were, in fact, exclusively through the State, then, indeed, it might have been true that "it belongs to the State as a member of the Union, in her sovereign capacity in convention, to determine definitely, as far as her citizens are concerned, the extent of the obligation which she has contracted; and if, in her opinion, the act exercising the power [in dispute] be unconstitutional, to declare it null and void, which declaration would be obligatory on her citizens." The federal government is floating in the air without a straw of its own to rest upon, the sport of the sovereign fancies of the States. "Not a provision can be found in the Constitution authorizing the general government to exercise any control whatever over a State by force, by veto, by judicial process, or in any other form, a most important omission, designed, and not accidental." And the actual state of the case corresponds with the right, for "it would be impossible for the general government, within the limits of the States, to execute, legally, the act nullified, while, on the other hand, the State would be able to enforce, legally and peaceably, its declaration of nullification." Yet nullification is declared to be "the great conservative principle" of the Union.

Undoubtedly, there is method in this madness, but madness it is nevertheless; for the whole

-

(theory is neither more nor less than the systematization of anarchy. The Union is constructed upon the principle that the essence of the idea State, the supremacy of the will which has to act for the whole, that is, in a free State, the government of the laws, is by principle excluded from its structure. If there ever was an illustration of the "tragedy of Hamlet with the part of Hamlet left out," here it is. This vast republic, to which the future belonged more than to any other state of the globe, was to be a shooting star, a political monster without a supreme will, because this could be lodged nowhere with safety. The resort to force"should folly or madness ever make the attempt "would be utterly vain, if at all possible, for "it would be . . . a conflict of moral, not physical, force." This moral force, however, was also but a rope of sand, if a sovereign State should so will it. Even a decision by three fourths of the States would by no means be unconditionally binding upon all the members of the Union. "Should the other members undertake to grant the power nullified, and should the nature of the power be such as to defeat the object of the association or union, at least as far as the member nullifying is concerned, it would then become an abuse of power on the part of the principals, and thus present a

case where secession would apply." The Union was to have laws only so long and just so far as every constituent member of it was pleased to submit to them. In his great political testament, the "Disquisition on Government," Calhoun directly says, "Nothing short of a negative, absolute or in effect, on the part of the government [!] of a State can possibly protect it against the encroachments of the united government of the States, whenever [] their powers come in conflict." And as even this might prove not to be a sufficient protection, each State was to have, in the form of the right of secession, a most absolute veto against all its co-States. What a nice checker-board the United States might become, if the exercise of this right should get to be the political fashion! Suppose the States at the mouths of the great streams, and four or five others commanding a part of their navigable waters, should secede, what a pretty picture the map of the United States would present! Why, the German Bund of by-gone days would have had a most formidable rival. Calhoun himself would have turned with disgust and contempt from the idea of thus bridging over the craggy actualities of life with the cobwebs of an over-subtle logic, if he had conceived the possibility of his theory being ever put into practice in this manner. It

seemed to him so plausible only because he was fully conscious of the fact that, if it were ever put to the test, the Union would split into two solid geographical sections. Never would he have stultified his intellect by this ingenious systematization of anarchy, if he could not have written,

“ Who, of any party, with the least pretension to candor, can deny that on all these points [the great questions of trade, of taxation, of disbursement and appropriation, and the nature, character, and power of the general government] se deeply important, no two distinct nations can be more opposed than this [the staple States] and the other sections?

CHAPTER V.

THE SENATE.

ON November 24 the South Carolina convention passed the nullification ordinance, which was to take effect on February 1, 1833. Calhoun at once resigned the vice-presidency, in order to take the seat in the United States Senate, vacated by General Hayne, who had been elected Governor of South Carolina. Hundreds of eyes closely scrutinized the face of the "great nullifier" as he took the oath to support the Constitution, but the firm repose of his countenance dispelled all doubts of his sincerity. His personal courage, however, was seriously questioned by many. Benton and others assure us that he finally yielded, because he had been informed that Jackson had threatened to hang him as high as Haman. This dramatic anecdote has been repeated so often that the mass of the American people have come to believe it as an undoubted historic fact. That Jackson may have uttered some such threat is probable enough, but Calhoun never betrayed such a weakness of nerves as to justify a sus