DEBATE BETWEEN MR. CLAY AND MR. CALHOUN REJOINDERS BY EACH.
MR. CLAY:--"As to the personal part of the speech of the senator
from South Carolina, I must take the occasion to say that no man
is more sincerely anxious to avoid all personal controversy than
myself. And I may confidently appeal to the whole course of my life
for the confirmation of that disposition. No man cherishes less than
I do feelings of resentment; none forgets or forgives an injury
sooner than I do. The duty which I had to perform in animadverting
upon the public conduct and course of the senator from South
Carolina was painful in the extreme; but it was, nevertheless, a
public duty; and I shrink from the performance of no duty required
at my hands by my country. It was painful, because I had long
served in the public councils with the senator from South Carolina,
admired his genius, and for a great while had been upon terms of
intimacy with him. Throughout my whole acquaintance with him, I
have constantly struggled to think well of him, and to ascribe to
him public virtues. Even after his famous summerset at the extra
session, on more than one occasion I defended his motives when he
was assailed; and insisted that it was uncharitable to attribute to
him others than those which he himself avowed. This I continued to
do, until I read this most extraordinary and exceptionable letter:
[Here Mr. Clay held up and exhibited to the Senate the Edgefield
letter, dated at Fort Hill, November 3, 1837:] a letter of which I
cannot speak in merited terms, without a departure from the respect
which I owe to the Senate and to myself. When I read that letter,
sir, its unblushing avowals, and its unjust reproaches cast upon
my friends and myself, I was most reluctantly compelled to change
my opinion of the honorable senator from South Carolina. One so
distinguished as he is, cannot expect to be indulged with speaking
as he pleases of others, without a reciprocal privilege. He cannot
suppose that he may set to the right or the left, cut in and out,
and _chasse_, among principles and parties as often as he pleases,
without animadversion. I did, indeed, understand the senator to
say, in his former speech, that we, the whigs, were unwise and
_unpatriotic_ in not uniting with him in supporting the bill under
consideration. But in that Edgefield letter, among the motives which
he assigns for leaving us, I understand him to declare that he could
not 'back and sustain those in such opposition, in whose wisdom,
firmness, and patriotism, I have no reason to confide.'
"After having written and published to the world such a letter as
that, and after what has fallen from the senator, in the progress
of this debate, towards my political friends, does he imagine that
he can persuade himself and the country that he really occupies, on
this occasion, a defensive attitude? In that letter he says:
"'I clearly saw that our bold and vigorous attacks had made
a deep and successful impression. State interposition had
overthrown the protective tariff, and with it the American
system, and put a stop to the congressional usurpation; and the
joint attacks of our party, and that of our old opponents, the
national republicans, had effectually brought down the power of
the Executive, and arrested its encroachments for the present.
It was for that purpose we had united. True to our principle of
opposition to the encroachment of power, from whatever quarter
it might come, we did not hesitate, after overthrowing the
protective system, and arresting legislative usurpation, to join
the authors of that system, in order to arrest the encroachments
of the Executive, although we differed as widely as the poles on
almost every other question, and regarded the usurpation of the
Executive but as a necessary consequence of the principles and
policy of our new allies.'
"State interposition!--that is as I understand the senator from
South Carolina; nullification, he asserts, overthrew the protective
tariff and the American system. And can that senator, knowing what
he knows, and what I know, deliberately make such an assertion here?
I had heard similar boasts before, but did not regard them, until I
saw them coupled in this letter with the imputation of a purpose on
the part of my friends to disregard the compromise, and revive the
high tariff. Nullification, Mr. President, overthrew the protective
policy! No, sir. The compromise was not extorted by the terror of
nullification. Among other more important motives that influenced
its passage, it was a compassionate concession to the imprudence
and impotency of nullification! The danger from nullification
itself excited no more apprehension than would be felt by seeing a
regiment of a thousand boys, of five or six years of age, decorated
in brilliant uniforms, with their gaudy plumes and tiny muskets,
marching up to assault a corps of 50,000 grenadiers, six feet high.
At the commencement of the session of 1832, the senator from South
Carolina was in any condition other than that of dictating terms.
