals, if the solecism 
 may be allowed, and that it formed, at least to the extent of 
 the powers delegated, one people, and not a Federal Union 
 of the States, as I contend ; or, to express the same idea 
 differently, that the delegation of powers was to the Ameri- 
 can people in the aggregate (for it is only by such delega- 
 tion that they could be constituted one people), and not to 
 the United States, directly contrary to the article just cited, 
 which declares that the powers are delegated to the United 
 States. And here it is worthy of notice, that the Senator 
 cannot shelter himself under the ambiguous phrase, " to the 
 people of the United States," under which he would certain- 
 ly have taken refuge, had the constitution so expressed it ;
 
 SPEECHES. 285 
 
 but, fortunately for the cause of truth and the great princi- 
 ples of constitutional liberty for which I am contending, 
 "people" is omitted : thus making the delegation of power 
 clear and unequivocal to the United States, as distinct politi- 
 cal communities, and conclusively proving that all the pow- 
 ers delegated are reciprocally delegated by the States to each 
 other, as distinct political communities. 
 
 So much for the delegated powers. Now, as all admit, 
 and as it is expressly provided for in the constitution, the re- 
 served powers are reserved " to the States respectively, or to 
 the people." None will pretend that, as far as they are con- 
 cerned, we are one people, though the argument to prove it, 
 however absurd, would be far more plausible than that which 
 goes to show that we are one people to the extent of the 
 delegated powers. This reservation "to the people" might, 
 in the hands of subtle and trained logicians, be a peg to 
 hang a doubt upon ; and had the expression " to the people " 
 been connected, as fortunately it is not, with the delegated 
 instead of the reserved powers, we should not have heard of 
 this in the present discussion. ^ 
 
 I have now established, I hope, beyond the power oi\ 
 controversy, every allegation contained in the first resolu- 
 tion that the constitution is a compact formed by the peo- 
 ple of the several States, as distinct political communities, 
 and subsisting and binding between the States in the same 
 character; which brings me to the consideration of the 
 consequences which may be fairly deduced, in reference to 
 the character of our political system, from these established 
 facts. 
 
 The first, and most important is, they conclusively estab- 
 lish that Tour's is a federal system a system of States ar- 
 ranged in a Federal Union, each retaining its distinct exist- 
 ence and sovereignty^ Ours has every attribute which be- 
 longs to a federative system. It is founded on compact ; it 
 is formed by sovereign communities, and is binding between
 
 286 SPEECHES. 
 
 them in their sovereign capacity./ I might appeal, in con- 
 firmation of this assertion, to all elementary writers on the 
 subject of government, but will content myself with citing 
 one only : Burlamaqui, quoted with approbation by Judge 
 Tucker, in his Commentary on Blackstone, himself a high 
 authority, says : 
 
 [Here Mr. C. read from Tucker's Blackstone as follows) : 
 
 " Political bodies, whether great or small, if they are constituted by a 
 people formerly independent, and under no civil subjection, or by those 
 who justly claim independence from any civil power they were formerly 
 subject to, have the civil supremacy in themselves, and are in a state of 
 equal right and liberty with respect to all other States, whether great or 
 small. No regard is to be had in this matter to names, whether the body 
 politic be called a kingdom, an empire, a principality, a dukedom, a coun- 
 try, a republic, or free town. If it can exercise justly all the essential 
 parts of civil power within itself independently of any other person or 
 body politic, and no other hath any right to rescind or annul its acts, it 
 has the civil supremacy, how small soever its territory may be, or the 
 number of its people, and has all the rights of an Independent State. 
 
 " This independence of States, and their being distinct political bodies 
 from each other, is not obstructed by any alliance or confederacies what- 
 soever, about exercising jointly any parts of the supreme powers, such as 
 those of peace and war, in league offensive and defensive. Two States, 
 notwithstanding such treaties, are separate bodies, and independent. 
 
 " These are, then, only deemed politically united when some one per- 
 son or council is constituted with a right to exercise some essential powers 
 for both, and to hinder either from exercising them separately. If any 
 person or council is empowered to exercise all these essential powers for 
 both, they are then one State : such is the State of England and Scotland, 
 since the act of union made at the beginning of the eighteenth century, 
 whereby the two kingdoms were incorporated into one, all parts of the 
 supreme power of both kingdoms being thenceforward united, and vested 
 .in the three estates of the realm of Great Britain; by which entire 
 coalition, though both kingdoms retain their ancient laws and usages 
 in many respects, they are as effectually united and incorporated as the 
 several petty kingdoms which composed the heptarchy were before that 
 period. 
 
 " But when only a portion of the supreme civil power is vested in one 
 person or council for both, such as that of peace and war, or of deciding 
 controversies between different States, or their subjects, while each within
 
 SPEECHES. 287 
 
 itself exercises other parts of the supreme power, independently of all the 
 others in this case they are called Systems of States, which Burlamaqui 
 defines to be an assemblage of perfect governments, strictly united by 
 some common bond, so that they seem to make but a single body with 
 respect to those affairs which interest them in common, though each pre- 
 serves its sovereignty, full and entire, independently of all others. And 
 in this case, he adds, the confederate States engage to each other only to 
 exercise with common consent certain parts of the sovereignty, especially 
 that which relates to their mutual defence against foreign enemies. But 
 each of the confederates retains an entire liberty of exercising as it thinks 
 proper those parts of the sovereignty which are not mentioned in the 
 treaty of union, as parts that ought to be exercised in common. And of 
 this nature is the American confederacy, in which each State has resigned 
 the exercise of certain parts of the supreme civil power which they possessed 
 before (except in common with the other States included in the confedera- 
 cy), reserving to themselves all their former powers, which are not dele- 
 gated to the United States by the common bond of union. 
 
 " A visible distinction, and not less important than obvious, occurs to 
 our observation in comparing these different kinds of union. The king- 
 doms of England and Scotland are united into one kingdom ; and the two 
 contracting States, by such an incorporate union, are, in the opinion of 
 Judge Blackstone, totally annihilated, without any power of revival ; and 
 a third arises from their conjunction, in which all the rights of sovereign- 
 ty, and particularly that of legislation, are vested. From whence he ex- 
 presses a doubt whether any infringements of the fundamental and essen- 
 tial conditions of the union would of itself dissolve the union of those 
 kingdoms ; though he readily admits that, in the case of a federate alli- 
 ance, such an infringement would certainly rescind the compact between 
 the confederated States. In the United States of America, on the contra- 
 ry, each State retains its own antecedent form of government ; its own 
 laws, subject to the alteration and control of its own legislature only ; its 
 own executive officers and council of State ; its own courts of judicature, 
 its own judges, its own magistrates, civil officers, and officers of the mi- 
 litia ; and, in short, its own civil state, or body politic, in every respect 
 whatsoever. And by the express declaration of the 12th article of the 
 amendments to the constitution, the powers not delegated to the United 
 States by the constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved 
 to the States respectively, or to the people. In Great Britain, a new civil 
 state is created by the annihilation of two antecedent civil states ; in the 
 American States, a general federal council and administration is provided 
 for the joint exercise of such of their several powers as can be more con- 
 veniently exercised in that mode than any other, leaving their civil state
 
 288 SPEECHES. 
 
 unaltered ; and all the other powers, which the States antecedently pos- 
 sessed, to be exercised by them respectively, as if no union or connection 
 were established between them. 
 
 " The ancient Achaia seems to have been a confederacy founded upon a 
 similar plan ; each of those little States had its distinct possessions, terri- 
 tories, and boundaries ; each had its Senate or Assembly, its magistrates 
 and judges ; and every State sent deputies to the general convention, and 
 had equal weight in all determinations. And most of the neighboring 
 States which, moved by fear of danger, acceded to this confederacy, had 
 reason to felicitate themselves. 
 
 " These confederacies, by which several States are united together by 
 a perpetual league of alliance, are chiefly founded upon this circumstance, 
 that each particular people choose to remain their own masters, and yet 
 are not strong enough to make head against a common enemy. The pur- 
 port of such an agreement usually is, that they shall not exercise some 
 part of the sovereignty there specified without the general consent of each 
 other. For the leagues, to which these systems of States owe their rise, 
 seem distinguished from others (so frequent among different States) chiefly 
 by this consideration, that, in the latter, each confederate people deter- 
 mine themselves, by their own judgment, to certain mutual performances, 
 yet so that in all other respects they design not in the least to make the 
 exercise of that part of the sovereignty, whence these performances pro- 
 ceed, dependent on the consent of their allies, or to retrench any thing 
 from their full and unlimited power of governing their own States. Thus 
 we see that ordinary treaties propose, for the most part, as their aim, only 
 some particular advantage of the States thus transacting their interests 
 happening at present to fall in with each other but do not produce any 
 lasting union as to the chief management of affairs. Such was the treaty 
 of alliance between America and France in the year 1778, by which, 
 among other articles, it was agreed that neither of the two parties should 
 conclude either truce or peace with Great Britain without the formal con- 
 sent of the other first obtained, and whereby they mutually engaged not 
 to lay down their arms until the independence of the United States should 
 be formally or tacitly assured by the treaty or treaties which should ter- 
 minate the war. Whereas, in these confederacies, of which we are now 
 speaking, the contrary is observable, they being established with this de- 
 sign, that the several States shall for ever link their safety one with an- 
 other, and, in order to their mutual defence, shall engage themselves not 
 to exercise certain parts of their sovereign power, otherwise than by a 
 common agreement and approbation. Such were the stipulations, among 
 others, contained in the articles of confederation and perpetual union be- 
 tween American States, by which it was agreed that no State should.
 
 SPEECHES. 289 
 
 without the consent of the United States in Congress assembled, send any 
 embassy to, or receive any embassy from, or enter into any conference, 
 agreement, alliance, or treaty with, any King, Prince, or State ; nor keep 
 up any vessels of war, or body of forces, in time of peace ; nor engage in 
 any war, without the consent of the United States in Congress assembled, 
 unless actually invaded j nor grant commissions to any ships of war, or 
 letters of marque and reprisal, except after a declaration of war by the 
 United States in Congress assembled, with several others ; yet each State 
 respectively retains its sovereignty, freedom, and independence, and every 
 power, jurisdiction, and right which is not expressly delegated to the 
 United States in Congress assembled. The promises made in these two 
 cases here compared run very differently ; in the former, thus : ' I will 
 join you in this particular war as a confederate, and the manner of our 
 attacking the enemy shall be concerted by our common advice ; nor will 
 we desist from war till the particular end thereof, the establishment of 
 the independence of the United States, be obtained.' In the latter, thus : 
 ' None of us who have entered into this alliance will make use of our 
 right as to the affairs of war and peace, except by the general consent of 
 the whole confederacy.' We observed before that these unions submit 
 only some certain parts of the sovereignty to mutual direction ; for it 
 seems hardly possible that the affairs of different States should have so 
 close a connection, as that all and each of them should look on it as 
 their interest to have no part of the chief government exercised with- 
 out the general concurrence. The most convenient method, therefore, 
 seems to be, that the particular States reserve to themselves all those 
 branches of the supreme authority, the management of which can have 
 little or no influence in the affairs of the rest." 
 
 [Mr. Calhoun proceeded :] 
 
 If we compare our present system with the old confede- 
 ration, which all acknowledge to have been federal in its 
 character, we shall find that it possesses all the attributes 
 which belong to that form of government as fully and com- 
 pletely as that did. In fact, in this particular, there is but 
 a single difference, and that not essential, as regards the 
 point immediately under consideration, though very impor- 
 tant in other respects. The confederation was the act of the 
 State governments, and formed a union of governments. 
 The present constitution is the act of the States themselves, 
 or, which is the same thing, of the people of the several 
 VOL. n. 19
 
 290 SPEECHES. 
 
 States, and forms a union of them as sovereign communities. 
 The States, previous to the adoption of the constitution, 
 were as separate and distinct political bodies as the govern- 
 ments which represent them, and there is nothing in the na- 
 ture of things to prevent them from uniting under a compact, 
 in a federal union, without being blended in one mass, any 
 more than uniting the governments themselves, in like man- 
 ner, without merging them in a single government. To il- 
 lustrate what I have stated by reference to ordinary trans- 
 actions, the confederation was a contract between agents 
 the present constitution a contract between the principals 
 themselves^ or, to take a more analogous case, one is a 
 league made by ambassadors ; the other, a league made by 
 sovereigns the latter no more tending to unite the parties 
 into a single sovereignty than the former. The only difference 
 is in the solemnity of the act and the force of the obligation. 
 There, indeed, results a most important difference, un- 
 our theory of government, as to the nature and character 
 of the act itself, whether executed by the States themselves, 
 or by their governments ; but a result, as I have already 
 stated, not at all affecting the question under consideration, 
 but which will throw much light on a subject, in relation to 
 which, I must think the Senator from Massachusetts has 
 formed very confused conceptions. 
 
 The Senator dwelt much on the point that the present 
 system is a constitution and a government, in contradistinc- 
 tion to the old confederation, with a view of proving that the 
 constitution was not a compact. Now, I concede to the Sen- 
 ator that our present system is- a constitution and a govern- 
 ment ; and that the former, the old confederation, was not 
 a constitution or government : not, however, for the reason 
 which he assigned, that the former was a compact, and the 
 latter not, but from the difference of the origin from which 
 the two compacts are derived. According to our American 
 conception, the people alone can form constitutions or gov-
 
 SPEECHES. 291 
 
 ernments, and not their agents. It is this difference, and 
 this alone, which makes the distinction. ^ Had the old con- 
 federation been the act of the people of the several States, 
 and not of their governments, that instrument, imperfect as 
 it was, would have been a constitution, and the agency 
 which it created to execute its powers, a government. This is 
 the true cause of the difference between the two acts, and not 
 that, in regard to which the Senator seems to be bewildered. 
 
 There is another point on which this difference throws 
 important light, and which has been frequently referred to 
 in debate on this and former occasions. I refer to the ex- 
 pression in the preamble of the constitution, which speaks 
 of "forming a more perfect union," and in the letter of 
 General Washington, laying the draught of the Convention 
 before the old Congress, in which he speaks of " consolidating 
 the Union ; " both of which I conceive to refer simply to the 
 fact that the present Union, as already stated, is a union 
 between the States themselves, and not a union like that 
 which had existed between the governments of the States. 
 
 We will now proceed to consider some of the conclusitms 
 which necessarily follow from the facts and positions already 
 established. They enable us to decide a question of vital 
 importance under our system : Where does sovereignty re- 
 side ? If I have succeeded in establishing the fact that ours 
 is a federal system, as I conceive I conclusively have, that 
 fact of itself determines the question which I have proposed. 
 It is of the very essence of such a system, that the sovereignty 
 is in the parts, and not in the whole y or, to use the language 
 of Mr. Palgrave, the parts are the units in such a system, 
 and the whole the multiple ; and not the whole the unit 
 and the parts the fractions. [Ours, then, is a government of 
 twenty-four sovereignties, united by a constitutional compact, 
 for the purpose of exercising certain powers through a com- 
 mon government as their joint agent, and not a union of the 
 twenty-four sovereignties into one,l which, according to the
 
 292 SPEECHES. 
 
 language of the Virginia Resolutions, already cited, would 
 form a consolidation.^ And here I must express my surprise 
 that the Senator from Virginia should avow himself the ad- 
 vocate of these very resolutions, when he distinctly maintains 
 the idea of a union of the States in one sovereignty, which 
 is expressly condemned by those resolutions as the essence of 
 a consolidated government. 
 
 Another consequence is equally clear, that, whatever mod- 
 ifications were made in the condition of the States under the 
 present constitution, they extended only to the exercise of 
 their powers by compact, and not to the sovereignty itself, 
 and are such as sovereigns are competent to make : it being 
 a conceded point, that it is competent to them to stipulate to 
 exercise their powers in a particular manner, or to abstain 
 altogether from their exercise, or to delegate them to agents, 
 without in any degree impairing sovereignty itselfl/ The 
 plain state of the facts, as regards our Government, is, that 
 these States have agreed by compact to exercise their sover- 
 eign powers jointly, as already stated ; and that, for this 
 purpose, they have ratified the compact in their sovereign 
 capacity, thereby making it the constitution of each State, 
 in nowise distinguished from their own separate constitutions, 
 but in the superadded obligation of compact of faith mu- 
 tually pledged to each other. In this compact, they have 
 stipulated, among other things, that it may be amended by 
 three-fourths of the States : that is, they have conceded to 
 each other by compact the right to add new powers or to 
 subtract old, by the consent of that proportion of the States, 
 without requiring, as otherwise would have been the case, 
 the consent of all y a modification no more inconsistent, as 
 has been supposed, with their sovereignty, than any other 
 contained in the compact. In fact, the provision to which I 
 allude furnishes strong evidence that the sovereignty is, as I 
 contend, in the States severally, as the amendments are 
 effected, not by any one three-fourths, but by any three-
 
 SPEECHES. 293 
 
 fourths of the States, indicating that the sovereignty is in 
 each of the States. 
 
 If these views be correct, it follows, as a matter of course, 
 that the allegiance of the people is to their several States, 
 and that treason consists in resistance to the joint authority 
 of the States united, not, as has been absurdly contended, in 
 resistance to the Government of the United States, which, by 
 the provision of the constitution, has only the right of pun- 
 ishing. 
 
 These conclusions have all a most important bearing on 
 that monstrous and despotic bill which, to the disgrace of 
 the Senate and the age, has passed this body. ( I have still a 
 right thus to speak without violating the rules of order, as it 
 is not yet a law. ^/These conclusions show that the States can 
 violate no law ; that they neither are, nor, in the nature of 
 things can be under the dominion of the law ; that the worst 
 that can be imputed to them is a violation of compact, for 
 which they, and not their citizens, are responsible ; and that, 
 to undertake to punish a State by law, or to hold the citizens 
 responsible for the acts of the State, which they are on their 
 allegiance bound to obey, and liable to be punished as traitors 
 for disobeying, is a cruelty unheard of among civilized na- 
 tions, and destructive of every principle upon which our 
 Government is founded. It is, in short, a ruthless and com- 
 plete revolution of our entire system-/ 
 
 I was desirous to present these views fully before the 
 passage of this long-to-be-lamented bill, but as I was pre- 
 vented by the majority, as I have stated at the commence- 
 ment of my remarks, I trust that it is not yet too late. 
 
 Having now said what I intended in relation to my first 
 resolution, both in reply to the Senator from Massachusetts, 
 and in vindication of its correctness, I will now proceed to 
 considerjhe conclusions drawn from it in the second resolu- 
 tion-^that the General Government is not the exclusive and 
 final judge of the extent of the powers delegated to it, but
 
 294 SPEECHES. 
 
 that the States, as parties to the compact, have a right to 
 judge, in the last resort, of the infractions of the compact, 
 and of the mode and measure of redress. 
 
 It can scarcely be necessary, before so enlightened a body, 
 to premise that our system comprehends two distinct govern- 
 ments the General and State Governments, which, prop- 
 erly considered, form but one. The former representing the 
 joint authority of the States in their confederate capacity, 
 and the latter that of each State separately. I have pre- 
 mised this fact simply with a view of presenting distinctly 
 the answer to the argument offered by the Senator from 
 Massachusetts to prove that the General Government has a 
 final and exclusive right to judge, not only of its delegated 
 powers, but also of those reserved to the States. That gen- 
 tleman relies for his mam argument on the assertion that a 
 government, which he defines to be an organized body, 
 endowed with both will, and power, and authority in proprio 
 vigore to execute its purpose, has a right inherently to judge 
 of its powers. It is not my intention to comment upon tho 
 definition of the Senator, though it would not be difficult to 
 show that his ideas of government are not very American. 
 My object is to deal with the conclusion, and not the defi- 
 nition. Admit, then, that the Government has the right of 
 judging of its powers, for which he contends. How, then, 
 will he withhold, upon his own principle, the right of judging 
 from the State Governments, which he has attributed to the 
 General Government ? If it belongs to one, on his principle 
 it belongs to both ; and if to both, when they differ, the veto, 
 so abhorred by the Senator, is the necessary result : as neither, 
 if the right be possessed by both, can control the other. 
 
 The Senator felt the force of this argument, and, in order 
 to sustain his main position, he fell back on that clause of 
 the constitution which provides that " this constitution, and 
 the laws made in pursuance thereof, shall be the supreme 
 law of the land."
 
 SPEECHES. 295 
 
 This is admitted no one has ever denied that the con- 
 stitution, and the laws made in pursuance of it, are of para- 
 mount authority. But it is equally undeniable that laws not 
 made in pursuance are not only not of paramount authority, 
 but are of no authority whatever, being of themselves null 
 and void ; which presents the question. Who are to judge 
 whether the laws be or be not pursuant to the constitution ? 
 and thus the difficulty, instead of being taken away, is re- 
 moved but one step further back. This the Senator also felt, 
 and has attempted to overcome, by setting up, on the part of 
 Congress and the judiciary, the final and exclusive right of 
 judging, both for the Federal Government and the States, as 
 to the extent of their respective powers. That I may do full 
 justice to the gentleman, I will give his doctrine in his own 
 words. He states, 
 
 " That there is a supreme law, composed of the constitution, the laws 
 passed in pursuance of it, and the treaties ; but in cases coming before 
 Congress, not assuming the shape of cases in law and equity, so as to be 
 subjects of judicial discussion, Congress must interpret the constitution so 
 often as it has occasion to pass laws ; and in cases capable of assuming a 
 judicial shape, the Supreme Court must be the final interpreter." 
 
 Now, passing over this vague and loose phraseology, I 
 would ask the Senator upon what principle can he concede 
 this extensive power to the legislative and judicial depart- 
 ments, and withhold it entirely from the Executive ? If one 
 has the right it cannot be withheld from the other. I would 
 also ask him on what principle if the departments of the 
 General Government are to possess the right of judging, 
 finally and conclusively, of their respective powers on what 
 principle can the same right be withheld from the State 
 Governments, which, as well as the General Government, 
 properly considered, are but departments of the same general 
 system, and form together, properly speaking, but one gov- 
 ernment ? This was a favorite idea of Mr. Macon, for whose 
 wisdom I have a respect increasing with my experience,
 
 296 SPEECHES. 
 
 and who I have frequently heard say, that most of the mis- 
 conceptions and errors in relation to our system originated 
 in forgetting that they were but parts of the same system. 
 I would further tell the Senator, that, if this right be with- 
 held from the State Governments ; if this restraining influ- 
 ence, by which the General Government is confined to its 
 proper sphere, be withdrawn, then that department of the 
 Government from which he has withheld the right of judg- 
 ing of its own powers (the Executive) will, so far from being 
 excluded, become the sole interpreter of the powers of the 
 Government. It is the armed interpreter, with powers to 
 execute its own construction, and without the aid of which 
 the construction of the other departments will be impo- 
 tent. 
 
 But I contend that the States have a far clearer right 
 to the sole construction of their powers than any of the 
 departments of the Federal Government can have. This 
 power is expressly reserved, as I have stated on another 
 occasion, not only against the several departments of the 
 General Government, but against the United States them- 
 selves. I will not repeat the arguments which I then offered 
 on this point, and which remain unanswered, but I must be 
 permitted to offer strong additional proof of the views then 
 taken, and which, if I am not mistaken, are conclusive on 
 this point. It is drawn from the ratification of the consti- 
 tution by Virginia, and is in the following words. 
 
 [Mr. C. then read as follows :] 
 
 " We, the delegates of the people of Virginia, duly elected in pursuance 
 of a recommendation from the General Assembly, and now met in Con- 
 vention, having fully and freely investigated and discussed the proceed- 
 ings of the Federal Convention, and being prepared, as well as the most 
 mature deliberation hath enabled us, to decide thereon, do, in the name 
 and in behalf of the people of Virginia, declare and make known that the 
 powers granted under the constitution^, being derived from the people of 
 the United States, may be resumed by them whensoever the same shall 
 be perverted to their injury or oppression, and that every power not
 
 SPEECHES. 297 
 
 granted thereby remains with them, and at their will ; that, therefore, no 
 right of any denomination can be cancelled, abridged, restrained, or mod- 
 ified by the Congress, by the Senate or House of Representatives, acting 
 in any capacity, by the President or any department or officer of the 
 United States, except in those instances in which power is given by the 
 constitution for those purposes ; and that, among other essential rights, 
 the liberty of conscience and of the press cannot be cancelled, abridged, 
 restrained, or modified by any authority of the United States. With 
 these impressions, with a solemn appeal to the Searcher of all hearts for 
 the purity of our intentions, and under the conviction that whatsoever 
 imperfections may exist in the constitution ought rather to be examined 
 in the mode prescribed therein, than to bring the Union in danger by a 
 delay, with the hope of obtaining amendments previous to the ratification 
 we, the said delegates, in the name and in the behalf of the people of 
 Virginia, do, by these presents, assent to and ratify the constitution recom- 
 mended on the 17th day of September, 1787, by the Federal Convention, 
 for the government of the United States, hereby announcing to all those 
 whom it may concern, that the said constitution is binding upon the said 
 people, according to an authentic copy hereto annexed, in the words fol- 
 lowing," &c. 
 
 It thus appears that this sagacious State (I fear, how- 
 ever, that her sagacity is not so sharpsighted now as for- 
 merly) ratified the constitution, with an explanation as to 
 her reserved powers ; that they were powers subject to her 
 own will, and reserved against every department of the 
 General Government legislative, executive and judicial 
 as if she had a prophetic knowledge of the attempts now 
 made to impair and destroy them : which explanation can 
 be considered in no other light than as containing a condition 
 on which she ratified, and, in fact, making part of the con- 
 stitution of the United States extending as well to the 
 other States as herself. I am no lawyer, and it may appear 
 to be presumption in me to lay down the rule of law which 
 governs in such cases, in a controversy with so distinguished 
 an advocate as the Senator from Massachusetts. But I 
 shall venture to lay it down as a rule in such cases, which 
 I have no fear that the gentleman will contradict, that, in 
 case of a contract between several partners, if the entrance
 
 298 SPEECHES. 
 
 of one on condition be admitted, the condition enures to 
 the benefit of all the partners. But I do not rest the argu- 
 ment simply upon this view : Virginia proposed the tenth 
 amended article, the one in question, and her ratification 
 must be at least received as the highest evidence of its true 
 meaning and interpretation. 
 
 If these views be correct and I do not see how they can 
 be resisted the rights of the States to judge of the extent 
 of their reserved powers stands on the most solid foundation, 
 and is good against every department of the General Gov- 
 ernment ; and the judiciary is as much excluded from an 
 interference with the reserved powers as the legislative or 
 executive departments. To establish the opposite, the Sen- 
 ator relies upon the authority of Mr. Madison, in the Federal- 
 ist, to prove that it was intended to invest the court with 
 the power in question. In reply, I will meet Mr. Madison 
 with his own opinion, given on a most solemn occasion, and 
 backed by the sagacious commonwealth of Virginia. The 
 opinion to which I allude will be found in the celebrated 
 report of 1799, of which Mr. Madison was the author. It 
 
 " But it is objected, that the JUDICIAL AUTHORITY is to be regarded as 
 the sole expositor of the constitution in the last resort ; and it may be 
 asked for what reason, the declaration by the General Assembly, suppos- 
 ing it to be theoretically true, could be required at the present day, and 
 in so solemn a manner. 
 
 "^n this objection it might be observed, jirst, that there may be in- 
 stances of usurped power, which the forms of the constitution would 
 never draw within the control of the judicial department; secondly, that, 
 if the decision of the judiciary be raised above the authority of the sove- 
 reign parties to the constitution, the decisions of the other departments, 
 not carried by the forms of the constitution before the judiciary, must be 
 equally authoritative and final as the decisions of this department. But 
 the proper answer to this objection is, that the resolution of the General As- 
 sembly relates to those great and extraordinary cases in which all the forms 
 of the Constitution may prove ineffectual against infractions dangerous to 
 the essential rights of the parties to it. The resolution supposes that
 
 SPEECHES. 299 
 
 dangerous powers, not delegated, may not only be usurped and executed 
 by the other departments, but that the judicial department, also, may ex- 
 ercise or sanction dangerous powers beyond the grant of the constitu- 
 tion ; and, consequently, that the ultimate right of the parties to the con- 
 stitution to judge whether the compact was dangerously violated, must ex- 
 tend to violations by one delegated authority as well as by another ; by 
 the judiciary as well as by the executive or the legislative." 
 
 The Senator also relies upon the authority of Luther 
 Martin to the same point, to which I have already replied so 
 fully on another occasion (in answer to the Senator from Del- 
 aware, Mr. Clayton), that I do not deem it necessary to add 
 any further remarks on the present occasion. 
 
 But why should I waste words in reply to these or any 
 other authorities, when it has been so clearly established that 
 the rights of the States are reserved against each and every 
 department of the Government, and no authority in oppo- 
 sition can possibly shake a position so well established ? Nor 
 do I think it necessary to repeat the argument which I of- 
 ferred when the bill was under discussion, to show that the 
 clause in the constitution which provides that the judicial 
 power shall extend to all cases in law and equity arising under 
 this constitution, and to the laws and treaties made under 
 its authority, has no bearing on the point in controversy ; 
 and that even the boasted power of the Supreme Court to 
 decide a law to be unconstitutional, so far from being derived 
 from this or any other portion of the constitution, results 
 from the necessity of the case where two rules of unequal 
 authority come in conflict and is a power belonging to all 
 courts, superior and inferior, State and General, Domestic 
 and Foreign/ 
 
 I hav^now, I trust, shown satisfactorily, that there is no 
 provision in the constitution to authorize the General Gov- 
 ernment, through any of its departments, to control the ac- 
 tion of a State within the sphere of its reserved powers ; and 
 that, of course, according to the principle laid down by the 
 Senator from Massachusetts himself, the government of the
 
 300 SPEECHES. 
 
 States, as well as the General Government, has the right to 
 determine the extent of their respective powers, without the 
 right on the part of either to control the other. The neces- 
 sary result is the veto, to which he so much objects ; and to 
 get clear of which, he informs us, was the object for which 
 the present constitution was formed. I know not whence he 
 has derived his information, but my impression is very differ- 
 ent as to the immediate motives which led to the formation 
 of that instrument. I have always understood that the prin- 
 cipal was, to give to Congress the power to regulate commerce, 
 to lay impost duties, and to raise a revenue for the payment 
 of the public debt and the expenses of the Government ; and 
 to subject the action of the citizens individually to the ope- 
 ration of the laws, as a substitute for force. If the object 
 had been to get clear of the veto of the States, as the Sena- 
 tor states, the Convention certainly performed their work in 
 a most bungling manner.* There was unquestionably a large 
 party in that body, headed by men of distinguished talents 
 and influence, who commenced early and worked earnestly to 
 the last, to deprive the States not directly, for that would 
 have been too bold an attempt, but indirectly of the veto. 
 The good sense of the Convention, however, put down every 
 effort, however disguised and perseveringly made. I do not 
 deem it necessary to give, from the journals, the history of 
 these various and unsuccessful attempts though it would af- 
 ford a very instructive lesson. fLt is v sufficient to say that it 
 was attempted by proposing to give Congress* power to annul 
 the acts of the States which they might deem inconsistent 
 with the constitution ; to give to the President the power of 
 appointing the governors of the States, with a view of veto- 
 ing State laws through his authority ; and, finally, to give to 
 the judiciary the power to decide controversies between the 
 States and the General Government : all of which failed 
 fortunately for the liberty of the country utterly and en- 
 tirely failed ; and in their failure we have the strongest evi-
 
 SPEECHES. 301 
 
 dence that it was not the intention of the Convention to de- 
 prive the States of the veto power. Had the attempt to 
 deprive them of this power been directly made, and failed, 
 every one would have seen and felt that it would furnish con- 
 clusive evidence in favor of its existence. Now, I would ask. 
 What possible difference can it make in what form this at- 
 tempt was made ? whether by attempting to confer on the 
 General Government a power incompatible with the exercise 
 of the veto on the part of the States, or by attempting directly 
 to deprive them of the right to exercise it ? Wejbave thus di- 
 rect and strong proof that, j^n the opinion of the Convention, 
 the States, unless deprived of it, possess the veto power 
 or, what is another name for the same thing, the right of 
 nullification^ I know that there is a diversity of opinion 
 among the friends of State Eights in regard to this power, 
 which I regret, as I cannot but consider it as a power essen- 
 tial to the protection of the minor and local interests of the 
 community, and the liberty and the union of the country. 
 It is the very shield of State Eights, and the only power 
 by which that system of injustice against which we have con- 
 tended for more than thirteen years can be arrested : a sys- 
 tem of hostile legislation of plundering by law, which must 
 necessarily lead to a conflict of arms if not prevented. 
 
 But I rest the right of a State to judge of the extent of 
 its reserved powers, in the last resort, on higher grounds 
 that the constitution is a compact, to which the States are 
 parties in their sovereign capacity ; and that, as in all other 
 cases of compact between parties having no common umpire, 
 each has a right to judge for itself. / To the truth of, this 
 proposition the Senator from Massachusetts has himself as- 
 sented, if the constitution itself be a compact and that it 
 is, I have shown, I trust, beyond the possibility of a doubt. 
 Having established this point, I now claim, as I stated I 
 would do in the course of the discussion, the admissions of the 
 Senator, and, amotig them, the right of secession and nulli-
 
 302 SPEECHES. 
 
 fieation, which he conceded would necessarily follow if the 
 constitution be indeed a compact. 
 
 I have now replied to the arguments of the Senator from 
 Massachusetts so far as they directly apply to the resolutions, 
 and will, in conclusion, notice some of his general and de- 
 tached remarks. To prove that ours is a consolidated gov- 
 ernment, and that there is an immediate connection between 
 the Government and the citizen, he relies on the fact that 
 the laws act directly on individuals. That such is the case 
 I will not deny ; but I am very far from conceding the point 
 that it affords the decisive proof, or even any proof at all, of 
 the position which the Senator wishes to maintain. I hold it to 
 be perfectly within the competency of two or more States to 
 subject their citizens, in certain cases, to the direct action of 
 each other, without surrendering or impairing their sover- 
 eignty^ I recollect, while I was a member of Mr. Monroe's 
 cabinet, a proposition was submitted by the British Govern- 
 ment to permit a mutual right of search and seizure, on the 
 part of each government, of the citizens of the other, on 
 board of vessels engaged in the slave-trade, and to establish 
 a joint tribunal for their trial and punishment. The propo- 
 sition was declined, not because it would impair the sover- 
 eignty of either, but on the ground of general expediency, 
 and because it would be incompatible with the provisions of 
 the constitution which establish the judicial power, and which 
 provisions require the judges to be appointed by the President 
 and Senate. If I arn not mistaken, propositions of the 
 same kind were made and acceded to by some of the Conti- 
 nental powers. 
 
 With the same view, the Senator cited the suability of 
 the States as evidence of their want of sovereignty ; at which 
 I must express my surprise, coming from the quarter it 
 does. No one knows better than the Senator that it is per- 
 fectly within the competency of a sovereign State to permit 
 itself to be sued. We have on the statute-book a standing
 
 SPEECHES. 303 
 
 law, under which the United States may be sued in certain 
 land cases. If the provision in the constitution on this point 
 proves any thing, it proves, by the extreme jealousy with 
 which the right of suing a State is permitted, the very re- 
 verse of that for which the Senator contends. 
 
 Among other objections to the views of the constitution 
 for which I contend, it is said that they are novel. I hold 
 this to be a great mistake. The novelty is not on my side, 
 but on that of the Senator from Massachusetts. The doc- 
 trine of consolidation which he maintains is of recent growth. 
 It is not the doctrine of Hamilton, Ames, or any of the dis- 
 tinguished federalists of the period, all of whom strenuously 
 maintained the federative character of the constitution, 
 though they were accused of supporting a system of policy 
 which would necessarily lead to consolidation. The first dis- 
 closure of that doctrine was in the case of M'Culloch ; in 
 which the Supreme Court held the doctrine, though wrapped 
 up in language somewhat indistinct and ambiguous. The 
 next, and more open avowal, was by the Senator of Massa- 
 chusetts himself, about three years ago, in the debate on 
 Foote's resolution. The first official annunciation of the doc- 
 trine was in the recent proclamation of the President, of 
 which the bill that has recently passed this body is the 
 bitter fruit.,' 
 
 It is further objected by the Senator from Massachusetts, < 
 and others, against the doctrine of State Eights, as main- 
 tained in this debate, that, if it should prevail the peace of 
 the country would be destroyed. But what if it should not 
 prevail ? Would there be peace ?, - Yes, the peace of des- 
 potism : that peace which is enforced by the bayonet and 
 the sword ; the peace of death, where all the vital functions 
 of liberty have ceased. It is this peace which the doctrine 
 of State sovereignty may disturb by that conflict, which in 
 every free State, if properly organized, necessarily exists be- 
 tween liberty and power ; but which, if restrained within
 
 304 SPEECHES. 
 
 proper limits, gives a salutary exercise to our moral and in- 
 tellectual faculties. In the case of Carolina, which has 
 caused all this discussion, who does not see, if the effusion 
 of blood be prevented, that the excitement, the agitation, 
 and the inquiry which it has caused, will be followed by 
 the most beneficial consequences ? The country had sunk 
 into avarice, intrigue, and electioneering from which nothing 
 but some such event could rouse it, or restore those honest 
 and patriotic feelings which had almost disappeared under 
 their baneful influence. What government has ever attained 
 power and distinction without such conflicts ? Look at the 
 degraded state of all those nations where they have been put 
 down by the iron arm of the government. 
 
 - I, for my part, have no fear of any dangerous conflict, 
 under the fullest acknowledgment of State sovereignty : the 
 very fact that the States may interpose will produce modera- 
 tion and justice. The General Government will abstain 
 from the exercise of any power in which they may suppose 
 three-fourths of the States will not sustain them ; while, on 
 the other hand, the States will not interpose but on the con- 
 viction that they will be supported by one-fourth of their co- 
 States. Moderation and justice will produce confidence, at- 
 tachment, and patriotism; and these, in turn, will offer 
 most powerful barriers against the excess of conflicts between 
 the States and the General Government.* 
 
 But we are told that, should the doctrine prevail, the 
 present system would be as bad, if not worse, than the old 
 confederation. I regard the assertion only as evidence of 
 that extravagance of declaration in which, from excitement 
 of feeling, we so often indulge. Admit the power, and still 
 the present system would be as far removed from the weak- 
 ness of the old confederation as it would be from the lawless 
 and despotic violence of consolidation. So far from being the 
 same, the difference between the confederation and the present 
 constitution would still be most strongly marked. If there
 
 SPEECHES. 305 
 
 were no other distinction, /he fact that the former required 
 the concurrence of the States to execute its acts, and the 
 latter, the act of a State to arrest them, would make a dis- 
 tinction as broad as the ocean. In the former, the vis inertice 
 of our uatm-0 is in opposition to the action of the system. 
 Not to act was to defeat. In the latter, the same principle 
 is on the opposite side action is required to defeat. He 
 who understands human nature will see in this fact alone, the 
 difference between a feeble and illy-contrived confederation, 
 and the restrained energy of a federal system. /Of the same 
 character is the objection that the doctrine jjrfU be the source 
 of weakness. If we look to mere organization and physical 
 power as the only source of strength, without taking into the 
 estimate the operation of moral causes, such would appear 
 to be the fact ; but if we take into the estimate the latter, 
 we shall find that those governments have the greatest 
 strength in which power has been most efficiently checked. 
 The government of Rome furnishes a memorable example. 
 There, two independent and distinct powers existed the peo- 
 ple acting by tribes, in which the Plebeians prevailed, and 
 by centuries, in which the Patricians ruled. The Tribunes 
 were the appointed representatives of the one power, and the 
 Senate of the other ; each possessed of the authority of 
 checking and overruling one another, not as departments of 
 the government, as supposed by the Senator from Massachu- 
 setts, but as independent powers as much so as the State 
 and General Governments. A shallow observer would per- 
 ceive, in such an organization, nothing but the perpetual 
 source of anarchy, discord, and weakness ; and yet, experi- 
 ence has proved that it was the most powerful government 
 that ever existed ; and reason teaches that this power was 
 derived from the very circumstance which hasty reflection 
 would consider the cause of weakness. I will venture an as- 
 sertion, which may be considered extravagant, but in which 
 history will fully bear me out, that we have no knowledge 
 VOL. n. 20
 
 306 SPEECHES. 
 
 of any people where the power of arresting the improper 
 acts of the government, or what may be called the negative 
 power of government, was too strong, except Poland, where 
 every freeman possessed a veto. But even there, although 
 it existed in so extravagant a form, it was the source of the 
 highest and most lofty attachment to liberty, and the most 
 heroic courage : qualities that more than once saved Europe 
 from the domination of the crescent and cimeter. It is 
 worthy of remark, that the fate of Poland is not to be attri- 
 buted so much to the excess of this negative power of itself, 
 as to the facility which it afforded to foreign influence in con- 
 trolling its political movements. 
 
 I am not surprised that, with the idea of a perfect 
 government which the Senator from Massachusetts has form- 
 ed a government of an absolute majority, unchecked and 
 unrestrained, operating through a representative body 
 he should be so much shocked with what, he is pleased to 
 call, the absurdity of the State veto. But let me tell him 
 that his scheme of a perfect government, as beautiful as he 
 conceives it to be, though often tried, has invariably failed, 
 has always run, whenever tried, through the same uni- 
 form process of faction, corruption, anarchy, and despotism. 
 M& considers the representative principle as the great modern 
 improvement in legislation, and of itself sufficient to secure 
 liberty. I cannot regard it in the light in which he does. 
 Instead of modern, it is of remote origin, and has existed, in 
 greater or less perfection, in every free State, from the re- 
 motest antiquity. Nor do I consider it as of itself sufficient 
 to secure liberty, though I regard it as one of the indis- 
 pensable means the means of securing the people against 
 the tyranny and oppression of their rulers. To secure 
 liberty, another means is still necessary the means of secur- 
 ing the different portions of society against the injustice and 
 oppression of each other, which can only be effected by 
 veto, interposition, or nullification, or by whatever name
 
 SPEECHES. 307 
 
 the restraining or negative power of government may be 
 called/ 
 
 The Senator appears to be enamored with his conception 
 of a consolidated government, and avows himself to be pre- 
 pared, seeking no lead, to rush, in its defence, to the front 
 rank, where the blows fall heaviest and thickest. I admire 
 his gallantry and courage, but I will tell him that he will 
 find in the opposite ranks, under the flag of liberty, spirits 
 as gallant as his own ; and that experience will teach him 
 it is infinitely easier to carry on the war of legislative ex- 
 actions by bills and enactments, than to extort by sword and 
 bayonet from the brave and the free. 
 
 The bill which has passed this body is intended to decide 
 this great controversy between the view of our Government 
 entertained by the Senator and those who act with him, and 
 that supported on our side. It has merged the tariff, and 
 all other questions connected with it, in the higher and di- 
 rect issue which it presents between the federal and national 
 system of governments. I consider the bill as far worse, and 
 more dangerous to liberty, than the tariff'. It has been most 
 wantonly passed, when its avowed object no longer justified 
 it. I consider it as chains forged and fitted to the limbs of 
 the States, and hung up to be used when occasion may re- 
 quire. We are told, in order to justify the passage of this 
 fatal measure, that it was necessary to present the olive- 
 branch with one hand and the sword with the other. We 
 scorn the alternative. You have no right to present the 
 sword. The constitution never put the instrument in your 
 hands to be employed against a State ; and as to the olive- 
 branch, whether we receive it or not will not depend on your 
 menace, but on our own estimate of what is due to ourselves 
 and the rest of the community in reference to the difficult 
 subject on which we have taken issue. 
 
 The Senator from Massachusetts has struggled hard to 
 sustain his cause, but the load was too heavy for him to bear.
 
 308 SPEECHES. 
 
 I am not surprised at the arjjlor and zeal with which he has 
 entered into the controversy/ It is a great straggle between 
 power and liberty power ofa. the side of the North, and lib- 
 erty on the side of the South./ But, while I am not sur- 
 prised at the part which the Senator from Massachusetts has 
 taken, I must express my amazement at the principles ad- 
 vanced by the Senator from Georgia, nearest me (Mr. For- 
 syth). I had supposed it was impossible that one of his ex- 
 perience and sagacity should not perceive the new and dan- 
 gerous direction which this controversy is about to take. For 
 the first time, we have heard an ominous reference to a pro- 
 vision in the constitution which I have never known to be 
 before alluded to in discussion, or in connection with any of 
 our measures. I refer to that provision in the constitution 
 in which the General Government guarantees a republican 
 form of government to the States a power which hereafter, 
 if not rigidly restricted to the objects intended by the con- 
 stitution, is destined to be a pretext to interfere with our po- 
 litical affairs and domestic institutions in a manner infinitely 
 more dangerous than any other power which has ever been 
 exercised on the part of the General Government. I had 
 supposed that every Southern Senator, at least, would have 
 been awake to the danger which menaces us from this new 
 quarter ; and that no sentiment would be uttered, on their 
 part, calculated to countenance the exercise of this danger- 
 ous power. With these impressions, I heard the Senator, 
 with amazement, alluding to Carolina as furnishing a case 
 which called for the enforcement of this guarantee. Does he 
 not see the hazard of the indefinite extension of so fatal a 
 power ? There exists in every Southern State a domestic 
 institution, which would require a far less bold construction 
 to consider the government of every State in that quarter, 
 not to be republican, and, of course, to demand, on the part 
 of this Government, the suppression of the institution to 
 which I allude, in fulfilment of the guarantee. I believe
 
 309 
 
 there are now no hostile feelings combined with political con- 
 siderations, in any section, connected with this delicate sub- 
 ject. But it requires no stretch of the imagination to see 
 the danger which must one day come, if not vigilantly 
 watched. With the rapid strides with which this Govern- 
 ment is advancing to power, a time will come, and that not 
 far distant, when petitions will be received from the quar- 
 ter to which I allude for protection when the faith of the 
 guarantee will be, at least, as applicable to that case as the 
 Senator from Georgia now thinks it is to Carolina. Unless 
 his doctrine be opposed by united and firm resistance, its 
 ultimate effect will be to drive the white population from the 
 Southern Atlantic States. 
 
 SPEECH 
 
 On the Removal of the Public Deposits from the Bank 
 of the United States, delivered in the Senate, Jan- 
 uary 13th, 1834. 
 
 [THE Special Order now came up, the question being on Mr. Clay's 
 resolutions in regard to the removal of the Public Deposits.] 
 
 ME. CALHOUN said, that the statement of this case might 
 be given in a very few words. The 16th section of the act 
 incorporating the Bank, provides that, wherever there is a 
 bank or branch of the United States Bank, the public moneys 
 should be deposited therein, unless otherwise ordered by the 
 Secretary of the Treasury ; and that, in such case, he should 
 report to Congress, if in session, immediately ; and if not, at 
 the commencement of the next session. The Secretary, act- 
 ing under the provisions of this section, has ordered the de-
 
 310 SPEECHES 
 
 posits to be withheld from the Bank, and has reported his 
 reasons, in conformity with the provisions of the section. 
 The Senate is now called upon to consider his reasons, in or- 
 der to determine whether the Secretary is justified or not. 
 I have examined them with care and deliberation, without 
 the slightest bias, as far as I am conscious, personal or polit- 
 ical. I have but a slight acquaintance with the Secretary, 
 and that little is not unfavorable to him./ 1 stand wholly 
 disconnected with the two great parties now contending for 
 ascendency. My political connections are with that small and 
 denounced party which has voluntarily retired from the party 
 strifes of the day, with a view of saving, if possible, the lib- 
 erty and the constitution of the country, in this great crisis 
 of our affairs. / 
 
 Having Maturely considered, with these impartial feel- 
 ings, the reasons of the Secretary, I am constrained to say 
 that he has entirely failed to make out his justification. At 
 the very commencement, he has placed his right to remove 
 the deposits on an assumption resting on a misconception of 
 the case. In the progress of his argument he has entirely 
 abandoned the first, and assumed a new and greatly enlarged 
 ground, utterly inconsistent with the first, and equally un- 
 tenable ; and yet, as broad as his assumptions are, there is 
 an important part of the transaction which he does not at- 
 tempt to vindicate, and to which he has not even alluded. I 
 shall, said Mr. Calhoun, now proceed, without further re- 
 mark, to make good these assertions. 
 
 The Secretary, at the commencement of his argument, 
 assumes the position that, in the absence of all legal provi- 
 sion, he, as the head of the financial department, had the 
 right, in virtue of his office, to designate the agent and place 
 for the safe-keeping of the public deposits. He then con- 
 tends that the 16th section does not restrict his power, which 
 stands, he says, on the same ground as before the passing of 
 the act incorporating the Bank. It is not necessary to inquire
 
 SPEECHES. 311 
 
 into the correctness of the position assumed by the Secreta- 
 ry ; but, if it were, it would not be difficult to show, that 
 when an agent, with general powers, assumes, in the execu- 
 tion of his agency, a power not delegated, the assumption 
 rests on the necessity of the case ; and that no power, in 
 such case, can be lawfully exercised, which was not necessary 
 to effect the object intended. Nor would it be difficult to 
 show that, in this case, the power assumed by the Secretary 
 would belong, not to him, but to the Treasurer ; who, under the 
 act organizing the Treasury Department, is expressly charged 
 with the safe-keeping of the public funds, for which he is re- 
 sponsible under bond, in heavy penalties. But as strongly and 
 directly as these considerations bear on the question of the 
 power of the Secretary, I do not think it necessary to pursue 
 them, for the plain reason that the Secretary has entirely 
 mistaken the case. It is not a case, as he supposes, where 
 there is no legal provision in relation to the safe-keeping of 
 the public funds, but one of precisely the opposite character. 
 The 16th section expressly provides that the deposits shall 
 be made in the Bank and its branches ; and, of course, it is 
 perfectly clear that all powers which the Secretary has de- 
 rived from the general and inherent powers of his office, in 
 the absence of such provision, are wholly inapplicable to this 
 case. Nor is it less clear that, if the section had terminated 
 with the provision directing the deposits to be made in the 
 Bank, the Secretary would have had no more control over 
 the subject than myself, or any other Senator ; and it fol- 
 lows, of course, that he must derive his power, not from any 
 general reasons connected with the nature of his office, but 
 from some express provisions contained in the section, or 
 some other part of the act. It has not been attempted to 
 be shown that there is any such provision in any other sec- 
 tion or part of the act. The only control, then, which the 
 Secretary can rightfully claim over the deposits is contained 
 in the provision which directs that the deposits shall be made
 
 312 SPEECHES. 
 
 in the Bank, unless otherwise ordered by the Secretary of 
 the Treasury ; which brings the whole question in reference 
 to the deposits, to the extent of the power which Congress 
 intended to confer upon the Secretary, in these few words, 
 " unless otherwise ordered." 
 
 In ascertaining the intention of Congress, I lay it down 
 as a rale, which I suppose will not be controverted, that all 
 political powers, under our free institutions, are trust powers, 
 and not rights, liberties, or immunities, belonging personally 
 to the officer. I also lay it down as a rule not less incontro- 
 vertible, that trust powers are necessarily limited (unless 
 there be some express provision to the contrary) to the sub- 
 ject-matter and object of the trust. This brings us to the 
 question, What is the subject and object of the trust in this 
 case ? The whole section relates to deposits to the safe 
 and faithful keeping of the public funds. With this view 
 they are directed to be made in the Bank. With the same 
 view, and in order to increase the security, power was 
 conferred on the Secretary to withhold the deposits ; and 
 with the same view, he is directed to report his reasons for 
 the removal, to Congress. All have one common object, the 
 security of the public funds. To this point the whole sec- 
 tion converges. The language of Congress, fairly understood, 
 is, We have selected the Bank because we confide in it as a 
 safe and faithful agent to keep the public money ; but, to 
 prevent the abuse of so important a trust, we invest the Sec- 
 retary with power, to remove the deposits, with a view to 
 their increased security. And lest the Secretary, on his 
 part, should abuse so important a trust, and in order still 
 further to increase that security, we direct, in case of re- 
 moval, that he shall report his reasons. It is obvious, under 
 this view of the subject, that the Secretary has no right 
 to act in relation to the deposits, but with a view to 
 their increased security ; and that he has no right to or- 
 der them to be withheld from the Bank so long as the
 
 SPEECHES. 313 
 
 funds are safe, and the Bank has faithfully performed the du- 
 ties imposed in relation to them ; and not even then, unless 
 the deposits can be placed in safer and more faithful hands. 
 That such was the opinion of the Executive in the first in- 
 stance, we have demonstrative proof in the message of the 
 President to Congress at the close of the last session, which 
 placed the subject of the removal of the deposits exclusive- 
 ly on the question of their safety ; and that such was also 
 the opinion of the House of Eepresentatives then, we have 
 equally conclusive proof from the vote of that body that the 
 public funds in the Bank were safe, which was understood, at 
 that time, on all sides, by friends and foes, as deciding the 
 question of the removal of the deposits. 
 
 The extent of the power intended to be conferred being 
 established, the question now arises, Has the Secretary tran- 
 scended its limit ? It can scarcely be necessary to argue 
 this point. It is not even pretended that the public depos- 
 its were in danger, nor that the Bank had not faithfully per- 
 formed all the duties imposed on it in relation to them, nor 
 that the Secretary had placed the money in safer or more 
 faithful hands. So far otherwise, there is not a man who 
 hears me who will not admit that the public moneys are now 
 less safe than they were in the Bank of the United States. 
 And I will venture to assert that not a capitalist can be found 
 who would not ask a considerably higher percentage to in- 
 sure them in their present, than in the place of deposit de- 
 signated by law. If these views are correct, and I hold them 
 to be unquestionable, the question is decided. The Secretary 
 has no right to withhold the deposits from the Bank. There 
 has been, and can be but one argument advanced in favor of 
 his right which has even the appearance of being tenable 
 that the power to withhold is given in general terms, and 
 without qualification, " unless the Secretary otherwise direct" 
 They who resort to this argument must assume the position, 
 that the letter ought to prevail over the clear and manifest
 
 314 SPEECHES. 
 
 intention of the act. They must regard the power of the 
 Secretary, not as a trust power, limited by the subject and 
 the object of the trust, but as a chartered right, to be used 
 according to his discretion and pleasure. There is a radical 
 defect in our mode of construing political powers, of which 
 this and many other instances afford striking examples. But 
 /I will give the Secretary his choice ; either the intention or 
 the letter must prevail he may select either, but cannot be 
 permitted to take one or the other as may suit his purpose. 
 If he chooses the former, he has transcended his powers, as I 
 have clearly demonstrated. If he selects the latter, he is 
 equally condemned, as he has clearly exercised powers not 
 comprehended in the letter of his authority^ He has not 
 confined himself simply to withholding the public moneys 
 from the Bank of the United States, but he has ordered 
 them to be deposited in other banks, though there is not a 
 word in the section to justify it. I do not intend to argue 
 the question, whether he had a right to order the funds with- 
 held from the United States Bank to be placed in the State 
 banks, which he has selected ; but I ask, How has he ac- 
 quired that right ? It rests wholly on construction on the 
 supposed intention of the legislature, which, when it gives 
 a power, intends to give all the means necessary to render it 
 available. But, as clear as this principle of construction is, 
 it is not more clear than that which would limit the right of 
 the Secretary to the question of the safe and faithful keeping 
 of the public funds; and I cannot admit that he shall be 
 permitted to resort to the letter or to construction, as may 
 best be calculated to enlarge his power, when the right con- 
 struction is denied to those who would limit his power by 
 the clear and obvious intention of Congress. 
 
 I might here, said Mr. Calhoun, rest the question of the 
 power of the Secretary over the deposits, without adding 
 another word. I have placed it on grounds from which no 
 ingenuity, however great, or subtlety, however refined, can
 
 315 
 
 remove it ; but such is the magnitude of the case, and such 
 my desire to give the reasons of the Secretary the fullest 
 consideration, that I shall follow him through the remainder 
 of them. 
 
 That the Secretary was conscious the first position 
 which he assumed, and which I have considered, was unten- 
 able, we have ample proof in the precipitancy with which he 
 retreated from it. He had scarcely laid it down, when, with- 
 out illustration or argument, he passed with a rapid tran- 
 sition, and, I must say, a transition as obscure as rapid, to 
 another position wholly inconsistent with the first, and in as- 
 suming which, he expressly repudiates the idea that the safe 
 and faithful keeping of the public funds had any necessary 
 connection with his removal of the deposits ; his power to 
 do which, he places on the broad and unlimited ground that 
 he had a right to make such disposition of them as the pub- 
 lic interest or the convenience of the people might require. 
 I have said that the transition was as obscure as it was 
 rapid ; but, obscure as it is, he has said enough to enable us 
 to perceive the process by which he has reached so extraordi- 
 nary a position ; and we may safely affirm that his arguments 
 are not less extraordinary than the conclusion at which he 
 arrives. His first proposition, which, however, he has not 
 ventured to lay down expressly, is, that Congress has an un- 
 limited control over the deposits, and that it may dispose of 
 them in whatever manner it may please, in order to promote 
 the general welfare and convenience of the people. He next 
 asserts that Congress has parted with this power under the 
 sixteenth section, which directs the deposits to be made in 
 the Bank of the United States, and then concludes with af- 
 firming that it has invested the Secretary of the Treasury 
 with it, for reasons which I am unable to understand. 
 
 It cannot be necessary, before so enlightened a body, that 
 I should undertake to refute an argument so utterly untrue in 
 premises and conclusion to show that Congress never pos-
 
 316 SPEECHES. 
 
 sessed the power which the Secretary claims for it that 
 it is a power, from its very nature, incapable of such en- 
 largement, being limited solely to the safe keeping of the 
 public funds ; that if it existed, it would be susceptible of 
 the most dangerous abuses ; that Congress might make the 
 wildest and most dangerous association the depository of the 
 public funds ; might place them in the hands of the fanatics 
 and madmen of the North, who are waging war against the 
 domestic institutions of the South, under the plea of promoting 
 the general welfare. But admitting that Congress possessed 
 the power which the Secretary attributes to it, by what process 
 of reasoning can he show that it has parted with this un- 
 limited power, simply by directing the public moneys to be 
 deposited in the Bank of the United States ? or, if it has 
 parted with the power, by what extraordinary process has it 
 been transferred to the Secretary of the Treasury by those 
 few and simple words, " unless he shall otherwise direct ? " 
 In support of this extraordinary argument, the Secretary has 
 offered not a single illustration, nor a single remark bearing 
 the semblance of reason, but one, which I shall now proceed 
 to notice. 
 
 He asserts, and asserts truly, that the Bank charter is a 
 contract between the Government, or, rather, the people of 
 the United States and the Bank, and then assumes that it 
 constitutes him a common agent or trustee, to superintend 
 the execution of the stipulations contained in that portion 
 of the contract comprehended in the sixteenth section. Let 
 us now, taking these assumptions to be true, ascertain what 
 those stipulations are, the superintendence of the execution 
 of which, as he affirms, are jointly confided by the parties to 
 him. The Government stipulated, on its part, that the 
 public money should be deposited in the Bank of the United 
 States a great and valuable privilege, on which the suc- 
 cessful operation of the institution mainly depends. The 
 Bank, on its part, stipulated that the funds should be safely
 
 SPEECHES. 317 
 
 kept, that the duties imposed in relation to them should be 
 faithfully discharged, and that for this with other privileges, 
 it would pay to the Government the sum of one million five 
 hundred thousand dollars. These are the stipulations, the 
 execution of which, according to the Secretary's assumption, 
 he has been appointed, as joint agent or trustee, to super- 
 intend, and from which he would assume the extraordinary 
 power which he claims over the deposits, to dispose of them 
 in such manner as he may think the public 'nterest or the 
 convenience of the people may require. 
 
 Is it not obvious that the whole extent of power con- 
 ferred upon him, admitting his assumption to be true, is 
 to withhold the deposits in case that the Bank should violate 
 its stipulations in relation to them, on one side ; and, on 
 the other, to prevent the Government from withholding the 
 deposits, so long as the Bank faithfully performed its part of 
 the contract ? This is the full extent of his power. Ac- 
 cording to his own showing, not a particle more can be 
 added. But there is another aspect in which the position 
 the Secretary has assumed may be viewed. It offers for 
 consideration not only a question of the extent of his power, 
 but a question as to the nature and extent of duty which 
 has been imposed upon him. If the position be such as he 
 has described, there has been confided to him a trust of the 
 most sacred character, accompanied by duties of the most 
 solemn obligation. He stands, by the mutual confidence of 
 the parties, vested with the high judicial power to determine 
 on the infraction or observance of a contract in which Gov- 
 ernment and a large and respectable portion of the citizens 
 are deeply interested ; and, in the execution of this high 
 power, he is bound, by honor and conscience, so to act as 
 to protect each of the parties in the full enjoyment of their 
 respective portion of benefit in the contract, so long as they 
 faithfully observe it. How has the Secretary performed 
 these solemn duties, which, according to his representation,
 
 318 SPEECHES. 
 
 have been imposed upon him ? Has he protected the Bank 
 against the aggressions of the Government, or the Govern- 
 ment against the unfaithful conduct of the Bank, in relation 
 to the deposits ? Or has he, forgetting his sacred obliga- 
 tions, disregarded the interests of both : on one side, divest- 
 ing the Bank of the deposits and on the other, defeating 
 the Government in the intended security of the public funds, 
 by seizing on them as the property of the Executive, to be 
 disposed of, at pleasure, to favorite and partisan banks ? 
 
 But I shall relieve the Secretary from this awkward 
 and disreputable position in which his own arguments have 
 placed him. He is not the mutual trustee, as he has repre- 
 sented, of the Government and the Bank, but simply the 
 agent of the former, vested, under the contract, with power 
 to withhold the deposits, with a view, as has been stated 
 to their additional security to their safe-keeping ; and if 
 he had but for a moment reflected on the fact that he was 
 directed to report his reasons to Congress only, and not also 
 to the Bank, for withholding the deposits, he could scarcely 
 have failed to perceive that he was simply the agent of one 
 of the parties, and not, as he supposes, a joint agent of 
 both. 
 
 The Secretary having established, as he supposes, his 
 right to dispose of the deposits as, in his opinion, the general 
 interest and convenience of the people might require, pro- 
 ceeds to claim and exercise power with a boldness com- 
 mensurate with the extravagance of the right which he has 
 assumed. He commences with a claim to determine, in his 
 official character, that the Bank of the United States is 
 unconstitutional ; a monopoly, baneful to the welfare of the 
 community. Having determined this point, he comes to 
 the conclusion that the charter of the Bank ought not to 
 be renewed, and then assumes that it will not be renewed. 
 Having reached this point, he then determines that it is his 
 duty to remove the deposits. No one can object that Mr.
 
 SPEECHES. 319 
 
 Taney, as a citizen in his individual character, should enter- 
 tain an opinion us to the unconstitutionality of the Bank ; 
 but that he, acting in his official character, and performing 
 official acts under the charter of the Bank, should undertake 
 to determine that the institution was unconstitutional, and 
 that those who granted the charter, and bestowed on him his 
 power to act under it, had violated the constitution, is an 
 assumption of power of a nature which I will not undertake 
 to characterize, as I wish not to be personal. 
 
 But he is not content with the power simply to deter- 
 mine on the unconstitutionality of the Bank. He goes far 
 beyond : he claims to be the organ of the voice of the 
 people. In this high character, he pronounces that the 
 question of the renewal of the Bank charter was put at 
 issue in the last Presidential election, and that the peo- 
 ple had determined that it should not be renewed. I 
 do not, said Mr. Calhoun, intend to enter into the argu- 
 ment, whether, in point of fact, the renewal of the charter 
 was put in issue at the last election. That point was 
 ably and fully discussed by the honorable Senators from 
 Kentucky (Mr. Clay) and New Jersey (Mr. Southard), who 
 conclusively proved that no such question was involved in 
 the election ; and if it were, the issue comprehended sc 
 many others, that it was impossible to conjecture on which 
 the election turned. I look to higher objections. I would 
 inquire by what authority the Secretary of the Treasury con- 
 stitutes himself the organ of the people of the United States ? 
 He has the reputation of being an able lawyer, and can he 
 be ignorant that, so long as the constitution of the United 
 States exists, the only organs of the people of these States, as 
 far as the action of the General Government is concerned, 
 are the several departments, legislative, executive, and judi- 
 cial, which, acting within the respective limits assigned by 
 the constitution, have a right to pronounce authoritatively 
 the voice of the people ? A claim on the part of the Exe-
 
 320 SPEECHES. 
 
 cutive to interpret, as the Secretary has done, the voice of 
 the people through any other channel, is to shake the foun- 
 dations of our system. Has the Secretary forgotten that 
 the last step to absolute power is this very assumption which 
 he has claimed for that department ? I am thus brought, 
 said Mr. 0., to allude to the extraordinary manifesto read 
 by the President to the Cabinet, and which is so intimately 
 connected with the point immediately under consideration. 
 That document, though apparently addressed to the Cabinet, 
 was clearly and manifestly intended as an appeal to the 
 people of the United States, and opens a new and direct 
 organ of communication between the President and them 
 unknown to the constitution and the laws. /There are but 
 two channels known to either, through which the President 
 can communicate with the people by messages to the two 
 Houses of Congress, as expressly provided for in the constitu- 
 tion, or by proclamation, setting forth the interpretations 
 which he places upon a law it has become his official duty to 
 execute. Going beyond, is one among the alarming signs of 
 the times which portend the overthrow of the constitution 
 and the approach of despotic power. / 
 
 The Secretary, having determin/d that the Bank was 
 unconstitutional, and that the people had pronounced against 
 the recharter, concludes that Congress had nothing to do 
 with the subject. With a provident foresight, he perceives 
 the difficulty and embarrassment into which the currency 
 of the country would be thrown on the termination of 
 the Bank charter ; to prevent which, he proceeds deliber- 
 ately, with a parental care, to supply a new currency, "equal 
 to or better" than that which Congress had supplied. With 
 this view, he determines on an immediate removal of the 
 deposits ; he puts them in certain State institutions, intend- 
 ing to organize them, after the fashion of the Empire State, 
 into a great safety-fund system, but which, unfortunately for 
 the projectors, if not for the country, the limited power of
 
 SPEECHES. 321 
 
 the State banks did not permit him to effect. But a sub- 
 stitute was found by associating them in certain articles of 
 agreement, and appointing an inspector-general of all this 
 league of banks ! And all this without law or appropria- 
 tion ! Is it not amazing that it never occurred to the Secre- 
 tary that the subject of currency belonged exclusively to 
 Congress, and that to assume to regulate it was a plain 
 usurpation of the powers of this department of the Govern- 
 ment ? 
 
 Having thus assumed the power officially to determine 
 on the constitutionality of the Bank ; having erected himself 
 into an organ of the people's voice, and settled the question 
 of the regulation of the currency, he next proceeds to assume 
 judicial powers over the Bank. He declares that the Bank 
 has transcended its powers, and has, therefore, forfeited its 
 charter ; for which he inflicts on the institution the severe 
 and exemplary punishment of withholding the deposits ; 
 and all this in the face of an express provision investing the 
 Court with power touching the infraction of the charter, 
 directing in what manner the trial should be commenced and 
 conducted, and securing expressly to the Bank the sacred 
 right of trial by jury in finding the facts. All this passed 
 for nothing in the eyes of the Secretary, who was too deeply 
 engrossed in providing for the common welfare to regard 
 either Congress, the Court, or the constitution. 
 
 The Secretary next proceeds to supervise the general 
 operations of the Bank, pronouncing, with authority, that at 
 one tune it has discounted too freely, and at another too 
 sparingly without reflecting that all the control which the 
 Government can rightfully exercise over the operations of 
 the institution is through the five directors who represent it 
 in the Boa^d. Directors ! Mr. Calhoun exclaimed, did I say ? 
 (alluding to the present). No ! spies is their proper desig- 
 nation. 
 
 I cannot, said Mr. C., proceed with the remarks which 
 
 VOL. II. 21
 
 322 SPEECHES. 
 
 I intended on the remainder of the Secretary's reasons ; 1 
 have not patience to dwell on assumptions of power so bold, 
 so lawless, and so unconstitutional ; they deserve not the 
 name of arguments, and I cannot waste time in treating them 
 as such. There are, however, two which I cannot pass over, 
 not because they are more extraordinary or audacious than 
 the others, but for another quality, which I choose not to 
 designate. 
 
 /The Secretary alleges that the Bank has interfered with 
 trie politics of the country jp:f this be true, it certainly is a 
 most heinous offence. The Bank is a great public trust, 
 possessing, for the purpose of discharging the trust, great 
 power and influence, which it could not pervert from the 
 object intended to that of influencing the politics of the 
 country without being guilty of a great political crim^f In 
 making these remarks, I do not intend to give any coun- 
 tenance to the truth of the charge alleged by the Secretary, 
 nor to deny to the officers of the Bank the right which belongs 
 to them, in common with every citizen, freely to form polit- 
 ical principles, and act on them in their private capacity, 
 without permitting them to influence their official conduct. 
 But it is strange it did not occur to the Secretary, while he 
 was accusing and punishing the Bank on the charge of inter- 
 fering in the politics of the country/ that the Government 
 also was a great trust, vested with powers still more exten- 
 sive, and influence immeasurably greater than that of the 
 Bank, given to enable it to discharge the object for which it 
 was created ; and that it has no more right to pervert its 
 power and influence into the -means of /controlling the politics 
 of the country than the Bank itself. /Can it be unknown to 
 him that the fourth auditor of the treasury (an officer in his 
 OWTI department), the man who has made so prominent a 
 figure in this transaction, was daily and hourly meddling in 
 politics, and that he is onfc of the principal political managers 
 of the administration ? / Can he be ignorant that the whole
 
 SPEECHES. 323 
 
 power of the Government has been perverted into a great 
 political machine, with a view of corrupting and controlling 
 the country ? Can he be ignorant that the avowed and 
 open policy of the Government is to reward political friends 
 and punish political enemies ? and that, acting on this prin- 
 ciple, it has driven from office hundreds of honest and com- 
 petent officers for opinion's sake only, and filled their places 
 with devoted partisans ? Can he be ignorant that the real 
 offence of the Bank is not that it has intermeddled in 
 politics, but because it ivould not intermeddle on the side of 
 power ? /There is nothing more dignified than reproof from 
 the lips of innocence, or punishment from the hands of jus- 
 tice ; but change the picture let the guilty reprove and the 
 criminal punish, and what more odious, more hateful, can 
 be presented to the imagination ? 
 
 The Secretary next tells us, in the same spirit, that the 
 Bank had been wasteful of the public funds. That it has 
 spent some thirty, forty, or fifty thousand dollars I do not 
 remember the exact amount (trifles have no weight in the 
 determination of so great a question) in circulating essays 
 and speeches in defence of the institution, of which sum one- 
 fifth part some seven thousand dollars belonged to the 
 Government. Well, Sir, if the Bank has really wasted this 
 amount of the public money, it is a grave charge. It has 
 not a right to waste a single cent ; but I must say, in defence 
 of the Bank, that, assailed as it was by the Executive, it 
 would have been unfaithful to its trust, both to the stock- 
 holders and to the public, had it not resorted to every proper 
 means in its power to defend its conduct, and, among others, 
 the free circulation of able and judicious publications. 
 
 But admit that the Bank has been guilty of wasting the 
 public funds to the full extent charged by the Secretary, 
 I would ask if he, the head of the financial department of 
 the Government, is not under as high and solemn obligation 
 to take care of the moneyed interest of the public as the
 
 324 SPEECHES. 
 
 Bank itself. I would ask him to answer me a few simple 
 questions : How has he performed this duty in relation to 
 the interest which the public holds in the Bank ? Has he 
 been less wasteful than he has charged the bank to have 
 been ? Has he not wasted thousands, where the Bank, even 
 according to his own statement, has hundreds ? Has he not, 
 by withdrawing the deposits, and placing them in the State 
 banks, where the public receives not a cent of interest, greatly 
 affected the dividends of the Bank of the United States, in 
 which the Government, as a stockholder, is a loser to the 
 amount of one-fifth of the diminution ? a sum which, I will 
 venture to predict, will many fold exceed the entire amount 
 which the Bank has expended in its defence. But this is a 
 small, a very small proportion of the public loss in conse- 
 quence of the course which the Executive has pursued in 
 relation to the Bank, and which has reduced the value of the 
 shares from 130 to 108 (a Senator near me says much more. 
 It may be ; I am not particular in such things), and on 
 which the public sustains a corresponding loss on its share 
 of the stock, amounting to seven millions of dollars a sum 
 more than two hundred fold greater than the waste which 
 he has charged upon the Bank. Other administrations may 
 exceed this in talents, patriotism, and honesty ; but, cer- 
 tainly, in audacity, in effrontery, it stands without a par- 
 allel ! 
 
 The Secretary has brought forward many and grievous 
 charges against the Bank. I will not condescend to notice 
 them it is the conduct of the Secretary, and not that of the 
 Bank, which is immediately under examination ; and he has 
 no right to drag the conduct of the Bank into the issue, be- 
 yond its operations in regard to the deposits. To that extent 
 I am prepared to examine his allegations against it, but be- 
 yond that he has no right no, not the least to arraign 
 the conduct of the Bank ; and I, for one, will not, by 
 noticing his charges beyond that point, sanction his authority
 
 SPEECHES. 325 
 
 to call its conduct in question. But let the point in issue 
 be determined, and I, as far as my voice extends, will give 
 to those who desire it, the means of the freest and most un- 
 limited inquiry into its conduct. I am no partisan of the 
 Bank I am connected with it in no way, by moneyed or 
 political ties. I might say, with truth, that the Bank owes 
 as much to me as any other individual in the country ; and 
 I might even add, that had it not been for my efforts, it 
 would not have been chartered. Standing in this relation to 
 the institution, a high sense of delicacy a regard to inde- 
 pendence and character has restrained me from any con- 
 nection with the institution whatever, except some trifling 
 accommodations in the way of ordinary business, which 
 were not of the slightest importance either to the Bank or 
 myself. 
 
 But while I shall not condescend to notice the charges of 
 the Secretary against the Bank, beyond the extent which I 
 have stated, a sense of duty to the institution, and regard to 
 the part which I took in its creation, compels me to notice 
 two allegations against it which have fallen from another 
 quarter. It is said that the Bank had no agency, or at least 
 efficient agency, in the restoration of specie payments in 1817, 
 and that it had failed to furnish the country with a uniform 
 and sound currency, as had been promised at its creation. 
 Both of these allegations I pronounce to be without just 
 foundation. To enter into a minute examination of them 
 would carry me too far from the subject, and I must content 
 myself with saying that, having been on the political stage, 
 without interruption, from that day to this having been an 
 attentive observer of the question of the currency throughout 
 the whole period-^he Bank has been an indispensable agent 
 in the restoration of specie payments ; that, without it, the 
 restoration could not have been effected short of the utter 
 prostration of all the moneyed institutions of the country, 
 and an entire depreciation of bank paper ; and that it has
 
 326 SPEECHES. 
 
 not only restored specie payments, but has given a currency 
 far more uniform between the extremes of the country than 
 was anticipated, or even dreamed of, at the time of its crea- 
 tion. /I will say for myself, that I did not believe at the 
 tirnef that the exchange between the Atlantic and the West 
 would be brought lower than two and a half per cent. the 
 estimated expense then, including insurance and loss of time, 
 of transporting specie between the two points. How much 
 it was below the anticipated point I need not state : the 
 whole commercial world knows that it was not a fourth part 
 at the time of the removal of the deposits. 
 
 But to return from this digression. Though I will not 
 notice the charges of the Secretary, for the reasons already 
 stated, I will take the liberty of propounding to those who sup- 
 port them on this floor a few plain questions. If there be in 
 banking institutions an inherent tendency so strong to abuse 
 and corruption as they contend if, in consequence of this 
 tendency, the Bank of the United States be guilty of the 
 enormous charges and corruptions alleged, notwithstanding 
 its responsibility to the Government and our control over it, 
 what is to be expected from an irresponsible league of 
 banks, as called by the Senator from Kentucky (Mr. Clay), 
 over which we have no legal control ? If our power of re- 
 newing the charter of the Bank of the United States if our 
 right to vacate the charter by scire facias, in case of miscon- 
 duct if the influence which the appointment of five Govern- 
 ment directors gives us and, finally, if the power which we 
 have of appointing committees to examine into its condition, 
 are not sufficient to hold the institution in check ; if, in 
 spite of all these, it has, from the innate corruption of such 
 institutions, been guilty of the enormous abuses and crimes 
 charged against it, what may we not expect from the asso- 
 ciated banks, the favorites of the treasury, over the renewal 
 of whose charters the Government has no power, against 
 which it can issue no scire facias, in whose direction it has
 
 SPEECHES. 327 
 
 not a single individual, and into whose conduct Congress 
 can appoint no committee to look ? With these checks 
 all withdrawn, what will be the condition of the public 
 funds ? 
 
 I stated, said Mr. Calhoun, in the outset of my re- 
 marks, that, broad as was the power which the Secretary 
 had assumed in relation to the deposits, there was a portion 
 of the transaction of a highly important character, to which 
 he has not alluded, and in relation to which he has not even 
 attempted a justification. I will now proceed to make good 
 this assertion to the letter. 
 
 There is a material difference between withholding money 
 from going into the Bank, and withdrawing it after it has 
 been placed there. The former is authorized in the manner 
 which I have stated, under the sixteenth section, which 
 directs, as has been frequently said, that the public money 
 shall be deposited in the Bank, unless otherwise ordered by 
 the Secretary of the Treasury. But neither that section, nor 
 any portion of the act incorporating the Bank, nor, in truth, 
 any other act, gives the Secretary any authority of himself 
 to withdraw public money deposited in the Bank. There is, 
 I repeat, a material difference between withholding public 
 money from deposit and withdrawing it. When paid into 
 the place designated by law as the deposit of the public 
 money, it passes to the credit of the Treasurer, and then is 
 in the treasury of the United States, where it is placed under 
 the protection of the constitution itself, and from which, by 
 an express provision of the constitution, it can only be with- 
 drawn by an appropriation made by law. So careful were 
 the framers of the act of 1816 to leave nothing to implica- 
 tion, that express authority is given to the Secretary of the 
 Treasury, in the fifteenth section, to transfer the deposits 
 from one place to another, for the convenience of disb~rse- 
 rnents ; but which, by a strange perversion, is no\f at- 
 tempted to be so construed as to confer on the Secretarj Hie
 
 328 SPEECHES. 
 
 power to withdraw the money from the deposit, and loan it 
 to favorite State banks I express myself too favorably, I 
 should say give (they pay no interest) with a view to sus- 
 tain their credits or enlarge their profits a power not only 
 far beyond the Secretary, but which Congress itself could not 
 exercise without a flagrant breach of the constitution. But 
 it is said, in answer to these views, that money paid in de- 
 posit into the Bank, as directed by law, is not in the 
 treasury. I will not stop, said Mr. C., to reply to such an 
 objection. If it be not in the treasury, where is the 
 treasury ? If it be not money in the treasury, where is the 
 money annually reported to be in the treasury ? where the 
 eight or nine millions which, by the annual report of the 
 Secretary, are said to be now in the treasury ? Are we to 
 understand that none of this money is, in truth, in the 
 treasury ? that it is floating about at large, subject to be 
 disposed of, to be given away, at the will of the Executive, 
 to favorites and partisans ? So it would seem ; for it ap- 
 pears, by a correspondence between the Treasurer and the 
 Cashier of the Bank, derived through the Bank (the Secre- 
 tary not deeming it worth while to give the slightest in- 
 formation of the transaction, as if a matter of course), that 
 he has drawn out two millions and a quarter of the public 
 money without appropriation, and distributed it at pleasure 
 among his favorites ! 
 
 But it is attempted to vindicate the conduct of the Se- 
 cretary on the ground of precedent. I will not stop to notice 
 whether the cases cited are in point, nor will I avail myself of 
 the great and striking advantage that I might have on the 
 question of precedent. This case stands alone and distinct 
 from all others. There is none similar to it in magnitude 
 and impedance. I waive all this : I place myself on higher 
 grounds^-I stand on the immovable principle that, on a ques- 
 tion of law and constitution, in a deliberative assembly, there 
 is no room no place for precedents. To admit them would
 
 SPEECHES. 329 
 
 be to make the violation of to-day the law and constitution of 
 to-morrow ; and to substitute in the place of the written and 
 sacred will of the people and the legislature, the infractions of 
 those charged with the execution of the laws. Such, in ray 
 opinion, is the relative force of law and constitution on one 
 side, as compared with precedents on the othes: Viewed in a 
 different light, not in reference to the law or constitution, 
 but to the conduct of the officer, I am disposed to give rather 
 more weight to precedents, when the question relates to an 
 excuse or apology for the officer, in case of infraction. If the 
 infraction be a trivial one, in a case not calculated to excite 
 attention, an officer might fairly excuse himself on the ground 
 of precedent ; but in one like this, of the utmost magnitude, 
 involving the highest interests and most important principles 
 where the attention of the officer must be aroused to a 
 most careful examination, he cannot avail himself of the plea 
 of precedent to excuse his conduct. It is a case where false 
 precedents are to be corrected, and not folloiued. An officer 
 ought to be ashamed, in such a case, to attempt to vindicate 
 his conduct on a charge of violating law or constitution by 
 pleading precedents. The principle in such case is obvious. 
 If the Secretary's right to withdraw public money from the 
 treasury be clear, he has no need of precedents to vindicate 
 him. If not, he ought not, in a case of so much magnitude, 
 to have acted. 
 
