were made, all felt satisfied, and the Convention cordially approved of his course. The nullification ordinance was repealed, and the two parties in the state abandoned their organizations, and mutually agreed to forget all their past differences—a pledge which, to their honor be it said, was faithfully observed.

Thus terminated this important controversy, which for a time threatened the integrity of the Union. It is, perhaps, too soon to form a correct judgment in regard to the events of this conflict between State Rights and Consolidation. Nullification, it has been said, was "a little hurricane while it lasted;" but it cooled the air, and "left a beneficial effect on the atmosphere." Its influence was decidedly healthful. The nullifiers certainly achieved a triumph, for they procured a recognition, not immediate but ultimate, of the correctness of their doctrines; and the result of this great contest, more than aught else, laid the foundation of that approbation of the State Rights creed which is now so general a sentiment, and paved the way for the eventual success of the principles of Free Trade.

CHAPTER X.

Removal of the Deposits-Opposition of Mr. Calhoun to the Jackson Administration-Course in Regard to the Bank-Executive Patronage-Reelected to the Senate-Abolition Excitement-Speech on the Reception of Abolition Petitions-Admission of Michigan-Separation of the Government from the Banks-Speech of Mr. Calhoun -Reply to Mr. Clay.

ONE of the most powerful reasons-and, perhaps, irrespective of personal feelings, the controlling onethat influenced Mr. Calhoun in taking a position adverse to the administration of General Jackson, was the favor at first shown toward the protective policy. But this important subject having been disposed of for the present by the passage of the Compromise Bill, it became a serious question among politicians, as to what would be the future course of Mr. Calhoun. The friends of the administration party claimed to represent, and so far as great and leading principles were concerned, they did in fact represent, the old Republican party of which Jefferson and Madison were the founders. The opposition in turn insisted that they were the only true disciples of the school to which those illustrious statesmen belonged, and they had several years previous assumed the name of "National Republicans." Had Mr. Calhoun consulted his early predilections, he would undoubtedly have waived all the considerations personal to himself, on the overthrow of

the protective policy, and again united with his Republican friends, not, it may be, as a partisan of the administration, but as a supporter of the principles of their common creed.

But just at this time a new and exciting question was thrown into the sea of politics, now subsiding from its troubled state to one of calm and repose, and again its waters were agitated with the fury of the tempest. In 1832, the bill to recharter the United States Bank was vetoed by President Jackson, and at the ensuing election he was again chosen the chief magistrate of the nation. This decision of the American people in his favor, as it was construed by himself and his friends, emboldened him to urge forward measures which he had probably long had in contemplation; and this he was the better able to do, in consequence of the adjustment of the tariff' question.

That General Jackson was a firm patriot-sincerely attached to the liberties and the institutions of his country, none can deny. Mr. Calhoun did not question this, but under the influence of the personal animosity which had been kindled, and the strong bias which induced him to look with disfavor on everything emanating from the administration, he thought he saw an attempt on the part of the president to strengthen the executive power and patronage, and to wield the influence which these gave him for corrupt purposes. Much as the views of the former may have been colored by prejudice, he was sincere in his convictions, and he was more confirmed in them by the removal of the deposits from the Bank of the United States in the fall of 1833, by order of President Jackson.

When Congress assembled in December of that year, this question was the engrossing topic of discussion, and throughout the whole session it was the main subject of debate. The friends of the administration did not deny that it was a high-handed act, but they justified it on the score of necessity. They charged that the Bank had leagued with stock interests and politicians to control the elections; that it had spent large sums of money to that end and to secure its recharter; and that it was no longer a safe depository of the public moneys. These charges were not then sustained by such proof as admitted of no question or dispute, though there was much to uphold them, and they were afterward proven to be true on the final failure of the Bank, as rechartered by the state of Pennsylvania.

Mr. Calhoun, therefore, was not satisfied of the truth of the charges: he took them as not proven; and believing the removal of the deposits to be inconsistent with the provisions of law requiring or directing the public funds to be collected, distributed, and kept, through and by the Bank as the fiscal agent of government, he looked upon this proceeding as a gross act of executive usurpation. This seemed to him to be more obvious because the president had recommended the removal at the previous session of Congress, but that body had refused by a strong vote to approve of his recommendation. It is true, however, that a new House of Representatives had since been chosen who were favorable, as the sequel showed, to the removal of the deposits.

In December, 1833, Mr. Clay introduced resolutions into the Senate censuring the president in the severest

terms, and declaring that he had assumed authority and power not conferred by the Constitution and laws, but in derogation of both. This resolution, together with another condemning the Secretary of the Treasury for making the removal, received the support of Mr. Calhoun. Yet he was no friend to the Bank, and in an able speech delivered on the 13th of January, 1834, he declared that the real question was not, as was insisted by the friends of the administration, "Bank or no Bank." "Taking the deposit question in the broadest sense," he said; "suppose, as it is contended by the friends of the administration, that it involves the renewal of the charter, and, consequently, the existence of the Bank itself, still the banking system would stand almost untouched and unimpaired. Four hundred banks would still remain scattered over this wide republic, and on the ruins of the United States Bank many would rise to be added to the present list. Under this aspect of the subject, the only possible question that would be presented for consideration would be, whether the banking system was more safe, more beneficial, or more constitutional, with or without the United States Bank.

"If," continued 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 magnitude; and, with my present impression, long entertained and daily increasing, 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 soundness and tendency of the whole system, in all its modifications.