Those of us who were then here must recollect well his haggard
looks and his anxious and depressed countenance. A highly estimable
friend of mine, Mr. J. M. Clayton, of Delaware, alluding to the
possibility of a rupture with South Carolina, and declarations of
President Jackson with respect to certain distinguished individuals
whom he had denounced and proscribed, said to me, on more than one
occasion, referring to the senator from South Carolina and some of
his colleagues, "They are clever fellows, and it will never do to
let old Jackson hang them." Sir, this disclosure is extorted from me
by the senator.
"So far from nullification having overthrown the protective policy,
in assenting to the compromise, it expressly sanctioned the
constitutional power which it had so strongly controverted, and
perpetuated it. There is protection from one end to the other in
the compromise act; modified and limited it is true, but protection
nevertheless. There is protection, adequate and abundant protection,
until the year 1842; and protection indefinitely beyond it. Until
that year, the biennial reduction of duties is slow and moderate,
such as was perfectly satisfactory to the manufacturers. Now, if
the system were altogether unconstitutional, as had been contended,
how could the senator vote for a bill which continued it for nine
years? Then, beyond that period, there is the provision for cash
duties, home valuations, a long and liberal list of free articles,
carefully made out by my friend from Rhode Island (Mr. KNIGHT),
expressly for the benefit of the manufacturers; and the power of
discrimination, reserved also for their benefit; within the maximum
rate of duty fixed in the act. In the consultations between the
senator and myself in respect to the compromise act, on every point
upon which I insisted he gave way. He was for a shorter term than
nine years, and more rapid reduction. I insisted, and he yielded.
He was for fifteen instead of twenty per cent. as the maximum duty;
but yielded. He was against any discrimination within the limited
range of duties for the benefit of the manufacturers; but consented.
To the last he protested against home valuation, but finally gave
way. Such is the compromise act; and the Senate will see with what
propriety the senator can assert that nullification had overthrown
the protective tariff and the American system. Nullification! which
asserted the extraordinary principle that one of twenty-four members
of a confederacy, by its separate action, could subvert and set
aside the expressed will of the whole! Nullification! a strange,
impracticable, incomprehensible doctrine, that partakes of the
character of the metaphysical school of German philosophy, or would
be worthy of the puzzling theological controversies of the middle
ages.
"No one, Mr. President, in the commencement of the protective
policy, ever supposed that it was to be perpetual. We hoped
and believed that temporary protection extended to our infant
manufactures, would bring them up, and enable them to withstand
competition with those of Europe. We thought, as the wise French
minister did, who, when urged by a British minister to consent
to the equal introduction into the two countries of their
respective productions, replied that free trade might be very well
for a country whose manufactures had reached perfection, but was
not entirely adapted to a country which wished to build up its
manufactures. If the protective policy were entirely to cease in
1842, it would have existed twenty-six years from 1816, or 18 from
1824; quite as long as, at either of those periods, its friends
supposed might be necessary. But it does not cease then, and I
sincerely hope that the provisions contained in the compromise act
for its benefit beyond that period, will be found sufficient for
the preservation of all our interesting manufactures. For one, I
am willing to adhere to, and abide by the compromise in all its
provisions, present and prospective, if its fair operation is
undisturbed. The Senate well knows that I have been constantly in
favor of a strict and faithful adherence to the compromise act.
I have watched and defended it on all occasions. I desire to see
it faithfully and inviolably maintained. The senator, too, from
South Carolina, alleging that the South were the weaker party, has
hitherto united with me in sustaining it. Nevertheless, he has left
us, as he tells us in his Edgefield letter, because he apprehended
that our principles would lead us to the revival of a high tariff.
"The senator from South Carolina proceeds, in his Edgefield letter,
to say:
"'I clearly perceived that a very important question was
presented for our determination, which we were compelled to
decide forthwith: shall we continue our joint attack with the
nationals on those in power, in the new position which they have
been compelled to occupy? It was clear that, with our joint
forces, we could utterly overthrow and demolish them. But it was
not less clear that _the victory would enure not to us_, but
exclusively to the benefit of our allies and their cause.'
