JOHN CALDWELL CALHOUN 1782-1850 John Caldwell Calhoun was born in South Carolina, his family having removed thither from the place of their original settlement in Pennsylvania. In them the Scotch and Irish blood mingled, and was disciplined by the rigors of the Presbyterian faith. Strong brain and deep-burning ardor were in Calhoun welded into severe form by the severity of religious training; and to this he added, by dint of persistent labor, the advantages of a college education. In spite of his poverty, he entered Yale, and graduated with the highest honors. His mind seems always to have been mature and serious, and occupied with the most important questions of practical politics. He was ushered into the world by the last echoes of the Revolution, in 1782; and died, eleven years before that other war the coming of which he foresaw, in 1850. His graduation_took place in 1804, and he immediately entered the law school at Litchfield, Connecticut, and was admitted to the bar in 1807. The law, however, was not his true mistress, though, as so often happens, she was to be the means of his introduction to the more exciting intimacy of politics. Only a year after he had opened his little office in Abbeville he was called to the State legislature, and served his term there. So notable were his services there, that when the Congressional session of 1811 began, Calhoun was found in his seat as representative from South Carolina. His public life was passed in Washington from that time till the end, a span of forty years. He was Secretary of War in the Cabinet of President Monroe, in 1817; and was elected Vice-President of the United States in 1825, when John Quincy Adams came into power, retaining that office through Jackson's first term. In 1832, he became Senator, and held his seat till 1843; the following year, with Tyler as the executive, he accepted the portfolio of Secretary of State. Finally, in 1845, he resumed his place in the Senate, and there, five years later, his career and his life came to an end. He was one of the three great statesmen of that wonderful generation which produced Clay, Webster, and himself. Three men of larger calibre never sat together in the same legislative assembly; there were many in Congress during their period who, under any ordinary circumstances, would have been considered great; but these giants caused them to dwindle into mediocrity by contrast. In the great drama of our politics these three played their parts in a way to make the world marvel, not merely at their oratory, but at their general political ability. No dramatist could have selected characters more diverse one from another, or better calculated to set off one another's points. Calhoun was the strongest of the three; but he was pledged to a losing cause, and though he was worshipped by the people of his own section, whose battle he so valiantly fought, he did not make the impression upon the imagination of the nation as a whole that was effected by his two rivals. Had Calhoun's lot been cast in a different environment, he might have shown greater breadth of political sympathies than, as a matter of fact, he did or could. But the question of State rights, which was fated finally to divide the country against itself, found its strongest accentuation among the people of South Carolina; and Calhoun was their champion. The flaw inherent in our constitution, and logically inseparable from it, had now made itself apparent, and must needs be dealt with. It was brought into prominence by the slavery question; slaveholding seemed indispensable to economic conditions in the South, while the North, differently situated, allowed its moral disapprobation towards the practice to abound. Hereupon loomed up the great problems: how was a division to be made between free and slaveholding States, in the rapid expansion of the country; and how was a State to be checked from retaining what institutions it pleased within its own boundaries? State rights and slavery went together; and the constitution might be interpreted to favor either party to the dispute. Never was there a prettier quarrel for statesmen to sharpen their wits over; and it created the men to do battle for it. They worked and argued as no men ever did before; but after all was said and done, they were unable to settle the matter; and nothing was left at the end of their labors but the arbitrament of the sword. Clay sought compromises, and Webster appealed to the moral obligations of union and patriotism; but Calhoun devoted himself singly to defending slavery and State rights. This concentration of so powerful a mind upon one object gave him an enormous force; and the close and unrelenting logic with which he buttressed his claims could not be successfully met by his opponents. As arguments, indeed, they still remain unanswered. In other words, it was impossible to frame a State upon a strictly logical basis. There must be a give-and-take, an inconsistency, in order that the State might live. The States must be free, or the health of the country would be destroyed; and yet their freedom must not interfere with the higher freedom of the nation, or the Union would crumble to pieces and be at the mercy of political highwaymen at home and