Mr. Calhoun had a right to bring the whole pressure of the slave States on a congressional vote on any question.  He could say, as the Irish members of Parliament say, “Unless you do this or that we will obstruct the wheels of government, and thus compel the consideration of our grievances, so long as we hold the balance of power between contending parties.”  But it is quite another thing for the Irish legislators to say, “Unless you do this or that, we will secede from the Union,” which Ireland could not do without war and revolution.  Mr. Calhoun, in his onesidedness, entirely overlooked the fact that the discontented States could not secede without a terrible war; for if there is one sentiment dear to the American people, it is the preservation of the Union, and for it they will make any sacrifice.

And the same may be said in reference to Calhoun’s nullification doctrines.  He would, if he could, have taken his State out of the Union, because he and the South did not like the tariff.  He had the right, as a Senator in Congress, to bring all the influence he could command to compel Congress to modify the tariff, or abolish it altogether.  And with this he ought to have been contented.  With a solid South and a divided North, he could have compelled a favorable compromise, or prevented any legislation at all.  It is legitimate legislation for members of Congress to maintain their local and sectional interest at any cost, short of disunion; only, it may be neither wise nor patriotic, since men who are supposed to be statesmen would by so doing acknowledge themselves to be mere politicians, bound hand and foot in subjection to selfish constituents, and indifferent to the general good.

Mr. Calhoun became blind to general interests in his zeal to perpetuate slavery, or advance whatever would be desirable to the South, indifferent to the rest of the country; and thus he was a mere partisan, narrow and local.  What made him so powerful and popular at the South equally made him to be feared and distrusted at the North.  He was a firebrand, infinitely more dangerous and incendiary than any Abolitionist whom he denounced.  Calhoun’s congressional career was the opposite of that of Henry Clay, who was more patriotic and more of a statesman, for he always professed allegiance to the whole Union, and did all he could to maintain it.  His whole soul was devoted to tariffs and internal improvements, but he would yield important points to produce harmony and ward off dangers.  Calhoun, with his State-sovereignty doctrines, his partisanship, and his unscrupulous defiance of the Constitution, forfeited his place among great statesmen, and lost the esteem and confidence of a majority of his countrymen, except so far as his abilities and his unsullied private life entitled him to admiration.

AUTHORITIES.