out debate. Northern Senators, anxious to give the South all reasonable support, felt, out of regard for their own political safety at home, that Calhoun's extreme demands were more onerous than he ought to impose. But he would not swerve from his purpose. The stifling of discussion was not what his haughty spirit desired. He invoked the Constitution as the sufficient guarantee of security to slavery, and insisted that the time had come to make a test of the Senate's disposition toward the South. His resolutions were the means.

CHAPTER X

The Debate on Calhoun's Slavery Resolutions and Clay's Substitutes-The Independent Treasury again Defeated-Minor Financial Legislation— The Doctrine of Instructions-The Subsidiary Coin-Clay's Set Speech on the Slavery Question and Calhoun's Comments-Clay's Northern Tour The Obstacles to His Nomination-The Whig National Convention-Harrison and Tyler Nominated-Clay's Disgust and Acquiescence

CALHOUN's resolutions were designed to embrace the entire legal status of slavery and to furnish a complete “platform" of its Constitutional rights. The essential propositions of the first three were that in the adoption of the Constitution the States acted as free, independent, and sovereign, and "entered the Union with the view to its increased security and against all dangers, domestic as well as foreign, and the more perfect enjoyment of its advantages, natural, political, and social"; that they "retained, severally, the exclusive and sole right over their own domestic institutions and police, and are alone responsible for them, and that any intermeddling of any one or more States, or a combination of their citizens, with the domestic institutions and police of the others, on any ground or under any pretext whatever, political, moral, or religious, with the view to their alteration or subversion, is an assumption of superiority not warranted by the Constitution, insulting to the States interfered with, tending to endanger their domestic peace and tranquillity, subversive of the objects for which the Constitution was formed, and by necessary consequence tending to weak

en and destroy the Union itself"; that the government was instituted by "the several States" as a common agent to carry into effect the powers they had delegated by the Constitution; "and that in fulfilment of this high and sacred trust this government is bound so to exercise its powers as to give, as far as may be practicable, increased stability and security to the domestic institutions of the States that compose the Union; and that it is the solemn duty of the gov ernment to resist all attempts by one portion of the Union to use it as an instrument to attack the domestic institutions of another, or to weaken or destroy such institutions instead of strengthening and upholding them, as it is in duty bound to do."

These three resolutions formed the groundwork of general principles applied in the remaining resolutions. They contained the ultra doctrine of States-rights, and Calhoun's familiar theory of the formation and character of the Union. Yet they encountered little opposition for that reason. The first was adopted, 31 to 13. The second received some slight verbal amendment, and the words “insulting to the States interfered with" were stricken out. An effort was also made to strike out the words "moral and religious," but it was unsuccessful, for Calhoun earnestly maintained that they were vital. Webster criticised the resolution as being too broad and too vague and “at variance with the correct interpretation of the Constitution," although he admitted the necessity of some definite action on the subject by Congress. "If the resolutions," said he, "can be modified to meet the Constitutional requisitions, asserting that the Constitution permits slavery and protects the institution, I will then vote for them. An assertion here that the Constitution cannot meddle with domestic institu

CH. X.] CALHOUN'S RESOLUTIONS CONSIDERED

383

tions, if supported, utterly deprives it of power or effect." The second resolution was adopted, 31 to 9.

The third evoked more discussion. The objection was urged that it was not the duty of the government to increase the stability and security of the domestic institutions of the States or to strengthen and uphold them. The argument in behalf of this objection was so cogent and so generally entertained that Calhoun acquiesced, and the clauses were eliminated. A proviso was then proposed asserting that the resolutions should not be construed as adverse to "these fundamental principles of this government: That all men are created equal; that they are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights; that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. That the freedom of speech and of the press and the right of the people peacefully to assemble and petition the government for redress of grievances shall never be abridged. That error of human opinion may be tolerated while reason is left free to combat it. That the Union must be preserved." Calhoun vigorously protested, and at length a substitute was adopted declaring that "nothing in the foregoing resolutions is intended to recognize the right of Congress to impair in any manner the freedom of speech or of the press or the right of petition as secured by the Constitution to the citizens of the several States, within their States respectively." Presumably Calhoun regarded it as harmless because of the last phrase, which fell short of the express provision of the Constitution. An addition was then moved that "the right of the people to speak, write, print, and publish anything whatever is indisputable; and that they are amenable only to the State in which they may be at the time."

By this time the spirit of opposition began to manifest

itself more strongly; and many of the Senators who were willing to vote for the resolutions expressed their disapproval of the whole proceeding, as likely to produce more harm than good. To these criticisms Calhoun replied with intense earnestness, asserting that the Senate did “not sufficiently comprehend the extent and magnitude of the existing dangers." He pointed them out with truth that grated on the political sensibilities of the Senators. Disunion was the spectre that he kept constantly before their eyes. His independent position left him free to bend his energies to the defence of Southern interests, without regard to ulterior political considerations. Clay wrote that Calhoun's aim was "to advance the political interest of the mover and to affect mine"; but there is no good ground to suppose that in this course Calhoun had any political purpose apart from the cause he represented. His entire conduct was the reverse of politic, and it may be safely assumed that he was governed by the belief that it was necessary to take positive action in support of slavery as the only method of protection. The motion was defeated. It was followed by another to strike out the words "the several States" and insert "the people of the United States." This was intended to counteract Calhoun's basic theory. In regard to it Clay remarked: "If the Senator will frame his amendment according to the historical fact in the adoption of the Constitution I will vote for it. The historical fact is that the Constitution was adopted by the people of the several States, acting within their respective limits." This motion

"I am greatly deceived," he continued, "if in both respects he has not signally failed. He was caught in his own trap."-Clay to Brooke, January 13, 1838.

In a subsequent speech on this subject he said. "With regard to the point so much insisted upon in this debate, and which has produced great