abroad. But Calhoun stood to his point; were the States to be free, or only nominal entities, forming the body corporate of a despotism? He would tolerate no beating about the bush; and upon that issue he fought to the death. He was a most impressive figure, with his long, striking face of ghastly pallor, his straight hair falling down on either side of his cheeks, his flaming eyes, and his manner of imposing dignity. His voice was somewhat shrill, but was as effective as if it had the volume of Niagara, from the intense earnestness which vibrated in it, and the gestures which accompanied its utterances. There was nothing tropical in Calhoun's phraseology; but it possessed rather the firmness and rigidity of the crystal, close, hard, and symmetrical, and often heated to a white glow by the furnace of controlled passion from which it came. His speech on "The Increase of the Army" is characteristic, showing, as it does, his profound statesmanship and accurate knowledge of public issues. INCREASE OF THE ARMY Delivered in the House of Representatives of the United States, on December 12, 1811 MR R. SPEAKER: I understood the opinion of the Committee on Foreign Relations differently from what the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Randolph) has stated to be his impression. I certainly understood that the committee recommended the measures now before the House, as a preparation for war; and such, in fact, was its express resolve, agreed to, I believe, by every member, except that gentleman. I do not attribute any wilful misstatement to him, but consider it the effect of inadvertency or mistake. Indeed, the report could mean nothing but war or empty menace. I hope no member of this House is in favor of the latter. A bullying, menacing system, has everything to condemn and nothing to recommend it. In expense, it almost rivals war. It excites contempt abroad, and destroys confidence at home. Menaces are serious things; and ought to be resorted to with as much caution and seriousness, as war itself; and should, if not successful, be invariably followed by it. It was not the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Grundy) who made this a war question. The resolve contemplates an additional regular force; a measure confessedly improper but as a preparation for war, but undoubtedly necessary in that event. Sir, I am not insensible to the weighty importance of the proposition, for the first time submitted to this House, to compel a redress of our long list of complaints against one of the belligerents. According to my mode of thinking, the more serious the question, the stronger and more unalterable ought to be our convictions before we give it our support. War, in our country, ought never to be resorted to but when it is clearly justifiable and necessary; so much so, as not to require the aid of logic to convince our understandings, nor the ardor of eloquence to inflame our passions. There are many reasons why this country should never resort to war but for causes the most urgent and necessary. It is sufficient that under a government like ours, none but such will justify it in the eyes of the people; and were I not satisfied that such is the present case, I certainly would be no advocate of the proposition now before the House. Sir, I might prove the war, should it ensue, justifiable, by the express admission of the gentleman from Virginia; and necessary, by facts undoubted, and universally admitted; such as he did not pretend to controvert. The extent, duration, and character of the injuries received; the failure of those peacful means heretofore resorted to for the redress of our wrongs, are my proofs that it is necessary. Why should I mention the impressment of our seamen; depredations on every branch of our commerce, including the direct export trade, continued for years, and made under laws which professedly undertake to regulate our trade with other nations; negotiation resorted to, again and again, till it is become hopeless; the restrictive system persisted in to avoid war, and in the vain expectation of returning justice? The evil still grows, and, in each succeeding year, swells in extent and pretension beyond the preceding. The question, even in the opinion and by the admission of our opponents, is reduced to this single point, Which shall we do, abandon or defend our own commercial and maritime rights, and the personal liberty of our citizens employed in exercising them? These rights are vitally attacked, and war is the only means of redress. The gentleman from Virginia has suggested none, unless we consider the whole of his speech as recommending patient and resigned submission as the best remedy. Sir, which alternative this House will embrace, it is not for me to say. I hope the decision is made already, by a higher authority than the voice of any man. It is not for the human tongue to instil the sense of independence and honor. This is the work of nature; a generous nature that disdains tame submission to wrong. This part of the subject is so imposing as to enforce silence even on the gentleman from Virginia. He dared not deny his country's wrongs, or vindicate the conduct of her enemy. Only one part of his argument had any, the most remote relation to |