 I have not, said Mr. Calhoun, touched a question, which 
 has had so prominent a part in the debate whether the 
 withholding of the deposits was the act of the Secretary or 
 the President. Under my view of the subject, the question 
 is not of the slightest importance. It is equally unauthor- 
 ized and illegal, whether done by President or Secretary ; 
 but, as the question has been agitated, and as my views do 
 not entirely correspond on this point with those advocating 
 the side which I do, I deem it due to frankness to express 
 my sentiments.
 
 330 SPEECHES. 
 
 I have no doubt that the President removed the former 
 Secretary, and placed the present in his place, expressly with 
 a view to the removal of the deposits. I am equally clear, 
 under all the circumstances of the case, that the President's 
 conduct is wholly indefensible ; and, among other objections, 
 I fear he had in view, in the removal, an object eminently 
 dangerous and unconstitutional to give an advantage to his 
 veto never intended by the constitution a power intended 
 as a shield to protect the Executive against the encroachment 
 of the legislative department to maintain the present state 
 of things against dangerous or hasty innovation but which, 
 I fear, is, in this case, intended as a sword to defend the 
 usurpation of the Executive./ I say I fear ; for, although 
 the circumstances of this case lead to a just apprehension 
 that such is the intention, I will not permit myself to assert 
 that such is the fact that so lawless and unconstitutional 
 an object is contemplated by the President, till his act shall 
 compel me to believe to the contrary. But while I thus 
 severely condemn the conduct of the President ia removing 
 the former Secretary and appointing the present/I must say 
 that, in my opinion, it is a case of the abuse, and not of the 
 usurpation of power. The President has the right of removal 
 from office. The power of removal, wherever it exists, does, 
 from necessity, involve the power of general supervision ; 
 nor can I doubt that it might be constitutionally exercised 
 in reference to the deposits. Keverse the present case : 
 suppose the late Secretary, instead of being against, had been 
 in favor of the removal, and that the President, instead of 
 for, had been against it, deeming the removal not only inex- 
 pedient, but, under the circumstances, illegal ; would any 
 man doubt that, under such circumstances, he had a right to 
 remove his Secretary, if it were the only means of preventing 
 the removal of the deposits ? Nay, would it not be his indis- 
 pensable duty to have removed him ? and had he not, would 
 he not have been universally, and justly, held responsible ?
 
 SPEECHES. 331 
 
 I have now, said Mr. C., offered all the remarks I in- 
 tended in reference to the deposit question ; and, on review- 
 ing the whole ground, I must say, that the Secretary, in 
 removing the deposits, has clearly transcended his power; 
 that he has violated the contract between the Bank and the 
 United States ; that, in so doing, he has deeply injured that 
 large and respectable portion of our citizens who have been 
 invited, on the faith of the Government, to invest their prop- 
 erty in the institution ; while, at the same time, he has 
 deeply injured the public in its character of stockholder ; 
 and, finally, that he has inflicted a deep wound on the public 
 faith. To this last I attribute the present embarrassment 
 in the currency, which has so injuriously affected all the 
 great interests of the country. The credit of the country is 
 an important portion of the currency of the country credit 
 in every shape, public and private credit, not only in the 
 shape of paper, but that of faith and confidence between 
 man and man through the agency of which, in all its forms, 
 the great and mighty exchanges of this commercial country, 
 at home and abroad, are, in a great measure, effected. To 
 inflict a wound any where, particularly on the public faith, is 
 to embarrass all the channels of currency and exchange ; and 
 it is to this, and not to the withdrawing the few millions of 
 dollars from circulation, that I attribute the present money- 
 ed embarrassment. Did I believe the contrary if I thought 
 that any great and permanent distress would, of itself, result 
 from winding up, in a regular and legal manner, the present 
 or any other Bank of the United States, I would deem it an 
 evidence of the dangerous power of the institution, and, to 
 that extent, an argument against its existence/ But, as it 
 is, I regard the present embarrassment, not as an argument 
 against the Bank, but an argument against the lawless and 
 wanton exercise of .power on the part of the Executive an 
 embarrassment which is likely to continue if the deposits be 
 not restored/ The banks which have received them, at the
 
 332 SPEECHES. 
 
 expense of the public faith, and in violation of law, will never 
 be permitted to enjoy their spoils in quiet./ No one who 
 regards the subject in the light in which I do, can ever give 
 his sanction to any law intended to protect or carry through 
 the present illegal arrangement ; on the contrary, all such 
 must feel bound to wage perpetual war against an usurpation 
 of power so flagrant as that wlfich controls the present de- 
 posits of the public mone/X If I stand alone, said Mr. 
 Calhoun, I, at least, will continue to maintain the contest 
 so long as I remain in public life. 
 
 As important, said Mr. Calhoun, as I consider the ques- 
 tion of the deposits, in all its bearings, public and private, it 
 is one on the surface a mere pretext to another, and one 
 greatly more important, which lies beneath, and which must 
 be taken into consideration, to understand correctly all the 
 circumstances attending this extraordinary transaction. It 
 is felt and acknowledged on all sides that there is another 
 and a deeper question, which has excited the profound sen- 
 fcion and alarm which pervade the country. 
 
 If we are to believe what we hear from the advocates of 
 'the administration, we would suppose at one time that the 
 real question was, Bank or no Bank ; at another, that the 
 question was between the United States Bank and the State 
 banks ; and, finally, that it was a struggle on the part of the 
 administration to guard and defend the rights of the States 
 against the encroachments of the General Government. The 
 administration the guardians and defenders of the rights of 
 the States ! What shall I call it ? audacity or hypocrisy ? 
 The authors of the Proclamation the guardians and defend- 
 ers of the rights of the States ! The authors of the war 
 message against a member of this confederacy the authors 
 of the " bloody bill" the guardians and defenders of the 
 rights of the States ! This a struggle for State Eights ! No, 
 Sir : State Eights are no morey The struggle is over for the 
 present. The bill of the last session, which vested in the
 
 SPEECHES. 333 
 
 Government the right of judging of the extent of its pow- \j)\t. 
 ers, finally and conclusively, and gave it the power of enforc- 
 ing its judgments by the sword, destroyed all distinction be- 
 tween delegated and reserved rights concentrated in the 
 Government the entire powers of the system, and prostrated 
 the States, as pojja/and helpless corporations, at the foot of 
 this sovereigmW" 
 
 Nor is it more true that the real question is, Bank or no 
 Bank. Taking the deposit question in the broadest sense, 
 suppose, as is contended by the friends of the administra- 
 tion, that it involves the question of the renewal of the char- 
 ter, and, consequently, the existence of the Bank itself, 
 still the banking system would stand almost untouched and 
 unimpaired. Four hundred banks would still remain scat- 
 tered over this wide republic, and on the ruins of the Uni- 
 ted States Bank many would rise to be added to the present 
 list. Under this aspect of the subject, the only possible 
 question that could be presented for consideration would be, 
 whether the banking system was more safe, more beneficial, 
 or more constitutional, with or without the United States 
 Banjj. 
 
 plf, said Mr. Calhoun, this was a question of Bank or no 
 Bank ; if it involved the existence of the banking system, 
 it would, indeed, be a great question one of the first magni- 
 tude ; and, with my present impressions, long entertained and 
 daily deepening, I would hesitate long hesitate before I 
 would be found under the banner of the system. I have 
 great doubts, if doubts they may be called, as to the sound- 
 ness and tendency of the whole system, in all its modifica- 
 tions : I have great fears that it will be found hostile to lib- 
 erty and the advance of civilization fatally hostile to liberty 
 in our country, where the system exists in its worst and most 
 dangerous form. Of all institutions affecting the great ques- 
 tion of the distribution of wealth a question least explored 
 and the most important of any in the whole range of politi-
 
 334 SPEECHES. 
 
 cal economy the banking institution has, if not the great- 
 est, one of the greatest, and, I fear, most pernicious influ- 
 ences. Were the question really before us, I would not shun 
 the responsibility, as great as it might be, of freely and fully 
 offering my sentiments on these deeply important poin^; 
 but, as it is, I must content myself with the few remarks 
 which I have thrown out. 
 
 /What, then, is the real question which now agitates the 
 /rauntry ? I answer, it is a struggle between the executive 
 and legislative departments of the Government a straggle, 
 not in relation to the existence of the Bank, but whether 
 Congress or the President should have the power to create a 
 Bank, and the consequent control over the currency of the 
 country. This is the real question. Let us not deceive our- 
 selves : this league, this association of banks, created by the 
 Executive, bound together by its influence, united in com- 
 mon articles of association, vivified and sustained by receiv- 
 ing the deposits of the public money, and having their notes 
 converted, by being received every where by the treasury, 
 into the common currency of the country, is, to all intents 
 and purposes, a Bank of the United States the Executive 
 Bank of the United jBtates, as distinguished from that estab- 
 lished by Congress. / However it might fail to perform satis- 
 factorily the useful functions of the Bank of the United 
 States as incorporated by law, it would outstrip it far out- 
 strip it in all its dangerous qualities, in extending the pow- 
 er, the influence, and the corruption of the Government/ It 
 is impossible to conceive any institution more admirably cal- 
 culated to advance these objects. /Not only the selected 
 banks, but the whole banking institutions of the country, 
 and with them the entire money power, for the purpose of 
 speculation, peculation, and corruption, would be placed un- 
 der the control of the Executive/ A system of menaces and 
 promises will be established : of menace to the banks in pos- 
 session of the deposits, but which might not be entirely sub-
 
 SPEECHES. 335 
 
 servient to Executive views ; and of promise of futuro fa- 
 vors to those who may not as yet enjoy its favors. Between 
 the two, the banks would he left without influence, honor, or 
 honesty, and a system of speculation and stock-johhing would 
 commence, unequalled in the annals of our countr^ I fear 
 they have already commenced ; I fear the means which have 
 been put in the hands of the minions of power by the re- 
 moval of the deposits, and placing them in the vaults of de- 
 pendent banks, have extended their cupidity to the public 
 lands, particularly in the Southwest, and that to this we 
 must attribute the recent phenomena in that quarter im- 
 mense and valuable tracts of land sold at short notice ; sales 
 fraudulently postponed to aid the speculators, with which, if 
 I am not misinformed, a name not unknown to this body has 
 performed a prominent part. But I leave this to my vigi- 
 lant and able friend from Mississippi (Mr. Poindexter), at 
 the head of the Committee on Public Lands, who, I doubt 
 not, will see justice done to the public. As to stock-jobbing, 
 this new arrangement will open a field which Eothschild him- 
 self may envy. It has been found hard work very hard, 
 no doubt by the jobbers in stock, who have been engaged 
 in attempts to raise or depress the price of United States 
 Bank stock ; but no work will be more easy than to raise or 
 depress the price of the stock of the selected banks, at the 
 pleasure of the Executive. Nothing more will be required 
 than to give or withhold deposits ; to draw, or abstain from 
 drawing warrants ; to pamper them at one time, and starve 
 them at another. Those who would be in the secret, and 
 who would know when to buy and when to sell, would have 
 the means of realizing, by dealing in the stocks, whatever 
 
 /rtune they might please. 
 So long as the question is one between a Bank of the r 
 nited States incorporated by Congress, and that system of .A 
 banks which has been created by the will of the Executive, 
 it is an insult to the understanding to discourse on the per-
 
 336 SPEECHES. 
 
 nicious tendency and unconstitutionally of the Bank of the 
 United States. To bring up that question fairly and legiti- 
 mately, you must go one step further ; you must divorce the 
 Government and the banking system. You must refuse all 
 connection with banks. You must neither receive nor pay 
 away bank-notes ; you must go back to the old system of 
 the strong box, and of gold and silver/' If you have a right 
 to receive bank-notes at all to treat '"them as money by re- 
 ceiving them in your dues, or paying them away to credit- 
 ors you have a right to create a bank. Whatever the Gov- 
 ernment receives and treats as money, is money in effect ; 
 and if it be money, then they have the right, under the con- 
 stitution, to regulate it. Nay, they are bound by a high ob- 
 ligation to adopt the most efficient means, according to the 
 nature of that which they have recognized as money, to give 
 it the utmost stability and uniformity of value. And if 
 it be in the shape of bank-notes, the most efficient means of 
 giving those qualities is a Bank of the United States, incor- 
 porated by Congress. Unless you give the highest practical 
 uniformity to the value of bank-notes, so long as you receive 
 them in your dues, and treat them as money, you violate 
 that provision of the constitution which provides that taxa- 
 tion shall be uniform throughout the United States. There is 
 no other alternative h I repeat, you must divorce the Gov- 
 ernment entirely from the banking system, or, if not, you are 
 bound to incorporate a bank as the only safe and efficient 
 means of giving stability and uniformity to the currency^ 
 And should the deposits not be restored, and the present 
 illegal and unconstitutional connection between the Execu- 
 tive and the league of banks continue, I shall feel it my duty, 
 if no one else moves, to introduce a measure to prohibit 
 Government from receiving or touching bank-notes in any 
 shape whatever, as the only means left of giving safety and 
 stability to the currency, and saving the country from cor- 
 ruption and ruin.
 
 SPEECHES. 337 
 
 /Viewing the question, in its true light, as a struggle on 
 the part of the Executive to seize on the power of Congress, 
 and to unite in the President the power of the sword and the 
 purse^the Senator from Kentucky (Mr. Clay) said, truly, 
 and, let me add, philosophically, that we are in the midst of 
 a revolution. Yes, the very existence of free governments 
 rests on the proper distribution and organization of power; 
 and to destroy this distribution, and thereby concentrate 
 powerlrTany one of the departments, is to effect a revolution. 
 But, while I agree with the Senator that we are in the midst 
 of a revolution, I cannot agree with him as to the time at 
 which it commenced, or the point to which it has progressed. 
 Looking to the distribution of the powers of the General 
 Government into the legislative, executive, and judicial depart- 
 ments and confining his views to the encroachments of the 
 executive upon the legislative, he dates the commencement 
 of the revolution but sixty days previous to the meeting of the 
 present Congress. I, said Mr. Calhoun, take a wider range, 
 and date it from an earlier period. yBesides the distribution 
 among the departments of the General Government, there 
 belongs to our system another, and a far more important 
 division or distribution of power that between the States/ 
 and the General Government, the reserved and delegated 
 rights, the maintenance of which is still more essential to the 
 preservation of our institutions. Taking this wide view of 
 our political system, the revolution in the midst of which we 
 are, began, not, as supposed by the Senator from Kentucky, 
 shortly before the commencement of the present session, but 
 many years ago, with the commencement of the restrictive 
 system ; and terminated its first stage with the passage of 
 the force bill of the last session, which absorbed all the rights 
 and sovereignty of the States, and consolidated them in this 
 Government. While this process was going on, of absorbing 
 the reserved powers of the States on the part of the General 
 Government, another commenced, of concentrating in the 
 VOL. ii. 22
 
 338 SPEECHES. 
 
 Executive the powers of the other two, the legislative and 
 judicial departments of the Government, which constitutes 
 the second stage of the revolution, in which we have ad- 
 vanced almost to the termination./ 
 
 /The Senator from Kentucky, in connection with this part 
 m his argument, read a striking passage from one of the 
 finest pleasing and instructive writers in any language (Plu- 
 tarch), giving the description of Csesar forcing himself, sword 
 in hand, into the treasury of the Roman Commonwealth. 
 V We are at the same stage of our political revolution, and the 
 
 analogy between the two cases is complete, varied only by 
 the character of the actors and the circumstances of the 
 times. That was a case of an intrepid and bold warrior, 
 as an open plunderer, seizing forcibly the treasury of the 
 country, which, in that republic, as well as ours, was confid- 
 ed to the custody of the legislative department of the gov- 
 ernment. The actors in our case are of a different charac- 
 ter : artful and cunning politicians, and not fearless war- 
 riors. They have entered the treasury, not sword in hand, 
 as public plunderers, but with the false keys of sophistry, under 
 
 7 t\ 
 \ ^V^ 
 
 r 
 
 \sA5^^ e silence of midnight. The motive and object are the same, 
 ^ varied only by character and circumstances. " With money 
 I will get men, and with men money/ 5 was the maxim of the 
 Roman plunderer. With money we will get partisans, with 
 partisans votes, and with votes money, is the maxim of 
 our public pilferers. With men and money, Caesar struck 
 down Roman liberty at the fatal battle of Pharsalia, never 
 to rise again ; from which disastrous hour, all the powers of 
 the Roman Republic were consolidated in the person of 
 Cassar, and perpetuated in his line. With money and cor- 
 rupt partisans, a great effort is now making to choke and stifle 
 the voice of American liberty, through all its constitutional 
 and legal organs ; by pensioning the press ; by overawing the 
 other departments ; and, finally, by setting up a new organ, 
 composed of office-holders and partisans, under the name
 
 SPEECHES. 339 
 
 of a National Convention, which, counterfeiting the voice of 
 the people, will, if not resisted, in their name dictate the 
 succession; when the deed will have been done the revolu- 
 tion completed and all the powers of our republic, in like 
 manner, consolidated in the Executive, and perpetuated by 
 his dictation. / 
 
 The Senator from Kentucky (Mr. C.) anticipates with 
 confidence that the small party who were denounced at the 
 last session as traitors and disunionists will be found, on this 
 occasion, standing in the front rank, and manfully resisting 
 the advance of despotic power. I, said Mr. Calhoun, heard 
 the anticipation with pleasure, not on account of the com- 
 pliment which it implied, but the evidence which it affords 
 that the cloud which has been so industriously thrown over 
 the character and motives of that small, but patriotic party, 
 begins to be dissipated. The Senator hazarded nothing in the 
 prediction. That party is the determined, the fixed, and 
 sworn enemy to usurpation, come from what quarter and 
 under what form it may whether from the Executive upon 
 the other departments of this Government, or from this Gov- 
 ernment on the sovereignty and rights of the States. The 
 resolution and fortitude with which it maintained its position 
 at the last session, under so many difficulties and dangers, in 
 defence of the States against the encroachments of the 
 General Government, furnished evidence not to be mistaken, 
 that that party, in the present momentous struggle, will 
 be found arrayed in defence of the rights of Congress against 
 the encroachments of the President. And let me tell the 
 Senator from Kentucky, said Mr. C., that, if the present 
 struggle against Executive usurpation be successful, it will 
 be owing to the success with which we, the nullifiers I 
 am not afraid of the word maintained the rights of the 
 States against the encroachments of the General Govern- 
 ment at the last session. 
 
 A very few words will place this beyond controversy.
 
 340 SPEECHES. 
 
 To the interposition of the State of South Carolina we are 
 indebted for the adjustment of the tariff question ; without 
 it, all the influence of the Senator from Kentucky over the 
 manufacturing interest, great as it deservedly is, would have 
 been wholly incompetent, if he had even thought proper to 
 exert it, to adjust the question. The attempt would have 
 prostrated him, and those who acted with him, and not the 
 system. It was the separate action of the State that gave 
 him the place to stand upon, created the necessity for the 
 adjustment, and disposed the minds of all to compromise. 
 Now, I put the solemn question to all who hear me, If the 
 tariff had not been adjusted if it was now an open question 
 what hope of successful resistance against the usurpations 
 of the Executive, on the part of this or any other branch of 
 the Government, could be entertained ? Let it not be said 
 that this is the result of accident of an unforeseen contin- 
 gency. It was clearly perceived, and openly stated, that no 
 successful resistance could be made to the corruption and en- 
 croachments of the Executive while the tariff question re- 
 mained open while it separated the North from the South, 
 and wasted the energies of the honest and patriotic portions 
 of the community against each other, the joint effort of 
 which is indispensably necessary to expel those from authority 
 who are converting the entire powers of Government into a 
 corrupt electioneering machine ; and that, without separate 
 State interposition, the adjustment was impossible. The 
 truth of this position rests not upon the accidental state of 
 things, but on a profound principle growing out of the nature 
 of government and party struggles in a free state. History 
 and reflection teach us that, when great interests come into 
 conflict, and the passions and the prejudices of men are 
 roused, such struggles can never be composed by the influ- 
 ence of any individual, however great ; and if there be not 
 somewhere in the system some high constitutional power to 
 arrest their progress, and compel the parties to adjust the
 
 SPEECHES. 341 
 
 difference, they go on till the state falls by corruption or 
 violence. 
 
 I will, said Mr. C., venture to add to these remarks an- 
 other, in connection with the point under consideration, not 
 less true. We are not only indebted to the cause which I have 
 stated for our present strength in this body against the pre- 
 sent usurpation of the Executive, but if the adjustment of 
 the tariff had stood alone, as it ought to have done, without 
 the odious bill which accompanied it if those who led in the 
 compromise had joined the State Eights party in their resist- 
 ance to that unconstitutional measure, and thrown the re- 
 sponsibility on its real authors, the administration, their 
 party would have been so prostrated throughout the entire 
 South, and their power, in consequence, so reduced, that they 
 would not have dared to attempt the present measure ; or, if 
 they had, they would have been broken and defeated. 
 
 Were I, said Mr. C., to select the case best calculated to 
 illustrate the necessity of resisting usurpation at the very 
 commencement, and to prove how difficult it is to resist it 
 in any subsequent stage if not met at first, I would select 
 this very case. What, he asked, is the cause of the present 
 usurpation of power on the part of the Executive ? What 
 the motive, the temptation, which has induced him to 
 seize on the deposits ? What but the large surplus reve- 
 nue ? the eight or ten millions in the public treasury beyond 
 the wants of the Government ? And what has put so large an 
 amount of money in the treasury, when not needed ? I answer, 
 the protective system that system which graduated duties, 
 not in reference to the wants of the Government, but in refer- 
 ence to the importunities and demands of the manufacturers, 
 and which poured millions of dollars into the treasury beyond 
 the most profuse demands, and even the extravagance of the 
 Government taken unlawfully taken, from the pockets of 
 those who honestly made it. I hold that those who make 
 are entitled to what they make against all the world, except
 
 342 SPEECHES. 
 
 the Government ; and against it, except to the extent of its 
 legitimate and constitutional wants ; and that for the Gov- 
 ernment to take one cent more is robbery. In violation of 
 this sacred principle, Congress first removed the deposits 
 into the public treasury from the pockets of those who made 
 it, and where they were rightfully placed by all laws, human 
 and divine. The Executive, in his turn, following the example, 
 has taken them from that deposit, and distributed them 
 among favorite and partisan banks. The means used have 
 been the same in both cases. The constitution gives to Con- 
 gress the power to lay duties with a view to revenue. This 
 power, without regarding the object for which it was intend- 
 ed, forgetting that it was a great trust power, necessarily 
 limited, by the very nature of such powers, to the subject 
 and the object of the trust, was perverted to a use never in- 
 tended that of protecting the industry of one portion of 
 the country at the expense of another ; and, under this false 
 interpretation, the money was transferred from its natural 
 and just deposit the pockets of those who made it into 
 the public treasury, as I have stated. In this, too, the Ex- 
 ecutive followed the example of Congress. 
 
 By the magic construction of a few simple words " un- 
 less otherwise ordered " intended to confer on the Secretaiy 
 of the Treasury a limited power to give additional security 
 to the public deposits, he has, in like manner, perverted this 
 power, and made it the instrument, by similar sophistry, of 
 drawing the money from the treasury, and bestowing it, as 
 I have stated, on favorite and partisan banks. Would to 
 God, said Mr. C. would to God I could reverse the whole of 
 this nefarious operation, and terminate the controversy by 
 returning the money to the pockets of the honest and in- 
 dustrious citizens, by the sweat of whose brows it was made, 
 and to whom only it rightfully belongs. But, as this can- 
 not be done, I must content myself by giving a vote to re-
 
 SPEECHES. 343 
 
 turn it to the public treasury, where it was ordered to be 
 deposited by an act of the legislature. 
 
 There is another aspect, said Mr. C., in which this sub- 
 ject may be viewed. We all remember how early the ques- 
 tion of the surplus revenue began to agitate the country. 
 At a very early period, a Senator from New Jersey (Mr. Dick- 
 erson) presented his scheme for disposing of it by distributing 
 it among the States. The first message of the President 
 recommended a similar project, which was followed up by a 
 movement on the part of the Legislature of New- York, and, 
 I believe, some of the other States. The public attention 
 was aroused the scheme scrutinized its gross unconstitu- 
 tionality and injustice, and its dangerous tendency its ten- 
 dency to absorb the power and existence of the States, were 
 clearly perceived and denounced. The denunciation was too 
 deep to be resisted, and the scheme was abandoned. What 
 have we now in lieu of it ? What is the present scheme 
 but a distribution of the surplus revenue ? A distribution at 
 the sole will and pleasure of the Executive. a distribution 
 to favorite banks, and through them, in the shape of dis- 
 counts and loans, to corrupt partisans, as the means of in- 
 creasing political influence. 
 
 We have, said Mr. C., arrived at a fearful crisis. Things 
 cannot long remain as they are. It behooves all who love 
 their country who have affection for their offspring, or who 
 have any stake in our institutions, to pause and reflect. Con- 
 fidence is daily withdrawing from the General Government. 
 Alienation is hourly going on. These will necessarily create 
 a state of things inimical to the existence of our institutions, 
 and, if not arrested, convulsions must follow ; and then 
 comes dissolution or despotism, when a thick cloud will be 
 thrown over the cause of liberty and the future prospects of 
 our country.
 
 344 SPEECHES. 
 
 SPEECH 
 
 On the proposition of Mr. Webster to recharter the 
 Bank of the United States, deli vered in the Senate, 
 March 21st, 1834. 
 
 [NOTE. The question being upon granting leave to Mr. Webster 
 to introduce into the Senate a bill to recharter, for the term of six years, 
 the Bank of the United States, with modifications :] 
 
 I KISE, said Mr. Calhoun, in order to avail myself of an 
 early opportunity to express my opinion on the measure pro- 
 posed by the Senator from Massachusetts, and the questions 
 immediately connected with it ; under the impression that, 
 on a subject so intimately connected with the interests of 
 every class in the community, there should be an early de- 
 claration of their sentiments by the members of this body, 
 so that aU may know what to expect, and on what to cal- 
 culate. 
 
 I shall vote for the motion of the Senator, not because I 
 approve of the measure he proposes, but because I consider 
 it due in courtesy to grant leave, unless there be strong rea- 
 sons to the contrary, which is not the case in this instance ; 
 but while I am prepared to vote for his motion, and, let me 
 add, to do ample justice to his motives for introducing the 
 bill, I cannot approve of the measure he proposes. In every 
 view which I have been able to take, it is objectionable. 
 Among the objections, I place the uncertainty as to its object. 
 It is left entirely open to conjecture whether a renewal of 
 the charter is intended, or a mere continuance, with the view 
 of affording the Bank time to wind up its affairs ; and what 
 increases the uncertainty is, if we apply the provisions of the 
 proposed bill to the one or the other of these objects, it is 
 equally unsuited to either. If a renewal of the charter bo
 
 SPEECHES. 345 
 
 intended, six years is too short ; if a continuance, too long. 
 I, however, state this as a minor objection. There is an- 
 other of far more decisive character : it settles nothing ; it 
 leaves every thing unfixed ; it perpetuates the present strug- 
 gle, which so injuriously agitates the country a struggle of 
 bank against bank of one set of opinions against another ; 
 and prolongs the whole, without even an intervening armis- 
 tice, to the year 1842 : a period that covers two presidential 
 terms, and by inevitable consequence, running, for two suc- 
 cessive presidential elections, the politics of the country in- 
 to the bank question, and the bank question into politics, 
 with the mutual corruption which must be engendered ; 
 keeping, during the whole period, the currency of the coun- 
 try, which the public interest requires should have the ut- 
 most stability, in a state of uncertainty and fluctuation. 
 
 But why should I pursue the objections to the plan 
 proposed by the Senator ? He, himself, acknowledged the 
 measure to be defective, and that he would prefer one of a 
 more permanent character. He has not proposed this as the 
 best measure, but has brought it forward under a supposed 
 necessity under the impression that something must be 
 done something prompt and immediate, to relieve the ex- 
 isting distress which overspreads the land. I concur with 
 him in relation to the distress, that it is deep and extensive ; 
 that it fell upon us suddenly, and in the midst of prosperity 
 almost unexampled ; that it is daily consigning hundreds to 
 poverty and misery ; blasting the hopes of the enterprising ; 
 taking employment and bread from the laborer ; and working 
 a fearful change in the relative condition of the money deal- 
 ers on one side, and the man of business on the other rais- 
 ing the former rapidly to the top of the wheel, while it is 
 whirling the latter, with equal rapidity, to the bottom. 
 While I thus agree with the Senator as to the distress, I am 
 also sensible that there are great public emergencies in which 
 no permanent relief can be afforded, and when the wisest
 
 346 SPEECHES. 
 
 are obliged to resort to expedients ; to palliate and to tempo- 
 rize, in order to gain time with a view to apply a more effec- 
 tual remedy. But there are also emergencies of precisely the 
 opposite character ; when the best and most permanent is the 
 only practicable measure, and when mere expedients tend but 
 to distract, to divide, and confound, and thereby to delay or 
 defeat all relief; and such, viewed in all its relations and 
 bearing, I consider the present ; and that the Senator from 
 Massachusetts also has not so considered it, I attribute to 
 the fact that, of the two questions blended in the subject 
 under consideration, he has given an undue prominence to 
 that which has by far the least relative importance I mean 
 those of the Bank and of the currency. As a mere bank ques- 
 tion, as viewed by the Senator, it would be a matter of but little 
 importance whether the renewal should be for six years or for 
 a longer period ; and a preference might very properly be 
 given to one or the other, as it might be supposed most likely 
 to succeed ; but I must say, that, in my opinion, in selecting 
 the period of six years, he has taken that which will be much 
 less likely to succeed than one of a reasonable and proper 
 duration. But had he turned his view to the other and more 
 prominent question involved ; had he regarded the question 
 as a question of currency, and that the great point was to 
 give it uniformity, permanency, and safety ; that, in effecting 
 these essential objects, the Bank is a mere subordinate agent, 
 to be used or not to be used, and to be modified, as to its 
 duration and other provisions, wholly in reference to the 
 higher question of the currency, I cannot think he would 
 ever have proposed the measure which he has brought for- 
 ward, which leaves, as I have already said, every thing con- 
 nected with the subject in a state of uncertainty and fluctu- 
 ation. 
 
 All feel that the currency is a delicate subject, requiring 
 to be touched with the utmost caution ; but in order that it 
 may be seen as well as felt why it is so delicate why slight
 
 SPEECHES. 347 
 
 touches, either in depressing or elevating it, agitate and con- 
 vulse the whole community, I will pause to explain the cause. 
 If we take the aggregate property of a community, that 
 which forms the currency constitutes, in value, a very small 
 proportion of the whole. What this proportion is in our coun- 
 try and other commercial and trading communities, is some- 
 what uncertain. I speak conjecturally in fixing it as one to 
 twenty-five or thirty, though I presume this is not far from 
 the truth ; and yet this small proportion of the property of 
 the community regulates the value of all the rest, and forms 
 the medium of circulation by which all its exchanges are ef- 
 fected ; bearing, in this respect, a striking similarity, con- 
 sidering the diversity of the subjects, to the blood in the 
 human or animal system. 
 
 If we turn our attention to the laws which govern the 
 circulation, we shall find one of the most important to be, 
 that, as the circulation is decreased or increased, the rest of 
 the property will, all other circumstances remaining the same, 
 be decreased or increased in value exactly in the same pro- 
 portion. To illustrate : If a community should have an ag- 
 gregate amount of property of thirty-one millions of dollars, 
 of which one million constitutes its currency ; and that one 
 million should be reduced one-tenth part, that is to say, one 
 hundred thousand dollars, the value of the rest will be re- 
 duced in like manner one-tenth part, that is, three millions 
 of dollars. And here a very important fact discloses itself, 
 which explains why the currency should be touched with such 
 delicacy, and why stability and uniformity are such essential 
 qualities; I mean that a small absolute reduction of the 
 currency makes a great absolute reduction of the value of 
 the entire property of the community, as we see in the case 
 supposed ; where a reduction of one hundred thousand dol- 
 lars in the currency reduces the aggregate value of property 
 three millions of dollars a sum thirty times greater than the 
 reduction of the currency. From this results an important
 
 348 SPEECHES. 
 
 consideration. If we suppose the entire currency to he in 
 the hands of one portion of the community, and the property 
 in the hands of the other portion, the former, by having the 
 currency under their exclusive control, might control the 
 value of all the property in the community, and possess 
 themselves of it at their pleasure. Take the case already 
 selected, and suppose that those who hold the currency 
 diminish it one-half by abstracting that amount from circu- 
 lation the effect of which would be to reduce the circulation 
 to five hundred thousand dollars ; the value of property would 
 also be reduced one-half, that is, fifteen millions of dollars. 
 Let the process be reversed, and the money abstracted grad- 
 ually restored to circulation, and the value of the property 
 would again be increased to thirty millions. It must be ob- 
 vious that, by alternating these processes, and purchasing at 
 the point of the greatest depression, when the circulation is 
 the least, and selling at the point of the greatest elevation, 
 when it is the fullest, the supposed moneyed class, who could 
 at pleasure increase or diminish the circulation, by abstract- 
 ing or restoring it, might also at pleasure control the entire 
 property of the country. Let it ever be borne in mind, that 
 the exchangeable value of the circulating medium, compared 
 with the property and the business of the community, re- 
 mains fixed, and can never be diminished or increased by in- 
 creasing or diminishing its quantity ; while, on the contrary, 
 the exchangeable value of the property, compared to the 
 currency, must increase or decrease with every addition or 
 diminution of the latter. It results, from this, that there is 
 a dangerous antagonist relation between those who hold or 
 command the currency and the rest of the community ; but, 
 fortunately for the country, the holders of property and of 
 the currency are so blended as not to constitute separate 
 classes. Yet it is worthy of remark it deserves strongly to 
 attract the attention of those who have charge of the pub- 
 lic affairs that under the operation of the banking system,
 
 SPEECHES. 349 
 
 and that peculiar description of property existing in the 
 shape of credit or stock, public or private, which so strikingly 
 distinguishes modern society from all that has preceded it, 
 there is a strong tendency to create a separate moneyed in- 
 terest, accompanied with all the dangers which must neces- 
 sarily result from such interest, and which deserves to be 
 most carefully watched and restricted. 
 
 I do not stand here the partisan of any particular class 
 in society the rich or the poor, the property holder or the 
 money holder ; and, in making these remarks, I am not ac- 
 tuated by the slightest feeling of opposition to the latter. 
 My object is simply to point out important relations that 
 exist between them, resulting from the laws which govern the 
 currency, in order that the necessity of an uniform, stable, and 
 safe currency, to guard against the dangerous control of one 
 class over another, may be clearly seen. I stand in my place 
 simply as a Senator from South Carolina, to represent her on 
 this floor, and to advance the common interest of these States 
 as far as we have the constitutional power, and as far as it 
 can be done consistently with equity and justice to the parts. 
 I am the partisan, I have said, of no class, nor, let me add, 
 of any political party. I am neither of the opposition nor of 
 the administration. If I act with the former in any in- 
 stance, it is because I approve of its course on the particular 
 occasion ; and I shall always be happy to act with them 
 when I do approve. If I oppose the administration if I 
 desire to see power change hands it is because I disapprove 
 of the general course of those in authority because they 
 have departed from the principles on which they came into 
 office because, instead of using the immense power and 
 patronage put in their hands to secure the liberty of the 
 country and advance the public good, they have perverted 
 them into party instruments for personal objects. But mine 
 has not been, nor will it be, a systematic opposition. What- 
 ever measure of theirs I may deem right, I shall cheerfully
 
 350 SPEECHES. 
 
 support ; and I only desire that they shall afford me more 
 frequent occasions for support, and fewer for opposition, than 
 they have heretofore done. 
 
 With these impressions, and entertaining a deep convic- 
 tion that an unfixed, unstable, and fluctuating currency is 
 to he ranked among the most fruitful sources of evil, whether 
 viewed politically or in reference to the business transactions 
 of the country, I cannot give my consent to any measure 
 that does not place the currency on a solid foundation. If 
 I thought this determination would delay the relief so neces- 
 sary to mitigate the present calamity, it would be to me a 
 subject of the deepest regret. I feel that sympathy which 
 I trust I ought for the sufferings of so many of my fellow- 
 citizens, who see their hopes daily withered. I, however, 
 console myself with the reflection that delay will not be the 
 result of, but, on the contrary, relief will be hastened by, the 
 view which I take of the subject. I hold it impossible that 
 any thing can be effected, regarding the subject as a mere 
 bank question. Viewed in that light, the opinion of this 
 House, and of the other branch of Congress, is probably de- 
 finitively made up. In the Senate, it is known that we have 
 three parties, whose views, considering it as a bank question, 
 appear to be irreconcilable. All hope, then, of relief must 
 centre in some more elevated view in considering it, in its 
 true light, as a subject of currency. Thus regarded, I shall 
 be surprised, if, on full investigation, there will not appear a 
 remarkable coincidence of opinion, even between those whose 
 views, on a slight inspection, would seem to be contradictory. 
 Let us, then, proceed to the investigation of the subject 
 under the aspect which I have proposed. 
 
 What, then, is the currency of the United States ? What 
 its present state and condition ? These are the questions 
 which I propose now to consider, with a view of ascertaining 
 what is the disease, what the remedy, and what the means of 
 applying it, so as to restore our currency to a sound condition.
 
 SPEECHES. 351 
 
 The legal currency of this country that in which alone 
 debts can be discharged according to law are certain gold, 
 silver, and copper coins, authorized by Congress, under an 
 express provision of the constitution. Such is the law. 
 What, now, are the facts ? That the currency consists 
 almost exclusively of bank-notes (gold having entirely dis- 
 appeared, and silver, in a great measure, expelled by banks 
 instituted by twenty-five distinct and independent powers), 
 issued under the authority of the direction of those institu- 
 tions. They are, in point of fact, the mint of the United 
 States. They coin the actual money (for such we must call 
 bank-notes), and regulate its issue, and, consequently, its 
 value. If we inquire as to their number, the amount of 
 their issue, and other circumstances calculated to show their 
 actual condition, we shall find, that so rapid has been their 
 increase, and so various their changes, that no accurate infor- 
 mation can be had. According to the latest and best that 
 I have been able to obtain, they number at least four hundred 
 and fifty, with a capital of not less than one hundred and 
 forty-five millions of dollars, with an issue exceeding seventy 
 millions ; and the whole of this immense fabric standing on 
 a metallic currency of less than fifteen millions of dollars, of 
 which the greater part is held by the Bank of the United 
 States. If we compare the notes in circulation with the 
 metallic currency in their vaults, we shall find the proportion 
 about six to one ; and if we compare the latter with the 
 demands that may be made upon the banks, we shall find 
 that the proportion is about one to eleven. If we examine 
 the tendency of the system at this moment, we shall find 
 that it is on the increase rapidly on the increase. There 
 is now pending a project of a ten million bank before the 
 Legislature of New- York ; but recently one of five millions 
 was established in Kentucky ; within a short period one of 
 a large capital was established in Tennessee, besides others 
 in agitation in several of the other States.
 
 352 SPEECHES. 
 
 [Here Mr. Porter, of Louisiana, said that one of eleven millions 
 had just been established in that State.] 
 
 This increase is not accidental. It may be laid down as 
 a law, that where two currencies are permitted to circulate 
 in any country, one of a cheap and the other of a dear ma- 
 terial, the former necessarily tends to grow upon the latter, 
 and will ultimately expel it from circulation, unless its ten- 
 dency to increase be restrained by a powerful and efficient 
 check. Experience tests the truth of this remark, as the 
 history of the banking system clearly illustrates. The 
 Senator from Massachusetts truly said that the Bank of 
 England was derived from that of Amsterdam, as ours, in 
 turn, from that of England. Throughout its progress, the 
 truth of what I have stated to be a law of the system is 
 strongly evinced. The Bank of Amsterdam was merely a 
 bank of deposit a storehouse for the safe-keeping of the 
 bullion and precious metals brought into that commercial 
 metropolis, through all the channels of its widely-extended 
 trade. It was placed under the custody of the city authori- 
 ties ; and, on the deposit, a certificate was issued as evidence 
 of the fact, which was transferable, so as to entitle the holder 
 to demand the return. An important fact was soon disclosed 
 that a large portion of the deposits might be withdrawn, 
 and that the residue would be sufficient to meet the return- 
 ing certificates ; or, what is the same in effect, that cer- 
 tificates might be issued without making a deposit. This 
 suggested the idea of a bank of discount as well as deposit. 
 The fact thus disclosed fell in too much with the genius of 
 the system to be lost, and, accordingly, when transplanted 
 to England, it suggested the idea of a bank of discount and 
 of deposit ; the very essence of which form of banking, that 
 on which their profit depends, consisting in issuing a greater 
 amount of notes than it has specie in its vaults. But the 
 system is regularly progressing, under the impulse of the 
 laws that govern it, from its present form to a mere paper
 
 SPEECHES. 353 
 
 machine a machine for fabricating and issuing notes not 
 convertible into specie. Already has it once reached this 
 condition, both in England and the United States, and from 
 which it has been forced back, in both, to a redemption of 
 its notes, with great difficulty. ^r-? 
 
 The natural tendency of the system is accelerated in 
 country by peculiar causes, which have greatly increased its 
 progress. There are two powerful causes in operation. The 
 one resulting from that rivalry which must ever take place 
 in States situated, as ours are, under one General Govern- 
 ment, and having a free and open commercial intercourse. 
 The introduction of the banking system in one State, neces- 
 sarily, on this principle, introduces it into all the others, of 
 which we have seen a striking illustration on the part of 
 Virginia and some of the other Southern States, which en- 
 tertained, on principle, strong aversion to the system ; yet 
 were compelled, after a long and stubborn resistance, to yield 
 their objections, or permit their circulation to be furnished 
 by the surrounding States, at the expense of their own 
 capital and commerce. The same cause which thus compels 
 one State to imitate the example of another, in introducing 
 the system from self-defence, will compel the other States, 
 in like manner, and from the same cause, to enlarge and 
 give increased activity to the banking operation, whenever 
 any one of the States sets the example of so doing on its 
 part ; and thus, by mutual action and reaction, the whole 
 system is rapidly accelerated to the final destiny which I have 
 
 This is strikingly exemplified in the rapid progress of 
 the system since its first introduction into our country. At 
 the adoption of our constitution, forty-five years ago, there 
 were but three banks of the United States, the amount of 
 whose capital I do not now recollect, but it was very small. 
 In this short space, they have increased to four hundred and 
 fifty, with a capital of one hundred and forty-five millions, 
 VOL. n. 23
 
 354 SPEECHES. 
 
 as has already been stated : an increase exceeding nearly a 
 hundred fold the increase of our wealth and population, as 
 great as they have been. 
 
 But it is not in numbers only that they have increased : 
 there has, in the same time, been a rapid advance in the 
 proportion which their notes in circulation bear to the specie 
 in their vaults. Some twenty or thirty years ago, it was not 
 considered safe for the issues to exceed the specie by more 
 than two and a half or three for one ; but now, taking the 
 whole, and including the Bank of the United States with 
 the State banks, the proportion is about six to one ; and 
 excluding that Bank, it would very greatly exceed that pro- 
 portion. This increase of paper, in proportion to metal, 
 results from a cause which deserves much more notice than 
 it has heretofore attracted. It originates mainly in the 
 number of the banks. I will proceed to illustrate it. 
 
 The Senator from New- York (Mr. Wright), in assigning 
 his reasons for believing the Bank of the United States to be \ 
 more dangerous than those of the States, said that one bank-^/ 
 was more dangerous than many. This in some respects 
 may be true ; but in one, and that a most important one, 
 it is strikingly the opposite I mean in the tendency of the 
 system to increase. Where there is but one bank, the ten- 
 dency to increase is not near so strong as where there are 
 many, as illustrated in England, where the system has ad-? 
 vanced much less rapidly, in proportion to the wealth and 
 population of the kingdom, than in the United States. Bu| 
 where there is no limitation as to their number, the increa^ 
 will be inevitable, so long as banking continues to be among 
 the most certain, eligible, and profitable employments 
 capital, as now is the case. With these inducements, thei 
 must be constant application for new banks, whenever there' 
 is the least prospect of profitable employment banks to be 
 founded mainly on nominal and fictitious capital, and add-^ 
 ing but little additional capital to that already in existence
 
 SPEECHES. 355 
 
 and with our just and natural aversion to monopoly, it isC 
 difficult, on principles of equality and justice, to resist such 
 application. The admission of a new bank tends to diminish 
 the profits of the old, and, between the aversion of the old 
 to reduce their income and the desire of the new to acquire 
 profits, the result is an enlargement of discounts effected by 
 a mutual spirit of forbearance ; an indisposition on the part 
 of each to oppress the other ; and, finally, the creation of a 
 common feeling to stigmatize and oppose those, whether 
 banks or individuals, who demand specie in payment of their 
 notes. This community of feeling, which ultimately identi- 
 fies the whole as a peculiar and distinct interest in the com- 
 munity, increases, and becomes more and more intense, just 
 in proportion as banks multiply as they become, if I may 
 use the expression, too populous ; when from the pressure 
 of increasing numbers, there results a corresponding increase 
 of issues, in proportion to their means ; which explains the 
 present extraordinary disproportion between specie and notes 
 in those States where banks have been most multiplied ; 
 equal, in some, to sixteen to one. There result from this 
 state of things some political considerations, which demand 
 the profound attention of all who value the liberty and peace 
 of the country. 
 
 While the banking system rests on a solid foundation^ 
 there will be, on their part, but little dependence on the 
 Government, and but little means by which the Govern- 
 ment can influence them, and as little disposition on the 
 part of the banks to be connected with the Government ; 
 but, in the progress of the system, when their number is 
 greatly multiplied, and their issues, in proportion to their 
 means, are correspondingly increased, the condition of the 
 banks becomes more and more critical. Every adverse event 
 in the commercial world, or political movement that dis- 
 turbs the existing state of things, agitates and endangers 
 them. They become timid and anxious for their safety, and
 
 356 SPEECHES. 
 
 necessarily court those in power, in order to secure their pro-, 
 tection. Property is, in its nature, timid, and seeks pro- 
 tection, and nothing is more gratifying to Government than 
 to become a protector. An union is the result ; and when 
 that union takes place when the Government, in fact, be- 
 comes the bank direction, regulating its favors and accom- 
 modations the downfall of liberty is at hand. Are there 
 no indications that we are not far removed from this state of 
 things ? Do we not behold in the events which have so\ 
 deeply agitated us within the last few months, and which 
 have interrupted all the business transactions of this com- 
 munity, a strong tendency to this union on the part of a/ 
 department of this Government, and a portion of the bank/ 
 ing system ? Has not this union been, in fact, consum- 
 mated in the largest and most commercial of the States ? 
 What is the safety-fund system of New- York but an union 
 between the banks and the State, and a consummation, by 
 law, of that community of feeling in the banking system 
 which I have attempted to illustrate, the object of which is 
 to extend their discounts, and to obtain which, the interior 
 banks of that State have actually put themselves under the 
 immediate protection of the Government ? The effects have 
 been striking. Already have they become substantially mere 
 paper machines, several having not more than from one to 
 two cents in specie to the dollar, when compared with their cir- 
 culation ; and, taking the aggregate, their average condition 
 will be found to be but little better. I care not, said Mr. C., 
 whether the present commissioners are partisans of the pre- 
 sent State administration or not, or whether the assertion of 
 the Senator from New- York (Mr. Wright), that the Gov- 
 ernment of the State has not interfered in the control of 
 these institutions, be correct. Whether it has taken place 
 or not, interference is inevitable. In such state of weakness, 
 a feeling of dependence is unavoidable ; and the control of 
 the Government over the action of the banks, whenever that
 
 SPEECHES. 357 
 
 control shall become necessary to subserve the ambition or 
 the avarice of those in power, is certain. 
 
 Such is the strong tendency of our banks to terminate 
 their career, in the paper system in an open suspension of 
 specie payment. Whenever that event occurs, the progress 
 of convulsion and revolution will be rapid. The currency 
 will become local, and each State will have a powerful inter- 
 est to depreciate its currency more rapidly than its neigh- 
 bor, as means, at the same time, of exempting itself from 
 the taxes of the Government, and drawing the commerce of 
 the country to its ports. This was 'strongly exemplified 
 after the suspension of specie payments during the late war, 
 when the depreciation made the most rapid progress, till 
 checked by the establishment of the present Bank of the 
 United States ; and when the foreign trade of the country 
 was as rapidly converging to the point of the greatest depre- 
 ciation, with a view of exemption from duties, by paying 
 the debased currency of the place. 
 
 What, then, is the disease which afflicts the system ? 
 what the remedy ? and what the means of applying it ? 
 These are the questions which I shall next proceed to con- 
 sider. What I have already stated points out the disease. 
 It consists in a great and growing disproportion between the 
 metallic and paper circulation of the country, effected through 
 the instrumentality of the banks ; a disproportion daily and 
 hourly increasing, under the impulse of most powerful causes, 
 which are TapidTy Accelerating the country.. tojthat .state of 
 convulsioiilind revolution which I have indicated. The rem- 
 edy is, to arrest its future progress, and to diminish the ex- 
 isting_disprpportion to increase the metals and to dimmish 
 the paper advancing till the currency shall be restored to a 
 sound, safe, antf settled condition. On these two points all 
 must be agreed. There is no man of any party, capable of 
 reflecting, and who will take the pains to inform himself, but 
 must agree that our currency is in a dangerous condition, and
 
 358 SPEECHES. 
 
 that the danger is increasing ; nor is there any one who can 
 doubt that the only safe and effectual remedy is to diminish 
 this disproportion to which I have referred. Here the ex- 
 tremes unite : the Senator from Missouri (Mr. Benton), and 
 the Senator from Massachusetts (Mr. Webster), who stands 
 here as the able and strenuous advocate of the banking sys- 
 tem, are on this point united, and must move from it in the 
 same direction ; though it may he the design of the one 
 to go through, and of the other to halt after a moderate ad- 
 vance. 
 
 There is another point on which all must be agreed that 
 the remedy must be gradual the change from the present to 
 another and sounder condition, slow and cautious. The ne- 
 cessity for this results from that highly delicate nature of 
 currency which I have already illustrated. Any sudden and 
 great change from our present to even a sounder condition 
 would agitate and convulse society to the centre. On anoth- 
 er point there can be but little disagreement. Whatever 
 may be the different theoretical opinions of the members of 
 the Senate as to the extent to which the reformation of the 
 currency should be carried even those who think it may be 
 carried practically and safely to the restoration of a metallic 
 currency, to the entire exclusion of paper, must agree that 
 the restoration ought not to be carried further than a cau- 
 tious and slow experience shall prove it can be done, consist- 
 ently with the prosperity of the country, in the existing 
 fiscal and commercial condition of the world. To go beyond 
 the point to which experience shall show it is proper to go, 
 would be to sacrifice the public interest merely to a favorite 
 conception. There may be ultimately a disagreement of 
 opinion where that point is ; but, since all must be agreed to 
 move forward in the same direction, and at the same pace, 
 let us set out in the spirit of harmony and peace, though we 
 intend to stop at different points. It may be that, enlight- 
 ened by experience, those who intended to stop at the near-
 
 SPEECHES. 359 
 
 est point, may be disposed to advance further, and that those 
 who intended the furthest, may halt on this side, so that 
 finally all may agree to terminate the journey together. 
 
 This brings us to the question, How shall so salutary a 
 change be effected ? What_the jnejms, and the mode of ap- 
 plication ? A great and difficult question, on which some 
 diversity of opinion may be expected. 
 
 No one can be more sensible than I am of the responsi- 
 bility that must be incurred in proposing measures on ques- 
 tions of so much magnitude, and which, in so distracted a 
 state, must affect seriously great and influential interests. 
 But this is no time to shun responsibility. The danger is 
 great and menacing, and delay hazardous, if not ruinous. 
 While, however, I would not shun, I have not sought the 
 responsibility. I have waited for others ; and had any one 
 proposed an adequate remedy, I would have remained silent. 
 And here, said Mr. Calhoun, let me express the deep regret 
 which I feel that the administration, with all the weight of 
 authority which belongs to its power and immense patronage, 
 had not, instead of the deposit question, which has caused 
 such agitation and distress, taken up the great subject of the 
 currency ; examined it gravely and deliberately in all its 
 bearings ; pointed out its diseased condition ; designated the 
 remedy, and proposed some safe, gradual, and effectual means 
 of applying it. Had this course been pursued, my zealous 
 and hearty co-operation would not have been wanting. Per- 
 mit me, also, to express a similar regret that the administra- 
 tion, having failed in this great point of duty, the opposi- 
 tion, with all its weight and talents, headed, on this question, 
 by the distinguished and able Senator from Massachusetts, 
 who is so capable of comprehending this subject in all its 
 bearings, had not brought forward, under its auspices, some 
 permanent system of measures, based upon a deliberate and 
 mature investigation into the cause of the existing disease, 
 and calculated to remedy the disordered state of the curren-
 
 360 SPEECHES. 
 
 cy. What might have been brought forward by them with 
 such fair prospects of success, has been thrown on more in- 
 competent hands, unaided by patronage or influence, save 
 only that power which truth, clearly developed, and honestly 
 and zealously advanced, may be supposed to possess, and on 
 which I must wholly rely. 
 
 But to return to the subject. Whatever diversity of sen- 
 timent there may be as to the means, on one point all must 
 be agreed : nothing effectual can be done, no check inter- 
 posed to restore or arrest the progress of the system, by the 
 action "of the States. The reasons already assigned to prove 
 that banking by one State compels all others to bank, and 
 that the excess of banking in one, in like manner, compels 
 all others to like excess, equally demonstrate that it is im- 
 possible for the States, acting separately, to interpose any 
 means to prevent the catastrophe which certainly awaits the 
 system, and perhaps the Government itself, unless the great 
 and growing danger to which I refer be timely and effectu- 
 ally arrested* There is no power any where but in this Gov- 
 ernment the joint agent of all the States, and through 
 which a concert of action can be effected, adequate to. this 
 great task. The responsibility is upon us, and upon us alone. 
 TEe"m"eans, if means there be, must be applied by our hands, 
 or not applied at all a consideration, in so great an emer- 
 gency, and in the presence of such imminent danger, calcu- 
 lated, I should suppose, to arouse even the least patriotic. 
 
 What means do we possess, and how can they be ap- 
 plied ? 
 
 If the entire banking system were under the immediate 
 control of the General Government, there would be no diffi- \ 
 culty in devising a safe and effectual remedy to restore the ) 
 equilibrium, so desirable, between the specie and the paper/ 
 which compose our currency. But the fact is otherwise. 
 With the exception of the Bank of the United States, all 
 the other banks owe their origin to the authority of the seV-
 
 SPEECHES. 361 
 
 /eral States, and are under their immediate control ; which 
 . presents the great difficulty experienced in devising the pro- 
 \ per means of effecting the remedy which all feel to be so de- 
 sirable. 
 
 Among the means which have been suggested, a Senator 
 from Virginia, not now a member of this body (Mr. Rives), 
 proposed to apply the taxing power to suppress the circula- 
 tion of small notes, with a view of diminishing the paper 
 and increasing the specie circulation. The remedy would be 
 simple and effective, but is liable to great objection. The 
 taxing power is odious under any circumstances ; it would be 
 doubly so when called into exercise with an overflowing 
 treasury ; and still more so, with the necessity of organizing 
 an expensive body of officers to collect a single tax, and that 
 of an inconsiderable amount. But there is another, and of 
 itself a decisive objection. It would be unconstitutional 
 palpably and dangerously so. All political powers, as I 
 stated on another occasion, are trust powers, and limited in 
 their exercise by the subject and object of the grant. The 
 tax power was granted to raise revenue for the sole purpose 
 of supplying the necessary means of carrying on the opera- 
 tions of the Government. To pervert this power from the 
 object thus intended by the constitution, to that of suppress- 
 ing the circulation of bank-notes, would be to convert it 
 from a revenue into a penal power a power in its nature 
 and object essentially different from that intended to be 
 granted in the constitution ; and a power which in its full 
 extension, if once admitted, would be sufficient of itself to 
 give an entire control to this Government over the property 
 and the pursuits of the community, and thus concentrate and 
 consolidate in it the entire power of the system. 
 
 Rejecting, then, the taxing power, there remain two ob- 
 vious and direct means in possession of the Government, 
 which may be brought into action to effect the object intend- 
 ed ; but neither of which, either separately or jointly, is of
 
 362 SPEECHES. 
 
 sufficient efficacy, however indispensable they may be as a 
 part of an efficient system of measures, to correct the pres- 
 ent, or repress the growing disorders of the currency ; I mean 
 that provision in, the constitution which empowers Congress 
 to coin money, regulate the value thereof, and of foreign 
 coin, and the power of prohibiting any thing but the legal 
 currency to be received, either in whole or in part, in the 
 dues of the Government. The mere power of coining and 
 regulating the value of coins, of itself, and unsustained by 
 any other measure, can exercise but a limited control over 
 the actual currency of the country, and is inadequate to 
 check excess or correct disorder, as is demonstrated by the 
 present diseased state of the currency. Congress has had, 
 from the beginning, laws upon the statute-books to regulate 
 the value of coins ; and at an early period of the Govern- 
 ment the mint was erected, and has been in active operation 
 ever since ; and yet, of the immense amount which has been 
 coined, a small residue only remains in the country, the great 
 body having been expelled under the banking system. To 
 give efficiency to this power, then, some other must be com- 
 bined with it. The most immediate and obvious is that 
 which has been suggested of excluding all but specie in the 
 receipts of the Government. This measure would be effec- 
 tual to a certain extent ; but with a declining income, which 
 must take place under the operation of the act of the last 
 session to adjust the tariff, and which must greatly reduce 
 the revenue (a point of the utmost importance to the re- 
 formation and regeneration of our institutions), the efficacy 
 of the measure must be correspondingly diminished. From 
 the nature of things, it cannot greatly exceed the average of 
 the government deposits, which I hope will, before many 
 years, be reduced to the smallest possible amount, so as to 
 prevent the possibility of the recurrence of the shameful and 
 dangerous state of things which now exists, and which has 
 been caused by the vast amount of the surplus revenue.
 
 SPEECHES. 363 
 
 But there is, in my opinion, a strong objection against re- 
 sorting to this measure, resulting from the fact that an exclu- 
 sive receipt of specie in the treasury would, to give it effica- 
 cy, and to prevent extensive speculation and fraud, require 
 an entire disconnection on the part of the Government with 
 the banking system in all its forms, and a resort to the strong 
 box as the means of preserving and guarding its funds a 
 means, if practicable, in the present state of things liable to 
 the objection of being far less safe, economical, and efficient 
 than the present. 
 
 What, then, Mr. Calhoun inquired, what other means 
 do we possess, of sufficient efficacy, in combination with 
 those to which I have referred, to arrest its progress, and 
 correct the disordered state of the currency ? This is the 
 deeply important question, and here some division of opinion 
 must be expected, however united we may be, as I trust we 
 are thus far, on all other points. I intend to meet this 
 question explicitly and directly, without reservation or con- 
 cealment. 
 
 /After a full survey of the whole subject, I see none, I 
 can conjecture no means of extricating the country from the 
 present danger, and to arrest its further increase, but a 
 bank the agency of which, in some form, or under some 
 authority, is indispensable. The country has been brought 
 into the present distressed state of currency by banks, and 
 must be extricated by their agency. /We must, in a word, 
 use a bank to unbank the banks, to flie extent that may be 
 necessary to restore a safe and stable currency just as we 
 apply snow to a frozen limb in order to restore vitality and 
 circulation, or hold up a burn to the flame to extract the in- 
 flammation. All must see that it is impossible to suppress 
 the banking system at once. It must continue for a time. 
 Its greatest enemies, and the advocates of an exclusive 
 specie circulation, must make it a part of their system to 
 tolerate the banks for a longer or a shorter period. To sup-
 
 364 SPEECHES. 
 
 press them at once would, if it were possible, work a greater 
 revolution a greater change in the relative condition of the 
 various classes of the community than would the conquest 
 of the country by a savage enemy. What, then, must be 
 done ?/ 1 answer, a new and safe system must gradually 
 grow up under, and replace the old ; imitating, in this re- 
 spect, the beautiful process which we sometimes see of a 
 wounded or diseased part in a living organic body gradually 
 superseded by the healing process of nature/ 
 
 How is this to be effected ? How is a bank to be used 
 as the means of correcting the excess of the banking system ? 
 and what bank is to be selected as the agent to effect this 
 salutary change ? I know, said Mr. C., that a diversity of 
 opinion will be found to exist, as to the agent to be selected, 
 among those who agree on every other point, and who, in 
 particular, agree on the necessity of using some bank as the 
 means of effecting the object intended : one preferring a 
 simple recharter of the existing Bank ; another, the charter of 
 a new Bank of the United States ; a third, a new Bank in- 
 grafted upon the old ; arid a fourth, the use of the State 
 banks as the agent. I wish, said Mr. 0., to leave all these 
 as open questions, to be carefully surveyed and compared 
 with each other, calmly and dispassionately, without preju- 
 dice or party feeling ; and that to be selected, which, on the 
 whole, shall appear to be the best, the most safe, the most 
 efficient, the most prompt in application, and the least lia- 
 ble to constitutional objections. It would, however, be 
 wanting in candor on my part not to declare that my impres- 
 sion is, that/a new Bank of .the United States, ingrafted upon 
 the old, will be found, under all the circumstances of the 
 case, to combine the greatest advantages, and to be liable to 
 the fewest objections ; but this impression is not so firmly 
 fixed as to be inconsistent with a calm review of the whole 
 ground, or to prevent my yielding to the conviction of reason, 
 should the result of such review prove that any other is
 
 SPEECHES. 365 
 
 preferabler Among its peculiar recommendations may be 
 ranked the consideration that, while it would afford the 
 means of a prompt and effectual application for mitigating 
 and finally removing the existing distress, it would, at the 
 same time, open to the whole community a fair opportunity 
 of participating in the advantages of the institution, be they 
 what they may. 
 
 Let us, then, suppose (in order to illustrate, and not to 
 indicate a preference) that the present Bank be selected as 
 the agent to effect the intended object. What provisions 
 will be necessary ? I will suggest those that have occurred 
 to me, mainly, however, with a view of exciting the reflec- 
 tions of those much more familiar with banking operations 
 than myself, and who, of course, are more competent to form 
 a correct judgment of their practical effect. 
 
 Let, then, the Bank charter be renewed for twelve years 
 after the expiration of the present term, with such modifica- 
 tions and limitations as may be judged proper ; and that 
 after that period it shall issue no notes under ten dollars 
 that Government shall not receive in its dues any sum less 
 than ten dollars, except in the legal coins of the United 
 States ;' that it shall not receive in its dues the notes of any 
 bank that issues notes of a denomination less than five dol- 
 lars ; and that the United States Bank shall not receive in 
 payment, or on deposit, the notes of any bank whose notes 
 are not receivable in the dues of the Government, nor the 
 notes of any bank which may receive those of any other 
 whose notes are not receivable by the Government. At the 
 expiration of six years from the commencement of the re- 
 newed charter, let the Bank be prohibited from issuing any 
 note under twenty dollars, and let no sum under that 
 amount be received in dues of the Government, except in 
 specie ; and let the value of gold be raised at least equal to 
 that of silver, to take effect immediately ; so that the coun- 
 try may be replenished with the coin, the lightest and the
 
 366 SPEECHES. 
 
 most portable in proportion to its value, to take the place of 
 the receding bank-notes. It is unnecessary for me to state, 
 that at present the standard value of gold is less than that 
 of silver ; the necessary effect of which has been to expel 
 gold entirely from circulation, and to deprive us of a coin so 
 well calculated for the circulation of a country so great in ex- 
 tent, and having so vast an intercouise, commercial, social, 
 and political, between all its parts, as ours. As an addition- 
 al recommendation to raise its relative value, gold has, of 
 late, become an important product of three considerable 
 States of the Union Virginia, North Carolina, and Georgia 
 to the industry of which the measure proposed would give 
 a strong impulse, and which, in turn, would greatly increase 
 the quantity produced. 
 
 Such are the means which have occurred to me. There 
 are members of this body far more competent to judge of 
 their practical operation than myself ; and as my object is 
 simply to suggest them for their reflection, and for that of 
 others who are more familiar with this part of the subject, I 
 will not at present enter into an inquiry as to their efficiency, 
 with a view of determining whether they are fully adequate 
 to effect the object in view or not. There are, doubtless, 
 others of a similar description, and perhaps more efficacious, 
 that may occur to the experienced, which I would freely 
 embrace, as my object is to adopt the best and most efficient. 
 And it may be hoped, that if, on experience, it should be 
 found that neither these provisions, nor any other in the 
 power of Congress, are fully adequate to effect the important 
 reform which I have proposed, the co-operation of the States 
 may be secured, at least to the extent of suppressing the cir- 
 culation of notes under five dollars, where such are permitted 
 to be issued under their authority. 
 
 I omitted, in the proper place, to state my reason for 
 suggesting twelve years as the term for the renewal of the 
 charter of 1^e Bank. It appears to me that it is long enough
 
 SPEECHES. 367 
 
 to permit the agitation and distraction which now disturbs 
 the country to subside, while it is sufficiently short to enable 
 us to avail ourselves of the full benefit of the light of expe- 
 rience, which may be expected to be derived from the opera- 
 tion of the system under its new provisions. But there is 
 another reason which appears to me to be entitled to great 
 weight. The charter of the Bank of England has recently 
 been renewed for the term of ten years, with very important 
 changes, calculated to furnish much experience upon the 
 nature of banking operations and currency. It is highly 
 desirable, if the Bank charter should be renewed, or a new 
 Bank created, that we should have the full benefit of that 
 experience before the expiration of the term, which would be 
 effected by fixing the period I have designated. But as my 
 object in selecting the recharter of the Bank of the United 
 States was simply to enable me to present the suggestions I 
 have made in the clearest form, and not to advocate the rechar- 
 ter, I shall omit to indicate many limitations and provisions, 
 which seem to me to be important to be considered, when 
 the question of its permanent renewal is presented, should it 
 ever be. Among others, I entirely concur in the suggestion 
 of the Senator from Georgia, of fixing the rate of interest at 
 five per cent. a suggestion of importance, and to which but 
 one objection can, in my opinion, be presented I mean the 
 opposing interest of existing State institutions, all of which 
 discount at higher rates, and which may defeat any measure 
 of which it constitutes a part. In addition, I will simply say 
 that I, for one, shall feel disposed to adopt such provisions 
 as are best calculated to secure the Government from any 
 supposed influence on the part of the Bank, or the Bank from 
 any improper interference on the part of the Government, or 
 which may be necessary to protect the rights or interests of 
 the States. 
 
 Having now stated the means necessary to apply the 
 remedy, I am thus brought to the question, Can the measure
 
 368 SPEECHES. 
 
 succeed ? which brings up the inquiry of how far it may be 
 expected to receive the support of the several parties which 
 now compose the Senate, and on which I shall next proceed 
 to make a few remarks. 
 
 First, then, can the State Rights party give it their sup- 
 port ? that party of which I am proud of being a member, 
 and for which I entertain so strong an attachment the 
 stronger because we are few among many. In proposing this 
 question, I am not ignorant of their long-standing constitu- 
 tional objection to the Bank, on the ground that this was 
 intended to be, as it is usually expressed, a hard-money Gov- 
 ernment, whose circulating medium was intended to consist 
 of the precious metals, and for which object the power of 
 coining money, and regulating the value thereof, was express- 
 ly conferred by the constitution. I know how long and how 
 sincerely this opinion has been entertained, and under how 
 many difficulties it has been maintained. It is not my in- 
 tention to attempt to change an opinion so firmly fixed ; but 
 I may be permitted to make a few observations, in order to 
 present what appears to me to be the true question in refer- 
 ence to this constitutional point, in order that we may fully 
 comprehend the circumstances under which we are placed in 
 reference to it. 
 
 With this view, I do not deem it necessary to inquire 
 whether, in conferring the power to coin money, and to reg- 
 ulate the value thereof, the constitution intended to limit 
 the power strictly to coining money and regulating its value, 
 or whether it intended to confer a more general power over 
 the currency ; nor do I intend to inquire whether the word 
 coin is limited simply to the metals, or may be extended to 
 other substances, if, through a gradual change, they may be- 
 come the medium of the general circulation of the world. I 
 pass these points. Whatever opinion there may be enter- 
 tained in reference to them, we must all agree, as a fixed 
 principle in our system of thinking on constitutional ques-
 
 SPEECHES. 369 
 
 tions, that the power under consideration, like other powers, 
 is a trust power ; and that, like all such powers, it must be 
 so exercised as to effect the object of the trust as far as it 
 may be practicable. Nor can we disagree that the object of 
 the power was to secure to these States a safe, uniform and 
 stable currency. The nature of the power, the terms used to 
 convey it, the history of the times, the necessity, with the 
 creation of a common government, of having a common and 
 uniform circulating medium, and the power conferred to 
 punish those, who, by counterfeiting, may attempt to debase 
 and degrade the coins of the country, all proclaim this to be 
 the object. 
 
 It is not my purpose to inquire whether, admitting this 
 to be the object, Congress is not bound to use all the means 
 in its power to give this safety, this stability, this uniformity 
 to the currency, for which the power was conferred ; nor to 
 inquire whether the States are not bound to abstain from acts, 
 on their part, inconsistent with them ; nor to inquire whether 
 the right of banking, on the part of a State, does not directly, 
 and by immediate consequence, injuriously affect the cur- 
 rency whether the effect of banking is not to expel the specie 
 currency, which, according to the assumption that this is a 
 hard-money Government, it was the object of the constitution 
 to furnish, in conferring the power to coin money ; or whether 
 the effect of banking does not necessarily tend to diminish 
 the value of a specie currency as certainly as clipping or re- 
 ducing its weight would ; and whether it has not, in fact, since 
 its introduction, reduced the value of the coins one-half. Nor 
 do I intend to inquire whether Congress is not bound to 
 abstain from all acts, on its part, calculated to affect inju- 
 riously the specie circulation, and whether the receiving any 
 thing but specie, in its dues, must not necessarily so affect it 
 by diminishing the quantity in circulation, and depreciating 
 the value of what remains. All these questions Heave open. 
 I decide none of them. There is one, however, that I will 
 VOL. H. 24
 
 370 SPEECHES. 
 
 decide. If Congress has a right to receive any thing else 
 than specie in its dues, they have the right to regulate its 
 value ; and have a right, of course, to adopt all necessary and 
 proper means, in the language of the constitution, to effect 
 the object. It matters not what they receive, tobacco, or 
 any thing else, this right must attach to it. I do not assert 
 the right of receiving, but I do hold it to be incontrovertible, 
 that, if Congress were to order the dues of the Government 
 to be paid, for instance, in tobacco, they would have the right, 
 nay, more, they would be bound to use all necessary and 
 proper means to give it an uniform and stable value inspec- 
 tions, appraisement, designation of qualities, and whatever 
 else would be necessary to that object. So, on the same 
 principle, if they receive bank-notes, they are equally bound 
 to use all means necessary and proper, according to the pecu- 
 liar nature of the subject, to give them uniformity, stability, 
 and safety. 
 
 The very receipt of bank-notes, on the part of the Gov- 
 ernment, in its dues, would, it is conceded, make them mon- 
 ey, as far as the Government may be concerned, and, by a 
 necessary consequence, would make them, to a great extent, 
 the currency of the country. I say nothing of the positive 
 provisions in the constitution which declares that " all duties, 
 imposts, and excises shall be uniform throughout the United 
 States," which cannot be, unless that in which they are paid 
 should also have, as nearly as practicable, an uniform value 
 throughout the country. To effect this, if bank-notes are 
 received, the banking power is necessary and proper within 
 the meaning of the constitution ; and, consequently, if the 
 Government has the right to receive. bank-notes in its dues, 
 the power becomes constitutional. Here lies, said Mr. Cal- 
 houn, the real constitutional question : Has the Government 
 a right to receive bank-notes, or not ? The question is not 
 upon the mere power of incorporating a bank, as it has been 
 commonly argued : though even in that view there would be
 
 SPEECHES. 371 
 
 as great a constitutional objection to any act on the part of 
 the Executive, or any other branch of the Government, which 
 should unite any association of State banks into one system, 
 as the means of giving the uniformity and stability to the cur- 
 rency which the constitution intends to confer. The very 
 act of so associating or uniting them into one, by whatever 
 name called, or by whatever department performed, would 
 be, in fact, an act of incorporation. 
 
 But, said Mr. Calhoun, my object, as I have stated, is not 
 to discuss the constitutional questions, nor to determine whe- 
 ther the Bank be constitutional or not. It is, I repeat, to 
 show where the difficulty lies a difficulty which I have felt 
 from the time I first came into the public service. I found 
 then, as now, the currency of the country consisting almost 
 entirely of bank-notes. I found the Government intimately 
 connected with the system : receiving bank-notes in its dues, 
 and paying them away, under its appropriations, as cash. 
 The fact was beyond my control : it existed long before my 
 time, and without my agency ; and I was compelled to act 
 on the fact as it existed, without deciding on the many ques- 
 tions which I have suggested as connected with this subject, 
 and on many of which I have never yet formed a definite 
 opinion. No one can pay less regard to precedent than I do, 
 acting here, in my representative and deliberative character, 
 on legal or constitutional questions ; but I have felt from the 
 beginning the full force of the distinction so sensibly taken 
 by the Senator from Virginia (Mr. Leigh) between doing and 
 undoing an act, and which he so strongly illustrated in the 
 case of the purchase of Louisiana. The constitutionality of 
 that act was doubted by many at the time, and among others 
 by its author himself ; yet he would be considered a mad- 
 man who, coming into political life at this late period, would 
 now seriously take up the question of the constitutionality 
 of the purchase, and, coming to the conclusion that it was 
 unconstitutional, should propose to rescind the act, and eject
 
 372 SPEECHES. 
 
 from the Union two flourishing States and a growing Terri- 
 tory : nor would it be an act of much less madness thus to 
 treat the question of the currency, and undertake to suppress 
 at once the system of bank circulation which has been grow- 
 ing up from the beginning of the Government, which has 
 penetrated into and connected itself with every department 
 of our political system, on the ground that the constitution 
 intended a specie circulation ; or who would treat the consti- 
 tutional question as one to be taken up de novo, and decided 
 upon elementary principles, without reference to the impe- 
 rious state of facts. 
 
 But in raising the question whether my friends of the 
 State Eights party can consistently vote for the measure 
 which I have suggested, I rest not its decision on the ground 
 that their constitutional opinion in reference to the Bank is 
 erroneous. I assume their opinion to be correct I place the 
 argument, not on the constitutionality or unconstitutional- 
 ity, but on wholly different ground. I lay it down as an in- 
 controvertible principle, that, admitting an act to be uncon- 
 stitutional, but of such a nature that it cannot be reversed 
 at once, or at least without involving gross injustice to the 
 community, we may, under such circumstances, vote for its 
 temporary continuance for undoing gradually, as the only 
 practicable mode of terminating it consistently with the 
 strictest constitutional objects. The act of the last session, 
 adjusting the tariff, furnishes an apt illustration. All of us 
 believed that measure to be unconstitutional and oppressive, 
 yet we voted for it without supposing that we violated the 
 constitution in so doing, although it allowed upwards of eight 
 years for the termination of the system, on the ground, that 
 to reverse it at once, would spread desolation and ruin over a 
 large portion of the country. I ask the principle in that 
 case to be applied to this. It is equally as impossible to 
 terminate suddenly the present system of paper currency, 
 without spreading a desolation still wider and deeper over
 
 SPEECHES. . 373 
 
 the face of the country. If it can be reversed at all if we 
 can ever return to a metallic currency, it must be by grad- 
 ually undoing what we have done, and to tolerate the system 
 while the process is going on. This, the measure which I 
 have suggested, proposes ; for the period of twelve years to 
 be followed up by a similar process, as far as a slow and cau- 
 tious experience shall prove we may go consistently with the 
 public interest, even to its entire reversal, if experience shall 
 prove we may go so far, which, however, I, for one, do not 
 anticipate ; but the effort, if it should be honestly commenc- 
 ed and pursued, would present a case every way parallel with 
 the instance of the tariff to which I have already referred. 
 I go further, and ask the question, Can you, consistently with 
 your obligation to the constitution, refuse to vote for a mea- 
 sure, if intended, in good faith, to effect the object already 
 stated ? Would not a refusal to vote for the only means of 
 terminating it consistently with justice, and without involv- 
 ing the horror of revolution, amount in fact, and in all its 
 practical consequences, to a vote to perpetuate a state of 
 things which all must acknowledge to be eminently uncon- 
 stitutional, and highly dangerous to the liberty of the coun- 
 try ? 
 
 But I know it will be objected that the constitution 
 ought to be amended, and the power conferred in express 
 terms. I feel the full force of the objection. I hold the po- 
 sition to be sound, that, when a constitutional question has 
 been agitated involving the powers of the Government, which 
 experience shall prove cannot be settled by reason, as in the 
 case of the bank question, those who claim the power ought 
 to abandon it, or obtain an express grant by an amendment 
 of the constitution ; and yet, even with this impression, I 
 would, at the present time, feel much, if not insuperable 
 objection, to vote for an amendment, till an effort shall be 
 fairly made, in order to ascertain to what extent the power 
 might be dispensed with, as I have proposed.
 
 374 SPEECHES. 
 
 I hold it a sound principle, that no more power should be 
 conferred upon the General Government than is indispens- 
 able ; and if experience should prove that the power of bank- 
 ing is indispensable, in the actual condition of the currency 
 of this country and of the world generally, I should even 
 then think that, whatever power ought to be given, should 
 be given with such restrictions and limitations as would limit 
 it to the smallest amount necessary, and guard it with the 
 utmost care against abuse. As it is, without farther expe- 
 rience, we are at a loss to determine how little or how much 
 would be required to correct a disease which must, if not 
 corrected, end in convulsions and revolution. I consider the 
 whole subject of banking and credit as undergoing at this 
 time, throughout the civilized world, a progressive change, 
 of which I think I perceive many indications. Among the 
 changes in progression, it appears to me there is a strong 
 tendency in the banking system to resolve itself into two 
 parts one becoming a bank of circulation and exchange, for 
 the purpose of regulating and equalizing the circulating me- 
 dium, and the other assuming more the character of private 
 banking ; of which separation there are indications in the 
 tendency of the English system, particularly perceptible in 
 the late modifications of the charter of the Bank of England. 
 In the mean time, it would be wise in us to avail ourselves 
 of the experience of the next few years before any change 
 be made in the constitution, particularly as the course which, 
 it seems to me, it would be advisable to pursue, would be the 
 same, whether the power be expressly conferred or not. 
 
 I next address myself to the members of the opposition, 
 who principally represent the commercial and manufacturing 
 portions of the country, where the banking system has been 
 the farthest extended, and where a larger portion of the pro- 
 perty exists in the shape of credit than in any other section, 
 and to whom a sound and stable currency is most necessary, 
 and the opposite most dangerous. You have no constitu-
 
 SPEECHES. 375 
 
 tional objection ; to you it is a mere question of expediency. 
 Viewed in this light, can you vote for the measure suggest- 
 ed ? A measure designed to arrest the approach of events 
 which, I have demonstrated, must, if not arrested, create 
 convulsions and revolutions ; and to correct a disease which 
 must, if not corrected, subject the currency to continued 
 agitations and fluctuations ; and, in order to give that per- 
 manence, stability, and uniformity, which is so essential to 
 your safety and prosperity. To effect this may require some 
 diminution of the profits of banking, some temporary sacri- 
 fice of interest ; but if such should be the fact, it will be 
 compensated more than a hundred fold by increased security 
 and durable prosperity. If the system must advance in its 
 present course without a check, and if explosion must follow, 
 remember that where you stand will be the crater should 
 the system quake, under your feet the chasm will open that 
 will ingulf your institutions and your prosperity. 
 
 Can the friends of the administration vote for this mea- 
 sure ? If I understand their views, as expressed by the 
 Senator from Missouri, behind me (Mr. Benton), and the 
 Senator from New- York (Mr. Wright), and other distin- 
 guished members of the party, and the views of the President 
 as expressed in reported conversations, I see not how they 
 can reject it. They profess to be the advocates of a metal- 
 lic currency. I propose to restore it by the most effectual 
 means that can be devised ; gradually and slowly, and to 
 the extent that experience may show that it can be done con- 
 sistently with due regard to the public interest. Further no 
 one can desire to go. If the means I propose are not the best 
 and most effectual, let better and more effectual be devised. 
 If the process which I propose be too slow or too fast, let it 
 be accelerated or retarded. Permit me to add to these views 
 what, it appears to me, those whom I address ought to feel 
 with deep and solemn obligations of duty. They are the 
 advocates and the supporters of the administration. It is
 
 376 . SPEECHES. 
 
 now conceded, almost universally, that a rash and precipitate 
 act of the Executive, to speak in the mildest terms, has 
 plunged this country into deep and almost universal distress. 
 You are the supporters of that measure you personally 
 incur the responsibility by that support. How are its conse- 
 quences to terminate ? Do you see the end ? Can things 
 remain as they are, with the currency and the treasury of 
 the country under the exclusive control of the Executive ? 
 And by what scheme, what device, do you propose to extri- 
 cate the country and the constitution from their present 
 dangers ? 
 
