COLLOQUY VIII.

CALHOUN ON THE CONSTITUTION-COMMENTS.

MR. STEPHENS. Following your example, I said I would read Mr. Calhoun's speech in reply to the main and leading ideas of Mr. Webster in the speech made by him which you have just read.

Here is that reply of Mr. Calhoun, or so much as bears upon the points at issue between them. It was delivered in the Senate, on the 26th of February, 1833.*

"The Senator from Massachusetts," said Mr. Calhoun, "in his argument against the Resolutions, directed his attack almost exclusively against the first; on the ground, I suppose, that it was the basis of the other two, and that, unless the first could be demolished, the others would follow of course. In this he was right. As plain and as simple as the facts contained in the first are, they cannot be admitted to be true without admitting the doctrines for which I, and the State I represent, contend. He commenced his attack with a verbal criticism on the Resolution, in the course of which he objected strongly to two words, 'Constitutional' and 'accede.' To the former, on the ground that the word, as used (Constitutional Compact), was obscure-that it conveyed no definite meaning-and that Constitution was a noun-substantive, and not an adjective. I regret that I have

* Niles's Register, vol. xliii, Sup., p. 259.

exposed myself to the criticism of the Senator. I certainly did not intend to use any expression of doubtful sense, and if I have done so, the Senator must attribute it to the poverty of my language, and not to design I trust, however, that the Senator will excuse me, when he comes to hear my apology. In matters of criticism, authority is of the highest importance, and I have an authority of so high a character, in this case, for using the expression which he considers so obscure and so unconstitutional, as will justify me even in his eyes. It is no less than the authority of the Senator himself-given on a solemn occasion (the discussion on Mr. Foote's Resolution), and doubtless with great deliberation, after having duly weighed the force of the expression."

[Here Mr. Calhoun read from Mr. Webster's speech, in the debate on the Foote Resolutions, in 1830.]

"Nevertheless, I do not complain, nor would I countenance any movement to alter this arrangement of representation. It is the original bargain-the Compact-let it stand-let the advantage of it be fully enjoyed. The Union itself is too full of benefits to be hazarded in propositions for changing its original basis.

I

go for the Constitution, as it is, and for the Union, as it is. But I am resolved not to submit, in silence, to accusations, either against myself, individually, or against the North, wholly unfounded and unjust-accusations which impute to us a disposition to evade the CONSTITUTIONAL COMPACT, and to extend the power of the Government over the internal laws and domestic condition of the States.'

"It will be seen by this extract," proceeded Mr. Calhoun, "that the Senator not only used the phrase 'Constitutional Compact,' which he now so much condemns, but, what is still more important, he calls the Constitu

tion a Compact-a bargain-which contains important admissions, having a direct and powerful bearing on the main issue, involved in the discussion, as will appear in the sequel. But, strong as his objection is to the word 'Constitutional,' it is still stronger to the word 'accede,' which, he thinks, has been introduced into the Resolution with some deep design, as I suppose, to entrap the Senate into an admission of the doctrine of State Rights. Here, again, I must shelter myself under authority. But I suspect the Senator, by a sort of instinct (for our instincts often strangely run before our knowledge), had a prescience, which would account for his aversion for the word, that this authority was no less than Thomas Jefferson himself, the great apostle of the doctrines of State Rights. The word was borrowed from him. It was taken from the Kentucky Resolution, as well as the substance of the resolution itself. But I trust I may neutralize whatever aversion the authorship of this word may have excited in the mind of the Senator, by the introduction of another authority-that of Washington, himself—who, in his speech to Congress, speaking of the admission of North Carolina into the Union, uses this very term, which was repeated by the Senate in their reply. Yet, in order to narrow the ground between the Senator and myself as much as possible, I will accommodate myself to his strange antipathy against the two unfortunate words, by striking them out of the Resolution, and substituting, in their place, those very words which the Senator himself has designated as Constitutional phrases. In the place of that abhorred adjective 'Constitutional,' I will insert the very noun substantive 'Constitution; and, in the place of the word 'accede,' I will insert the word 'ratify,' which he designates as the prope term to be used.

"As proposed to be amended, the Resolution would read:

"Resolved, That the people of the several States conposing these United States are united as parties to a Compact, under the title of the Constitution of the United States, which the people of each State ratified as a separate and Sovereign community, each binding itself by its own particular ratification; and that the Union of which the said Compact is the bond, is a Union between the States ratifying the same.'

"Where, sir, I ask, is that plain case of revolution? Where that hiatus, as wide as the globe, between the premises and the conclusion, which the Senator proclaimed would be apparent, if the Resolution was reduced into Constitutional language? For my part, with my poor powers of conception, I cannot perceive the slightest difference between the Resolution, as first introduced, and as it is proposed to be amended in conformity to the views of the Senator. And, instead of that hiatus between the premises and conclusion, which seems to startle the imagination of the Senator, I can perceive nothing but a continuous and solid surface, sufficient to sustain the magnificent superstructure of State Rights. Indeed, it seems to me that the Senator's vision is distorted by the medium through which he views every thing connected with the subject; and that the same distortion which has presented to his imagination this hiatus, as wide as the globe, where not even a fissure exists, also presented that beautiful and classical image of a strong man struggling in a bog, without the power of extricating himself, and incapable of being aided by any friendly hand; while, instead of strug gling in a bog, he stands on the everlasting rock of

truth.

"Having now noticed the criticisms of the Senator, I shall proceed to meet and repel the main assault on the Resolution. He directed his attack against the strong point, the very horn of the citadel of State Rights. The Senator clearly perceived that, if the Constitution be a Compact, it was impossible to deny the assertions contained in the Resolutions, or to resist the consequences which I had drawn from them, and, accordingly, directed his whole fire against that point; but, after so vast an expenditure of ammunition, not the slightest impression, so far as I can perceive, has been made. But to drop the simile, after a careful examination of the notes which I took of what the Senator said, I am now at a loss to know whether, in the opinion of the Senator, our Constitution is a Compact or not, though the almost entire argument of the Senator was directed to that point. At one time he would seem to deny directly and positively that it was a Compact, while at another he would appear, in language not less strong, to admit that it was

"I have collated all that the Senator has said upon this point; and, that what I have stated may not appear exaggerated, I will read his remarks in juxtaposition. He said that:

"The Constitution means a Government, not a Com pact.' 'Not a Constitutional Compact, but a Government.' 'If Compact, it rests on plighted faith, and the mode of redress would be to declare the whole void.' 'States may secede, if a League or Compact.'

"I thank the Senator for these admissions, which I intend to use hereafter.

"The States agreed that each should participate in the Sovereignty of the other.'

"Certainly, a very correct conception of the Constitution; but where did they make that agreement but by