"Thus it appears that in a common struggle for the benefit of our
whole country, the senator was calculating upon the party advantages
which would result from success. He quit us because he apprehended
that he and his party would be absorbed by us. Well, what is to be
their fate in his new alliance? Is there no absorption there? Is
there no danger that the senator and his party will be absorbed by
the administration party? Or does he hope to absorb that? Another
motive avowed in the letter, for his desertion of us, is, that
'it would also give us the chance of effecting what is still more
important to us, the union of the entire South.' What sort of an
union of the South does the senator wish? Is not the South already
united as a part of the common confederacy? Does he want any other
union of it? I wish he would explicitly state. I should be glad,
also, if he would define what he means by the South. He sometimes
talks of the plantation or staple States. Maryland is partly a
staple State. Virginia and North Carolina more so. And Kentucky and
Tennessee have also staple productions. Are all these States parts
of _his_ South? I fear, Mr. President, that the political geography
of the senator comprehends a much larger South than that South
which is the object of his particular solicitude; and that, to find
the latter, we should have to go to South Carolina; and, upon our
arrival there, trace him to Fort Hill. This is the disinterested
senator from South Carolina!
"But he has left no party, and joined no party! No! None. With the
daily evidences before us of his frequent association, counselling
and acting with the other party, he would tax our credulity too much
to require us to believe that he has formed no connection with it.
He may stand upon his reserved rights; but they must be mentally
reserved, for they are not obvious to the senses. Abandoned no
party? Why this letter proclaims his having quitted us, and assigns
his reasons for doing it; one of which is, that we are in favor of
that national bank which the senator himself has sustained about
twenty-four years of the twenty-seven that he has been in public
life. Whatever impression the senator may endeavor to make without
the Senate upon the country at large, no man within the Senate,
who has eyes to see, or ears to hear, can mistake his present
position and party connection. If, in the speech which I addressed
to the Senate on a former day, there had been a single fact stated
which was not perfectly true, or an inference drawn which was not
fully warranted, or any description of his situation which was
incorrect, no man would enjoy greater pleasure than I should do in
rectifying the error. If, in the picture which I portrayed of the
senator and his course, there be any thing which can justly give
him dissatisfaction, he must look to the original and not to the
painter. The conduct of an eminent public man is a fair subject for
exposure and animadversion. When I addressed the Senate before, I
had just perused this letter. I recollected all its reproaches and
imputations against us, and those which were made or implied in
the speech of the honorable senator were also fresh in my memory.
Does he expect to be allowed to cast such imputations, and make
such reproaches against others without retaliation? Holding myself
amenable for my public conduct, I choose to animadvert upon his,
and upon that of others, whenever circumstances, in my judgment,
render it necessary; and I do it under all just responsibility which
belongs to the exercise of such a privilege.
"The senator has thought proper to exercise a corresponding
privilege towards myself; and, without being very specific, has
taken upon himself to impute to me the charge of going over upon
some occasion, and that in a manner which left my motive no
matter of conjecture. If the senator mean to allude to the stale
and refuted calumny of George Kremer, I assure him I can hear it
without the slightest emotion; and if he can find any fragment of
that rent banner to cover his own aberrations, he is perfectly
at liberty to enjoy all the shelter which it affords. In my case
there was no going over about it; I was a member of the House of
Representatives, and had to give a vote for one of three candidates
for the presidency. Mr. Crawford's unfortunate physical condition
placed him out of the question. The choice was, therefore,
limited to the venerable gentleman from Massachusetts, or to the
distinguished inhabitant of the hermitage. I could give but one
vote; and, accordingly, as I stated on a former occasion, I gave the
vote which, before I left Kentucky, I communicated to my colleague
[Mr. CRITTENDEN], it was my intention to give in the contingency
which happened. I have never for one moment regretted the vote
I then gave. It is true, that the legislature of Kentucky had
requested the representatives from that State to vote for General
Jackson; but my own immediate constituents, I knew well, were
opposed to his election, and it was their will, and not that of the
legislature, according to every principle applicable to the doctrine
of instructions, which I was to deposit in the ballot-box. It is
their glory and my own never to have concurred in the elevation of
General Jackson. They ratified and confirmed my vote, and every
representative that they have sent to Congress since, including my
friend, the present member, has concurred with me in opposition to
the election and administration of General Jackson.
"If my information be not entirely incorrect, and there was any
going over in the presidential election which terminated in
February, 1825, the senator from South Carolina--and not I--went
over. I have understood that the senator, when he ceased to be
in favor of himself,--that is, after the memorable movement made
in Philadelphia by the present minister to Russia (Mr. DALLAS),
withdrawing his name from the canvass, was the known supporter of
the election of Mr. Adams. What motives induced him afterwards to
unite in the election of General Jackson, I know not. It is not my
habit to impute to others uncharitable motives, and I leave the
senator to settle that account with his own conscience and his
country. No, sir, I have no reproaches to make myself, and feel
perfectly invulnerable to any attack from others, on account of any
part which I took in the election of 1825. And I look back with
entire and conscious satisfaction upon the whole course of the
arduous administration which ensued.