 I have now said what I intended. I have pointed out, 
 without reserve, what I believe in my conscience to be for the 
 public interest. May what I have said be received as favorably 
 as it has been sincerely uttered. In conclusion, I have but 
 to add, that, if what I have said shall in any degree contri- 
 bute to the adjustment of this question, which I believe can- 
 not be left open without imminent danger, I shall rejoice ; 
 but if not, I shall at least have the consolation of having 
 discharged my duty. 
 
 SPEECH 
 
 On the Bill, to repeal the Revenue Collection, or 
 Force Bill, delivered in the Senate, April 9th, 
 1834. 
 
 I HAVE, said Mr. Calhoun, introduced this bill from a 
 deep conviction that the act which it proposes to repeal is, 
 in its tendency, subversive of our political institutions, and 
 fatal to the liberty and happiness of the country ; which I 
 trust to be able to establish to the satisfaction of the Senate,
 
 SPEECHES. 377 
 
 should I be so fortunate as to obtain a dispassionate and 
 favorable hearing. 
 
 In resting the repeal on this ground, it is not my inten- 
 tion to avail myself of the objections to the details of the act, 
 repugnant as many of them are to the principles of our Gov- 
 ernment. In illustration of the truth of this assertion/ I 
 might select that provision which vests in the President, in 
 certain cases, of which he is made the judge, the entire force 
 of the country, civil, military, and naval, with the implied 
 power of pledging the public faith for whatever expenditure 
 he may choose to incur in its application. And, to prove 
 how dangerous it is to vest such extraordinary powers in the 
 Executive, I might avail myself of the experience which we 
 have had in the last few months of the aspiring character of 
 that department of the Government, and which has furnish- 
 ed conclusive evidence of the danger of vesting in it even a 
 very limited discretion./ It is not for me to judge of the pro- 
 priety of the course which the members of this body may 
 think proper to pursue in reference to the question under 
 consideration ; but I must say that I am at a loss to under- 
 stand how any one, who regards as I do the acts to which I 
 have referred, as palpable usurpations of power, and as in- 
 dicating on the part of the Executive a dangerous spirit of 
 aggrandizement, can vote against the bill under consideration, 
 and thereby virtually vote to continue in the President the 
 extraordinary and dangerous power in question. 
 
 But it may be said that the provisions of the act which 
 confers this power will expire, by its own limitation, at the 
 termination of the present session. It is true it will then 
 cease to be law ; but it is no less true that the precedent, 
 unless the act be expunged from the statute-book, will 
 live for ever, ready, on any pretext of future danger, to be 
 quoted as an authority to confer on the chief magistrate 
 similar, or even more dangerous powers, if more dangerous 
 can be devised. We live in an eventful period ; and, among
 
 378 SPEECHES. 
 
 other things, we have had, recently, some impressive lessons 
 on the danger of precedents. To them immediately we owe 
 the act which has caused the present calamitous and danger- 
 ous condition of the country ; which has been defended 
 almost solely on the ground of precedents precedents almost 
 unnoticed at the time ; but had they not existed, or had 
 they been reversed at the time by Congress, the condition of 
 the country would, this day, be far different from what it is. 
 / With this knowledge of the facts, we must see that a bad 
 precedent is as dangerous as a bad measure itself ; and in 
 some respects more so, since it may give rise to acts far worse 
 than itself, as in the case to which I have alluded. In this 
 view of the subject, to refuse to vote for the repeal of the 
 act, and thereby constitute a precedent to confer similar, or 
 more dangerous powers hereafter, would be as dangerous as 
 to vote for an act to vest permanently in the President the 
 power in question. 
 
 But roass over this and other objections to the details not 
 much less formidalrie. I take a higher stand against the 
 act : TToBject to the principle in which it originated, put- 
 ting the details aside, on the ground, as I have stated, that 
 they are subversive of our political institutions, and fatal in 
 their tendency to the liberty and happiness of the country. 
 Fortunately, we are not left to conjecture or inference as to 
 what these principles are. /It was openly proclaimed, both 
 here and elsewhere, in the debates of this body and the pro- 
 clamation and message of the President, in which the act 
 originated, that the very basis on which it rests the assump- 
 tion on which only it could be supported was, that this 
 Government had the final and conclusive right, in the last 
 resort, to judge of the extent of its powers ; and that, to 
 execute its decision, it had the right to use all the means of 
 the country, civil, military, and fiscal, not only against in- 
 dividuals, but against the States themselves, and all acting
 
 SPEECHES. 379 
 
 under their authority, whether in a legislative, executive, or 
 judicial capacity./ 
 
 If further evidence be required, as to the nature and 
 character of the act, it will be found in the history of the 
 events in which it took its origin. It originated, as we all 
 know, in a controversy between this Government and the 
 State of South Carolina, in reference to a power which in- 
 volved the question of the constitutionality of a protective 
 tariff. I do not intend to give the history of this controver- 
 sy ; it is sufficient for my purpose to say, that the State, in 
 maintenance of what she believed to be her unquestionable 
 rights, assumed the highest ground : she placed herself on 
 her sovereign authority as a constituent member of this con- 
 federacy, and made her opposition to the encroachment on 
 these rights through a convention of the people, the only or- 
 gan by which, according to our conception, the sovereign will 
 of a State can be immediately and directly pronounced. This 
 Government, on its part, in resistance to the action of the 
 State, assumed the right to trample upon the authority of 
 the convention, and to look beyond the State to the individ- 
 uals who compose it ; not as forming a political community, 
 but as a mere mass of isolated individuals, without political 
 character or authority ; and thus asserted in the strongest 
 manner, not only the right of judging of its own powers, but 
 that of overlooking, in a contest for power, the very exist- 
 ence of the State itself, and of recognizing, in the assertion 
 of what it might claim to be its power, no other authority 
 whatever in the system but its own. 
 
 Such being the principle in which this bill originated, we 
 are brought to the consideration of a question of the deepest 
 import. As an act, which assumes such powers for this Gov- 
 ernment, consistent with the nature and character of our po- 
 litical institutions 
 
 It is not my intention, in the discussion of this question, 
 to renew the debate of the last session. But, in declining to
 
 380 SPEECHES. 
 
 renew that discussion, I wish to be distinctly understood that 
 I do so exclusively on the ground that I do not feel myself 
 justified in repeating arguments so recently advanced ; and 
 not on the ground that there is the least abatement of confi- 
 dence in the positions then assumed, or in the decisive bear- 
 ing which they ought to have against the act. So far other- 
 wise, time and reflection have but served to confirm me 
 in the impression which I then entertained ; and, without 
 repeating the arguments, I now avail myself, in this discus- 
 sion, of the positions then established, and stand prepared to 
 vindicate them against whatever assaults may be made upon 
 them, come from what quarter they may. Without, then, 
 reopening the discussion of the last session on the elementa- 
 ry principles of our Government, which were then brought 
 into controversy/I shall now proceed to take the plainest and 
 most common-sense view of our political institutions, regard- 
 ing them merely in a matter-of-fact way, in order to ascer- 
 tain the parts of which they ar9 composed, and the relations 
 which they bear to each other/ 
 
 Thus regarding our institutions, we are struck, on the 
 first view, with the number and complexity of the parts 
 with the division, classification, and organization which per- 
 vade every part of the system. It is, in fact, a system of 
 governments ; and these, in turn, are a system of depart- 
 ments a system in which government bears the same rela- 
 tion to government, in reference to the whole, as departments 
 do to departments, in reference to each particular govern- 
 ment. As each government is made up of the legislative, 
 executive, and judicial departments organized into one, so 
 the system is made up of this Government, and the State 
 governments, in like manner, organized into one system. So, 
 too, as the powers which constitute the respective govern- 
 ments are divided and organized into departments, in like 
 manner in the formation of the governments, their powers 
 are classed into two distinct divisions : the one containing
 
 SPEECHES. 381 
 
 powers local and peculiar in their character, which the inter- 
 ests of the States require to be exercised by each State 
 through a separate government ; the other containing those 
 which are more general and comprehensive, and which can 
 be best exercised in some uniform mode through a common 
 Government. The former of these divisions constitutes what, 
 in our system, are known as the reserved powers, and are ex- 
 ercised by. each State through its own separate Government. 
 The latter are known as the delegated powers, and are exer- 
 cised through this, the common Government of the several 
 States. The division of power into two parts, with distinct 
 and independent governments, regularly organized into de- 
 partments, legislative, executive, and judicial, to carry their 
 respective parts into effect, constitutes the great, striking 
 and peculiar character of our system is without exam- 
 ple in ancient or modern times and may be regarded as the 
 fundamental distribution of power under the system, and as 
 constituting its great conservative principle. 
 
 If we extend our eyes beyond, we shall find another strik- 
 ing division between the power of the people and that of the 
 Government between that inherent, primitive, creative pow- 
 er which resides exclusively in the people, and from which all 
 authority is derived, and the delegated power or trust con- 
 ferred upon the governments to effect the object of their cre- 
 ation. If we look still beyond, we shall find another and 
 most important division. The people, instead of being uni- 
 ted in one general community, are divided into twenty-four 
 States, each forming a distinct sovereign community, and in 
 which, separately, the whole power of the system ultimately 
 resides. 
 
 If we examine how this ultimate power is called into 
 action, we shall find that its only organ is a primary assem- 
 blage of the people, known under the name of a Convention, 
 through which their sovereign will is announced, and by 
 which governments are formed and organized. If we trace,
 
 382 SPEECHES. 
 
 historically, the exertion of this power in the formation of 
 the governments constituting our system, we shall find that, 
 originally, on the separation of the thirteen colonies from the 
 crown of Great Britain, each State for itself, through its own 
 convention, formed separate constitutions and governments, 
 and that these governments, in turn, formed a league or con- 
 federacy for the purpose of exercising those powers, in the 
 regulation of which the States had a common interest. But 
 this confederacy, proving incompetent for its object, was su- 
 perseded by the present constitution, which essentially changed 
 the character of the system. If we compare the mode of the 
 adoption of this constitution with that of the adoption of the 
 original constitutions of the several States, we shall find them 
 precisely the same. In both, each State adopted the consti- 
 tution through its own convention, by its separate act, each 
 for itself, and is only bound in consequence of its own adop- 
 tion, without reference to the adoption of any other State. 
 The only point in which they can be distinguished is the mu- 
 tual compact, in which each State stipulated with the others 
 to adopt it as a common constitution. Thus regarded, this 
 constitution is, in fact, the constitution of each State. In 
 Virginia, for instance, it is the constitution of Virginia ; and 
 so, too, this Government, and the laws which it enacts, are, 
 within the limits of the State, the government and the laws 
 of the State. It is, in fact, the constitution and government 
 of the whole, because it is the constitution and government 
 of each part ; and not the constitution and government of 
 the parts, because it is of the whole. The system commences 
 with the parts, and ends with the whole. The parts are the 
 units, and the whole the multiple, instead of the whole being 
 a unit and the parts the fractions. Thus viewed, each State 
 has two distinct constitutions and governments a separate 
 constitution and government, instituted, as I have stated, to 
 regulate the objects in which each has a peculiar interest ; 
 and a general one to regulate the interests common to all,
 
 SPEECHES. 383 
 
 and binding, by a common compact, the whole into one com- 
 munity, in which the separate and independent existence of 
 each State as a sovereign community is preserved, instead of 
 being fused into a common mass. 
 
 Such is our system ; such are its parts, and such their 
 relation to each other. I have stated no fact that can be 
 questioned, nor have I omitted any that is essential which 
 I am capable of perceiving. In reviewing the whole, we 
 must be no less struck with the simplicity of the means by 
 which all are blended into one, than we are by the number 
 and complexity of the parts. I know of no system, in either 
 respect, ancient or modern, to be compared with it ; and can 
 compare it to nothing but that sublime and beautiful system 
 of which our globe constitutes a part, and to which it bears, 
 in many particulars, so striking a resemblance. In this 
 system, this Government, as we have seen, constitutes a part 
 a prominent, but a subordinate part, with defined, limited, 
 and restricted powers. 
 
 I now repeat the question, Is the act which assumes for 
 this Government the right to interpret, in the last resort, 
 the extent of its powers, and to enforce its interpretation 
 against all other authority, consistent with our institutions ? 
 To state the question is to answer it. We might with equal 
 propriety ask whether a government of unlimited power is 
 consistent with one of enumerated and restricted powers. I 
 say unlimited ; for I would hold his understanding in low 
 estimation who can make, practically, any distinction between 
 a government of unlimited powers and one which has an 
 unlimited right to construe and enforce its powers as it 
 pleases. Who does not see that, to divide power, and to give 
 one of the parties the exclusive right to determine what 
 share belongs to him, is to annihilate the division, and to 
 vest the whole in him who possesses the right ? It would 
 be no less absurd than for one in private life to divide his 
 property with another, and vest in that other the absolute
 
 384 SPEECHES. 
 
 and unconditional right to determine the extent of his share ; 
 which would be, in fact, to give him the whole. Nor could 
 I think much more highly of the understanding of him who 
 does not perceive that this exclusive right, on the part of 
 this Government, of determining the extent of its powers, 
 necessarily destroys all distinction between reserved and 
 delegated powers ; and that it thus strikes a fatal blow at 
 that fundamental distribution of power which lies at the 
 bottom of our system. It also, by inevitable consequence, 
 destroys all distinction between constitutional and unconsti- 
 tutional acts, making the latter to the full as obligatory as 
 the former ; of which we had a remarkable example when 
 the act proposed to be repealed was before the Senate. It 
 is well known that the power in controversy between thia 
 Government and the State of South Carolina had been pro- 
 nounced to be unconstitutional by the legislatures of most of 
 the Southern States, and also by many of the members of 
 this body ; and yet there were instances, however extraor- 
 dinary it may appear, of members of the body voting to en- 
 force an act which they believed to be unconstitutional, and 
 that, too, at the hazard of civil war. As strange as such a 
 course must appear, it was the natural and legitimate conse- 
 quence of the power which the act assumed for this Govern- 
 ment, and illustrates, in the strongest manner imaginable, 
 the truth of what I have advanced. 
 
 But to proceed. This unlimited right of judging as to 
 its powers, not only destroys, as I have stated, all distinction 
 between constitutional and unconstitutional acts, but merges 
 in this Government the very existence of the separate govern- 
 ments of the States, by reducing them from that independent 
 and distinct existence, as co-governments, assigned to them 
 in the system, to mere subordinate and dependent bodies, 
 holding their power and existence at the mercy of this Gov- 
 ernment. It stops not here it annihilates the States them- 
 selves. The right which it assumes of trampling upon the
 
 SPEECHES. 386 
 
 authority of a convention of the people of the States, the 
 only organ through which the sovereignty of the States can 
 exert itself, and to look beyond the States to the individuals 
 who compose them, and to treat them as entirely destitute 
 of all political character or power, is, in fact, to annihilate 
 the States, and to transfer their sovereignty and all their 
 powers to this Government. 
 
 If we now raise our eyes, and direct them towards that 
 once beautiful system, with all its various, separate, and in- 
 dependent parts blended into one harmonious whole, we must 
 be struck with the mighty change ! All have disappeared 
 gone absorbed concentrated and consolidated in this Gov- 
 ernment which is left alone in the midst of the desolation 
 of the system, the sole and unrestricted representative of an 
 absolute and despotic majority. 
 
 Will it be tolerated that I should ask whether an act 
 which has caused so complete a revolution which has en- 
 tirely subverted our political system, as it emanated from 
 the hands of its creators, and reared in its place one in every 
 respect so different must not, in its consequences, prove 
 fatal to the liberty and the happiness of these States ? Can 
 it be necessary for me to prove that no other system which 
 human ingenuity can devise, or imagination conceive, but 
 that which this fatal act has subverted, can preserve the 
 liberty or secure the happiness of the country ? Need I show 
 that the most difficult problem which ever was presented to 
 the mind of a legislator to solve, was to devise a system of 
 government for a country of such vast extent, that should at 
 once possess sufficient power to hold the whole together, 
 without, at the same tune, proving fatal to liberty ? There 
 never existed an example before of a free community spread- 
 ing over such an extent of territory ; and the ablest and 
 profoundest thinkers, at the time, believed it to be utterly 
 impracticable that there should be. Yet this difficult prob- 
 lem was solved successfully solved by the wise and saga- 
 VOL. ii. 25
 
 386 SPEECHES. 
 
 cious men who framed our constitution. No ; it was above 
 unaided human wisdom above the sagacity of the most 
 enlightened. It was the result of a fortunate combination 
 of circumstances, co-operating and leading the way to its 
 formation ; directed by that kind Providence which has so 
 often and so signally disposed events in our favor. 
 
 To solve this difficult problem, and to overcome the ap- 
 parently insuperable obstacle which it presents, required that 
 peculiar division, distribution, and organization of power, 
 which, as I have stated, so remarkably distinguish our sys- 
 tem, and which serve as so many breakwaters to arrest the 
 angry waves of power, impelled by avarice and ambition, 
 and which, driven furiously over a broad and unbroken ex- 
 panse, would be resistless. Of this partition and breaking up 
 of power into separate parts, the most remarkable division 
 is that between the reserved and delegated powers, which 
 forms the basis on which this and the separate governments 
 of the States are organized, as the great and primary depart- 
 ments of the system. It is this important division which 
 mainly gives that expansive character to our institutions, by 
 means of which they have the capacity of being spread over 
 the vast extent of our country, without exposing us on the 
 one side to the danger of disunion, or, on the other, to the 
 loss of liberty. Without this happy device, the people of 
 these States, after having achieved their independence, would 
 have been compelled to resolve themselves into small and 
 hostile communities, in despite of a common origin, a common 
 language, and the common renown and glory acquired by 
 their united wisdom and valor in the war of the Eevolution, 
 or have submitted quietly to the yoke of despotic power as 
 the only alternative. 
 
 In the place of this admirably contrived system, the act 
 proposed to be repealed has erected one great Consolidated 
 Government. Can it be necessary for me to show what must 
 be the inevitable consequences ? Need I prove that ah 1 con-
 
 SPEECHES. 387 
 
 solidated governments governments in which a single power 
 predominates (for such is then* essence), are necessarily 
 despotic whether that power be wielded by the will of one 
 man, or that of an absolute and unchecked majority? 
 Need I demonstrate that it is, on the contrary, of the very 
 essence of liberty that the power should be so divided, dis- 
 tributed, and organized, that one interest may check the 
 other, so as to prevent the excessive action of the separate 
 interests of the community against each other ; on the prin- 
 ciple that organized power can only be checked by organized 
 power ? 
 
 The truth of these doctrines was fully understood at the 
 time of the formation of this constitution. It was then 
 clearly foreseen and foretold what must be the inevitable 
 consequences of concentrating all the powers of the system 
 in this Government. Yes, we are in the state predicted, fore- 
 told, prophesied from the beginning. All the calamities we 
 have experienced, and those which are yet to come, are the 
 result of the consolidating tendency of the Government ; and 
 unless that tendency be arrested unless we reverse our 
 steps, all that has been foretold will certainly befall us 
 even to the pouring out of the last vial of wrath military 
 despotism. To this fruitful source of woes may be traced 
 that remarkable decay of public virtue ; that rapid growth 
 of corruption and subserviency ; that decline of patriotism ; 
 that increase of faction ^ that tendency to anarchy ; and, 
 finally, that visible approach of the absolute power of one 
 man which so lamentably characterizes the times. Should 
 there be any one seeing and acknowledging all these morbid 
 and dangerous symptoms, who should doubt whether the 
 disease is to be traced to the cause which I have assigned, 
 I would ask him, To what other can it be attributed ? 
 There is no event no, not in the political or moral world, 
 more than in the physical without an adequate cause. I 
 would ask him, Does he attribute it to the people ? to their
 
 388 SPEECHES. 
 
 want of sufficient intelligence and virtue for self-govern- 
 ment ? If the true cause may be traced to them, very mel- 
 ancholy would be our situation ; gloomy would be the pros- 
 pect before us. If such be the fact, that our people are, 
 indeed, incapable of self-government, I know of no people 
 upon earth with whom we might not desire to change con- 
 ditions. When the day conies wherein this people shall be 
 compelled to surrender self-government a people so spirited 
 and so long accustomed to liberty, it will be indeed a day of 
 revolution, of convulsion and blood, such as has rarely, if 
 ever, been witnessed in any age or country ; and, until com- 
 pelled by irresistible evidence, so fearful a cause cannot be 
 admitted. 
 
 Can it be attributed to the nature of our system of 
 government ? Shall we pronounce it radically defective, 
 and incapable of effecting the objects for which it was cre- 
 ated ? If that be, in truth, the case, our situation would 
 be, in fact, not much less calamitous than if attributable to 
 the people. To what other system could we resort ? To a 
 confederation ? That has already been tried, and has proved 
 utterly inadequate. To consolidation ? Keason and experi- 
 ence (as far as we have had experience) proclaim it to be the 
 worst possible form. But if the cause be not in the people 
 or the system, to what can it be attributed but to some mis 7 
 apprehension of the nature and character of our institutions, 
 and consequent misdirection of their powers or functions ? 
 And if so, to what other misapprehension or misdirection 
 but that which directed our system towards consolidation, 
 and consummated its movement, in that direction, in the act 
 proposed to be repealed ? That such is the fact that tin's 
 is the true explanation of all the symptoms of decay and 
 corruption which I have enumerated is, in reality, our only 
 consolation furnishes the only hope that can be ration- 
 ally entertained of extricating ourselves from our present 
 calamity, and of averting the still greater that are impending
 
 SPEECHES. 389 
 
 I know that there are those who take a different, but, in 
 my opinion, a very superficial view of the cause of our diffi- 
 culties. They attribute it exclusively to those who are in 
 power, and see in the misconduct of General Jackson the 
 cause of all that has befallen us. That he has done much 
 to aggravate the evil, I acknowledge with pain. I had my 
 full share of responsibility in elevating him to power, and 
 there once existed between us friendly relations, personal 
 and political ; and I would rejoice had he so continued to 
 conduct himself as to advance the interests of the country, 
 and his own reputation and fame. He certainly might have 
 effected much good. He came into office under circum- 
 stances, and had a weight of popularity which placed much 
 in his power, for good or for evil ; but either from a want of 
 a just comprehension of the duties attached to the situation 
 in which he is placed, or an indisposition to discharge them, 
 or the improper influence and control of those who, unfortu- 
 nately for the country and for himself, have acquired, 
 through flattery and subserviency, an ascendency over him, 
 he has disappointed the hopes of his friends, and realized the 
 predictions of his enemies. But the question recurs, How 
 happened it that he who has proved himself so illy qualified 
 to fill the high station that he occupies, was elected by the 
 people ? If it be attributed to a misapprehension of his 
 qualifications, or to an undue gratitude for distinguished 
 military services, which at times leads astray the most intel- 
 ligent and virtuous people in the selection of rulers how 
 shall we explain his re-election, after he had actually proved 
 himself so incompetent ; after he had violated every pledge 
 which he had made previous to his election ; after he had dis- 
 regarded the principles on which he had permitted his friends 
 and partisans to place his elevation, and had outraged the 
 feelings of the community by attempting to regulate the 
 t domestic intercourse and relations of society ? Shall we say 
 that the feelings of gratitude for military services outweighed
 
 390 SPEECHES. 
 
 all this ? or that the people, with all this experience, were 
 incapable of forming a correct opinion of his conduct or 
 character, or of understanding the tendency of the measures 
 of his administration ? To assert this would be neither more 
 nor less than to assert that they have neither the intelli- 
 gence nor the virtue for self-government ; as the very crite- 
 rion by which their capacity in that respect is tested, is their 
 ability duly to appreciate the character and conduct of public 
 rulers, and the true tendency of their public measures ; and 
 to admit their incapacity in that respect would, in fact, bring 
 us back to the people as the cause. 
 
 To understand truly how the distinguished individual 
 now at the head of affairs was elevated to this exalted sta- 
 tion, in despite of his acknowledged defects in several re- 
 spects, and how he has retained his power among an intelli- 
 gent and patriotic people, notwithstanding all the objections 
 to his administration that have been stated, we must elevate 
 our views from the individual, and his qualifications and con- 
 duct, to the working of the system itself, by which only we 
 can come to a knowledge of the true cause of our present 
 condition ; how we have arrived at it, and by what means 
 we can extricate ourselves from its dangers and difficulties. 
 I do not deem it necessary, in taking this view, to go back 
 and trace the operation of our Government from the com- 
 mencement, or to point out the departure from its true prin- 
 ciples from the beginning, with the evils thence resulting, 
 however interesting and instructive the investigation might 
 be. I might show that, from the first beginning with the 
 formation of our constitution there were two parties in the 
 Convention ; one in favor of a national, or, what is the same 
 thing, a consolidated government, and the other in favor of 
 the confederative principle ; how the latter, from being in 
 the minority at first, gradually, and after a long struggle, 
 gained the ascendency ; and how the fortunate result of that 
 ascendency terminated in the establishment of that beautiful.
 
 SPEECHES. 391 
 
 complex, federative system of government which I have at- 
 tempted to explain. 
 
 I might show that the struggle between the two parties 
 did not terminateVith the adoption of the constitution ; that 
 after it went into operation the national party gained the as- 
 cendency in the councils, of the country ; and that the result 
 of that ascendency was to give an impulse to the Government 
 in the direction to which their principles led, and from which 
 it never afterwards recovered. I am far from attributing 
 this to any sinister design. The party were not less distin- 
 guished for patriotism than for ability, and no doubt honestly 
 intended to give the system a fair trial ; but they would have 
 been more than men, if their attachment to a favorite plan 
 had not biased their feelings and judgment. I, said Mr. C., 
 avail myself of the occasion to avow my high respect for both 
 of the great parties which divided the country in its early 
 history. They were both eminently honest and patriotic, 
 and the preference which each gave to its respective views 
 resulted from a zealous attachment to the public interest. 
 At that early period, before there was any experience as to 
 the operation of the system, it is not surprising that one 
 should believe that the danger was a tendency to anarchy, 
 while the other believed it to be towards despotism ; and that 
 these different theoretical views should honestly have had a 
 decided influence on their public conduct. 
 
 I pass over the intermediate events : the reaction against 
 the national, or, as it was then called, federal party the 
 elevation of Mr. Jefferson in consequence of that reaction in 
 1801 and the gradual departure (from the influence of 
 power) of the republican party from the principles which 
 brought them into office. I come down at once to the year 
 eighteen hundred and twenty-four, when a protective tariff 
 was for the first time adopted ; when the power to impose 
 duties, granted for the purpose of raising revenue, was con- 
 verted into an instrument of regulating, controlling, and or-
 
 392 SPEECHES. 
 
 ganmng the entire capital and industry of the country, aiid 
 placing them under the influence of this Government ; and 
 when the principles of consolidation gained an entire ascend- 
 ency in both Houses of Congress. Its first fruit was to give 
 a sectional action to the Government, and, of course, a sec- 
 tional character to political parties arraying the non-export- 
 ing States against the exporting, and the Northern against 
 the Southern section. 
 
 It is my wish to speak of the events to which I feel my- 
 self compelled to refer, in illustration of the practical ope- 
 ration of that consolidating tendency of the Government, 
 which was consummated by the act proposed to be repealed, 
 and which I believe to be the cause of all our evils, with the 
 greatest possible moderation. I know how delicate a task it 
 is to speak of recent political events, and of the actors con- 
 cerned in them ; and I would, on this occasion, gladly avoid 
 so painful a duty, if. I did not believe that truth and the pub- 
 lic interest require it. Without a full understanding of the 
 events of this period, from 1824 down to the present time, 
 it is impossible that we can have a just knowledge of the 
 cause of our present condition, or a clear perception of the 
 means of remedying it. To avoid all personal feeling, I 
 shall endeavor to recede, in imagination, a century from the 
 present time, and from that distant position regard the events 
 to which I allude, in that spirit of philosophical inquiry by 
 which an earnest seeker after truth, at so remote a day, may 
 be supposed to be actuated. I feel I may be justified in 
 speaking with the less reserve of these events, as the great 
 question which, during the greater part of the period, so 
 deeply agitated the country (the protective tariff), may now 
 be considered as terminated in the adjustment of the last 
 winter, never to be reagitated, as I trust ; and, of course, 
 may be spoken of with the freedom of a past event. 
 
 But to proceed with the narrative. The Presidential 
 contest, which was terminated the next year, placed, the ex-
 
 SPEECHES. 393 
 
 ecutive department under the control of the same interest that 
 controlled the legislative so that all the departments of this 
 Government were united in favor of that great interest. The 
 successful termination of the election in favor of the individ- 
 ual then elevated to the chief magistracy, and for whom I 
 then and now entertain kind feelings, may be attributed in 
 part, no doubt, to the predominance of the tariff interest ; 
 and may be considered as the first instance of the predomi- 
 nance of that interest in a Presidential contest. 
 
 Let us pause at this point (it is an important one), in 
 order to survey the state of public affairs at that juncture. 
 In casting our eyes over the scene, we find the country divided 
 into two great hostile and sectional parties placed in con- 
 flict on a question, believed to be on both sides of vital im- 
 portance, in reference to their respective interests ; and, on 
 the side of the weaker party, believed, in addition, to involve 
 a constitutional question of the greatest magnitude, and 
 having a direct and important bearing on the duration of the 
 liberty and constitution of the country. In this conflict, we 
 find both Houses of Congress, with the chief magistrate, and, 
 of course, the Government itself, on the side of the dominant 
 interest, and identified with it in principles and feelings. In 
 this state of things, a great and solemn question, What 
 ought to be done ? was forced on the decision of the minor- 
 ity. Shall we acquiesce, or shall we oppose ? and if oppose, 
 how ? To acquiesce quietly would be to subject the property 
 and industry of an entire section of the country to an un- 
 limited and indefinite exaction ; as it was openly avowed 
 that the protective system could only be perfected by being 
 carried to the point of prohibition on all articles of which a 
 sufficient supply could be made or manufactured in the 
 Country. To submit under such circumstances would have 
 been, according to our view of the subject, a gross dereliction 
 both of interest and duty. It was impossible. But how 
 could the majority be successfully opposed, possessed, as they
 
 394 SPEECHES. 
 
 were, of every department of the Government ? How, in this 
 state of things, could the minority effect a change in their 
 favor through the ordinary operations of the Government ? 
 They could effect no favorable change in this or the other 
 House the majority in both but too faithfully representing 
 what their constituents believed to be the interests of their 
 section, to whom only, and not to us, they were responsible. 
 The only branch of the Government, then, on which the mi- 
 nority could act, and through which they could hope to effect 
 a favorable change, was the Executive. The President is 
 elected by a majority of the whole electoral votes ; and, of 
 course, the minority have a weight in his election, in propor- 
 tion to their number and the unity of their voice. Here was 
 all our hope, and to this point all our efforts to effect a change 
 were necessarily directed. But even here our power of act- 
 ing with effect was limited to a narrow circle. It would 
 have been hopeless to present a candidate openly and fully 
 identified with our own interest. Defeat would have been 
 the certain result, had his acknowledged qualifications for 
 intelligence, experience, and patriotism been ever so great. 
 We were thus forced, by inevitable consequence, neither to 
 be avoided nor resisted, to abandon the contest, or to select 
 a candidate who, at best, was but a choice of evils ; one 
 whose opinions were intermediate or doubtful on the subject 
 which divided the two sections. However great the hazard, 
 or the objections to such a selection for such an office, it 
 must be charged, not to us, but to that action of the system 
 which compelled us to make the choice compelling us by 
 that consolidating tendency which had drawn under the con- 
 trol of this Government the local and reserved powers be- 
 longing to the States separately ; the exercise of which had 
 necessarily given the direction to its action, that created and 
 placed in conflict the two great sectional, political parties. 
 But it was not sufficient that the opinion of our candi- 
 date should not be fully in coincidence with our own. That
 
 SPEECHES. 395 
 
 alone could not be sufficient to insure his success. It was ne- 
 cessary that he should have great personal popularity, dis- 
 tinct from political ; to be, in a word, a successful military 
 chieftain, which gives a popularity the most extensive, and 
 the least affected by political considerations ; and this was 
 another fruit a necessary fruit of consolidation. To these 
 recommendations others must be added, in order to conciliate 
 the feelings of the minority that he should be identified, 
 for instance, with them in interest possess the same proper- 
 ty, and pursue the same system of industry. These qualifica- 
 tions, all of which were made indispensable by the juncture, 
 pointed clearly to one man, and but one General Jackson. 
 There was, however, another circumstance which gave him 
 great prominence and strength, and which greatly contributed 
 to recommend him as the opposing candidate. He had been 
 defeated in the Presidential contest before the House of Rep- 
 resentatives (though returned with the highest vote) under 
 circumstances which were supposed to involve a disregard of 
 the public voice. I do not deem it necessary to enter into an 
 inquiry as to the principles which controlled the election, or 
 as to the view of the actors in that scene. Many considera- 
 tions doubtless governed, and among others, the feelings of 
 prominent individuals in reference to the candidates, and 
 their opinion of their respective qualifications, besides the 
 one to which I have alluded that of giving to the dominant 
 interest that control over the executive which they had over 
 the legislative department. 
 
 These combined motives, as I have stated, pointed dis- 
 tinctly to General Jackson. He was selected as the candi- 
 date of the minority and the canvass entered into with all 
 that zeal which belonged to the magnitude of the stake, 
 united with the consciousness of honest and patriotic pur- 
 pose. The leading objects were to effect a great political re- 
 form, and to arrest, if possible, what we believed to be a 
 dangerous, and felt to be an oppressive action of the Govern-
 
 396 SPEECHES. 
 
 ment. It is true that the qualifications of the individual, 
 thus necessarily selected, were believed to be, in many im- 
 portant particulars, defective ; that he lacked experience, ex- 
 tensive political information, and command of temper ; but 
 it was believed that his firmness of purpose, and his natural 
 sagacity, by calling to his aid the experience, the talents, the 
 patriotism of those who supported his claims, would com- 
 pensate for these defects. 
 
 I do not deem it necessary to enter into a history of this 
 interesting and animated canvass ; but there is one circum- 
 stance attending it so striking, so full of instruction, and so 
 illustrative of the point under consideration, that I cannot 
 pass it in silence. The canvass soon ran into the great and 
 absorbing question of the day, as all ordinary diseases run 
 into the prevailing one. Those in power sought to avail 
 themselves of the popularity of the system with which they 
 were identified. I speak it not in censure. It was natural, 
 perhaps unavoidable, as connected with the morbid action of 
 the Government. That portion of our allies identified with 
 the same interest, were in like manner, and from the same 
 motive and cause, forced into a rivalry of zeal for the same 
 interest. The result of these causes combined with a mo- 
 nopolizing spirit of the protective system, was the tariff of 
 eighteen hundred and twenty-eight : that disastrous measure, 
 which has brought so many calamities upon us, and put in 
 peril the union and liberty of the country. It poured mil- 
 lions into the treasury beyond even the most extravagant 
 wants of the Government ; which, on the payment of the 
 public debt, caused that hazardous juncture, resulting from 
 a large undisposable surplus revenue, which has spread such 
 deep corruption in every direction. 
 
 This disastrous event opened our eyes (I mean myself and 
 those immediately connected with me) as to the full extent 
 of the danger and oppression of the protective system, and 
 the hazard of failing* to effect the reform intended through
 
 SPEECHES. 397 
 
 the election of General Jackson. With these disclosures, it 
 became necessary to seek some other ultimate, but more cer- 
 tain measure of protection. We turned to the constitution 
 to find this remedy. We directed a more diligent and care- 
 ful scrutiny into its provisions, in order to ascertain fully the 
 nature and character of our political system. We found a 
 certain and effectual remedy in that great fundamental di- 
 vision of the powers of the system between this Government 
 and its independent co-ordinates, the separate governments 
 of the States ; to be called into action to arrest the uncon- 
 stitutional acts of this Government, by the interposition 
 of the States the paramount source from which both 
 governments derive their power. But in relying on this 
 as our ultimate remedy, we did not abate our zeal in 
 the Presidential canvass ; we still hoped that General Jack- 
 son, if elected, would effect the necessary reform, and there- 
 by supersede the necessity for calling into action the sover- 
 eign authority of the State, which we were anxious to avoid. 
 With these views, the two were pushed with equal zeal at the 
 same time ; which double operation commenced in the fall 
 of eighteen hundred and twenty-eight, but a few months af- 
 ter the passage of the tariff act of that year ; and at the 
 meeting of the Legislature of the State, at the same period, 
 a paper, known as the South Carolina Exposition, was re- 
 ported to that body, containing a full development, as well on 
 the constitutional point, as on the operation of the protective 
 system, preparatory to a state of things which might eventual- 
 ly render the action of the State necessary in order to protect 
 her rights and interests, and to stay a course of policy which 
 we believed would, if not arrested, prove destructive of lib- 
 erty and the constitution. This movement on the part of 
 the State, places beyond all controversy the true character of 
 the motives which governed us in the Presidential canvass, 
 We were not the mere partisans of the candidate we support- 
 ed. W T e aimed at a far more exalted object than his elec-
 
 398 SPEECHES. 
 
 tion the defence of the rights of the State, and the security 
 of liberty and of the constitution. To this we held his 
 election entirely subordinate. This we pursued, unwarped 
 by selfish or ambitious views. 
 
 The contest terminated in the elevation of him who now 
 presides ; but it soon became apparent that our apprehen- 
 sions that we might be disappointed in the expected reform, 
 were not without foundation. That occurred, which we 
 ought, perhaps, to have expected, and which, under similar 
 circumstances, has rarely failed to follow. He who was ele- 
 vated to power proved to be more solicitous to retain what 
 he had acquired than to fulfil the expectation of those who 
 had honestly contributed to his elevation, with a view to 
 political reform. The tale may be readily told : not a promise 
 fulfilled not a measure adopted to correct the abuses of the 
 system not a step taken to arrest the progress of consoli- 
 dation, and to restore the confederative principles of our 
 Government not a look cast to the near approach of the 
 payment of the public debt nor an effort made to reduce 
 gradually the duties, in order to prevent a surplus revenue, 
 and to save the manufactures which had grown up under the 
 protective system, from the hazard of a shock caused by a 
 sudden reduction of the duties. All were forgotten ; and, 
 instead of attempting to control events, the Executive was 
 only solicitous to occupy a position the most propitious to 
 retain and increase his power. It required but little pene- 
 tration to see that the position sought was a middle one 
 between the contending parties ; to be identified with no 
 principle or policy, but to rely on the personal popularity of 
 the incumbent, and the power and patronage of the Govern- 
 ment, as the means of support. Hence a third party was 
 formed, a personal and Government party, made up of those 
 who were attached to the person and the fortunes of a suc- 
 cessful political chief. In a word, we had exhibited to our 
 view, for the first time under our system, that most danger-
 
 SPEECHES. 399 
 
 ous spectacle, in a country like ours, a prerogative party, 
 who take their creed wholly from the mandate of their chief 
 The times were eminently propitious for the formation of 
 such a party. Millions were poured into the treasury by the 
 high protective duties of eighteen hundred and twenty-eight, 
 furnishing an overflowing fund to secure the services of ex- 
 pectants and partisans. Against these superabundant means 
 of power there was not, nor could there be, as things were 
 situated, any effective resistance all being necessarily with- 
 drawn in consequence of the fierce contest between the two" 
 sections which continued to rage with increasing violence, 
 and which wasted the strength of the parties on each other, 
 instead of opposing the rapidly-increasing power of the 
 Executive. This, and not the personal or the military pop- 
 ularity of General Jackson, is the true explanation of the fact, 
 which has struck so many with wonder, that no misconduct 
 that no neglect of duty nor perversions of the power of 
 Government, however gross, have been able to shake his 
 power and popularity ; and that the people have looked idly 
 on, apparently bereaved of every patriotic sentiment, or 
 joined to swell the tide of power with shouts of approbation 
 at every act, however outrageous. I do not doubt that his 
 personal popularity, arising from his military achievements, 
 contributed much to his elevation (in fact, it was one of the 
 elements, as stated, which governed his selection as a candi- 
 date), and to sustain him while in power; but I feel a 
 perfect conviction that, whatever advantage he has gained 
 from this source, has been more than counterbalanced by the 
 mismanagement and blunders of his administration ; and 
 that, under the circumstances, it would be equally diffi- 
 cult to expel from power any individual of sagacity and 
 firmness, in possession of that department. Let us learn, 
 from the instructive history of this interesting period, that 
 despotic power, under our system, commences with the usur- 
 pation of this Government on the reserved powers of the
 
 400 SPEECHES. 
 
 States, and terminates in the concentration of all the powers 
 of this Government in the person of a chief magistrate ; and 
 that, unless the first be resisted, the latter follows by a law as 
 necessary, resistless, and inevitable, as that which governs the 
 movements of the solar system. 
 
 As soon as it was perceived that he whom we had ele- 
 vated to office was, as I have stated, more intent to retain 
 and augment his power than to meet the just expectations on 
 which he was supported, we totally despaired of relief and 
 'reform through the ordinary action of this Government, and 
 separated, from that moment, from the administration ; with- 
 drew from the political contest here, and concentrated all our 
 energies on that ultimate remedy which we had taken the 
 precaution to prepare, in order to be called into action in the 
 event of things taking the direction they have. 
 
 An active discussion followed in the State, in which the 
 principles and character of our political institutions were fully 
 investigated, and a clear perception of the danger to which 
 the country was exposed was impressed upon the public 
 mind. Still, the determination was fixed not to act while 
 there was a ray of hope .of redress from the Government ; and 
 we accordingly waited the approach of the final payment of 
 the public debt, when all pretexts for keeping up the extrav- 
 agant duties of eighteen hundred and twenty-eight would 
 cease. The near approach of that event caused the passage 
 of the act of eighteen hundred and thirty-two, which was 
 proclaimed on both sides, by the opposition and the admin- 
 istration, to be a final and permanent adjustment of the 
 protective system. We felt every disposition to acquiesce in 
 any reasonable adjustment, but it was impossible, consistently 
 with our views of the nature of our rights, and the conse- 
 quences involved in the contest, to submit to the act. The 
 protective principle was fully maintained ; the reduction was 
 small, and the distribution of the burden between the two 
 sections more unequal than under the act of eighteen hun-
 
 SPEECHES. 401 
 
 dred and twenty-eight. Every effort was made to magnify 
 the amount of reduction. With that view false and decep- 
 tive calculations were made, and that, too, in official docu- 
 ments, in order to make the impression that the revenue 
 would be reduced to the legitimate wants of the Government, 
 or, at least, nearly so. We were not to be imposed upon by 
 such calculations. We clearly perceived that the income 
 would be at least from twenty-two to twenty-five millions of 
 dollars, nearly double what the Government ought to expend; 
 and we as clearly saw how much so large a permanent sur- 
 plus must contribute to corrupt the country and undermine 
 our political institutions. Seeing this, with a prospect of an 
 indefinite continuance of the heavy and useless tax levied in 
 the shape of duties, the State interposed, and by that inter- 
 position prepared to arrest within its limits the operation of 
 the protective system interposed, not to dissolve the Union, 
 as was calumniously charged, but to compel an adjustment 
 here or through a convention of the States, or, if an adjust- 
 ment could not be had through either, to compel the Gov- 
 ernment to abandon the protective system. 
 
 The moment was portentous. Our political system rocked 
 to the centre. Whatever diseases existed within, engendered 
 by long corruption and abuse, were struck to the surface. 
 The Proclamation and the message of the President appeared, 
 containing doctrines never before officially avowed going far 
 beyond the extreme tenets of the federal party, and in direct 
 conflict with all that had ever been entertained by the re- 
 publican party ; and yet, such was the corruption, such the 
 subserviency to power, that both parties, forgetting the past, 
 abandoning every political principle, however sacred or long 
 entertained, rushed to the embrace of the new creed sud- 
 denly, instantly, without the slightest hesitation. Never did 
 a free people exhibit so degraded a spectacle give such 
 evidence of the loose attachment to principle, or greater sub- 
 serviency to power. At this moment the current of events
 
 402 SPEECHES. 
 
 tended towards despotic authority in the person of the chief 
 magistrate on the one side, &nd to disunion on the other ; on one 
 side to clothe the President with power more than dictatorial, 
 in order to maintain the ascendency of the protective system ; 
 and, on the other, to resist the loss of liberty at every hazard. 
 Fortunately for the country, there was, at the time, in the 
 councils of the nation an individual who had the highest 
 weight of authority with the supporters of that system one 
 who had done more to advance it than any other who was 
 the most intimately identified with it, and to whom, of course, 
 the task of adjustment most appropriately belonged. For- 
 tunately, also, he had the disposition and the fortitude to 
 undertake it. An adjustment followed ; the crisis of the 
 disease passed ; the body politic from that moment became 
 convalescent ; the tendency to despotic power in the Executive 
 was weakened doubly weakened by enabling those who had 
 been so long wasting their strength in mutual conflict, to 
 unite in resisting the usurpations of that department, as we 
 this day behold on the question of the deposits; and by 
 diminishing the revenue the food on which it had grown to 
 such enormous dimensions. In a short time the decreasing 
 scale of duties will cause the effect of this diminution to be 
 felt a period that will be hastened by that profuse and 
 profligate disbursement which has nearly doubled the public 
 expenditure, and which is so rapidly absorbing the surplus 
 revenue. 
 
 I have said that the crisis is passed ; yet there remain 
 some troublesome and even dangerous symptoms, growing 
 out of the former cause of the disease, which, however, may 
 be overcome by skill and decision ; unless, indeed, they 
 should run into the lurking cause of another, and most dan- 
 gerous disease, with which it is intimately connected, and 
 excite it into action ; I mean the rotten state of the cur- 
 rency. There are indications, of a very dangerous and alarm- 
 ing character, of this tendency, at the point where the cur-
 
 SPEECHES. 403 
 
 rency is the most disordered. I refer to the measure now 
 pending before the Legislature of New- York, to pledge the 
 capital and the industry of the State, to the amount of six 
 millions of dollars, in support of the banks a measure of a 
 kind that a British minister (Lord Althorp), with all the 
 power of parliament to support him, refused to adopt, be- 
 cause of its dangerous and corrupting tendency. 
 
 Let us now turn, and inquire, What would have been 
 the course of events if the State had not interposed, and 
 things had been permitted to take their natural course ? 
 The act of eighteen hundred and thirty-two was proclaimed, 
 as I have stated, on both sides, to be a final settlement of 
 the tariff question, and of course, was intended to be a per- 
 manent law of the land. The revenue, as I have already 
 said, under that act, and the sales of public lands, would, 
 in all probability, be not less than twenty-five millions of dol- 
 lars per annum : a sum exceeding the legitimate wants of 
 the Government, estimated on a liberal scale, by ten or 
 eleven millions of dollars. Now, I ask, What would have 
 been our situation, with so large an annual surplus, and a 
 fierce sectional conflict raging between the Northern and 
 Southern portions of the Union ? If we find it so difficult 
 to resist the usurpation of the executive department with a 
 temporary surplus revenue, to continue at most but for one 
 or two years, how much more difficult would it have been to 
 resist with a permanent surplus such as I have stated ? If 
 we find it so difficult to resist that department when those 
 who have been separated by the tariff are united, how utterly 
 hopeless would have been the prospect of resistance were 
 that question now open, and were those who are now 
 united against executive encroachments exhausting their 
 strength against each other? Is it not obvious that the 
 executive power, under such circumstances, would have been 
 irresistible, and that we should have been impelled rapidly 
 to despotism or disunion ? One or the other would cer-
 
 404 SPEECHES. 
 
 tainly have followed if events had been permitted to move 
 in the channel in which they were then flowing and des- 
 potism much more probable than disunion. It is almost 
 without example that free states should be disunited in con- 
 sequence of the violence of internal conflicts ; but very nu- 
 merous are the cases in which such conflicts have terminated 
 in the establishment of despotic power. The danger of dis- 
 union is small ; that of despotism great. We have, how- 
 ever, I trust, escaped, for the present, the danger of both, for 
 which we are indebted to that great conservative principle of 
 our system, which considers this Government and that of 
 the States as co-ordinates ; and which proved successful, 
 although rejected by every State but one, and although 
 called into action on the most trying occasion that can be 
 imagined, and under the most adverse circumstances. 
 
 I said that the danger has passed for the present. The 
 seeds of the disease still remain in the system. The act 
 which I propose to repeal accompanied the adjustment of 
 the tariff. It was passed solely on the ground of recognizing 
 the principles in which it originated, and to establish them, 
 as far as an act of Congress could do so, as the permanent 
 law of the land. While these seeds remain, it will be in 
 vain to expect a healthy state of the body politic : alienation, 
 the loss of confidence, suspicion, jealousy, on the part of the 
 weaker section at least, who have experienced the bitter 
 fruits that spring from those principles, must accompany the 
 movements of this Government. But these seeds will not 
 remain in the system without germinating. Unless removed, 
 the genius of consolidation will again exhibit itself ; but in 
 what form, whether in the revival of the question from whose 
 dangers we have not yet wholly escaped ; whether between 
 North and South, East and West ; whether between the slave- 
 holding and the non-slaveholding States ; the rich and poor, 
 or the capitalist and the operatives, it is not for me to say ; 
 but that it will again revive (unless, by your votes, you ex-
 
 SPEECHES. 405 
 
 punge the act from your statute-book), to divide, distract, 
 and corrupt the community, is certain. Nor is it much less 
 so that, when it again revives, it will pass through all those 
 stages which we have witnessed, and, in all human proba- 
 bility, consummate itself, and terminate, finally, in a mili- 
 tary despotism. Keverse the scene let the act be oblite- 
 rated for ever from among our laws ; let the principle of 
 consolidation be for ever suppressed, and that admirable and 
 beautiful federative system, which I have so imperfectly por- 
 trayed, be firmly established, and renovated health and 
 vigor will be restored to the body politic, and our country 
 may yet realize that permanent state of liberty, prosperity, 
 and greatness, which we all once so fondly hoped was our 
 allotted destiny. 
 
 SPEECH 
 
 On the Protest of the President of the United States, 
 delivered in the Senate, May 6th, 1834. 
 
 IN order to have a clear conception of the nature of the 
 controversy in which the Senate finds itself involved with the 
 President, it will be necessary to pass in review the events 
 of the last few months, however familiar they may be to the 
 members of this body. 
 
 Their history may be very briefly given. It is well 
 known to all, that the act incorporating the Bank of the 
 United States made that institution the fiscal agent of the 
 Government ; and that, among other provisions, it directed 
 that the public money should be deposited in its vaults. 
 The same act vested the Secretary of the Treasury with the 
 power of withholding the deposits, and, in the event of with- 
 holding them, required him to report his reasons to Congress.
 
 406 SPEECHES. 
 
 The late Secretary, on the interference of the President, re- 
 fused to withhold the deposits, on the ground that satisfac- 
 tory reasons could not be assigned ; for which the President 
 removed him, and appointed the present incumbent in his 
 place expressly with a view that he should perform the act 
 his predecessor had refused to do. He accordingly removed 
 the deposits, and reported his reasons to Congress ; and the 
 whole transaction was thus brought up for our approval or dis- 
 approval entirely by the act of the Executive, without partici- 
 pation or agency on our part ; and we were thus placed in a 
 situation in which we were compelled to express our appro- 
 bation or disapprobation of the transaction, or to shrink from 
 the performance of an important duty. We could not hesi- 
 tate. The subject was accordingly taken up, and after 
 months of deliberation, in which the whole transaction was 
 fully investigated and considered, and after the opinions of 
 all, the friends as well as the opponents of the administra- 
 tion, were fully expressed, the Senate passed a resolution 
 disapproving the reasons of the Secretary. But they were 
 compelled to go further. That resolution covered only a 
 part of the transaction, and that not the most important. 
 The Secretary was but the agent of the President in the 
 transaction. He had been placed in the situation he occu- 
 pied expressly with a view of executing the order of the 
 President, who had openly declared that he assumed the 
 responsibility, and his declaration was reiterated here in the 
 debate by those who are known to speak his sentiments. To 
 omit, under these circumstances, an expression of the opinion 
 of the Senate in relation to this transaction, viewed as the 
 act of the President, would have been, on the part of the 
 Senate, a manifest dereliction of duty. 
 
 With this impression the second resolution was adopted. 
 It was drawn up in the most general terms, and with great 
 care, with the view to avoid an expression of opinion as to the 
 motive of the Executive, and to limit the expression simply
 
 SPEECHES. 407 
 
 to the fact, that, in the part he had taken in the transaction, 
 he had assumed powers neither conferred by the constitution 
 nor the laws, but in derogation of both. It is this resolution, 
 thus forced upon us, and thus cautiously expressed, which 
 has so deeply offended the President, and called forth his 
 Protest, in which he has undertaken to judge of the powers 
 of the "Senate ; to assign limits in their exercise to which 
 they may, and beyond which they shall not go ; to deny 
 their right to pass the resolution ; to charge them with 
 usurpation and the violation of law and of the constitution 
 in adopting it ; and, finally, to interpose between the Senate 
 and their constituents, and virtually to pronounce upon the 
 validity of the votes of some of its members -on. the ground 
 that they do not conform with the wilL-of their constituents. 
 
 This is a brief statement of the controversy, which pre- 
 sents for consideration the question, What is the real nature of 
 the issue between the parties ? a question of the utmost mag- 
 nitude, and on the just and full comprehension of which the 
 wisdom and propriety of our course must mainly depend. 
 
 It would be a great mistake to suppose that the issue 
 involves the question, whether the Senate had a right to 
 pass the resolution or not ; or what is its character ; or 
 whether it be true in point of fact or principle ; or whether 
 it was expedient to adopt it. All these are important ques- 
 tions, but they were fully and deliberately considered, and 
 were finally decided by the Senate, on their responsibility to 
 their constituents, in the adoption of the resolution finally 
 and irrevocably decided ; so that they cannot be opened for 
 reconsideration and decision by the will of the body itself 
 according to the rules of its proceedings, much less on the 
 demand of the President. No ; the question is not^whether 
 we had a right L to _pass_the resolution. It -is- one of a~very 
 different character, and jof much greater magnitude. It 4s 
 whether the President has a right to question our decision ? 
 This Js-the real qneajjonjat issue a question which goes
 
 408 SPEECHES. 
 
 in its consequences to all the powers of the Senate, and 
 which involves in its decision the fact, whether it is a sepa- 
 rate and independent branch of the Government, or a mere 
 appendix of the executive department. If the President 
 has, indeed, the right to question our opinion if we are in 
 fact accountable to him, then all that he has done has been 
 rightfully done ; then he would have the right to send us his 
 Protest ; then he would have the right to judge of our 
 powers, and to assign limits beyond which we shall not pass ; 
 then he would have the right to deny our authority to pass 
 the resolution, and to accuse us of usurpation and the viola- 
 tion of law and of the constitution in its adoption. But if 
 he has not the right, if we are not accountable to him, then 
 all that he has done has been wrongfully done, and his whole 
 course from beginning to end, in relation to this matter, 
 would be an open and palpable violation of the constitution 
 and the privileges of the Senate. 
 
 Fortunately, this very important question, which has so 
 direct a bearing on the very existence of the Senate as a 
 deliberative body, is susceptible of the most certain and 
 unquestionable solution. Under our system, all who exercise 
 power are bound to show, when questioned, by what author- 
 ity it is exercised. I deny the right of the President to ques- 
 tion the proceedings of the Senate utterly deny it ; and I 
 call upon his advocates and supporters on this floor to exhibit 
 his authority ; to point out the article, the section, and the 
 clause of the constitution which contains it ; to show, in a 
 word, the express grant of the power. None other can fulfil 
 the requirements of the constitution. I proclaim it as a 
 truth as an unquestionable truth of the highest import, and 
 heretofore not sufficiently understood, that the President has 
 no right to exercise any implied or constructive power, I 
 speak upon the authority of the constitution itself, which, by 
 an express grant, has vested all the implied and constructive 
 powers in Congress, and in Congress alone. Hear what the
 
 SPEECHES. 409 
 
 constitution says : Congress shall have power " to make all 
 laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into 
 execution the foregoing powers (those granted to Con- 
 gress), and all other power vested by this constitution in 
 the Government of the United States, or in any department 
 or officer thereof." 
 
 Comment is unnecessary the result is inevitable. The 
 Executive cannot, and, I may add, no department except the 
 legislative. caiT exercise any 'powe^lH^Towf express grant by 
 the constitution, or by authority of law a noble and wise 
 provision, full of the most important consequences. By it, 
 ours Is made emphatically a constitutional and legal govern- 
 ment, instead of a government controlled by the discretion 
 or caprice of those who are appointed to administer and exe- 
 cute its powers. By it, our Government, instead of consist- 
 ing of threejjndependent, separate, conflicting and hostile 
 departments, has all its powers blended harmoniously into 
 one, without the danger of conflict, and without destroying 
 the separate and independent existence of the parts. Let us 
 pause for a moment to contemplate this admirable provision, 
 and the simple but efficient contrivance by which these hap- 
 py results are secured. 
 
 It has often been said that this provision of the constitu- 
 tion was unnecessary ; that it grew out of abundant caution, 
 to remove the possibility of a doubt as to the existence of 
 implied or constructive powers ; and that they would have 
 existed without it, and to the full extent that they now do. 
 They who consider the provision in this light, as mere sur- 
 plusage, do great injustice to the wisdom of those who formed 
 the constitution. I shall not deny that implied or construc- 
 tive powers would have existed, and to the full extent that 
 they now do, without this provision ; but, had it been omit- 
 ted, a most important question would have been left open to 
 controversy Where would such powers reside? In each 
 department ? Would each have had the right to interpret
 
 410 SPEECHES. 
 
 ills own power, and to assume, on its own will and responsi- 
 bility, all the powers necessary to carry into effect those grant- 
 ed to it by the constitution ? What would have been the 
 consequence ? Who can doubt that a state of perpetual and 
 dangerous conflict between the departments would be the 
 necessary, the inevitable result, and that the strongest would 
 
 / ultimately absorb all the powers of the other departments ? 
 / Need I designate which is that strongest ? Need I prove 
 that the Executive, the armed interpreter, as I said on an- 
 other occasion, vested with the patronage of the Government, 
 would ultimately become the sole expounder of the constitu- 
 tion ? It was to avoid this dangerous conflict between the 
 departments, and to provide most effectually against the 
 
 N. abuses of discretionary or implied powers, that this provision 
 has vested all the implied powers in Congress. But, it may 
 be asked, are they not liable to abuse in the hands of Con- 
 gress ? Will not the same principle of our nature, which 
 impels one department to encroach upon the other, equally 
 impel Congress to encroach upon the executive department ? 
 Those who framed the constitution clearly foresaw this dan- 
 ger, and have taken measures effectually to guard against it. 
 With this view, the constitution has raised the President 
 from being a mere executive officer, to a participation in the/ 
 legislative functions of the Government ; and has, among 
 other legislative powers, clothed him with that of the veto, 
 mainly with a view to protect his rights against the encroach- 
 ment of Congress. In virtue of this important power, no bill 
 can become a law till submitted for his consideration. If he 
 approves, it becomes a law ; but if he disapproves, it is re- 
 turned to the House in which it originated, and cannot be- 
 come one unless passed by two-thirds of both Houses. And 
 in order to guard his powers against the encroachments of 
 Congress, through all the avenues by which it can possibly be 
 approached, the constitution expressly provides, " that every 
 order, resolution, or vote to which the concurrence of the
 
 SPEECHES. 411 
 
 Senate and House of ^Representatives may be necessary, 
 [none other can operate beyond the limits of their respective 
 halls,] except on a question of adjournment, shall be pre- 
 sented to the President of the United States, and, before the 
 same shall take effect, shall be approved by him ; or, being 
 disapproved by him, shall be repassed by two-thirds of the 
 Senate and the House of Bepresentatives, according to the 
 rules and limitations prescribed in the case of a bill." Theses 
 provisions, with the patronage of the Executive, give ample 
 protection to the powers of the President against the en-, 
 croachment of Congress, as experience has abundantly shown. 
 But here a very important question presents itself, which, 
 when properly considered, throws a flood of light on the ques- 
 tion under consideration. Why has the constitution limite 
 the veto power to bills, and to the orders, votes, and resolu-^ 
 tions, requiring the concurrence of both Houses ? Why not 
 also extend it to their separate votes, orders, or resolutions ? 
 But one answer can be given. The object was to protect tl 
 independence of the two Houses ; to prevent the Execute 
 from interfering with their proceedings, or to have any 
 trol over them, as is attempted in his Protest ; and this, < 
 the great principle which lies at the foundation of liberty, 
 and without which it cannot be preserved that deliberative 
 bodies should be left without extraneous control or influence, 
 free to express their opinions and to conduct their proceed-/ 
 ings, according to their own sense of propriety. And 
 find, accordingly, that the constitution has not only limited 
 the veto to the cases requiring the concurring votes of the 
 two Houses, but has expressly vested each House with the 
 power of establishing its own rules of proceeding, according 
 to its will and pleasure, without limitation or check. With- 
 in these walls, then, the Senate is the sole and absolut 
 judge of its own powers ; and as to the mode of 9onducting 
 the business, and determining how, and when, our opinions 
 ought to be expressed, there is no other standard of right 01
 
 412 SPEECHES. 
 
 wrong to which an appeal can be made, but the constitution, 
 /and the rules of proceeding established under the authority 
 / of the Senate itself. And so solicitous is the constitution to 
 secure to each House a full control over its own proceedings, 
 And the freest and fullest expression of opinion on all sub- 
 jects, that even the majesty of the laws are relaxed to insure 
 a perfect freedom of debate. It is worthy of remark, that 
 the provision of the constitution which I have cited, invest- 
 i/| ing Congress solely with the implied or constructive powers, 
 is so worded as not to comprehend the discretionary powers 
 / of each of the two Houses in determining the rules of their 
 L respective proceedings, and which, of course, places each be- 
 *- yond the interference of Congress itself. 
 
 Let us now cast our eyes back, in order that we may 
 comprehend, at a single glance, the admirable arrangements 
 by which the harmony of the Government is secured, with- 
 out impairing the separate existence and independence of 
 either of the departments. In order to prevent the conflicts 
 which would have resulted, necessarily, if each department 
 had been left to construe its own powers, all the implied or 
 constructive powers are vested in Congress ; that Congress 
 should not, through its implied powers, encroach upon the 
 executive department, the President is clothed with the veto 
 power ; and that his veto should not interfere with the rights 
 of the two Houses to control their respective proceedings, it 
 is limited to bills or votes that require the concurrence of the 
 two Houses. It is thus that walls are interposed to protect 
 the rights which belong to us, as a separate constituent mem- 
 ber of the Government, from the encroachments of the Ex- 
 ecutive power ; and it is thus that the power which is placed 
 in his hands, as a shield to protect him against the implied 
 or constructive powers of Congress, is prevented from being 
 converted into a sword to attack the rights exclusively vested 
 -ihe two Houses. 
 Having now established beyond controversy that the
 
 SPEECHES. 413 
 
 President has no implied or constructive power ; that he has 
 no authority to exercise any right not expressly granted to 
 him by the constitution, or vested in him by law ; and that 
 the constitution has secured to the Senate the sole right of 
 regulating its own proceedings, free from all interference, 
 the fabric reared by this paper, and which rests upon the 
 opposite basis, presupposing the right to the fullest and 
 boldest assumption of discretionary powers on the part of the 
 President, falls prostrate in the dust. Entertaining these 
 views, it will not be expected that I should waste the time 
 of the Senate in examining its contents ; but, if additional 
 proofs were necessary to confirm the truth of my remarks, 
 and to show how strong would have been the tendency to 
 conflict, and how dangerous it would have been to have left 
 the several departments in possession of the right to exercise 
 implied powers at their pleasure, this paper would afford the 
 strongest. In illustration of the correctness of this assertion, 
 I will select two or three of its leading positions, which will 
 show what feeble barriers reason or regard to consistency 
 would interpose to prevent conflict between the departments, 
 or to protect the legislative from the executive branch of 
 the Government ; and how regardless the President is of 
 consistency and reason where the object is the advancement 
 of the powers of his department. 
 
 In order to prove that the Senate had no right to pass 
 the resolution in question, the President enters into a long 
 disquisition on the nature and character of our Government. 
 He tells us, that it consists of three separate and indepen- 
 dent departments the legislative, executive, and judicial. 
 That the first is vested in Congress ; the second in the Presi- 
 dent ; and the last in the courts, with a few exceptions, which 
 he enumerates. He also informs us that these departments 
 are coequal, and that neither has the right to coerce or 
 control the other ; and then concludes that the Senate had 
 no right to pass the resolution in question.
 
 414 SPEECHES. 
 
 It is not my intention to inquire whether the view of the 
 Government which the President has presented be, or be not 
 correct ; though it would not be difficult to show that his 
 conception as to their coequality and independence, taken 
 in the ordinary acceptation of these terms, would deprive the 
 Senate of all its judicial powers, and much of its legislative. 
 I will assume that his views are correct ; and that, as co- 
 equal departments, neither has the right to interfere with 
 the other, and what follows ? If we have no right to disap- 
 prove of his conduct, he surely has none, on his own prin- 
 ciple, to disapprove of ours. It would seem impossible that 
 so obvious and necessary a consequence could be overlooked ; 
 yet so blind is ambition in pursuit of power, so regardless of 
 reason or consistency, that the President, while he denies to 
 us the right to interfere with him, or question his acts, does 
 not hesitate to charge the Senate, directly and repeated!} y 
 with usurpation, and a violation of the laws and of the con- 
 stitution. 
 
 The advocates of the President could not but feel the 
 glaring inconsistency and absurdity of his course ; and, in 
 order to reconcile his conduct with the principles he laid 
 down, asserted, in the discussion, that he sent his Protest, not 
 as President of the United States, but in his individual 
 character as Andrew Jackson. We may assert any thing 
 that black is white, or that white is black. Every page, 
 every line of this paper contradicts the assertion. He, 
 throughout, speaks in his official character as President of 
 the United States, and regards the supposed injury that has 
 been done him, as an injury, not in his private, but in his 
 official character. But the explanation only removes the 
 difficulty one step further back. I would ask what right 
 has the President of the United States to divest himself of 
 his official character in a question between him and this body 
 touching his official conduct ? Where is his authority to 
 descend from his high station, in order to defend himself, as
 
 SPEECHES. 415 
 
 a mere private individual, in what relates to him in his public 
 character ? 
 
 But the part of this paper which is the most character- 
 istic, that which lets us into the real nature and character of 
 this movement, is the source from which the President de- 
 rives the right to interfere with our proceedings. He does 
 not even pretend to derive it from any power vested in him 
 by the constitution, express or implied. He knew that such 
 an attempt would be utterly hopeless, and, accordingly, in- 
 stead of a question of right, he makes it a question of duty ; 
 and thus inverts the order of things, referring rights to 
 duties, instead of duties to rights, and forgetting that rights 
 always precede duties, which are in fact but the obligations 
 they impose, and, of course, that they do not confer power. 
 The opposite view that on which he acts, and which would 
 give to the President a right to assume whatever duty he 
 might choose, and to convert such duties into powers, would, 
 if admitted, render him as absolute as the Autocrat of all 
 the Russias. Taking this erroneous view of his powers, he 
 could be at little loss to justify his conduct ; to justify, did 
 I say ? He takes higher, far higher ground ; he makes his 
 interference a matter of obligation of solemn obligation of 
 imperious necessity, the tyrant's plea. He tells us that it 
 was due to his station to public opinion to proper self- 
 respect to the obligation imposed by his constitutional oath 
 his duty to see the laws faithfully executed his respon- 
 sibility as the head of the executive department and to the 
 American people as their immediate representative, to inter- 
 pose his authority against the usurpations of the Senate. 
 Infatuated man ! blinded by ambition intoxicated by flat- 
 tery and vanity ! Who, that is the least acquainted with 
 the human heart ; who, that is conversant with the pages of 
 history, does not see, under all this, the workings of a dark, 
 lawless, and insatiable ambition, which, if not arrested, must 
 finally impel him to his own or his country's ruin ?
 
 416 SPEECHES. 
 
 It would be a great mistake to suppose that this Protest 
 is the termination of his hostility towards the Senate. It is 
 but the commencement it is the proclamation in which he 
 makes known his will to the Senate, claims their obedience, 
 and admonishes them of their danger should they refuse to 
 repeal their ordinance no, not ordinance their resolution. 
 I am hurried away by the recollection of the events of the 
 last session. The hostilities then and now waged are the 
 same in their nature, character, and principle, differing only 
 in their objects and the parties. Then it was directed against 
 a sovereign member of this confederacy ; now against the 
 Senate. Then the Senate was associated with the Executive 
 as its ally ; now it is the object of his attack. I repeat, 
 hostilities will be prosecuted against us unless we repeal our 
 resolution to effect which is the object of sending us this 
 Protest. For, disguise it as we may, to receive this Protest, 
 and to enter it upon our journals, would be a virtual repeal, 
 a surrender of our rights, and an acknowledgment of his su- 
 periority ; and in that light it would be considered by the 
 country and the world by the present and future genera- 
 tions. 
 
 Should we repeal our resolutions, by receiving and enter- 
 ing this Protest on the journals, we, no doubt, will be taken 
 into favor, and our past offences be forgiven : but if not, we 
 may expect that the war message (unless, indeed, the public 
 indignation should arrest it) will follow in due time, of which 
 the Protest contains many indications not to be misunder- 
 stood. 
 
 It is impossible for the most careless observer to read 
 this paper without being struck with the extreme solicitude 
 which the President evinces to place himself in a position 
 between the Senate and the people. He tells us again and 
 again, with the greatest emphasis, that he is the immediate 
 representative of the American people. He the immediate 
 representative of the American people ! I thought the Pre-
 
 SPEECHES. 417 
 
 sident professed to be a State Eights' man, placed at the 
 head of the State Eights' party ; that he believed the people 
 of these States were united in a constitutional compact, as 
 forming distinct and sovereign communities ; and that no 
 such community or people as the American people, taken 
 in the aggregate, existed. I had supposed that he was the 
 President of the United States, the only title by which he is 
 legally and constitutionally known ; and that the American 
 people are not represented in a single department of the 
 Government ; no, not even in the other House which repre- 
 sents the people of the several States as distinct from the 
 people in the aggregate, as was solemnly determined at the 
 very commencement of the Government, under the imme- 
 diate authority of Washington himself. Such, I had sup- 
 posed, was the established political creed of the party at the 
 head of which he professed to be, and yet he claims to be 
 not only the representative, but the immediate representa- 
 tive of the American people. What effrontery ! What 
 boldness of assertion ! The immediate representative ! Why, 
 he never received a vote from the American people. He was 
 elected by the electors chosen either by the people of the 
 States or by their legislatures ; and, of course, is at least as 
 far removed from the people as the members of this body, 
 who are elected by legislatures chosen by the people ; and 
 who, if the truth must be told, more fully and perfectly re- 
 present the people of these States than the electoral colleges, 
 since the introduction of National Conventions composed of 
 office-holders and aspirants, under whose auspices the presi- 
 dential candidate of the dominant party is selected, and who, 
 instead of the real voice of the people, utter that of a merce- 
 nary corps, with interests directly hostile to theirs. 
 
 But why all this solicitude on the part of the President 
 
 to place himself near to the people, and to push us off to 
 
 the greatest distance ? Why this solicitude to make himself 
 
 their sole representative their only guardian and protector 
 
 VOL. H. 27
 
 418 SPEECHES. 
 
 their only friend and supporter ? The object cannot be 
 mistaken. It is preparatory to further hostilities to an 
 appeal to the people ; and is intended to prepare the way in 
 order to transmit to them his declaration of war against the 
 Senate to -enlist them as his allies in the contest which he 
 contemplates waging against this branch of the Government. 
 If any one doubts his intention, let him cast his eyes over the 
 contents of this paper, and mark with what anxiety he seeks 
 to place himself in an attitude hostile to the Senate ; how he 
 has converted a simple expression of opinion into an accusa- 
 tion a charge of guilt ; a denunciation of his conduct, an 
 impeachment, in which he represents himself as having been 
 tried and condemned without hearing or investigation. The 
 President is an old tactician, and understands well the 
 advantage of carrying on a defensive war with offensive 
 operations, in which the assailed assaults the assailant ; and 
 his object is to gain a position so commanding in the prose- 
 cution of the hostilities which he meditates. 
 
 Having secured this important position, as he supposes, 
 he next endeavors to excite the sympathy of the people, 
 whom he seeks to make his allies in the contest. He tells 
 them of his wounds wounds received in the war of the 
 Kevolution ; of his patriotism ; of his disinterestedness ; of 
 his freedom from avarice or ambition ; of his advanced age, 
 and, finally of his religion ; of his indifference to the affairs 
 of this life, and of his solicitude for that which is to come. 
 Can we mistake the object ? Who does not see what is in- 
 tended ? Let us bring under a single glance the facts of 
 the case. He first seized upon the public money, took it 
 from the custody of the law, and placed it in his own pos- 
 session, as much so, as if placed in his own pocket. The 
 Senate disapproves of the act, and opposes the only obstacle 
 that prevents him from becoming complete master of the 
 public treasury. To crush the resistance which they inter- 
 pose to his will, he seeks a quarrel with them ; and, with
 
 SPEECHES. 419 
 
 this view, seizes on the resolution in question as the pretext. 
 He sends us a Protest against it, in which he resorts to every 
 art to enlist the feelings of the people on his side, prepara- 
 tory to a direct appeal to them to engage as his allies in the 
 war which he intends to carry on against the Senate till they 
 submit to his authority. He has proclaimed, in advance, 
 that the right to interfere involves the right to make that 
 interference effectual. To make it so, force only is wanted. 
 Give him an adequate force, and a speedy termination would 
 be put to the controversy. 
 
 Since, then, hostilities are intended, it is time that we 
 should deliberate how we ought to act how the assaults 
 upon our constitutional rights and privileges ought to be 
 met. If we consult what is due to the wisdom and dignity 
 of the Senate, there is but one mode : meet it at the thresh- 
 old. Encroachments are most easily resisted at the com- 
 mencement. It is at the extreme point on the frontier, 
 that, in a contest of this description, the assailant is the 
 weakest, and the assailed the strongest. It is there that 
 the purpose of the usurper is the most feeble, and the in- 
 dignation of those whose rights are encroached upon, the 
 strongest. Permit the frontier of our rights to be passed 
 and let the question be, not resistance to usurpation, but 
 at what point we shall resist, and the conquest will be more 
 thani half achieved. I, at least, said Mr. Calhoun, will act 
 on these principles. I shall take my stand at the door of the 
 Senate, if I should stand there alone. I deny the right of 
 the President to send us his Protest. I deny his right to 
 question, within this chamber, our opinions in any case, or 
 in reference to any subject whatever. He has no right 
 to enter here in hostile array. These walls separate us. 
 Beyond this, he has his veto to protect his rights against 
 aggressions from us ; but within, our authority is above his 
 interference or control. 
 
 Entertaining these views, I, for one, cannot agree to re-
 
 420 SPEECHES. 
 
 ceive the Protest. But it is said that the Senate nevei iras 
 yet refused to receive a message from the President. In 
 reply, I answer, it has never yet agreed to receive a Pro- 
 test from him ; and I, at least, shall not contribute by my 
 vote to establish the first precedent of the kind. With these 
 impressions, although I agree to the resolutions offered by 
 the Senator from Mississippi (Mr. Poindexter), as modified, a 
 sense of duty will compel me to go further, and to add, at 
 the proper time, two additional resolutions ; one affirming 
 that the President has no right to protest against our pro- 
 ceedings, and the other refusing to receive this, his Protest. 
 
 I have now said all that I intend in reference to the ques- 
 tion at issue between the Senate and the President ; and 
 will conclude by a few remarks addressed more directly to 
 the Senate itself. 
 
 Of all the surprising events, said Mr. C., in these sur- 
 prising times, none has astonished me more than that there 
 should be any division of opinion, even the slightest, to the 
 right of the Senate to pass the resolution which has been 
 seized on as the pretext to send us this Protest. Before the 
 commencement of the discussion, I would not have believed 
 that there was a single individual hi our country, the least 
 conversant with parliamentary proceedings, who entertained 
 any doubt of the right of any free and deliberative body fully 
 and freely to discuss and express their opinions on all sub- 
 jects relating to the public interests, whether in reference to 
 men or measures, or whether in approbation or disapproba- 
 tion. I venture the assertion that such a right has never 
 been questioned before in this country ; either here, or in the 
 State legislatures, or in Great Britain, for the last century, 
 by any party, whig or tory. Nor is my astonishment dimi- 
 nished by the distinction which has been attempted to be 
 drawn between the expression of an opinion in reference to 
 the conduct of public officers, intended to terminate in some 
 legislative act, and those not so intended a distinction with-
 
 SPEECHES. 421 
 
 out example or precedent, and without principle or reason. 
 Nor am I less surprised that it should be gravely asserted, 
 as it has been in debate, that the resolution in question was 
 not intended to terminate in some ulterior legislative mea- 
 sure. How this impression was made, or ventured to be ex- 
 pressed, I am at a loss to conceive ; as it was openly avowed, 
 and fully understood, that we only waited for the proper 
 moment to carry the resolution into effect, by giving it the 
 form of a joint act of both Houses. Nor is the attempt to 
 limit our legislative functions by our judicial, in reference to 
 the resolutions, less extraordinary. I had supposed that our 
 judicial were in addition to our legislative functions, and not 
 in diminution ; and that we possess to the full extent, with- 
 out limitation or subtraction, all the legislative powers pos- 
 sessed by the House of Representatives, with a single excep- 
 tion, as provided in the constitution. Were it possible to 
 raise a rational doubt on the subject, the example of the 
 English parliament would clearly prove that our judicial 
 functions impose no restrictions on our legislative. It is 
 well known that the House of Lords, like the Senate, possesses 
 the power of trying impeachments and I venture to assert, 
 that, in the long course of time in which it has exercised this 
 power, not a single case can be pointed out in which it was 
 supposed that its judicial functions were diminished in any 
 degree by its legislative ; and when we consider that this 
 portion of our constitution is borrowed from the British, 
 their example must be considered decisive as to the point 
 under consideration. 
 
 But let us reflect a moment to what extent we must 
 necessarily be carried, if we once admit the principle. If 
 the Senate has no right, in consequence of its judicial 
 functions, to express an opinion, by vote or resolution, in 
 reference to the legality or illegality of the acts of public 
 functionaries, Senators can have no right to express such 
 opinion individually in debate ; as the objection, if it exists
 
 422 
 
 SPEECHES. 
 
 at all, goes to the expression of an opinion by individuals aa 
 well as by the body. He who has made up an opinion, and 
 avowed it in debate, would be as much disqualified to per- 
 form his judicial functions as a judge on a trial of impeach- 
 ment, as if he had expressed it by a vote ; and, of course, 
 whatever restrictions the judicial functions of the Senate 
 may be supposed to impose, would be restrictions on the 
 liberty of discussion, as well as that of voting ; and conse- 
 quently destroy the freedom of debate secured to us by the 
 constitution. 
 
 I am, indeed, said Mr. Calhoun, amazed that so great a 
 misconception of the essential powers of a deliberative body 
 should be formed, as to deny to a legislative assembly the 
 right to express its opinions on all subjects of a public nature 
 freely, fully, and without restriction or limitation. It in- 
 herently belongs to the law-making power the power to 
 make, repeal, and to modify the laws to deliberate upon 
 the state of the Union to ascertain its actual condition 
 the causes of existing disorders to determine whether they 
 originated in the laws, or in their execution, and to devise 
 the proper remedy. What sort of a legislative body would 
 it be, that had no right to pronounce an opinion whether a 
 law was or was not in conformity to the constitution, and 
 whether it had or had not been violated by those appointed 
 to administer the laws ? What could be imagined more ab- 
 surd ? And yet, if the principle contended for be correct, 
 such would be the character of the Senate. We would have 
 no right to pronounce a law unconstitutional, or to assert 
 that it had been violated, lest it should disqualify us from 
 performing our judicial functions. 
 
 There seems to be, said Mr. C., a great misconception in 
 reference to the real motive and character of the legislative 
 and executive functions. The former is, in its nature, de- 
 liberative, and involves, necessarily, free discussion, and a full 
 expression of opinion on all subjects of public interest. The
 
 SPEECHES. 423 
 
 latter is essentially the power of executing, and has no power 
 of deliberation beyond ascertaining the meaning of the law, 
 and carrying its enactments into execution ; and even within 
 this limited sphere, its constructions of its powers are formed 
 under responsibility not only to public opinion, but also to 
 the legislative department of the Government. 
 
