It is Dorrism. Rhode Island has had some experience of what that is,—and the last man I should suspect of advocating this doctrine as applied to the Union, is the Senator from Rhode Island. It is bad enough when applied to a State, but when applied to our Union, it is ruinous. The true idea of a constitutional government is the reverse; a government of the whole, a government which should fairly and fully express the sense of every portion, and thereby the sense of the whole, and not one that expresses simply the voice of the numerical majority, or the numerical minority. Either of them would be the government of a part over a part, and not the government of the whole.

Now let me tell the Senator, that the doctrines which we advocate are the result of the fullest and most careful examination of our system of government, and that our conviction, that we constitute an Union, and not a Nation, is as strong and as sincere as that of the Senator, or any other in the opposite opinion. We are as good judges of our interest and safety, and the means of preserving them, as the non-slaveholding States are of theirs, and rather better than they can be of

ours.

The argument which the Senator based on the annexation of Texas, clearly proves how far the mind may be deflected from sound conclusions by a partial view of the subject. He asks, where I, as a strict constructionist, find any right to annex Texas to the Union.

[MR. SIMMONS. I said that this movement began on the part of this Government to prohibit the abolition of slavery in a foreign nation, and I desired to know the constitutional authority for that?]

MR. CALHOUN, I intended so to state the position of the Senator. A "foreign nation," then-that is, Texas. He asks, then, where I would find my authority in the constitution for that measure? The Senator must remember that the British Minister himself, Lord Aberdeen-whom I greatly

respect as a man and as a statesman-had the candor to send us a communication to be read by the British Minister to the Secretary of State, which office I then filled, announcing that their object was not only to see slavery abolished in Texas, but in the United States and throughout the world. Now I think nothing is clearer than this, that the United States are bound, under the highest guarantee, to protect the States of the Union against domestic violence, be it what it may-and that, being thus bound, whenever it is within the sphere of their power to take measures to prevent the causes leading to it. This Government has the exclusive control of our foreign relations, and is of course bound to take measures to prevent the operation of any cause originating in a foreign state, and which may in its consequences threaten to disturb the internal peace and security of any of the States of this Union-or to express it more strictly, to guard against the exciting of domestic violence from abroad.

The only question then is whether the movement contemplated by Great Britain in Texas, would not, if permitted to be carried out, lead to insurrectionary movements almost necessarily in Louisiana and the other States bordering on Texas? Was it not then specially the duty of this Government, when it was informed from an authentic source, that the American delegates to the World's Convention had informed that body that the most effectual mode to abolish slavery in America, was to abolish it in Texas, and that then was the time for doing it, was it not, I ask, our duty to take effectual steps to counteract it—especially was it not, when it was known that a committee was appointed by the convention to wait on Lord Aberdeen on the subject, and that it had received a favorable response? Add to this the communication from Lord Aberdeen above referred to, and I ask the Senator, whether a case is not made out, when this Government-under the solemn guarantee of the constitution, entered into by all the States, to protect the government of

each other against domestic violence-was not bound to adopt the most efficient measures to prevent the policy of the British Government in reference to Texas, and which must have ended in insurrectionary movements in the neighboring States, from being carried into effect? I also ask how could that have been effected but by the course which was adopted?

A word as to our motives. If we are opposed to the course of policy which the non-slaveholding States have announced that they are determined to pursue in reference to slavery, and the interpretation of the constitution on which they are prepared to rest that determination-judging by the remarks of the Senator-our opposition rests on the ground that they will be ruinous to us, if not effectually resisted. We know what we are about; we foresee what is coming, and move with no other purpose but to protect our portion of the Union from the greatest of calamities-not insurrection, but something worse. I see the end, if the process is to go on unresisted it is to expel in time the white population of the Southern States, and leave the blacks in possession. I see beyond what the Senator sees, because he has not viewed the subject from the proper point. I have moved my resolutions from no party view-no design to embarrass any side-but simply that the slaveholding States, which I in part represent, shall know what is the sense of this body in reference to their constitutional rights touching this important point. If you believe we have none, tell us so. If we are doomed to remain for ever restricted to our present numbers, whilst the other States are to spread out and fill the continent, tell us So. Let us know the worst. We love and revere the Union; it is the interest of all-I might add the world-that our Union should be preserved; but the conservative power is in the slaveholding States. They are the conservative portion of the country. Where wages command labor, as in the non-slaveholding States, there necessarily takes place between labor and capital a conflict, which leads, in process of

time, to disorder, anarchy and revolution, if not counteracted by some appropriate and strong constitutional provision.

Such is not the case in the slaveholding States. There labor and capital are identified. There the high profit of labor but increases the means of the master to add to the comfort of his slaves; and hence in all conflicts which may occur in the other portions of the Union between labor and capital, the South will ever be found to take the conservative side. Thus regarded, the non-slaveholding States have not much less interest, fairly understood, in upholding and preserving the equilibrium of the slaveholding States, than the latter themselves have. I was, in this connection, much struck many years ago by a remark made by one of four young English gentlemen, who in passing through this city spent some evenings with me-of whom Lord Stanley was one. We were conversing about the causes which, for so long a time, had kept this Union together in peace and harmony. It was regarded as a wonderful phenomenon, that a country of such vast extent and of such numerous population, should have passed through so many years under free and popular institutions, without convulsion or a shock. Lord Stanley— without any suggestion or leading remark of mine-said that it was owing to the Southern States, and that it was their conservative tendency that preserved us from disorder. Let gentlemen then be warned, that while warring on us, they are warring on themselves. Acting thus on the defensive, and restricting ourselves simply to repelling attacks, I regard it as hard-as unjust, that we should be accused of creating excitement, whilst those who have brought forward these aggressive measures, are held up in quite a different lightas the advocates of harmony and quiet. If excitement has been created, they, and not we, are the authors. We mean none and will cause none; all we ask is to be let alone; -but if trampled upon, it will be idle to expect that we will not resist it.

SPEECH

In Reply to Mr. Benton, of Missouri; delivered in the Senate, February 24, 1847.

ONE thing, Mr. President, at least, may be inferred from the unprovoked attack of the Senator, and the great solicitude he evinced to trace the authorship of the war to meand that is, that the war is unpopular. There can be no mistake. He felt that the tide of public sentiment had turned against it,—and hence the anxiety exhibited to place its responsibility on my shoulders, and take it from those on whom it ought justly to rest. Had he supposed the opposite-had he believed that the war was necessary and unavoidable, and that its termination would be successful—I am the last man to whom he would attribute any agency in causing it. I am gratified that the Senator has furnished this evidence. It affords reasonable hope, that those who are responsible for it will exert themselves, and I hope with success, to bring it to a speedy termination.

He traces the authorship to me, because, as he asserts, I am the real author of the annexation of Texas, and that annexation is the real cause of the war. I trust, Mr. President, there will be no dispute hereafter as to who is the real author of annexation. Less than twelve months since, I had many competitors for that honor: the official organ here claimed, if my memory serves me, a large share for Mr. Polk and his administration, and not less than half a dozen competitors from other quarters claimed to be the real authors. But now, since the war has become unpopular, they all seem to agree that I, in reality, am the author of annexation. I will not put the honor aside. I may now rightfully and indisputably claim to be the author of that great measure—a measure which has so much extended the domains of the