"The senator from South Carolina thinks it to be my misfortune to
be always riding some hobby, and that I stick to it till I ride
it down. I think it is his never to stick to one long enough. He
is like a courier who, riding from post to post, with relays of
fresh horses, when he changes his steed, seems to forget altogether
the last which he had mounted. Now, it is a part of my pride and
pleasure to say, that I never in my life changed my deliberate
opinion upon any great question of national policy but once, and
that was twenty-two years ago, on the question of the power to
establish a bank of the United States. The change was wrought by the
sad and disastrous experience of the want of such an institution,
growing out of the calamities of war. It was a change which I made
in common with Mr. Madison, two governors of Virginia, and the great
body of the republican party, to which I have ever belonged.
"The distinguished senator sticks long to no hobby. He was once
gayly mounted on that of internal improvements. We rode that
double--the senator before, and I behind him. He quietly slipped
off, leaving me to hold the bridle. He introduced and carried
through Congress in 1816, the bill setting apart the large bonus
of the Bank of the United States for internal improvements. His
speech, delivered on that occasion, does not intimate the smallest
question as to the constitutional power of the government, but
proceeds upon the assumption of its being incontestable. When he
was subsequently in the department of war, he made to Congress a
brilliant report, sketching as splendid and magnificent a scheme of
internal improvements for the entire nation, as ever was presented
to the admiration and wonder of mankind.
"No, sir, the senator from South Carolina is free from all reproach
of sticking to hobbies. He was for a bank of the United States in
1816. He proposed, supported, and with his accustomed ability,
carried through the charter. He sustained it upon its admitted
grounds of constitutionality, of which he never once breathed the
expression of a doubt. During the twenty years of its continuance
no scruple ever escaped from him as to the power to create it. And
in 1834, when it was about to expire, he deliberately advocated
the renewal of its term for twelve years more. How profound he may
suppose the power of analysis to be, and whatever opinion he may
entertain of his own metaphysical faculty,--can he imagine that any
plain, practical, common sense man can ever comprehend how it is
constitutional to prolong an unconstitutional bank for twelve years?
He may have all the speeches he has ever delivered read to us in an
audible voice by the secretary, and call upon the Senate attentively
to hear them, beginning with his speech in favor of a bank of the
United States in 1816, down to his speech _against_ a bank of the
United States, delivered the other day, and he will have made no
progress in his task. I do not speak this in any unkind spirit, but
I will tell the honorable senator when he will be consistent. He
will be so, when he resolves henceforward, during the residue of
his life, never to pronounce the word again. We began our public
career nearly together; we remained together throughout the war and
down to the peace. We agreed as to a bank of the United States--as
to a protective tariff--as to internal improvements--and lately,
as to those arbitrary and violent measures which characterized the
administration of General Jackson. No two prominent public men ever
agreed better together in respect to important measures of national
policy. We concur now in nothing. We separate for ever."
Mr. CALHOUN. "The senator from Kentucky says that the sentiments
contained in my Edgefield letter then met his view for the first
time, and that he read that document with equal pain and amazement.
Now it happens that I expressed these self-same sentiments just as
strongly in 1834, in a speech which was received with unbounded
applause by that gentleman's own party; and of which a vast number
of copies were published and circulated throughout the United States.
"But the senator tells us that he is among the most constant men
in this world. I am not in the habit of charging others with
inconsistency; but one thing I will say, that if the gentleman has
not changed _his principles_, he has most certainly changed _his
company_; for, though he boasts of setting out in public life a
republican of the school of '98, he is now surrounded by some of the
most distinguished members of the old federal party. I do not desire
to disparage that party. I always respected them as men, though
I believed their political principles to be wrong. Now, either
the gentleman's associates have changed, or he has; for they are
now together, though belonging formerly to different and opposing
parties--parties, as every one knows, directly opposed to each other
in policy and principles.