 But wherever the Executive is vested with any portion 
 of legislative functions, so essentially do those functions in- 
 volve the right of deliberation, and a full and free expression 
 of opinion, that they transfer with them, to the Executive, 
 the right of freely expressing his opinions on all subjects con- 
 nected with such functions. Thus the President of the 
 United States, who is vested by the constitution with the 
 right of communicating to Congress information on the state 
 of the Union ; of recommending to its consideration such 
 measures as, in his opinion, the public interests may require ; 
 to approve of its acts ; and to ratify treaties which have re- 
 ceived the consent of the Senate, has, in the performance 
 of all these high legislative functions, a right to express his 
 opinion as to the nature, and character, and constitutionality 
 of all the measures, the consideration of which may be in- 
 volved in the performance of these duties a right which the 
 present chief magistrate has, on all occasions, freely exer- 
 cised, as we have witnessed this session, both in his annual 
 message, and the one announcing his veto on the land bill. 
 In the former he pronounced the United States Bank to be 
 unconstitutional, and has, of course, according to his own 
 principle, impeached the conduct of Washington and Madi- 
 son (the former of whom signed the charter of the first 
 bank, and the latter of the present), and all of the mem- 
 bers of both Houses of Congress who voted for the act incor- 
 porating them. 
 
 I am mortified, said Mr. Calhoun, that in this coun- 
 try, boasting of its Anglo-Saxon descent, any one of re- 
 spectable standing, much less the President of the United
 
 424 SPEECHES. 
 
 States, should be found to entertain principles leading tc 
 such monstrous results ; and I can scarcely believe myself tc 
 be breathing the air of our country, and to be within the 
 walls of the Senate chamber, when I hear such doctrines vin- 
 dicated. It is proof of the wonderful degeneracy of the 
 times of a total loss of the true conceptions of constitu- 
 tional liberty. But, in the midst of tins degeneracy, I per- 
 ceive the symptoms of regeneration. It is not my wish to 
 touch on the party designations that have recently obtained, 
 and which have been introduced in the debate on this occa- 
 sion. I, however, cannot but remark, that the revival of the 
 party names of the Revolution, after they had so long slum- 
 bered, is not without a meaning, nor without an indication 
 of a return to those principles which lie at the foundation of 
 our liberty. 
 
 Gentlemen ought to reflect that the extensive and sud- 
 den revival of these names could not be without some ade- 
 quate cause. Names are not to be taken or given at pleas- 
 ure ; there must be something to cause their application to 
 adhere. If I remember rightly, it was Augustus, in all the 
 plenitude of his power, who said that he found it impossible 
 to introduce a new word. What, then, is that something ? 
 What is there in the meaning of Whig and Tory, and what 
 in the character of the times, which has caused their sudden 
 revival as party designations, at this time ? I take it, that 
 the very essence of toryism that which constitutes a tory, 
 is to sustain prerogative against privilege to support the 
 executive against the legislative department of the Govern- 
 ment, and to lean to the side of power against the side of 
 liberty ; while whig is, in all these particulars, of the very 
 opposite principles. These are the leading characteristics of 
 the respective parties, whig and tory, and run through their 
 application in all the variety of circumstances in which they 
 have been applied either in this country or Great Britain. 
 Their sudden revival and application at this time ought to
 
 SPEECHES. 425 
 
 admonish my old friends who are now on the side of the ad- 
 ministration, that there is something in the times some- 
 thing in the existing struggle between the parties, and in the 
 principles and doctrines advocated by those in power, which 
 has caused so sudden a revival, and such extensive applica- 
 tion of the terms. I have not contributed to their introduc- 
 tion, nor am I desirous of seeing them applied ; but I must 
 say to those who are interested, that nothing but the reversal 
 of their course can possibly prevent their application. They 
 owe it to themselves they owe it to the chief magistrate 
 whom they support (who, at least, is venerable for his years) 
 as the head of their party, that they should halt in their 
 support of the despotic and slavish doctrines which we hear 
 daily advanced, before a return of the reviving spirit of 
 liberty shall overwhelm them, with those who are leading 
 them, to their ruin. 
 
 I can speak, said Mr. Calhoun, with impartiality. As 
 far as I am concerned, I wish no change of party designa- 
 tions I am content with that which designates those with 
 whom I act. It is, I admit, not very popular, but is at least 
 an honest and patriotic name. It is synonymous with re- 
 sistance to usurpation usurpation, come from what quarter 
 and under what shape it may ; whether it be of this Govern- 
 ment on the rights of the States, or of the Executive on 
 those of the legislative department.
 
 SPEECHES. 
 
 ^ SPEECH 
 
 On the Bill to Eepeal the Four Years' Law, and to 
 Regulate the Power of Removal, delivered in the 
 Senate, February th, 1835. 
 
 ME. CALHOUN said : The question involved in the third 
 section of the bill, whether the .power to dismiss an officer 
 of the Government can be controlled and regulated by Con- 
 gress, or is under the exclusive and unlimited control of the 
 President, is no ordinary question, which may be decided 
 either way, without materially affecting the character and 
 practical operation of the Government. It is, on the con- 
 trary, a great and fundamental question, on the decision of 
 which will materially depend the fact, whether this Govern- 
 ment shall prove to be what those who framed it supposed it 
 was a free, popular, and republican Government, or a mon- 
 archy in disguise. 
 
 This important question, said Mr. C., has been very fully 
 and ably discussed by those who have preceded me on the 
 side I intend to advocate. It is not my intention to repeat 
 their arguments, nor to enforce them by additional illustra- 
 tions. I propose to confine myself to a single point of view ; 
 but that point I hold to be decisive of the question. 
 
 If the power to dismiss is possessed by the Executive, he 
 must hold it in one of two modes : either by an express grant 
 jytjf the power in the constitution, or as a power necessary and 
 \proper to execute some power expressly granted by that in- 
 strument. All the powers under the constitution may be 
 classed under one or the other of these heads ; there is no 
 intermediate class. The first question then is, Has the Presi- 
 dent the power in question by any express grant in the con- 
 stitution ? He who affirms he has, is bound to show it.
 
 SPEECHES. 427 
 
 That instrument is in the hands of eveiy member ; the por- 
 tion containing the delegation of power to the President is 
 short. It is comprised in a few sentences. I ask Senators 
 to open the constitution, to examine it, and to find, if they 
 can, any authority given to the President to dismiss a public 
 officer. None such can be found ; the constitution has been 
 carefully examined, and no one pretends to have found such 
 a grant. Well, then, as there is none such, if it exists at 
 all, it must exist as a power necessary and proper to execute 
 some granted power ; but if it exists in that character, it 
 belongs to Congress, and not to the Executive. I venture not 
 this assertion hastily ; I speak on the authority of the con- 
 stitution itself an express and unequivocal authority which 
 cannot be denied nor contradicted. Hear what that sacred 
 instrument says : " Congress shall have power to make all 
 laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into 
 execution the foregoing powers (those granted to Congress 
 itself), and all other powers vested by this constitution in 
 the Government of the United States, or in any department 
 or officer thereof." Mark the fulness of the expression. Con- 
 gress shall have power to make all laws, not only to carry 
 into effect the powers expressly delegated to itself, but those 
 delegated to the Government, or any department or officer 
 thereof; comprehending, of course, the power to pass laws 
 necessary and proper to carry into effect the powers express- 
 ly granted to the executive department. It follows that, to 
 whatever express grant of power to the Executive the power 
 of dismissal may be supposed to attach ; whether to that of 
 seeing the laws faithfully executed, or to the still more com- 
 prehensive grant, as contended for by some, vesting execu- 
 tive powers in the President, the mere fact that it is a power 
 appurtenant to another power, and necessary to carry it into 
 effect, transfers it, by the provisions of the constitution cited, 
 from the Executive to Congress, and places it under its con- 
 trol, to be regulated in the manner which it may judge best.
 
 428 SPEECHES. 
 
 If there be truth in reasoning on political subjects, the con- 
 clusion at which I have arrived cannot be resisted. I would 
 entreat gentlemen who are opposed to me, said Mr. C., to 
 pause and reflect ; and to point out, if possible, the slightest 
 flaw in the argument, or to find a peg on which to hang a 
 doubt. Can they deny that all powers under the constitution 
 are either powers specifically granted, or powers necessary and 
 proper to carry such into execution ? Can it be said that 
 there are inherent powers comprehended in neither of these 
 classes, and existing by a sort of divine right in the Govern- 
 ment ? The Senator from New- York (Mr. Wright) attempt- 
 ed to establish some such position ; but the moment my col- 
 league touched it with the spear of truth, he, Mr. W., shrunk 
 from the deformity of his own conception. Or can it be as- 
 serted that there are powers derived from obligations higher 
 than the constitution itself ? The very intimation of such a 
 source of power hurled from office the predecessor of the 
 present incumbent. But if it cannot be denied that all the 
 powers under the constitution are comprised under one or the 
 other of these classes, and if it is acknowledged, as it is on 
 all sides, that the power of dismissal is not specifically grant- 
 ed by the constitution, it follows by an irresistible and neces- 
 sary consequence, that the power belongs not to the Execu- 
 tive, but to Congress, to be regulated and controlled at its 
 pleasure. 
 
 I should be gratified, said Mr. C., if any one who enter- 
 tains an opposite opinion would attempt to refute this argu- 
 ment, and to point out wherein it is defective ; for such per- 
 fect confidence do I feel in its soundness, that I will yield the 
 floor to any Senator who may rise and say that he is prepared 
 to refute it. 
 
 [Here Mr. Talmadge, from New- York, rose, and said that lie was 
 not satisfied with the argument, and would attempt to show its error. 
 Mr. C. sat down for the purpose of giving him an opportunity, when
 
 SPEECHES. 429 
 
 Mr. T. began a formal speech on the subject generally, without at- 
 tempting to meet Mr. C.'s argument, when the latter arose and said, 
 that Mr. T. had mistaken him ; that he did not yield the floor for the 
 purpose of enabling Mr. T. to make a speech, but to enable him to 
 refute the argument which Mr. C. had advanced ; and that if Mr. T. 
 was not prepared to do so, he, Mr. C., would proceed in the dis- 
 cussion.] 
 
 Mr. C. proceeded, and said : The argument on which I 
 have relied, has been alluded to by the Senator from Ten- 
 nessee (Judge White), and my friend from Kentucky, who 
 sits before me (Judge Bibb) ; and the Senator from Tennes- 
 see (Mr. Grundy), whom I am sorry not to see in his place, 
 attempted a reply. He objected to the argument, on the 
 ground that the construction put upon the clause which has 
 been quoted, would divest the President of a power express- 
 ly granted him by the constitution. I must, said Mr. C., 
 express my amazement, that one so clear-sighted, and so ca- 
 pable of appreciating the just force of an argument, should 
 give such an answer. Were the power of dismissal a grant- 
 ed power, the argument would be sound j but as it is not, to 
 contend that the construction would divest him of the power, 
 is an assumption, without the slightest foundation to sustain 
 it. It is his construction, in fact, which divests Congress of 
 an expressly granted power, and not ours which divests the 
 President : by his, he would take from Congress the author- 
 ity expressly granted, of passing all laws necessary and pro- 
 per to carry into effect the granted powers, under the pre- 
 text that the exercise of such a power on the part of Con- 
 gress would divest the Executive of a power nowhere grant- 
 ed in the constitution. 
 
 I feel, said Mr. C., that I must appear to repeat unneces- 
 sarily, what of itself is so clear and simple as to require no 
 illustration ; but I know the obstinacy of party feelings and 
 preconceived opinions, and with what difficulty they yield to
 
 430 SPEECHES. 
 
 the clearest demonstration. Nothing can overthrow them but 
 repeated blows. 
 
 Such, said Mr. C., are the arguments by which I have 
 been forced to conclude, that the power of dismissing is not 
 lodged in the President, but is subject to be controlled and 
 regulated by Congress. I say forced, because I have been 
 compelled to the conclusion in spite of my previous impres- 
 sions. Belying upon the early decision of the question, and 
 the long acquiescence in that decision, I had concluded, with- 
 out examination, that it had not been disturbed, because it 
 rested upon principles too clear and strong to admit of doubt. 
 I remained passively under this impression, until it became 
 necessary, during the last session, to examine the question 
 when I took up the discussion on it in 1789, with the expec- 
 tation of having my previous impression confirmed. The re- 
 sult was different. I was struck, on reading the debate, with 
 the force of the arguments of those who contended that the 
 power was not vested by the constitution in the Executive. 
 To me they appeared to be far more statesman-like than the 
 opposite arguments, and to partake much more of the spirit 
 of the constitution. After reading this debate, I turned to 
 the constitution, which I read with care in reference to the 
 subject discussed, when, for the first time, I was struck with 
 the full force of the clause which I have quoted, and which, 
 in my opinion, for ever settles the controversy. 
 
 I will now, said Mr. C., proceed to consider what will 
 be the effect on the operation of the system under the con- 
 struction which I have given. In the first place, it would 
 put down all discretionary power, and convert the Govern- 
 ment into what the framers intended it should be a govern- 
 ment of laws and not of discretion. If the construction be 
 established, no officer from the President to the constable, 
 and from the Chief Justice to the lowest judicial officer, 
 could exercise any power but what is expressly granted by 
 the constitution or by some act of Congress : and thus that,
 
 SPEECHES. 431 
 
 which in a free state is the most odious and dangerous of all 
 things the discretionary power of those who are charged 
 with the execution of the laws will be effectually suppressed, 
 and the dominion of the laws be fully established. 
 
 It would, in the next place, unite, harmonize, and blend 
 into one whole all the powers of the Government, and pre- 
 vent that perpetual and dangerous conflict which would neces- 
 sarily exist between its departments, under the opposite con- 
 struction. Permit each department to judge of the extent 
 of its own powers, and to assume the right to exercise all 
 powers which it may deem necessary and proper to execute 
 the powers granted to it, and who does not see that, in fact 
 the Government would consist of three independent, separate, 
 and conflicting departments, without any common point ,of 
 union instead of one united authority controlling the wholej^ 
 Nor would it be difficult to foresee in what this contest Be- 
 tween conflicting departments would terminate. The Exec- 
 utive must prevail over the other departments ; for without 
 its concurrence the action of the other departments are im- 
 potent. Neither the . decrees of the Court nor the acts of 
 Congress can be executed but through the executive author- 
 ity ; and if the President be permitted to assume whatever 
 power he may deem to be appurtenant to his granted powers, 
 and to decide according to his will and pleasure, and on his 
 own responsibility, whether the decision of the Court or the 
 acts of Congress are or are not consistent with the rights 
 which he may arrogate to himself, it is impossible not to see 
 that the authority of the legislative and judicial departments 
 would be under his control. Nor is it difficult to foresee that 
 if he may add the power of dismissal to that of appointment, 
 and thus assert unlimited control over all who hold office, he 
 would find but little difficulty in maintaining himself in the 
 most extravagant assumptions of power. We are not with- 
 out experience on this subject. To what l)ut to the false and 
 dangerous doctrine against which I am contending, and into
 
 432 SPEECHES. 
 
 which the present Chief Magistrate has fallen, are we to at- 
 tribute the frequent conflicts between the Executive and the 
 other departments of the Government ; and which so strongly 
 illustrate the truth of what I have stated ? Under the op- 
 posite and true view of our system, all these dangerous jars 
 and conflicts would cease. ( It unites the whole into one, and 
 the legislative becomes, as it ought to be, the centre of the 
 system, the stomach, and the brain, into which all is 
 taken, digested, and assimilated, and by which the action of 
 the whole is regulated by a common intelligence ; and this 
 without destroying the distinct and independent functions of 
 the parts., Each is left in possession of the powers expressly 
 granted by the constitution, and which may be executed 
 without the aid of the legislative department, and, in the 
 exercise of which, there is no possibility of coming into con- 
 flict with the other departments; while all discretionary 
 powers necessary to execute the granted, and in the exercise 
 of which the separate departments would necessarily come 
 into conflict, are by a wise and beautiful provision of the 
 constitution transferred to Congress, to be exercised solely 
 according to its discretion ; thus avoiding, as far as the de- 
 partments of the Government are concerned, the possibility 
 of collision betwen the parts, j By a provision no less wise, 
 this union of power in Congress is so regulated as to prevent 
 the legislative from absorbing the other departments of the 
 Government. To guard the Executive against the encroach- 
 ments of Congress, the President is raised from his mere 
 ministerial functions to a participation in the enactment of 
 laws. By a provision in the constitution, his approval is re- 
 quired to the acts of Congress ; and his veto, given him as 
 a shield to protect him against the encroachments of the leg- 
 islative department, can arrest the acts of Congress, unless 
 passed by two-thirds of both Houses. And here let me say, 
 that I cannot concur in the resolution offered by my friend 
 from Maryland (Mr. Kent), which proposes to divest the Ex-
 
 SPEECHES. 433 
 
 ecutive of his veto. I hold it to be indispensable ; mainly 
 on the ground that the constitution has vested in Congress 
 the high discretionary power under consideration, which, but 
 for the veto, however necessary for the harmony and unity 
 of the Government, might prove destructive to the indepen- 
 dence of the President. He must indeed be a most feeble 
 and incompetent Chief Magistrate if, aided by the veto, he 
 would not have sufficient influence to protect his necessary 
 powers against the encroachments of Congress. Nor is the 
 judiciary left without ample protection against the encroach- 
 ment of Congress. The independent tenure by which the 
 judges hold their office, and the right of the Court to pro- 
 nounce when a case conies before them upon the constitu- 
 tionality of the acts of Congress, as far at least as the other 
 departments are concerned, affords to the judiciary an ample 
 protection. Thus all the departments are united in one, so 
 as to constitute a single government, instead of three distinct, 
 separate, and conflicting departments, without impairing 
 their separate and distinct functions, while at the same time 
 thejpeace and harmony of the whole are preserved. 
 ^X^There remains, said Mr. C., to be noticed another conse- 
 quence not less important. The construction for which I 
 contend strikes at the root of that dangerous control which 
 the President would have over all who hold office, if the power 
 of appointment and removal without limitation or restriction 
 were united in him. Let us not be deceived by names. The 
 power in question is too great for the Chief Magistrate of a 
 free state. It is in its nature an imperial power, and if he 
 be permitted to exercise it, his authority must become as ab- 
 solute as that of the autocrat of all the Eussias. To give 
 him the power to dismiss at his will and pleasure, without 
 limitation or control, is to give him an absolute and unlim- 
 ited control over the subsistence of almost all who hold office 
 under Government. Let him have the power, and the sixty 
 thousand who now hold employments under Government would 
 VOL. n. 28
 
 434 SPEECHES. 
 
 become dependent upon him for the means of existence. Of 
 v r^ x> that vast multitude, I may venture to assert that there are 
 
 few whose subsistence does not, more or less, depend 
 U p 0n tkgjj. p u kii c employments. Who does not see that a 
 power so unlimited and despotic over this great and powerful 
 corps must tend to corrupt and debase those who compose it, 
 and to convert them into the supple and willing instruments 
 of him who wields it ?/ And here let me remark, said Mr. 
 C., that I have been unfairly represented in reference to this 
 point. I have been charged with asserting that the whole 
 body of office-holders is corrupt, debased, and subservient : 
 with what views, those who make the charge can best ex- 
 plain. I have made no such assertion, nor could it with 
 truth be made. I know that there are many virtuous and 
 high-minded citizens who hold public office ; but it is not, 
 therefore, the less true that the tendency of the power of dis- 
 missal is such as I have attributed to it ; and that if the 
 power be left unqualified, and the practice be continued as it 
 has of late, the result must be the complete comiption and 
 debasement of those in public employments/What, Mr. C. 
 asked, has been the powerful cause that naSNwrought the 
 wonderful changes which history teaches us have occurred at 
 different periods in the character of nations ? What has 
 bowed down that high, generous, and chivalrous feeling that 
 
 independent and proud spirit which characterized all free 
 states in rising from the barbarous to the civilized condition, 
 and which finally converted their citizens into base sycophants 
 and flatterers ? Under the operation of what cause did the 
 proud and stubborn conquerors of the world, the haughty 
 Romans, sink down to that low and servile debasement which 
 followed the decay of the republic ? What but the mighty 
 cause which I am considering; the power which one man 
 exercised over the fortunes and subsistence, the honor and 
 the standing of all those in office, or who aspire to public 
 employment ? Man is naturally proud and independent ;
 
 SPEECHES. 435 
 
 and if he loses these noble qualities in the progress of civi- 
 lization, it is because, by the concentration of power, he who 
 controls the government becomes deified in the eyes of those 
 who live or expect to live by its bounty. Instead of resting 
 their hopes on a kind Providence and their own honest exer- 
 tions, all who aspire are taught to believe that the most cer- 
 tain road to honor and fortune is servility and flattery. We 
 already experience its corroding operation. With the growth 
 of executive patronage and the control which the Executive 
 has established over those in office by the exercise of this 
 tremendous power, we witness among ourselves the progress 
 of this base and servile spirit, which already presents so strik- 
 ing a c^ftirast between the former and present character of 
 our people? 
 
 It is in vain to attempt to deny the charge. I have 
 marked its progress in a thousand instances within the last 
 few years. I have seen the spirit of independent men, hold- 
 ing public office, sink under the dread of this fearful power ; 
 too honest and too firm to become the instruments or flat- 
 terers of power, yet too prudent, with all the consequences 
 before them, to whisper disapprobation of what, in their 
 hearts, they condemned. Let the present state of things 
 continue let it be understood that none are to acquire the 
 public honors or to obtain them but by flattery and base 
 compliance, and in a few generations the American character 
 will become utterly corrupt and debased. 
 
 Now is the time to arrest this fatal tendency. Much will 
 depend upon the vote on the measure which is now before 
 you. Should it receive the sanction of this body and the 
 other branch of the legislature, and the principle be once es- 
 tablished that the power of dismissal is subject to be regulat- 
 ed by the action of Congress, and is not, as is contended, under 
 the sole- control of the Executive, the danger which now 
 menaces the destruction of our system may yet be arrested. 
 The discretionary and despotic power which the President
 
 436 SPEECHES. 
 
 has assumed to exercise over all in public employment would 
 be subject to the control of law ; and public officers instead 
 of considering themselves as the mere agents of the execu- 
 tive department, and liable to be dismissed at his will and 
 pleasure without regard to conduct, would be placed under 
 the protection of the law. 
 
 But it is objected by the Senator from Tennessee (Mr. 
 Grandy), that the construction for which I contend, would 
 destroy the power of the President, and arrest the action of 
 the Government. I must be permitted to express my sur- 
 prise, said Mr. C., that such an objection should come from 
 that experienced and sagacious Senator. He seems entirely 
 to forget that the President not only possesses executive pow- 
 ers, but also legislative ; and that he is not only a Chief 
 Magistrate, but also a part of the law-making power. Does 
 he not recollect that the President has his veto ; and that no 
 law can be passed which would improperly diminish the au- 
 thority which ought to belong to him as Chief Magistrate 
 without his consent, unless passed against his veto by two- 
 thirds of both Houses ? an event which it is believed has 
 not occurred since the commencement of the Government, 
 and the occurrence of which is highly improbable. How 
 then can it be asserted, that the construction for which I 
 contend would destroy the just authority of the President ? 
 Let it be established, and what would follow ? Every pro- 
 position to regulate and control the power of dismissal would 
 become a question of expediency, and would be liable to be 
 assailed by all who might suppose that it would impair im- 
 properly the power of the Chief Magistrate. And seconded 
 as they would be by the veto, if necessary, there could be but 
 little danger that restrictions too rigid would be imposed on 
 his authority. The Senator from Tennessee also objects that 
 the measure would be impracticable, and asks with an air 
 of triumph, what would the Senate do if the reasons of the 
 President should be unsatisfactory ? I do not, said Mr. C.,
 
 SPEECHES. 437 
 
 agree with those who think that the Senate can or ought to 
 continue to reject the nominations of the President in such 
 cases, until the officer who has been dismissed shall be restor- 
 ed. I believe that course to be impracticable ; and that, in 
 such a struggle, the resistance of the Senate would be finally 
 overcome. My hope is, that the fact itself that the President 
 must assign reasons for removals, will go far to check the abu- 
 ses which now exist. I cannot think that any President would 
 assign to the Senate as a reason for removal, that the officer re- 
 moved was opposed to him on party grounds. Such is the de- 
 ceptive character of the human heart, that it is reconciled to 
 do many things under plausible covering which it would not 
 openly avow. But suppose there should be a President who 
 would act upon the principle of removing on a mere difference 
 of opinion without any other fault in the officer, and who 
 would be bold enough to avow such a reason, Congress would 
 not be at a loss for a remedy, on the principles for which I 
 contend. A law might be passed that would reach the case ; 
 it might be declared that the removal of the President, if 
 his reasons should not prove satisfactory, should act merely 
 as a suspension to the termination of the next ensuing ses- 
 sion, unless filled by the advice and consent of the Senate. 
 
 The Senator from Tennessee has conjured up a state of 
 frightful collision between the Executive and the dismissed 
 officers, and has represented the Senate chamber as the arena 
 where this conflict must be carried on. He says, if the Pres- 
 ident should be bound to assign his reasons, the party dis- 
 missed would of right have a claim to be heard as to the 
 truth and correctness of those reasons, and that the Senate 
 would have its whole time engrossed in listening to the trial. 
 All this is mere imagination, if the President on his part 
 should exercise the power of removal with the discretion 
 and justice which he ought, and with which all the prede- 
 cessors of the present Chief Magistrate have in fact exercis- 
 ed it. Does he suDpose if a measure, such as is now before
 
 438 
 
 the Senate, had been in operation at the commencement of 
 the Government, that the Father of his country a man no 
 less distinguished by his moderation than his wisdom, would 
 have experienced the least embarrassment from its opera- 
 tion ? Does he suppose that the dismissal of nine officers 
 in eight years during his presidency, would have given all 
 that annoyance to him and to this body, which the Senator 
 anticipates from the measure ? Would there have been any 
 difficulty in the time of the elder Adams, either to himself 
 or to the Senate, from the ten officers whom he dismissed 
 during his presidency ? Would any have been experienced 
 during Mr. Jefferson's term of eight years, even with the 
 forty-two whom he dismissed ? Or in the presidency of Mr. 
 Madison, that mild and amiable man, who, in eight years of 
 great excitement, of which nearly three was a period of war, 
 dismissed but five officers ? Or, during the presidency of 
 Mr. Monroe, who in eight years dismissed but nine officers ? 
 Or of the younger Mr. Adams, who in four years dismissed 
 but two officers ? I come now, said Mr C., to the present 
 administration ; and here I concede, that with the dismissal 
 of two hundred and thirty officers in the first year, and I 
 know not how many since, the scene of trouble and difficul- 
 ty both to the President and the Senate, which the Senator 
 from Tennessee (Mr. Grundy) painted in such lively colors, 
 might have occurred, had the measure been in operation. 
 This, however, constitutes no objection to the measure, but 
 to the abuse the gross and dangerous abuse of the power 
 of dismissal which it is intended to correct. It is a recom- 
 mendation that it would impede aud embarrass the abuse of 
 so dangerous a power. The more numerous and powerful the 
 impediments to such abuses, the better. I apprehend, said 
 Mr. C., that the Senator from Tennessee (Mr. Grundy) en- 
 tirely misconceives the operation of the measure under a dis- 
 creet and moderate administration. Under such an one, the 
 charges exhibited against an officer would be transmitted to
 
 SPEECHES. 439 
 
 the accused ; would undergo a regular investigation in the 
 presence of the party, and the accused would be heard in his 
 own defence before the charge would be acted on. If sus- 
 tained, and the officer be discharged, the whole proceedings 
 would accompany the nomination of the successor as show- 
 ing the grounds on which he was dismissed. 
 
 During the time, said Mr. 0., that I occupied the place 
 of Secretary of War under Mr. Monroe, two officers of the 
 Government holding civil employments connected with that 
 department, were dismissed for improper conduct ; and in 
 both cases the course which I have indicated was adopted. 
 The officers were not dismissed until after a full investiga- 
 tion, and the reasons for dismission reduced to writing and 
 communicated to them. 
 
 But the Senator from Tennessee (Mr. Grundy) further 
 objects, that the construction for which we contend would con- 
 centrate all the powers of the Government in Congress, and 
 would thus constitute the very essence of despotism, which 
 consists, as he asserts, in uniting the powers of the three de- 
 partments in one. I could, said Mr. C., hardly have antici- 
 pated, that one whose conceptions are so clear on most sub- 
 jects would venture so bold an assertion. Has not the 
 Senator reflected on the nature of the legislative department 
 in our system ? To make a law, it is necessary not only to 
 have the participation of the two Houses, but that also of 
 the Executive ; except, indeed, hi the case of a veto, when, 
 as has been stated, the measure must be passed by two-thirds 
 of both Houses. Does he not see from this, that to vest 
 Congress, as the constitution has done, with all the discre- 
 tionary power, is to vest the power not simply in the two 
 Houses, but also in the President, and in fact to require the 
 concurrence of both departments to the exercise of such high 
 and dangerous powers, instead of leaving it to each separ- 
 ately, as would have been the fact without this wise pro- 
 vision ! I will tell the Senator, that it is the doctrine for
 
 440 SPEECHES. 
 
 which he, and not that for which we contend, which leads to 
 concentration a doctrine which would leave to each depart- 
 ment to assume whatever power it might choose, and which 
 in its necessary effects, as has been shown, would concentrate 
 all the powers of the Government in the Chief Magistrate. 
 This process has been going on under our eyes rapidly for the 
 last few years ; and yet the gentleman who appears now to 
 be so sensitive as to the danger of concentration, looks on 
 with perfect indifference, not to say with approbation. We 
 have, said Mr. C., lost all sensibility ; we have become callous 
 and hardened under the operation of those deleterious prac- 
 tices and principles which characterize the times. What a 
 few years since would have shocked and roused the whole 
 community, is now scarcely perceived or felt. Then the 
 dismissal of a few inconsiderable officers, on party grounds as 
 was supposed, was followed by a general burst of indignation ; 
 but now the dismissal of thousands, when it is openly avowed 
 that the public offices are the " spoils of the victors," pro- 
 duces scarcely a sensation. It passes as an ordinary event. 
 The present state of the country, said Mr. C., was then anti- 
 cipated. It was foreseen, as far back as 1826, that the time 
 would come when the income of the Government and the 
 number of those in its employment would be doubled and 
 that the control of the President, with the power of dis- 
 missal, would become irresistible. All of which was urged 
 as an inducement for reform at that early period ; and as a 
 reason why the administration then in power should be ex- 
 pelled, and those opposed to them should be elevated to their 
 places. But now when this prophecy has been realized, we 
 seem perfectly insensible of the danger to which the liberty 
 and institutions of the country are exposed. Among the 
 symptoms of the times, said Mr. 0., which indicate a deep 
 and growing decay, I would place among the most striking, 
 the difference in the conduct of those who seek public em- 
 ployment before and after their elevation. In the language
 
 SPEECHES. 441 
 
 of the indignant Eoman, they solicit offices in one manner and 
 use them in another. And this remark was not more true 
 of that degenerated state of the noblest of all the republics 
 of antiquity, than it is of ours at the present time. It is 
 not only, said Mr. C., a symptom of decay, but it is also 
 a powerful cause. When it comes to be once understood 
 that politics is a game ; that those who are engaged in it but 
 act a part ; that they make this or that profession, not from 
 honest conviction or an intent to fulfil them, but as the 
 means of deluding the people, and through that delusion to 
 acquire power ; when such professions are to be entirely 
 forgotten the people will lose all confidence in public men ; 
 all will be regarded as mere jugglers the honest and the 
 patriotic as well as the cunning and the profligate ; and the 
 people will become indifferent and passive to the grossest 
 abuses of power, on the ground that those whom they may 
 elevate under whatever pledges, instead of reforming, will but 
 imitate the example of those whom they have expelled. 
 
 I, said Mr. C., rejoice, however, that there are many who 
 are counted in the administration ranks, who have a proper 
 regard for the professions of the party while canvassing for 
 power. I see the commencement of a separation between 
 those who are disposed to go ah 1 lengths, to abandon all for- 
 mer principles in the support of power, and those who are 
 not disposed to advance beyond the point where they now 
 stand. Let those who are disposed to sustain the power of 
 the Executive, however extravagant, reflect on what has 
 occurred during the present discussion, and the manly and 
 independent sentiments which have been expressed in the 
 ranks of the administration itself, and they will see cause to 
 halt in their course. They have pushed things as far as they 
 can be pushed with safety to push them further must end 
 in division and overthrow. 
 
 But the Senator from New- York (Mr. Wright) regards 
 all this alarm on account of the vast increase of executive
 
 442 SPEECHES 
 
 power, as perfectly imaginary. He contends that the view 
 drawn in the report of the committee, as to the extent of 
 patronage, is greatly exaggerated ; and for this purpose 
 assails that part of the report which treats of the number of 
 those in the employment of the Government and living on 
 its bounty, as constituting one of the elements of Executive 
 patronage. The Senator is possessed of clear perception and 
 strong powers of discrimination, and I anticipated from the 
 confident manner in which he expressed himself, that he had 
 discovered some flaw or weakness in that portion of the re- 
 port. He is not usually the man to make bold assertions 
 without his proof ; but I must say that, in this case, the 
 Senator has disappointed me. What error or exaggeration 
 has he discovered in the report ? Has he shown the num- 
 ber stated to be greater than in reality it is ? Has he shown 
 that there is any error in the various heads under which they 
 are classified ? Or that there is a single class which does not 
 contribute to swell the power and influence of the Execu- 
 tive ? He has not even made an attempt to point out any 
 error of the kind. He drew his number and classification 
 from the report itself, and has not pretended to show that 
 there has been any over estimate on the part of the com- 
 mittee attached to any one of the classes. But though the 
 Senator has not succeeded in showing an over estimate, he 
 has labored strenuously, though I must say unsuccessfully, 
 to show that the patronage is far less than in reality it is. 
 The Senator would, for instance, have us lay aside the pen- 
 sioners, as adding little or nothing to the patronage of the 
 Government ! I had, said Mr. C., supposed that he was too 
 good a judge of human nature, not to know that the mere fact 
 of living on the bounty of Government, naturally disposes a 
 man to take sides with power. If to this we add the fact, 
 that the pensioner is liable to have his pension questioned, 
 whether he is rightfully entitled to it or not, and that the 
 decision of this question, so important to him, rests with
 
 SPEECHES. 443 
 
 those in power ; that there are thousands who are seeking 
 pensions who must look in the same direction for the grati 
 fication of their wishes to say nothing of the host of pension- 
 agents in and out of Congress whose importance and influ- 
 ence with the people may depend upon their success in 
 obtaining pensions we may realize the vast addition which 
 so large a pension-list as ours is calculated to give to the 
 patronage of the Executive. I am informed, said Mr. 0. 3 that 
 a single member, in one session, obtained upwards of three 
 hundred and fifty pensions ; and can the Senator doubt how 
 much he was strengthened in his district by his success, 
 when a majority of those whom he so successfully served 
 were probably voters ? Taking every thing into considera- 
 tion, so far from considering the pensions as an inconsider- 
 able source of influence and patronage, as the Senator would 
 have us believe, I am of the impression that it is among the 
 most fruitful sources of both ; and that to the late extension 
 of the number of pensioners, we may attribute the strength 
 of the administration in some of the States of the Union. I 
 have great respect for the Secretary of War and the Chief of 
 the Pension Bureau, and I do not wish to be considered as 
 making any personal imputations. 
 
 The Senator from New- York next tells us that the army 
 contributes very little to the influence and patronage of the 
 Executive ; that it consists principally of soldiers, and those 
 for the most part located on the frontiers, far removed from 
 the scenes of political struggles. The Senator would seem' 
 to have very imperfect conceptions of the nature of the in- 
 fluence which an army brings to a government. Is he igno- 
 rant that it is to be fed, and clothed, and housed, and 
 removed, at the expense of millions, wherever employed ? 
 and that all this heavy expenditure must bring a correspond- 
 ing increase of power and influence ? I, for my part, said 
 Mr. C., consider an army among a spirited people, armed and 
 accustomed to the use of arms as the Americans are, as far
 
 444 SPEECHES. 
 
 more dangerous on account of the patronage which it brings 
 to the Government, than on account of its physical force , 
 and it is mainly under this impression, that I have ever been 
 opposed to its increase beyond the point necessary to pre- 
 serve proper military organization and skill. 
 
 The Senator, taking the same fallacious view, would put 
 the navy out of the list, as contributing but little to the 
 patronage of the Government. What I have said in reference 
 to the army is equally applicable to the navy, and supersedes 
 the necessity of saying more on the subject. 
 
 But the final objection of the Senator implies that the 
 power and patronage of the Government would be great, as far 
 as the number of officers who are employed may contribute 
 to it, if they were all custom-house officers, and some other 
 classes of officers, which he estimates at some three or four 
 thousand, and which he admits are calculated to exercise 
 some influence. I acknowledge, said Mr. Calhoun, they are 
 not so powerful as they would be if they consisted of the 
 classes referred to by the Senator ; but let me tell him, that 
 if we had a corps of one hundred thousand such, the friends 
 of liberty might surrender in despair our cause would be 
 hopeless ! The people could not resist them for six months. 
 
 I have now, said Mr. 0., concluded what I intended to 
 say on the question involved in the third section of the bill, 
 and will next proceed to notice some objections to the other 
 portions. The Senator from Tennessee (Mr. Grundy) ob- 
 jects to the first section, which proposes to repeal the Four 
 Years' Law, on the ground that it would diminish the power 
 of the Senate, and increase that of the President. If such 
 was the fact, the last quarter from which I should expect 
 such an objection would be that from which it comes. But 
 the Senator may dismiss his fears. There is not the slight- 
 est ground for the apprehension which he professes. It 
 is true that, without that law, the Senate would not have 
 the opportunity of passing on the conduct of the officers who
 
 SPEECHES. 445 
 
 may be renominated under it ; but let me bring the Senator 
 to reflect how little influence that fact gives to the Senate, 
 compared to the influence which the President acquires 
 by the law over all those who must depend on him under 
 its provisions, for a renomination. Let him reflect how 
 few of those renominated are rejected by the Senate, 
 compared to those whom the President has refused to 
 nominate ; and how little influence the Senate acquires, or 
 the President loses, by the rejection of the former. Should 
 the Senate reject on party grounds, it has no power to fill 
 the place of the person rejected that depends upon the 
 President. What, then, is the fact ? The Senate makes 
 an enemy without acquiring a friend, while the President is 
 sure to acquire two friends without making an enemy the 
 rejected and the one who fills his place. If to this we add, 
 that the present President has made it an invariable practice 
 to reward, in some shape or other, every man rejected by the 
 Senate, however good the cause for rejection, it must be ob- 
 vious that the apprehension of the Senator from Tennessee, 
 that the repeal of the Four Years' Law would weaken the 
 Senate and strengthen the Executive, is without foundation. 
 He may dismiss all anxiety on that head. 
 
 But it is further objected that the repeal of the Four 
 Years' Law would destroy the principle of rotation in office, 
 which the Senator from Maine (Mr. Shepley), and some 
 others on the same side, represent as the very basis of repub- 
 lican institutions. We often, said Mr. C., confound things 
 that are entirely dissimilar, by not making the proper dis- 
 tinction. I will not undertake to inquire now whether the 
 principle of rotation, as applied to the ordinary ministerial 
 officers of a government, may not be favorable to popular and 
 free institutions, when such officers are chosen by the people 
 themselves. It certainly would have a tendency to cause 
 those who desire office, when the choice is in the people, to 
 seek their favor ; but certain it is, that in a Government
 
 446 SPEECHES 
 
 where the Chief Magistrate has the filling of vacancies instead 
 of the people, there will be an opposite tendency to court 
 the favor of him who has the disposal of offices and this for 
 the very reason that when the choice is in the people their 
 favor is courted. If the latter has a popular tendency, it is 
 no less certain that the former must have a contrary one. 
 I, for my part, must say, that, according to my conception, 
 the true principle is, to render those who are charged with 
 mere ministerial offices secure in their places, so long as they 
 continue to discharge their duty with ability and integrity ; 
 and I would no more permit the Chief Magistrate of a 
 country to displace them without cause, on party grounds, 
 than I would permit him to divest them of their freeholds : 
 the power to divest them of the one is calculated to make 
 them as servile and dependent as the power to divest them 
 of the other. 
 
 I have now, said Mr. C., concluded what I intended to 
 say. I have omitted several subjects which I was desirous 
 of discussing connected with the highly important question 
 which has so deeply occupied the attention of the Senate ; 
 but the session is so near a close that I feel the necessity of 
 brevity, and will therefore forego what I would otherwise 
 say. 
 
 SPEECH 
 
 On the Bill reported by the Select Committee on 
 Executive Patronage, delivered in the Senate, 
 February 13th, 1835. 
 
 MR. CALHOUN said : This is not the first time that the 
 measure now under consideration has been before the Senate. 
 It was introduced eight years ago, on the report of a select
 
 SPEECHES. 447 
 
 committee raised on Executive Patronage, as one of the 
 measures then thought necessary to curtail what, at that 
 time, was thought to be the excessive patronage of the Ex- 
 ecutive. The party then in opposition, and now in power, 
 then pledged themselves to the community that, should they 
 be elevated to power, they would administer the Government 
 on the principles laid down in the report. Mr. C. said, that 
 it was now high time to inquire how this solemn pledge, 
 which, in his opinion, imposed a sacred obligation, has been 
 redeemed ? Has the plighted faith been kept which the 
 committee gave in the name of the party ? Before I under- 
 take to answer this question, it may be proper to inquire 
 Who constituted that committee, and what is the position 
 they now occupy ? The chairman was Mr. Benton, now a 
 member of the Senate and of the present committee. The 
 name of Mr. Macon, then a Senator from North Carolina, so 
 well known to the country, stands next ; Mr. Yan Buren, 
 now Vice-President ; Mr. Dickerson, now Secretary of the 
 Treasury ; Mr. Johnson, now a member of the House from 
 Kentucky ; Mr. White, then, as now, Senator from Tennes- 
 see ; Mr. Holmes of Maine ; Mr. Hayne of South Carolina ; 
 Mr. Findlay of Pennsylvania ; all, at the time, distinguished 
 members of this body. 
 
 Such was the committee, which, then and now, stands so 
 high in the confidence of the party now in power. Hear 
 what their report says upon the subject of Executive 
 Patronage. 
 
 [Here an extract from the Eeport was read as follows :] 
 
 " To be able to show to the Senate a full and perfect view of the power 
 and workings of Federal patronage, the committee addressed a note, im- 
 mediately after they were charged with this inquiry, to each of the de- 
 partments, and to the Postmaster-General, requesting to be informed of 
 the whole number of persons employed, and the whole amount of money 
 paid out, under the direction of their respective departments 1 The an- 
 swers received are herewith submitted, and made part of this report.
 
 448 SPEECHES. 
 
 With the ' Blue Book,' they will discover enough to show that the pre- 
 dictions of those who were not blind to the defects of the constitution, are 
 ready to be realized ; that the power and influence of Federal patronage, 
 contrary to the argument in the 'Federalist,' is an overmatch for the 
 power and influence of State patronage ; that its workings will contami- 
 nate the purity of all elections, and enable the Federal Government, 
 eventually, to govern throughout the States, as effectually as if they were 
 so many provinces of one vast empire. 
 
 " The whole of this great power will centre in the President. The 
 King of England is the ' fountain of honor ; ' the President of the United 
 States is the source of patronage. He presides over the entire system of 
 Federal appointments, jobs, and contracts. He has 'power' over the 
 ' support ' of the individuals who administer the system. He makes and 
 unmakes them. He chooses from the circle of his friends and supporters 
 and may dismiss them ; and, upon all the principles of human actions, 
 will dismiss them, as often as they disappoint his expectations. Hia 
 spirit will animate their actions in all the elections to State and Federal 
 offices. There may be exceptions; but the truth of a general rule is 
 proved by the exception. The intended check and control of the Senate, 
 without new constitutional or statutory provisions, will cease to operate. 
 Patronage will penetrate this body, subdue its capacity of resistance, 
 chain it to the car of power, and enable the President to rule as easily, 
 and much more securely with, than without the nominal check of the 
 Senate. If the President was himself jhe officer of the people, elected by 
 them, and responsible to them, there would be less danger from this con- 
 centration of all power in his hands ; but it is the business of statesmen to 
 act upon things as they are, not as they would wish them to be. "We 
 must then look forward to the time when the public revenue will be 
 doubled ; when the civil and military officers of the Federal Government 
 will be quadrupled ; when its influence over individuals will be multiplied 
 to an indefinite extent ; when the nomination by the President can carry 
 any man through the Senate, and his recommendation can carry any 
 measure through the two Houses of Congress; when the principle of 
 public action will be open and avowed ; the President wants my vote, 
 and I want his patronage ; I will vote as he wishes, and he will give 
 me the office I wish for. What will this be, but the government of one 
 man ? and what is the government of one man, but a monarchy ? Names 
 are nothing. The nature of a thing is in its substance, and the name soon 
 accommodates itself to the substance. The first Roman Emperor was 
 styled Emperor of the Republic, and the last French Emperor took the 
 same title ; and their respective countries were just as essentially mo- 
 narchical before, as after the assumption of these titles. It cannot be
 
 SPEECHES. 449 
 
 denied or dissembled but that the Federal Government gravitates to the 
 same point, and that the election of the Executive by the Legislature 
 quickens the impulsion. 
 
 '' Those who make the President must support him. Their political 
 fate becomes identified, and they must stand or fall together. Right or 
 wrong, they must support him ; and if he is made contrary to the will of 
 the people, he must be supported not only by votes and speeches, but by 
 arms. A violent and forced state of things will ensue ; individual com- 
 bats will take place ; and the combats of individuals will be the forerun- 
 ner to general engagements. The array of man against man will be the 
 prelude to the array of army against army, and of State against State. 
 Such is the law of nature ; and it is equally in vain for one set of men to 
 claim an exemption from its operation, as it would be for any other set to 
 suppose that, under the same circumstances, they would not act in the 
 same manner. The natural remedy for all these evils, would be to place 
 the election of President in the hands of the people of the United States. 
 He would then have a power to support him, which would be as able, as 
 willing to aid him when he was himself supporting the interests of the 
 country, as they would be to put him down when he should neglect or 
 oppose those interests. Your committee, looking at the present mode of 
 electing the President as the principal source of all this evil, have com- 
 menced their labors at the beginning of this session, by recommending an 
 amendment to the constitution in that essential and vital particular ; but 
 in this, as in many other things, they find the greatest difficulty to be in the 
 first step. The committee recommend the amendment, but the people 
 cannot act upon it until Congress shall 'propose' it, and peradventure 
 Congress will not ' propose ' it to them at all. 
 
 " It is no longer true that the President, in dealing out offices to Mem- 
 bers of Congress, will be limited, as supposed in the Federalist, to the in- 
 considerable number of places which may become vacant by the ordinary 
 casualties of deaths and resignations ; on the contrary, he may now draw, 
 for that purpose, upon the entire fund of the Executive patronage. Con- 
 struction and legislation have accomplished this change. In the very first 
 year of the constitution, a construction was put upon that instrument 
 which enabled the President to create as many vacancies as he pleased, 
 and at any moment that he thought proper. This was effected by yield- 
 ing to him the kingly prerogative of dismissing officers without the for- 
 mality of a trial. The authors of the Federalist had not foreseen this con- 
 struction ; so far from it, they had asserted the contrary, and, arguing 
 logically from the premises. : that the dismissing power was appurte- 
 nant to the appointing power," they had maintained, in No. 77 of that 
 standard work, that, as the consent of the Senate was necessary to the 
 VOL. H. 29
 
 450 SPEECHES. 
 
 appointment of an officer, so the consent of the same body would be 
 equally necessary to his dismission from office. But this construction was 
 overruled by the first Congress which was formed under the constitu- 
 tion ; the power of dismission from office was abandoned to the Presi- 
 dent alone, and, with the acquisition of this prerogative alone, the power 
 and patronage of the Presidential office was instantly increased to an in- 
 definite extent, and the argument of the Federalist against the capacity of 
 the President, to corrupt the Members of Congress, founded upon the 
 small number of places which he could use for that purpose, was totally 
 overthrown. So much for construction. Now for the effects of legisla- 
 tion ; and without going into an enumeration of statutes which unneces- 
 sarily increase the Executive patronage, the Four Years' Appointment Law 
 will alone be mentioned ; for this single act, by vacating almost the entire 
 civil list, once in every period of a presidential term of service, places more 
 offices at the command of the President than were known to the constitu- 
 tion at the time of its adoption, and is, of itself amply sufficient to over- 
 throw the whole of the argument which was used in the Federalist." 
 
 It is impossible, said Mr. C., to read this report, which 
 denounces in such unqualified terms the excess and the 
 abuses of patronage at that time, without being struck with 
 ' the deplorable change which a few short years have wrought 
 in the character of our country. Then we were sensitive in 
 all that related to our liberty ; and jealous of patronage and 
 governmental influence : so much so, that a few inconsiderable 
 removals, three or four printers, roused the indignation of the 
 whole country events which would now pass unnoticed. We 
 ,ve grown insensible, become callous and stupid. 
 
 But let us turn to the question which I have asked. How 
 has the plighted faith of the party been fulfilled ? Have the 
 abuses then denounced been corrected ? Has the Four Years' 
 Law been repealed ? Has the election of the President been 
 given to the people ? Has the exercise of the dismissing 
 power by the President, which was then pronounced to be a 
 dangerous violation of the constitution, been restored to Con- 
 gress ? All those pledges have been forgotten. Not one 
 has been fulfilled. And what justification, I ask, is offered 
 for so gross a violation of faith ? None is even attempted
 
 SPEECHES. 451 
 
 the delinquency is acknowledged ; and the only effort which 
 the Senator from Missouri has made to defend his own con- 
 duct, and that of the administration, in adopting the practice 
 which he then denounced, is on the plea of retaliation. He 
 says that he has been fourteen years a member of the Senate ; 
 and that, during the first seven, no friend of his had received 
 the favor of the Government ; and contends that it became 
 necessary to dismiss those in office, to make room for others 
 who had been, for so long a time, beyond the circle of Exe- 
 cutive favor. What, Mr. C. asked, is the principle, when 
 correctly understood, on which this defence rests ? It assumes 
 that retaliation is a principle in its nature so sacred, that it 
 justifies the violation of the constitution, the breach of 
 plighted faith, and the subversion of principles, the observ- 
 ance of which had been declared to be essential to the liberty 
 of the country. The avowal of such a principle may be 
 justified at this time by interested partisans ; but the time 
 must arrive, when a more impartial tribunal will regard it in 
 a far different light, and pronounce that sentence which 
 violated faith and broken pledges deserve. Mr. C. said, the 
 bill now before the Senate affords an opportunity to the 
 dominant party to redeem its pledges, as late as it is, and to 
 avert, at least in part, that just denunciation which an im- 
 partial posterity will otherwise most certainly pronounce on 
 them. He hoped that they would embrace the opportunity, 
 and thereby prove that, in expelling the former administra- 
 tion they were not merely acting a part, and that the solemn 
 pledges and promises then .given were not electioneering 
 tricks, devoid of sincerity and truth. I consider it, said Mr. 
 C., as an evidence of that deep degeneracy, which precedes 
 the downfall of a republic, when those elevated to power, 
 forget the promises on which they were elevated ; the certain 
 effect of which is to make an impression on the public mind, 
 that all is juggling and tricky in politics and to create an
 
 452 SPEECHES. 
 
 indifference to political straggles, highly favorable to the 
 growth of despotic power. 
 
 [Mr. Benton here rose and made some remarks in defence of him- 
 self and the administration ; after which] 
 
 / Mr. Calhoun proceeded to show, that the prerogative of 
 turning out of office, committed, without limitation to the 
 President, is a means of increasing at once the Executive 
 power to a dangerous and ruinous extent ; rendering him the 
 head of a party, not founded on principles, but resting on 
 *" the worst of all bases, that of personal interest and fear. 
 /* Having shown that the present administration rose to 
 power by the hopes excited, and professions held out against 
 the very abuses which now had grown to so alarming an 
 excess, Mr. Calhoun deplored, in energetic terms, the falsifi- 
 cation of those hopes ; urging the fatal effects which are 
 produced, when the solemn promises and plighted faith of 
 men are broken, and when the people are led to believe that 
 political truth is extinguished, and the most solemn engage- 
 ments are merely made as stepping stones to power, and as 
 instruments of electioneering. 
 
 [Mr. Benton here again rose, and in his usual strain of rude and 
 vulgar insolence, interrupted the debate. He was called to order by 
 Mr. Poindexter of Mississippi, and after some time spent in discussing 
 the point, Mr. Calhoun rose and said :] 
 
 I rise to express my surprise at the course pursued by the 
 member from Missouri (Col. Benton) who has just taken 
 his seat. He is a member of the committee, and regularly 
 attended its meetings. While the report was before the 
 committee for consideration, he sat in silence, without whis- 
 pering the objections now urged with so much violence, and 
 in language so unwarranted. I had not intended to go into 
 the report while the present bill was under consideration. 
 It met the approbation of the whole committee, including
 
 SPEECHES. 453 
 
 that of the Senator from Missouri, and I had a right to ex- 
 pect, at least as far as he was concerned, that it would pass 
 without opposition. Under this impression I had proposed 
 to myself to delay the discussion on the merits of the report, 
 till the resolution to amend the constitution, from which the 
 member dissented, came under consideration ; when an op- 
 portunity would be afforded to repel his broad and unfounded 
 assertions and fallacious conclusions, and to establish the 
 correctness of the report on all the points on which it had 
 been assailed ; but the course pursued by the Senator compels 
 me to repel his assertions without further delay. 
 
 When the subject of printing the report was under con- 
 sideration a few days since, he asserted, in the boldest man- 
 ner, that the estimate of the committee in relation to the 
 surplus revenue was so wild, that wild was a term too mod- 
 erate ; and that none less strong than " hallucination " could 
 be applied. I then repelled his objections in a manner which 
 I trust was satisfactory to every one capable of estimating 
 the force of just reasoning ; but in order that there might 
 not be a shadow of doubt on a point of so much importance, 
 I have since re-examined the subject, and now pronounce, 
 without the fear of contradiction, that on the Senator's own 
 premises, the estimate of the surplus, as reported by the com- 
 mittee, is correct notwithstanding the outrageous extrava- 
 gance of his assertions. The Senator did not venture any 
 argument of his own to rebut the conclusion of the commit- 
 tee ; but, with that deference to power which is one of the 
 characteristics of those with whom he is politically associa- 
 ted, he relied solely upon the statement of the Secretary of 
 the Treasury, furnished in his annual report. Now, said Mr. 
 C., it is remarkable that the estimates of the Secretary of the 
 income of the current year, instead of supporting the un- 
 warranted assertions of the Senator from Missouri, coincide 
 remarkably with the estimate of the committee ; which shows 
 with what disregard to the state of the facts the Senator ven-
 
 454 SPEECHES. 
 
 tures his assertions, though uttered with so much confidence. 
 But that there may be no further question on this point, I 
 will turn to the report of the Secretary itself, and compare 
 in detail his estimate with that submitted by the committee. 
 Beginning, then, with the customs, which is the principal 
 source of our revenue, the Secretary estimates the income 
 from this source at sixteen millions of dollars ; the commit- 
 tee at sixteen millions three hundred and seventy thousand 
 dollars ; making a difference of but three hundred and sev- 
 enty thousand dollars a very striking coincidence, consider- 
 ing that the calculations rest upon grounds so essentially dif- 
 ferent. The Secretary assumes as his basis the income from 
 the customs for the last year, without taking into the esti- 
 mate that a very considerable portion of the receipts from 
 that source last year were derived from duties accruing the 
 preceding year, when the rates were much higher than they 
 are now ; but to balance this error, he omits to take into the 
 account the diminution of the imports of articles subject to 
 duty, in consequence of the disturbed state of the currency, 
 which two sums nearly balance each other ; and thus, by two 
 errors of an opposite character, and of nearly equal magni- 
 tude, he has accidentally fallen upon the truth. 
 
 As to the next greatest source of our revenue, the public 
 lands, the estimates of the Secretary and the committee ex- 
 actly coincide ; both placing it at three millions five hun- 
 dred thousand dollars. The estimates of the remaining re- 
 sources are placed by the Secretary at $500,070 ; by the 
 committee at $450,000 ; making a difference of $50,070 
 only. Adding these several items on both sides, the aggre- 
 gate of the Secretary amounts to $20,000,070 ; and that of 
 the committee to $20,320,000 ; making a difference of but 
 $319,930. So much for the income. As to the expendi- 
 ture, I am not ignorant that the Secretary estimates it at 
 $19,683,541 making a difference between that and his esti- 
 mate of the income, of $316,529. The committee, on the
 
 SPEECHES. 455 
 
 contrary, make no estimate of the actual expenditure. Its 
 object was not to estimate the expenditure on the present 
 scale, which is admitted by the Senator himself to be enor- 
 mous, profuse, and profligate. On the contrary, the object 
 of the committee was to ascertain to what these expenditures 
 might safely be reduced, consistently with the just efficiency 
 of the Government. For this purpose, they selected the year 
 1823 as the basis on which to rest their estimate a year 
 which the Senator at that time, and those with whom he then 
 acted, denounced as profuse and extravagant (Mr. Benton as- 
 sented), and which he even now has the assurance to allude 
 to as extravagant, and attempts to hold me responsible as 
 its author. Well, then, I have taken this extravagant pe- 
 riod. I have allowed twenty per cent, upon its expenditure 
 which so many who now support the present administration, 
 then pronounced as so extravagant. Yes, twenty per cent, 
 on the then expenditure on fortifications on internal im- 
 provements on pensions, and every other item, all of which 
 the Senator has pronounced to have been so extravagant at 
 that period, that even now he holds the then administration 
 responsible, in his zeal to defend the present. I have gone 
 further. I have added the actual increase of pensions, of 
 which he now complains so much, and to which he mainly 
 attributes the present great increase of expenditure, to the 
 twenty per cent., and find that, with all these heavy ad- 
 ditions, the expenditure ought not, at present, to exceed 
 $12,060,412 per annum for the next seven years ; which, 
 deducted from the estimate of the receipts of the present 
 year, as given by the Secretary of the Treasury, and on 
 which the Senator relies for his uncourteous and extravagant 
 assertions, leaves a balance of $7,939,658. If we allow for 
 the surplus revenue now in the treasury, deducting two 
 millions for contingent expense, and the Government por- 
 tion of the United States Bank stock making together 
 $13,039,381 and distribute this sum equally in the next
 
 456 SPEECHES. 
 
 seven years, it would give $1,862,768 to each year.' Add 
 this to the surplus already obtained, and it would give a balance 
 of upwards of nine millions, as estimated by the committee. 
 
 Thus, said Mr. C., the very authority which the Senator 
 resorts to, and on the strength of which he has ventured to 
 utter his bold and lawless denunciations of the report, sus- 
 tains it in a most remarkable manner, and furnishes a strik- 
 ing proof of the carelessness and inattention of the Senator 
 in his assumptions and his arguments. 
 
 Nature, said Mr. C., has bestowed her gifts very unequal- 
 ly and partially upon men. To some she has given one qual- 
 ity, and to others another. She has certainly been profuse 
 of her gifts to the Senator from Missouri (Mr. Benton), in 
 one particular ; she has endowed him, above all men, with 
 boldness yes, boldness of assertion ; but I must say she has 
 been more niggard in the power of ratiocination. In the face 
 of this confirmation of the estimate of the committee, by his 
 own authority, he has ventured to assail the correctness of 
 the report in the most unqualified manner, and bellowed out 
 that the estimate was extravagant a fallacy hallucination ! 
 
 He has, said Mr. C., not thought proper to repeat these 
 offensive epithets in the speech which he has just delivered ; 
 but in lieu of them he tells us that the report is deceptive 
 fallacious ; and that, while pretending to moderation but thin- 
 ly veiled, it partakes of the most bitter party character ; and 
 in the same breath with which he makes these charges, he 
 alleges, as a serious charge against the committee, that they 
 did not go into an inquiry of the cause of the enormous in- 
 crease of patronage and expenditure, which the Senator can- 
 not deny. I repel, said Mr. C., the charges of the Senator 
 as destitute of any foundation, and affirm that the report is 
 as free from party. spirit as it is possible for a paper of this 
 description to be, consistently with truth and a regard to 
 duty. The Senate charged the committee, in its resolution, 
 to inquire into the extent of Executive patronage its great
 
 SPEECHES. 457 
 
 increase of late and the expediency and practicability of re- 
 ducing it ; and how could the committee perform this duty 
 without speaking freely of facts as they exist ? How could 
 they inform the people of these States of the extent of Ex- 
 ecutive patronage, and the cause of its great increase of late, if 
 they had said less than they have ? The truth is, the com- 
 mittee looked to the facts, and to the facts only ; and treated 
 of them, as much as possible, separate from all personal or 
 party considerations ; and yet the Senator from Missouri, 
 while he charges the committee with giving a party charac- 
 ter to the report, with a strange inconsistency and confusion 
 of ideas, blames them for not inquiring into the fact of who 
 were the authors of the present extravagant expenditure and 
 enormous patronage, which he does not pretend to deny. 
 Can the Senator be so blind as not to see that it was impos- 
 sible to discuss that point without giving a violent party 
 character to the report, which would have ended in prevent- 
 ing the possibility of applying a remedy to what all (and he 
 with others) admit to be a deep and dangerous disease ? I 
 must tell the Senator what, as a member, he ought to know, 
 that the committee were actuated by far higher and more 
 patriotic considerations. They were more studious of devis- 
 ing a remedy to arrest the dangerous progress of events, than 
 of giving a party character to their proceedings, which, how- 
 ever it might bear upon those in power, could not but defeat 
 the object which the Senate had in view in instituting the 
 inquiry. This is the reason why the committee did not in- 
 quire who were the authors of the present state of things. 
 They were not deterred, as the Senator seems to insinuate, by 
 the apprehension that the inquiry would implicate others as 
 the authors of the present diseased condition of the country, 
 and exempt the administration. The result of such an in- 
 quiry, so far from acquitting, would deeply implicate the ad- 
 ministration in all the extravagant expenditures to which the 
 Senator alludes internal improvements, pensions, removal of
 
 458 SPEECHES, 
 
 the Indians, and those connected with the tariff, as I am 
 prepared to show, whenever a suitable opportunity offers. 
 But before I quit this part of the subject, let me correct an 
 error, into which it would seem strange that the Senator 
 should have fallen. He tells us, with his usual confidence, 
 that Andrew Jackson was the author of the plan of re- 
 moving the Indians to the west of the Mississippi, and be- 
 stows upon him all the honor and the glory, and calls upon 
 the State of Mississippi and the new States to pay the debt 
 of gratitude which they owe him as the author of this noble 
 policy. Is it possible that the Senator could have been igno- 
 rant that it was Thomas Jefferson, and not the object of his 
 adoration, who was the real author ? Can he be ignorant 
 that Andrew Jackson himself (as he calls the President), in 
 the treaty with the Cherokees, in 1817, acknowledges this 
 fact ? To come to a later period, is he ignorant that Mr. 
 Monroe recommended, in one of his messages, in the fullest 
 and most explicit manner, the adoption of the policy of the 
 removal of all the Indian tribes within our limits on the east 
 of the Mississippi, to the west of that river ? and that the 
 message of Mr. Monroe was founded on a report of which I 
 was the author, as Secretary of War ? How, with all these 
 facts before him, could the Senator pronounce, as he has, that 
 the present President was the author of the system, and 
 that, as such, he ought to have bestowed upon him exclu- 
 sively whatever honor and gratitude may belong to it ? Let 
 me tell the Senator, that he who undertakes to correct the 
 errors of others, ought to be very cautious of committing 
 errors himself. 
 
 But it seems that the committee have committed an enor- 
 mous error in the statement of the expenditure which they 
 have given for the ten years from 1823 to 1833. The Sen- 
 ator says that they have entirely overlooked the extraordinary 
 expenditure for the last of these years. A very simple an- 
 swer will set him right. The object of the committee as
 
 SPEECHES. 459 
 
 the statement itself on its face purports to be, is to exhibit 
 the amount of the expenditures only for the period in ques- 
 tion, without inquiring into their nature and character, or for 
 what reason or objects they were incurred, with the view of 
 showing that there was a regular progression and great in- 
 crease of the expenditures of late. The statement is taken 
 from the official returns of the expenditure during the ten 
 years, and in addition to which the report gives the estimat- 
 ed expenditure for 1834, and the annual report of the Se- 
 cretary of the Treasury gives the estimate of the expendi- 
 ture of the current year : so that the committee could have 
 had no object in selecting 1833 with a view of exhibiting the 
 increase to be greater than it really is. It was selected sim- 
 ply because it is the last year of which we have official and 
 certain returns of the expenditures those of 1834 and 1835 
 being as yet in some degree uncertain and conjectural. Now, 
 said Mr. C., if the expenditure of 1833 gives us so unfair a 
 result ; if, as the Senator contends, it was swelled so enor- 
 mously by accidental circumstances, that seven millions ought 
 to be deducted to obtain the true result, what will he say to 
 the estimated expenditure of 1834 and 1835, which are but 
 little short of twenty millions of dollars for each year ? Will 
 he pretend to say that any extraordinary occurrences affect- 
 ed the disbursements of the last year, or that those of the 
 present, as estimated by the Secretary, were not based on the 
 usual items of expenditure ? Let us then lay aside the 
 year 1833, to which the Senator so strenuously objects as 
 being a year of extraordinary disbursements, and take that 
 of the last or present year, the expenditure of which, as I 
 have stated, is estimated at nearly twenty millions of dol- 
 lars, and how much will the Senator gain by comparing either 
 of those years with 1823 instead of 1833, to which he ob- 
 jects. He will find, on comparison, that the expenditures of 
 1823, compared with the estimates of this and the last year, 
 are less than one half ; and how will he, who in 1826 condemn-
 
 460 SPEECHES. 
 
 ed the comparatively moderate expenditure of that period, 
 undertake now to justify this enormous increase since an 
 increase which has occurred mainly under this reform admin- 
 istration, of which the Senator is one of the warmest and 
 most unqualified supporters. But let us turn and examine 
 the items of 1833, to which the Senator objects as being im- 
 properly charged upon that year. 
 
 First, the Black Hawk war, to which he charges nine 
 hundred thousand dollars. Now, sir, said Mr. C., if I am 
 not greatly mistaken, it was charged on this floor by a gentle- 
 man, a friend of the administration, well acquainted with 
 that petty contest, that it originated in the misconduct of 
 the officers and agents of the government ; and might easily 
 have been prevented if the complaints of the Indians had 
 not been improperly neglected by those whose duty it was to 
 attend to them. The Senator then tells us that there were 
 extraordinary Indian treaties in that year, and large sums paid 
 for the removal and subsistence of the Indians which to- 
 gether amounted to more than one million of dollars. I cannot, 
 said Mr. C., admit this deduction. Of the present extrava- 
 gant and unreasonable disbursements, there are none more 
 reckless and profuse than those for holding Indian treaties, 
 purchasing Indian lands and removing Indians which exceed 
 many fold what has heretofore been usual ; and I firmly 
 believe have been the subject of as much, if not more abuse 
 and corruption, than the post-office department. 
 
 The Senator next deducts the expenditure under the pen- 
 sion act of 1832, which he denominates loose and wild, but 
 which he takes care to charge to the credit of Congress. I 
 will not, said Mr. C., permit the Senator to shift the respon- 
 sibility from the shoulders of the administration. It is not 
 to be tolerated that, those who expelled a former administra- 
 tion because of its extravagance, shall now, when the admin- 
 istration thus brought into power proves to be doubly so, lay 
 the blame upon Congress instead of taking it to themselves.
 
 SPEECHES. 46] 
 
 I would ask the Senator, when he drew his report in 1826 
 and denounced the then administration in such severe and 
 unqualified terms for their extravagance, whether every item 
 of expenditure at that time had not been authorized by Con- 
 gress ? and with what semblance of justice could he then 
 transfer the blame from Congress to the administration, and 
 now, under precisely similar circumstances, from the admin- 
 istration to Congress ? He, and those who are now in power, 
 have reaped the fruit and as they obtained power by holding 
 others responsible, so it is just that they should, in turn, be 
 held responsible. I go further. I maintain as a sound ruley 
 that every administration, unless it be in a minority in both\ 
 Houses, ought, upon every principle of justice and policy, to y 
 be held responsible ; and it is one of the striking eviden- / 
 ces of the diseased and corrupt state of the present tunes/ 
 that such is not the fact. Has not the present administration^ 
 had, at all times, a majority either in this or the other House ? \ 
 and has not the President freely exercised his veto whenever / 
 any party object was to be effected ? Why then has this 
 appropriation, which the Senator designates as so extravagant 
 and improper, been permitted to pass ? Why was it not de- 
 feated in the House of Representatives, where the adminis- 
 tration had a settled majority, or arrested by the President's 
 veto ? I will answer these questions. It is because the adX 
 ministration has not thought proper to make either this, or 
 any other question of principle or policy, a party question. 
 A member may vote on any question of the kind for or 
 against, and be still a good Jackson man. He may be for 
 or against internal improvements for or against the tariff 
 for or against this or that expenditure for or against the 
 Bank, without forfeiting his party character, provided always 
 and nevertheless, he shall submit to party discipline and sus-/ 
 tain the party candidates for office. This is the only coheA 
 sive principle ; this is the only subject deemed of sufficient 
 importance to be raised to the dignity of a party question.
 
 462 SPEECHES. 
 
 A.11 others, however important in themselves ; however sa- 
 cred the principle involved ; however essential the measure 
 to the public prosperity, are all, it seems, too insignificant 
 to be made party questions. They are all left open ques- 
 tions, in reference to which the faithful may take either 
 side. Yes, even the Bank itself is not a party question of 
 which we have a most striking illustration in the fact that 
 General Jackson bestowed the highest gift in his power on a 
 Senator (Mr. Forsyth), who had openly, on this floor, in the 
 very heat of the controversy, avowed himself a Bank man 
 while other Senators who were openly opposed to the institu- 
 tion were denounced ; thus furnishing a most striking illus- 
 / tration of the truth of what I have asserted, that the only 
 cohesive principle which binds together the powerful party 
 rallied under the name of General Jackson, is official patron- 
 Age. Their object is to get and to hold office ; and their lead- 
 Xing political maxim, openly avowed on this floor by one of 
 / the former Senators from New- York, now governor of that 
 V State (Mr. Marcy), is that, "to the victors belong the 
 N^poils of victory ! " a sentiment recently reiterated during 
 the present session, as I understand, by an influential mem- 
 ber in the other House, and who had the assurance to 
 declare every man a hypocrite who does not avow it. Can 
 any one, who will duly reflect on these things, venture to 
 say that all is sound, and that our Government is not un- 
 dergoing a great and fatal change ? Let us not deceive 
 ourselves the very essence of a free government consists ii 
 considering offices as public trusts, bestowed for the good oi 
 the country, and not for the benefit of an individual or 
 party ; and that system of political morals which regards 
 offices in a different light, as public prizes to be won by com- 
 batants most skilled in all the arts and corruption of political^ 
 tactics, and to be used and enjoyed as their proper spoils \ 
 strikes a fatal blow at the very vitals of free institutions. 
 Mr. C. said, experience has shown that there is a great
 
 SPEECHES. 463 
 
 tendency in our system to degenpra.tf* inf.n fhia fligo^f^ 
 and I will venture to repeat (it cannot be done too often), 
 what is stated in the report, that whenever the Executive 
 patronage shall become sufficiently strong to form a party 
 'based on its influence exclusively, the liberty of the country, 
 should that state of things continue for any considerable 
 period, must be lost. We would make a great mistakejwere . 
 we to suppose that, becanse^the Government of Great Bri- r** 
 tain can maintain its freedom under an immense patronage, 
 ours also can. The genius of the two governments in 
 this particular is wholly dissimilar ; so muchjojs to form a 
 perfect contrast. It is the feature by which they are 
 most distinguished. No free government that ever existed 
 could maintain its liberty under so much patronage as that 
 of Great Britain, and there are few that could not bear more 
 than ours. But, said Mr. C., it is a great subject, which 
 I cannot enter upon on the present occasion. I return to 
 the objection which the Senator made to the statement of 
 the expenditures of the year 1833. I could not be ignorant, 
 said Mr. C., in making a movement against Executive patron- 
 age, that I would bring down upon me the vengeance of that 
 great and powerful corps now held together by this single 
 cohesive principle a principle as flexible as India rubber, 
 and as tough too. The hj^taryjn_-the world proves that lj.e 
 who attempts reformation, attempts it at no small hazard. 
 I know the relation which the Senator bears to the dominant 
 party. He is identified with them, 
 
 [Here Mr. Benton said, Mrs. Royal says so ; to which Mr. C. re , 
 plied, she says truly ; and proceeded,] 
 
 and is their organ on the present occasion. His position 
 compels him to adopt the course he has pursued. 
 
 There remain, then, only two items of the seven millions 
 to be deducted : certain refunded duties, and the payment 
 under the Danish convention, amounting to less than one
 
 464 SPEECHES. 
 
 million and a half, which, if they were paid during the year, 
 may be deducted as of an extraordinary nature, and for 
 which the administration is not responsible ; and thus the 
 seven millions of the Senator dwindles down to about one- 
 fifth of the amount, and the expenditures of the year, after 
 being freed of all the items of which it can justly be, will 
 give an increase of expenditure in the year 1833, over that 
 of 1822, of $11,429,750. 
 
 % When the report asserted, said Mr. C., that the period 
 from 1823 to 1833, was one of profound peace, to which the 
 Senator so violently objects, the committee were not ignorant 
 of the disturbance with Black Hawk and his followers, on 
 our northwest frontier, which the Senator has attempted to 
 dignify by calling it a war. If my memory serves me, it was 
 limited to a single tribe, headed by a single chief, and did 
 not extend to the nation to which he belonged, and lasted 
 but a few months ; and it is in vain for the Senator from 
 Missouri to impeach the correctness of the report, which 
 asserts the period to be one of profound peace, by calling to 
 our recollection this paltry affair, which originated in the 
 misconduct of the administration, and has swelled into the 
 little magnitude which it attained, by its mismanagement. 
 The Senator from Missouri endeavors to escape from the 
 inconsistency in which he is placed by his report in 1826 and 
 his present position. He says that I was mistaken in placing 
 his defence of General Jackson's removals from office on 
 political grounds, on the principle of retaliation ; that it was 
 not on that principle, but that of equalizing the offices 
 between the parties. I, said Mr. C., have not the sagacity 
 to perceive the difference as applied to the present case, or 
 by what possibility the Senator can escape from the incon- 
 sistency in which he is involved, by substituting the one for 
 the other. What are the facts ? In 1826, as Chairman of 
 the Select Committee on Executive Patronage, he made a 
 report, in which he condemned the principle of removal from
 
 SPEECHES. 465 
 
 office in the severest terms, more severe than those used in 
 the present report. He traced its destructive tendency to 
 the great increase which it was calculated to give to Execu- 
 tive patronage, and pronounced the exercise of the power by 
 the President to be unconstitutional ; and now, when the 
 present administration has carried the exercise of this very 
 power, thus condemned by the Senator, more than thirty- 
 fold beyond any or all preceding administrations, the Senator 
 ventures to rest his vindication of the administration and his 
 support of it on the ground of equalization equalization ! 
 What allusion, what exception did the Senator make in favor 
 of equalization in his report ? and how can equalization any 
 more than retaliation justify a violation of the constitution. 
 
 Mr. 0. said, I regret that I have been forced to the dis- 
 cussion of these topics on the present bill, in reference to 
 which the committee is unanimous ; but the extraordinary 
 course of the Senator from Missouri, his bold and unfounded 
 charges and unwarranted imputations, compel me to adopt 
 the course which I have. I now hope that the bill may be 
 allowed to proceed, and that further discussion on the merits 
 of the report will be postponed to some future and more 
 suitable occasion. 
 
 SPEECH 
 
 On the Abolition Petitions, delivered in the Senate, 
 March 9th, 1836. 
 
 [The question of receiving the petitions from Pennsylvania for the 
 abolition of slavery in the District of Columbia, being under considera- 
 tion : ] 
 
 MB. CALHOUN rose, and said : If we may judge from 
 what has been said, the mind of the Senate is fully made up 
 on the subject of these petitions. With the exception of the 
 VOL. ii. 30
 
 466 SPEECHES. 
 
 two Senators from Vermont, all who have spoken have 
 avowed their conviction, not only that they contain nothing 
 requiring the action of the Senate, but that the petitions are 
 highly mischievous, as tending to agitate and distract the 
 country, and to endanger the Union itself. With these con- 
 cessions, I may fairly ask, why should these petitions be re- 
 ceived ? Why receive, when we have made up our mind not 
 to act ? Why idly waste our time and lower our dignity in 
 the useless ceremony of receiving to reject, as is proposed, 
 should the petitions be received ? Why finally receive what 
 all acknowledge to be highly dangerous and mischievous ? 
 But one reason has or can be assigned that not to receive 
 would be a violation of the right of petition, and, of course, 
 that we are bound to receive, however objectionable and 
 dangerous the petitions may be. If such be the fact, there 
 is an end to the question. As great as would be the advan- 
 tage to the abolitionists, if we are bound to receive if it 
 would be a violation of the right of petition not to receive, 
 we must acquiesce. On the other hand, if it shall be shown, 
 not only that we are not bound to receive, but that to receive 
 on the ground on which it has been placed, would sacrifice 
 the constitutional rights of this body, would yield to the 
 abolitionists all they ^nnlrl Vinpp a.f. f.Tiia f.imp^ and would sur- 
 render all the outworks by which the slavcholding States can 
 defend their rights and property HERE, then an unanimous re- 
 jection of these petitions ought of right to follow. 
 
 The decision, then, of the question now before the Senate 
 is reduced to the single point Are ge fopjjnfl to receive 
 these petitions ? Or, to vary the form., of the question 
 Would it be a violation of the right of petition not to re- 
 ceive them ? 
 
 When the ground was first taken that it would be a 
 violation, I could scarcely persuade myself that those whc 
 took it were in earnest, so contrary was it to all my concep- 
 tions of the rights of this body, and the provisions of the
 
 SPEECHES. 467 
 
 constitution ; but finding it so earnestly maintained, I have 
 since carefully investigated the subject, and the result has 
 been a confirmation of my first impression, and a conviction 
 that the claim of right is without shadow of foundation. 
 The question, I must say, has not been fairly met. Those 
 opposed to the side which we support, have discussed the 
 question as if we denied the right of petition, when they 
 could not but know that the true issue is not as to the exist- 
 ence of the right, which is acknowledged by all, but its extent 
 and limits, which not one of our opponents has so much as 
 attempted to ascertain. What they have declined doing I 
 undertake to perform. 
 
 There must be some point, all will agree^ where the right 
 of petition ends, and that of this.. body begins. Where is 
 that point ? I have examined this question carefully, and I 
 assert boldly, without the least fear of refutation, that, 
 stretched to the utmost, the right cannot be extended beyond 
 the presentation of a petition, at which point the rights of 
 this' body" commence. When a petition is presented, it is 
 before the Senate. It must then be acted on. Some dis- 
 position must be made of it before the Senate can proceed to 
 the consideration of any other subject. This no one will 
 deny. With the action of the Senate its right commences 
 a right secured by an express provision of the constitution, 
 which vests each House with the authority of regulating its 
 own proceedings, that is ? of determining by fixed rules the 
 order and form of its action. To extend the right of petition 
 beyond presentation, is clearly to extend it beyond that 
 point where the action of the Senate commences,, and, as _such, 
 is a manifest violation of its constitutional rights. Here 
 then we have the limits between the right of petition and 
 the right of the Senate to regulate its proceedings clearly 
 fixed, and so perfectly defined as not to admit of mistake 
 and I would add of controversy, had it not been questioned 
 in this discussion.
 
 468 SPEECHES. 
 
 If what I have asserted required confirmation, ample 
 might be found in our rules, which embody the deliberate 
 sense of the Senate on this point, from the commencement 
 of the Government to this day. Among them the Senate 
 has prescribed that of its proceedings on the presentation of 
 petitions. It is contained in the_24thJB>uJe, which I ask the 
 Secretary to read, with Mr. Jefferson's remarks in reference 
 to it : 
 
 " Before any petition or memorial addressed to the Senate shall be 
 received, and read at the table, whether the same shall be introduced by 
 sident or a member, a brief statement of the contents of the petition 
 memorial shall verbally be made by the introducer." Rule 24. 
 
