may

Beyond that I seek not to penetrate the veil. God grant that in my day, at least, that curtain may not rise. God grant that on my vision never may be opened what lies behind. When my eyes shall be turned to behold for the last time the sun in heaven, I not see him shining on the broken and dishonored fragments of a once glorious union; on states dissevered, discordant, belligerent; on a land rent with civil feuds, or drenched, it may be, in fraternal blood! Let their last feeble and lingering glance rather behold the gorgeous ensign of the republic, now known and honored throughout the earth, still full high advanced, its arms and trophies streaming in their original lustre, not a stripe erased or polluted, nor a single star obscured, bearing for its motto no such miserable interrogatory as, "What is all this worth?" nor those other words of delusion and folly, “Liberty first, and Union afterwards;" but everywhere, spread all over in characters of living light, blazing on all its ample folds, and as they float over the sea and over the land, and in every wind under the whole heavens, that other sentiment, dear to every true American heart Liberty and Union, now and forever one and inseparable.

JOHN CALDWELL CALHOUN.

Joh. Caldwell Calhoun was born in Abbeville District, S. C., March 18, 1782. His early instruction was received at home; but at the age of nineteen he was induced to commence classical study, and in two years he was admitted into the junior class in Yale College. He was a remarkable scholar, and the vigor and maturity of his mind gave abundant promise of his future eminence. He studied law and commenced practice in his native place, but soon abandoned his profession for a public career. After two terms of service in the state legislature he was elected a member of Congress, where he took his seat in November, 1811. His attitude towards the party in power was a wholly independent one, and he was as often allied with the opposition as with the administration. Thus, while he was an ardent advocate for the war with Great Britain, he was an early friend of internal improvements, and an advocate for a United States bank. Upon the accession of Monroe to the presidency, Mr. Calhoun was made secretary of state. As a member of the cabinet he warmly opposed the conduct of General Jackson in his Florida campaign, and at the next general election, which resulted in favor of Adams, having maintained a neutrality between the rival candidates, he was himself elected vice-president. The youthful reader will need to be reminded that this took place when the electoral college was a substantial body chosen to elect the president and vice-president, and before "national conventions" and “general tickets" had been invented to turn one of the provisions of the Constitution into a quadrennial farce.

Mr Calhoun was again elected vice-president in 1828. It was during this period that the country was divided between the rival theories of "protection" and "free trade,” and that South Carolina resolved to "nullify" the acts of the general government, and to forci.

bly prevent the collection of duties on imported goods within her boundaries. This course of proceeding was undoubtedly inspired by Calhoun, who was the great advocate of "State Rights; " and in the brilliant debate that occurred between Colonel Hayne, of South Carolina, and Mr. Webster, of Massachusetts, the real object of the latter's attack was the vicepresident in the chair. The conflict between the state and nation, as is known, was avoided by a compromise in 1833, which was the enactment of a tariff bill with a sliding scale of duties, under which protection was to cease in ten years.

Mr. Calhoun, being elected to the Senate again, joined with Clay in his attack upon President Jackson for removing the deposits of public money into the custody of certain designated banks. He was the author of the bill proposing to punish postmasters for admitting anti-slavery documents into the mai.s. He advocated the admission of Texas, and opposed the admission of Michigan. When, in the financial crisis of 1837, all the banks suspended specie payments, he separated from the whigs on the bank question, and supported the proposition of President Van Buren for the establishment of an independent treasury. On this occasion there was a renowned passage-at-arms between him and Clay; the speeches on both sides are the best specimens of oratory of these great rivals. Having left the Senate in 1843, Mr. Calhoun was, in 1844, appointed secretary of state by President Tyler, when he immediately negotiated the annexation of Texas, and promised to place our forces on the border to repel any invasion from Mexico. The annexation was not actually consummated, however, until the coming in of President Polk.

In 1845 Mr. Calhoun appeared again in the Senate, and strongly opposed the war with Mexico, provoked by the annexation of Texas, at least so far as carrying it on by the invasion of Mexican territory. He attacked the Wilmot Proviso, prohibiting slavery in any territory that should be acquired from Mexico, and, so far from temporizing on the great question that divided the north and the south, advocated the policy of "forcing the issue with the north. With these convictions he labored incessantly to unite southern statesmen in order to check the rising power of the northern states; and, when the contest upon the Compromise measures of 1850 came, he prepared a speech advocating radical changes in the constitution in order to establish an equilibrium between the two sections. He was unable to deliver it, and died shortly after, March 31, 1850.

The intellect of Calhoun was best shown in the discussion of abstract principles, and in carrying out, with logical directness, his constructions of constitutional law. Slavery was the corner-stone of his ideal commonwealth, and the doctrine of state rights, with a rigid limitation of the powers of the Federal government, was the only effectual bulwark of slavery. While others pursued the tortuous course of expediency, his movements were in a right line. With one great and controlling principle in view, he did not care what politician's schemes he crossed, or with which party his action for the time chanced to coincide. For his personal popularity he cared as little as he did for the views of opponents. Well was he named the "Iron Man," for of all the statesmen of his era he had the clearest vision, the most remorseless logic (granting his premises) and the most unswerving determination of purpose. As may be inferred, the style of the orator was in harmony with the nature of the man. Imagination, fancy, grace, and the arts of rhetoric had no place in his intellectual system. But his arguments always set the strongest of his adversaries to thinking, and left friends and foes alike with a feeling of admiration for his power. His private life was without stain, and his home, where he was the biblical patriarch, was always a hospitable and pleasant resort. His works, with a memoir by Richard K. Crallé, have been published in six volumes.

[From the speech on the Force Bill, in the Senate, February, 1833.]

STATE SOVEREIGNTY.

NOTWITHSTANDING all that has been said,

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 individuals? Is the sovereignty in the several states, or in the American people in the aggregate? The very language which we are compelled to use when speaking of our political institutions affords proof conclusive as to its real character. The 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 Massachusetts, 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 constitutional compact, and not of a divided sovereignty between the states severally and the United States. In spite of all that has been said, I maintain that sovereignty is in its 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 conditions 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. Clayton] calls this metaphysical reasoning, which, he says, he cannot comprehend. If by metaphysics he means that scholastic refinement which makes distinctions without difference, 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 complex idea into its elements, which traces causes to their first principle, and, by the power of generalization and combination, 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 sagacity, 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 forever 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. Denunciation may, indeed, fall upon the philosophical inquirer into these first principles, as it did upon Galileo and Bacon when they first unfolded the great discoveries which have immortalized their names; but the time wil! 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.

[From a speech in reply to John Randolph in favor of a war with Great Britain, delivered in Congress, 1811.]

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 unalterable 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 understandings, 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 satisfied 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, by the express admission of the gentleman from Virginia; and recessary, 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 professedly undertake to regulate our trade with other nations; negotiation resorted to, again and again, till it is become hopeless; 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 commercial 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 alternative 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 submission

to wrongs.

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 endeavor to remedy so serious an evil? Let him not say, "I have acted in a minority." It is no less the duty of the minority 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 expense of the war, and that the people will not pay taxes.

Why not? Is it from want of means? What, with a million tons of shipping, a commerce of a hundred million dollars annually, manufactures yielding a yearly product of a hundred and fifty million dollars, 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 will it not have the disposition? Is not the cause a just and necessary one? Shall we then utter this libel on