"He says I was in favor of the tariff of 1816, and took the lead in
its support. He is certainly mistaken again. It was in charge of my
colleague and friend, Mr. Lowndes, chairman then of the committee
of Ways and Means, as a revenue measure only. I took no other part
whatever but to deliver an off-hand speech, at the request of a
friend. The question of protection, as a constitutional question,
was not touched at all. It was not made, if my memory serves me, for
some years after. As to protection, I believe little of it, except
what all admit was incidental to revenue, was contained in the
act of 1816. As to my views in regard to protection at that early
period, I refer to my remarks in 1813, when I opposed a renewal
of the non-importation act, expressly on the ground of its giving
too much protection to the manufacturers. But while I declared,
in my place, that I was opposed to it on that ground, I at the
same time stated that I would go as far as I could with propriety,
when peace returned, to protect the capital which the war and the
extreme policy of the government had turned into that channel. The
senator refers to my report on internal improvement, when I was
secretary of war; but, as usual with him, forgets to tell that I
made it in obedience to a resolution of the House, to which I was
bound to answer, and that I expressly stated I did not involve
the constitutional question; of which the senator may now satisfy
himself, if he will read the latter part of the report. As to the
bonus bill, it grew out of the recommendation of Mr. Madison in his
last message; and although I proposed that the bonus should be set
apart for the purpose of internal improvement, leaving it to be
determined thereafter, whether we had the power, or the constitution
should be amended, in conformity to Mr. Madison's recommendation.
I did not touch the question to what extent Congress might possess
the power; and when requested to insert a direct recognition of the
power by some of the leading members, I refused, expressly on the
ground that, though I believed it existed, I had not made up my mind
how far it extended. As to the bill, it was perfectly constitutional
in my opinion then, and which still remains unchanged, to set aside
the fund proposed, and with the object intended, but which could not
be used without specific appropriations thereafter.
"In my opening remarks to-day, I said the senator's speech was
remarkable, both for its omissions and mistakes; and the senator
infers, with his usual inaccuracy, that I alluded to a difference
between his spoken and printed speech, and that I was answering the
latter. In this he was mistaken; I hardly ever read a speech, but
reply to what is said here in debate. I know no other but the speech
delivered here.
"As to the arguments of each of us, I am willing to leave them to
the judgment of the country: his speech and arguments, and mine,
will be read with the closer attention and deeper interest in
consequence of this day's occurrence. It is all I ask."
Mr. CLAY. "It is very true that the senator had on other occasions,
besides his Edgefield letter, claimed that the influence arising
from the interference of his own State had effected the tariff
compromise. Mr. C. had so stated the fact when up before. But in the
Edgefield letter the senator took new ground, he denounced those
with whom he had been acting, as persons in whom he could have
no confidence, and imputed to them the design of renewing a high
tariff and patronizing extravagant expenditures, as the natural
consequences of the establishment of a bank of the United States,
and had presented this as a reason for his recent course. When, said
Mr. C., I saw a charge like this, together with an imputation of
unworthy motives, and all this deliberately written and published,
I could not but feel very differently from what I should have done
under a mere casual remark.
"But the senator says, that if I have not changed principles, I
have at least got into strange company. Why really, Mr. President,
the gentleman has so recently changed his relations that he seems
to have forgotten into what company he has fallen himself. He says
that some of my friends once belonged to the federal party. Sir, I
am ready to go into an examination with the honorable senator at
any time, and then we shall see if there are not more members of
that same old federal party amongst those whom the senator has so
recently joined, than on our side of the house. The plain truth
is, that it is the old federal party with whom he is now acting.
For all the former grounds of difference which distinguished that
party, and were the great subjects of contention between them
and the republicans, have ceased from lapse of time and change
of circumstances, with the exception of one, and that is the
maintenance and increase of executive power. This was a leading
policy of the federal party. A strong, powerful, and energetic
executive was its favorite tenet. The leading members of that party
had come out of the national convention with an impression that
under the new constitution the executive arm was too weak. The
danger they apprehended was, that the executive would be absorbed by
the legislative department of the government; and accordingly the
old federal doctrine was that the Executive must be upheld, that its
influence must be extended and strengthened; and as a means to this,
that its patronage must be multiplied. And what, I pray, is at this
hour the leading object of that party, which the senator has joined,
but this very thing? It was maintained in the convention by Mr.
Madison, that to remove a public officer without valid cause, would
rightfully subject a president of the United States to impeachment.
But now not only is no reason required, but the principle is
maintained that no reason can be asked. A is removed and B is put in
his place, because such is the pleasure of the president.