 ^ % - x ~~r. Jefferson's remarks : 
 <A & 
 
 " Regularly a motion for receiving it must be made and seconded, 
 and the question put whether it shall be received; but a cry from the 
 House of ' receive,' or even a silence, dispenses with the formality of the 
 
 Here we have a confirmation of all I have asserted. It 
 clearly proves that when a petition is presented, the action 
 of the Senate commences. The first act is to receive the 
 petition. Eeceived by whom ? Not the Secretary, but the 
 Senate. And how can it be received by the Senate but on a 
 motion to receive, and a vote of a majority of the body ? 
 And Mr. Jefferson accordingly tells us that, regularly, such 
 a motion must be made and seconded. On this question 
 then, the right of the Senate begins, and its right is as per- 
 fect and full to receive or reject, as it is to adopt or reject any 
 other question, in any subsequent stage of its proceedings. 
 When I add, that this rule was adopted as far back as the 
 19th of April, 1789, at the first session of the Senate, and 
 that it has been retained, without alteration, in all the sub- 
 sequent changes and modifications of the rules, we have the 
 strongest evidence of the deliberate sense of this body in 
 reference to the point under consideration.
 
 SPEECHES. 469 
 
 I feel that I might here terminate the discussion. I have 
 shown conclusively that the right of petition cannot possibly 
 be extended beyond presentation, . At that .point it is met 
 by the rights of the Senate ; and it follows as a necessary 
 consequence, that so far from being bound to receive these 
 petitions so far would a rejection be from violating the 
 right of petition, we are left perfectly free to reject or to re- 
 ceive at pleasure, and that we cannot be deprived of it with- 
 out violating the rights of this body, secured by the consti- 
 tution, j- snjux R^y/i </ p**CJu.U/N- 
 
 But on a question of such magnitude, I feel it to be a 
 duty to remove every difficulty ; and, that not the shadow of a 
 doubt may remain, I shall next proceed to reply to the ob- 
 jections our opponents have made to the grounds I have 
 taken. At the head of these, it has been urged, again and 
 again, that petitioners have a right to be heard ; and that not 
 to receive petitions is to refuse a hearing. It is to be re- 
 gretted that throughout this discussion those opposed to us 
 have dealt in such vague generalities, and ventured assertions 
 with so little attention to facts. Why have they not in- 
 formed us, in the present instance, what is meant by the right 
 to be heard, and how that right is violated by a refusal to 
 receive ? Had they thought proper to give us this informa- 
 tion, it would at least have greatly facilitated my reply ; but 
 as it is, I am constrained to inquire into the different senses 
 in which the assertion may be taken, and then to show that 
 in not one of them is the right of petition in the slightest 
 degree infringed by a refusal to receive. 
 
 What then is meant by the assertion that these peti- 
 tioners have a right to be heard ? Is it meant that they 
 have a right to appear in the Senate chamber in person to 
 present their petition, and to be heard in its defence ? If this 
 be the meaning, the dullest apprehension must see that the 
 question of receiving has not the slightest bearing on such 
 right. If they have the right to be heard personally at our
 
 470 SPEECHES. 
 
 bar, it is not the 24th rale of our proceedings, but the 19th 
 which violates that right. This rule expressly provides that 
 a motion to admit any person whatever within the doors of 
 the Senate to present a petition shall be out of order, and 
 of course excludes the petitioners from being heard in per- 
 son. But it may be meant that petitioners have a right to 
 have their petitions presented to the Senate, and read in their 
 hearing. If this be the meaning, the right has been enjoyed 
 in the present instance to the fullest extent. The petition 
 was presented by the Senator from Pennsylvania (Mr. Bu- 
 chanan) in the usual mode, by giving a statement of its con- 
 tents, and on my call was read by the Secretary at his table. 
 
 But one more sense can be attached to the assertion. It 
 may be meant that the petitioners have a right to have their 
 petitions discussed by the Senate. If this be intended, 
 I will venture to say, there never was an assertion more 
 directly in the teeth of facts than that which has been so 
 frequently made in the course of this discussion that, to re- 
 fuse to receive the petition, is to refuse a hearing to the pe- 
 titioners. Has not this question been before us for months ? 
 Has not the petition been discussed day after day, fully and 
 freely, in all its bearings ? And how, with these facts 
 before us, with the debates still ringing in our ears, any Sen- 
 ator can rise in his place, and gravely pronounce that, to re- 
 fuse to receive this petition is to refuse a hearing to the pe- 
 titioners to refuse discussion, in the broadest sense, is past 
 my comprehension. Our opponents, as if in their eagerness 
 to circumscribe the rights of the Senate, and to enlarge those 
 of the abolitionists (for such must be the effect of their 
 course), have closed their senses against facts passing before 
 their eyes ; and have entirely overlooked the nature of the 
 question now before the Senate, and which they have been 
 so long discussing. 
 
 The question on receiving the petition not only admits 
 discussion, but admits it in the most ample manner ; more
 
 SPEECHES. 471 
 
 so, in fact, than any other, except the final question on the 
 rejection of the prayer of the petition, or some tantamount 
 question. Whatever may go to show that the petition is or 
 is not deserving the action of this body may be freely urged 
 for or against it, as has been done on the present occasion. In 
 this respect there is a striking difference between it and many 
 of the subsequent questions which may be raised after recep- 
 tion, and particularly the one made by the Senator from 
 Tennessee (Mr. G-rundy), who now is so strenuous an advo- 
 cate in favor of the right of the petitioners to be heard. He 
 spoke with apparent complacency of his course, as it re- 
 spects another of these petitions. And what was that 
 course ? He who is now so eager for discussion, to give a 
 hearing, moved to lay the petition on the table a motion 
 which cuts off all discussion. 
 
 But it may be asked, if the question on receiving peti- 
 tions admits of so wide a scope for discussion, why not re- 
 ceive this petition, and discuss it at some subsequent stage ? 
 Why not receive, it in order to reject its prayer, as proposed 
 by the Senator from Pennsylvania (Mr. Buchanan), instead 
 of rejecting the petition itself on the question of receiving, 
 as we propose ? What is the difference betwen the two ? 
 
 I do not intend at this stage to compare, or rather to 
 contrast the two courses, for they admit of no comparison. 
 My object at present is to establish beyond the possibility of 
 doubt that we are not bound to receive these petitions ; and 
 when that is accomplished, I will then show the disastrous 
 consequences which must follow the reception of the petition, 
 be the after disposition what it may. In the mean time it is 
 sufficient to remark that, it is only on the question of re- 
 ceiving that opposition can be made to the petition itself. On 
 all others, the opposition is to its prayer. On the decision, 
 then, of the question of receiving depends the important 
 question of jurisdiction. To receive is to take jurisdiction 
 to give an implied pledge to investigate and decide on the
 
 472 SPEECHES. 
 
 prayer, to give the petition a place in our archives, and 
 become responsible for its safe-keeping ; and he_who votes for 
 receiving this petition on the ground on which its reception 
 is placed, votes that Congress is bound to take jurisdiction 
 of the question of abolishing slavery both here and in the 
 States gives an implied pledge to take the subject under 
 consideration, and orders the petition to be placed among the 
 public records for safe-keeping. 
 
 But to proceed in reply to the objections of our opponents. 
 It is next urged that precedents are against the side we 
 support. I meet this objection with a direct denial. From 
 the beginning of the Government to the commencement of 
 this session, there is not a single precedent that justifies the 
 receiving of these petitions on the ground on which their 
 reception is urged. The real state of the case is, that we 
 are not following but making precedents. For the first time 
 has the principle been assumed, that we are bound to receive 
 petitions ; that we have no discretion, but must take juris- 
 diction over them, however absurd, frivolous, mischievous, or 
 foreign from the purpose for which the Government was 
 created. Receive these petitions, and you will create a pre- 
 cedent which will hereafter establish this monstrous principle. 
 As yet there are none. The case relied on by the Senator 
 from Tennessee (Mr. Grundy) is in no respect analogous. 
 No question in that case was made on the reception of the 
 petition. The petition slipped in without taking a vote, as 
 is daily done, when the attention of the Senate is not par- 
 ticularly called to the subject. The question on which the 
 discussion took place was on the reference, and not on the 
 reception, as in this case. But what is decisive against the 
 precedent, and which I regret the Senator (Mr. Grundy) did 
 not state, so that it might accompany his remarks, is the 
 fact, that the petition was not for abolishing slavery. The 
 subject was the African slave trade ; and the petition simply 
 prayed that Congress would inquire whether they might not
 
 SPEECHES. 473 
 
 adopt some measure .of interdiction prior to 1808, when, by 
 the constitution, they would be authorized to suppress that 
 trade. I ask the Secretary to read the prayer of the pe- 
 tition : 
 
 " But we find it indispensably incumbent on us. as a religious body, 
 assuredly believing that both the true temporal interests of nations, and 
 eternal well-being of individuals, depend on doing justly, loving mercy, and 
 walking humbly before God, the creator, preserver, and benefactor of men, 
 thus to attempt to excite your attention to the affecting subject (of the slave 
 trade), earnestly desiring that the infinite Father of Spirits may so enrich 
 your minds with his love and truth, and so influence your understanding 
 by that pure wisdom which is full of mercy and good fruits, as that a sincere 
 and an impartial inquiry may take place, whether it be not an essential 
 part of the duty of your exalted station to exert upright endeavors, to the 
 full extent of your power, to remove every obstruction to public righteous- 
 ness, which the influence or artifice of particular persons governed by the 
 narrow, mistaken views of self-interest has occasioned ; and whether, not- 
 withstanding such seeming impediments, it be not really within your 
 power to exercise justice and mercy, which, if adhered to, we cannot doubt 
 abolition must produce the abolition of the slave trade." 
 
 Now, I ask the Senator, where is the analogy between 
 this and the present petition, the reception of which he so 
 strenuously urges ? He is a lawyer of long experience and 
 of distinguished reputation and I put the question to him, 
 on what possible principle can a case so perfectly dissimilar 
 justify the vote he intends to give on the present occasion ? 
 On what possible ground can the vote of Mr. Madison to refer 
 that petition, on which he has so much relied, justify him in 
 receiving this ? Does he not perceive, in his own example, 
 the danger of forming precedents ? If he may call to his 
 aid the authority of Mr. Madison, in a case so dissimilar, to 
 justify the reception of this petition, and thereby extend the 
 jurisdiction of Congress over the question of emancipation, to 
 what purpose hereafter may not the example of his course on 
 the present occasion be perverted ? 
 
 It is not my design to censure Mr. Madison's course, but
 
 474 SPEECHES. 
 
 I cannot refrain from expressing my regret that his name is 
 not found associated, on that occasion, with the sagacious and 
 firm representatives from the South Smith, Tucker and 
 Brooke, of South Carolina, James Jackson, of Georgia, and 
 many others who, at that early period, foresaw the danger, 
 and met it as it ought ever to be met by those who regard 
 the peace and security of the slaveholding States. Had he 
 added the weight of his talents and authority to theirs, a 
 more healthy tone of sentiment than that which now unfortu- 
 nately exists, would this day have been the consequence. 
 
 Another case has been cited, to justify the vote for recep- 
 tion. I refer to the petition from the Quakers, in 1805, 
 which the Senator from Pennsylvania (Mr. Buchanan) relies 
 on to sustain him in receiving the present petition. What I 
 have said in reply to the precedent cited by the Senator from 
 Tennessee, applies equally to this. Like that, the petition 
 prayed legislation, not on the abolition of slavery, but the Afri- 
 can slave trade, over which subject Congress, then in a few 
 years, would have full jurisdiction by the constitution, and 
 might well have their attention called to it in advance. But, 
 though their objects were the same, the manner in which the 
 petitions were met was very dissimilar. Instead of being 
 permitted to be received silently, like the former, this petition 
 was met at the threshold. The question of receiving was 
 made, as on the present occasion, and its rejection sustained 
 by a strong Southern vote, as the journal will show. The 
 Secretary will read the journal : 
 
 "Mr. Logan presented a petition signed Thomas Morris, clerk, on 
 behalf of the meeting of the representatives of the people called Quakers, 
 in Pennsylvania, New Jersey, &c., stating that the petitioners, from a 
 sense of religious duty, had again come forward to plead the cause of their 
 oppressed and degraded fellow-men of the African race. On the question, 
 ; Shall this petition be received ? ' it passed in the affirmative yeas, 19 ; 
 nays, 9." 
 
 Among those to receive the petition, there were but four
 
 SPEECHES. 475 
 
 from the slaveholding States, and this on a simple petition 
 praying for legislation on a subject over which Congress in so 
 short a time would have full authority. What an example 
 to us on the present occasion ! Can any man doubt, from 
 the vote, if the Southern Senators on that occasion had been 
 placed in our present situation that, had it been their lot 
 as it is ours, to meet that torrent of petitions which is now 
 poured in on Congress not from peaceable Quakers, but 
 ferocious incendiaries not to suppress the African slave 
 trade, but to abolish slavery they would, with united voice, 
 have rejected the petition with scorn and indignation ? Can 
 any one who knew him doubt, that one of the Senators from 
 the South (the gallant Sumter), who on that occasion voted 
 for receiving the petition, would have been among the first 
 to vindicate the interests of those whom he represented, had 
 the question at that day been what it is on the present 
 occasion ? 
 
 Wejfre next told that, instead of looking to the consti- 
 tution, in order to ascertain what are the limits to the right 
 of petition, we must push that instrument aside, and go Jback 
 to Magna Charta and the Declaration of Eights for its origin 
 and limitation. We live in strange times. It seems there 
 are Christians now more orthodox than the Bible, and poli- 
 ticians whose standard is higher than the constitution ; but 
 I object not to tracing the right to these ancient and venera- 
 ted sources ; I hold .in high estimation the institutions of our 
 English-ancestors. They grew up gradually through many 
 generations, by the incessant and untiring efforts of an intel- 
 ligent and brave people struggling for centuries against the 
 power of the crown. To them we are indebted for nearly 
 all that has been gained for liberty in modern times, except- 
 ing what we have added. But may I not ask how it has 
 happened that our opponents, in going back to these sacred 
 instruments, have not thought proper to cite their provisions, 
 or to show in what manner our refusal to receive these
 
 476 SPEECHES. 
 
 petitions violates the right of petition as secured by them ? 
 I feel under no obligation to supply the omission to cito 
 what they have omitted to cite, or to prove, from the instru- 
 ments themselves, that to be no violation of them which they 
 have not proved to be a violation. It is unnecessary. The 
 practice of parliament is sufficient for my purpose. It proves 
 conclusively that it is no violation of the right, as secured by 
 those instruments, to refuse to receive petitions. To estab- 
 lish what this practice is, I ask the Secretary to read from 
 Hatsell, a work of the highest authority, the several para- 
 graphs which are marked with a pencil, commencing at page 
 760, under the head of Petitions on Matter of Supply : 
 
 " On the 9th of April 1694, a petition was tendered to the House, re- 
 lating to the bill for granting to their Majesties several duties upon the 
 tonnage of ships ; and the question being put, that the petition be received, 
 it passed in the negative. 
 
 " On the 28th of April, 1698, a petition was offered to the House 
 against the bill for laying a duty upon inland pit coal ; and the question 
 being put, that the petition be received, it passed in the negative. See, 
 also, the 29th and 30th of June, 1698, petitions relating to the duties 
 upon Scotch linens, and upon whale fins imported. Vide 20th of April, 
 1698. 
 
 " On the 5th of January, 1703, a petition of the maltsters of Notting- 
 ham being offered, against the bill for continuing the duties on malt, and 
 the question being put, that the petition be brought up, it passed in the 
 negative. 
 
 " On the 21st December, 1706, Resolved, That this House will receive 
 no petition for any sum of money relating to public service, but what is 
 recommended from the Crown. Upon the llth of June, 1713, this is de- 
 clared to be a standing order of the House. 
 
 " On the 29th of March, 1707, Resolved, That the House will not pro- 
 ceed on any petition, motion, or bill for granting any money, or for releasing 
 or compounding any money owing to the crown, but in a Committee of 
 the Whole House ; and this is declared to be a standing order. See, also, 
 the 29th of November, 1710. 
 
 " On the 23d of April, 1713, Resolved, That the House will receive no 
 petition for compounding debts to the Crown, upon any branch of the 
 revenue, without a certificate from the proper officer annexed, stating the
 
 SPEECHES. 477 
 
 debt, what prosecutions have been made for the recovery thereof, and 
 what the petitioner and his security are able to pay. 
 
 " On the 25th of March, 1715, this is declared to be a standing order. 
 See the 2d of March, 1735, and the 9th of January 1752, the proceedings 
 upon petitions of this sort. 
 
 " On the 8th of March, 1732, a petition being offered against a bill 
 depending for securing the trade of the sugar colonies, it was refused to be 
 brought up. A motion was then made that a committee be appointed to 
 search precedents in relation to the receiving or not receiving petitions 
 against the imposing of duties; and the question being put, it passed in 
 the negative." 
 
 Nothing can be more conclusive. Not only are peti- 
 tions rejected, but resolutions are passed refusing to receive 
 entire classes of petitions, and that too on the subject of im- 
 posing taxes a subject, above all others, in relation to which 
 we would suppose the right ought to be held most sacred, 
 and this within a few years after the declaration of rights. 
 With these facts before us, what are we to think of the as- 
 sertion of the Senator from Tennessee (Mr. Grandy), who 
 pronounced in his place, in the boldest and most unqualified 
 manner, that there was no deliberative body which did not 
 act on the principle that it was bound to receive petitions ? 
 That a member of his long experience and caution should 
 venture to make an assertion so unfounded, is one of the 
 many proofs of the carelessness, both as to facts and argu- 
 ment, with which this important subject has been examined 
 and discussed on that side. 
 
 But it is not necessary to cross the Atkntic, or to go 
 back to remote periods to find precedents for the rejection 
 of petitions. This body on a memorable occasion, and after 
 full deliberation, a short time since, rejected a petition : and 
 among those who voted for the rejection will be found the 
 names (of course I exclude my own) of the most able and 
 experienced members of the Senate. I refer to the case of 
 resolutions in the nature of a remonstrance from the citizens 
 of York, Pennsylvania, approving the act of the President in
 
 478 SPEECHES. 
 
 removing the deposits. I ask the Secretary to read the jour- 
 nals on the occasion : 
 
 " The Vice-President communicated a preamble and a series of resolu- 
 tions adopted at a meeting of the citizens of York county, Pennsylvania, 
 approving the act of the Executive removing the public money from the 
 Bank of the United States, and opposed to the renewal of the charter of 
 said bank ; which having been read, Mr. Clay objected to the reception. 
 And on the question, Shall they be received ? it was determined in the 
 negative yeas, 20 ; nays, 24. 
 
 " On motion of Mr. Preston, the yeas and nays being desired by one- 
 fifth of the Senators present, those who voted in the affirmative, are, 
 
 "Messrs. Benton, Brown, Forsyth, Grundy, Hendricks, Hill, Kane, 
 King of Alabama ; King of Georgia ; Linn, McKean, Mangum, Morris, 
 Robinson, Shepley, Tallmadge, Tipton, White, Wilkins, Wright. 
 
 " Those who voted in the negative are, 
 
 " Messrs. Bibb, Black, Calhoun, Clay, Clayton, Ewing, Frelinghuysen, 
 Kent, Leigh, Moore, Naudain, Poindexter, Porter, Prentiss, Preston, 
 Robbins, Silsbee, Smith, Southard, Sprague, Swift, Tomlinson, Wagga- 
 man, Webster." 
 
 In citing this case it is not my intention to call in ques- 
 tion the consistency of any member on this floor ; it would 
 be unworthy of the occasion. I doubt not the vote then given 
 was given from a full conviction of its correctness, as it will 
 doubtless be in the present case, on whatever side it may be 
 found. My object is to show that the principle for which 
 I contend, so far from being opposed, is sustained by pre- 
 cedents, here and elsewhere, ancient and modern. 
 
 In following, as I have, those opposed to me, to Magna 
 Charta, and the Declaration of Eights, for the origin and 
 the limits of the right of petition, I am not disposed with 
 them to set aside the constitution. I assent to the position 
 they assume, that the right of petition existed before the 
 constitution, and that it is not derived from it ; but while 
 I look beyond that instrument for the right, I hold the con- 
 stitution, on a question as to its extent and limits, to be 
 the highest authority. The_jT^t_amendej(J_article of the 
 pT"Yi*ftff t- 1 .* nr mgreafl shall pass no law
 
 SPEECHES. 479 
 
 to prevent the people from peaceably assembling and peti- 
 tioning for a redress of grievances^ was_ clearly intended to 
 prescribe the limits within which the right might be exer- "TF 
 cised. It is not pretended that to refuse to receive petitions 
 touches in the slightest degree on these limits. To suppose 
 that the framers of the constitution no, not its framers, 
 but those jealous patriots who were not satisfied with that 
 instrument as it came from the hands of its framers, and 
 who proposed this very provision to guard what they con- 
 sidered a sacred right performed their task so bunglingly as 
 to omit any essential guard, would be to do great injustice to 
 the memory of those stern and sagacious men ; and yet this 
 is what the Senator from Tennessee (Mr. Grundy) has ven- 
 tured to assert. He said t,Tiaj-._Tinjm>vJRi'nTi was added in guard 
 against the rejection of petitions, because the obligation to 
 receive was considered so clear that it was deemed unneces- 
 sary; when he oght to have known that, according to the 
 standing practice at the time, parliament was in the constant /s^ 
 habit as has been shown, of refusing to receive petitions a 
 practice which could not have been unknown to the authors 
 of the amendment ; and from which it may be fairly inferred 
 that, in omitting to provide that petitions should be received, 
 it was not intended to comprehend their reception in the 
 right of petition. 
 
 I have now, I trust, established beyond all controversy, 
 that we are not bound to receive these petitions ; and that 
 if we should reject them we would not, in the slightest de- 
 gree, infringe the right of petition. It is now time to look 
 to the rights of this body, and to see whether, if we should 
 receive them, when it is acknowledged that the only reason 
 for receiving is, that we are bound to do so, we would not es- 
 tablish a principle which would trench deeply on the rights 
 of the Senate. I have already shown, that where the action 
 of the Senate commences, there also its right to determine 
 how and when it shall act also commences. I have also
 
 480 SPEECHES. 
 
 shown that the action of the Senate necessarily begins on the 
 presentation of a petition ; that the petition is then before 
 the body ; that the Senate cannot proceed to other business 
 without making some disposition of it ; and that, by the 
 24th rule, the first action after presentation is on a question 
 to receive the petition. To extend the right of petition to 
 the question of receiving, is to expunge this rule to abolish 
 this unquestionable right of the Senate, and that, too, for the 
 benefit, in this case, of the abolitionists. Their gain would 
 be at the loss of this body. I have not expressed myself too 
 strongly. Give the right of petition the extent contended 
 for ; decide that we are bound, under the constitution, to 
 receive these incendiary petitions, and the very motion before 
 the Senate would be out of order. If the constitution makes 
 it our duty to receive, we would have no discretion left to 
 reject, as the motion presupposes. Our rules of proceeding 
 must accord with the constitution. Thus, in the case of rev- 
 enue bills, which, by the constitution, must originate in the 
 other House, it would be out of order to introduce them 
 here, and it has accordingly been so decided. For like rea- 
 son, if we are bound to receive petitions, the present motion 
 would be out of order ; and, if such be your opinion, it is 
 your duty, as the presiding officer, to call me to order, and 
 to arrest all further discussion on the question of reception. 
 Let us now turn our eyes for a moment to the nature of the 
 right which I fear we are about to abandon, with the view to 
 ascertain what must be the consequence if we should surren- 
 der it. 
 
 Of all the rights belonging to a deliberative body, I 
 of none more universal, or indispensable to a proper perform- 
 ance of its functions, than the right to determine at its dis- 
 cretion what it shall receive, over what it shall extend its 
 jurisdiction, and to what it shall direct its deliberation and, 
 action. It is the first and universal law of all such bodie 
 and extends not only to petitions, but to reports, to bil
 
 SPEECHES. 481 
 
 and resolution^ varied only, in the two latter, in the form of 
 the question. It may be compared to the function in the 
 animal economy, with which all living creatures are endowed, 
 of selecting, through the instinct of taste, what to receive or 
 reject ; and on which the preservation of their existence de- 
 pends. Deprive them of this function, and the poisonous as 
 well as the wholesome would be indifferently received into 
 their system. So with deliberative bodies ; deprive them of 
 the essential and primary right to determine at their pleasure 
 what to receive or reject, and they would become the passive 
 receptacles, indifferently, of all that is frivolous, absurd, un- 
 constitutional, immoral, and impious, as well as what may 
 properly demand their deliberation and action. Establish 
 this monstrous, this impious principle (as it would prove to 
 be in practice), and what must be the consequence ? To 
 what would we commit ourselves ? If a petition should be 
 presented, praying the abolition of the constitution (which 
 we are all bound by our oaths to protect), according to this 
 abominable doctrine, it must be received. So if it prayed 
 the abolition of the Decalogue, or of the Bible itself. I go. 
 further. If the abolition societies should be converted into 
 a body of atheists, and should ask the passage of a law de- 
 nying the existence of the Almighty Being above us, the 
 Creator of all, according to this blasphemous doctrine, we 
 would be bound to receive the petition to take jurisdiction 
 of it. I ask the Senators from Tennessee and Pennsylvania 
 (Mr. Grundy and Mr. Buchanan), would they vote to receive 
 such a petition ? I wait not an answer. They would instantly 
 reject it with loathing. What, then, becomes of the unlim- 
 ited, unqualified, and universal obligation to receive petitions, 
 which they so strenuously maintain, and to which they are 
 prepared to sacrifice the constitutional rights of this body ? 
 I shall now descend from these hypothetical cases, to the 
 particular question before the Senate What, then, must be 
 the consequences of receiving this petition, on the principle 
 VOL. n. 31
 
 482 SPEECHES. 
 
 that we are bound to receive it, and all similar petitions, 
 whenever presented ? I have considered this question calm- 
 ly in all its bearings, and do not hesitate to pronounce that, 
 to receive, would be to yield to the abolitionists all that the 
 most sanguine could for the present hope, and to abandon all 
 the outworks upon which we of the South rely for our de- 
 fenpe against their attacks here. 
 
 one can believe that the fanatics, who have flooded 
 and the other House with their petitions, entertain the 
 ^ j\ slightest hope that Congress would pass a law, at this time, 
 to abolish slavery in this District. Infatuated as they are, 
 they must see that public opinion at the North is not yet 
 prepared for so decisive a step, and that seriously to attempt 
 it now would be fatal to their cause. Whajt, then, do they 
 hope ? What, but that Congress should take jurisdiction of 
 the subject of abolishing slavery should throw open to the 
 abolitionists the halls of legislation, and enable them to es- 
 tablish a permanent position within their walls, from which 
 hereafter to carry on their operations against the institutions 
 of the slaveholding States ? If we receive this petition, all 
 these advantages will be realized to them to the fullest ex- 
 tent. Permanent jurisdiction would be assumed over the 
 subject of slavery, not only in this District, but in the States 
 themselves, whenever the abolitionists might choose to ask 
 Congress, by sending their petitions here, for the abolition 
 of slavery in the States. I We would be bound to receive 
 such petitions, and, by receiving, would be fairly pledged to 
 deliberate and decide on them. Having succeeded in this 
 point, a most favorable position would be gained. The cen- 
 tre of operations would be transferred from Nassau Hall to 
 the Halls of Congress. To this common centre the incendi- 
 ary publications of the abolitionists would flow, in the form 
 of petitions, to be received and preserved among the pubh'c 
 records. / XSere the subject of abolition would be agitated 
 session after session, and from hence the assaults on the pro-
 
 SPEECHES. 483 
 
 perty and institutions of the people of the slaveholding States 
 would be disseminated, in the guise of speeches, over the 
 whole UnionX 
 
 Such would be the advantages yielded to the abolitionists. 
 In proportion to their gain would be our loss. What would 
 be yielded to them would be taken from us. Our true 
 position that which is indispensable to our defence here, is, 
 that Congress has no legitimate jurisdiction over the subject 
 of slavery either here or elsewhere. The reception of this 
 petition surrenders this commanding position ; yields the 
 question of jurisdiction, so important to the cause of abolition 
 and so injurious to us ; compels us to sit in silence to wit- 
 ness the assaults on our character and institutions, or to 
 engage in an endless contest in their defence. Such a con- 
 test is beyond mortal endurance. We must in the end be 
 humbled, degraded, broken down, and worn out. 
 
 The Senators from the slaveholding States, who, most 
 unfortunately, have committed themselves to vote for receiv- 
 ing these incendiary petitions, tell us that whenever the 
 attempt shall, be made to abolish slavery they will join with 
 us to repel it/ I doubt not the sincerity of their declaration. 
 We all have a common interest, and they cannot betray 
 ours without betraying, at the same time, their own. But 
 I announce to them that they are now called on to redeem 
 their pledge, ^fe_^2^...&..iiix>&-&9)$^flm& The work 
 is going on^daily^and hourly. The war is waged, not only 
 inTEe most dangerous manner, but in the only manner that 
 it canTe waged. Do they expect that the abolitionists will 
 resort to arms, and commence a crusade to liberate our slaves 
 by force ? Is this what they mean when they speak of the 
 attempt to abolish slavery ? If so, let me tell our friends 
 of the South who differ from us, that the war which the 
 abolitionists wage against us is of a very different character, 
 and far more effectived It is a waflJTreligious andj^tical 
 fanaticism, mingled, onthe part of the leadersTwHh ambition
 
 484 SPEECHES. 
 
 and the love of notoriety and waged, not against our lives, 
 bur^LTcfearacteT." The object Is toTTHmETe and debase us 
 iiToTtr wn estimation, and that of the world in general ; to 
 pwhlle they overthrow our domestic 
 
 instrtuTions. This is the mode in which they are attempting 
 abolition, with such ample means and untiring industry ; 
 and now is the time for all who are opposed to them to meet 
 the attack. How can it be successfully met ? This is the 
 important question. There is but one way : we must meet 
 the enemy on the frontier on the question of receiving ;~3ce 
 must secure that important pass it is our Thermopylae. 
 The power^F resistance, by an universal law of nature, is on 
 the tMtj.ui.iui 1 ; Break through the shell penetrate tfte~crust, 
 and there is no resistance within. In the present contest, 
 the question on receiving" constitutes our frontier, it is the 
 firsf^the exterior question, tha1njioTeTS"and protects all the 
 others. Let it be penetrated by receiving this petition, and 
 not a point of^ resistance can bo found within, as far as this 
 Government is concerned. If we cannot maintain ourselves 
 there, we cannot on any interior position. Of all the ques- 
 tions that can be raised, there is not one onTwhich we can 
 rally^n ground more tenable for ourselves, or more untenable 
 forjmr opponents, not excepting the ultimate question of 
 abolition in the States. For our right to reject this petition 
 is as clear and unquestionable as that Congress has no right 
 to abolish slavery in the States^" 
 
 Such is the importance of taking our stand immovably on 
 the question now before us. /Such are the advantages that 
 we of the South would sacrifice, and the abolitionists would 
 gain, were we to surrender that important position by re- 
 ceiving this petition. What motives have we for making 
 so great a sacrifice ? What advantages can we hope to gain 
 that would justify us ? 
 
 We are told of the great advantages of a strong majority. 
 I acknowledge it in a good cause, and on sound principles.
 
 SPEECHES. 485 
 
 I feel in the present instance how much our cause would be 
 strengthened by a strong and decided majority for the rejec- 
 tion of these incendiary petitions. If any thing we could 
 do here could arrest the progress of the abolitionists, it would 
 be such a rejection. But as advantageous as would be a 
 strong majority on sound principles, it is in the same degree 
 dangerous when on the opposite when it rests on improper 
 concessions, and the surrender of principles which would be 
 the case at present. Such a majority must, in this instance, 
 be purchased by concessions to the abolitionists, and a sur- 
 render, on our part, that would demolish all our outworks, 
 give up all our strong positions, and open all the passages to 
 the free admission of our enemies. It is only on this condi- 
 tion that we can hope to obtain such a majority a majority 
 which must be gathered together from all sides, and enter- 
 taining every variety of opinion. To rally such a majority, 
 the Senator from Pennsylvania has fallen on the device to 
 receive this petition, and immediately reject it, without con- 
 sideration or reflection. To my mind the movement looks 
 like a trick a mere piece of artifice to juggle and deceive. 
 I intend no disrespect to the Senator. I doubt not his in- 
 tention is good, and believe his feelings are with us ; but 
 I must say that the course he has intimated, is, in my opin- 
 ion, the worst possible for the slaveholding States. It sur- 
 renders all to the abolitionists, and gives nothing, in turn, 
 that would be of the least advantage to us. Let the majority 
 for the course he indicates be ever so strong, can the Senator 
 hope that it will make any impression on the abolitionists ? 
 Can he even hope to maintain his position of rejecting their 
 petitions without consideration, against them ? Does he not 
 see that, in assuming jurisdiction by receiving their petitions, 
 he gives an implied pledge to inquire, to deliberate, and 
 decide on them ? Experience will teach him that we must 
 either refuse to receive, or go through. I entirely concur 
 with the Senator from Vermont (Mr. Prentiss), on that
 
 486 SPEECHES. 
 
 point. There is no middle ground that is tenable, and least 
 of all that proposed to be occupied by the Senator from 
 Pennsylvania, and those who act with him. In the mean 
 time, the course he proposes is calculated to lull the people 
 of the slaveholding States into a false security, under the 
 delusive impression which it is calculated to make, that there 
 is more strength here against the abolitionists than really 
 does exist. 
 
 <^ But we are told that the right of petition is popular in 
 the North, and that to make an issue, however true, which 
 might bring it in question, would weaken our friends here, 
 and strengthen the abolitionists. I have no doubt of the 
 kind feelings of our brethren from the North on this floor ; 
 but I clearly see that while we have their feelings in our 
 favor, their constituents, right or wrong, will have their votes, 
 however we may be affected. But I assure our friends that 
 we would not do any thing, willingly, which would weaken 
 them at home ; and, if we could be assured that, by yielding 
 to their wishes the right of receiving petitions, they would 
 be able to arrest, permanently, the progress of the abolition- 
 ists, we then might be induced to yield ; but nothing short 
 of the certainty of permanent security can induce us to yield 
 an inch. If to maintain our rights must increase the abo- 
 litionists, be it so. I would at no period make the least 
 sacrifice of principle for any temporary advantage, and much 
 less at the present. If there must be an issue, now is our 
 time. We never can be more united or better prepared for 
 the struggle ; and I, for one, would much rather meet the 
 danger now, than turn it over to those who are to come 
 after us. 
 
 But putting these views aside, it seems to me, taking a 
 general view of the subject, that the course intimated by the 
 Senator from Pennsylvania is radically wrong, and must end 
 in disappointment. The attempt to unite all must, as it 
 usually does, terminate in division and distraction. It will
 
 SPEECHES. 487 
 
 divide the South on the question of receiving, and the North 
 on that of rejection, with a mutual weakening of both.\~I 
 already see indications of division among the Northern gentle- 
 men on this floor, even in this stage of the question. A division 
 among them would give a great impulse to the cause of aboli- 
 tion. Whatever position the parties may take, in the event of 
 such division, one or the other would be considered more or less 
 favorable to the abolition cause, which could not fail to run 
 it into the political straggles of the two great parties of the 
 North. With these views, I hold, that the only possible hope 
 of arresting the progress of the abolitionists in that quarter, 
 is to keep the two great parties there united against them, which 
 would be impossible if they divide here. The course inti- 
 mated by the Senator from Pennsylvania will effect a division 
 here, and, instead of uniting the North, and thereby arrest- 
 ing the progress of the abolitionists, as he anticipates, will 
 end in division and distraction, and in giving thereby a more 
 powerful impulse to their cause. I must say, before I close 
 my remarks in this connection, that the members from the 
 North, it seems to me, are not duly sensible of the deep in- 
 terest which they have in this question, not only as affecting 
 the Union, but as it relates immediately and directly to their 
 particular section. As great as may be our interest, theirs 
 is not less. If the tide continues to roll on its turbid waves 
 of folly and fanaticism, it must, in the end, prostrate in the 
 North all the institutions that uphold their peace and pros- 
 perity, and ultimately overwhelm all that is eminent, morally 
 and intellectually. 
 
 I have now concluded what I intended to say on the 
 question immediately before the Senate. If I have spoken 
 earnestly, it is because I feel the subject to be one of the 
 deepest interest. We are about to take the first step 
 that must control all our subsequent movements. If it 
 should be such as I fear it will, if we receive this petition, 
 and thereby establish the principle that we are obliged to
 
 488 SPEECHES. 
 
 receive all such petitions ; if we shall determine to take per- 
 manent jurisdiction over the subject of abolition, whenever 
 and in whatever manner the abolitionists may ask, either 
 here or in the States, I fear that the consequences will be 
 ultimately disastrous. Such a course would destroy the con- 
 fidence of the people of the slaveholding States in this Gov- 
 ernment. /We love anc}. cherish the Union ; we remember 
 with the kindest feelings our common origin, with pride our 
 common achievements, and fondly anticipate the common 
 greatness and glory that seem to await us ; but origin, achieve- 
 ments, and anticipation of coming greatness are to us as no- 
 thing, compared to this question. It is to us a vital ques- 
 tion. It involves not only our liberty, but, what is greater 
 (if to freemen any thing can be), existence itself. The 
 relation which now exists between the two races in the slave- 
 holding States has existed for two centuries. It has grown 
 with our growth, and strengthened with our strength. It 
 has entered into and modified all our institutions, civil and 
 political. None other can be substituted. We will not, 
 cannot permit it to be destroyed. If we were base enough 
 to do so, we would be traitors to our section, to ourselves, our 
 families, and to posterity. It is our anxious desire to protect 
 and preserve this relation by the joint action of this Govern- 
 ment and the confederated States of the Union ; but if, in- 
 stead of closing the door if, instead of denying all jurisdic- 
 tion and all interference in this question, the doors of 
 Congress are to be thrown open ; and if we are to be exposed 
 here, in the heart of the Union, to endless attacks on our 
 rights, our character, and our institutions ; if the other 
 States are to stand and look on without attempting to sup- 
 press these attacks, originating within their borders ; and, 
 finally, if this is to be our fixed and permanent condition, as 
 members of this Confederacy, we will then be compelled to 
 turn our eyes on ourselv^J Come what will, should it cost 
 every drop of blood, and every cent of property, we must
 
 SPEECHES. 489 
 
 defend ourselves ; and if compelled, we would stand justified 
 by all laws, human and divine/ 
 
 If I feel alarm, it is not for ourselves, but the Union^ 
 and the institutions of the country to which I have ever 
 been devotedly attached, however calumniated and slandered. 
 Few have made greater sacrifices to maintain them, and no 
 one is more anxious to perpetuate them to the latest genera- 
 tion ; but they can and ought to be perpetuated only on tl 
 condition that they fulfil the great objects for which 
 were created the liberty and protection of these States. 
 
 As for ourselves, I feel no apprehension. I know, to/the 
 fullest extent, the magnitude of the danger that surrounds 
 us. I am not disposed to under-estimate it. My colleague 
 has painted it truly. But, as great as is the danger, we 
 have nothing to fear if true to ourselves. We have many 
 and great resources ; a numerous, intelligent, and brave 
 population ; great and valuable staples ; ample fiscal means ; 
 unity of feeling and interest, and an entire exemption from 
 those dangers originating in a conflict between labor and 
 capital, which at this time threatens so much danger to 
 constitutional governments. To these may be added that 
 we would act under an imperious necessity. There would be 
 to us but one alternative to triumph or perish as a people. 
 We would stand alone, compelled to defend life, character, 
 and institutions. A necessity so stern and imperious would 
 develop to the full all the great qualities of our nature, 
 mental and moral, requisite for defence intelligence, forti- 
 tude, courage, and patriotism ; and these, with our ample 
 means, and our admirable materials for the construction of 
 durable free States, would insure security, liberty, and re- 
 nown. 
 
 ^"With these impressions, I ask neither sympathy nor com- 
 passio'nfor the slaveholding States. We can take "care of 
 ourselves. It is not we, but the Union which is in danger^) 
 It is that which demands our care demands that the agita-
 
 490 SPEECHES. 
 
 tion of this question shall cease here that you shall refuse 
 to receive these petitions, and decline all jurisdiction over the 
 subject of abolition, in every form and shape. It is only on 
 these terms that the Union can be safe. We cannot remain 
 here in an endless struggle in defence of our character, our 
 property, and institutions. 
 
 I shall now, in conclusion, make a single remark, as to 
 the course I shall feel myself compelled to pursue, should the 
 Senate, by receiving this petition, determine to entertain 
 jurisdiction over the question of abolition. Thinking as I 
 do, I can perform no act that would countenance so danger- 
 ous an assumption ; and as a participation in the subsequent 
 proceedings on this petition, should it unfortunately be re- 
 ceived, might be so construed, in that event I shall feel my- 
 self constrained to decline such participation, and to leave 
 the responsibility wholly on those who may assume it. 
 
 EEMAKKS 
 
 On the Kesolution providing for the safe-keeping of 
 the Public Eecords, made in the Senate March 
 26th, 1836. 
 
 [!N Senate March 25th, 1836. The following resolution submit- 
 ted yesterday, by Mr. Calhoun, was taken up for consideration. 
 
 Resolved, That the Committee on the Judiciary be instructed to 
 inquire into the expediency of providing proper measures for the safe- 
 keeping of the journals of the two Houses and other public records, 
 and of protecting them by other legal enactments from being mutilat- 
 ed, obliterated, erased, defaced, expunged, disfigured, altered, or other- 
 wise destroyed or injured.] 
 
 MB. CALHOTJN observed : It had been said that there was
 
 SPEECHES. 491 
 
 no evil under the sun without a remedy ; and that the truth 
 of the remark was very strongly illustrated in the case which 
 occasioned the introduction of this resolution. Unconstitu- 
 tional and odious as was the attempt that had been made to 
 expunge the recorded proceedings of this body, it had caused 
 its attention to be turned to the unprotected state of the 
 public records. He had entered into a diligent examination 
 of the laws, to see if there were any legal enactments for the 
 protection of the public journals, and had found that, with a 
 slight exception in one unimportant particular, there was no- 
 thing to protect them from being expunged, obliterated, de- 
 faced or destroyed. This was a state of things which he 
 presumed no Senator would wish to continue. As it now was, 
 any individual, whether the public records were in his custody 
 or not, might deface or destroy them however important to 
 the country with impunity. A leaf might be torn out, or 
 the record might be disfigured or defaced, and no punishment 
 would follow. Setting aside the constitutional injunction to 
 preserve a correct journal of the proceedings of the two 
 Houses, the importance of some law of the kind must be 
 evident. These public records were the only authentic ac- 
 counts of the history of this Government in all its branches 
 legislative, judicial and executive. If to this it be added, 
 that they involve the important interests of individuals, there 
 was the most powerful obligation on both Houses of Congress to 
 preserve them from injury, and to keep them. Yes, sir, said he, 
 to keep them ; for, in spite of the sophistry used to obscure the 
 meaning of the word, to keep them means to preserve them 
 from injury. There was no word in the English language less 
 susceptible of doubtful construction, than the word " keep." It 
 implied, not only to record their proceedings in their journals, 
 but to preserve them. It would be in vain that the constitution 
 required them to record their proceedings, if it did not also re- 
 quire them to protect and preserve them from injury. Was the 
 injunction in the constitution merely for the childish purpose
 
 492 SPEECHES. 
 
 that they should record their proceedings that they might be 
 afterwards thrown away, or obliterated, defaced or disfigured ? 
 No it was that they might go down to the latest posterity, 
 as a faithful and authentic history of the times. These 
 meanings of the word " keep," as used in the constitution, 
 to record, to preserve, to protect, were enforced on them by 
 the sacred obligation of an oath. He knew that this obli- 
 gation could not prevent the Senate from passing the resolu- 
 tion which had given rise to his motion ; but the Senate 
 could not perform the act of obliteration it must be per- 
 formed by some individual under their order ; and if they 
 passed an act making it penal to deface, destroy, or obliterate 
 the journals, the individual who did it would be subject to 
 its penalties. Sir, said Mr. C., we can give no dispensation 
 to any one to violate the constitution. If he had given the 
 true construction to the word " keep" no order of this body, 
 in any shape or form, could exempt the Secretary from the 
 sacred obligations of his oath ; and if the order should be 
 given to him to deface or obliterate the journals, he would 
 have to turn his eyes to the constitution, which he has sworn 
 not to violate. He thought that no Secretary of the body 
 would ever dare to violate his oath, and the obligations im- 
 posed by the constitution, by obliterating or defacing the 
 public records. He had but little fear for the present Secre- 
 tary ; but he knew not who might fill the office hereafter 
 and who, influenced by the force of party discipline, might 
 be willing to plead the order of a majority of the body, tc 
 justify a violation of the constitution. 
 
 The framers of the constitution, in putting in the provi- 
 sion that the journals should be kept, foresaw the danger 
 that might threaten their preservation, from party feelings, 
 and intended to provide against it. Now, he wished to go 
 one step further to sustain the constitution to make it 
 penal in any one, whether ordered by this body or otherwise, 
 to obliterate or disfigure the public records. It is in vain,
 
 SPEECHES. 493 
 
 said Mr. C., for us to suppose that we have the slightest pro- 
 perty in these journals. They are called, it is true, our jour- 
 nals ; but they are the records of what we do, and are not 
 our property, but the property of the people of the United 
 States. We are sent here, continued Mr. C., among other 
 things, to preserve those precious records of our history 
 from being obliterated, disfigured, or destroyed ; and we have 
 no more property in them than we have in the records of the 
 other House. Does it make it a less heinous offence in us, ask- 
 ed Mr. C., to destroy these records, because we are their guar- 
 dians ? On the contrary, the crime would be greater ; be- 
 cause they were intrusted to our guardianship. As well 
 might the guardian waste or destroy the property of his ward, 
 under the plea of his guardianship. In every view he could take 
 of the subject, whether in regard to the injunctions of the 
 constitution, the obligations of their oaths, or the importance 
 of preserving in their utmost purity, the authentic originals of 
 the history of the country there seemed to be an imperious 
 obligation on them to provide such legal enactments for the 
 protection and preservation, not only of the journals of the 
 two Houses of Congress, but also of the other public records, 
 as, he regretted to say, were not now to be found on the sta- 
 tute book. It was with these views he had submitted his 
 resolution ; and he hoped the committee would give to it 
 its most serious consideration. 
 
 [Here Mr. Niles made a few remarks in opposition, declaring he 
 could not perceive why, if the constitution required the two Houses to 
 keep journals of their proceedings, any legal enactments should be ne- 
 cessary. To violate the constitution was an offence, a crime, on gen- 
 eral principles on the principles of the common law.] 
 
 Mr. Calhoun said : In reply to the Senator from Con- 
 necticut, it is only necessary to state, that it has been long 
 since established, that the common law forms no part of the 
 Laws of the Union. In reply to another part of the Senator's
 
 494 SPEECHES. 
 
 argument, lie would observe that there were other persons, 
 into whose possession the journals might fall, who could in- 
 jure or deface them without incurring any punishment. They 
 saw the force of party discipline, and how the judgment was 
 warped by party feeling. Attempts had been made by the 
 most respectable men, and by the legislatures of some of 
 the States, acting under the force of party, to mutilate the 
 journal ; showing to what an extent party feeling might 
 be carried, and the necessity of guarding against it. The 
 act of mutilation could not be performed by twenty-five per- 
 sons the majority of the Senate ; it must be performed by 
 one single person, under the order of the majority, and he 
 would answer for it, if they would pass a law making it pe- 
 nal to mutilate the public records, no person would be found 
 to plead the order of the Senate in justification of such an 
 act. My object, said Mr. C., is to pass a law containing 
 guards and checks against ourselves to prevent us, under 
 the influence of party feelings, from tampering with records 
 of so sacred a character. The Committee on the Judiciary 
 were all legal men, and by giving their attention to the sub- 
 ject, they would, no doubt, see how necessary it was that 
 some legal enactments should be framed, which should effec- 
 tually sustain the particular provision in the constitution 
 in question. 
 
 [Mr. Shepley of Maine here rose and objected to the motion, 
 chiefly on the ground that its object was, indirectly, to withdraw the 
 attention of the Senate from the resolution of the Senator from Mis- 
 souri (Mr. Benton), now pending, to expunge a record now on the 
 journals of the Senate, to strike a side-blow at the said resolution. 
 He was followed by Mr. Benton, in his usual strain ; when Mr. Clay- 
 ton of Delaware took the floor, and spoke for some time, in reply to 
 the imputations of Mr. Benton. On his taking his seat, Mr. Calhoun 
 resumed.] 
 
 This proposition, as had been well remarked by the Sen-
 
 SPEECHES. 495 
 
 ator from Delaware, was totally dissimilar to the resolution 
 introduced by the Senator from Missouri. It proposed an 
 examination, by the Committee on the Judiciary, into the 
 expediency, not only of protecting the journals of the Sen- 
 ate, but all other public records ; and it was designed to 
 protect them, not only against the action of this body, but 
 against the action of all persons whatsoever. As it was, any 
 stranger might deface or obliterate the public records with 
 perfect impunity. It was true, that the movement of the 
 Senator from Missouri was the occasion of his offering this 
 resolution ; but this was no reason why the deficiency he had 
 alluded to, should not now be supplied. He wished to call 
 the attention of the Senate and the public to the subject. 
 He had no idea that this resolution could arrest the one 
 offered by the Senator from Missouri, which must come up 
 long before it. His object was a general one, and applied to 
 all the public records, as well as to the journals of the Senate. 
 He had no reference to the resolution of the Senator from Mis- 
 souri, in offering his ; but, at the same time, he must say, 
 that he had no idea the Senate had the slightest authority to 
 mutilate the journals ; which belonged, not to them, but to 
 the people of the United States. 
 
 [After some further remarks from Messrs. Walker of Mississippi, 
 and Ewing of Ohio, Mr. Shepley moved to lay the resolution on the 
 table, which was carried yeas, 19 ; nays, 15.]
 
 496 SPEECHES. 
 
 SPEECH 
 
 On the motion of Mr. Porter, of Louisiana, to recom- 
 mit the Bill to establish the northern boundary of 
 of Ohio, and for the admission of Michigan into the 
 Union, delivered in the Senate, April 2d, 1836. 
 
 [THE bill to establish the northern boundary of Ohio, and for the 
 admission of Michigan into the Union, came up in the Senate on its 
 third reading. 
 
 Mr. Porter moved to recommit the bill for the purpose of amend- 
 ing it, on the subject of the right of suffrage, and more effectually to 
 secure the rights of the United States to the public lands within the 
 new State. 
 
 On this motion a debate ensued, in which it was supported by 
 Messrs. Porter, Calhoun, Crittenden, Black, Clay, White, Mangum 
 and Clayton, and opposed by Messrs. Walker, Wright, and Benton ; 
 and Mr. Preston, though in favor of the recommitment, opposed the 
 principle of interfering with the right of the new State to settle the 
 qualification of its voters. During this debate, Mr. Calhoun said :] 
 
 I REGRET that my colleague has thought proper to raise 
 the question, whether a State has a right to make an alien a 
 citizen of the State. The question is one of great magnitude 
 presented for the first tune and claiming a more full and 
 deliberate consideration, than can be bestowed on it now. 
 It is not necessarily involved in the present question. The 
 point now at issue is, not whether a State or territory has a 
 right to make an alien a citizen ; but whether Congress has 
 a right to prescribe the qualifications of the voters for mem- 
 hftTg_nf flip, nrmvftntirm f,n form a constitution, preparatory to 
 the admission of a territory into the Union. I presume, 
 that even my colleague will not deny that Congress has the 
 right. The constitution confers on Congress the power to
 
 SPEECHES. 497 
 
 govern the territories ; and, of course, to prescribe the quali- 
 fications of voters within them without any restriction 
 
 unless, indeed, such as the ordinance and the constitution may 
 enforce a power that expires only when a territory becomes 
 a State. The practice of the Government has been in con- 
 formity with these views ; and there is not an instance of the 
 admission of a territory into the Union, in which Congress 
 has not prescribed the qualifications of the voters for members 
 of the convention to form a constitution for the government 
 of the State, on its admission. The power which Congress 
 has thus invariably exercised, we claim to exercise on the 
 present occasion by prescribing who shall* be the voters to 
 form the constitution for the government of Michigan, when 
 admitted into the Union. Michigan is not yet a State. 
 Her constitution is not yet formed. It is, at best, but in an 
 incipient state which can only be consummated by comply- 
 ing with the conditions which we may prescribe for her 
 admission. A convention is to be called, under this bill, to 
 agree to these conditions. On motion of the Senator from 
 New- York (Mr. Wright) a provision was introduced into the 
 bill, giving the right to the people of the territory at large 
 without limitation, or restriction, as to age, sex, color, or 
 citizenship to vote for the members of the convention. The 
 Senator from Kentucky (Mr. Clay), while the amendment of 
 the Senator from New- York was pending, moved to amend 
 the amendment by striking out people, and inserting free 
 white male citizens of twenty-one years of age thus restrict- 
 ing the voters to the free white citizens of the United States, 
 in conformity with what has been usual on such occasions. 
 
 Believing that Congress had the unquestionable right to 
 prescribe the qualifications of voters, as proposed by the 
 Senator from Kentucky, and that the exercise of such right 
 does not involve, in any degree, the question whether a State 
 has a right to confer on an alien the rights of citizenship, 
 I must repeat the expression of my regret, that my colleague 
 VOL. n. 32
 
 498 SPEECHES. 
 
 has felt it to be his duty to raise a question so novel and 
 important, when we have so little leisure for bestowing on it 
 the attention which it. deserves. But, since he considers its 
 decision as necessarily involved in the question before us, I feel 
 it to be my duty to state the reasons why I cannot concur 
 with him in opinion. 
 
 I do not deem it necessary to follow my colleague and the 
 Senator from Kentucky, in their attempt to define or de- 
 scribe a citizen. Nothing is more difficult than the defini- 
 tion, or even description, of so complex an idea ; and hence, 
 all arguments resting on one definition in such cases, almost 
 necessarily lead to uncertainty and doubt. But though we 
 may not be able to say, with precision, what a citizen is, we 
 may say, with the utmost certainty, what he is not. He 
 is not an alien. Alien and citizen are correlative terms, 
 and stand in contradistinction to each other. They, of 
 course, cannot coexist. They are, in fact, so opposite in 
 their nature, that we conceive of the one but in contradis- 
 tinction to the other. Thus far, all must be agreed. My 
 next step is not less certain. 
 
 The constitution confers on Congress the authority to 
 pass uniform laws of naturalization. This will not be ques- 
 tioned ; nor will it be, that the effect of naturalization is to 
 remove alienage. I am not certain that the word is a legiti- 
 mate one. 
 
 [Mr. Preston said, in a low tone, it was.] 
 
 My colleague says it is. His authority is high on such 
 questions ; and with it, I feel myself at liberty to use the 
 word. To remove alienage, is simply to put the foreigner in 
 the condition of a native born. To this extent the act of 
 naturalization goes, and no further. 
 
 The next position I assume is no less certain : that, 
 when Congress has exercised its authority by passing a uni- 
 form law of naturalization (as it has), it excludes the right
 
 SPEECHES. 499 
 
 of exercising a similar authority on the part of the State. To 
 suppose that the States could pass naturalization acts of their 
 own, after Congress had passed an uniform law of naturaliza- 
 tion, would be to make the provision of the constitution nu- 
 gatory. I do not deem it necessary to dwell on this point, 
 as I understood my colleague as acquiescing in its cor- 
 rectness. 
 
 I am now prepared to decide the question which my 
 colleague has raised. I have shown that a citizen is not an 
 alien, and that alienage is an insuperable barrier, till 
 removed, to citizenship ; and that it can only be removed 
 by complying with the act of Congress. It follows, of 
 course, that a State cannot, of its own authority, make 
 an alien a citizen without such compliance. To suppose 
 it can, involves, in my opinion, a confusion of ideas, which 
 must lead to innumerable absurdities and contradictions. I 
 propose to notice but a few. In fact, the discussion has 
 come on so unexpectedly, and has been urged on so pre- 
 cipitately, through the force of party discipline, that little 
 leisure has been afforded to trace to their consequences the 
 many novel and dangerous principles involved in the bill. I, 
 in particular, have not had due time for reflection, which I 
 exceedingly regret. Attendance on the sick bed of a friend 
 drew off my attention till yesterday ; when, for the first 
 time, I turned my thoughts on its provisions. The nu- 
 merous objections which it presented, and the many and im- 
 portant amendments which wete moved to correct them, in 
 rapid succession, until a late hour of the night, allowed but 
 little time for reflection. Seeing that the majority had pre- 
 determined to pass the bill, with all its faults, I retired, 
 when I found my presence could no longer be of any 
 service, and remained ignorant that the Senate had rescinded 
 the order to adjourn over till Monday, until a short time be- 
 fore its meeting this morning : so that I came here wholly 
 unprepared to discuss this and the other important questions
 
 500 SPEECHES. 
 
 involved in the bill. Under such circumstances, it must not 
 be supposed that, in pointing out the few instances of what 
 appear to me the absurdities and contradictions necessarily 
 resulting from the principle against which I contend, there 
 are not many others, equally striking. I but suggest those 
 which first occurred to me. 
 
 Whatever difference of opinion there may be as to what 
 other rights appertain to a citizen, all must at least agree, that 
 he has the right to petition, and also to claim the protection 
 of his Government. These belong to him as a member of the 
 body politic, and the possession of them, is what separates 
 citizens of the lowest condition from aliens and slaves. To 
 suppose, that a State can make an alien a citizen of the State 
 or, to present the question more specifically, can confer on him 
 the right of voting, would involve the absurdity of giving him 
 a direct and immediate control over the action of the Gene- 
 ral Government, from which he has no right to claim the protec- 
 tion, and to which he has no right to present a petition. That 
 the full force of the absurdity may be felt, it must be borne 
 in mind, that every department of the General Government 
 is either directly or indirectly under the control of the voters 
 in the several States. The constitution wisely provides, that 
 the voters for the most numerous branch of the legislatures 
 in the several States, shall vote for the members of the House 
 of Eepresentatives, and, as the members of this body are 
 chosen by the legislatures of the States, and the Presiden- 
 tial electors either by the legislatures, or voters in the several 
 States, it follows, as I have stated, that the action of the 
 General Government is either directly or indirectly under the 
 control of the voters in the several States. Now, admit, that 
 a State may confer the right of voting on all aliens, and it 
 will follow as a necessary consequence, that we might have 
 among our constituents, persons who have not the right to 
 claim the protection of the Government, or to present a pe- 
 tition to it. I would ask my colleague, if he would willingly
 
 SPEECHES. 501 
 
 bear the relation of representative to those, who could not 
 claim his aid, as Senator, to protect them from oppression, or 
 to present a petition through him to the Senate, praying for 
 a redress of grievance ? and yet such might be his condition 
 on the principle for which he contends. 
 
 But a still greater difficulty remains. Suppose a war 
 should be declared between the United States and the coun- 
 try to which the alien belongs suppose, for instance, that 
 South Carolina should confer the right of voting on alien sub- 
 jects of Great Britain residing within her limits, and that war 
 should be declared between the two countries ; what, in such 
 event, would be the condition of that portion of our voters ? 
 They, as alien enemies, would be liable to be seized under the 
 laws of Congress, and to have their goods confiscated and 
 themselves imprisoned, or sent out of the country. The prin- 
 ciple that leads to such consequences cannot be true ; and I 
 venture nothing in asserting, that Carolina, at least, will never 
 give it her sanction, or consent to act on it. She never will 
 assent to incorporate, as members of her body politic, those 
 who might be placed in so degraded a condition and so com- 
 pletely under the control of the General Government. 
 
 But let us pass from these (as it appears to me conclu- 
 sive) views, and inquire what were the objects of the consti- 
 tution in conferring on Congress the authority of passing 
 uniform laws of naturalization from which, if I mistake not, 
 arguments not less conclusive may be drawn, in support of 
 the position for which I contend. 
 
 In conferring this power the framers of the constitution 
 must have had two objects in view : one to prevent compe- 
 tition between the States in holding out inducements for the 
 emigration of foreigners, and the other to prevent their im- 
 proper influence over the General Government, through such 
 States as might naturalize foreigners, and could confer on 
 them the right of exercising the elective franchise, before they 
 could be sufficiently informed of the nature of our institu-
 
 502 SPEECHES. 
 
 tions, or were interested in their preservation. Both of these 
 objects would be defeated, if the States may confer on aliens 
 the right of voting and the other privileges belonging to 
 citizens. On that supposition, it would be almost impossible 
 to conceive what good could be obtained, or evil prevented by 
 conferring the power on Congress. The power would be 
 perfectly nugatory. A State might hold out every improper 
 inducement to emigration, as freely as if the power did not 
 exist ; and might confer on the alien all the political privileges 
 belonging to a native born citizen ; not only to the great 
 injury of the Government of the State, but to an improper 
 control over the Government of the Union. To illustrate 
 what I have said, suppose the dominant party in New- York, 
 finding political power about to depart from them, should, to 
 maintain their ascendency, extend the right of suffrage to 
 the thousands of aliens of every language and from every 
 portion of the world, that annually pour into her great em- 
 porium how dee ly might the destiny of the whole Union be 
 affected by such a measure. It might, in fact, place the 
 control over the General Government in the hands of those 
 who know nothing of our institutions and are indifferent as 
 to the interests of the country. New- York gives about one- 
 sixth of the electoral votes in the choice of President and Vice- 
 President ; and it is well known that her political institu- 
 tions keep the State nearly equally divided into two great 
 political parties. The addition of a few thousand votes 
 either way might turn the scale, and the electors might, in 
 fact, owe their election, on the supposition, to the votes of 
 unnaturalized foreigners. The Presidential election might 
 depend on the electoral vote of the State, and a President 
 be chosen in reality by them ; that is, they might give us a 
 king for, under the usurpations of the present Chief Magis- 
 trate, the President is in fact a king. I ask my colleague if 
 we ought willingly to yield our assent to a principle that 
 would lead to such results and if there be any danger on
 
 503 
 
 the side for which I contend, comparable to those which I 
 have stated ? I know how sincere he is in the truth of the 
 position, for which he contends, and that his opinion was 
 founded anterior to this discussion. We have rarely differed 
 in our views on the questions which have come before the 
 Senate ; and I deeply regret, as I am sure he does, that we 
 should differ on this highly important subject. 
 
 My colleague cites, in support of his position, the example 
 of Vermont, North Carolina, and, if I recollect rightly, 
 Rhode Island under whose constitutions aliens, it seems, 
 may vote. It is a sufficient answer to say, that their con- 
 stitutions were adopted before the existence of the General 
 Government, and that the provisions which permitted aliens 
 to vote constituted a portion of their constitutions when they 
 came into the Union. North Carolina has since amended 
 hers, and limited the right of voting to citizens. If Ver- 
 mont and Ehode Island have not done the same, it must be 
 attributed to that vis inertia which indisposes most States to 
 alter their constitutions, or to accidental omission. But we 
 have the authority of the Senator from North Carolina (Mr. 
 Mangum), and also the Senator from Vermont (Mr. Prentiss), 
 that under the decision of the courts of the respective States, 
 their constitutions have been so construed, since they entered 
 the Union, as to confine the right of voting and holding lands 
 to citizens of the States, so as to conform to the principle for 
 which I contend. To cite a case in point, my colleague 
 ought to show that, under the constitution of any State, 
 formed since the adoption of the constitution of the Union, 
 the right of voting has been conferred on an alien. There 
 is not, I believe, an example of the kind ; from which I 
 infer the deep and universal conviction which has pervaded 
 the public mind, that a State has no authority to confer such 
 right ; and thus the very example cited by my colleague, 
 serves but to strengthen instead of refuting the position 
 which I seek to maintain.
 
 504 SPEECHES. 
 
 My colleague also cites the example of Louisiana, which 
 was admitted into the Union without requiring the in- 
 habitants, at the time, to conform to the act of naturaliza- 
 tion. I must think the instance is not in point. That was 
 a case of the incorporation of a foreign community, which 
 had been acquired by treaty, as a member of our con- 
 federacy. At the time of the acquisition, they were subjects 
 of France, and owed their allegiance to that government. 
 The treaty transferred their allegiance to the United States ; 
 and the difficulty of incorporating Louisiana into the Union, 
 arose, not under the act of naturalization, but the right 
 of acquiring foreign possession by purchase, and the right of 
 incorporating such possessions into the Union. These were 
 felt, at the time, to be questions of great difficulty. Mr. 
 Jefferson himself, under whose administration the purchase 
 was made, doubted the right, and suggested the necessity of 
 an alteration of the constitution to meet the case ; and if 
 the example of the admission is now to be used to establish 
 the principle that a State may confer citizenship on an alien, 
 we may all live to regret that the constitution was not amend- 
 ed according to the suggestion. My colleague insists that, to 
 deny the right for which he contends, would be to confer 
 on Congress the right of prescribing who should or should 
 not be entitled to vote in the State, and exercise the other 
 privileges belonging to citizens ; and portrayed in strong lan- 
 guage the danger to the rights of the States from such au- 
 thority. If his views are correct in this respect, the danger 
 would, indeed, be imminent ; but I cannot concur in their 
 correctness. Under the view which I have taken, the au- 
 thority of Congress is limited to the simple point of passing 
 uniform laws of naturalization, or, as I have shown, simply 
 to remove alienage. To this extent it may clearly go, un- 
 der the constitution ; and "it is no less clear that it cannot 
 go an inch beyond, without palpably transcending its powers, 
 and violating the constitution. Every other privilege except
 
 SPEECHES. 505 
 
 those which necessarily flow from the removal of alienage, 
 must be conferred by the constitution and the authority of 
 the State. My remarks are, of course, confined to the 
 States ; for, within the territories, the authority of Congress 
 is as complete, in this respect, as that of the States within 
 their respective limits, with the exception of such limi- 
 tations as the ordinance to which I have referred may 
 impose. 
 
 But, to pass to the question immediately before us. 
 This, as I have stated, does not involve the question whether 
 a State can make an alien a citizen ; but whether Congress 
 has a right to prescribe the qualifications to be possessed by 
 those who shall vote for members of a convention to form a 
 constitution for Michigan. Reason and precedent concur, 
 that Congress has the right. It has, as I have stated, been 
 exercised in every similar case. If the right does not exist 
 in Congress, it exists nowhere. A territory, until it becomes 
 a State, is a dependent community, and possesses no political 
 rights but what are derived from the community on which it 
 depends. Who shall or shall not exercise political power ? 
 and what shall be the qualifications possessed by them ? and 
 how they shall be appointed ? are all questions to be de- 
 termined by the paramount community ; and in the case under 
 consideration, to be determined by Congress, which has the 
 right, under the constitution, to prescribe all necessary rules 
 for the government of the territories, not inconsistent with 
 the provisions of the constitution. This very bill, in fact, 
 admits the right. It prescribes that the people of Michigan 
 shall vote for the convention to form her constitution, on be- 
 coming a State. If it belongs to the territory of Michigan 
 (she is not yet a State) to determine who shall vote for tho 
 members of the convention, this attempt on our part to 
 designate who shall be the voters, would be an unconsti- 
 tutional interference with her right, and ought to be ob- 
 jected to, as such, by those opposed to our views. But if,
 
 506 SPEECHES. 
 
 on the other hand, the view I take be correct, that the right 
 belongs to Congress, and not to the territory, the loose, 
 vague, and indefinite manner in which the voters are de- 
 scribed in the bill, affords a decisive reason for its recom- 
 mitment. I ask, who are the people of Michigan ? Taken 
 in the ordinary sense, it means every body, of every age, 
 of every sex, of every complexion, white, black, or red, 
 aliens as well as citizens. Regarded in this light, to pass 
 this bill, would sanction the principle that Congress may 
 authorize an alien to vote, or confer that high privilege on 
 the runaway slaves from Kentucky, Virginia, or elsewhere ; 
 and thus elevate them to the condition of citizens, en- 
 joying under the constitution all the rights and privileges in 
 the States of the Union which appertain to citizenship. 
 But my colleague says that this must be acquiesced in, if 
 such should be the case, as it results from the principles of 
 the constitution. I know we are bound to submit to what- 
 ever are the provisions of that instrument ; but surely my 
 colleague will agree with me, that the danger of such a prece- 
 dent would be great ; that the principles on which it is 
 justified ought to be clear and free from all doubt ; and I 
 trust I have, at least, shown that such is not the fact in 
 this case. 
 
 But, we are told, that the people of Michigan means, in 
 this case, the qualified voters. Why, then, was it not so 
 expressed? Why was vague and general language used, 
 when more certain and precise terms might have been em- 
 ployed ? But, I would ask, who are the qualified voters ? 
 Are they those authorized to vote under the existing laws 
 established for the government of the territory ? or are they 
 those who, under the instrument called the constitution, 
 are authorized to vote ? Why leave so essential a point in 
 so uncertain a condition, when we have the power to remove 
 the uncertainty ? If it be meant by the people of Michigan, 
 the qualified voters under her incipient constitution (as stated
 
 SPEECHES. 507 
 
 by the Senator from New- York), then are we sanctioning 
 the right of aliens to vote. Michigan has attempted to 
 confer this right on that portion of her inhabitants. She 
 has no authority to confer such right under the constitution. 
 
 I have conclusively shown that a State does not possess it 
 
 much less a Territory, which possesses no power except such 
 as is conferred by Congress. Congress has conferred no such 
 power on Michigan nor, indeed, could confer it as it has 
 no authority, under the constitution, over the subject, except 
 to pass uniform laws of naturalization. 
 
 But this is only one of the many objections to the bill 
 before us ; and I regret to say, that the friends of the mea- 
 sure have not even attempted to explain the many, and, to 
 my mind, decided objections which have been urged against 
 it. Among others, it leaves open the question of the public 
 lands to be settled hereafter between Congress and the 
 State, contrary to all past precedents, and at the imminent 
 danger, ultimately, of our rights to the lands within her 
 limits. This is the more remarkable, as an opposite course, 
 I understand, has been adopted in the bill for the admission 
 of Arkansas. 
 
 What has caused the distinction ? Why has one measure 
 been meted out to the one, and another to the other ? 
 
 Here let me express my regret that this Bill for the 
 admission of Michigan has been furthered so far ahead of 
 that for the admission of Arkansas. They ought to have 
 progressed together, and both been sent to the House of 
 Kepresentatives at the same tune. We all remember the 
 difficulty of admitting Missouri, and ought to be admonished 
 by the example, to use all possible precaution that a similar 
 difficulty may not occur in the instance of Arkansas. v 
 
 But, I again ask, why not at once settle the question o^X. 
 the public lands in Michigan, as has invariably been done s< ^ 
 on the admission of other territories ? What must be the / 
 effect of leaving it open, but to throw the State into the '
 
 508 SPEECHES. 
 
 hands of the dominant party, at this critical moment, when 
 the Presidential election is pending? It is a misfortunes, 
 that the power and influence of the Executive over the \ 
 new States are so great. Through the medium of the public / 
 lands they are ramified in every direction, accompanied by/ 
 that corruption and subserviency, which are their neve 
 failing companions. It is our duty to check, instead of in- 
 creasing this evil ; but, instead of this, we seem to 
 every opportunity of increasing its impulse. In the presei 
 case, we have placed Michigan in a position calculated to/ 
 give almost unlimited control to executive influence, as th< 
 final arrangement in respect to the public lands (a question 
 of such deep importance to her) must mainly depend o; 
 that branch of the Government. Not satisfied with thisK 
 we have divested ourselves of the right to determine whether ^ 
 Michigan shall comply with the condition which we are 
 about to prescribe for her admission, and to confer it on/ 
 the President, with the corresponding diminution of our 
 fluence and the increase of his over the State. In our eager-\ 
 ness to divest the Senate of its power, we propose to go still 
 further. In direct violation of an express provision of the con-, 
 stitution, which confers on this body the right to judge of 
 the qualifications of its members, this bill provides for tl 
 creation of two Senators by law, the first instance of tl 
 kind ever attempted since the commencement of the Govei 
 ment. 
 
 Such are the leading objections to the bill. There are 
 others of no inconsiderable magnitude. I have never read 
 one, containing more objectionable provisions, submitted to 
 the consideration of Congress. And yet it has been urged 
 with as much precipitancy through the body, as if its pro- 
 visions were in accordance with those which are usual on 
 such occasions. A trained and despotic majority have re- 
 sisted every attempt at amendment, and every effort to gain 
 time to reflect on the extraordinary and dangerous provisions
 
 SPEECHES. 509 
 
 which it contains. If there were any reason for this urgency, 
 I would be the last to complain ; but none has been assigned, 
 or can be imagined. We all agree that Michigan should be 
 admitted, and are anxious for the admission. I, individually, 
 feel solicitous that the bill'should be so modified that I can 
 reconcile it to my conscience and views of expediency to vote 
 for it. For this purpose, I only ask that it shall be put in 
 the usual form ; and that the numerous precedents which 
 we have, shall not be departed from. But the majority, as 
 if anxious to force a division, seem obstinately bent on re- 
 fusing compliance to so reasonable a request. 
 
 SPEECH 
 
 On the Bill to prohibit Deputy-Postmasters from re- 
 ceiving and transmitting through the Mail, to any 
 State, Territory, or District, certain Papers therein 
 mentioned, the circulation of which is prohibited 
 by the Laws of said State, Territory, or District ; 
 delivered in the Senate, April 12, 1836. 
 
 I AM aware, said Mr. Calhoun, how offensive it is to 
 speak of one's self; but as the Senator from Georgia on 
 my right (Mr. King) has thought fit to impute to me im- 
 proper motives, I feel myself compelled in self-defence to state 
 the reasons which have governed my course in reference to 
 the subject now under consideration. The Senator is greatly 
 mistaken in supposing that I am governed by hostility to 
 General Jackson. So far is that from being the fact, that I 
 came here at the commencement of the session with fixed and 
 settled principles on the subject now under discussion, and
 
 510 SPEECHES. 
 
 which, in pursuing the course the Senator condemns, I have 
 but attempted to carry into effect. 
 
 As soon as the subject of abolition began to agitate the 
 South, last summer, in consequence of the transmission of 
 incendiary publications through tfie mail, I saw at once that 
 it would force itself on the notice of Congress at the present 
 session ; and that it involved questions of great delicacy and 
 difficulty. I immediately turned my attention in consequence 
 to the subject, and after due reflection arrived at the conclu- 
 sion, that Congress could exercise no direct power over it ; 
 and that, if it acted at all, the only mode in which it could 
 act, consistently with the constitution and the rights and 
 safety of the slaveholding States, would be in the manner 
 proposed by this bill. I also saw that there was no incon- 
 siderable danger in the excited state of the feelings of the 
 South ; that the power, however dangerous and unconsti- 
 tutional, might be thoughtlessly yielded to Congress know- 
 ing full well how apt the weak and timid are, in a state of 
 excitement and alarm, to seek temporary protection in any 
 quarter, regardless of after consequences ; and how ready the 
 artful and designing ever are to seize on such occasions to 
 extend and perpetuate their power. 
 
 With these impressions I arrived here at the beginning of 
 the session. The President's Message was not calculated to 
 remove my apprehensions. He assumed for Congress direct 
 power over the subject, and that on the broadest, most un- 
 qualified, and dangerous principles. Knowing the influence 
 of his name by reason of his great patronage and the rigid 
 discipline of his party with a large portion of the country, 
 who have scarcely any other standard of constitution, politics, 
 or morals, I saw the full extent of the danger of having 
 these dangerous principles reduced to practice, and I deter- 
 mined at once to use every effort to prevent it. The Senator 
 from Georgia will, of course, understand that I do not include 
 him in this subservient portion of his party. So far from it.
 
 SPEECHES. 511 
 
 I have always considered him as one of the most independent. 
 It has been our fortune to concur in opinion in relation to 
 most of the important measures which have heen agitated 
 since he became a member of this body, two years ago, at 
 the commencement of the session during which the deposit 
 question was agitated. On that important question, if I 
 mistake not, the Senator and myself concurred in opinion, at 
 least as to its inexpediency, and the dangerous consequences 
 to which it would probably lead. If my memory serves me 
 well, we also agreed in opinion on the connected subject of 
 the currency, which was then incidentally discussed. We 
 agreed, too, on the question of raising the value of gold to its 
 present standard, and in opposition to the bill for the distri- 
 bution of the proceeds of the public lands, introduced by the 
 Senator from Kentucky (Mr. Clay). In recurring to the 
 events of that interesting session, I can remember but one 
 important subject on which we disagreed, and that was the 
 President's protest. Passing to the next, I find the same 
 concurrence of opinion on most of the important subjects of 
 the session. We agreed on the question of executive pa- 
 tronage on the propriety of amending the constitution for a 
 temporary distribution of the surplus revenue on the sub- 
 ject of regulating the deposits and in support of the bill 
 for restricting the power of the Executive in making removals 
 from office. We also agreed on the propriety of establishing 
 branch mints in the South and West a subject not a little 
 contested at the time. 
 
 Even at the present session we have not been so unfor- 
 tunate as to disagree entirely. We have, it is true, on the 
 question of receiving abolition petitions, which I regret, as I 
 must consider their reception, on the principle on whieh they 
 were received, as a surrender of the whole ground to the 
 abolitionists, as far as this Government is concerned. It is 
 also true, that we disagreed, in part, in reference to the 
 present subject. The Senator has divided, in relation to it,
 
 512 SPEECHES. 
 
 between myself and General Jackson. He has given his 
 speech in support of his Message, and announced the inten. 
 tion of giving his vote in favor of my bill. I certainly have no 
 right to complain of this division. I had rather have his vote 
 than his speech. The one will stand for ever on the records 
 of the Senate (unless expunged) in favor of the bill, and the 
 important principles on which it rests while the other is 
 destined, at no distant day, to oblivion. 
 
 I now put to the Senator from Georgia two short ques- 
 tions. In the numerous and important instances in which 
 we have agreed, I must have been either right or wrong. If 
 right, how could he be so uncharitable as to attribute my 
 course to the low and unworthy motive of inveterate hostility 
 to General Jackson ? But if wrong, in what condition does 
 his charge against me place himself, who has concurred with 
 me in all these measures ? 
 
 [Here Mr. King disclaimed the imputation of improper motives to 
 Mr. C.] 
 
 I am glad to hear the gentleman's disclaimer, said Mr. C., 
 but I certainly understood him as asserting, that such was 
 my hostility to General Jackson, that his support of a measure 
 was sufficient to insure my opposition ; and this he undertook 
 to illustrate by an anecdote borrowed from O'Connell and the 
 pig, which I must tell the Senator was much better suited 
 to the Irish mob to which it was originally addressed, than to 
 the dignity of the Senate, where he has repeated it. 
 
 But to return from this long digression. I saw, as I have 
 remarked, there was reason to apprehend that the principles 
 embraced in the Message might be reduced to practice 
 principles which I believed to be dangerous to the South, 
 and subversive of the liberty of the press. The report fully 
 states what those principles are, but it may not be useless to 
 refer to them briefly on the present occasion. 
 
 The Message assumed for Congress the right of determin- 
 ing what publications are incendiary and calculated to excite
 
 SPEECHES. 513 
 
 the slaves to insurrection, and of prohibiting the transmission 
 of such publications through the mail ; and, of course, it also 
 assumed the right of deciding what are not incendiary, and 
 of enforcing the transmission of such through the mail. But 
 the Senator from Georgia denies this inference, and treats it 
 as a monstrous absurdity. I had, said Mr. C., considered it 
 so nearly intuitive, that I had not supposed it necessary in 
 the report to add any thing in illustration of its truth ; but 
 as it has been contested by the Senator, I will add, in illus- 
 tration, a single remark. 
 
 The Senator will not deny that the right of determinii 
 what papers are incendiary and of preventing their circula- N 
 tion, implies that Congress has jurisdiction over the subject ; 
 that is, of discriminating as to what papers ought or ought 
 not to be transmitted by the mail. Nor will he deny that 
 Congress has a right, when acting within its acknowk 
 jurisdiction, to enforce the execution of its acts ; and yet the 
 admission of these unquestionable truths involves the conse- 
 quence asserted by the report, and so sneered at by the 
 Senator. But lest he should controvert so plain a deduc- 
 tion, to cut the matter short, I shall propound a plain 
 question to him. He believes that Congress has the right 
 to say what papers are incendiary, and to prohibit their cir- 
 culation. Now, I ask him if he does not also believe that it 
 has the right to enforce the circulation of such as it may 
 determine not to be incendiary, even against the law of 
 Georgia that might prohibit their circulation ? If the 
 Senator should answer in the affirmative, I then would prove, 
 by his admission, the truth of the inference for which I con- 
 tend, and which he has pronounced to be so absurd : but if 
 he should answer in the negative, and deny that Congress 
 can enforce the circulation against the law of the State, I 
 must tell him he would place himself in the neighborhood 
 of nullification. He would in fact go beyond. The denial 
 would assume the right of nullifying what the Senator him- 
 VOL. ii. 33
 
 514 SPEECHES. 
 
 self must, with his views, consider a constitutional act 
 when nullification only assumes the right of a State to 
 nullify an unconstitutional act. 
 
