Abbildungen der Seite
PDF
EPUB

New political combinations were formed, and resulted in an alliance between the east and the west, of which that system formed the basis. A new light burst in on the senator. A sudden thought struck him ; but not quite as disinterested as that of the German sentimentalist. He made a complete summerset, heels over head; went clear over; deserted the free-trade side in a twinkling, and joined the restrictive policy; and then cried out that he could no longer act with me, whom he left standing where he had just stood, because I was too sectional! With a few contortions and slight choking, he even gulped down, a few years after, the bill of abomination-the tariff of 1828.

But he had done what was still more surprising. Oppression under the tariff of 1828 had become intolerable to the south. Something must be done promptly. But one hope was left short of revolution, and that was in the states themselves, in their sovereign capacities as parties to the constitutional compact. Fortunately one of the members of the union was bold enough to interpose her sovereign authority, and to declare the protective tariff unconstitutional, and therefore null and void within her limits. We all remember what followed. The proclamation was issued; and the war message and force bill succeeded : and the state armed to maintain her constitutional rights. How did the senator act in this fearful crisis? A sudden thought again struck him. He again, in a twinkling, forgot the past, rushed over into the arms of power, and became the champion of the most violent measures to enforce laws which he had pronounced unconstitutional and oppressive.

Mr. Calhoun then proceeded to defend his own course, and to show that it had not been sectional. While the senator from Massachusetts had not given a vote to promote the interests of the south, he (Mr. Calhoun) had never withheld his support from measures calculated to promote the interests of the north, except the tariff and certain appropriations, which he deemed unconstitutional; and he mentioned his constant support of the navy; his resistance to the embargoes, non-importation and non-intercourse acts; his generous course in support of manufactures that sprung up during the war, in which his friends thought he had gone too far; to the liberal terms on which the tariff controversy had been settled, and the fidelity with which he had adhered to it; and the system of fortifications for the defense of our harbors which he had projected and commenced, and which were so important to the two great interests of commerce and navigation, in which Mr. Webster's section had so deep a stake. He had also been quite as liberal to the west as the senator; and, passing over other instances, he mentioned his proposition to cede public lands to the new states. He said he had intended to compare their conduct in relation to the late war with Great Britain, but he would not recur to these by.gone events, unless the senator should provoke him to it.

Mr. Webster, in reply, asked, why the gentleman had alluded to his votes or opinions at all, respecting the war, unless he had something to say. Did he wish to leave an impression that something had been done or said that was incapable of defense or justification ? He would leave an impression that he had opposed it. How? He was not in congress when the war was declared, nor in public life anywhere. He came into congress during the war. Did he oppose it? Let the gentleman look to the journals, or tax his memory. Let him bring up any thing showing want of loyalty or fidelity to the country. He did not agree to all that was proposed, nor did the gentleman. As a private individual, he certainly did not think well of the embargo and the restrictive measures which preceded the war; and the senator was of the same opinion.

When he came to congress, he found the gentleman a leading member of the house. One of the first measures of magnitude was Mr. Dallas? proposition for a bank. It was a war measure-urged as being absolutely necessary to carry on the war. The member from South Carolina opposed it. He (Mr. W.) agreed with him. It was a mere paper banka mere machine for fabricating irredeemable paper. He made a speech against it which had often been quoted. If he had been seduced into error, the gentleman himself, who took the lead against the measure, was his seducer. The gentleman had also adverted to the navy. He had said, and said truly, that, at the commencement of the war, was unpopular. It was so with the gentleman's friends who then controlled the politics of the country. But he said he differed with his friends, and advocated the navy. And, said Mr. W., "I commend him for it. He showed his wisdom. That gallant little navy soon fought itself into favor, and showed that no man who had placed reliance on it, had been disappointed. In this, I was exactly of the same opinion with the honorable gentleman.”

In reply to the charge of Mr. Calhoun, that Mr. Webster had also proved himself unfriendly to the south, by his not voting his resolutions on slavery, Mr. W. said, if he was for that to be regarded as an enemy to the south, be it so. He could not purchase favor by the sacrifice of conscientious convictions. The principal resolution declared, that congress had plighted its faith not to interfere, either with slavery or the slave trade, in the District of Columbia. This he did not believe; therefore he could not vote for the proposition.

In regard to the tariff, Mr. W. said : " He charges me with inconsisteney. I will state the facts. Let us begin at the beginning. In 1816, I voted against the tariff law which then passed. In 1824, I again voted against the tariff law which was then proposed, and which passed. A majority of New England votes, in 1824, was against the tariff system. The bill received but one vote from Massachusetts; but it passed.

the navy

The policy was established; New England acquiesced in it; conformed her business and pursuits to it; embarked her capital and employed her labor, in manufactures; and I certainly admit that, from that time, I have felt bound to support interests thus called into being and into importance, by the settled policy of the government. I have stated this often here, and often elsewhere. The ground is defensible, and I maintain it.

What is there in all this for the gentleman to complain of? Would he have us always oppose the policy adopted by the country on a great question ? Would he have minorities never submit to the will of majorities ?