"The senator is fond of the record. I should not myself have gone
to it but for the infinite gravity and self-complacency with which
he appeals to it in vindication of his own consistency. Let me then
read a little from one of the very speeches in 1834, from which he
has so liberally quoted, and called upon the secretary to read so
loud, and the Senate to listen so attentively:
"'But there is in my opinion a strong, if not an insuperable
objection against resorting to this measure, resulting from
the _fact_ that an exclusive receipt of specie in the treasury
would, to give it efficacy, and to prevent extensive speculation
and fraud, require an entire disconnection on the part of the
government, with the banking system, in all its forms, and
a resort to the strong box, as the means of preserving and
guarding its funds--a means, if practicable at all in the
present state of things, liable to the objection of being _far
less safe, economical, and efficient, than the present_.'"
"Here is a strong denunciation of that very system he is now
eulogising to the skies. Here he deprecates a disconnection with
all banks as a most disastrous measure; and, as the strongest
argument against it, says that it will necessarily lead to the
antiquated policy of the strong box. Yet, now the senator thinks the
strong box system the wisest thing on earth. As to the acquiescence
of the honorable senator in measures deemed by him unconstitutional,
I only regret that he suddenly stopped short in his acquiescence.
He was, in 1816, at the head of the finance committee, in the other
House, having been put there by myself, _acquiescing_ all the while
in the doctrines of a bank, as perfectly sound, and reporting to
that effect. He acquiesced for nearly twenty years, not a doubt
escaping from him during the whole time. The year 1834 comes: the
deposits are seized, the currency turned up side down, and the
senator comes forward and proposes as a remedy a continuation of the
Bank of the United States for twelve years--here acquiescing once
more; and as he tells us, in order to save the country. But if the
salvation of the country would justify his acquiescence in 1816 and
in 1834, I can only regret that he did not find it in his heart to
acquiesce once more in what would have remedied all our evils.
"In regard to the tariff of 1816, has the senator forgotten the
dispute at that time about the protection of the cotton manufacture?
The very point of that dispute was, whether we had a right to
give protection or not. He admits the truth of what I said, that
the constitutional question as to the power of the government to
protect our own industry was never raised before 1820 or 1822. It
was but first hinted, then controverted, and soon after expanded
into nullification, although the senator had supported the tariff of
1816 on the very ground that we had power. I do not now recollect
distinctly his whole course in the legislature, but he certainly
introduced the bonus bill in 1816, and sustained it by a speech on
the subject of internal improvements, which neither expresses nor
implies a doubt of the constitutional power. But why set apart a
bonus, if the government had no power to make internal improvements?
If he wished internal improvements, but conscientiously believed
them unconstitutional, why did he not introduce a resolution
proposing to amend the constitution? Yet he offered no such thing.
When he produced his splendid report from the war department,
what did he mean? Why did he tantalize us with that bright and
gorgeous picture of canals and roads, and piers and harbors, if
it was unconstitutional for us to touch the plan with one of our
fingers? The senator says in reply, that this report did not broach
the constitutional question. True. But why? Is there any other
conclusion than that he did not entertain himself any doubt about
it? What a most extraordinary thing would it be, should the head
of a department, in his official capacity, present a report to
both houses of Congress, proposing a most elaborate plan for the
internal improvement of the whole union, accompanied by estimates
and statistical tables, when he believed there was no power in
either house to adopt any part of it. The senator dwells upon his
consistency: I can tell him when he will be consistent--and that is
when he shall never pronounce that word again."
Mr. CALHOUN. "As to the tariff of 1816, I never denied that Congress
have the power to impose a protective tariff for the purpose of
revenue; and beyond that the tariff of 1816 did not go one inch. The
question of the constitutionality of the protective tariff was never
raised till some time afterwards.
"As to what the senator says of executive power, I, as much as he,
am opposed to its augmentation, and I will go as far in preventing
it as any man in this House. I maintain that the executive and
judicial authorities should have no discretionary power, and as soon
as they begin to exercise such power, the matter should be taken
up by Congress. These opinions are well grounded in my mind, and I
will go as far as any in bringing the Executive to this point. But,
I believe, the Executive is now outstripped by the congressional
power. He is for restricting the one. I war upon both.