 But the principle of the Message goes still further. It 
 
 lines for Congress jurisdiction over the liberty of the press. 
 ?he framers of the constitution (or rather those jealous 
 ' patriots who refused to consent to its adoption without amend- 
 ments to guard against the abuse of power) have, by the 
 first amended article, provided that Congress shall pass no 
 law abridging the liberty of the press with the view of 
 placing the press beyond the control of Congressional legisla- 
 tion. But this cautious foresight would prove to be vain, if 
 we should concede to Congress the power which the President 
 t assumes of discriminating, in reference to character, what 
 jublications shall not be transmitted by the mail. It would 
 place in the hands of the General Government an instrument 
 lore potent to control the freedom of the press than the 
 
 lition Law itself, as is fully established in the report. 
 
 Thus regarding the Message, the question which pre- 
 sented itself on its first perusal was, how to prevent powers 
 so dangerous and unconstitutional from being carried into 
 practice ? To permit the portion of the Message relating to 
 the subject under consideration to take its regular course, 
 and be referred to the Committee on Post-Offices and Post 
 Roads, would, I saw, be the most certain way to defeat what 
 I had in view. I could not doubt, from the composition of 
 the committee, that the report would coincide with the 
 Message ; and that it would be drawn up with all that tact, 
 ingenuity, and address, for which the Chairman of the Com- 
 mittee and the head of the post-office department are not 
 a little distinguished. With this impression, I could not 
 but apprehend that the authority of the President, backed 
 by such a report, would go far to rivet in the public mind 
 the dangerous principles which it was my design to defeat, 
 and which could only be effected by referring the portion of
 
 SPEECHES. 515 
 
 the Message in question to a select committee, by which the 
 subject might be thoroughly investigated, and the result pre- 
 sented in a report. With this view I moved the committee, 
 and the bill and report which the Senator has attacked so 
 violently are the result. 
 
 These are the reasons which governed me in the course I 
 took, and not the base and Unworthy motive of hostility to 
 General Jackson. I appeal with confidence to my life to 
 prove, that neither hostility nor attachment to any man or 
 any party, can influence me in the discharge of my public 
 duties ; but were I capable of being influenced by such 
 motives, I must tell the Senator from Georgia, that I have 
 too little regard for the opinion of General Jackson, and, 
 were it not for his high station, I would add, his character 
 too, to permit his course to influence me in the slightest 
 degree, either for or against any measure. 
 
 Having now assigned the motives which governed me, it is 
 with satisfaction I add that I have a fair prospect of success. 
 So entirely are the principles of the Message abandoned, that 
 not a friend of the President has ventured, and I hazard no- 
 thing in saying will venture, to assert them practically, what- 
 ever they may venture to do in argument. They will know 
 now that, since the subject has been investigated, a bill to 
 carry into effect the recommendation of the Message would 
 receive no support even from the ranks of the Administra- 
 tion, devoted as they are to their chieftain. 
 
 The Senator from Georgia made other objections to the 
 report beside those which I have thus incidentally noticed, 
 to which I do not deem it necessary to reply. I am content 
 with his vote, and cheerfully leave the report and his speech 
 to abide their fate, with a brief notice of a single objection. 
 
 The Senator charges me with, what he considers, a strange 
 and unaccountable contradiction. He says that the freedom 
 of the press, and the right of petition, are both secured by 
 the same article of the constitution, and both stand on the
 
 516 SPEECHES. 
 
 same principle ; yet I who decidedly opposed the receiving 
 of abolition petitions, now as decidedly support the liberty 
 of the press. To make ont the contradiction, he assumes 
 that the constitution places the right of petitioners to have 
 their petitions received, and the liberty of the press on the 
 same ground. I do not deem it necessary to show that, in 
 this, he is entirely mistaken, and that my course on both 
 occasions is perfectly consistent. I take the Senator at his 
 word, and put to him a question for Ms decision. If, in op- 
 posing the reception of the abolition petitions, and advocat- 
 ing the freedom of the press, I have involved myself in a 
 palpable contradiction, how can he escape a similar charge, 
 when his course was the reverse of mine on both occasions ? 
 Does he not see that if mine be contradictory, as he supposes, 
 his too must necessarily be so ? But the Senator forgets his 
 own argument, of which I must remind him, in order to re- 
 lieve him from the awkward dilemma in which he has placed 
 himself, in his eagerness to fix on me the charge of contra- 
 diction. He seems not to recollect that, in his speech on 
 receiving the abolition petitions, he was compelled to aban- 
 don the constitution, and to place the right, not on that 
 instrument, as he would now have us believe, but expressly 
 on the ground that the right existed anterior to the consti- 
 tution, and that we must look for its limits, not to the constitu- 
 tion, but to Magna Charta and the Declaration of Bights. 
 
 Having now concluded what I intended to say in reply to 
 the Senator from Georgia, I turn to the objections of the 
 Senator from Massachusetts (Mr. Davis), which were direct- 
 ed, not against the report, but the bill itself. The Senator 
 confined his objections to the principles of the bill, which he 
 pronounces dangerous and Unconstitutional. It is my wish 
 to meet his objections fully, fairly, and directly. For this 
 purpose, it will be necessary to have an accurate and clear 
 conception of the principles of the bill, as it is impossible 
 without it to estimate correctly the force either of the objec-
 
 SPEECHES. 517 
 
 tions or the reply. I am thus constrained to restate what 
 the principles are, at the hazard of being considered somewhat 
 tedious. 
 
 ^/The first and leading principle is, that the subject of 
 slavery is under the sole and exclusive control of the States 
 where the institution exists. It belongs to them to determine 
 what may endanger its existence, and when and how it may 
 be defended. In the exercise of this right, they may pro- 
 hibit the introduction or circulation of any paper or publica- 
 tion, which may, in their opinion, disturb or endanger the 
 institution/ Thus far all are agreed. To this extent no one 
 has questioned the right of the States ; not even the Sena- 
 tor from Massachusetts in his numerous objections to the 
 bill. 
 
 The next and remaining principle/of the biJjXs intimately 
 . connected with the preceding ; and, in fact, springs directly 
 from ii.yii assumes that it is the duty of the General Gov- 
 ernment, in the exercise of its delegated rights, to respect 
 the laws which the slaveholding States may pass in protec- 
 tion of its institutions ; or, to express it differently, it is its 
 duty to pass such laws as may be necessary to make it obli- 
 gatory on its officers and agents to abstain from violating the 
 laws of the States, and to co-operate, as far as it may consist- 
 ently be done, in their execution^ It is against this princi- 
 ple that the objections of the Senator from Massachusetts 
 have been directed, and to which I now proceed to reply. 
 
 His first objection is, that the principle is new ; by which 
 I understand him to mean, that it never has heretofore been 
 acted on by the Government. The objection presents two 
 questions : is it true, in point of fact ? and if so, what weight 
 or force properly belongs to it ? If I am not greatly mis- 
 taken, it will be found wanting in both particulars ; and 
 that, so far from being new, it has been frequently acted on ; 
 and that, if it were new, the fact would have little or no 
 force.
 
 518 SPEECHES. 
 
 If our Government had been in operation for centuries, 
 and had been exposed to the various changes and trials tc 
 which political institutions, in a long protracted existence, 
 are exposed in the vicissitudes of events, the objection, under 
 such circumstances, that a principle has never been acted up- 
 on, if not decisive, would be exceedingly strong ; but when 
 made in reference to our Government, which has been in op- 
 eration for less than half a century, and which is so complex 
 and novel in its structure, it is very feeble. We all know 
 that new principles are daily developing themselves under our 
 system, with the changing condition of the country, and 
 doubtless will long continue so to do, in the new and trying 
 scenes through which we are destined to pass. It may, I ad- 
 mit, be good reason even with us for caution, for thorough 
 and careful investigation, if a principle proposed to be acted 
 upon be new ; for I have long since been taught by experi- 
 ence, that whatever is untried is to be received with caution 
 in politics, however plausible. But to go further in this early 
 stage of our political existence, would be to deprive ourselves 
 of means that might be indispensable to meet future dangers 
 and difficulties. 
 
 But I take higher grounds in reply to the objection. I 
 deny its truth in point of fact, and assert, that the principle 
 is not new. The report refers to two instances in which 
 it has been acted on, and to which, for the present, I shall 
 confine myself ; one in reference to the quarantine laws of 
 the States, and the other more directly connected with the 
 subject of this bill. I propose to make a few remarks in re- 
 ference to both ; beginning with the former, with the view of 
 showing that the principle in both cases is strictly analogous, 
 or rather identical with the present. 
 
 The health of the State, like that of the subject of slave- 
 ry, belongs exclusively to the States. It is reserved and not 
 delegated ; and, of course, each State has a right to judge foi 
 itself, what may endanger the health of its citizens, what
 
 SPEECHES. 519 
 
 measures are necessary to prevent it, and when and how such 
 measures are to be carried into effect. Among the causes 
 which may endanger the health of a State, is the introduc- 
 tion of infectious or contagious diseases, through the medium 
 of commerce. The vessel returning with a rich cargo, in ex- 
 change for the products of a State, may also come freighted 
 with the seeds of disease and death. To guard against this 
 danger, the States at a very early period adopted quarantine 
 or health laws. These laws, it is obvious, must necessarily 
 interfere with the power of Congress to regulate commerce 
 a power as expressly given as that to regulate the mail, and, 
 as far as the present question is concerned, every way analo- 
 gous ; and acting accordingly on the principles of this bill, 
 Congress, as far back as the year 1796, passed an act making 
 it the duty of its civil and military officers to abstain from 
 the violation of the health laws of the States, and to co-op- 
 erate in their execution. This act was modified and repeal- 
 ed by that of 1799, which has since remained unchanged on 
 the statute book. 
 
 But the other precedent referred to in the report is still 
 more direct and important. That case, like the present, in- 
 volved the right of the slaveholding States to adopt such 
 measures as they may think proper, to prevent their domes- 
 tic institutions from being disturbed or endangered. They 
 may be endangered, not only by introducing and circulating 
 inflammatory publications, calculated to excite insurrection, 
 but also by the introduction of free people of color from 
 abroad, who may come as emissaries, or with opinions and 
 sentiments hostile to the peace and security of those States. 
 The right of a State to pass laws to prevent danger from pub- 
 lications, is not more clear than the right to pass those which 
 may be necessary to guard against this danger. The act of 
 1803, to which the report refers, as a precedent, recognizes 
 this right to the fullest extent. It was intended to sustain 
 the laws of the States against the introduction of free people
 
 520 SPEECHES. 
 
 of color from the West India Islands. The Senator from 
 Massachusetts, in his remarks upon this precedent, supposes 
 the law to have been passed under the power given to Con- 
 gress by the constitution to suppress the slave trade. I have 
 turned to the journals in order to ascertain the facts, and find 
 that the Senator is entirely mistaken. The law was passed 
 on a memorial of the citizens of Wilmington, North Carolina, 
 and originated in the following facts. 
 
 After the successful rebellion of the slaves of St. Domin- 
 go, and the expulsion of the French power, the government of 
 the other French West India Islands, in order to guard against 
 the danger from the example of St. Domingo, adopted rigid 
 measures to expel their free blacks. In 1803, a brig, having on 
 board five persons of this description who were driven from 
 Guadaloupe, arrived at Wilmington. The alarm which this 
 caused gave birth to the memorial, and the memorial to the 
 act. I learn from the journals, that the subject was fully 
 investigated and discussed in both Houses, and that it pass- 
 ed by a very large majority. The first section of the bill 
 prevents the introduction of any negro, mulatto, or mustee, 
 into any State by the laws of which they are prevented from 
 being introduced, except persons of the description from be- 
 yond the Cape of Good Hope, or registered seamen, or na- 
 tives of the United States. The second section prohibits 
 the entry of vessels having such persons on board, and sub- 
 jects the vessels to seizure and forfeiture for landing, or at- 
 tempting to land them contrary to the laws of the States ; 
 and the third and last section makes it the duty of the officers 
 of the General Government to co-operate with those of the 
 States in the execution of their laws against their introduc- 
 tion. I consider this precedent to be one of vast impor- 
 tance to the slaveholding States. It not only recognizes the 
 right of these States to pass such laws as they may deem 
 necessary to protect themselves as to the slave population, 
 and the duty of the General Government to respect those
 
 SPEECHES. 521 
 
 laws, hut also the very important right that the States have 
 the authority to exclude the introduction of such persons as 
 may be dangerous to their institutions a principle of great 
 extent and importance, and applicable to other States as well 
 as slaveholding, and to other persons as well as blacks and 
 which may hereafter occupy a prominent place in the history 
 of our legislation. 
 
 Having now, I trust, fully and successfully replied to the 
 first objection of the Senator from Massachusetts, by showing 
 that it is not true in fact, and if it were, that it would have 
 little or no force, I shall now proceed to reply to the second 
 objection, which assumes that the principles for which I con- 
 tend would, if admitted, transfer the power over the mail 
 from the General Government to the States. 
 
 If the objection be well founded, it must prove fatal to 
 the bill. The power over the mail is, beyond all doubt, a 
 delegated power ; and whatever would divest the Government 
 of this power, and transfer it to the States, would certainly 
 be a violation of the constitution. But would the principle, 
 if acted on, transfer the power ? If admitted to its full ex- 
 tent, its only effect would be to make it the duty of Con- 
 gress, in the exercise of its power over the mail, to abstain 
 from violating the laws of the State in protection of their 
 slave property, and to co-operate, where it could with pro- 
 priety, in their execution. Its utmost effect would then be 
 a modification, and not a transfer or destruction of the pow- 
 er ; and surely the Senator will not contend that to modify 
 a right amounts either to its transfer or annihilation. He can- 
 not forget that all rights are subject to modifications, and all, 
 from the highest to the lowest, are held under one universal 
 condition that their possessors should so use them as not to 
 injure others. Nor can he contend that the power of the 
 General Government over the mail is without modification 
 or limitation. He, himself, admits that it is subject to a 
 very Important modification, when he concedes that the Gov-
 
 522 SPEECHES. 
 
 eminent cannot discriminate in reference to the cliaractei 
 of the publications to be transmitted by the mail, without 
 violating the first amended article of the constitution, which 
 prohibits Congress from passing laws abridging the liberty of 
 the press. Other modifications of the right might be shown 
 to exist, not less clear nor of much less importance. It 
 might be easily shown, for instance, that the power over the 
 mail is limited to the transmission of intelligence, and that 
 Congress cannot, consistently with the nature and the object of 
 the power, extend it to the ordinary subjects of transportation, 
 without a manifest violation of the constitution, and the as- 
 sumption of a principle which would give the Government 
 control over the general transportation of the country, both by 
 land and water. But, if it be subject to these modifications, 
 without either annihilating or transferring the power, why 
 should the modification for which I contend, and which, as I 
 shall hereafter prove, rests upon unquestionable principles, 
 have such effect ? That it would not in fact, might be shown, 
 if other proof were necessary, by a reference to the practical 
 operation of the principle in the two instances already refer- 
 red to. In both, the principle which I contend for in rela- 
 tion to the mail, has long been in operation in reference to 
 commerce, without the transfer of the power of Congress to 
 regulate commerce to the States, which the Senator contends 
 would be its effect if applied to the mail. So far otherwise, 
 so little has it affected the power of Congress to regulate the 
 commerce of the country, that few persons comparatively 
 are aware that the principle has been recognized and acted 
 on by the General Government. 
 
 I come next, said Mr. Calhoun, to what the Senator 
 seemed to rely upon as his main objection. He stated that 
 the principles asserted in the report were contradicted in the 
 bill, and that the latter undertakes to do, indirectly, what the 
 former asserts that the General Government cannot do at alL 
 
 Admit, said Mr. C., the objection to be true in fact, and
 
 SPEECHES. 523 
 
 what does it prove, but that the author of the report is a 
 bad logician, and that there is error somewhere ; but without 
 proving that it is in the bill, and that it ought therefore to 
 be rejected, as the Senator contends. If there be error, it 
 may be in the report instead of the bill, and till the Senator 
 can fix it on the latter, he cannot avail himself of the objec- 
 tion. But does the contradiction which he alleges exist ? 
 Let us turn to the principles asserted in the report, and com- 
 pare them with those of the bill in order to determine this 
 point. 
 
 What are the principles which the report maintains ? 
 It asserts that Congress has no right to determine what pa- 
 pers are incendiary, and calculated to excite insurrection, 
 and as such to prohibit their circulation ; but, on the con- 
 trary, that it belongs to the States to determine on the char- 
 acter and tendency of such publications, and to adopt such 
 measures as they may think proper to prevent then: introduc- 
 tion or circulation. Does the bill deny any of these princi- 
 ples ? Does it not assume them all ? Is it not drawn up on 
 the supposition that the General Government has none of 
 the powers denied by the report, and that the States possess 
 all for which it contends ? How then can it be said that 
 the bill contradicts the report ? But the difficulty, it seems, 
 is, that the General Government would do, through the 
 States under the provisions of the bill, what the report de- 
 nies that it can do directly ; and this, according to the Sen- 
 ator from Georgia, is so manifest and palpable a contradic- 
 tion, that he can find no explanation for my conduct but an 
 inveterate hostility to General Jackson, which he is pleased 
 to attribute to me. 
 
 I have, I trust, successfully repelled already the imputa- 
 tion, and it now remains to show that the gross and palpable 
 errors which the Senator perceives, exist only in his own 
 imagination ; and that, instead of the cause he supposes, it 
 originates on his part in a dangerous and fundamental mis-
 
 524 SPEECHES. 
 
 conception of the nature of our political system par- 
 ticularly of the relation between the States and General 
 Government. Were the States the agents of the General 
 Government, as the objection clearly presupposes, then 
 what he says would be true and the Government in re- 
 cognizing the laws of the States would adopt the acts of 
 its agents. But the fact is far otherwise. The General 
 Government and the governments of the States are distinct 
 and independent departments in our complex political sys- 
 tem. The States, in passing laws for the protection of their 
 domestic institutions, act in a sphere as independent as the 
 General Government when passing laws in regulation of the 
 mail ; and the latter, in abstaining from violating the laws 
 of the States, as provided for in the bill, so far from making 
 the States its agents, but recognizes the rights of the States, 
 and performs, on its part, a corresponding duty. Eights and 
 duties are in their nature reciprocal. The existence of one 
 presupposes that of the other ; and the performance of the 
 duty, so far from denying the right, distinctly recognizes its 
 existence. The Senator, for example, next to me (Judge 
 White), has the unquestionable right to the occupation of 
 his chair, and I am of course in duty bound to abstain from 
 violating that right ; but would it not be absurd to say, that 
 in performing that duty by abstaining from violating his 
 right, I assumed the right of occupation ? Again ; suppose 
 the very quiet and peaceable Senator from Maine (Mr. Shep- 
 ley), who is his next neighbor on the other side, should under- 
 take to oust the Senator from Tennessee, would it not be 
 strange doctrine to contend, that if I were to co-operate 
 with the Senator of Tennessee in maintaining possession of 
 his chair, that it would be an assumption on my part of a 
 right to the chair ? And yet this is the identical principle 
 which the Senator from Georgia assumed, in charging a 
 manifest and palpable contradiction between the bill and the 
 report.
 
 SPEECHES. 525 
 
 But to proceed with the objections of the Senator from 
 Massachusetts. He asserts, and asserts truly, that rights 
 and duties are reciprocal ; and that if it be the duty ofthe 
 General Government to respect the laws of the States, it is, 
 in like manner, the duty of the States to respect those of 
 the General Government. The practice of both has been 
 in conformity with the principle. I have already cited in- 
 stances of the General Government respecting the laws of 
 the States, and many might be shown of the States respect- 
 ing those of the General Government. 
 
 But the Senator from Massachusetts affirms that the 
 laws of the General Government regulating the mail, and 
 those of the governments of the States prohibiting the intro- 
 duction and circulation of incendiary publications, may come 
 into conflict and that in such event the latter must yield to 
 the former ; and he rests this assertion on the ground, that 
 the power of the General Government is expressly delegated 
 by the constitution. I regard the argument as wholly in- 
 conclusive. Why should the mere fact that a power is 
 expressly delegated, give it paramount control over the re- 
 served powers? What possible superiority can the mere 
 fact of delegation give, unless indeed it be supposed to ren- 
 der the right more clear, and, of course, less questionable ? 
 Now I deny that it has in this instance any such superiority. 
 Though the power of the General Government over the mail 
 is delegated, it is not more clear and unquestionable than the 
 reserved right of the States over the subject of slavery a 
 right which neither has nor can be denied. In fact, I might 
 take higher grounds, if higher grounds were possible, by 
 showing that the rights of the States are as expressly reserved 
 as those of the General Government are delegated ; for in order 
 to place the reserved rights beyond controversy, the tenth 
 amended article of the constitution expressly provides, that 
 all powers not delegated to the United States nor prohibited by 
 it to the States, are reserved to the States or the people ; and
 
 as the rights in respect to the subject of slavery are acknowledg- 
 ed by all not to be delegated, they may be fairly considered 
 as expressly reserved under this provision of the constitution. 
 
 But while I deny his conclusion, I agree with the Senator 
 that the laws of the States and General Government may 
 come into conflict, and that if they do, one or the other must 
 yield : and the question is, which ought to yield ? The 
 question is one of great importance. It involves the whole 
 merit of the controversy, and I must entreat the Senate to 
 give me an attentive hearing while I state my views in rela- 
 tion to it. 
 
 In order to determine satisfactorily which ought to yield, 
 it becomes necessary to have a clear and full understanding 
 of the point of difficulty ; and for this purpose it is necessary 
 to make a few preliminary remarks. 
 
 Properly considered, the reserved and delegated powers 
 can never come into conflict. The fact that a power is 
 delegated, is conclusive that it is not reserved ; and that, if 
 not delegated, it is reserved, unless indeed it be prohibited 
 to the States. There is but a single exception ; the case of 
 powers of such nature that they may be exercised concur- 
 rently by the State and General Government such as the 
 power of laying taxes, which, though delegated, may also be 
 exercised by the States. In illustration of the truth of the 
 position I have laid down, I might refer to the case now under 
 consideration. Regarded in the abstract, there is not the 
 slightest conflict between the power delegated by the consti- 
 tution to the General Government to establish post-offices 
 and post-roads, and that reserved to the States over the 
 subject of slavery. How then can there be conflict ? It 
 occurs, not between the powers themselves, but the laws 
 respectively passed to carry them into effect. The laws of 
 the State, prohibiting the introduction or circulation of in- 
 cendiary publications, may come in conflict with the laws of 
 the General Government in relation to the mail ; and the
 
 SPEECHES. 527 
 
 question to be determined is, which, in the event, ought to 
 give way ? 
 
 I will not pretend to enter into a full and systematic 
 investigation of this highly important question, which in- 
 volves, as I have said, the merits of the whole controversy. 
 I do not deem it necessary. I propose to lay down a single 
 principle, which I hold to be not only unquestionable, but 
 decisive of the question as far as the present controversy is 
 concerned. My position is, that in deciding which ought to 
 yield, regard must be had to the nature and magnitude of 
 the powers to which the laws respecting it relate. The low 
 must yield to the high ; the convenient to the necessary ; 
 mere accommodation to safety and security. This is the 
 universal principle which governs in all analogous cases, both 
 in our social and political relations. Wherever the means 
 of enjoying or securing rights come into conflict (rights them- 
 selves never can), this universal and fundamental principle is 
 the one which, by the consent of mankind, governs in all , 
 such cases. Apply it to the case under consideration, and 
 need I ask which ought to yield ? Will any rational being 
 say that the laws of eleven States of this Union, which are 
 necessary to their peace, security and very existence, ought 
 to yield to the laws of the General Government regulating 
 the post-office, which at the best is a mere accommodation 
 and convenience and this when the Government was formed 
 by the States mainly with a view to secure more perfectly their 
 peace and safety ? But one answer can be given. All 
 must feel, that it would be improper for the laws of the 
 States, in such case, to yield to those of the General Govern- 
 ment, and, of course, that the latter ought to yield to the 
 former. When I say ought, I do not mean on the principle 
 of concession. I take higher grounds. I mean under the 
 obligation of the constitution itself. That instrument does 
 not leave this important question to be decided by mere in- 
 ference. It contains an express provision which is deci-
 
 528 SPEECHES. 
 
 sive of the question. I refer to that which invests Con- 
 gress with the power of passing laws to carry into effect the 
 granted powers, and which expressly restricts its power to 
 laws necessary and proper to carry into effect the delegated 
 powers. We here have the limitation on the power of pass- 
 ing laws. They must be necessary and proper. I pass the 
 term necessary with the single remark, that whatever may 
 be its true and accurate meaning, it clearly indicates that 
 this important power was sparingly granted by the framers 
 of the constitution. I come to the term proper ; and boldly 
 assert, if it has any meaning at all if it can be said of any 
 law whatever that it is not proper, and that, as such Con- 
 gress has no constitutional right to pass it, surely it may be 
 said of that which would abrogate, in fact, the laws of nearly 
 half of the States of the Union, and which are conceded to 
 be necessary for their peace and safety. If it be proper for 
 Congress to pass such a law, what law could possibly be 
 improper ? We have heard much of late of State Eights. 
 All parties profess to respect them, as essential to the pre- 
 servation of our liberty. I do not except the members of 
 the old federal party that honest, high-minded, patriotic 
 party, though mistaken as to the principles and tendency of 
 the Government. But what, let me ask, would be the value 
 of State Eights, if the laws of Congress in such cases ought 
 not to yield to those of the States ? If they must be consider- 
 ed paramount, whenever they come into conflict with those 
 of the States, without regard to their safety, what possible 
 value can be attached to the rights of the States, and how 
 perfectly unmeaning their reserved powers ? Surrender the 
 principle, and there is not one of the reserved powers which 
 may not be annulled by Congress under the pretext of pass- 
 ing laws to carry into effect the delegated powers. 
 
 The Senator from Massachusetts next objects, that if the 
 principles of the bill be admitted, they may be extended to 
 morals and religion. I do not feel bound to admit or deny
 
 SPEECHES. 529 
 
 the truth of this assertion ; but if the Senator will show me 
 a case in which a State has passed laws under its unques- 
 tionably reserved powers, in protection of its morality or re- 
 ligion, I would hold it to be the duty of the General Govern- 
 ment to respect the laws of the States, in conformity with 
 the principles which I maintain. 
 
 His next objection is, that the bill is a manifest viola- 
 tion of the liberty of the press. He has not thought 
 proper to specify wherein the violation consists. Does he 
 mean to say that the laws of the States prohibiting the in- 
 troduction and circulation of papers calculated to excite 
 insurrection, are in violation of the liberty of the press ? 
 Does he mean that the slaveholding States have no right to 
 pass such laws ? I cannot suppose such to be his meaning ; 
 for I understood him, throughout his remarks, to admit the 
 right of the States a right which they have always exercised, 
 without restriction or limitation, before and since the adop- 
 tion of the constitution, without ever having been ques- 
 tioned. But if this be not his meaning, he must mean that 
 this bill, in making it the duty of the officers and agents of 
 the Government to respect the laws of the States, violates 
 the liberty of the press, and thus involves the old miscon- 
 ception, that the States are the agents of this Government, 
 which pervades the whole argument of the Senator, and to 
 which I have already replied. 
 
 The Senator next objects, that the bill makes it penal 
 on deputy postmasters to receive the papers and publica- 
 tions which it embraces. I must say, that my friend from 
 Massachusetts (for such I consider him, though we differ in 
 politics) has not expressed himself with his usual accuracy 
 on the present occasion. If he will turn to the provisions of 
 the bill, he will find that the penalty attaches only in sases 
 of knowingly receiving and delivering out the papers and 
 publications in question. All the consequences which the 
 Senator drew from the view which he took of the bill, of 
 VOL. ii. 34
 
 530 SPEECHES. 
 
 course fall ; which relieves me from the necessity of showing 
 that the deputy postmasters will not be compelled to resort 
 to the espionage into letters and packages, in order to ex- 
 onerate themselves from the penalty of the bill, which he 
 supposed. 
 
 The last objection of the Senator is, that under the pro- 
 visions of the bill, every thing touching on the subject of 
 slavery will be prohibited from passing through the mail. I 
 again must repeat, that the Senator has not expressed him- 
 self with sufficient accuracy. The provisions of the bill are 
 limited to the transmission of such papers, in reference to 
 slavery, as are prohibited by the laws of the slaveholding 
 States ; that is, by eleven States of the Union leaving the 
 circulation through the mail without restriction or qualifica- 
 tion as to all other papers, and wholly so as to the remaining 
 thirteen States. But the Senator seems to think that even 
 this restriction, as limited as it is, would be a very great in- 
 convenience. It may indeed prove so to the lawless abo- 
 litionists, who, without regard to the obligations of the con- 
 stitution, are attempting to scatter their firebrands through- 
 out the Union. But is their convenience the only thing to 
 be taken into the estimate ? Are the peace, security, and 
 safety of the slaveholding States nothing ? or are these to be 
 sacrificed for the accommodation of the abolitionists ? 
 
 I have now replied directly, fully, and, I trust, success- 
 fully, to the objections to the bill ; and shall close what I 
 intended to say, by a few general and brief remarks. 
 ^^We have arrived at a new and important point in refer- 
 ence to the abolition question. It is no longer in the hands 
 of quiet and peaceful, but I cannot add, harmless Quakers. 
 It is now under the control of ferocious zealots, blinded by 
 fanaticism, and, in pursuit of their object, regardless of the 
 obligations of religion or morality. They are organized 
 throughout every section of the non-slaveholding States ; 
 they have the disposition of almost unlimited funds, and are
 
 SPEECHES. 531 
 
 in possession of a powerful press, which, for the first time, is 
 enlisted in the cause of abolition, and turned against the 
 domestic institutions, and the peace and security of the 
 South. To guard against the danger in this new and more 
 menacing form, the slaveholding States will be compelled to 
 revise their laws against the introduction and circulation of 
 publications calculated to disturb their peace and endanger 
 their security, and to render them far more full and efficient 
 than they have heretofore been. In this new state of things, 
 the probable conflict between the laws which those States 
 may think proper to adopt, and those of the General Govern- 
 ment regulating the mail, becomes far more important than 
 at any former stage of the controversy ; and Congress is now 
 called upon to say what part it will take in reference to this 
 deeply interesting subject. We of the slaveholding States 
 ask nothing of the Government, but that it should abstain 
 from violating laws passed within our acknowledged consti- 
 tutional competency, and conceded to be essential to our 
 peace and security. I am anxious to see how this question 
 will be decided. I am desirous that my constituents should 
 know what they have to expect, either from this Govern- 
 ment or from the non-slaveholding States. Much that I 
 have said and done during the session, has been with the 
 view of affording them correct information on this point, in 
 order that they might know to what extent they might rely 
 upon others, and how far they must depend on themselves. 
 
 Thus far (I say it with regret) our just hopes have not 
 been realized. The legislatures of the South, backed by the 
 voice of their constituents, expressed through innumerable 
 meetings, have called upon the non-slaveholding States to 
 repress the movements made within the jurisdiction of those 
 States, against their peace and security. Not a step has been 
 taken ; not a law has been passed, or even proposed ; and 
 I venture to assert that none will be. Not but that there is 
 a favorable dispositions towards us in the North, but I clearly
 
 532 
 
 SPEECHES. 
 
 see the state of political parties there presents insuperable 
 impediments to any legislation on the subject. I rest my 
 opinion on the fact, that the. non-slaveholding States, from 
 the elements of their population, are, and will continue to 
 be, divided and distracted by parties of nearly equal strength ; 
 and that each will always be ready to seize on every move- 
 ment of the other which may give them the superiority, 
 without much regard to consequences as affecting their own 
 States, much less of remote and distant sections. 
 
 Nor have we been less disappointed as to the proceedings 
 of Congress. Believing that the General Government has 
 no right or authority over the subject of slavery, we had just 
 grounds to hope Congress would refuse all jurisdiction in 
 reference to it, in whatever form it might be presented. The 
 very opposite course has been pursued. Abolition petitions 
 have not only been received in both Houses, but received on 
 the most obnoxious and dangerous of all grounds -that we 
 are bound to receive them ; that is, to take jurisdiction of 
 the question of slavery whenever the abolitionists may think 
 proper to petition for its abolition, either here or in the 
 States. 
 
 Thus far, then, we of the slaveholding States have been 
 grievously disappointed. One question still remains to be 
 decided that presented by this bill. To refuse to pass this 
 bill would be virtually to co-operate with the abolitionists 
 would be to make the officers and agents of the post-office 
 department, in effect, their agents and abettors in the cir- 
 culation of their incendiary publications in violation of the 
 laws of the States. It is your unquestionable duty, as I 
 have demonstrably proved, to abstain from their violation; 
 and by refusing or neglecting to discharge this duty, you 
 would clearly enlist, in the existing controversy, on the side 
 of the abolitionists, against the Southern States. Should 
 such be your decision, by refusing to pass this bill, I shall 
 say to the people of the South, look to yourselves you have
 
 SPEECHES. 533 
 
 nothing to hope from others. But I must tell the Senate, 
 be your decision what it may, the South will never abandon 
 the principles of this bill. If you refuse co-operation with 
 our laws, and conflict should ensue between yours and ours, 
 the Southern States will never yield to the superiority 
 of yours. We have a remedy in our hands, which, in such 
 event, we shall not fail to apply. We have high authority 
 for asserting, that, in such cases, " State interposition is the 
 rightful remedy" a doctrine first announced by Jefferson 
 adopted by the patriotic and republican State of Kentucky, 
 by a solemn resolution in '98, and finally carried out into 
 successful practice on a recent occasion, ever to be remem- 
 bered, by the gallant State, which I, in part, have the honor 
 to represent. In this well tested and efficient remedy, sus- 
 tained by the principles developed in the report, and asserted 
 in this bill, the slaveholding States have an ample protection. 
 Let it be fixed let it be riveted in every Southern mind, 
 that the laws of the slaveholding States for the protection of 
 their domestic institutions are paramount to the laws of the 
 General Government in regulation of commerce and the 
 mail; that the latter must yield to the former in the 
 event of conflict ; and that if the Government should refuse 
 to yield, the States have a right to interpose, and we are 
 safe. With these principles, nothing but concert would be 
 wanting to bid defiance to the movements of the abolition- 
 ists, whether at home or abroad ; and to place our domestic 
 institutions, and with them our security and peace, under 
 our own protection, and beyond the reach of danger.
 
 534 SPEECHES. 
 
 SPEECH 
 
 On the Bill to regulate the Deposits of the Public 
 Money, delivered in the Senate, May 28th, 1836. 
 
 [AFTER some remarks from Mr. Wright, in explanation, Mr. Cal- 
 houn said:] 
 
 THIS bill, which the Senator from New- York proposes to 
 strike out, in order to substitute his amendment, is no 
 stranger to this body. It was reported at the last session 
 by the Select Committee on Executive Patronage, and passed 
 the Senate, after a full and deliberate investigation, by a 
 mixed vote of all parties, of twenty to twelve. As strong 
 as is this presumptive evidence hi its favor, I would, not- 
 withstanding, readily surrender the bill, and adopt the 
 amendment of the Senator from New- York, if I did not 
 sincerely believe that it is liable to strong and decisive objec- 
 tions. I seek no lead on this important subject ; my sole 
 aim is to aid in applying a remedy to what I honestly believe 
 to be a deep and dangerous disease of the body politic ; and 
 I stand prepared to co-operate with any one, be he of what 
 party he may, who may propose a remedy, provided it shall 
 promise to be safe and efficient. I, in particular, am de- 
 sirous of co-operating with the Senator from New- York, not 
 only because I desire the aid of his distinguished talents, but, 
 still more, of his decisive influence with the powerful party 
 of which he is so distinguished a member, and which now, 
 for good or evil, holds the destinies of the country in its hands. 
 It was in this spirit that I examined the amendment pro- 
 posed by the Senator ; and, I regret to say, after a full in- 
 vestigation, I cannot acquiesce in it, as I feel a deep convic- 
 tion that it will be neither safe nor efficient. So far from 
 being substantially the same as the bill, as stated by the
 
 SPEECHES. 535 
 
 Senator, I cannot but regard it as essentially different, both 
 as to objects and means. The objects of the bill are : first, 
 to secure the public interest as far as it is connected with 
 the deposits ; and, next, to protect the banks in which they 
 are made against the influence and control of the executive 
 branch of this Government, with a view both to their and 
 the public interest. Compared with the bill, in respect to 
 both, the proposed amendment will be found to favor the 
 banks against the people, and the Executive against the 
 banks. I do not desire the Senate to form their opinion 
 on my authority. I wish them to examine for themselves ; 
 and, in order to aid them in the examination, I shall now 
 proceed to state, and briefly illustrate, the several points of 
 difference between the bill and the proposed amendment, 
 taking them in the order in which they stand in the bill. 
 
 The first section of the bill provides that the banks shall 
 pay at the rate of two per cent, per annum on the deposits 
 for the use of the public money. This provision is entirely 
 omitted in the amendment, which proposes to give to the 
 banks the use of the money without interest. That the 
 banks ought to pay something for the use of the public money, 
 all must agree, whatever diversity of opinion there may be as 
 to the amount. According to the last return of the treasury 
 department, there was, on the first of this month, $45,000,000 
 of public money in the thirty-six depository banks, which 
 they are at liberty to use as their own for discount or business, 
 till drawn out for disbursements an event that may not 
 happen for years. In a word, this vast amount is so much 
 additional banking capital, giving the same, or nearly the 
 same, profit to those institutions as their permanent chartered 
 capital, without rendering any other service to the public 
 than paying away, from time to time, the portion that may 
 be required for the service of the Government. Assuming 
 that the banks realize a profit of six per cent, on these depo- 
 sits (it cannot be estimated at less), it would give, on the
 
 536 SPEECHES. 
 
 present amount, nearly three millions of dollars per annum ; 
 and on the probable average public deposits of the year, up- 
 wards of two millions of dollars ; which enormous profit is 
 derived from the public by comparatively few individuals, 
 without any return or charge, except the inconsiderable ser- 
 vice of paying out the draughts of the treasury when pre- 
 sented. But it is due to the Senator to acknowledge that 
 his amendment is predicated on the supposition that some 
 disposition must be made of the surplus revenue, which would 
 leave in the banks a sum not greater than would be requisite 
 to meet the current expenditure : a supposition which must 
 necessarily affect, very materially affect, the decision of the 
 question as to the amount of compensation the banks ought to 
 make to the public for the use of its funds. But, let the 
 decision be what it may, the omission in the amendment 
 of any compensation whatever is, in my opinion, wholly inde- 
 fensible. 
 
 The next point of difference relates to transfer warrants. 
 The bill prohibits the use of transfer warrants, except with 
 a view to disbursement while the amendment leaves them, 
 without regulation, under the sole control of the treasury 
 department. To understand the importance of this difference, 
 it must be borne in mind that the transfer warrants are the 
 lever by which the whole banking operations of the country 
 may be controlled through the deposits. By them the public 
 money may be transferred from one bank to another, or from 
 one State or section of the country to another State or sec- 
 tion ; and thus one bank may be elevated and another 
 depressed, and a redundant currency created in one State or 
 section, and a deficient in another ; and, through such re- 
 dundancy or deficiency, all the moneyed engagements and 
 business transactions of the whole community may be made 
 dependent on the will of one man. With the present enor- 
 mous surplus, it is difficult to assign limits to the extent of 
 this power. The Secretary or the irresponsible agent un-
 
 SPEECHES. 537 
 
 known to the laws, who, rumor says, has the direction of this 
 immense power (we are permitted to have no certain infor- 
 mation), may raise and depress stocks and property of all 
 descriptions at his pleasure, by withdrawing from one place 
 and transferring to another, to the unlimited gain of those who 
 are in the secret, and the certain ruin of those who are not. 
 Such a field of speculation has never before been opened in 
 any country ; a field so great, that the Kothschilds themselves 
 might be tempted to enter it with their immense funds. Nor 
 is the control which it would give over the politics of the 
 country much less unlimited. To the same extent that it 
 may be used to affect the interests and the fortunes of indi- 
 viduals, to the like extent it may be employed as an instru- 
 ment of political influence and control. I do not intend to 
 assert that it has or will be so employed ; it is not essential at 
 present to inquire how it has been or will be used. It is suffi- 
 cient for my purpose to show, as I trust I have satisfactorily, 
 that it may be so employed. To guard against the abuse of 
 so dangerous a power, the provision was inserted in the bill 
 to prohibit the use of transfer warrants, except, as stated, 
 for the purpose of disbursement ; the omission of which pro- 
 vision in the amendment is a fatal objection to it of itself, were 
 there no other. But it is far from standing alone : the next 
 point of difference will be found to be not less striking and 
 fatal. 
 
 The professed object of both the bill and the amendment 
 is, to place the safe-keeping of the public money under the 
 regulation and control of law, instead of being left, as it now 
 is, at the discretion of the Executive. However strange it 
 may seem, the fact is nevertheless so, that the amendment 
 entirely fails to effect the object which it is its professed 
 aim to accomplish. In order that it may be distinctly seen 
 that what I state is the case, it will be necessary to view the 
 provisions of the bill and the amendment in reference to the 
 deposit separately as they relate to the banks in which the
 
 538 SPEECHES. 
 
 public funds are now deposited and as to those which may 
 hereafter be selected to receive them. 
 
 The bill commences with the former, which it adopts as 
 banks of deposit, and prescribes the regulations and con- 
 ditions on the observance of which they shall continue such ; 
 while, at the same time, it puts them beyond the control 
 and influence of the executive department, by placing them 
 Tinder the protection of law so long as they continue faith- 
 fully to perform their duty as fiscal agents of the Government. 
 It next authorizes the Secretary of the Treasury to select, 
 under certain circumstances, additional banks of deposit, as 
 the exigency of the public service may require, on which it 
 imposes like regulations and conditions, and places, in like 
 manner, under the protection of law. In all this, the amend- 
 ment pursues a very different course. It begins with author- 
 izing the Secretary to select the banks of deposit, and limits 
 the regulations and conditions it imposes on such banks ; 
 leaving, by an express provision, the present banks wholly 
 under the control of the treasury or the executive department, 
 as they now are, without prescribing any time for the selec- 
 tion of other banks of deposit, or making it the duty of the 
 Secretary so to do. The consequence is obvious. The 
 Secretary may continue the present banks as long as he 
 pleases ; and so long as he may choose to continue them, the 
 provisions of the amendment, so far as relates to the deposits, 
 will be a dead letter ; and the banks, of course, instead of 
 being under the control of the law, will be contrary, as I have 
 said, to the professed object both of the bill and amendment 
 subject exclusively to his will. 
 
 The Senator has attempted to explain this difference, but, 
 I must say, very unsatisfactorily. He said that the bill pro- 
 hibited the selection of other banks ; and, as he deemed others 
 to be necessary, at certain important points, in consequence 
 of the present enormous surplus, he inserted the provision 
 authorizing the selection of other banks. The Senator has
 
 539 
 
 not stated the provisions of the bill accurately. So far from 
 not authorizing, it expressly authorizes the selection of other 
 banks where there are now none. But I presume he intended 
 to limit his remarks to places where there are no existing 
 banks of deposit. Thus limited, the fact is as he states ; but 
 it by no means explains the extraordinary omission (for such 
 I must consider it) of not extending the regulations to the 
 existing banks, as well as to those hereafter to be selected. 
 If the public service requires additional banks at New- York 
 and other important points, in consequence of the vast sums 
 deposited there (as I readily agree it does) ; if no disposition 
 is to be made of the surplus, it is certainly a very good reason 
 for enlarging the provisions of the bill, by authorizing the 
 Secretary to select other banks at those points ; but it is 
 impossible for me to comprehend how it proves that the reg- 
 ulations which the amendment proposes to impose should be 
 exclusively limited to such newly-selected banks. Nor do I 
 see why the Senator has not observed the same rule, in this 
 case, as that which he adopted in reference to the compensa- 
 tion the banks ought to pay for the use of the public money. 
 He omitted to provide for any compensation, on the ground 
 that his amendment proposed to dispose of all the surplus 
 money, leaving in the possession of the banks a sum barely 
 sufficient to meet the current expenditure, for the use of 
 which he did not consider it right to charge a compensation. 
 On the same principle, it was unnecessary to provide for the 
 selection of additional banks where there are now banks of 
 deposit, as they would be ample if the surplus were disposed 
 of. In this I understood the Senator himself to concur. 
 
 But it is not only in the important point of extend- 
 ing the regulations to existing banks of deposit that the 
 bill and the amendment differ. There is a striking dif- 
 ference between them in reference to the authority of Con- 
 gress over the banks of deposit embraced both in the bill 
 and the amendment. The latter, following the provision in
 
 .540 SPEECHES. 
 
 the charter of the late Bank of the United States, autho- 
 rizes the Secretary to withdraw the public deposits, and to 
 discontinue the use of any one of the banks whenever, in his 
 opinion, such a bank shall have violated the conditions on 
 which it has been employed, or the public funds are not safe 
 in its vaults, with the simple restriction, that he shall report 
 the fact to Congress. We know, from experience, how slight 
 is the check which this restriction imposes. It not only re- 
 quires the concurrence of both Houses of Congress to over- 
 rule the act of the Secretary, where his power may be im- 
 properly exercised, but the act of Congress itself, intended 
 to control such exercise of power, may be overruled by the 
 veto of the President, at whose will the Secretary holds his 
 place ; so as to leave the control of the banks virtually under 
 the control of the executive department of the Government. 
 To obviate this, the bill vests the Secretary with the power 
 simply of withdrawing the deposits and suspending the use 
 of the bank as a place of deposit ; and provides that, if 
 Congress shall not confirm the removal, the deposits shall be 
 returned to the bank after the termination of the next ses- 
 sion of Congress. 
 
 The next point of difference is of far less importance, 
 and is only mentioned as tending to illustrate the different 
 character of the bill and the amendment. The former pro- 
 vides that the banks of deposit shall perform the duties of 
 commissioners of loans without compensation, in like man- 
 ner as it was required of the late Bank of the United States 
 and its branches, under its charter. Among these duties is that 
 of paying the pensioners a very heavy branch of disburse- 
 ment, and attended with considerable expense, which will 
 be saved to the Government under the bill, but will be lost 
 if the amendment should prevail. 
 
 Another difference remains to be pointed out, relating to 
 the security of the deposits. With so large an amount 
 of public money in their vaults, it is important that the
 
 SPEECHES. 541 
 
 banks should always be provided with ample means to meet 
 their engagements. With this view, the bill provides that 
 the specie in the vaults of the several banks, and the aggre- 
 gate of the balance in their favor with other specie-paying 
 banks, shall be equal to one-fifth of the entire amount of 
 their notes and bills in circulation, and their public and pri- 
 vate deposits a sum believed to be sufficient to keep them 
 in a sound, solvent condition. The amendment, on the con- 
 trary, provides that the banks shall keep in their own vaults, 
 or the vaults of other banks, specie equal to one-fourth of its 
 notes and bills in circulation, and the balance of its accounts 
 with other banks payable on demand. 
 
 I regret that the Senator has thought proper to change 
 the phraseology, and to use terms less clear and explicit than 
 those in the bill. I am not certain that I comprehend the 
 exact meaning of the provision in the amendment. What 
 is meant by specie in the vaults of other banks ? In a gen- 
 eral sense, all deposits are considered as specie ; but I cannot 
 suppose that to be the meaning in this instance, as it would 
 render the provision in a great measure inoperative. I pre- 
 sume the amendment means special deposits in gold and 
 silver hi other banks, placed there for safe-keeping, or to 
 be drawn on, and not to be used by the bank in which it is 
 deposited. Taking this to be the meaning, what is there to 
 prevent the same sum from being twice counted in estimat- 
 ing the means of the several banks of deposit ? Take two 
 of them one having $100,000 in specie in its vaults, and 
 the other the same amount in the vaults of the other bank, 
 which, in addition, has, besides, another $100,000 of its own ; 
 what is there to prevent the latter from returning, under the 
 amendment, $200,000 of specie in its vaults, while the for- 
 mer would return $100,000 in its own vaults, and another in 
 the vaults of the other bank, making in the aggregate, be- 
 tween them, $400,000, when, in reality, the amount in both 
 would be but $300,000 ?
 
 542 SPEECHES. 
 
 But this is not the only difference between the bill and 
 amendment, in this particular, deserving of notice. The 
 object of the provision is to compel the banks of deposit to 
 have, at all times, ample means to meet their liabilities ; so 
 that the Government should have sufficient assurance that 
 the public moneys in their vaults would be forthcoming when 
 demanded. With this view, the bill provides that the avail- 
 able means of the bank shall never be less than one-fifth of 
 its aggregate liabilities, including bills, notes, and deposits, 
 public and private ; while the amendment entirely omits the 
 private deposits, and includes only the balance of its deposits 
 with other banks. This omission is the more remarkable, 
 inasmuch as the greater portion of the liabilities of the de- 
 posit banks must, with the present large surplus, result from 
 their deposits as every one who is familiar with banking op- 
 erations will readily perceive. 
 
 I have now presented to the Senate the several points of 
 difference which I deem material between the bill and the 
 amendment, with such remarks as may enable them to form 
 then- own opinion in reference to the difference, so that they 
 may decide how far the assertion is true with which I set out, 
 that, wherever they differ, the amendment favors the banks 
 against the interests of the public, and the Executive against 
 the banks. 
 
 The Senator, acting on the supposition that there would 
 be a permanent surplus beyond the expenditures of the Gov- 
 ernment, which neither justice nor regard to the public in- 
 terest would permit to remain in the banks, has extended 
 the provisions of his amendment, with great propriety, so as 
 to comprehend a plan to withdraw the surplus from the 
 banks. His plan is to vest the commissioners of the sinking 
 fund with authority to estimate, at the beginning of every 
 quarter, the probable receipts and expenditures of the quar- 
 ter ; and if, in their opinion, the receipts, with the money in 
 the treasury, should exceed the estimated expenditure by a cer-
 
 SPEECHES. 543 
 
 tain sum, say $5,000,000, the excess should be vested in State 
 stocks ; and if it should fall short of that sum, a sufficient 
 amount of the stocks should be sold to make up the deficit. 
 We have thus presented for consideration the important sub- 
 ject of the surplus revenue, and with it the question so anx- 
 iously and universally asked, What shall be done with the sur- 
 plus ? Shall it be expended by the Government, or remain 
 where it is, or be disposed of as proposed by the Senator ? or, 
 if not, what other disposition shall be made of it ? questions, 
 the investigation of which necessarily embraces the entire 
 circle of our policy, and on the decision of which the future 
 destiny of the country may depend. 
 
 But before we enter on the discussion of this important 
 question, it will be proper to ascertain what will be the 
 probable available means of the year, in order that some con- 
 ception may be formed of the probable surplus which may 
 remain, by comparing it with the appropriations that may 
 be authorized. 
 
 According to the late report of the Secretary of the 
 Treasury, there were deposited in the several banks a little 
 upwards of $33,000,000 at the termination of the first quar- 
 ter of the year, not including the sum of about $3,000,000 
 deposited by the disbursing agents of the Government. The 
 same report stated the receipts of the quarter at about 
 $11,000,000, of which lands and customs yielded nearly an 
 equal amount. Assuming for the three remaining quarters 
 an equal amount, it would give, for the entire receipts of the 
 year, $44,000,000. I agree with the Senator, that this sum 
 is too large. The customs will probably average an amount 
 throughout the year corresponding with the receipts of the 
 first quarter, but there probably will be a considerable fall- 
 ing off in the receipts from the public lands. Assuming 
 $7,000,000 as the probable amount, which I presume will be 
 ample, the receipts of the year, subtracting that sum from 
 $44,000,000, will be $37,000,000 ; and subtracting from
 
 544 SPEECHES 
 
 this, $11,000,000, the receipts of the first quarter, would 
 leave $26,000,000 as the probable receipts of the last three 
 quarters. Add to this sum $33,000,000, the amount in tho 
 treasury on the last day of the first quarter, and it gives 
 $59,000,000. To this add the amount of stock in the 
 United States Bank, which, at the market price, is worth at 
 least ,$7,000,000, and we have $66,000,000, which I con- 
 sider as the least amount at which the probable available 
 means of the year can be fairly estimated. It will, probably, 
 very considerably exceed this amount. The range may be 
 put down at between $66,000,000 and $73,000,000, which 
 may be considered as the two extremes between which 
 the means of the year may vibrate. But, in order to be safe, 
 I have assumed the least of the two. 
 
 The first question which I propose to consider is, Shall 
 this sum be expended by the Government in the course of 
 the year ? A sum nearly equal to the entire debt of the 
 war of the Kevomtion, by which the liberty and independence 
 of these States were established ; more than five times 
 greater than the expenditure of the Government at the com- 
 mencement of the present administration, deducting the 
 payments on account of the public debt, and more than 
 four times greater than the average annual expenditure of 
 the present administration, making the same deduction, 
 extravagant as its expenditure has been. The very magni- 
 tude of the sum decides the question against expenditure. 
 It may be wasted, thrown away, but it cannot be expended. 
 There are not objects on which to expend it ; for proof of 
 which I appeal to the appropriations already made and con- 
 templated. We have passed the navy appropriations, which, 
 as liberal as they are admitted to be on all sides, are raised only 
 about $2,000,000 compared with the appropriations of last 
 year. The appropriations for fortifications, supposing the bills 
 now pending should pass, will amount to about $3,500,000, 
 and would exceed the ordinary appropriations, assuming them
 
 SPEECHES. 545 
 
 at $1,000,000, which I hold to be ample, by $2,500,000. 
 Add a million for ordnance, seven or eight for Indian treaties, 
 and four for Indian wars, and supposing the companies of the 
 regular army to be filled as recommended by the war depart- 
 ment, the aggregate amount, including the ordinary expendi- 
 tures, would be between thirty and thirty-five millions, which 
 would leave a balance of at least $30,000,000 in the treasury 
 at the end of the year. 
 
 But suppose objects could be devised on which to expend 
 the whole of the available means of the year, it would still be 
 impossible to make the expenditure without immense waste 
 and confusion. To expend so large an amount, regularly 
 and methodically, would require a vast increase of able and 
 experienced disbursing officers, and a great enlargement of 
 the organization of the Government, in all the branches con- 
 nected with disbursements. To effect such an enlargement, 
 and to give suitable organization, placed under the control of 
 skilful and efficient officers, must necessarily be a work of 
 time ; but, without it, so sudden and great an increase of ex- 
 penditure would necessarily be followed by inextricable con- 
 fusion and heavy losses. 
 
 But suppose this difficulty overcome, and suitable objects 
 be devised, would it be advisable to make the expendi- 
 ture ? Would it be wise to draw off so vast an amount of 
 productive labor, to be employed in unproductive objects in 
 building fortifications, dead walls, and in lining the interior 
 frontier with a large military force, neither of which would 
 add a cent to the productive power of the country ? 
 
 The ordinary expenditure of the Government, under the 
 present administration, may be estimated, say at $18,000,000, 
 a sum exceeding by five or six millions what, in my opinion, 
 is sufficient for a just and efficient administration of the 
 Government. Taking eighteen from sixty-six would leave 
 forty-eight millions as the surplus, if the affairs of the Gov- 
 ernment had been so administered as to avoid the heavy 
 VOL. ii. 35
 
 546 SPEECHES. 
 
 expenditures of tlie year, which I firmly believe, by early 
 and prudent management, might have been effected. The 
 expenditure of this sum, estimating labor at $20 a month, 
 would require 200,000 operatives, equal to one-third of the 
 whole number of laborers employed in producing the great 
 staple of our country, which is spreading wealth and pros- 
 perity over the land, and controlling, in a great measure, the 
 commerce and manufactures of the world. But take what 
 will be the actual surplus, and estimate that at half the 
 sum which, with prudence and economy, it might have been, 
 and it would require the subtraction of 100,000 operatives 
 from their present useful employment, to be employed in the 
 unproductive service of the Government. Would it, I again 
 repeat, be wise to draw off this immense mass of productive 
 labor, in order to employ it in building fortifications and swell- 
 ing the military establishment of the country ? Would it add 
 to the strength of the Union, or give increased security to its 
 liberty, or accelerate its prosperity ? the great objects for 
 which the Government was constituted. 
 
 To ascertain how the strength of any country may be 
 best developed, its peculiar state and condition must be taken 
 into consideration. Looking to ours with this view, who can 
 doubt that, next to our free institutions, the main source of 
 our growing greatness and power is to be found in our great 
 and astonishing increase of numbers, wealth, and facility of 
 intercourse ? If we desire to see our country powerful, 
 we ought to avoid any measure opposed to their develop- 
 ment, and, in particular, to make the smallest possible 
 draught, consistent with our peace and security, on the pro- 
 ductive powers of the country. Let these have the freest 
 possible play. Leave the resources of individuals under 
 their own direction, to be employed in advancing their own 
 and their country's wealth and prosperity, with the extrac- 
 tion of the least amount required for the expenditure of the 
 Government ; and draw off not a single laborer from his pre-
 
 SPEECHES. 547 
 
 sent productive pursuits to the unproductive employment 
 of the Government, excepting such as the public service may 
 render indispensable. Who can doubt that such a policy 
 would add infinitely more to the power and strength of the 
 country than the extravagant schemes of spending millions on 
 fortifications and the increase of the military establishment ? 
 
 Let us next examine how the liberty of the country may 
 be affected by the scheme of disposing of the surplus by dis- 
 bursements. And here I would ask, Is the liberty of the 
 country at present in a secure and stable condition ? and, 
 if not, by what is it endangered ? and will an increase of 
 disbursements augment or diminish the danger. 
 
 Whatever may be the diversity of opinion on other points^ 
 there is not an intelligent individual of any party, who regards/ 
 his reputation, that will venture to deny that the liberty ol 
 the country is at this time more insecure and unstable thar| 
 it ever has been. We all know that there is in every portion! 
 of the Union, and with every party, a deep feeling that our* 
 political institutions are undergoing a great and hazardousl 
 change. Nor is the feeling much less strong, that the vast in- i 
 crease of the patronage and influence of the Government is the \ 
 cause of the great and fearful change which is so extensively \ 
 affecting the character of our people and institutions. The | 
 effect of increasing the expenditures at this time, so as to ab- \ 
 sorb the surplus, would be to double the number of those who \ 
 live, or expect to live, by the Government, and, in the same 
 degree, to augment its patronage and influence, and accelerate v 
 that downward course which, if not arrested, must speedily J 
 terminate in the overthrow of our free institutions. 
 
 These views I hold to be decisive against the wild attempt 
 to absorb the immense means of the Government by the ex- 
 penditures of the year. In fact, with the exception of a few 
 individuals, all seem to regard the scheme either as imprac- 
 ticable or unsafe ; but there are others, who, while they con- 
 demn the attempt to dispose of the surplus by immediate ex-
 
 548 SPEECHES. 
 
 penditures, "believe it can be safely and expediently expend- 
 ed in a period of four or five years, on what they choose tc 
 call the defences of the country. 
 
 In order to determine how far this opinion may be correct, 
 it will be necessary first to ascertain what will be the avail- 
 able means of the next four or five years ; by comparing which 
 with what ought to be the expenditure, we may determine 
 whether the plan would, or would not, be expedient. In 
 making the calculation, I will take the term of five years, in- 
 cluding the present, and which will, of course, include 1840, 
 after the termination of which, the duties above twenty per 
 cent, are to go off, by the provisions of the Compromise Act, 
 in eighteen months, when the revenue is to be reduced to the 
 economical and just wants of the Government. 
 
 The available means of the present year, as I have al- 
 ready shown, will equal at least $66,000,000. That of the 
 next succeeding four years (including 1840) may be as- 
 sumed to be 21,000,000 annually. The reason for this as- 
 sumption may be seen in the report of the select committee 
 at the last session, which I have reviewed, and in the cor- 
 rectness of which I feel increased confidence. The amount 
 may fall short of, but will certainly not exceed, the estimate 
 in the report, unless some unforeseen event should occur. 
 Assuming, then, $21,000,000 as the average receipts of the 
 next four years, it will give an aggregate of $84,000,000, 
 which, added to the available means of this year, will give 
 $150,000,000 as the sum that wiU be at the disposal of the 
 G-overnment for the period assumed. Divide this sum by 
 five, the number of years, and it will give $30,000,000 as the 
 average annual available means of the period. 
 
 The next question for consideration is, Will it be expedi- 
 ent to raise the disbursements during the period to an average 
 expenditure of $30,000,000 annually ? The first and strong 
 objection to the scheme is, that it would leave in the deposit 
 banks a heavy surplus during the greater part of the time,
 
 549 
 
 beginning withasurplus of upward of thirty millions at thecom- 
 mencement of next year, and decreasing at the rate of eight 
 or nine millions a year till the termination of the period. 
 But, passing this objection by, I meet the question directly. 
 It would be highly inexpedient and dangerous to attempt to 
 keep up the disbursements at so high a rate. I ask, On what 
 shall this money be expended ? Shall it be expended by an 
 increase of the military establishment ? by an enlargement 
 of the appropriations for fortifications, ordnance, and the 
 navy, far beyond what is proposed for the present year? 
 Have those who advocate the scheme reflected to what ex- 
 tent this enlargement must be carried to absorb so great a 
 sum ? Even this year, with the extraordinary expenditure 
 upon Indian treaties and Indian wars, and with profuse ex- 
 penditures in every other branch of service, the aggregate 
 amount of appropriations will not greatly exceed 30,000,000, 
 and that of disbursements will not, probably, equal that sum. 
 
 To what extent, then, must the appropriations for the 
 army, the navy, the fortifications, and the like, be carried, in 
 order to absorb this sum, especially with a declining expen- 
 diture in several branches of the service, particularly in the 
 pensions, which, during the period, will fall off more than a 
 million of dollars ? But, in order to perceive fully the folly 
 and danger of the scheme, it will be necessary to extend our 
 view beyond 1842, in order to form some opinion of what 
 will be the income of the Government when the tariff shall be 
 so reduced, under the Compromise Act, that no duty shall 
 exceed twenty per cent, ad valorem. I know that any esti- 
 mate made at this time cannot be considered much more 
 than conjectural ; but still, it would be imprudent to adopt 
 a system of expenditure now, without taking into consider- 
 ation the probable state of the revenue a few years hence. 
 
 After bestowing due reflection on the subject, I am of the 
 impression that the income from the imposts, after the pe- 
 riod in question, will not exceed $10,000,000. It will prob-
 
 550 SPEECHES. 
 
 ably fall below, rather than rise above, that sum. I assume 
 as the basis of this estimate, that our consumption of foreign 
 articles will not then exceed $150,000,000. We aU kno\< 
 that the capacity of the country to consume depends upon 
 the value of its domestic exports, and the profits of its com- 
 merce and navigation. Of its domestic exports it would not 
 be safe to assume any considerable increase in any article ex- 
 cept cotton. To what extent the production and consumption 
 of this great staple, which puts in motion so vast an amount of 
 the industry and commerce of the world, may be increased 
 between now and 1842, it is difficult to conjecture ; 'but I 
 deem it unsafe to suppose that it can be so increased as to 
 extend the capacity of the country to consume beyond the 
 limits I have assigned. Assuming, then, the amount which 
 I have, and dividing the imports into free and dutiable arti- 
 cles, the latter, according to the existing proportion between 
 the two descriptions, would amount in value to something 
 less than $70,000,000. According to the Compromise Act 
 no duty after the period in question, can exceed twenty per 
 cent., and the rates would range from that down to five or 
 six per cent. Taking fifteen per cent, as the average, which 
 would be, probably, full high, and allowing for the expenses 
 of collection, the net income would be something less than 
 $10,000,000. 
 
 The income from public lands is still more conjectural 
 than that from customs. There are so many, and such vari- 
 ous causes in operation affecting this source of the public in- 
 come, that it is exceedingly difficult to form even a conjectu- 
 ral estimate as to its amount, beyond the current year. But, 
 in the midst of this uncertainty, one fact may be safely as- 
 sumed, that the purchasers during the last year, and thus far 
 during this, greatly exceed the steady, progressive demand 
 for public lands, from increased population, and the conse- 
 quent emigration to the new States and territories. Many 
 of the purchases have been, unquestionably, upon specula-
 
 SPEECHES. 551 
 
 tion, with a view to resales ; and must, of course, come into 
 market hereafter in competition with the lands of the Gov- 
 ernment, and to that extent reduce the income from their 
 sales. Estimating the demand for public lands even from 
 what it was previous to the recent large sales, and taking 
 into estimate the increased population and wealth of the 
 country, I do not consider it safe to assume more than 
 $5,000,000 annually from this branch of the revenue, which, 
 added to the customs, would give for- the annual receipts be- 
 tween fourteen and fifteen millions of dollars after 1842. 
 
 I now ask whether it would be prudent to raise the pub- 
 lic expenditures to the sum of $30,000,000 annually during 
 the intermediate period, with the prospect that they must 
 be suddenly reduced to half that amount ? Who does not 
 see the fierce conflict which must follow between those who 
 may be interested in keeping up the expenditures, and those 
 who have an equal interest against an increase of the duties 
 as the means of keeping them up ? I appeal to the Senators 
 from the South, whose constituents have so deep an interest 
 in low duties, to resist a course so impolitic, unwise, and ex- 
 travagant and which, if adopted, might again renew the tar- 
 iff, so recently thrown off by such hazardous and strenuous 
 efforts, with all its oppression and disaster. Let us remem- 
 ber what occurred in the fatal session of 1828. With a folly 
 unparalleled, Congress then raised the duties to a rate so 
 enormous as to average one-half the value of the imports, 
 when on the eve of discharging the debt, and when, of course, 
 there would be no objects on which the immense income from 
 such extravagant duties could be justly and constitutionally 
 expended. It is amazing that there was such blindness then 
 as not to see what has since followed the sudden discharge 
 of the debt, and an overflowing treasury, without the means 
 of absorbing the surplus ; the violent conflict resulting from 
 such a state of things ; and the vast increase of the power 
 and patronage of the Government, with all its corrupting con-
 
 552 SPEECHES. 
 
 sequences. We are now about to commit an error of a differ- 
 ent character : to raise the expenditure far beyond all exam- 
 ple, in time of peace, and with a decreasing revenue which 
 must, with equal certainty, bring on another conflict, not 
 much less dangerous, in which the struggle will not be to 
 find objects to absorb an overflowing treasury, but to devise 
 means to continue an expenditure far beyond the just and 
 legitimate wants of the country. It is easy to foresee that, 
 if we are thus blindly to go on in the management of our af- 
 fairs, without regard to the future, the frequent and violent 
 concussions which must follow from such folly cannot but end 
 in a catastrophe that will ingulf our political institutions. 
 
 With such decided objections to the dangerous and ex- 
 travagant scheme of absorbing the surplus by disbursements, 
 I proceed to the next question, Shall the public money re- 
 main where it now is ? Shall the present extraordinary 
 state of things, without example or parallel, continue of a 
 Government, calling itself free, exacting from the people 
 millions beyond what it can expend, and placing that vast 
 sum in the custody of a few monopolizing corporations, se- 
 lected at the sole will of the Executive, and continued during 
 his pleasure, to be used as their own from the tune it is col- 
 lected till it is disbursed ? To this question there must 
 burst from the lips of every man who loves his country and 
 its institutions, and who is the enemy of monopoly, injustice, 
 and oppression, an indignant No. And here let me express 
 the pleasure I feel that the Senator from New- York, in 
 moving his amendment, however objectionable his scheme, 
 has placed himself in opposition to the continuance of the 
 present unheard-of and dangerous state of things ; and I add, 
 as a simple act of justice, that the tone and temper of his 
 remarks in support of his amendment, were characterized by 
 a courtesy and liberality which I, on my part, shall endeavor 
 to imitate. But I fear, notwithstanding this favorable indi- 
 cation in so influential a quarter, the very magnitude of the
 
 SPEECHES. 553 
 
 evil (too great to be concealed) will but serve to perpetuate 
 it. So great and various are the interests enlisted in its 
 favor, that I greatly fear all the efforts of the wise and 
 patriotic to arrest it will prove unavailing. At the head of 
 these stand the depository banks themselves, with their nu 
 merous stockholders and officers ; with their $40,000,000 of 
 capital, and an equal amount of public deposits, associated in- 
 to one great combination extending over the whole Union, and 
 under the influence and control of the treasury department. 
 The whole weight of this mighty combination, so deeply in- 
 terested in the continuance of the present state of things, is 
 opposed to any change. To this powerful combination must 
 be added the numerous and influential body who are de- 
 pendent on banks to meet their engagements, and who, 
 whatever may be their political opinions, must be alarmed 
 at any change which may limit their discounts and accom- 
 modations. Then come the stock-jobbers, a growing and 
 formidable class, who live by raising and depressing stocks, 
 and who behold in the present state of things the most favor- 
 able opportunity of carrying on their dangerous and corrupt- 
 ing pursuits. With the control which the Secretary of the 
 Treasury has over the banks of deposit, through transfer 
 warrants, with the power of withdrawing the deposits at 
 pleasure, he may, whenever he chooses, raise or depress the 
 stock of any bank ; and, if disposed to use this tremendous 
 power for corrupt purposes, may make the fortunes of the 
 initiated, and overwhelm in sudden ruin those not in the 
 secret. To the stock-jobbers must be added speculators of 
 every hue and form ; and, in particular, the speculators in 
 public lands, who, by the use of the public funds, are rapidly 
 divesting the people of the noble patrimony left by our an- 
 cestors in the public domain, by giving in exchange what 
 may, in the end, prove to be broken credit and worthless 
 rags. To these we must add the artful and crafty politicians, 
 who wield this mighty combination of interests for political
 
 554 SPEECHES. 
 
 purposes. I am anxious to avoid mingling party politics IB 
 this discussion ; and, that I may not even seem to do so, 
 I shall not attempt to exhibit, in all its details, the fearful, 
 and, I was about to add, the overwhelming power which the 
 present state of things places in the hands of those who 
 have control of the Government, and which, if it be not 
 wielded to overthrow our institutions and destroy all respon- 
 sibility, must be attributed to their want of inclination, and 
 not to their want of means. 
 
 Such is the power and influence interested to continue 
 the public money where it is now deposited. To these there 
 are opposed the honest, virtuous, and patriotic of every party, 
 who behold in the continuance of the present state of things 
 the almost certain convulsion and overthrow of our liberty. 
 There would be found, on the same side, the great mass of 
 the industrious and labouring portion of the community, 
 whose hard earnings are extracted from them without their 
 knowledge, were it not that what is improperly taken from 
 them is successfully used as the means of deceiving and 
 controlling them. If such were not the case if those who 
 work could see how those who profit are enriched at their 
 expense the present state of things would not be endured 
 for a moment ; but as it is, I fear that, from misconception, 
 and consequent want of union and co-operation, things may 
 continue as they are, till it will be too late to apply a remedy. 
 I trust, however, that such will not be the fact ; that the 
 people will be roused from their false security ; and that 
 Congress will refuse to adjourn till an efficient remedy is 
 applied. In this hope, I recur to the inquiry, What shall 
 that remedy be ? Shall we adopt the measure recommended 
 by the Senator from New- York, which, as has been stated, 
 proposes to authorize the Commissioners of the Sinking 
 Fund to ascertain the probable income of each quarter, and, 
 if there should be a probable excess above $5,000,000, to 
 vest the surplus in the purchase of State stocks ; but, if
 
 SPEECHES. 555 
 
 there shall be a deficiency, to sell so much of the stock pre- 
 viously purchased as would make up the difference ? 
 
 I regret that the Senator has not furnished a statement 
 of facts sufficiently full to enable us to form an opinion of 
 what will be the practical operation of his scheme. He has 
 omitted, for instance, to state what is the aggregate amount 
 of stocks issued by the several States a fact indispensable 
 in order to ascertain how the price of the stocks would be 
 affected by the application of the surplus to their purchase. 
 All who are in the least familiar with subjects of this kind, 
 must know that the price of stocks rises proportionably 
 with the amount of the sum applied to their purchase. 
 I have already shown that the probable surplus at the end 
 of this year, notwithstanding the extravagance of the appro- 
 priations, will be between thirty and thirty-five millions ; 
 and, before we can decide understandingly, whether this 
 great sum can with propriety be applied as the Senator pro- 
 poses, we should know whether the amount of State stocks 
 be sufficient to absorb it, without raising their price extrava- 
 gantly high. 
 
 The Senator should also have informed us, not only as 
 to the amount of the stock, but how it is distributed among 
 the States, in order to enable us to determine whether his 
 scheme would operate equally between them. In the absence 
 of correct information on both of these points, we are com- 
 pelled to use such as we may possess, however defective and 
 uncertain, in order to make up our mind on his amendment. 
 We all know, then, that while several of the States have no 
 stocks, and many a very inconsiderable amount, three of the 
 large States (Pennsylvania, Ohio, and New- York) have a very 
 large amount not less in the aggregate, if I am correctly in- 
 formed, than thirty-five or forty millions. What amount is held 
 by the rest of the States is uncertain ; but I suppose it may 
 be safely assumed that, taking the whole, it is less than that 
 held by those States. With these facts, it cannot be doubted
 
 556 SPEECHES. 
 
 that the application of the surplus, as proposed by the 
 Senator, would be exceedingly unequal among the States, 
 and that the advantage of the application would mainly 
 accrue to these States. To most of these objections, the 
 Senator, while he does not deny that the application of the 
 surplus will greatly raise the price of stocks, insists that 
 the States issuing them will not derive any benefit from the 
 advance, and, consequently, have no interest in the question 
 of the application of the surplus to their purchase. 
 
 If by States he means the governments of the States, the 
 view of the Senator may be correct. They may, as he says, 
 have but little interest in the market value of their stocks, as 
 it must be redeemed by the same amount, whether that be 
 high or low. But if we take a more enlarged view, and com- 
 prehend the people of the States as well as their government, 
 the argument entirely fails. The Senator will not deny that 
 the holders have a deep interest in the application of so large 
 a sum as the present surplus to the purchase of their stocks. 
 He will not deny that such application must greatly advance 
 the price ; and, of course, in determining whether the States 
 having stocks will be benefited by applying the surplus as he 
 proposes, we must first ascertain who are the holders. Where 
 do they reside ? Are they foreigners residing abroad ? If 
 so, would it be wise to apply the public money so as to ad- 
 vance the interests of foreigners, to whom the States are 
 under no obligation but honestly to pay to them the debts 
 which they have contracted ? But if not held by foreigners, 
 are they held by citizens of such States ? If such be the 
 fact, will the Senator deny that those States will be deeply 
 interested in the application of the surplus, as proposed in 
 his amendment, when the effects of such application must be, 
 as is conceded on all sides, greatly to enhance the price of the 
 stocks, and, consequently, to increase the wealth of their 
 citizens ? Let us suppose that, instead of purchasing the 
 stocks of the States in which his constituents are interested,
 
 SPEECHES. 557 
 
 the Senator's amendment had proposed to apply the present 
 enormous surplus to the purchase of cotton or slaves, in which 
 the constituents of the Southern Senators are interested, 
 would any one doubt that the cotton-growing or slaveholding 
 States would have a deep interest in the question ? It will 
 not be denied that, if so applied, their price would be greatly 
 advanced, and the wealth of their citizens proportionably 
 increased. Precisely the same effect would result from the 
 application to the purchase of stocks, with like benefits to the 
 citizens of the States which have issued large amounts of 
 stock. The principle is the same in both cases. 
 
 But there is another view of the subject which demands 
 most serious consideration. Assuming, what will not be 
 questioned, that the application of the surplus, as proposed 
 by the amendment, will be very unequal among the States, 
 some having little or none, and others a large amount of 
 stocks, the result would necessarily be to create, in effect, the 
 relation of debtor and creditor between the States. The 
 States whose stocks might be purchased by the commissioners 
 would become the debtors of the Government ; and as the 
 Government would, in fact, be but the agent between them 
 and the other States, the latter would, in reality, be their 
 creditors. This relation between them could not fail to be 
 productive of important political consequences, which would 
 influence all the operations of the Government. It would, 
 in particular, have a powerful bearing upon the presidential 
 election ; the debtor and creditor States each striving to give 
 such a result to the elections as might be favorable to their 
 respective interests ; the one to exact, and the other to ex- 
 empt themselves from the payment of the debt. Supposing 
 the three great States to which I have referred, whose united 
 influence would have so decided a control, to be the principal 
 debtor States, as would, in all probability, be the fact, it is 
 easy to see that the result would be, finally, the release of
 
 the debt, and, consequently, a corresponding loss to the cred- 
 itor, and gain to the debtor States. 
 
 But there is another view of the subject still more de- 
 serving, if possible, of attention than either of those which 
 have been presented. It is impossible not to see, after what 
 has been said, that the power proposed to be conferred by the 
 amendment of the Senator, of applying the surplus in buying 
 and selling the stocks of the States, is one of great extent, 
 and calculated to have powerful influence, not only on a large 
 body of the most wealthy and influential citizens of the States 
 which have issued stocks, but on the States themselves. The 
 next question is, In whom is the exercise of this power to be 
 vested ? Where shall we find individuals sufficiently de- 
 tached from the politics of the day, and whose virtue, patriot- 
 ism, disinterestedness, and firmness can raise them so far 
 above political and sinister motives as to exercise powers 
 so high and influential exclusively for the public good, with- 
 out any view to personal or political aggrandizement ? Who 
 has the amendment selected as standing aloof from politics, 
 and possessing these high qualifications ? Who are the 
 present commissioners of the sinking fund, to whom this high 
 and responsible trust is to be confided ? At the head stands 
 the Vice-President of the United States, with whom the 
 Chief-Justice of the United States, the Secretary of State, 
 the Secretary of the Treasury, and the Attorney General, are 
 associated ; all party men, deeply interested in the mainte- 
 nance of power hi the present hands, and having the strongest 
 motives to apply the vast power which the amendment would 
 confer upon them, should it become a law, to party purposes. 
 I do not say it would be so applied ; but I must ask, Would 
 it be prudent, would it be wise, would it 'be seemly, to vest 
 such great and dangerous powers in those who have so strong 
 a motive to abuse it and who, if they should have elevation 
 and virtue enough to resist the temptation, would still be 
 suspected of having used the power for sinister and corrupt
 
 SPEECHES. 559 
 
 purposes? I am persuaded, in drawing the amendment, 
 the Senator from New- York has, without due reflection on 
 the impropriety of vesting the power where he proposes, in- 
 advertently inserted the provision which he has ; and that, on 
 a review, he will concur with me, that, should his amendment 
 be adopted, the power ought to be vested in others, less ex- 
 posed to temptation, and, consequently, less exposed to sus- 
 picion. 
 
 I have now stated the leading objections to the several 
 modes of disposing of the surplus revenue which I proposed to 
 consider ; and the question again recurs, What shall be done 
 with the surplus ? The Senate is not uninformed of my 
 opinion on this important subject. Foreseeing that there 
 would be a large surplus, and the mischievous consequences 
 that must follow, I moved, during the last session, for a select 
 committee, which, among other measures, reported a resolu- 
 tion so to amend the constitution as to authorize the tem- 
 porary distribution of the surplus among the States ; but so 
 many doubted whether there would be a surplus at the time, 
 that it rendered all prospect of carrying the resolution hope- 
 less. My opinion still remains unchanged, that the measure 
 then proposed was the best ; but so rapid has been the accu- 
 mulation of the surplus, even beyond my calculation, and so 
 pressing the danger, that what would have been then an effi- 
 cient remedy, would now be too tardy to meet the danger ; 
 and, of course, another remedy must be devised, more speedy 
 in its action. 
 
 After bestowing on the subject the most deliberate atten- 
 tion, I have come to the conclusion that there is no other so 
 safe, so efficient, and so free from objections as the one I have 
 proposed, of depositing the surplus that may remain at the 
 termination of the year, in the treasuries of the several States, 
 in the manner provided for in the amendment. But the 
 Senator from New- York objects to the measure, that it would, 
 in effect, amount to a distribution on the ground, as he con-
 
 560 SPEECHES. 
 
 ceives, that the States would never refund. He does not 
 doubt but that they would refund, if called on by the Gov- 
 ernment ; but he says that Congress will, in fact, never make 
 the call. He rests this conclusion on the supposition that 
 there would be a majority of the States opposed to it. He 
 admits, in case the revenue should become deficient, that 
 the Southern or staple States would prefer to refund their 
 quota rather than to raise the imposts to meet the deficit ; 
 but he insists that the contrary would be the case with the 
 manufacturing States, which would prefer to increase the 
 imposts to refunding their quota, on the ground that the in- 
 crease of the duties would promote the interests of manu- 
 factures. I cannot agree with the Senator that those "States 
 would assume a position so entirely untenable as to refuse 
 to refund a deposit which their faith would be plighted to 
 return, and rest the refusal on the ground of preferring to lay 
 a tax, because it would be a bounty to them, and would con- 
 sequently, throw the whole burden of the tax on the other 
 States. But, be this as it may, I can tell the Senator that, 
 if they should take a course so unjust and monstrous, he may 
 rest assured that the other States would most unquestionably 
 resist the increase of the imposts ; so that the Government 
 would have to take its choice, either to go without the money, 
 or call on the States to refund the deposits. But I so far 
 agree with the Senator as to believe that Congress would be 
 very reluctant to make the call ; that it would not make it 
 till, from the wants of the treasury, it should become abso- 
 lutely necessary ; and that, in order to avoid such necessity, 
 it would resort to a just and proper economy in the public 
 expenditures as the preferable alternative. I see in this, 
 however, much good instead of evil. The Government has 
 long since departed from habits of economy, and fallen into 
 a profusion, a waste, and an extravagance in its disbursements, 
 rarely equalled by any free state, and which threatens the 
 most disastrous consequences.
 