“I remember to have said at the meeting in Faneuil hall, that protection appeared to be regarded as incidental to revenue, and the incidents could not be carried fairly above the principal: in other words, that duties ought not to be laid for the mere object of protection. I believe that, if the power be inferred only from the revenue power, the protection could only be incidental. But I have said in this place before, and I repeat, that Mr. Madison's publication after that period, and his declaration that the convention did intend to grant the power of protection, under the commercial clause, placed the subject in a new and clear light. I will add, sir, that a paper drawn up by Dr. Franklin, and read by him to a circle of friends in Philadelphia, on the eve of the assembling of the convention, respecting the powers which the proposed new government ought to possess, shows, perfectly plain, that, in regulating commerce, it was expected congress would adopt a course which should, to some degree, protect the manufactures of the north. He certainly went into the convention himself under that conviction."

Mr. W. adverted to a declaration of Mr. C., that they had always differed on great constitutional questions. He said : “Sir, this is astounding

He means that he has always given to the constitution a construction more limited, better guarded, less favorable to the extension of the powers of this government, than that which I have given to it. He has always interpreted it according to the strict doctrine of state rights!

Sir, is there a man in my hearing, who ever heard, supposed, or dreamed, that the honorable member belonged to the state rights party before the year 1825 ? * The truth is, sir, the honorable gentleman had acted a very important and useful part during the war. In the fall of 1815, the 14th congress assembled. It was full of ability; and the gentleman stood high among its distinguished members. . . . During that congress he took a decided lead in all those great measures which he has since so often denounced as unconstitutional and oppressive—the bank, the tariff, and internal improvements. ... He was a full length ahead of all others in mea

a

sures which were national, and which required a broad and liberal construction of the constitution."

The tariff, Mr. W. said, was a South Carolina measure, as the votes would show, and was intended for the benefit of South Carolina interests. Even the minimum, that subject of so much wrathful rhetoric, was of southern origin, and had a South Carolina parentage. And next, as to the doctrine of internal improvements, that other usurpation, that other oppression, which had come so near to justifying violent abruption of the government, and scattering the union to the four winds. Said Mr. W.: “ It is an indisputable truth, that he is himself the man—the ipse that first brought forward, in congress, a scheme of general internal improvement, at the expense, and under the authority of this government.” The bank was chartered in 1816. For the privilege of the charter, the proprietors paid one and a half million dollars; and the government took seven millions of the stock of the bank. Early in the next session, December, 1816, the gentleman moved to set apart this bonus and the bank stock as a permanent fund for internal improvements; and was chairman of the committee, and reported a bill accordingly. This bill went the whole doctrine, at a single jump, and announced internal improvement as one of the objects of this government, on a grand and systematic plan. He went even beyond Timothy Pickering, who, having offered an amendment requiring the money “to be applied in constructing such roads, canals, &c., in the several states, as congress might direct, with the assent of the states," the gentleman immediately moved to strike out the words, with the assent of the states.” He advocated both the policy of internal improvement, and the power of congress over the subject : and the bill passed the house with the amendment of Mr. Pickering with these words retained. [Note K.]

The debate did not end here. We cannot, however, extend this sketch, which has already exceeded the limits intended. But as few American statesmen have ever attained a higher eminence, or borne a more important part in the government, than Clay, Calhoun, and Webster, any political history which did not properly present their principles and acts during their long public career, would, it was thought, be materially defective.

A joint resolution virtually repealing the specie circular of July, 1836, was passed, May 31, 1838, hy large majorities in both houses, and became a law by the approval of the president. The resolution declared, " That it shall not be la 'vful for the secretary of the treasury to make or to continue in force, any general order which shall create any difference between the different branches of revenue, as to the money or medium of payment in which debts or dues, accruing to the United States, may

a

[ocr errors]

be paid.” At the time of issuing the circular, in 1836, no treasury notes were in existence; consequently, at the time of passing the above resolution, not even these notes, previously issued, were receivable for public lands. By this act, all payments to the government might be made either in specie, treasury notes, or the bills of specie paying banks. By acts of April and June, 1836, however, no bank notes of any denomination less than twenty dollars, nor those of any bank issuing notes or bills of a less denomination than five dollars, were to be received. A circular to this effect was issued from the treasury department to all receivers and collectors of public money, the day after the passage of the resolution above mentioned.

а

CHAPTER LVII.

ANNEXATION OF TEXAS. - SPEECHES OF PRESTON AND ADAMS.--PROPOSI

TION WITHDRAWN BY TEXAS.

The recognition of the independence of Texas at the last session of congress, (1836–37,) and the application of that republic for annexation to the United States, furnished new aliment to the anti-slavery excitement. To the petitions for the abolition of slavery in the District of Columbia, were now added remonstrances against the annexation of Texas. Resolutions were passed by the legislatures of several states, to the same effect. In some states, legislative resolutions were adopted in favor of annexation.

Mr. Preston, senator from South Carolina, said these memorials were known to come from a particular quarter, and from a particular class of politico-philanthropists. He therefore gave notice, that he should feel himself compelled to introduce a proposition, at an early day, for the annexation of Texas to the union. Accordingly, on the 4th of January, 1838, he offered the following:

" Whereas, the just and true boundary of the United States under tho treaty of Louisiana, extended on the south-west to the Rio Grande del Norte, which river continued to be the boundary line until the territory west of the Sabine was surrendered to Spain by the treaty of 1819;

“And whereas such surrender of a portion of the territory of the United States is of evil precedent and doubtful constitutionality;

“And whereas many weighty considerations of policy make it expedient to reëstablish the said true boundary, and to reännex to the United

« ZurückWeiter »