 SPEECHES. 561 
 
 But I am happy to think that the ground on which the 
 objection of the Senator stands may be removed, without 
 materially impairing the provisions of the bill. It will re- 
 quire but the addition of a few words to remove it, by giv- 
 ing to the deposits all the advantages, without the objections, 
 which he proposes by his plan. It will be easy to provide 
 that the States shall authorize the proper officers to give ne- 
 gotiable certificates of deposit, which shall not bear interest 
 till demanded, when they shall bear the usual rates till paid. 
 Such certificates would be, in fact, State stocks, every way 
 similar to that in which the Senator proposes to vest the sur- 
 plus, but with this striking superiority that, instead of being 
 partial, and limited to a few States, they would be fairly and 
 justly apportioned among the several States. They would 
 have another striking advantage over his. They would cre- 
 ate among all the members of the confederacy, reciprocally, 
 the relation of debtor and creditor, in proportion to their re- 
 lative weight in the Union ; which, in effect, would leave 
 them in their present relation, and, of course, avoid the 
 danger that would result from his plan, which, as has been 
 shown, would necessarily make a part of the States debt- 
 ors to the rest, with all the dangers resulting from such re- 
 lation. 
 
 The next objection of the Senator is to the ratio of dis- 
 tribution, proposed in the bill, among the States, which he 
 pronounces to be unequal, if not unconstitutional. He in- 
 sists that the true principle would be, to distribute the sur- 
 plus among the States in proportion to the representation in 
 the House of ^Representatives, without including the Sena- 
 tors, as is proposed in the bill for which he relies on the fact, 
 that, by the constitution, representation and taxation are to 
 be apportioned in the same manner among the States. 
 
 The Senate will see that the effect of adopting the ratio 
 supported by the Senator would be to favor the large States, 
 while that in the bill will be more favorable to the small. 
 VOL. ii. 36
 
 562 SPEECHES. 
 
 The State I in part represent, occupies a neutral posi- 
 tion between the two. She cannot be considered either a 
 large or a small State, forming, as she does, one twenty- 
 fourth part of the Union ; and, of course, it is the same to 
 her whichever ratio may be adopted. But I prefer the one 
 contained in my amendment, on the ground that it represents 
 the relative weight of the States in the Government. It is 
 the weight assigned to them in the choice of the President 
 and Vice-President in the electoral college, and, of course, in 
 the administration of the laws. It is also that assigned to 
 them in the making of the laws by the action of the two 
 Houses, and corresponds very nearly to their weight in the 
 judicial department of the Government the judges being 
 nominated by the President and confirmed by the Senate. 
 In addition, I was influenced, in selecting the ratio, by the 
 belief that it was a wise and magnanimous course, in case of 
 doubt, to favor the weaker members of the confederacy. The 
 larger can always take care of themselves ; and, to avoid 
 jealousy and improper feelings, ought to act liberally towards 
 the weaker members of the confederacy. To winch may be 
 added, that I am of the impression even on the princi- 
 ple assumed by the Senator, that the distribution of the sur- 
 plus ought to be apportioned on the ratio of direct taxation 
 (which may be well doubted) the ratio which I support 
 would conform, in practice, more nearly to the principle than 
 that which he supports. It is a fact not generally known, 
 that representation in the other House, and direct taxes, 
 should they be laid, would be very far from being equal, al- 
 though the constitution provides that they shall be. The 
 inequality would result from the mode of apportioning the 
 representatives. Instead of apportioning them among the 
 States, as near as may be, as directed by the constitution, 
 an artificial mode of distribution has been adopted, which, 
 in its effects, gives to the large States a greater, and to the 
 small a less number, than that to which they are entitled.
 
 SPEECHES. 563 
 
 I would refer those who may desire to understand how this 
 inequality is effected, to the discussion in this body on the 
 apportionment bill under the last census. So great is this 
 inequality, that, were a direct tax to be laid, New- York, for 
 instance, would have at least three members more than her 
 apportionment of the tax would require. The ratio which I 
 have proposed would, I admit, produce as great an inequality 
 in favor of some of the small States particularly the old, 
 whose population is nearly stationary ; but among the new 
 and growing members of the confederacy, which constitute 
 the greater portion of the small States, it would not give 
 a larger share of the deposits than what they would be 
 entitled to on the principle of direct taxes. But the objec- 
 tion of the Senator to the ratio of distribution, like his ob- 
 jection to the condition on which the bill proposes to make 
 it, is a matter of small comparative consequence. I am 
 prepared, in the spirit of concession, to adopt either, as one 
 or the other may be more acceptable to the Senate. 
 
 It now remains to compare the disposition of the surplus 
 proposed in the bill with the others I have discussed ; and 
 unless I am greatly deceived, it possesses great advantages 
 over them. Compared with the scheme of expending the 
 surplus, its advantages are, that it would avoid the ex- 
 travagance and waste which must result from suddenly more 
 than quadrupling the expenditures, without a corresponding 
 organization in the disbursing department of the Government 
 to enforce economy and responsibility. It would also avoid 
 the diversion of so large a portion of the industry of the 
 country from its present useful direction to unproductive ob- 
 jects, with heavy loss to the wealth and prosperity of the coun- 
 try, as has been shown ; while it would, at the same time, 
 avoid the increase of the patronage and influence of the Gov- 
 ernment, with all their corruption and danger to the liberty 
 and institutions of the country. But its advantages would 
 not be limited simply to avoiding the evil of extravagant and
 
 564 SPEECHES. 
 
 useless disbursements. It would confer positive benefits, by 
 enabling the States to discharge their debts, and complete a 
 system of internal improvements, by railroads and canals, 
 which would not only greatly strengthen the bonds of the 
 confederacy, but increase its power, by augmenting infinitely 
 our resources and prosperity. 
 
 I do not deem it necessary to compare the disposition of 
 the surplus which is proposed in the bill with the dangerous, 
 and, I must say, wicked scheme of leaving the public funds 
 where they are, in the banks of deposit, to be loaned out by 
 those institutions to speculators and partisans, without au- 
 thority or control of law. 
 
 Compared with the plan proposed by the Senator from 
 New- York, it is sufficient, to prove its superiority, to say 
 that, while it avoids all the objections to which his is liable, 
 it at the same time possesses all the advantages, with others 
 peculiar to itself. Among these, one of the most prominent 
 is, that it provides the only efficient remedy for the deep- 
 seated disease which now afflicts the body politic, and which 
 threatens to terminate so fatally, unless it be speedily and ef- 
 fectually arrested. 
 
 All who have reflected on the nature of our complex sys- 
 tem of government, and the dangers to which it is exposed, 
 have seen that it is susceptible, from its structure, to two dan- 
 gers of an opposite character one threatening consolidation, 
 and the other anarchy and dissolution. From the beginning 
 of the Government, we find a difference of opinion among 
 the wise and patriotic as to which the Government was most 
 exposed : one part believing the danger was, that the Gov- 
 ernment would absorb the reserved powers of the States, 
 and terminate in consolidation, while the other were equally 
 confident that the States would absorb the powers of the 
 Government, and the system end in anarchy and dissolution. 
 It was this diversity of opinion which gave birth to the two 
 great, honest, and patriotic parties which so long divided the
 
 SPEECHES. 565 
 
 community, and to the many political conflicts which so long 
 agitated the country. Time has decided the controversy. 
 We are no longer left to doubt that the danger is on the 
 side of this Government ; and that, if not arrested, the sys- 
 tem must terminate in an entire absorption of the powers 
 of the States. 
 
 Looking back, with the light which experience has fur- 
 nished, we now clearly see that both of the parties took a 
 false view of the operation of the system. It was admitted 
 by both, that there would be a conflict for power between 
 the Government and the States, arising from a disposition on 
 the part of those who, for the time being, exercised the 
 powers of the Government and the States, to enlarge their 
 respective powers at the expense of each other, and which 
 would induce each to watch the other with incessant vigi- 
 lance. Had such proved to be the fact, I readily concede 
 that the result would have been the opposite of what has 
 occurred, and the republican, and not the federal party, 
 would have been mistaken as to the tendency of the system. 
 But so far from this jealousy, experience has shown that, in 
 the operation of the system, a majority of the States have 
 acted in concert with the Government at all times, except 
 upon the eve of political revolution, when one party was 
 about to go out, to make room for the other to come in ; and 
 we now clearly see that this has not been the result of acci- 
 dent, but that the habitual operation must necessarily be so. 
 The misconception resulted from overlooking the fact, that 
 the Government is but an agent of the States, and that the 
 dominant majority of the Union, which elect and control a 
 majority of the State Legislatures, would elect also those 
 who would control this Government ; whether that majority 
 rested on sectional interests, on patronage and influence, or on 
 whatever other basis, and that they would use the influence 
 both of the General and State Governments jointly, for ag- 
 grandizement and the perpetuation of their power. Kegarded
 
 566 SPEECHES. 
 
 in this light, it is not at all surprising that the tendency of 
 the system is such as it has proved itself to be, and which 
 any intelligent observer now sees must necessarily terminate 
 in a central, absolute, irresponsible, and despotic power. It 
 is this fatal tendency that the measure proposed in the bill 
 is calculated to counteract, and which, I believe, would prove 
 effective if now applied. It would place the States in the 
 relation in which it was universally believed they would stand 
 to this Government at the time of its formation ; and make 
 them those jealous and vigilant guardians of its action on all 
 measures touching the disbursements and expenditures of 
 the Government, which it was confidently believed they 
 would be ; which would arrest the fatal tendency to the con- 
 centration of the entire powers of the system in this Govern- 
 ment, if any thing on earth can. 
 
 But it is objected that the remedy would be too powerful, 
 and would produce an opposite and equally dangerous ten- 
 dency. I coincide that such would be the danger, if per- 
 manently applied ; and, under that impression, and believ- 
 ing that the present excess of revenue would not continue 
 longer, I have limited the measure to the duration of the 
 Compromise Act. Thus limited, it will act sufficiently long, 
 I trust, to eradicate the present disease, without superin- 
 ducing one of an opposite character. 
 
 But the plan proposed is supported by its justice, as well 
 as these high considerations of political expediency. The 
 surplus money in the treasury is not ours. It properly be- 
 longs to those who made it, and from whom it has been un- 
 justly taken. I hold it an unquestionable principle, that the 
 Government has no right to take a cent from the people be- 
 yond what is necessary to meet its legitimate and consti- 
 tutional wants. To take more intentionally would be rob- 
 bery ; and, if the Government has not incurred the guilt in 
 the present case, its exemption can only be found in its folly 
 the folly of not seeing and guarding against a vast excess
 
 SPEECHES. 567 
 
 of revenue, which, the most ordinary understanding ought to 
 have foreseen and prevented. If it were in our power if we 
 could ascertain from whom the vast amount now in the trea- 
 sury was improperly taken, justice would demand that it 
 should be returned to its lawful owners. But, as that is im- 
 possible, the measure next best, as approaching nearest to 
 restitution, is that which is proposed, to deposit it in the 
 treasuries of the several States, which will place it under the 
 disposition of the immediate representatives of the people, 
 to be used by them as they may think fit, till the wants of 
 the Government may require its return. 
 
 But it is objected that such a disposition would be a bribe 
 to the people. A bribe to the people to return it to those 
 to whom it justly belongs, and from whose pockets it 
 should never have been taken ! A bribe to place it in the 
 charge of the immediate representatives of those from whom 
 we derive our authority, and who may employ it so 
 much more usefully than we can ! But what is to be 
 done ? If not returned to the people, it must go some- 
 where ; and is there no danger of bribing those to whom 
 it may go ? If we disburse it, is there no danger of brib- 
 ing the thousands of agents, contractors, and jobbers, 
 through whose hands it must pass, and in whose pockets, 
 and those of their associates, so large a part would be 
 deposited ? If, to avoid this, we leave it where it is, in 
 the banks, is there no danger of bribing the banks in whose 
 custody it is, with their various dependants, and the nu- 
 merous swarms of speculators which hover about them in 
 hopes of participating in the spoil ? Is there no danger of 
 bribing the political managers, who, through the deposits, 
 have the control of these banks, and, by them, of their de- 
 pendants, and the hungry and voracious hosts of speculators 
 who have overspread and are devouring the land ? Yes, lite- 
 rally devouring the land. Finally, if it should be vested, as 
 proposed by the Senator from New- York, is there no danger
 
 568 SPEECHES. 
 
 of bribing the holders of State stocks, and, through them, 
 the States which have issued them ? Are the agents, the 
 jobbers, and contractors ; are the directors and stockholders 
 of the banks ; are the speculators and stock-jobbers ; are the 
 political managers and holders of State securities, the only 
 honest portion of the community ? Are they alone incapa- 
 ble of being bribed ? And are the people the least honest, 
 and most liable to be bribed ? Is this the creed of those 
 now in power ? of those who profess to be the friends of the 
 people, and to place implicit confidence in their virtue and 
 patriotism ? 
 
 I have now, said Mr. Calhoun, stated what, in my opin- 
 ion, ought to be done with the surplus. Another question 
 still remains : not what shall, but what will be done with 
 the surplus ? With a few remarks on this question, I shall 
 conclude what I intended to say. 
 
 There was a time, in the better days of the republic, 
 hen to show what ought to be done was to insure the 
 adoption of the measure. Those days have passed away, I 
 fear, for ever. A power has risen up in the Government 
 greater than the people themselves, consisting of many, and 
 various, and powerful interests, combined into one mass, and 
 held together by the cohesive power of the vast surplus in 
 the banks. This mighty combination will be opposed to 
 any change ; and it is to be feared that, such is its influ- 
 ence, no measure to which it is opposed can become a law, 
 however expedient and necessary ; and that the public money 
 will remain in their possession, to be disposed of, not as the 
 public interest, but as theirs may dictate. The time, indeed, 
 seems fast approaching, when no law can pass, nor any honor 
 be conferred, from the Chief Magistrate to the tide-waiter, 
 without the assent of this powerful and interested combina- 
 tion, which is steadily becoming the Government itself, to 
 the utter subversion of the authority of the people. Nay, 
 I fear we are in the midst of it ; and I look with anxiety
 
 SPEECHES. 569 
 
 to the fate of this measure as the test whether we are or 
 not. ^ 
 
 If nothing should be done if the money which justly 
 belongs to the people be left where it is, with the many 
 and overwhelming objections to it the fact will prove that 
 a great and radical change has been effected ; that the Gov- 
 ernment is subverted ; that the authority of the people i 
 suppressed by an union of the banks and the Executive a 
 union a hundred times more dangerous than that of churc 
 and state, against which the constitution has so jealousl 
 guarded. It would be the announcement of a state of 
 things from which, it is to be feared, there can be no recovery 
 a state of boundless corruption, and the lowest and basest 
 subserviency. It seems to be the order of Providence that, 
 with the exception of these, a people may recover from 
 any evil. Piracy, robbery, and violence of every descrip- 
 tion may, as history proves, be followed by virtue, patriot- 
 ism, and national greatness ; but where is the example to be 
 found of a degenerate, corrupt and subservient people, who 
 have ever recovered their virtue and patriotism ? Their 
 lot has ever been the lowest state of wretchedness and 
 misery : scorned, trodden down, and obliterated for ever from/ 
 the list of nations. May Heaven grant that such ma; 
 never be our doom ! 
 
 SPEECH 
 
 On the Deposit Bill, delivered in the Senate, Decem- 
 ber 21, 1836. 
 
 [ME. CALHOUN, agreeably to notice, asked and obtained leave to 
 introduce the following Bill : 
 
 A Bill to extend the provisions of certain sections therein named
 
 570 SPEECHES. 
 
 of the act of the 23d June, 1836, regulating the deposits of the money 
 that may be in the treasury on the 1st January, 1838. 
 
 Be it enacted, &c. That the money which shall be in the treasury 
 of the United States on the first day of January, 1838, reserving the 
 sum of five millions of dollars, shall be deposited with the several 
 States, on the terms, and according to the provisions of the 13th, 
 14th, and 15th sections of the act to regulate the deposits of the 
 public money, approved the 23d day of June, 1836.] 
 
 ME. CALHOUN, in introducing the bill, observed that he 
 had not asked leave to introduce this bill without satisfying 
 himself that there would be a large surplus of the public 
 revenue remaining in the treasury at the termination of the 
 next year, after allowing for very liberal appropriations on 
 all proper subjects of expenditure. From the calculations 
 he had made, he was convinced that the amount of this sur- 
 plus would not fall short of eight millions of dollars. 
 
 He was fully aware that the Secretary of the Treasury, in 
 the report submitted by that officer to Congress, had taken 
 a very different view ; yet Mr. C. thought he hazarded little 
 when he said that, on this subject the Secretary was cer- 
 tainly mistaken. He knew, indeed, that formerly such an 
 assertion from a member of Congress, in relation to the 
 highest fiscal officer of the Government would have been 
 deemed adventurous ; but so vague, so uncertain, so con- 
 jectural, and so very erroneous had been the reports from that 
 department for two or three years last past, that he could 
 not be considered as risking much in taking such a position. 
 That, in this remark, he did no injustice to the Secretary of 
 the Treasury (toward whom he cherished no personal hos- 
 tility or unkind feelings whatsoever), he would take the liberty 
 of presenting to the Senate the estimates made by that 
 officer in December last, for the present year, and compare 
 with it the actual result, as now ascertained from the Sec- 
 retary's own report, made the present session. His esti- 
 mate of the receipts from all sources, including the public
 
 SPEECHES. 571 
 
 lands and every other branch of the revenue, amounted to 
 $19,750,000 ; whereas the report stated those receipts to 
 have amounted to $47,691,898 presenting a difference in 
 the estimate, for a single year, of $27,941,898. Thus the 
 excess of the actual receipts had exceeded the estimate by 
 more than one-third of the whole amount of the estimate. 
 Each of the great branches of revenue, the customs and the 
 public lands, exceeded the estimate by millions of dollars. 
 
 Again : the Secretary had estimated the balance at the 
 end of the year, then within four weeks of its termination, 
 at $18,047,598 ; whereas the report showed that the bal- 
 ance actually amounted to $26,749,803 being an error of 
 $8,702,250 for that short period. How these errors arose, 
 whether from negligence or inattention, or whether they 
 were made purposely, to subserve certain political views, it 
 was not for him to say ; but they were sufficient to show 
 that he ran no very formidable hazard in venturing to say 
 that the views of the Secretary in respect to what was yet 
 future might be erroneous. 
 
 But further : the Secretary, in his report last year, had 
 estimated the available means of the treasury, for the cur- 
 rent year, at $37,797,598 ; they were now ascertained to 
 have been $74,441,701, exhibiting the error of $46,644,104. 
 We might search the fiscal records of all civilized nations, 
 and would not find, in the compass of history, an error so 
 monstrous. He stated this with no feelings of ill-will to- 
 ward the Secretary, but with emotions of shame and mortifi- 
 cation for the honor of the country. How must errors like 
 these appear in the eyes of foreign nations ? How would 
 they look to posterity ? 
 
 But he was not yet done. The Secretary estimated the ex- 
 penditure of the year at $23,103,444 ; whereas they turned 
 out to be $31,435,032 making a difference of $8,331,588. 
 He estimated the balance in the treasury at the end of this 
 year at $14,500,000. He now admits that it will equal
 
 572 SPEECHES. 
 
 $43,005,669 making an error of $28,505,669, and this not- 
 withstanding he had made an under estimate of the expendi- 
 ture of more than eight millions, which, if added, as it ought 
 to be, would make a mistake of nearly thirty-seven millions. 
 
 The Secretary, however, had profited by the errors of 
 last year. The estimates in the present report were some- 
 what nearer to the truth, but still far removed from 
 it. Indeed, so small was the extent to which he had 
 profited, that he had risked an opinion that the expenditure 
 would exceed the income ; so that, of the sum which had 
 been deposited with the States, a portion, amounting to be- 
 tween two and three millions, would have to be refunded. 
 The Secretary held out language of this kind, when he acknow- 
 ledges that the income of the year would be $24,000,000. 
 Mr. C. said he would be glad to see the administration, with 
 such an income, venture to call upon the States to pay back 
 the moneys they had received. No administration would 
 venture the call, except in the case of a foreign war ; in which 
 event these deposits would prove a timely and precious re- 
 source. With proper management, they would enable the 
 Government to avoid the necessity, at the commencement of 
 a war, of resorting to war taxes and loans. All those gentle- 
 men and he saw several of them around him who were here 
 at the commencement of the last war would well remember 
 the difficulty and embarrassment which attended the op- 
 eration of raising the revenue from a peace to a war 
 establishment. 
 
 Assuming, then, that there would be a surplus, the ques- 
 tion presented itself as to what should be done with it. 
 That question Mr. C. would not now attempt to argue. 
 The discussion of it at this time would be premature and 
 out of place. He proposed to himself a more limited object ; 
 which was, to state the points connected with this subject, 
 which he considered as established, and to point out what 
 was the real issue at present. One point was perfectly es-
 
 SPEECHES. 573 
 
 tablished by the proceedings of the last session that^hen 
 there was an unavoidable surplus, it ought not to bB left in 
 the treasury, or in the deposit banks, but should be de- 
 posited with the States. It was not only the most safe, but 
 the most just, that the States should have the use of the 
 money, in preference to the banks. This, in fact, was the 
 great and leading principle which lay at the foundation of 
 the act of last session an act that would for ever distinguish 
 the twenty-fourth Congress an act which will go down with 
 honor to posterity, as it had obtained the almost unanimous 
 approbation of the present day. Its passage had inspired 
 the country with new hopes. It was beheld abroad as a 
 matter of wonder ; a phenomenon in the fiscal world ; such 
 as could have sprung out of no institutions but ours, and 
 which went, in a powerful and impressive manner, to illus- 
 trate the genius of our Government./ 
 
 Ale considered it no less fullf established, that there 
 ought to be no surplus, if it could be avoided. The money 
 belonged to those who made it, and Government had no right 
 to exact it unless necessary. What, then, was the true 
 question at issue ? It was this, Can you reduce the reve- 
 nue to the wants of the people ? he meant in a large politi- 
 cal sense. Could the reduction be made without an injury 
 that would more than countervail the benefit ? The Presi- 
 dent thought it could be done ; and Mr. C. hoped he was 
 correct in that opinion. If it be practicable, then, beyond 
 all question it was the proper and natural course to be 
 adopted. It was under this impression that he had moved 
 to refer this part of the President's Message to the Com- 
 mittee on Finance. He not only considered that as the 
 appropriate committee, but there were other reasons that 
 governed him in making the reference. A majority of that 
 committee were known to be hostile to the Deposit Bill, and 
 would, therefore, do all in their power to avoid the possibility 
 of having a surplus. If, then, that committee could not
 
 574 SPEECHES. 
 
 effect a reduction, then it might be safely assumed as im- 
 practicable. If they could agree on a reduction, the Senate 
 no doubt would concur with them. 
 
 There was one point on which the committee need have 
 have no apprehension : that any reduction they might pro- 
 pose to make would be considered by the South as a breach 
 of the Compromise Act. Her interest in that act is not 
 against the reduction, but the increase of duties. If it be 
 the pleasure of other sections to reduce, she will certainly 
 not complain. 
 
 Mr. 0. said he would take this occasion to define with 
 exactness the position he occupied in regard to the compro- 
 mise. He stood, personally, without pledge or plighted 
 faith, as far as that act was concerned. He clearly foresaw, 
 at the time that bill passed, that there would be a surplus 
 of revenue in the treasury. He knew that result to be un- 
 avoidable, unless by a reduction so sudden as to overthrow 
 our manufacturing establishments a catastrophe which he 
 sincerely desired to avoid. Whatever might be thought to 
 the contrary, he had always been the friend of those estab- 
 lishments. He thought, at the time, that the reduction pro- 
 vided for in the bill had not been made to take place as fast 
 as it might have been. But the terms of the bill formed 
 the only ground on which the opposing interests could agree, 
 and he, as representing, in part, one of the Southern States, 
 had accepted it believing it, on the whole, to be the best 
 arrangement which could be effected ; yet he saw (it did not, 
 indeed, require much of a prophetic spirit) that there were 
 those who were then ready to collect the tariff at the point 
 of the bayonet rather than yield an inch, who, when the in- 
 jurious effects of the surplus should be felt, would throw the 
 responsibility on those who supported the bill. Seeing this, 
 Mr. G. had determined that it should not be thrown upon 
 him. He had therefore risen in his place, and, after calling 
 on the stenographers to note his words, he had declared that
 
 SPEECHES. 575 
 
 he voted for that bill in the same manner, and no other, 
 that he did for all other bills, and that he held himself no 
 further personally pledged in its passage than in any other. 
 Mr. C. was therefore at perfect liberty to select his position, 
 which he would now state. We of the South had derived 
 incalculable advantages from that act ; and, as one belong- 
 ing to that section, he claimed all those advantages to the 
 very last letter. That act had reduced the income of the 
 Government greatly. Few, he believed, were fully aware of 
 the extent to which it had operated. It was a fact, which 
 documents would show, that the act of 1828 arrested at the 
 custom-house one-half in value of the amount of the imports. 
 The imports at that time, deducting reshipments, were 
 about sixty-five millions of dollars in value out of which the 
 Government collected about thirty-two millions in the gross, 
 The imports of the last year, deducting reshipmentg, 
 amounted to $120,000,000, which, if the tariff of 1828 
 had not been reduced, would have given an increase of 
 $60,000,000, instead of something upwards of $21,000,000. 
 He claimed not the whole difference for the compromise, but 
 upwards of $20,000,000 may be fairly carried to its credit. 
 Under this great reduction, we of the South began to revive. 
 Our business began to thrive and to look up. But the Com- 
 promise Act had not yet fully discharged its functions. Its 
 operation would continue until the revenue shall be brought 
 down till no duty shall exceed twenty per cent, ad valorem, 
 and the revenue be reduced to the actual wants of the 
 Government. But, while he claimed for the South all these 
 very important advantages, Mr. C. trusted he was too honest 
 as well as too proud, while he claimed those benefits on her 
 part, to withhold whatever advantage the North may derive 
 from the compromise. His position, then, on the question 
 of reduction, was to follow, and not to lead ; and such he be- 
 lieved to be the true position of the South. If it be the wish 
 of other sections to reduce, she will cheerfully follow ; but I
 
 576 SPEECHES. 
 
 trust she will be tlie last to disturb the present state of 
 things. 
 
 Having thus clearly denned his own position, Mr. C. 
 said he would venture a suggestion. If the manufacturing 
 interests would listen to the voice of one who had never been 
 their enemy, he would venture to advise them to a course 
 which he should consider as wise on all sides. 
 
 It is well known, said Mr. C., that the Compromise Act 
 makes a very great and sudden reduction in the years 1841 
 and 1842. He doubted the wisdom of this provision at the 
 time ; but those who represented the manufacturing interest 
 thought it was safer and better to reduce more slowly at 
 first, and more rapidly at the end of the term, in order to 
 avoid the possibility of a shock at the commencement. He 
 thought experience had clearly shown that there could be no 
 hazard in accelerating the rate of reduction now, in order to 
 avoid the great and rapid descent of 1841 and 1842 ; and in 
 this view, it seemed to him that it would be wise to distribute 
 the remaining reduction equally on the six remaining years of 
 the act. It was, however, but a suggestion. 
 
 Mr. C. observed, that had not this been the short session 
 of Congress, he should have postponed the introduction of 
 the present bill, and awaited the action of the Committee on 
 Finance. But it was possible that committee might find it 
 impracticable to reduce the revenue ; and as there were but 
 about two months of the session left, if something were not 
 effected in the mean time, a large surplus might be left in 
 the treasury, or rather in the deposit banks left there to 
 disturb and disorder the currency of the country ; to cherish 
 and foster a spirit of wild and boundless speculation, and 
 be wielded for electioneering purposes. A standing surplus 
 in the deposit banks was almost universally condemned. 
 The President himself had denounced it in his message, and 
 Mr. C. heartily agreed with him in every word he had said 
 on that subject.
 
 SPEECHES. 577 
 
 Before sending the bill to the Chair, he would take the 
 liberty of expressing his hope that the subject would be dis- 
 cussed in the same spirit of moderation that had characterized 
 the debates upon it last year. It was a noble example, and 
 he hoped it would be followed. Let the subject be argued 
 on great public grounds, and let all party spirit be sacrificed, 
 on this great question, to the good of the country. Yet, he 
 would say to the friends of the administration, that it was 
 not from any fear, on party ground, that he uttered this 
 sentiment ; for he believed there was no subject which, 
 in the hands of a skilful opposition, would be more fatal to 
 power. 
 
 [The bill was, by consent, read twice ; when Mr. Caihoun moved 
 that it be made the order of the day for Monday next. He saw no 
 necessity for its commitment. 
 
 Mr. Clay here rose, expressed his opposition to any essential modi- 
 fication of the Compromise Act, and urged the adoption of the 
 proposition to distribute the proceeds of the sales of the public lands 
 among the States, as the most efficient mode of getting rid of the sur- 
 plus. He was followed by Mr. Walker of Mississippi, who moved to 
 refer the bill to the Committee on Finance ; and, during his remarks, 
 charged Mr. Caihoun with the design of raising money for the purpose 
 of distribution, and making the system the settled policy of the 
 country.] 
 
 Mr. Caihoun, in reply, complained of having been entirely 
 misstated by the Senator from Mississippi. He had not 
 invoked the Senate to any such act, nor had he said any 
 thing like it. But he had said that no administration could 
 honestly plead any necessity for demanding back the deposits 
 from the States, unless in the contingency of a foreign war. 
 So far from having expressed a desire to create and distribute 
 a surplus, he had, on the contrary, expressly declared that 
 he should greatly prefer a reduction of the revenue, if it could 
 be safely effected ; and he had expressed his willingness to 
 send the bill to a committee opposed to his own views, that, 
 VOL. n. 37
 
 578 SPEECHES. 
 
 if possible, this might be effected. Yet, the gentleman ac- 
 cused him of a design to create a surplus. 
 
 The gentleman had again said, that one of the argu- 
 ments urged by him in favor of the Distribution Bill had 
 been, that the deposit of the public money in banks was a 
 great instrument of fraud and speculation. This was a 
 great mistake. He had said no such thing. The President, 
 however, had undertaken to legislate on the subject, and had 
 issued an order, which was much more like an act of Con- 
 gress than an executive measure. The President deemed 
 the evil so great, and the remedy so specific, that he had 
 ventured on a great stretch of power to realize the object. 
 Now, after what the President had said on this subject, any 
 man who should vote to leave the public money in de- 
 posit banks stood openly convicted of being in favor of specu- 
 lators. 
 
 Mr. C. hoped the Senator would not persist in his motion 
 to refer the bill to a committee which he knew to be utterly 
 opposed to it. Nothing could be more unparliamentary. He 
 hoped the gentleman would at least indulge him with a 
 special committee. 
 
 [Here, after some remarks from Mr. Buchanan, in favor of the 
 motion to refer the bill to the Committee of Finance, Mr. Walker 
 again rose in support of his motion ; and alleged that Mr. Calhoun, 
 by not advocating the recommendation of the President in regard to a 
 reduction of duties, was, in fact, voting to create a surplus for distri- 
 bution.] 
 
 Mr. Calhoun rejoined and explained, with a view to show 
 that the case of which the gentleman from Mississippi 
 complained was not parallel to the present, and still in- 
 sisted on the propriety of allowing him a special commit- 
 tee. If, however, the Senate should resolve to send this 
 bill to the Committee of Finance, he should not be at a loss 
 to understand the movement. He had read the President's
 
 SPEECHES. 579 
 
 Message attentively. It was an extraordinary document. 
 He read with no less care the report of the Secretary of the 
 Treasury ; that, too, was an extraordinary document. The 
 perusal had suggested some suspicions to his mind; and 
 should the present bill be sent to the Finance Committee, 
 those suspicions would be fully confirmed. Such a measure 
 would go far to convince him that the policy of the adminis- 
 tration was agreed upon, and that it would be to make a 
 demonstration on a reduction of the revenue, but, in fact, to 
 leave the revenue in the deposit banks. The end of this 
 session was not far off, and that would tell whether he was 
 not correct in his opinion. He would now, in his turn, ven- 
 ture to become a prophet ; and he would predict that, if the 
 present motion succeeded, the very thing which the Presi- 
 dent in his Message had most decidedly condemned, would 
 be the thing actually realized. Notwithstanding the Presi- 
 dent's opposition to the collecting of surplus revenue, and 
 all he had said on its tendency to promote speculation 
 and corrupt the public morals, that was the thing which 
 would be done. He was sorry he did not see the Senator 
 from New- York (Mr. Wright) in his place. On that gentle- 
 man, peculiarly, lies the obligation to provide for the re- 
 duction of the revenue. Mr. C. well knew the difficulty of 
 touching this subject. He had himself had a full and sound 
 trial of that operation. He knew the efforts by which the 
 existing reduction had been effected, and he felt very sure 
 that the Senator from New- York could not be sanguine in 
 the expectation of effecting a reduction to any great amount. 
 He had heard much said in private on that subject, and he 
 could not but regret that the President, when alluding to 
 it in his Message, had not referred to the difficulties attend- 
 ing it. Mr. C. thought he saw how things were to go, and 
 he thus openly announced what his conviction was. He 
 believed nothing would be done to reduce the revenue ; that 
 the money would still be collected, and would be left, not
 
 580 SPEECHES. 
 
 where it ought to be found, in the treasuries of the States, 
 but in the deposit banks. 
 
 If the Finance Committee would report an adequate re- 
 duction, of the revenue, Mr. C. would consent to withdraw 
 his bill. He should infinitely prefer a reduction to a distri- 
 bution provided the thing could be done. In the mean- 
 while the South claimed the execution of the Compromise 
 Bill ; it had not only closed a long and painful controversy, 
 but had enabled them to make some feeble stand against the 
 progress of executive influence. He concluded by moving 
 for a special committee. 
 
 [Here Mr. Rives of Virginia said something in support of the 
 motion of the Senator from Mississippi, and taxed Mr. C. with incon- 
 sistency in voting to refer the question of reduction to the Committee 
 on Finance, while he opposed the present motion.] 
 
 Mr. Calhoun repelled the charge of inconsistency. He 
 had been in favor of sending the subject of a reduction of the 
 revenue to the Committee on Finance, because he considered 
 the subject as appropriate to their specific duties ; but he 
 was opposed to sending this bill to that committee, because 
 they were known to be adverse to its object. In one case he 
 had gone on the great parliamentary principle, that proposi- 
 tions were to be referred to committees favorable to the ob- 
 ject proposed ; and in the other case, he still had sent it to 
 a committee at least not unfavorable to the measure. He 
 was rejoiced to hear the honorable Senator from Virginia de- 
 clare so explicitly that he did not repent the course he had 
 taken in reference to the Compromise Bill. He was confident 
 the gentleman never would have reason to repent the able 
 and honorable course he had pursued on that memorable 
 occasion; and he trusted the gentleman would agree in 
 sentiment with those who were opposed to leaving the public 
 money in the deposit banks. Mr. C. had given many evi- 
 dences of his desire that a reduction should be made in the
 
 581 
 
 revenue ; and had, the last session, sent a bill to the Com- 
 mittee on Manufactures for that object, which afterwards had 
 passed the Senate almost unanimously, and had been sent to 
 the other House, after which, it was never again heard of. 
 He was not the man, however, to disturb the terms of the 
 compromise, which had so happily been effected, unless it 
 could be done by common consent. The South were pre- 
 pared to assent to such a step, and if the North would also 
 agree to it, there need be no difficulty in the case. The 
 gentleman from Virginia seemed to suppose that, because it 
 was the duty of the Finance Committee to consider the ques- 
 tion, whether there was likely to be a surplus revenue or not, 
 therefore, this bill ought to be sent to them. The argu- 
 ment was too wide ; on the same principle, every proposition 
 which related to the application of any portion of the public 
 resources must be sent to that committee. It would swal- 
 low up almost all the business of the Senate. He concluded 
 by demanding the yeas and nays on the question of com- 
 mitment. 
 
 EEMABKS 
 
 On Mr. Benton's proposition to apply the unexpended 
 balances of Appropriations in the Treasury to 
 objects of National Defence ; made in the Senate, 
 December 28th, 1836. 
 
 [MR. BENTON, after stating the contents of the report of the Secre- 
 tary of the Treasury (called for on his motion), showing the amount 
 of unexpended balances of appropriations made at the last session, 
 and commenting, at some length, on them, moved the printing of the 
 document, and that five copies be sent to the Governor of each State, 
 ten copies to each branch of the State Legislatures, and one thousand 
 copies retained for the use of the Senate.
 
 582 SPEECHES. 
 
 The main objects of the -movement being to retain these balances 
 in the treasury, and to withdraw from the States the surplus revenues 
 which had been deposited with them, under an act of the previous 
 session, Mr. Calhoun rose and said :] 
 
 HE desired to make a very few remarks on the very ex- 
 traordinary motion of the Senator from Missouri, and to ask 
 for the yeas and nays on the question. The sending out 
 this paper in the manner proposed, would make an erroneous 
 impression on the minds of those to whom it would be sent, 
 and would be an unusual departure from the ordinary prac- 
 tice of the Senate. Did not every Senator know that there 
 was a large amount left in the treasury, say five millions of 
 dollars, by the Deposit Law of the last session, for the pur- 
 pose of meeting these balances ? Did not every Senator 
 know that, by the report of the Secretary of the Treasury, 
 there were three millions of dollars of these appropriations 
 that would not be wanted, and were therefore transferred to 
 the surplus fund in pursuance of a standing law ? And was 
 there not besides, a large sum in the hands of the disbursing 
 officers of the Government ? He knew, Mr. C. said, that 
 every exertion would be made in order to defeat the Deposit 
 Bill at this session. He knew well that the battle was yet 
 to be fought a battle in which the people would be on one 
 side, and the office-holders and office-seekers on the other. 
 While up, he would refer to the Committee on Finance, and 
 make one remark in reference to the report of that committee 
 on the bill introduced by him a few days since, and, much 
 against his wishes, referred to them. They had reported 
 against the bill, and it was not strange that they should do 
 so ; because a majority of that committee were three out of 
 the six who voted against the Deposit Bill at the last session. 
 But what he complained of was, that they had reported it 
 without one single word of explanation ; the chairman simply 
 saying that he was instructed by the committee to move for 
 its indefinite postponement. He would now ask the chair-
 
 SPEECHES. 583 
 
 man on what grounds he had reported against this bill? 
 Was it because the committee were satisfied that there 
 would not be a surplus ? If so, said Mr. C., let us know it. 
 I shall be glad to hear that such was their reason, because it 
 is a debatable proposition. Was it because they would not 
 have the surplus deposited with the States ? If this was 
 the case, it was directly contrary to the known sense of that 
 body, expressed almost unanimously at the last session. He 
 could scarcely believe that the committee reported against 
 the bill on such grounds. With the denunciations of the 
 President himself against the corrupting influence of a large 
 surplus in the treasury, and his declarations that the worst 
 disposition that could be made of it was to let it remain in 
 the deposit banks, he did suppose that the committee could 
 not contemplate either result. He could not believe but 
 that, from courtesy, the chairman would make such a report 
 as would put the Senate in possession of the grounds on 
 which the committee objected to the bill. 
 
 [Here Mr. Wright rose, and, in a few remarks, objected to the in- 
 quiry, and declined making any direct response. He further stated, 
 that the committee did not design to submit any detailed report, but 
 that, when the bill of the Senator from South Carolina (to extend the 
 provisions of the Deposit Act to the surplus revenues remaining in the 
 treasury on the 1st of January, 1838) came up for consideration, he 
 should feel bound to assign the reasons which governed the committee 
 in the course they had adopted.] 
 
 Mr. Calhoun, in reply, said, that, although he very 
 much regretted that they were not to have a detailed report, 
 yet he must be permitted to say that he thought the course 
 of the committee a very unusual one. A bill of acknowledg- 
 ed importance, if he might judge from the President's Mes- 
 sage and the report of the Secretary of the Treasury, together 
 with the course of the Senate last session, was, after a full 
 debate, referred to the Committee on Finance, because that
 
 584 SPEECHES. 
 
 committee was particularly constituted to advise on the 
 subjects to which it related ; yet that committee treated it 
 as one of the most insignificant questions, and despatched it 
 without a written report. This all might be very right, but 
 it certainly was very extraordinary and unusual. 
 
 He had been here many years, both as presiding officer 
 and as a member of the body, and he must say, that this 
 was the first time he had ever known a question to be put 
 to the chairman of a committee which he refused to answer. 
 As a representative of one of the States of this Union, he 
 must say that he had a right to an answer. The bill had 
 gone to the committee, had received its disapprobation, and 
 the committee ought to let them know the grounds on which 
 they objected to it. If there was no surplus, let us, said 
 Mr. C., hear the committee say so. If there was one, then, 
 said he, let us hear what objections the committee have to 
 depositing it with the States. He made no complaints ; but 
 he must say the course of the committee was very extraordi- 
 nary. 
 
 [Mr. Hubbard of New Hampshire here made some remarks in 
 opposition to the course adopted by the committee, and to the motion 
 of Mr. Benton, as calculated, if not designed, to mislead the State 
 Legislatures and the people. 
 
 Mr. Benton replied at some length in defence of the report, and 
 his own course, when Mr. Calhoun again rose and remarked :] 
 
 That he found the information, which the gentleman from 
 Missouri was so anxious to give the country, was already 
 before the Senate in a very authentic form. It was to be 
 found in the table of estimates accompanying the report of 
 the Secretary of the Treasury, He argued that, according 
 to the assertion of the Secretary of the Treasury, who 
 estimated the unexpended balances of appropriations at 
 $14,636,063, the sum of $3,013,389 would not be wanted. 
 The Senator, therefore, in sending out a document, setting
 
 SPEECHES. 585 
 
 forth that $14,500,000 were required for outstanding appro- 
 priations, would mislead the public, and make a false impres- 
 sion. Mr. C. contended that, taking the five millions which 
 must be left in the treasury, on account of the Deposit Act, 
 from the eleven and odd remaining of the fourteen millions, 
 together with the money at present in the hands of the dis- 
 bursing officers, there would be funds enough on hand, within 
 a small amount, to meet the outstanding appropriations. 
 Now, when it was admitted by every one that the surplus 
 which would be on hand at the end of the next year would 
 amount to at least twenty-five millions of dollars (and, for 
 himself, he entertained no doubt that it would be thirty, 
 unless the country should be disturbed by a war or some 
 other unforeseen catastrophe), he would seriously ask, was 
 there a Senator on the floor, of any party, who would say, 
 in a time of profound peace (for he would not call the 
 Seminole war interrupting the peace of the Union), and 
 recollecting the fact that this administration came in as a 
 reform administration, that a tax should be raised, or that 
 the money distributed under the Deposit Bill should be re- 
 funded, in order to make extravagant appropriations ? He 
 (Mr. Calhoun) could not believe it. He knew that attempts 
 would be made to prevent the renewal of the Deposit Act, 
 though he could not say that this was one of them. But let 
 him tell gentlemen that these attempts would only produce 
 a reaction, and end in their defeat. 
 
 Mr. C., in conclusion, adverted to the subject of a reduc- 
 tion of the revenue, and the necessity of bringing it down to 
 the legitimate wants of the Government. He insisted that 
 the Committee on Finance, to whom was referred the con- 
 sideration of this matter, were bound to show, in a satisfac- 
 tory manner, either that there would be a surplus next year, 
 or to admit the necessity of making an adequate reduction 
 of the revenue.
 
 586 SPEECHES. 
 
 [Mr. Benton here again rose, and spoke at some length.] 
 
 Mr. Calhoun, in reply, said : He had certainly made no 
 complaint of inaccuracy on the part of the Secretary of the 
 Treasury. He presumed that his calculations were perfectly 
 accurate ; but what he complained of was, that the Senator 
 from Missouri proposed to send out a document which was 
 not correct, with a view to show the outstanding appropria- 
 tions remaining unsatisfied. He maintained that the docu- 
 ment was entirely pernicious ; for it set forth what was not 
 really the truth of the case, and all that he desired was that 
 the public should not be deceived on the subject. 
 
 SPEECH 
 
 On the bill for the Admission of Michigan, delivered 
 in the Senate, Jan'y 2, 1837. 
 
 [MR. GKUNDY moved that the previous orders of the day he post- 
 poned, for the purpose of considering the Bill to admit the State of 
 Michigan into the Union. 
 
 Mr. Calhoun was opposed to the motioto ; the documents accom- 
 panying the Bill had but this morning been laid upon the table, and 
 no time had been allowed for even reading them over. 
 
 Mr. Grundy insisted on his motion. Of one point he was fully sat- 
 isfied, that Michigan had a right to be received into the Union ; on this, 
 he presumed, there would be but little difference of opinion, the chief 
 difficulty having respect to the mode in which it was to be done. There 
 seemed more difference of opinion, and he presumed there would be 
 more debate, touching the preamble than concerning the Bill itself; but 
 he could not consent to postpone the subject. Congress was daily 
 passing laws, the effect of which pressed immediately upon the people 
 of Michigan, and concerning which they were entitled to have a voice 
 and a vote upon this floor ; and, therefore, the Bill for their admission 
 ought to receive the immediate action of the Senate. As to the docu-
 
 SPEECHES. 587 
 
 ments, they were not numerous. The gentleman from South Carolina 
 might readily run his eye over them, and he would perceive that the 
 facts of the case were easily understood. Indeed, there was but one of 
 any consequence, respecting which there was any controversy. When 
 the Senate adjourned on Thursday, many Senators had been prepared 
 and were desirous to speak, although the documents were not then 
 printed. It was the great principles involved in the case which would 
 form the subjects of discussion, and they could as well be discussed 
 now. He thought the Senate had better proceed. One fact in the 
 case was very certain ; there had been more votes for the members to 
 the last convention than for the first. How many more was a matter 
 of little comparative consequence. The great question for the Senate 
 to consider was this : What is the will of Michigan on the subject of en- 
 tering the Union ? 
 
 If this should be decided, it was of less consequence whether the Bill 
 should or should not expressly state that the last convention, and the 
 assent by it given, formed the ground of the admission of the State. 
 
 Mr. Calhoun here inquired whether the chairman of the committee 
 was to be understood as being now ready to abandon the preamble ? 
 If the Judiciary Committee were agreed to do this, he thought all diffi- 
 culty would be at an end. 
 
 Mr. Grundy replied, that, as chairman of the Judiciary Committee 
 he had no authority to reply to the inquiry, but, as an individual, he 
 considered the preamble as of little consequence, and he should vote for 
 the Bill whether it were in or out. Michigan ought undoubtedly to be 
 admitted, and all the consequences would result, whether the preamble 
 were retained or not. He had received no authority from the commit- 
 tee to consent that it should be stricken out. For himself he was set- 
 tled in the belief that Congress possessed full power to prescribe the 
 boundaries of a territory, and that when that territory passed into a 
 State the right remained still the same. Congress had already estab- 
 lished the boundary of Ohio, and that settled the question. He never 
 had perceived the necessity of inserting in the Admission Bill the sec- 
 tion which made the assent of Michigan to the boundaries fixed for her 
 by Congress a prerequisite to her admission, because the disputed 
 boundary line was fixed by another bill ; and whether the preamble 
 to this Bill should be retained or not, Michigan could not pass the line, 
 so that the preamble was really of very little consequence.
 
 588 SPEECHES. 
 
 Mr. Calhoun said that, in inquiring of the honorable chairman 
 whether he intended to abandon the preamble of the Bill, his question 
 had had respect not to any pledge respecting boundaries, but to the re- 
 cognition of the second convention and of its doings. He wanted to 
 know.whether the chairman was ready to abandon that principle. He 
 had examined the subject a good deal, and his own mind was fully 
 made up that Michigan could not be admitted on the ground of that 
 second convention ; but the Senate might set aside the whole of what 
 had been done, and receive Michigan as she stood at the commence- 
 ment of the last session. 
 
 Mr. Grundy observed that^ if the gentleman's mind was fully made 
 up, then there could be no necessity of postponing the subject The 
 gentleman has fully satisfied himself, and now, said Mr. G., let us see 
 if he can satisfy us. His argument, it seems, has been fully matured, 
 and we are now ready to listen to it. Though I consider that there 
 is no virtue in the preamble, and that the effect of the Bill will be the 
 same whether it is stricken out or retained ; yet I am not ready to say 
 that I shall vote to strike it out. I am ready to hear what can be said 
 both for and against it. 
 
 The question was now put on the motion of Mr. Grundy to post- 
 pone the previous orders, and carried, 22 to 16. So the orders were 
 postponed, and the Senate proceeded to consider the bill, which having 
 been again read at the Clerk's table as follows : 
 
 A Sill to admit the State of Michigan into the Union upon an equal 
 footing with the original States. 
 
 Whereas, in pursuance of the act of Congress of June the fifteenth, 
 eighteen hundred and thirty-six, entitled "An act to establish the 
 northern boundary of the State of Ohio, and to provide for the admis- 
 sion of the State of Michigan into the Union, upon the conditions therein 
 expressed," a convention of delegates, elected by the people of the said 
 State of Michigan, for the sole purpose of giving their consent to the 
 boundaries of the said State of Michigan as described, declared, and estab- 
 lished, in and by the said act, did on the fifteenth of December, eighteen 
 hundred and thirty-six, assent to the provisions of said act : therefore, 
 
 Be it enacted, &c. That the State of Michigan shall be one, and is 
 hereby declared to be one, of the United States of America, and ad- 
 mitted into the Union on an equal footing with the original States in 
 all respects whatever.
 
 SPEECHES. 589 
 
 SEC. 2. And be it further enacted, That the Secretary of the Trea- 
 sury, in carrying into effect the thirteenth and fourteenth sections of 
 the twenty-third of June, eighteen hundred and thirty-six, entitled "An 
 act to regulate the deposits of the public money," shall consider the 
 State of Michigan as being one of the United States. 
 
 Mr. Calhoun then rose and addressed the Senate as follows :] 
 
 I HAVE bestowed on this subject all the attention that was 
 in my power, and, although actuated by a most anxious de- 
 sire for the admission of Michigan into the Union, I find it 
 impossible to give my assent to this bill. I am satisfied the 
 Judiciary Committee has not bestowed upon the subject all 
 that attention which its magnitude requires ; and I can ex- 
 plain, on no other supposition, why they should place the ad- 
 mission on the grounds they have. One of the committee, 
 the Senator from Ohio on my left (Mr. Morris), has pro- 
 nounced the grounds dangerous and revolutionary. He 
 might have gone further, and with truth pronounced them 
 utterly repugnant to the principles of the constitution. 
 
 I have not ventured this assertion, as strong as it is, with- 
 out due reflection, and weighing the full force of the terms I 
 have used ; and do not fear, with an impartial hearing, to es- 
 tablish its truth beyond the power of controversy. 
 
 To understand fully the objection to this bill, it is neces- 
 sary that we should have a correct conception of the facts. 
 They are few, and may be briefly told. 
 
 Some time previous to the last session of Congress, the 
 Territory of Michigan, through its Legislature, authorized the 
 people to meet in convention, for the purpose of forming a 
 State Government. - They met accordingly, and agreed up- 
 on a constitution, which they forthwith transmitted to Con- 
 gress. It was fully discussed in this Chamber, and, objection- 
 able as the instrument was, an act was finally passed, which 
 accepted the constitution, and declared Michigan to be a 
 State, and admitted into the Union, on the single condition,
 
 590 SPEECHES. 
 
 that she should, by a convention of the people, assent to the 
 boundaries prescribed by the act. Soon after our adjourn- 
 ment the Legislature of the State of Michigan (for she had 
 been raised by our assent to the dignity of a State) called 
 a convention of the people of the State, in conformity to the 
 act which met at the time appointed, at Ann Arbor. After 
 full discussion, the convention withheld its assent, and for- 
 mally transmitted the result to the President of the United 
 States. This is the first part of the story. I will now give 
 the sequel. Since then, during the last month, a self-con- 
 stituted assembly met, professedly as a convention of the 
 people of the State, but without the authority of the State. 
 This unauthorized and lawless assemblage assumed the high 
 function of giving the assent of the State of Michigan to the 
 condition of admission, as prescribed in the act of Congress. 
 They communicated their assent to the Executive of the 
 United States, and he to the Senate. The Senate referred 
 his message to the Committee on the Judiciary, and that 
 committee reported this bill for the admission of the State. 
 
 Such are the facts out of which grows the important ques- 
 tion, Had this self-constituted assembly the authority to as- 
 sent for the State ? Had they the authority to do what is 
 implied in giving assent to the condition of admission ? That 
 assent introduces the State into the Union, and pledges it in 
 the most solemn manner to the constitutional compact which 
 binds these States in one confederated body ; imposes on her 
 all its obligations, and confers on her all its benefits. Had 
 this irregular, self-constituted assemblage the authority to 
 perform these high and solemn acts of sovereignty in the name 
 of the State of Michigan ? She could only come in as a State, 
 and none could act or speak for her without her express au- 
 thority ; and to assume the authority without her sanction is 
 nothing short of treason against the State. 
 
 Again : the assent to the conditions prescribed by Con- 
 gress implies an authority in those who gave it, to supersede
 
 SPEECHES. 59J 
 
 in part the constitution of the State of Michigan ; for her 
 constitution fixes the boundaries of the State as part of that 
 instrument which the condition of admission entirely alters 
 and to that extent the assent would supersede the constitu- 
 tion ; and thus the question is presented, whether this self- 
 constituted assembly, styling itself a convention, had the 
 authority to do an act which necessarily implies the right to 
 supersede, in part, the constitution. 
 
 But further : the State of Michigan, through its legisla- 
 ture, authorized a convention of the people, in order to de- 
 termine whether the condition of admission should be assent- 
 ed to or not. The convention met ; and, after mature de- 
 liberation, it dissented from the condition of admission ; and 
 thus again the question is presented, whether this self-called, 
 self-constituted assemblage, this caucus for it is entitled to 
 no higher name had the authority to annul the dissent of 
 the State, solemnly given by a convention of the people, reg- 
 ularly convoked under the express sanction of the constituted 
 authorities of the State ? 
 
 If all or any of these questions be answered in the nega- 
 tive if the self-created assemblage of December had no 
 authority to speak in the name of the State of Michigan 
 if none to supersede any portion of her constitution if none 
 to annul her dissent to the condition of admission regularly 
 given by a convention of the people of the State, convoked 
 by the authority of the State to introduce her on its au- 
 thority would be, not only revolutionary and dangerous, but 
 utterly repugnant to the principles of our constitution. The 
 question then submitted to the Senate is, Had that assem- 
 blage the authority to perform these high and solemn acts ? 
 The chairman of the Committee on the Judiciary holds 
 that this self-constituted assemblage had the authority ; and 
 what is his reason ? Why, truly, because a greater number 
 of votes were given for those who constituted that assem- 
 blage than for those who constituted the convention of the
 
 592 SPEECHES. 
 
 people of the State, convened under its constituted author- 
 ities. This argument, resolves itself into two questions the 
 first of fact, and the second of principle. I shall not discuss 
 the first. It is not necessary to do so. But if it were, it would 
 be easy to show that never was so important a fact so loosely 
 testified. There is not one particle of official evidence "be- 
 fore us. We had nothing but the private letters of indi- 
 viduals, who do not know even the numbers that voted on 
 either occasion ; they know nothing of the qualification of 
 voters, nor how their votes were received, nor by whom 
 counted. Now, none knows better than the honorable chair- 
 man himself, that such testimony as is submitted to us to 
 establish a fact of this moment, would not be received in the 
 lowest magistrate's court in the land. But I waive this. I 
 come to the question of the principle involved ; and what is 
 it ? The argument is, that a greater number of persons 
 voted for the last convention than for the first ; and therefore 
 the acts of the last of right abrogated those of the first ; in 
 Other words, that mere numbers, without regard to the forms 
 law, or the principles of the constitution, give authority. 
 \e authority of numbers, according to this argument, sets 
 aside the authority of the law and the constitution. Need I 
 show that such a principle goes to the entire overthrow of 
 our constitutional Government, and would subvert all social 
 order ? It is the identical principle which prompted the late 
 revolutionary and anarchical movement in Maryland, and 
 which has done more to shake confidence in our system of 
 government than any event since the adoption of our con- 
 stitution, but which, happily, has been frowned down by 
 the patriotism and intelligence of. the people of that State. 
 
 What was the ground of this insurrectionary measure, 
 but that the government of Maryland did not represent the 
 voice of the numerical majority of the people of Maryland, 
 and that the authority of law and constitution was nothing 
 .against that of numbers ? Here we find, on this floor, and
 
 593 
 
 from the head of the Judiciary Committee, the same princi- 
 ple revived, and, if possible, in a worse form ; for, in Mary- 
 land, the anarchists assumed that they were sustained by 
 the numerical majority of the people of the State in their 
 revolutionary movements ; but the utmost the chairman can 
 pretend to have is a mere plurality. The largest number of 
 votes claimed for this self-created assemblage is 8,000 ; and 
 no man will undertake to say that this constitutes any thing 
 like a majority of the voters of Michigan : and he claims 
 the high authority which he does for it, not because it is a 
 majority of the people of Michigan, but because it is a 
 greater number than voted for the authorized convention of 
 the people that refused to agree to the condition of admis- 
 sion. It may be shown by his own witness, that a majority 
 of the voters of Michigan greatly exceed 8,000. Mr. Wil- 
 liams, the president of the self-created assemblage, states that 
 the population of that State amounted to nearly 200,000 
 persons. If so, there cannot be less than from 21,000 to 
 30,000 voters, considering how nearly universal the right 
 of suffrage is under its constitution ; and it thus appears 
 that this irregular, self-constituted meeting, did not represent 
 the vote of one-third of the State : and yet, on a mere prin- 
 ciple of plurality, we are to supersede the constitution of 
 Michigan, and annul the act of a convention of the people 
 regularly convened under the authority of the government 
 of the State. 
 
 But, says the Senator from Pennsylvania (Mr. Bucha- 
 nan), this assembly was not self-constituted. It met under 
 the authority of an act of Congress ; and that act had no refer- 
 ence to the State, but only to the people ; and that the assem- 
 blage in December was just such a meeting as that act contem- 
 plated. It is not my intention to discuss the question, whether 
 the honorable Senator has given a plausible interpretation to 
 the act ; but, if he has, I could very easily show his interpreta- 
 tion to be erroneous ; for, if such had been the intention of 
 VOL. ii. 38
 
 594 SPEECHES. 
 
 Congress, the act surely would have specified the time when 
 the convention was to be held who were to be the managers 
 who the voters and would not have left it to individuals, 
 who might choose to assume the authority to determine all 
 these important points. I might also readily show that the 
 word " convention " of the people, as used in law or the consti- 
 tution, always means a meeting of the people regularly conven- 
 ed by the constituted authority of the States, in their high sov- 
 ereign capacity, and never such an assemblage as the one in 
 question. But I waive this ; I take higher ground. If the 
 act be, indeed, such as the Senator says it is, then I main- 
 tain that it is utterly opposed to the fundamental principles 
 of our Federal Union. Congress has no right whatever to 
 call a convention in a State. It can call but one convention, 
 and that is a convention of the United States to amend the 
 federal constitution ; nor can it call that, except authorized 
 by/two-thirds of the States. 
 
 / Ours is a Federal Republic a union of States. Michi- 
 gan is a State, a State in the course of admission, and dif- 
 fering only from the other States in her federal relations. 
 She is declared to be a State in the most solemn manner by 
 your own act. She can come into the Union only as a State ; 
 and by her voluntary assent, given by the people of the State 
 in convention, called by the constituted authorities of the 
 State. To admit the State of Michigan on the authority 
 of a self-created meeting, or one called by the direct author- 
 ity of Congress, passing by the authorities of the State, 
 would be the most monstrous proceeding under our constitu- 
 tion that can be conceived ; the most repugnant to its prin- 
 ciples, and dangerous in its consequences. It would establish 
 a direct relation between the individual citizens of a State 
 and the General Government, in utter subversion of the fed- 
 eral character of our system. The relation of their citizens 
 to this Government, is through the States exclusively. They 
 are subject to its authority and laws only because the State
 
 SPEECHES. 595 
 
 has assented to it. If she dissents, their assent is nothing ; 
 on the other hand, if she assents, their dissent is nothing. 
 It is through the State, then, and through the State alone, 
 that the United States Government can have any connection 
 with the people of a State ; and does not, then, the Senator 
 from Pennsylvania see, that if Congress can authorize a con- 
 vention of the people in the State of Michigan, without the 
 authority of the State it matters not what is the object 
 it may in like manner authorize conventions in any other 
 State for whatever purpose it may think proper. 
 
 Michigan is as much a sovereign State as any other dif- 
 fering only, as I have said, as to her federal relations. If we 
 give our sanction to the assemblage of December, on the 
 principle laid down by the Senator from Pennsylvania, then 
 we establish the doctrine that Congress has power to call, at 
 pleasure, conventions within the States. Is there a Senator 
 on this floor who will assent to such a doctrine ? Is there 
 one especially, who represents the smaller States of this 
 Union, or the weaker section ? Admit the power, and every 
 vestige of State Eights would be destroyed. Our system 
 would be subverted ; and instead of a confederacy of free 
 and sovereign States, we would have all power concentrated 
 here, and this would become the most odious despotism. He, 
 indeed, must be blind, who does not see that such a power 
 would give the Federal Government a complete control of all 
 the States. I call upon Senators now to arrest a doctrine so 
 dangerous. Let it be remembered, that, under our system, 
 bad precedents live for ever ; good ones only perish. We 
 may not feel all the evil consequences at once, but this pre- 
 cedent, once set, will surely be revived, and will become the 
 instrument of infinite eviL/ 
 
 It will be asked, wh**i shall be done ? Will you refuse 
 to admit Michigan into the Union ? I answer, no : I desire 
 to admit her ; and if the Senators from Indiana and Ohio 
 will agree, am ready to admit her as she stood at the begin-
 
 596 SPEECHES. 
 
 ning of the last session, without giving sanction to the unau- 
 thorized assemblage of December. 
 
 But if this does not meet their wishes, there is still an- 
 other way, by which she may be admitted. We are told 
 two-thirds of the legislature and people of Michigan are in 
 favor of accepting the conditions of the act of last session. 
 If that be the fact, then all that is necessary is, that the leg- 
 islature shall call another convention. All difficulty will 
 thus be removed, and there will be still abundant time for 
 her admission at this session. And shall we, for the sake of 
 gaming a few months, give our assent to a bill fraught with 
 principles so monstrous as this ? 
 
 We have been told that, unless she is admitted imme- 
 diately, it will be too late for her to receive her proportion of 
 the surplus revenue under the Deposit Bill. I trust that, on 
 so great a question, a difficulty like this will have no weight. 
 Give her at once her full share. I am ready to do so at once, 
 without waiting her admission. I was mortified to hear, on 
 so grave a question, such motives assigned for her admission, 
 contrary to the law and the constitution. Such considerations 
 ought not to be presented when we are settling great consti- 
 tutional principles. I trust that we shall pass by all such 
 frivolous motives on this occasion, and take ground on the 
 great and fundamental principle that an informal, irregular, 
 self-constituted assembly a mere caucus, has no authority 
 to speak for a sovereign State in any case whatever ; to su- 
 persede its constitution, or to reverse its dissent deliberately 
 given by a convention of the people of the State, regularly 
 convened under its constituted authorities.
 
 SPEECHES. 597 
 
 SPEECH 
 
 On the same subject, delivered in the Senate, Janu- 
 ary 5, 1837. 
 
 [MR. GRUNDT, chairman of the Committee on the Judiciary, having 
 moved that the Bill to admit the State of Michigan into the Union be 
 now read a third time 
 
 Mr. Calhoun addressed the Senate in opposition to the Bill.] 
 
 I HAVE, said Mr. C., been connected with this Govern- 
 ment more than half the term of its existence, in various 
 capacities ; and during that long period I have looked on its 
 action with attention, and have endeavored to make myself 
 acquainted with the principles and character of our political 
 institutions, and I can truly say that, within that time,foo 
 measure has received the sanction of Congress which has ap- 
 peared to me more unconstitutional and dangerous than the 
 present. It assails our political system in its weakest point, 
 and where, at this time, it most requires defence./ 
 
 The great and leading objections to the bill rest mainly 
 on the ground that Michigan is a State. They have been 
 felt by its friends to have so much weight, that its advocates 
 have been compelled to deny the fact, as the only way of 
 meeting the objections. Here, then, is the main point at 
 issue between the friends and the opponents of the bill 
 It turns on a fact, and that fact presents the question, Is 
 Michigan a State ? 
 
 If, said Mr. C., there ever was a party committed on a fact 
 if there ever was one estopped from denying it that party 
 is the present majority in the Senate, and that fact is, that 
 Michigan is a State. It is the very party who urged through 
 this body, at the last session, a bill for the admission of the 
 State of Michigan which accepted her constitution, and
 
 598 SPEECHES. 
 
 declared in the most explicit and strongest terms that she 
 was a State. I will not take up the time of the Senate by 
 reading this solemn declaration. It has frequently been 
 read during this debate, is familiar to all who hear me, and 
 has not been questioned or denied. But it has been said 
 there is a condition annexed to the declaration, with which 
 she must comply, before she can become a State. There is, 
 indeed, a condition ; but it has been shown by my colleague 
 and others, from the plain wording of the act, that the con- 
 dition is not attached to the acceptance of the constitution, 
 nor the declaration that she is a State, but simply to her 
 admission into the Union. I will not repeat the argument, 
 but, in order to place the subject beyond controversy, I shall 
 recall to memory the history of the last session, as connected 
 with the admission of Michigan. The facts need but to be 
 referred to, in order to revive their recollection. 
 
 There were two points proposed to be effected by the 
 friends of the bill at the last session. The first was to settle 
 the controversy, as to boundary, between Michigan and 
 Ohio ; and it was this object alone which imposed the con- 
 dition that Michigan should assent to the boundary pre- 
 scribed by the act as the condition of her admission. But 
 there was another object to be accomplished. Two respect- 
 able gentlemen, who had been elected by the State as Sena- 
 tors, were then waiting to take their seats on this floor ; and 
 the other object of the bill was to provide for their taking 
 their seats as Senators on the admission of the State, and 
 for this purpose it was necessary to make the positive and 
 unconditional declaration that Michigan was a State, as a 
 State only could choose Senators, by an express provision of 
 the constitution ; and hence the admission was made con- 
 ditional, and the declaration that she was a State was made 
 absolute, in order to effect both objects. To show that I 
 am correct, I will ask the Secretary to read the third section 
 of the bill.
 
 SPEECHES. 599 
 
 [The section was read accordingly as follows : 
 
 " SECT. 3. And be it further enacted, That, as a compliance with the 
 fundamental condition of admission contained in the last preceding section 
 of this act, the boundaries of the said State of Michigan, as in that section 
 described, declared and established, shall receive the assent of a convention of 
 delegates elected by the people of said State, for the sole purpose of giving the 
 assent herein required ; and as soon as the assent herein required shall be 
 given, the President of the United States shall announce the same by pro- 
 clamation ; and thereupon, and without any further proceedings on the 
 part of Congress, the admission of the said State into the Union, as one of 
 the United States of America, on an equal footing with all the original 
 States in every respect whatever, shall be considered as complete, and the 
 Senators and Representatives who have been elected by the said State as 
 its representative in the Congress of the United States, shall be entitled 
 to take their seats in the Senate and House of Reoresentatives respectively, 
 without further delay."] 
 
 Mr. Calkoun then asked Does not every Senator see the 
 two objects the one to settle the boundary, and the other to 
 admit her Senators to a seat in this body ; and that the sec- 
 tion is so worded as to effect both, in the manner I have 
 stated ? If this needed confirmation, it would be found in the 
 debate on the passage of the bill, when the ground was openly 
 taken by the present majority, that Michigan had a right to 
 form her constitution, under the ordinance of 1787, with- 
 out our consent ; and that she was of right, and in fact, a 
 State, beyond our control 
 
 I will, said Mr, C., explain my own views on this point, 
 in order that the consistency of my course at the last and 
 present session may be clearly seen. 
 
 My opinion was, and still is, that the movement of the 
 people of Michigan in forming for themselves a State consti- 
 tution, without waiting for the assent of Congress, was re- 
 volutionary, as it threw off the authority of the United States 
 over the territory ; and that we were left at liberty to treat 
 the proceedings as revolutionary, and to remand her to her 
 territorial condition, or to waive the irregularity, and to re-
 
 600 SPEECHES. 
 
 cognize what was done as rightfully done, as our authoritj 
 alone was concerned. 
 
 My impression was, that the former was the proper 
 course ; but I also thought that the act remanding her back 
 should contain our assent in the usual manner for her to 
 form a constitution, and thus to leave her free to become a 
 State. This, however, was overruled. The opposite opinion 
 prevailed, that she had a perfect right to do what she had 
 done, and that she was, as I have stated, a State both in 
 fact and right, and that we had no control over her ; and our 
 act accordingly recognized her as a State, from the time she 
 had adopted her constitution, and admitted her into the 
 Union on the condition of her assenting to the prescribed 
 boundaries. Having thus solemnly recognized her as a 
 State, we cannot now undo what was then done. There 
 were, in fact, many irregularities in the proceedings, all of 
 which were urged in vain against its passage ; but the Pre- 
 sidential election was then pending, and the vote of Michigan 
 was considered of sufficient weight to overrule all objections, 
 and correct all irregularities. They were all accordingly 
 overruled, and we cannot now go back. 
 
 Such was the course, and such the acts of the majority 
 at the last session. A few short months have since passed. 
 Other objects are now to be effected, and all is forgotten as 
 completely as if they had never existed. The very Senators 
 who then forced the act through, on the ground that Michi- 
 gan was a State, have wheeled completely round, to serve the 
 present purpose, and taken directly the opposite ground ! 
 We live in strange and inconsistent times. Opinions a?&^ 
 taken up and laid down, as suits the occasion, without hesi- \ 
 tation, or the slightest regard to principle or consistency. It \ 
 indicates an unsound state of the public mind, pregnant with I 
 future disasters. ^s^ 
 
 I turn to the position now assumed by the majority to 
 suit the present occasion ; and, if I mistake not, it will be
 
 601 
 
 found as false in fact, and as erroneous in principle, as it is in- 
 consistent with that maintained at the last session. They now 
 take the ground, that Michigan is not a State, and cannot, 
 in fact, be a State till she is admitted into the Union ; and 
 this on the broad principle that a territory cannot become a 
 State till admitted. Such is the position distinctly taken by 
 several of the friends of this bill, and implied in the argu- 
 ments of nearly all who have spoken in its favor. In fact, 
 its advocates had no choice. As untenable as it is, they 
 were forced on this desperate position. They had no other 
 which they could occupy. 
 
 I have shown that it is directly in the face of the law of 
 the last session, and that it denies the recorded acts of 
 those who now maintain it. I now go further, and assert 
 that it is in direct opposition to plain and unquestion- 
 able matter of fact. There is no fact more certain than that 
 Michigan is a State. She is in the full exercise of sovereign 
 authority, with a legislature and a chief magistrate. She 
 passes laws ; she executes them ; she regulates titles ; and 
 even takes away life all on her own authority. Ours has 
 entirely ceased over her ; and yet there are those who can 
 deny, with all these facts before them, that she is a State. 
 They might as well deny the existence of this Hall ! We 
 have long since assumed unlimited control over the consti- 
 tution, to twist, and turn, and deny it, as it suited our pur- 
 pose j and it would seem that we are presumptuously at- 
 tempting to assume like supremacy over facts themselves, 
 as if their existence or non-existence depended on OUT 
 volition. I speak freely. The occasion demands that the 
 truth should be boldly uttered. 
 
 But those who may not regard their own recorded acts, nor 
 the plain facts of the case, may possibly feel the awkward 
 condition in which coming events may shortly place them. 
 The admission of Michigan is not the only point involved in 
 the passage of this bill. A question will follow, which may
 
 602 SPEECHES. 
 
 be presented to the Senate in a very few days, as to the 
 right of Mr. Norvell and Mr. Lyon, the two respectable 
 gentlemen who have been elected Senators of Michigan, to 
 take their seats in this Hall. The decision of this question 
 will require a more sudden facing about than has been yet 
 witnessed. It required seven or eight months for the ma- 
 jority to wheel about from the position maintained at the 
 last session to that taken at this, but there may not be allow- 
 ed them now as many days to wheel back to the old position. 
 These gentlemen cannot be refused their seats after the ad- 
 mission of the State by those gentlemen who passed the act 
 of the last session. It provides for the case. I now put it 
 to the friends of this bill, and I ask them to weigh the ques- 
 tion deliberately to bring it home to their bosoms and con- 
 sciences before they answer Can a territory elect Senators 
 to Congress ? The constitution is express ; States only can 
 choose Senators. Were not these gentlemen chosen long be- 
 fore the admission of Michigan ; before the Ann Arbor 
 meeting, and while Michigan was, according to the doctrines 
 of the friends of this bill, a territory ? Will they, in the face 
 of the constitution, which they are sworn to support, admit 
 as Senators on this floor those who, by their own statement, 
 were elected by a territory ? These questions may soon be 
 presented for decision. The majority, who are forcing this 
 bill through, are already committed by the act of the last 
 session, and I leave them to reconcile, as they can, the 
 ground they now take with the vote they must give when 
 the question of their right to take their seats is presented for 
 decision. 
 
 A total disregard of all principle and consistency has so 
 entangled this subject, that there is but one mode left of 
 extricating ourselves without trampling the constitution in 
 the dust ; and that is, to return back to where we stood when 
 the question was first presented ; to acquiesce in the right of 
 Michigan to form a constitution, and erect herself into a
 
 SPEECHES. 603 
 
 State, under the ordinance of 1787 ; and to repeal so much 
 of the act of the last session as prescribed the condition on 
 which she was to be admitted. This was the object of the 
 amendment which I offered last evening, in order to relieve the 
 Senate from its present dilemma. The amendment involved 
 the merits of the whole case. It was too late in the day for 
 discussion, and I asked for indulgence till to-day, that I might 
 have an opportunity of presenting my views. Under the iron 
 rule of the present majority, the indulgence was refused, and 
 the bill ordered to its third reading ; and I have been thus 
 compelled to address the Senate when it is too late to amend 
 the bill, and after a majority have committed themselves both 
 as to its principles and details. Now, of such proceedings I 
 complain not. I, as one of the minority, ask no favors. All 
 I ask is, that the constitution be not violated. Hold it 
 sacred, and I shall be the last to complain. 
 
 I now return to the assumption, that a territory cannot 
 become a State till admitted into the Union, which is now 
 relied on with so much confidence to prove that Michigan is 
 not a State. I reverse the position. I assert the opposite, 
 that a territory cannot be admitted till she becomes a State ; 
 and in this, I stand on the authority of the constitution itself, 
 which expressly limits the power of Congress to admitting 
 new States into the Union. But, if the constitution had been 
 silent, he would indeed be ignorant of the character of our 
 political system, who does not see that States, sovereign and 
 independent communities, and not territories, can only be 
 admitted. Ours is a Union of States, a Federal Republic. 
 States, and not territories, form its component parts, bound 
 together by a solemn league, in the form of a constitutional 
 compact. In coming into the Union, the State pledges its 
 faith to this sacred compact ; an act which none but a sov 
 ereign and independent community is competent to perform 
 and, of course, a territory must first be raised to that con 
 dition before she can take her stand among the confed
 
 604 SPEECHES. 
 
 States of our Union. How can a territory pledge its faith 
 to the constitution ? It has no will of its own. You give it 
 all its powers, and you can at pleasure overrule all her actions. 
 If she enters as a territory, the act is yours, not hers. Her 
 consent is nothing without your authority and sanction. Can 
 you can Congress, become a party to the constitutional 
 compact ? How absurd. 
 
 But I am told, if this be so, if a territory must become 
 State before it can be admitted, it would follow that she 
 ight refuse to enter the Union after she had acquired the 
 right of acting for herself. Certainly she may. A State 
 cannot deforced into the Union. She must come in by her 
 own free assent, given in her highest sovereign capacity 
 through a convention of the people of the State. Such is the 
 constitutional provision ; and those who make the objection 
 must overlook both the constitution and the elementary prin- 
 ciples of our Government, of which the right of self-govern- 
 ment is the first; the right of every people to form their 
 own government, and to determine their political condition. 
 This is the doctrine on which our fathers acted in our glorious 
 Revolution, which has done more for the cause of liberty 
 throughout the world than any event within the records of 
 history, and on which the Government has acted from the 
 first, as regards all that portion of our extensive territory that 
 lies beyond the limits of the original States. Read the ordi- 
 nance of 1787, and the various acts for the admission of new 
 States, and you will find the principle invariably recognized 
 .d acted on, to the present unhappy instance, without any 
 parture from it, except in the case of Missouri. The ad- 
 ion of Michigan is destined, I fear, to mark a great 
 .ge in the history of the admission of new States ; a total 
 ;ure from the old usage, and the noble principle of self- 
 government on which that usage was founded. Every thing, 
 thus far, connected with her admission, has been irregular 
 and monstrous. I trust it is not ominous. Surrounded by
 
 SPEECHES. 605 
 
 lakes within her natural limits (which ought not to have 
 been departed from), and possessed of fertile soil and genial 
 climate, with every prospect of wealth, power, and influence, 
 who but must regret that she should be ushered into the 
 Union in a manner so irregular and unworthy of her future 
 destiny. 
 
 But I will waive these objections, constitutional and all. 
 I will suppose, with the advocates of the bill, that a terri- 
 tory cannot become a State till admitted into the Union. 
 Assuming all this, I ask them to explain to me how the mere 
 act of admission can transmute a territory into a State ?j 
 By whose authority would she be made a State ? By ours f 
 How can we make a State ? We can form a territory ; wfiy 
 can admit States into the Union ; but, I repeat the question, 
 how can we make a State ? I had supposed this Govern- 
 ment was the creature of the States formed by their au- 
 thority, and dependent on their will for its existence. Can 
 the creature form the creator ? If not by our authority, 
 then by whose ? Not by her own that would be absurd. 
 The very act of admission makes her a member of the Con- 
 federacy, with no other or greater power than is possessed by 
 all the others; all of whom, united, cannot create a State. 
 By what process, then, by what authority, can a territory 
 become a State, if not one before it is admitted ? Who can 
 explain ? How full of difficulties, compared to the long estab- 
 lished, simple, and noble process which has prevailed to the 
 present instant. According to old usage, the General Gov- 
 ernment first withdraws its authority over a certain portion/ 
 of its territory, as soon as it has a sufficient population to 
 constitute a State. They are thus left to themselves freely 
 to form a constitution, and to exercise the noble right of self- 
 government. They then present their constitution to Congress,' 
 and ask the privilege (for one it is of the highest character) 
 to become a member of this glorious confederacy of States. 
 The constitution is examined, and, if republican, as require<l
 
 606 SPEECHES. 
 
 /by the federal constitution, she is admitted, with no other 
 I condition except such as may be necessary to secure the au- 
 s thority of Congress over the public domain within her limits. 
 /This is the old, the established form, instituted by our ances- 
 / tors of the Revolution, who so well understood the great prin- 
 typles of liberty and self-government. How simple ! how 
 sublime ! What a contrast to the doctrines of the present 
 day, and the precedent which, I fear, we are about to estab- 
 lish ! And shall we fear, so long as these sound principles are 
 observed, that a State will reject this high privilege will 
 refuse to enter this Union ? No ; she will rush into your 
 embrace, so long as your institutions are worth preserving. 
 When the advantages of the Union shall have become a 
 matter of calculation and doubt ; when new States shall pause 
 to determine whether the Union is a curse or blessing, the 
 question which now agitates us will cease to have any im- 
 portance. 
 
 Having now, I trust, established beyond all controversy, 
 that Michigan is a State, I come to the great point at issue 
 to the decision of which all that has been said is but pre- 
 paratory Had the self-created assembly which met at Ann 
 Arbor the authority to speak in the name of the people of 
 Michigan ; to assent to the conditions contained in the act of 
 the last session ; to supersede a portion of the constitution of 
 the State, and to overrule the dissent of the convention of 
 the people regularly called by the constituted authorities of 
 the State to the condition of admission ? I shall not repeat 
 what I said when I first addressed the Senate on this bill. 
 We all, by this time, know the character of that assemblage ; 
 that it met without the sanction of the authorities of the 
 State ; and that it did not pretend to represent one-third of 
 the people. We all know that the State had regularly con- 
 vened a convention of the people, expressly to take into con- 
 sideration the condition on which it was proposed to admit 
 her into the Union; and that the convention, after full
 
 SPEECHES. 607 
 
 deliberation, had declined to give its assent by a considerable 
 majority. With a knowledge of all these facts, I put the 
 question Had the assembly a right to act for the State ? 
 Was it a convention of the people of Michigan in the true, 
 legal, and constitutional sense of that term ? Is there one 
 within the limits of my voice, that can lay his hand on his 
 breast, and honestly say, it was ? Is there one that does not 
 feel that it was neither more nor less than a mere, caucus 
 nothing but a party caucus of which we have the strongest 
 evidence in the perfect unanimity of those who assembled ? 
 Not a vote was given against admission. Can there be 
 stronger proof that it was a meeting got up by party ma- 
 chinery, for party purpose ? 
 
 But I go further. It was not only a party caucus, for 
 party purpose, but a criminal meeting a meeting to subvert 
 the authority of the State, and to assume its sovereignty. I 
 know not whether Michigan has yet passed laws to guard her 
 sovereignty. It may be that she has not had time to enact 
 laws for this purpose, which no community is long without ; 
 but I do aver, if there be such an act, or if the common 
 law be in force in the State, the actors in that meeting 
 might be indicted, tried, and punished for the very act on 
 which it is now proposed to admit the State into the Union. 
 If such a meeting as this were to undertake to speak in the 
 name of South Carolina, we would speedily teach its authors 
 what they owed to the authority and dignity of the State. 
 The act was not only in contempt of the authority of the 
 State of Michigan, but a direct insult to this Government. 
 Here is a self-created meeting, convened for a criminal 
 object, which has dared to present to this Government 
 an act of theirs, and to ask that we receive it as a 
 fulfilment of the condition which we had prescribed for 
 the admission of the State ! Yet, I fear, forgetting our own 
 dignity, and the rights of Michigan, that we are about to
 
 608 SPEECHES. 
 
 recognize the validity of the act, and quietly to submit to the 
 insult. 
 
 The year 1836, said Mr. C., is destined to mark the 
 
 lost remarkable change in our political institutions, since 
 the adoption of the constitution. The events of the year 
 have made a deeper innovation on the principles of the con- 
 , stitution, and evinced a stronger tendency to revolution, than 
 
 ly which have occurred from its adoption to the present 
 Sir, said Mr. C. (addressing the Yice-President), duty 
 compels me to speak of facts intimately connected with 
 yourself. In deference to your feelings as presiding officer of 
 the body, I shall speak of them with all possible reserve 
 much more reserve than L-^hould otherwise have done if you 
 did not occupy that seati^jX 111011 ? the first of these events 
 which I shall notice, is the caucus at Baltimore ; that too, 
 like the Ann Arbor caucus, has been dignified with the' 
 name of a convention of the people. This caucus was got 
 up under the countenance and express authority of the Pi 
 sident himself ; and its edict, appointing you his successor,, 
 has been sustained, not only by the whole patronage 
 power of the Government, but by his active personal infli 
 ence and exertion. Through its instrumentality he has sue 
 ceeded in controlling the voice of the people, and for 
 first time the President has appointed his successor ; 
 thus, the first great step of converting our Government intoi 
 a monarchy, has been sustained. These are solemn and omi- 
 nous facts. No one who has examined the result of tl 
 last election can doubt their truth. It is now certain tl 
 you are not the free and unbiased choice of the people of, 
 these United States. If left to your own popularity, with-i 
 out the active and direct influence of the President, and the 
 power and patronage of the Government, acting through a< 
 mock convention of the people, instead of the highest, you ' 
 would, in all probability, have been the lowest of the can-/ 
 didates.
 
 SPEECHES. 609 
 
 During the same year, the State in which this ill-cm* 
 caucus convened, has been agitated by revolutionary move-^ 
 ments of ^the most alarming character. Assuming the dan- 
 gerous doctrine that they were not bound to obey the in- 
 junctions of the constitution, because it did not place the] 
 powers of the State in the hands of an unchecked numeric 
 majority, the electors belonging to the party of the Balti- y 
 more caucus, who had been chosen to appoint the State 
 Senators, refused to perform the functions for which they 
 had been elected, with the deliberate intention of subverting 
 the government of the State, and reducing her to the con- 
 dition of a territory, till a new government could be formed. 
 And now we have before us a measure, not less revolution- 
 ary, but of an opposite character. In the case of Mary- 
 land, those who undertook, without the authority of law 
 or constitution, to speak and act in the name of the people 
 of the State, proposed to place her out of the Union by re- 
 ducing her from a State to a territory ; but in this, those 
 who, in like manner, undertook to act for Michigan, have 
 assumed the authority to bring her into the Union without 
 her consent, the very condition which she had rejected 
 by a convention of the people, convened under the autho- 
 rity of the State. If we sanction the authority of the 
 Michigan caucus to force a State into the Union without its 
 consent, why might we not here sanction a similar caucus in 
 Maryland, if one had been called, to place the State out of 
 the Union ? 
 
 These occurrences, which have distinguished the 
 year, mark the commencement of no ordinary change in our) 
 political system. They announce the ascendency of the cai 
 cus system over the regularly constituted authorities of the. 
 country. I have long anticipated this event. In early life 
 my attention was attracted to the working of the 
 system. It was my fortune to spend five or six years of m] 
 youth in the northern portion of the Union, where, unfortu- 
 VOL. ii. 39
 
 610 SPEECHES. 
 
 natery, the system has so long prevailed. Though young, 
 /I was old enough to take interest in public affairs, and to 
 (notice the working of this odious party machine ; and, 
 I after reflection, with the experience then acquired, has long 
 Satisfied me that, in the course of time, the edicts of the 
 ;aucus would eventually supersede the authority of law and 
 ionstitution. We have at last arrived at the commence- 
 ; nent of this great change which is destined to go on till it 
 <has consummated itself in the entire overthrow of all legal and 
 ^constitutional authority, unless speedily and effectually re- 
 /gisted. The reason is obvious : for obedience or disobe- 
 ^ dience to the edicts of the caucus, where the system is firmly 
 I established, is more certainly and effectually rewarded or 
 htounished, than obedience to the laws and to the constitution. 
 ^Disobedience to the former is sure to be followed by complete 
 itical disfranchisement. It deprives the unfortunate indivi- 
 Lual who falls under its vengeance, of all public honors and 
 Loluments, and consigns him, if dependent on the Grovera- 
 'ment, to poverty and obscurity ; while he who bows down 
 ibre its mandates, it matters not how monstrous, secures 
 himself the honors of the State becomes rich, and dis- 
 tinguished, and powerful. Offices, jobs, and contracts, flow 
 on him and his connections. But to obey the law and re- 
 A^spect the constitution, for the most part brings little except 
 ithe approbation of conscience a reward, indeed, high and 
 [noble, and prized by the virtuous above all other, but, un- 
 fortunately, little valued by the mass of mankind. It is 
 easy to see what must be the end, unless indeed, an effective 
 remedy be applied. Are we so blind as not to see in this, 
 why it is that the advocates of this bill the friends of the 
 system, are so tenacious on the point that Michigan should 
 be admitted on the authority of the Ann Arbor caucus, 
 and on no other ? Do we not see why the amendment pro- 
 posed by myself to admit her, by rescinding the condition 
 imposed at the last session, should be so strenuously op-
 
 SPEECHES. 611 
 
 posed ? Why, even the preamble would not be surrendered ; 
 though many of our friends were willing to vote for the bill 
 on that slight concession, in their anxiety to admit the 
 State. 
 
 And here let me say, that I listened with attention to 
 the speech of the Senator from Kentucky (Mr. Crittenden). 
 I know the clearness of his understanding, and the sound- 
 ness of his heart ; and I am persuaded, in declaring that his 
 objection to the bill was confined to the preamble, that he 
 has not investigated the subject with the attention it de- 
 serves. I feel the objections to the preamble are not with- 
 out some weight ; but the true and insuperable objections 
 lie far deeper in the facts of the case, which would still 
 exist were the preamble expunged. It is these which render 
 it impossible to pass this bill without trampling under foot 
 the rights of the States, a.nd subverting the first principles of 
 our Government. It would require but a few steps more to 
 eflfect a complete revolution, and the Senator from North 
 Carolina has taken the first. I will explain. Tfjou wish to 
 markjhe first indications of a revolution ; f.hp. nnmmp.np r emp.nt 
 oTtliose profound change in thp. nha.rap.ter of a people which 
 hpfnrP a ripplp upppjmi nn fhp 
 
 looklo the change of language. YnnjvjjTjfirst. nntine it. in 
 the altered meaning of important words j which., as^it 
 indicates a change hi the feejings^and principles of the peo- 
 ple, becomes, in turn, a powerful instrument in accelerating 
 the change, till an entire revolution is effected. The re- 
 marks of the Senator will illustrate what 1 have said. He 
 told us that the terms " convention of the people " were of 
 very uncertain meaning, and difficult to be defined ; but that 
 their true meaning was, any meeting of the people in their 
 individual and primary character for political purposes. I 
 know it is difficult to define complex terms ; that is, to enu- 
 merate all the ideas that belong to them, and exclude all 
 that do not ; but there is always, in the most complex,
 
 612 SPEECHES. 
 
 ^ome prominent idea which marks the meaning of the terms, 
 and in relation to which there is usually no disagreement. 
 Thus, according to the old meaning (and which I had sup- 
 posed was its legal and constitutional meaning), a convention 
 of the people invariably implied a meeting of the people, 
 either by themselves, or by delegates expressly chosen for the 
 purpose, in their liigh sovereign authority, in express contra- 
 distinction to such assemblies of individuals in their private 
 character, or having only derivative authority. It is, in a word, 
 a meeting of the people in the majesty of their power in 
 that in which they may rightfully make or abolish constitu- 
 tutions, and put up or put down governments at their plea- 
 sure. Such was the august conception which formerly en- 
 tered the mind of every American, when the terms " conven- 
 tion of the people " were used. But now, according to the 
 ideas of the dominant party, as we are told on the authority 
 of the Senator from North Carolina, it means any meeting 
 of individuals for political purposes, and, of course, applies 
 to the meeting at Ann Arbor, or any other party caucus for 
 party purposes, which the leaders may choose to designate as a 
 convention of the people. It is thus the highest authority 
 known to our laws and constitution, is gradually sinking to 
 the level of those meetings which regulate the operation of 
 political parties, and through which, the edicts of their 
 leaders are announced, and their authority enforced ; or, 
 rather, to speak more correctly, the latter are gradually 
 rising to the authority of the former. When they come to 
 be completely confounded ; when the distinction between a 
 caucus and the convention of the people shall be completely 
 obliterated, which the definition of the Senator, and the 
 acts of this body on this bill, would lead us to believe is not 
 far distant, this fair political fabric of ours, erected by the 
 wisdom and patriotism of our ancestors, and once the gaze 
 and admiration of the world, will topple to the ground in 
 ruins.
 
 It has, perhaps, been too much my habit to look 
 to the future and less to the present, than is wise ; but 
 is the constitution of my mind, that, when I see before 
 the indications of causes calculated to efi'ect imports 
 changes in our political condition, I am led irresistibly to" 
 trace them to their sources, and follow them out in their 
 consequences. Language has been held in this 
 which is clearly revolutionary in its character and 
 and which warns us of the approach of the period 
 struggle will be between the conservatives and the destructii 
 I understood the Senator from Pennsylvania (Mr. Buchan- 
 an) as holding language countenancing the principle, that 
 the will of a mere numerical majority is paramount to the 
 authority of law and constitution. He did not, indeed, an- 
 nounce distinctly this principle, but it might fairly be in- 
 ferred from what he said ; for he told us the people of a 
 State, where the constitution gives the same weight to a 
 smaller as to a greater number, might take the remedy into 
 their own hands ; meaning, as I understood him, that a 
 mere majority might, at their pleasure, subvert the constitu- 
 tion and government of a State, which he seemed to think 
 was the essence of democracy. Our little State has a con- 
 stitution that could not stand a day against such doctrines, 
 and yet we glory in it as the best in the Union. It is a con- 
 stitution which respects all the great interests of the State 
 giving to each a separate and distinct voice in the manage- 
 ment of its political affairs, by means of which the feebler 
 interests are protected against the preponderance of the 
 stronger. We call our State a Kepublic a Commonwealth, 
 not a Democracy ; and let me tell the Senator it is a far 
 more popular government than if it had been based on the 
 simple principle of the numerical majority. It takes more 
 voices to put the machine of government in motion, than 
 in those that the Senator would consider more popular. It 
 represents all the interests of the State, and is in fact the
 
 614 SPEECHES. 
 
 government of the people, in the true sense of the term, 
 and not that of the mere majority, or the dominant in- 
 terests. 
 
 I am not familiar with the constitution of Maryland, to 
 which the Senator alluded, and cannot, therefore, speak of its 
 structure with confidence ; but I believe it to be somewhat 
 similar in its character to our own. That it is a government 
 not without its excellence, we need no better proof than the 
 fact, that, though within the shadow of Executive influence, 
 it has nobly and successfully resisted all the seductions by 
 which a corrupt and artful Administration, with almost 
 boundless patronage, has attempted to seduce her into its 
 ranks. 
 
 Looking, then, to the approaching struggle, I take my 
 /stand immovably. I am a conservative in its "broadest and 
 I fullest sense, and such I shall ever remain, unless, indeed, the 
 I Government shall become so corrupt and disordered, that 
 I nothing short of revolution can reform it. I solemnly believe 
 that our political system is, in its purity, not only the best 
 I that ever was formed, but the best possible that can be de- 
 ^ vised for us. It is the only one by which free States, so 
 populous and wealthy, and occupying so vast an extent of 
 territory, can preserve their liberty. Thus thinking, I can- 
 not hope for a better. Having no hope of a better, I am a 
 / conservative ; and because I am a conservative, I am a State 
 ! Hights man. I believe that in the rights of the States are 
 I to be found the only effectual means of checking the over- 
 action of this Government ; to resist its tendency to concen- 
 \ trate all power here, and to prevent a departure from the 
 \ constitution ; or, in case of one, to restore the Government 
 ) to its original simplicity and purity. State interposition, or, 
 /to express it more fully, the right of a State to interpose 
 / her sovereign voice as one of the parties to our constitutional 
 compact, against the encroachments of this Government, is 
 the only means of sufficient potency to effect all this ; and I
 
 SPEECHES. 615 
 
 am, therefore, its advocate. I rejoiced to hear the Senator 
 from North Carolina (Mr. Brown), and from Pennsylvania 
 (Mr. Buchanan), do us the justice to distinguish between nul- 
 lification and the anarchical and revolutionary movements in 
 Maryland and Pennsylvania. I know they did not intend it 
 as a compliment ; but I regard it as the highest. They are 
 right. Day and night are not more different more unlike 
 in every thing. They are unlike in their principles, their 
 objects, and their consequences. 
 
 I shall not stop to make good this assertion, as I might 
 easily do. The occasion does not call for it. As a conserva- 
 tive, and a State Eights man, or if you will have it, a nulli 
 fier, I have resisted, and shall resist all encroachments on 
 constitution whether of this Government on the rights 
 the States, or the opposite : whether of the Executive 
 Congress, or Congress on the Executive. My creed is to 
 both governments, and all the departments of each to 
 proper sphere, and to maintain the authority of the laws 
 the constitution against all revolutionary movements. I 
 lieve the means which our system furnishes to preserve it 
 are ample, if fairly understood and applied ; and I shall resort 
 to them, however corrupt and disordered the times, so 1 
 as there is hope of reforming the Government. The resu 
 is in the hands of the Disposer of events. It is my part to 
 do my duty. Yet, while I thus openly avow myself a con- 
 servative, God forbid I should ever deny the glorious 
 of rebellion and revolution. Should corruption and op; 
 sion become intolerable, and not otherwise be thrown off 
 if liberty must perish, or the government be overthrown, 
 would not hesitate, at the hazard of life, to resort to revoj 
 lution, and to tear down a corrupt government that coulc^ 
 neither be reformed nor borne by freemen. But I trust inj 
 God things will never come to that pass. I trust never t 
 see such fearful tunes ; for fearful, indeed, they would be, 
 if they should ever befall us. It is the last remedy, an
 
 616 SPEECHES. 
 
 ,not to be thought of till common sense and the voice of man- 
 
 /kind would justify the resort. 
 
 Before I resume my seat, I feel called on to make a few 
 brief remarks on a doctrine of fearful import, which has been 
 broached in the course of this debate the right to repeal laws 
 granting bank charters, and, of course, of railroads, turnpikes, 
 and joint-stock companies. It is a doctrine of fearful import 
 and calculated to do infinite mischief. There are countless 
 millions vested in such stocks, and it is a description of pro- 
 perty of the most delicate character. To touch it is almost 
 to destroy it. But, while I enter my protest against all such 
 doctrines, I have been greatly alarmed with the thoughtless 
 precipitancy (not to use a stronger phrase) with which the 
 most extensive and dangerous privileges have been granted 
 of late. It can end in no good, and, I fear, may be the 
 cause of convulsions hereafter. We already feel the ef- 
 fects on the currency, which no one competent of judging 
 can fail to see, is in an unsound condition. I must say (for 
 truth compels me) I have ever distrusted the banking sys- 
 tem, at least in its present form, both in this country and 
 Great Britain. It will not stand the test of time ; but I 
 trust that all shocks, or sudden revolutions, may be avoided, 
 and that it may gradually give way, before some sounder and 
 better regulated system of credit, which the growing intelli- 
 gence of the age may devise. That a better may be substi- 
 tuted I cannot doubt ; but of what it shall consist, and how 
 it shall finally supersede the present uncertain and fluctuat- 
 ing currency, time alone can determine. All that I can see 
 is, that the present must, one day or another, come to an end, 
 or be greatly modified if that, indeed, can save it from an 
 entire overthrow. It has within itself the seeds of its own 
 destruction.
 
 SPEECHES. 617 
 
 SPEECH 
 
 On the Motion to recommit the Land Bill, introduced 
 by Mr. Walker, of Mississippi, to the Committee 
 on Public Lands ; delivered in the Senate, Feb- 
 ruary 4th, 1837. 
 
 [In the Senate, February 4th, 1837. The Bill reported by Mr. 
 Walker, in respect to the proper disposition of the public lands, having 
 undergone various modifications, and Mr. W. having declared that, 
 in the shape to which it had been reduced, the Bill could not receive 
 his support, it was about to be rejected : when, to give the friends 
 of the measure a further chance, a motion was made to recommit it 
 to the Committee on Public Lands, in order that it might be reported 
 to the Senate in a more acceptable form. On this motion, Mr. C. 
 said:] 
 
 I SINCEKELY hope that the motion for recommitment 
 will not prevail. The session is now far advanced ; but a 
 single month more remains, and this bill has already occu- 
 pied more than its due share of the time and attention of 
 the Senate. The discussion which it has undergone has 
 shown that there exists in this body a great diversity of 
 opinion, not on the details only, but on the principles of the 
 bill. A large portion of the Senate are under the impression 
 that nothing ought to be done ; and, among the residue who 
 are in favor of some bill, the difference of opinion seems to 
 be irreconcilable. If we recommit the bill, the inevitable 
 consequence will be, that we shall have a new set of propo- 
 sitions to amend it, and a vast deal of time will be wasted 
 in vain attempts to reconcile things essentially irreconcilable. 
 For myself, I believe the bill to be radically wrong ; and 
 that no modifications which it is likely to assume can ever 
 make it right. I had intended to say something on tho
 
 618 SPEECHES. 
 
 general subject ; but it is now late, and I forego much of 
 what it was my purpose to have submitted to the Senate. 
 I will, however, as briefly as possible, throw out one or two 
 leading views in regard to it. 
 
 The proposed object of this bill is to restrict the sales of 
 the public lands, to put down speculation, and to prevent 
 the accumulation of a surplus revenue. Plausible objects, 
 I admit, and such as sound well to the ear ; but the prac- 
 tical operation of the bill which promises them, will, as I 
 apprehend, lead to very different results. So many and so 
 subtle are the means by which those in power are able to 
 fleece the community without the people themselves being 
 aware of it, that the mere contemplation of the machinery is 
 almost enough to make any lover of his country despair. I 
 have long been sensible of this ; but if I were called upon to 
 select an instance, which, more than others, forcibly illus- 
 trates the truth of the remark, I would refer any one who 
 doubted to the present bill. When we closely examine its 
 provisions, we shall perceive that, so far from repressing, its 
 effects will be to secure and consummate, the most enormous 
 speculations which have ever been witnessed on this con- 
 tinent. These speculations have been produced by those in 
 power, and the large profits they hope to realize are to be 
 consummated by the passage of this bill. The chairman of 
 the committee himself has told the Senate, that a body of 
 the public lands, greater in extent than the largest State 
 in the Union,' has been seized upon by speculators. The 
 Senator from Georgia (Mr. King) states the amount at from 
 thirty to forty millions of dollars. This may be an over 
 estimate ; but, at the lowest calculation, the amount cannot 
 be less than twenty-five millions. What has produced this 
 vast investment? What has thus suddenly rendered the 
 public lands an object of such enormous speculations ? What 
 but the state of the currency ? Our circulating medium has 
 nearly doubled in the space of three years. It has increased
 
 SPEECHES. 619 
 
 from an average of six and a half dollars per head to an 
 average of ten dollars. And what has been the natural 
 the inevitable consequence ? The rise of every thing, the 
 price of which is not kept down by some legal provision ; 
 the price of provisions and of labor has nearly doubled, while 
 the price of land has continued fixed by force of law. Is it, 
 then, any thing wonderful that land, under this restraint, 
 should have become an object of speculation ? There lies 
 the root of the evil. This enormous augmentation of the 
 circulating medium has filled all the channels of ordinary 
 business to repletion, and the overflow finds an outlet hi 
 speculations. But who have been the authors of this state 
 of things ? Every body knows that it has been the work of 
 those in power. They began the experiment in 1833. They 
 were distinctly told what would be the result. They were 
 warned that bank capital would be increased, and, with it, 
 the circulation of paper money ; but; in the face of all 
 warning, all argument, the experiment went on. The only 
 existing check which had power to control the excessive issue 
 of bank paper was put down. The deposits of the public 
 money were transferred from where the laws had put them, 
 and placed in deposit banks arbitrarily selected at the will 
 of the Executive. The authors of the present state of things 
 are the very men who come here and propose to us this bill 
 as a remedy. These two facts should be put together, and 
 kept together, in the mind of every Senator who would form 
 a right judgment in the matter. The removal of the de- 
 posits was the first step. We are now come to the second 
 step in the process. The men who accomplished the first 
 have already profited by it politically, and, if rumor speak 
 truly, in other ways also. Does any man here entertain 
 a doubt that high officers of Government have used those 
 depositories as instruments of speculation in the public 
 lands ? Is not the fact notorious ? Is not one in the imme- 
 diate neighborhood of the Executive among those the most
 
 620 SPEECHES. 
 
 deeply concerned ? Will this be denied ? Is it not well 
 known that several officers in the departments have pur- 
 chased lands, to sell on speculation, with funds officially 
 under their own control ? How the same combination of 
 persons profited politically by the same movement, I shall 
 show hereafter. 
 
 Assuming, then, what cannot be denied, that the exces- 
 sive increase of the circulating medium, produced by the 
 experiment, is the main cause of these speculations in the 
 public lands and assuming, on the authority of universal 
 rumor, that high functionaries of the Government have 
 availed themselves of the state of tilings thus produced, 
 I come now to what is my main proposition, namely, that 
 this bill is calculated to consummate those plans of specula- 
 tion, and that without this measure, or something equivalent 
 to it, they must end in loss. 
 
 [Here some explanation took place between Mr. Calhoun and 
 Mr. Walker, as to the statements made by the latter in reference to the 
 probable effect of the rejection of this bill.] 
 
 Well, Sir, be it as the honorable chairman states. He 
 says now, that if the bill shall not become a law, the pur- 
 chases of the public lands will continue to go on as they 
 have done for the last year. Admit it, and what must be 
 the consequence. Cannot all men perceive, that in this, as 
 in all other cases, over supply must operate to reduce the 
 price ? The honorable chairman tells us that the amount 
 of land required for fair and honest settlement, by the pro- 
 gress of the country, is five millions of acres annually, and 
 that the amount taken upon speculation last year was thirty 
 millions. If this be so, then there is already in the hands 
 of speculators a six years' supply. Should all the land- 
 offices be closed to-morrow, the amount these speculators 
 hold would not be absorbed by the regular demands of the 
 country in less than six years. Now, the greater part of
 
 SPEECHES. 621 
 
 these purchases has been made upon loans ; the interest is 
 running on ; and, unless the sales shall be in proportion, do 
 not all men see that the accumulation of unproductive lands 
 upon their hands must infallibly rain those who are engaged 
 in such speculations ? Under these circumstances, the help 
 of legislation is the only thing that can relieve them. I re- 
 peat it, this bill, or something like it, is indispensable. It 
 puts a finish to the work. The land-offices being left open, 
 and no obstructions being thrown in the way of the purchase 
 for settlement, we may suppose that one-half of the five mil- 
 lions annually required will be purchased from the Govern- 
 ment. There will then remain only two and a half millions 
 to take of the thirty millions' stock which the speculators 
 already hold ; and, at this rate, it must be twelve years 
 before that stock can be disposed of ; and, if the stock is to 
 be augmented by new and large purchases during the present 
 year, the speculation must end in inevitable ruin. The 
 thing is plain it cannot be denied it calls for no demon- 
 stration. 
 
 What, then, is resorted to, to prevent this disastrous 
 catastrophe ? The answer is found in the details of this 
 bill ; and I entirely concur with the Senator from Massa- 
 chusetts (Mr. Davis), in pronouncing them most odious in 
 their character. No American citizen is to be left free to 
 purchase a portion of the public domain, the property of the 
 whole people of the United States, without a license. Yes ; 
 before he can buy the land which his own Government has 
 offered for sale, he must first take out a license. Odious as 
 I hold all licenses upon the press, or licenses upon trade, 
 I hold this to be fully as obnoxious as either. A license to 
 purchase the public lands ! I cannot buy myself a farm, 
 though I have the money in my pocket, till I pay a dollar 
 and a quarter per acre for a license ; and then I do not get 
 a title until I have complied with the most onerous condi- 
 tions ; and if, after I have paid my money, I see reasons to
 
 622 SPEECHES. 
 
 change my mind, I cannot leave the land without forfeiting 
 all I have paid. If I find the situation to be sickly, I cannot 
 remain there without risking the lives of my family, and I 
 cannot sell it to one more accustomed to the climate, without 
 incurring the pains of perjury as a speculator ; nor can I re- 
 move without forfeiting the purchase-money. 
 
 But supposing the settler remains ; he is required to 
 consummate his title not in a court of law, or before a 
 judicial officer, but before the register and receiver of the 
 district. I do not know how Senators from the new States 
 may feel, but this I know, that nothing under heaven could 
 induce me to place Carolinians in such circumstances. The 
 registers and receivers of a land-office to be judges in matters 
 of real estate ! Why, Sir, these persons, for the most part, 
 are political partisans. They have obtained their offices as 
 a reward for services rendered at the election. Has not the 
 doctrine of the spoils been openly avowed on this floor ? 
 Has it not been unblushingly maintained, that the party 
 which obtains a political victory has, as a thing of course, a 
 right to all the offices of the State, and to the public money 
 into the bargain, so that they may control it entirely for 
 their own benefit ? I have a right, therefore, to assume 
 that, as a general thing, these registers and receivers will be 
 political partisans. What, then, will be the condition of a 
 large portion of our citizens ? Allowing the consumption of 
 public lands to be two and a half millions of acres a year, 
 you will have about a hundred thousand voters, the title to 
 whose earthly all will be in the hands of these registers 
 and receivers. Can any thing be conceived more odious ? 
 Would the license of the press itself be a measure more hate- 
 ful or dangerous ? Sir, we have spent too much time in 
 considering so monstrous a proposition. I hope we shall not 
 waste upon it another moment. 
 
 But putting the political effects of this bill out of view 
 let us inquire what will be its moral influence ? The Sena-
 
 SPEECHES. 623 
 
 tor from New- York (Mr. Wright) told us } that he considered 
 the price of public land as already too high, and that he was 
 averse to placing it still higher. Sir, these were his words. 
 Now let us look at the face of the bill. Its practical effect 
 will be, an enormous increase in the price to be paid for the 
 public domain. I put it to any man of sound sense, whether 
 he would not rather give two dollars an acre, at once, for his 
 farm, and get a good title for his land, without further diffi- 
 culty ? I would, most certainly. Consider the terms on 
 which he must buy. The moment he enters his land, under 
 this bill it becomes subject to State taxation ; but if he 
 buys from the speculators, it will not be so. The entire 
 mass of lands purchased last year, including some of the best 
 parts of the public domain, is now held for sale free of taxa- 
 tion, while lands purchased from the Government must im- 
 mediately be taxed. What chance will the United States 
 lands have against such competition ? None at all ; the 
 speculators will have the complete monopoly. This, then, is 
 a question between the Government and the speculators. 
 Our stock is one hundred and twenty millions ; theirs, thirty 
 millions. Our land is at a dollar and a quarter ; theirs, not 
 less than three dollars ; and here is a fair competition. But 
 this bill comes in and throws the market into the hands of 
 the speculators. In any other than these extraordinary 
 times, one would suppose that such objections would be fatal 
 to any bill. It is most obvious that, unless you throw re- 
 strictions around the purchasers of land from the United 
 States, the object of the speculators must be defeated. 
 
 But we are asked, what is to be done with all this specu- 
 lation ? I answer, let it alone, and it will run down of itself. 
 The times will react. The present state of things is arti- 
 ficial ; it cannot possibly continue. Speculation, after it has 
 run its course, will run down, and that with far less injury 
 than will result from any attempt to put it down by legisla- 
 tion. If, however, you do legislate, there are many expedi-
 
 624 SPEECHES. 
 
 ents besides that proposed in this bill. In the first place, 
 you may raise the price of the public lands. This, to be 
 sure, will confer a great benefit on those who have already 
 purchased; but it will check future speculation, I have, 
 however, no idea that any such measure will be resorted to ; 
 it would be very unpopular ; and the object which gentle- 
 men have in view must be secured without the loss of per- 
 sonal popularity. Then, in the second place, you may shut 
 the land-offices. This expedient, however, would be liable 
 to the same objections with the other, for you can hit upon 
 none which will not either be inoperative altogether, or of 
 great advantage to those who have already purchased. My 
 opinions in regard to the public lands have undergone a great 
 change in the course of this debate. I thought there was a 
 majority in this Senate who would resolutely object to all 
 rash changes in our land system. I hoped, most confidently, 
 that New England, at least, would have stood fast. I have 
 been disappointed. I hoped that the public lands would not 
 be drawn into our political contests. But in this, too, I have 
 been entirely disappointed. I see that the era has arrived 
 when our large capitalists are in a fair way to seize upon the 
 whole body of the public lands. This has compelled a great 
 change to take place in my mind. I greatly fear that we 
 have reached the time when the public domain must be lost 
 to the Government for all useful purposes. We may, in- 
 deed, receive some amount of revenue from it, but it will be 
 accompanied with such agitations, and so much trouble and 
 political corruption, that the gain will not compensate for 
 the evil incurred. I have made up my mind, if a fair con- 
 cession can be made, to concede the whole to the new States, 
 on some fixed and well considered conditions. I am for 
 transferring the whole, on the condition tkat they shall pay 
 us a certain per cent, of the proceeds, and submit to the 
 necessary limitations as to the mode of bringing the lands 
 into market ; the permanent system of sale not to be dis-
 
 SPEECHES. 625 
 
 turbed for some years ; and after that, the principle of 
 graduation to be prudently introduced. I have always felt 
 the force of the argument, that the new States are not now 
 placed upon an equal footing with the other members of the 
 Confederacy. They are full of land-officers, and other pub- 
 lic agents under your control ; and in regard to the soil within 
 their limits, they sustain to us a relation which must ever be 
 productive of discontent and agitation. Whether a thing of 
 this kind can be safely done, I do not know ; but of this I 
 am fully persuaded that such a measure would be infinitely 
 better than the scheme proposed in this bill. The Chairman 
 of the Committee on the Public Lands has avowed his own 
 earnest belief that the evils of the existing state of things 
 are such, that even a bill like this should be resorted to as a 
 preferable alternative. He considers a surplus in the treasury 
 as a great evil (and so do I, also, if it is to be permanent) ; 
 and his dread of a surplus is so great, that it has pre- 
 vented him from regarding the details of this bill, as I am 
 persuaded he would have done, but for the bias thus 
 produced. 
 
 With .these views, I conclude by expressing my hope 
 that the bill will not be recommitted ; but that we shall 
 either reject it, or suffer it to sleep by laying it on the 
 table. 
 
 SPEECH 
 
 On the reception of Abolition Petitions, delivered in 
 the Senate, February 6th, 1837. 
 
 IF the time of the Senate permitted, I would feel it to 
 be my duty to call for the reading of the mass of petitions 
 on the table, in order that we might know what language 
 VOL. ii. 40
 
 626 SPEECHES. 
 
 they hold towards the slaveholding States and their institu- 
 tions ; but as it will not, I have selected, indiscriminately 
 from the pile, two ; one from those in manuscript, and the 
 other from the printed, and without knowing their contents 
 will call for the reading of them, so that we may judge, by 
 them, of the character of the whole. 
 
 [Here the Secretary, on the call of Mr. Calhoun, read the two peti- 
 tions.] 
 
 Such, resumed Mr. 0., is the language held towards us 
 and ours. The peculiar institution of the South that, on t"hs. 
 maintenance of which the very existence of the slaveholding \^ 
 States depends, is pronounced to be sinful and odious, in the i 
 sight of God and man ; and this with a systematic design / 
 of rendering us hateful in the eyes of the world with a view / 
 to a general crusade against us and our institutions. This, / 
 too, in the legislative halls of the Union ; created by these/ 
 confederated States, for the better protection of their peace, 
 their safety, and their respective institutions ; and yet, we 
 the representatives of twelve of these sovereign States agains : 
 whom this deadly war is waged, are expected to sit here in 
 silence, hearing ourselves and our constituents day after da; r 
 denounced, without uttering a word ; for if we but open ourV 
 lips, the charge of agitation is resounded on all sides, and we ; 
 are held up as seeking to aggravate the evil which we resist/ 
 
 f Every reflecting mind must see in all this a state of things 
 
 ( deeply and dangerously diseased. 
 
 I do not belong, said Mr. C., to the school which holds, 
 that aggression is to be met by concession. Mine is the op- 
 posite creed, which teaches that encroachments must be met 
 at the beginning, and that those who act on the opposit 
 principle are prepared to become slaves. In this case, in 
 ticular, I hold concession or compromise to be fatal. If 
 concede an inch, concession would follow concession cona^ 
 promise would follow compromise, until our ranks would
 
 627 
 
 BO broken that effectual resistance would be impossible. 
 must meet the enemy on the frontier, with a fixed determK 
 nation of maintaining our position at every hazard. Consent 
 to receive these insulting petitions, and the next demand will 
 be that they be referred to a committee in order that they 
 may be deliberated and acted upon. At the last session we 
 were modestly asked to receive them, simply to lay them on 
 the table, without any view to ulterior action. I then told 
 the Senator from Pennsylvania (Mr. Buchanan), who so 
 strongly urged that course in the Senate, that it was a posi- 
 tion that could not be maintained ; as the argument in favor 
 of acting on the petitions if we were bound to receive, could 
 not be resisted. I then said, that the next step would be to 
 refer the petition to a committee, and I already see indica- 
 tions that such is now the intention. If we yield, that will 
 be followed by another, and we will thus proceed, step by 
 step, to the final consummation of the object of these peti- 
 tions. We are now told that the most effectual mode of ar- 
 resting the progress of abolition is, to reason it down ; and 
 with this view it is urged that the petitions ought to be 
 referred to a committee. That is the very ground which 
 was taken at the last session in the other House, but instead 
 of arresting its progress it has since advanced more rapidly 
 than ever. The most unquestionable right may be rendered 
 doubtful, if once admitted to be a subject of controversy, and 
 that would be the case hi the present instance. The subject 
 is beyond the jurisdiction of Congress they have no right to 
 touch it in any shape or form, or to make it the subject of 
 deliberation or discussion. 
 
 In opposition to this view it is urged that Congress is 
 bound by the constitution to receive petitions in every case 
 and on every subject, whether within its constitutional com- 
 petency or not. I hold the doctrine to be absurd, and do 
 solemnly believe, that it would be as easy to prove that it 
 has the right to abolish slavery, as that it is bound to receive
 
 628 SPEECHES. 
 
 petitions for that purpose. The very existence of the rule 
 that requires a question to be put on the reception of peti- 
 tions, is conclusive to show that there is no such obligation. 
 It has been a standing rule from the commencement of the 
 Government, and clearly shows the sense of those who formed 
 the constitution on this point. The question on the recep- 
 tion would be absurd, if, as is contended, we are bound to 
 receive ; but I do not intend to argue the question ; I dis- 
 cussed it fully at the last session, and the arguments then 
 advanced neither have been nor can be answered. 
 
 As widely as this incendiary spirit has spread, it has not 
 
 ''yet infected this body, or the great mass of the intelligent 
 and business portion of the North ; but unless it be speedily 
 stopped, it will spread and work upwards till it brings the 
 two great sections of the Union into deadly conflict. This 
 is not a new impression with me. Several years since, in a 
 discussion with one of the Senators from Massachusetts 
 (Mr. Webster), before this fell spirit had showed itself, I th 
 predicted that the doctrine of the proclamation and the Fo: 
 Bill, that this Government had a right, in the last resort, 
 determine the extent of its own powers, and enforce its deci- 
 sion at the point of the bayonet, which was so warmly main- 
 tained by that Senator, would at no distant day arouse t 
 
 < dormant spirit of abolitionism. I told him that the doc 
 was tantamount to the assumption of unlimited power on 
 part of the Government, and that such would be the imprest 
 sion on the public mind in a large portion of the Union. 
 The consequence would be inevitable. A large portion of the 
 Northern States believed slavery to be a sin, and would 
 consider it as an obligation of conscience to abolish it if 
 they should feel themselves in any degree responsible for its \ 
 continuance, and that this doctrine would necessarily lead to 
 the belief of such responsibility. I then predicted that it / 
 would commence as it has with this fanatical portion of/ 
 society, and that they would begin their operations on the;
 
 SPEECHES. 629 
 
 ignorant, the weaK, the young, and the thoughtless, 
 gradually extend upwards till they would become strong 
 enough to obtain political control, when he and others hold- 
 ing the highest stations in society, would, however relu 
 tant, be compelled to yield to their doctrines, or be driven i: 
 obscurity. But four years have since elapsed, and all thi^ is 
 already in a course of regular fulfilment. 
 
 Standing at the point of time at which we have now ar- 
 rived, it will not be more difficult to trace the course of fu- 
 ture events now than it was then. They who imagine that 
 the spirit now abroad in the North, will die away of itself 
 without a shock or convulsion, have formed a very inadequate 
 conception of its real character ; it will continue to rise and 
 spread, unless prompt and efficient measures to stay its pro- 
 gress be adopted. Already it has taken possession of the 
 pulpit, of the schools, and, to a considerable extent, of the 
 press ; those great instruments by which the mind of the 
 rising generation will be formed. . 
 
 However sound the great body of the non-slaveholdingS. 
 States are at present, in the course of a few years they will be ) 
 succeeded by those who will have been taught to hate the / 
 people and institutions of nearly one-half of this Uniony' 
 with a hatred more deadly than one hostile nation ever en- 
 tertained towards another. It is easy to see the end. B 
 the necessary course of events, if left to themselves, we m 
 become, finally, two people. It is impossible under t 
 deadly hatred which must spring up between the two great 
 sections, if the present causes are permitted to operate u 
 checked, that we should continue under the same politi 
 system. The conflicting elements would burst the Uni 
 asunder, powerful as are the links which hold it togeth 
 Abolition and the Union cannot co-exist. As the friend of- 
 the Union I openly proclaim it, and the sooner it is knowiK 
 the better. The former may now be controlled, but in a) 
 short time it will be beyond the power of man to arrest the)
 
 630 SPEECHES. 
 
 /course of events. We of the South will not, cannot surren- 
 ^Mer our institutions. To maintain the existing relations be- 
 yfoveen the two races, inhabiting that section of the Union, 
 'is indispensable to the peace and happiness of both. It can- 
 be subverted without drenching the country in blood, 
 extirpating one or the other of the races. Be it good 
 bad, it has grown up with our society and institutions, and 
 is so interwoven with them, that to destroy it would be to 
 troy us as a people. But let me not be understood as 
 \i^ /admitting, even by implication, that the existing relations be- 
 jtween the two races in the slaveholding States is an evil : 
 far otherwise ; I hold it to be a good, as it has thus far 
 proved itself to be to both, and will continue to prove so if 
 'not disturbed by the fell spirit of abolition. I appeal to 
 facts. Never before has the black race of Central Africa, 
 /from the dawn of history to the present day, attained a con- 
 lition so civilized and so improved, not only physically, but 
 lorally and intellectually. It came among us in a low, de- 
 graded, and savage condition, and in the course of a few gen- 
 tions it has grown up under the fostering care of our in- 
 stitutions, reviled as they have been, to its present com- 
 tively civilized condition. This, with the rapid increase 
 numbers, is conclusive proof of the general happiness of 
 race, in spite of all the exaggerated tales to the contrary. 
 / In the mean time, the white or European race has not de- 
 /generated. It has kept pace with its brethren in other see- 
 's, tions of the Union where slavery does not exist. It is odious 
 \to make comparison ; but I appeal to all sides whether the 
 South is not equal in virtue, intelligence, patriotism, courage, 
 /disinterestedness, and all the high qualities which adorn our 
 /nature. I ask whether we have not contributed our full 
 share of talents and political wisdom in forming and sustain- 
 ing this political fabric ; and whether we have not constantly 
 inclined most strongly to the side of liberty, and been the 
 first to see and first to resist the encroachments of power.
 
 SPEECHES. 631 
 
 In one thing only are we inferior the arts of gain ; we ac- 
 knowledge that we are less wealthy than the Northern section I 
 of this Union, but I trace this mainly to the fiscal action of) 
 this Government, which has extracted much from, and spent/ 
 little among us. Had it been the reverse, if the exactionV 
 had been from the other section, and the expenditure witty 
 us, this point of superiority would not be against us now, as 
 it was not at the formation of this Government. 
 
 But I take higher ground. / I hold that in the present 
 state of civilization, where two races of different origin, and 
 distinguished by color, and other physical differences, as well 
 as intellectual, are brought together, the relation now existing 
 in the slaveholding States between the two, is, instead of an 
 evil, a good a positive good./ I feel myself called upon 
 speak freely upon the subject where the honor and interes 
 of those I represent are involved. I hoJtL-then^-ihai 
 never has yet existed a wealthy and civilized societvjn^ whicl 
 one^pbrtion of tn^cbmmunity did^not, in point of fact, live 
 
 L4mniaLa849 : this 
 
 sertion, it is fully born ft ont by^hiatflry. This is not the pi 
 peFoccasion, but if it were, it would not be difficult to ti 
 the various devices by which the wealth of all civilized 
 inunities has been so unequally divided, and to show by wl 
 means so small a share has been allotted to those by whose^ 
 labor it was produced, and so large a share given to the noi 
 producing classes. The devices are almost innumerable, fr 
 the brute force and gross superstition of ancient times, to the] 
 subtle and artful fiscal contrivances of modern. I might 
 well challenge a comparison between them and the more di- 
 rect, simple, and patriarchal mode by which the labor of the 
 African race is, among us, commanded by the European. I ' 
 may say with truth, that in few countries so much is left to 
 the share of the laborer, and so little exacted from him, or 
 where there is more kind attention paid to him in sickness or/ 
 infirmities of age. Compare his condition with the tenants of
 
 632 SPEECHES. 
 
 /the poor houses in the more civilized portions of Europe 
 V look at the sick, and the old and infirm slave, on one hand, 
 / in the midst of his family and friends, under the kind super- 
 | intending care of his master and mistress, and compare it 
 U^ith the forlorn and wretched condition of the pauper in the 
 | poor house. But I will not dwell on this aspect of the ques- 
 tion ; I turn to the political ; and here I fearlessly assert 
 that the existing relation between the two races in the South, 
 against which these blind fanatics are waging war, forms the 
 most solid and durable foundation on which to rear free and 
 Stable political institutions. It is useless to disguise the 
 fact. There is and always has been in an advanced stage of 
 wealth and civilization, a conflict ^between labor and capital. 
 TEe condition of society in the South exemptsjis from .the 
 disorders and dangers resulting from this conflict ; and which 
 explamsjffhy it ,. is that_thejdUical j^^ 
 holding States has been so much more stable and quiet than 
 tliatjif-iJbe North. The advantages of the former, in this 
 respect, will become more and more manifest if left undis- 
 turbed by interference from without, as the country advances 
 wealth and numbers. We have, in fact, but just entered 
 that condition of society where the strength and durability 
 f our political institutions are to be tested ; and I venture 
 nothing in predicting that the experience of the next gene- 
 ration will fully test how vastly more favorable our condition 
 of society is to that of other sections for free and stable in- 
 stitutions, provided we are not disturbed by the interference 
 of others, or shall have sufficient intelligence and spirit to 
 resist promptly and successfully such interference. It rests 
 with ourselves to meet and repel them. I look not for aid 
 to this Government, or to the other States ; not but there are 
 kind feelings towards us on the part of the great body of the 
 non-si aveholding States ; but as kind as their feelings may 
 be, we may rest assured that no political party in those 
 States will risk their ascendency for our safety. If we do
 
 SPEECHES. 635 
 
 not defend ourselves none will defend us ; if we yield we will' 
 be more and more pressed as we recede ; and if we submit 
 we will be trampled under foot. Be assured that emancipa- 
 tion itself would not satisfy these fanatics : that gained, the 
 next step would be to raise the negroes to a social and polit- \ 
 ical equality with the whites ; and that being effected, we 
 would soon find the present condition of the two races re- 
 versed. They and their northern allies would be the mas- 
 ters, and we the slaves ; the condition of the white race in 
 the British West India Islands, bad as it is, would be 
 happiness to ours. There the mother country is interest 
 in sustaining the supremacy of the European race. It 
 true that the authority of the former master is destroy 
 but the African will there still be a slave, not to individuals 
 but to the community, forced to labor, not by the authority 
 of the overseer, but by the bayonet of the soldiery and t 
 rod of the civil magistrate. 
 
 Surrounded as the slaveholding States are with such i 
 minent perils, I rejoice to think that our means of defen 
 are ample, if we shall prove to have the intelligence and spin 
 to see and apply them before it is too late. All we want 
 concert, to lay aside all party differences, and unite with 
 and energy in repelling approaching dangers. Let there 
 concert of action, and we shall find ample means of securi 
 without resorting to secession or disunion. I speak with 
 knowledge and a thorough examination of the subject, a 
 for one, see my way clearly. One thing alarms me the eager 
 pursuit of gain which overspreads the land, and which ab- 
 sorbs every faculty of the mind and every feeling of the heart 
 Of all passions avarice is the most blind and compromisin 
 the last to see and the first to yield to danger, 
 not hope that any thing I can say will arouse the South 
 due sense of danger ; I fear it is beyond the power of 
 tal voice to awaken it in time from the fatal security in 
 which it has fallen.
 
 634 SPEECHES. 
 
 SPEECH 
 
 On his proposition to cede the Public Lands to the 
 new States upon the payment of one-third of the 
 gross amount of the sales ; delivered in the Senate 
 February Tth, 1837. 
 
 [THE Bill to suspend the sale of the Public Lands being under 
 consideration, Mr. Calhoun offered the following as a substitute : 
 
 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
 United States of America in Congress assembled, That all the public 
 lands within the States of Alabama, Mississippi, Louisiana, Arkansas, 
 Missouri, Illinois, Indiana, Ohio, and Michigan, with the exception of 
 the sites of fortifications, navy and dock yards, arsenals, magazines, 
 and all other public buildings, be ceded to the States within the limits 
 of which they are respectively situated, on the following conditions : 
 
 First. That the said States shall severally pass acts, to be irrevo- 
 cable, that they will annually pay to the United States thirty-three 
 and one-third per cent, on the gross amount of the sales of such lands, 
 on or before the first day of February of each succeeding year. 
 
 Secondly. That the minimum price, as now fixed by law, shall re- 
 main unchanged until the first day of January, eighteen hundred and 
 forty-two ; after which time, the price of all lands heretofore offered at 
 public sale, and then remaining unsold ten years or upwards preced- 
 ing the first day of January aforesaid, may be reduced by said States 
 
 to a price not less than per acre ; and all lands that may have 
 
 been offered at public sale, and remaining unsold fifteen years or up- 
 wards, preceding the first day of January, eighteen hundred and forty- 
 seven, may thereafter be reduced by said States to a price not less 
 
 than per acre ; and all lands that may have been offered at 
 
 public sale, and remaining unsold twenty years or upwards, preceding 
 the first day of January, eighteen hundred and fifty-two, may then be 
 
 reduced by said States to a price not less than per acre ; and all 
 
 lands that may have been offered at public sale, and remaining un- 
 ^old twenty years or upwards, preceding the first day of January, eigh-
 
 SPEECHES. 635 
 
 teen hundred and fifty-seven, may thereafter be reduced by said States 
 
 to a price not less than per acre ; and all lands that may have 
 
 been offered at public sale, and remaining unsold thirty years or up- 
 wards, preceding the first day of January, eighteen hundred and sixty- 
 two, may thereafter be reduced by said States to a price not less than 
 
 per acre ; and all lands that shall have been offered at public 
 
 sale, and remaining unsold thirty-five years or upwards, shall be ceded 
 immediately to the States in which said lands are situate : Provided, 
 That all lands which shall remain unsold after having been offered at 
 public sale for ten years, and which do not come under the above pro- 
 visions, shall be subject to the provisions of graduation and cession 
 aforesaid at the respective periods of ten, fifteen, twenty, twenty-five, 
 thirty, and thirty-five years after said sale, commencing from the expi-_ 
 ration of ten years after the same had been offered at public sale. 
 
 Thirdly. That the lands shall be subject to the same legal subdi- 
 visions in the sale and survey as is now provided by law, reserving for 
 each township the sixteenth section, or the substitute, as heretofore 
 provided by law ; and the land not yet offered for sale, shall be first 
 offered by the State at public auction, and be sold, for cash only, in the 
 manner now provided by law. And any land now or hereafter re- 
 maining unsold after the same shall have been offered for sale at public 
 auction, shall be subject to entry for cash only, according to the gradua- 
 tion which may be fixed by the States respectively under the provi 
 sions of this act. 
 
 Fourth. This cession, together with the portion of the sales to be 
 retained by the States respectively under the provisions of this act 
 shall be in full of the five per cent, fund, or any part thereof, not al- 
 ready advanced to any State ; and the said States shall be exclusively 
 liable for all charges that may hereafter accrue from the surveys, sales, 
 and management of the public lands, and extinguishment of Indian 
 title within the limits of said States respectively. 
 
 Fifth. That, on a failure to comply with any of the above con- 
 ditions, or a violation of the same, on the part of any of the said 
 States, the cession herein made to the State failing to comply with, or 
 violating said conditions, shall be thereby rendered null and void ; and 
 all grants or titles thereafter made by said State, for any portion of the 
 public lands within the limits of the same ceded by this act, shall be, 
 and is hereby declared to be null and void, and of no effect whatever.
 
 636 SPEECHES. 
 
 SEC. 2. And be it further enacted, That, whenever the President of 
 the United States shall be officially notified that any of the said States 
 has passed an act in compliance with the above conditions, it shall be 
 his duty forthwith to adopt such measures as he shall think proper to 
 close the land-offices, including the surveying department, within the 
 limits of said State ; and that the commissions of all officers connected 
 therewith shall expire on a day to be fixed by him, but which day 
 shall not be beyond six months from the day he received the official 
 notification of the passage of said act. 
 
 SEC. 3. And be it further enacted, That on such notification being 
 made, the said State shall be relieved from all compacts, acts, or ordi- 
 nances, imposing restrictions on the right of said State to tax any lands 
 by her authority subsequent to the sale thereof, ceded by this act ; and 
 all maps, titles, records, books, documents, and papers, in the General 
 Land-Office at Washington, relative to said lands, shall be subject to 
 the order and disposition of the Executive of said State. 
 
 SEC. 4. And be it further enacted, That all lands of the United 
 States within the limits of the State of Tennessee, with the exceptions 
 enumerated in the first section of this act, shall be, and the same are 
 hereby, ceded to said State. 
 
 In reply to the objections urged against this substitute by Messrs. 
 Benton and Buchanan, Mr. Calhoun said :] 
 
 HE wished the Senate to be assured that, in offering the 
 proposition he had presented, he had no indirect or concealed 
 purpose. He was perfectly sincere in proposing and advocat- 
 ing it, and that on the highest possible ground. When the 
 Senate entered upon the present discussion, he had had little 
 thought of offering a proposition like this. He had, indeed ? 
 always seen that there was a period coming when this Govern- 
 ment must cede to the new States the possession of their own 
 soil ; but he had never thought till now that period was so 
 near. What he had seen this session, however, and especial- 
 ly the nature and character of the bill which was now likely 
 to pass, had fully satisfied him that the time had arrived. 
 There were at present eighteen Senators from the new States. 
 In four years there would be six more, which would make
 
 SPEECHES. 637 
 
 twenty-four. All, therefore, must see that, in a very short 
 period, those States would have this question in their own 
 hands. And it had been openly said, that they ought not to 
 accept of the present proposition, because they would soon be 
 able to get better terms. He thought, therefore, that, instead 
 of attempting to resist any longer what must eventually hap- 
 pen, it would be better for all concerned that Congress should 
 yield at once to the force of circumstances, and cede the pub- 
 lic domain. His objects in this movement were high and 
 solemn objects. He wished to break down the vassalage of the 
 new States. He desired that this Government should cease 
 to hold the relation of a landlord. He wished, further, to 
 draw this great fund out of the vortex of the Presidential con- 
 test, with which, it had openly been announced to the Senate, 
 there was an avowed design to connect it. He thought the 
 country had been sufficiently agitated, corrupted, and debas- 
 ed by the influence of that contest ; and he wished to take 
 this great engine out of the hands of power. If he were a 
 candidate for the presidency, he mightf desire to leave it 
 there. He wished to go further.: he sought to remove the 
 immense amount of patronage connected with the management 
 of this domain a patronage which had corrupted both the 
 old and the new States to an enormous extent. He sought 
 to counteract the centralism, which was the great danger of 
 this Government, and thereby to preserve the liberties of the 
 people much longer than would otherwise be possible. As to 
 what was to be received for these lands, he cared nothing 
 about it. He would have consented at once to yield the 
 whole, and withdraw altogether the landlordship of the Gen- 
 eral Government over them, had he not believed that it 
 would be most for the benefit of the new States themselves 
 that it should continue somewhat longer. 
 
 These were the views which had induced him to present 
 the amendment. He offered no gilded pill. He threw in no 
 apple of discord. He was no bidder for popularity. He pre-
 
 638 SPEECHES. 
 
 scribed to himself a more humble aim which was, simply to 
 do his duty. He sought to counteract the corrupting ten- 
 dency of the existing course of things. He sought to weaken 
 this Government by divesting it of, at least, a part of the im- 
 mense patronage it wielded. He held that every great landed 
 ed estate required a local administration, conducted by persons 
 more intimately acquainted with local wants and interests 
 than the members of a central government could possibly 
 be. If any body asked him for a proof of the truth of 
 his positions, he might point them to the bill now before the 
 Senate. Such were the sentiments, shortly stated, which 
 had governed him on this occasion. 
 
 [The substitute being rejected, Mr. Calhoun, on the 9th February, 
 introduced the same as a substantive proposition in the form of a bill, 
 and in reply to Mr. Clay, said :] 
 
 That he came here with a fixed resolution to resist all at- 
 tempts at innovation upon our system in relation to the pub- 
 lic lands ; and he might add, with no small hope that he 
 would be successful. 
 
 Mr. C. said he took it as rather unkind, though he was 
 sure it had not been so intended, that the Senator from Ken- 
 tucky should say that there was any analogy between this 
 bill and that from the Committee on the Public Lands, which 
 Mr. C. had strenuously opposed. This measure, reluctantly 
 forced upon him by the necessity of the case, had been intro- 
 duced with a desire to terminate great political evils. He 
 assured that honorable Senator, whatever might be the obli- 
 gation of duty which he felt in opposing this measure, a no 
 less imperative obligation urged him to bring it forward. 
 There is, said Mr. C., too much power here ; the tendency 
 of this Government to centralism is overpowering ; and among 
 the many powerful instruments which can be, and are brought 
 to bear on securing and extending Executive power, this con- 
 trol of the public lands is one of the greatest and most effec-
 
 SPEECHES. 639 
 
 tual. It now gives to any administration disposed so to use 
 it, control over perhaps nine States eight certainly of this 
 Union. These States, so far as the public lands are concern- 
 ed, are the vassals of this Government. We are in the place 
 of a great landlord, and they of tenants ; we have the own- 
 ership and control over the soil they occupy. Can there be 
 any doubt as to how such an ascendency will be used in the 
 present corrupt state of the country ? Is there any doubt 
 as to how it has been used ? or that the influence derived 
 from it is a growing influence ? We must find some reme- 
 dy for such a state of things, or sink under it. It is in vain 
 to tell us, that the Senators from the new States are as capa- 
 ble of giving an independent vote on measures connected with 
 the public lands as those from the old States. It is impos- 
 sible, in the nature of things. Their constituents have that 
 feeling of ownership which is naturally inseparable from the 
 occupation of the soil ; and it must and will control the action 
 of their representatives. 
 
 And now I put it to the bosom of every Senator, whether 
 the mere moneyed income derived from the public domain, is 
 to be compared, for one moment, to the great advantage of 
 putting these Senators on the same independent footing with 
 ourselves ? I look with sympathy upon their condition, and 
 I feel very sure they will be liberated from it with joy. Such, 
 I am very sure, would be my feelings in the like circumstan- 
 ces. So long as there was no attempt to use the control of 
 the public lands for purposes of a political character, their 
 condition was very different ; but, since this has been swept 
 into the great vortex of political influence, their situation is 
 wholly changed. I am for knocking off their chains. Sir, 
 said Mr. C., I have, on a deliberate view of the whole case, 
 entered upon this course, and I am resolved to go for this 
 measure with all my power. I seek not its popularity or in- 
 fluence. I had rather that some other individual had moved 
 in it, as more than one Senator here can bear me witness :
 
 640 SPEECHES. 
 
 but none would move ; and I have therefore determined to 
 proceed. I believe the time has arrived, and I am resolved 
 to go on in the face of all the imputations to which my mo- 
 tives may be liable. I have often done my duty under very 
 difficult circumstances, as all who hear me well know. As to 
 popularity, I despise it. I would not turn on my heel to ob- 
 tain it. It is a fleeting shadow, unworthy of the pursuit of 
 an upright man. No, sir, I move here on a conscientious 
 conviction of high and imperious duty ; and I shall therefore go 
 forward until I have effected my object, if it can be effected. 
 I believe it will prove, in its practical results, a great blessing 
 to the country. I am convinced no stronger measure can be 
 devised for withdrawing the public lands from the great game 
 of political scrambling and gambling for the presidency. 
 
 As to the details of the bill : I am under the impression 
 that the sum demanded from the new States for the cession 
 of these lands should be moderate ; especially considering that 
 they will be charged with the whole trouble and expense of 
 their administration, and that, from the nature of the human 
 mind, they will necessarily have the feeling that they possess 
 a better right to these lands than others, from the fact of 
 their occupancy. The next reason is, that we may prevent 
 any disturbance from a feeling of discontent ; and that the 
 arrangement we make may be viewed as a liberal one, even 
 by the new States themselves. So desirous am I to effect 
 this object, that I will consent to modify this feature of the 
 bill, by inserting almost any rate per cent, which the new 
 States shall, on the whole, deem most prudent and advisable. 
 Another reason why I have set the per cent, at a low rate 
 is, a desire that the plan should operate as a benefit to the 
 new States. I wish to counteract the tendency to running 
 down of the price of land, and to secure its sale at prices cal- 
 culated for the benefit of all parties. To secure this, I have 
 inserted a provision that, if there shall be any departure from
 
 SPEECHES. 641 
 
 this condition of the cession, the grant itself shall be void, so 
 as to make it a judicial question. 
 
 [The bill was further opposed by Mr. Webster, when Mr. Calhoun 
 replied as follows :] 
 
 I must express my regret that this bill should be opposed 
 at this early stage, and in so unusual a manner. As long as 
 I have been a member of this and the other Houee, I cannot 
 recollect more than three or four instances before the present, 
 in which a bill has been opposed at its second reading, and 
 then under very peculiar circumstances. And why, may I 
 ask, is the usual course departed from on tho present occasion ? 
 Why not let this bill receive its second reading and be re- 
 ferred, as other bills are, to a committee, to be considered 
 and reported on ? The reply is, to prevent agitation ; that 
 is, as I understand it, to prevent the feelings of the public 
 from being excited, and its attention directed to this highly 
 important subject. If that be the intention, I tell gentle- 
 men they will fail in their object. The subject is already 
 before the public ; and if my life be spared, I shall keep it 
 there shall agitate it till the public attention shall be roused 
 to a full and thorough investigation of a measure which I 
 firmly believe is not less essential to the interest of the whole 
 Union, than it is to that of the new States. I tell them 
 more ; that the very unusual and extraordinary course they 
 have adopted in opposition to this bill, will but more deeply 
 agitate the public mind, and the more intensely attract its 
 attention to the subject. It will naturally excite the inquiry, 
 Why not let this bill take the ordinary course ? Why not 
 let it go to a committee to investigate its provisions, and 
 present all the arguments for and against it, fully and fairly, 
 so that its merits and demerits, such as they are, may be 
 clearly understood ? Opposition to so reasonable a course 
 will make the impression, that the object is to suppress in-
 
 642 SPEECHES. 
 
 vestigation, whatever may be the motive of gentlemen, and 
 will naturally excite suspicion and more diligent inquiry. 
 
 In making these remarks, I am not ignorant that the 
 merits of the bill are fully open to discussion on the pending 
 question ; but it is impossible that a hasty discussion, at 
 this late stage of the session, and when the time of the Senate 
 is so fully engrossed with other subjects, can be so satisfactory 
 as would be a report in which the views of the majority and 
 minority of the committee, after full consultation, might be 
 calmly and deliberately spread at large before the public. 
 And why not adopt so natural a course ? Besides being more 
 favorable to investigation, it would consume less time; a 
 point of no small importance at the present stage of the 
 session. If referred, the committee would doubtless be so 
 constituted as to comprehend both the friends and opponents 
 of the measure. Among the latter, if my wishes should be 
 consulted, I would be glad to see the name of the Senator 
 from Massachusetts (Mr. Webster), who is so capable of doing 
 full justice to whatever side he undertakes to defend. It is 
 thus that the whole merits of the measure would be fully pre- 
 sented, and, if it be so liable to objection as is supposed, the 
 result might satisfy the new States themselves, that it ought 
 not to be adopted. But if, on the other hand, the argument 
 should prove to be decidedly in its favor, as I firmly and con- 
 scientiously believe, the very agitation which gentlemen seem 
 so much to dread, would be promptly terminated by the 
 adoption of the measure. Thus regarding the subject, I 
 cannot but regret that this bill has not been permitted to 
 take the usual course ; and that I am compelled, in this hasty 
 manner, without premeditation, to reply to the arguments of 
 the Senator from Massachusetts (Mr. Webster), which, after 
 mature deliberation, he has urged with all his force against 
 the measure. I shall begin with my reply to his constitu- 
 tional objections. He holds that the measure is unconsti-
 
 SPEECHES. 643 
 
 tutional, because we have no authority to give away the 
 public lands. 
 
 I do not feel myself obliged to meet this objection. It is 
 not true in fact. The bill makes no gift. It cedes the public 
 lands to the States within which they are respectively sit- 
 uated, subject to various conditions, and among others, that 
 they shall pay over one-third of the gross amount of the sales 
 to the United States ; that they shall surrender all their 
 claims against the Government under the two and three per 
 cent, funds, and take the whole trouble and expense of the 
 management of the land, including the extinguishment of the 
 Indian titles. But I waive this decisive answer. I meet the 
 Senator on his own ground, and with a conclusive argument, 
 as far, at least, as he is concerned. He admits, that it would 
 not be a violation of the constitution for Congress to make a 
 donation of land to an individual. And what, I ask, is there 
 to prevent it from making a donation to two ; to an hundred ; 
 or to a thousand ? and if to them individually, why not to 
 them in the aggregate, as a community or a State ? He, in- 
 deed, admits, that Congress may make a donation of public 
 lands to a State for useful purposes. If to one State, why not 
 to several States to the new States if the measure should 
 be thought to be wise and proper ? If there be a distinction, 
 I acknowledge my intellect is too obtuse to perceive it ; but 
 as the bill makes no gift, I feel under no necessity of 
 pressing the argument further. 
 
 The Senator's next position is, that we have no right to 
 delegate the trust of administering the public domain con- 
 fided to us by the constitution, to the States. Here, again, 
 I may object, that the argument has no foundation in truth. 
 The bill delegates no trust. It makes a concession^ sale 
 of the public lands, to the new States ; and what the Sena- 
 tor calls trusts, are but conditions annexed to the sales con- 
 ditions alike beneficial to them and to the old States. The 
 simple question then is, Can Congress sell public lands to a
 
 644 SPEECHES. 
 
 State ? Suppose the State of Ohio were to offer to pay $1.25 
 an acre for the remnant of the public lands, within her limits, 
 could not Congress sell it to her ? And, if it may sell for 
 $1.25, may it not for a dollar ; for 75 cents ; or a less sum, 
 if it should be deemed the true value ? Again : if Congress 
 can make an absolute sale, may it not make a conditional one ? 
 and if so, why may it not make the disposition proposed in 
 this bill ? That is the question, and I would be glad to have 
 it answered. If I ever had any constitutional scruples on the 
 subject, the arguments of the Senator would have satisfied 
 me that they were without the shadow of foundation. His 
 reasoning faculties are well known ; and if these are the 
 strongest constitutional objections that he can advance, we 
 may be assured, that the bill is perfectly free from all objec- 
 tions of that description. 
 
 Having now dispatched the objections against the consti- 
 tutionality of this bill, I shall next consider the arguments 
 which the Senator urged against its expediency. He says, 
 that I placed the necessity of this bill on the fact of the pas- 
 sage of the land bill reported by the Committee on Public 
 Lands ; and as it was still uncertain whether it would be- 
 come a law, the ground on which the necessity of this bill 
 was based, may yet fail. The Senate will remember the 
 remarks I made on asking leave to introduce this bill, and 
 that I was far from placing it on the simple fact of the pas- 
 sage of that bill. I took broader ground, and rested my 
 motion on the character of the bill and the circumstances 
 which attended its passage through this body. From these, 
 I concluded that the period we all acknowledge must at some 
 time come, had actually arrived, when the public lands with- 
 in the new States should, on proper conditions, be ceded to 
 them. I do not deem it necessary now to go into a discus- 
 sion of the character of the bill, or the history of its passage 
 through the Senate. We all have, no doubt, formed our 
 opinions in relation to both. From all I have seen and
 
 SPEECHES. 645 
 
 heard, I am satisfied, that the bill had not the hearty assent 
 of its supporters, whether from the new or old States ; and 
 I doubt very much whether there was an individual who 
 voted for it, that gave it his hearty approbation. Many who 
 had uniformly opposed all measures of the kind, and who re- 
 presented portions of the Union which had ever been vigilant 
 on all questions connected with the public lands, were found 
 in the ranks of those who supported the bill. The explana- 
 tion is easy. It assumed the character of a party measure, 
 to be carried on party grounds, without reference to the true 
 interests of either the new or old States ; and, if we are to 
 credit declarations made elsewhere, to fulfil obligations con- 
 tracted anterior to the late Presidential election. From all 
 this, I inferred, we had reached the period, when it was no 
 longer possible to prevent the public domains from becom- 
 ing the subject of party contention, and being used by party, 
 as an engine to control the politics of the country. It was 
 this conviction, and not the mere passage of the bill, as the 
 Senator supposes, that induced me to introduce the measure. 
 I saw, clearly, it was time to cut off this vast source of 
 patronage and power, and to place the Senators and Bepre- 
 sentatives from the new States on an equality with those 
 from the old, by withdrawing our local control, and breaking 
 the vassalage under which they are now placed. The Sena- 
 tor from Massachusetts objects to the term, and denies that 
 Congress exercises any local control over those States. I 
 acknowledge that the epithet is strong ; perhaps too much 
 so. I used it to express the strong degree of dependence 
 of the new States on this Government, whose power and 
 patronage are ramified over their whole surface, and whose 
 domains constitute so large a portion of their territory. 
 I certainly did not anticpate that the Senator from Massa- 
 chusetts, or any other, would deny the existence of this de- 
 pendence, or the local control of the Government within 
 their limits. Can any thing be more local than the lands of
 
 646 SPEECHES. 
 
 a State ? and can any State be said to be free from depend- 
 ence on a government, when that government has the ad- 
 ministration of a large portion of its domain ? Is it no 
 hardship that the citizens of the new States should be com- 
 pelled to travel nine or ten hundred miles to this place, and 
 to wait our tardy justice on all claims connected with the 
 public lands ; a subject, in its own nature the most local of 
 all, and which ought, above all others, to be under the 
 charge of the local authorities of the States ? I ask him if 
 he would be willing to see Massachusetts placed in the same 
 relation to this Government ? and, if it were, whether it 
 would not destroy its independence ? I ask him if it must not 
 give a great and controlling influence wherever it exists ? 
 Through its lands, the authority and action of this Govern- 
 ment pervade the whole territory of the new States ; and 
 then 1 citizens become claimants at your doors, session after 
 session, either for favor or justice. I do not say that all this 
 is incompatible with the sovereignty of those States, but I do 
 aver, that it is in derogation of their sovereignty. 
 
 The Senator next objects to this measure, that it would 
 not free Congress from its present difficulties, in reference to 
 the public domain. He says, that we should soon have the 
 new States here, besieging us with memorials to alter the 
 conditions of cession, with all the dependence and difficul- 
 ties of which we now complain. My impression is very dif- 
 ferent. Make the terms liberal, and they will be satisfied. 
 They will relieve Congress from the whole burden of busi- 
 ness, as far as the lands are concerned, which now occupies 
 so much of its time ; and the public councils will no longer 
 be under the dangerous influence inseparable from their 
 management. If, hereafter, a new state of things should 
 arise, and the arrangement proposed in the bill should re- 
 quire revision, it will be for those, who come after us, to 
 apply a remedy ; and I have no fear, but they will do their 
 duty.
 
 SPEECHES. 647 
 
 The senator next insists, that the acquisition of these 
 lands will prove no benefit to the new States, and predicts, 
 that it would involve them in incessant agitation and trouble. 
 Such might be the case, if the cession was absolute ; but the 
 bill contains provisions, which will prove an effectual check 
 against these' difficulties. To place its provisions beyond 
 alteration or attack, it is expressly provided that if they 
 should be violated by the States, the cession itself should be 
 void, and all grants made subsequent thereto, shall be null 
 and of no effect. They are thus placed under the safeguard 
 of the judiciary ; and the courts of the Union will determine 
 on questions growing out of their infraction. For this pur- 
 pose, the cession has assumed the form of a compact, and I 
 feel confident that, under its provisions, the new States would 
 administer the land without agitation or any serious trou- 
 ble or difficulty. If this can be effected, I appeal to the 
 Senators, whether the land within their limits ought not to 
 be under their local administration ? I, for one, feel that we 
 of the old States have not, and cannot have, that full and 
 accurate local knowledge, necessary for their proper manage- 
 ment. Of all the branches of our business, it is that which 
 I least understand. From this defect of information, the 
 Land Committee has it almost exclusively under its sole con- 
 trol, whenever it is so constituted as to attract, in any de- 
 gree, the confidence of the House. This has been the case 
 from the first. I well remember that, when I first took my 
 seat in the other House, Jeremiah Morrow, a member from 
 Ohio, a man of great integrity and good sense, was the Chair- 
 man of the Committee on Public Lands, and was, in fact, 
 the sole legislator on all subjects connected with them ; and 
 in this body we have almost invariably yielded our judgment 
 to the committee, from a conscious want of information. 
 The difficulty is growing from year to year, with the vast 
 increase of the new States and territories, and the growing 
 complication of our land code ; and the consequent increase
 
 648 SPEECHES. 
 
 of business is such, that we already have scarce time to dis- 
 patch it with due attention. In a short time, the increase 
 will be doubled, and what shall we then do ? By passing 
 this bill, we will be wholly relieved from this burden ; and 
 the questions we are now compelled to determine, without 
 adequate knowledge, will then be settled by those whose 
 local knowledge will make them familiar and well acquainted 
 with the subject. 
 
 But, we are told by the Senator, that the public lands 
 have been well administered by the General Government ; 
 and that he cannot surrender his belief, but that they will 
 continue so to be. That they were well administered in the 
 early stages of the Government, while they were not an object 
 of much pecuniary or political interest, I am ready to admit ; 
 but I hold it not less certain, that as the number and popu- 
 lation of the new States increase, and with them the value 
 of the public lands and the political importance of those 
 States, we must become year by year less and less competent 
 to their management, till finally we shall become wholly so. 
 I believe, that we are not now far from that period. Does 
 not the Senator see the great and growing influence of the 
 new States and that it is in the power of any unprincipled 
 and ambitious man from one of them to wield that influence 
 at his pleasure ? Should he propose any measure in relation 
 to the public lands, be it ever so extravagant and dangerous, 
 the members from the new States dare not vote against it, 
 however adverse to the measure. It is useless to disguise 
 the fact, that our possession of so much land in the new 
 States, creates and cherishes an antagonist feeling on their 
 part towards the Government, as to every measure that re- 
 lates to them. They naturally consider your policy as op- 
 posed to their interest, and as retarding their growth and 
 prosperity, great as they are. We must take human nature 
 as it is, and accommodate our measures to it, instead of 
 making the vain attempt to bend it to our measures. We
 
 SPEECHES. 649 
 
 must calculate that the means of control, which this state of 
 things puts into the hands of the ambitious and designing, 
 will not be neglected ; and, instead of idly complaining, let 
 us remove the cause by wise and timely legislation. The 
 difficulties and dangers are daily on the increase. Four 
 years more will probably add three more new States, and six 
 additional Senators, with a great increase of members in the 
 other House ; and, what is more important, a corresponding 
 increase of votes and influence in the electoral college. Can 
 you doubt the consequences ? The public lands, with their 
 immense patronage, will be brought to bear more and more 
 on the action of Congress ; will control the Presidential elec- 
 tion ; and the result will be that he who uses this vast fund 
 of power with the least scruple, will carry away the prize. 
 
 The Senator himself sees and acknowledges the approach 
 of this dangerous period; and agrees, that when it does 
 come, we must surrender the public lands within the new 
 States but is for holding on till it shall have actually ar- 
 rived. My opinion is the reverse. I regard it as one of the 
 wisest maxims in human affairs, that when we see an inevi- 
 table evil, like this, not to be resisted, approaching to make 
 concessions in time, while we can do it with dignity ; and 
 not to wait until necessity compels us to act, and when con- 
 cession, instead of gratitude, will excite contempt. The 
 maxim is not new. I have derived it from the greatest of 
 modern statesmen, Edmund Burke. He urged its adoption 
 on the British Government, in the early stages of our Revolu- 
 tion, and, if the obstinate and infatuated statesman, Lord 
 North, then at the head of affairs, had listened to his warn- 
 ing voice, it may be doubted whether our Revolution would 
 have taken place ; but events were ordered otherwise. The 
 voice of wisdom was unheeded, and the Revolution followed, 
 with all its consequences, which have so greatly changed the 
 condition of the world. 
 
 I have thus hastilv and without the advantage of pre-
 
 650 
 
 vious reflection, replied to the arguments of the Senator from 
 Massachusetts. I would have been much gratified, if a course 
 better suited to the magnitude of the subject, and more 
 favorable for full and deliberate discussion, had been adopted ; 
 but, as it is, I have passed over no argument, as far as I can 
 remember, which he advanced, and, I trust, have replied to 
 none, which I have not successfully refuted. 
 
 I shall now conclude with a few remarks, in reply to the 
 Senator from New Jersey (Mr. Southard). He tells us, 
 that he will not bid for the new States. I regret, said 
 Mr. C., that I do not see him in his place. Does he mean 
 to intimate, that, in introducing this bill, I am bidding for 
 them ? If he does, I throw back the injurious imputation. 
 I indignantly repel the charge. No, Sir, I am not a bidder. 
 What I have done, has been from an honest conviction of 
 duty ; and not less for the benefit of the old than the new 
 States. The measure, I conscientiously believe, would be 
 alike serviceable to both. 
 
 [Mr. Southard, who Lad been absent, here returned to the Cham- 
 ber. Mr. C. seeing him, repeated his remarks, on which Mr. S. dis- 
 claimed having said any thing like what Mr. C. understood him to 
 have said. On which Mr. C. resumed :] 
 
 I am happy to hear it. I felt confident that the Senator 
 could not intend to cast so injurious an imputation on me, 
 and I rejoice to hear from his own lips the frank and honor- 
 able disclosure he has made. 
 
 But I not only believe the measure to be beneficial and 
 expedient, but I firmly believe it to be indispensable, in 
 order to restore the Government to a sound and healthy 
 condition. 
 
 The tendency of our system to centralism, with its ruin- 
 ous consequences, can no longer be denied. To counteract 
 this, its patronage must be curtailed. There are three great 
 sources to which its immense patronage may be mainly
 
 SPEECHES. 651 
 
 traced, and by which the Government is enabled to oxert 
 such an immense control over public opinion the public 
 lands, the post-office, and the currency. The first may be 
 entirely removed. This bill will cut it up, root and branch. 
 ,By a single stroke we would not only retrench this growing 
 and almost boundless source of patronage, but also free our- 
 selves from the pressure of an immense mass of business, 
 which encumbers our legislation, and divides and distracts 
 our attention ; and this would be done without impairing, hi 
 the long run, our pecuniary resources. In addition, the 
 measure would place the Senators from the new States on 
 the same equal and independent footing in this chamber 
 with ourselves. In such results who would not rejoice ? 
 The Senators from the new States would especially have 
 cause to rejoice in the change. Believe them from the de- 
 pendent condition of their States, and they would be found 
 in the front ranks, sustaining the laws and the constitution 
 against the encroachment of power. 
 
 But the Senator from New Jersey tells us that we have 
 no power to pass this bill, as it would be in violation of the 
 ordinance, which makes the public land a common fund for 
 benefit of all the States ; and that we, as trustees, are bound 
 to administer it strictly in reference to the object of the 
 trust. In reply, I might ask the Senator how he can recon- 
 cile his construction of the ordinance with the constant prac- 
 tice of the Government, in which, if I mistake not, it has 
 been sustained by his vote ? How many grants have been 
 made out of the public domain to colleges, academies, asy- 
 lums for the deaf and dumb, and other institutions of like 
 character ? If such concession be consistent with the pro- 
 visions of the ordinance, what prevents this bill from being 
 so also ? But I rest not my reply on that ground. I meet 
 the Senator according to his interpretation of the ordinance. 
 I assert boldly that the disposition this bill proposes to make 
 of the portion of the public domain within the new States, is
 
 652 SPEECHES. 
 
 the very best, under existing circumstances, that can be made 
 regarding it in reference to the common interest of all the 
 States. Let it be borne in mind, that all sides agree the 
 new States will soon be able to command their terms, when 
 others less favorable to the common interest may be imposed. 
 If we of the old States make it a point to hold on to the last, 
 they will, by a necessary reaction, make a point to extort all 
 they can when they get the power. But if we yield in time, 
 a durable arrangement may be made, mutually beneficial and 
 satisfactory to both parties. 
 
 The Senator further objects, that if this bill should pass, 
 its provisions would be extended, from necessity, to all the 
 States which may hereafter be admitted into the Union. I 
 must say, I see no such necessity ; but my present impres- 
 sion is, that such would be the course that wisdom would 
 dictate. According to my mode of thinking, all the revenue 
 we may derive from the sales of lands in a State, after its 
 admission, is not to be compared in importance to its inde- 
 pendence as a sovereign member of the Union ; for there is 
 no danger of the falling of our institutions for the want of 
 pecuniary means, while there is no small danger of their over- 
 throw from the growing and absorbing attraction of this 
 central power. 
 
 END OF VOL. n. 
 
 2 58
 
 UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA LIBRARY 
 
 Los Angeles 
 This book is DUE on the last date stamped below. 
 
 1NTERL13RARY LOANS 
 
 DEC 9 1974 
 
 TWO WEEKS FROM DATE OF RECEIK 
 NON-RENEWA 
 
 Form L9-Series 444 
 
 OCT 1 1 ?004< 
 
 * /304 
 
 URL 
 
 IX)S ANGEl 
 LIBRARY