"The senator says I assigned as a reason of my course at the extra
session that I suspected that he and the gentleman with whom he
acted would revive the tariff. I spoke not of the tariff, but a
national bank. I believe that banks naturally and assuredly ally
themselves to taxes on the community. The higher the taxes the
greater their profits; and so it is with regard to a surplus and the
government disbursements. If the banking power is on the side of a
national bank, I see in that what may lead to all the consequences
which I have described; and I oppose institutions that are likely
to lead to such results. When the bank should receive the money of
the government, it would ally itself to taxation, and it ought to
be resisted on that ground. I am very glad that the question is
now fairly met. The fate of the country depends on the point of
separation; if there be a separation between the government and
banks, the banks will be on the republican side in opposition to
taxes; if they unite, they will be in favor of the exercise of the
taxing power.
"The senator says I acquiesced in the use of the banks because
the banks existed. I did so because the connection existed. The
banks were already used as depositories of the government, and it
was impossible at once to reverse that state of things. I went on
the ground that the banks were a necessary evil. The State banks
exist; and would not he be a madman that would annihilate them
because their respective bills are uncurrent in distant parts of the
country? The work of creating them is done, and cannot be reversed;
when once done, it is done for ever.
"I was formerly decided in favor of separating the banks and the
government, but it was impossible then to make it, and it would
have been followed by nothing but disaster. The senator says the
separation already exists; but it is only contingent; whenever the
banks resume, the connection will be legally restored. In 1834 I
objected to the sub-treasury project, and I thought it not as safe
as the system now before us. But it turns out that it was more safe,
as appears from the argument of the senator from Delaware, (Mr.
Bayard.) I was then under the impression that the banks were more
safe but it proves otherwise."
Mr. CLAY. "If the senator would review his speech again, he would
see there a plain and explicit denunciation of a sub-treasury system.
"The distinguished senator from South Carolina (I had almost said
my friend from South Carolina, so lately and so abruptly has he
bursted all amicable relations between us, independent of his habit
of change, I think, when he finds into what federal doctrines and
federal company he has gotten, he will be disposed soon to feel
regret and to return to us,) has not, I am persuaded, weighed
sufficiently the import of the unkind imputations contained in his
Edgefield letter towards his former allies--imputations that their
principles are dangerous to our institutions, and of their want of
firmness and patriotism. I have read that singular letter again and
again, with inexpressible surprise and regret; more, however, if he
will allow me to say so, on his own than on our account.
"Mr. President, I am done; and I sincerely hope that the adjustment
of the account between the senator and myself, just made, may be as
satisfactory to him as I assure him and the Senate it is perfectly
so to me."
Mr. CALHOUN. "I have more to say, but will forbear, as the senator
appears desirous of having the last word."
Mr. CLAY. "Not at all."
* * * * *
The personal debate between Mr. Calhoun and Mr. Clay terminated
for the day, and with apparent good feeling; but only to break
out speedily on a new point, and to lead to further political
revelations important to history. Mr. Calhoun, after a long
alienation, personal as well as political, from Mr. Van Buren,
and bitter warfare upon him, had become reconciled to him in both
capacities, and had made a complimentary call upon him, and had
expressed to him an approbation of his leading measures. All this
was natural and proper after he had become a public supporter of
these measures; but a manifestation of respect and confidence so
decided, after a seven years' perseverance in a warfare so bitter,
could not be expected to pass without the imputation of sinister
motives; and, accordingly, a design upon the presidency as successor
to Mr. Van Buren was attributed to him. The opposition newspapers
abounded with this imputation; and an early occasion was taken in
the Senate to make it the subject of a public debate. Mr. Calhoun
had brought into the Senate a bill to cede to the several States the
public lands within their limits, after a sale of the saleable parts
at graduated prices, for the benefit of both parties--the new States
and the United States. It was the same bill which he had brought
in two years before; but Mr. Clay, taking it up as a new measure,
inquired if it was an administration measure? whether he had brought
it in with the concurrence of the President? If nothing more had
been said Mr. Calhoun could have answered, that it was the same bill
which he had brought in two years before, when he was in opposition
to the administration; and that his reasons for bringing it in were
the same now as then; but Mr. Clay went on to taunt him with his new
relations with the chief magistrate, and to connect the bill with
the visit to Mr. Van Buren and approval of his measures. Mr. Calhoun
saw that the inquiry was only a vehicle for the taunt, and took it
up accordingly in that sense: and this led to an exposition of the
reasons which induced him to join Mr. Van Buren, and to explanations
on other points, which belong to history. Mr. Clay began the debate
thus:
"Whilst up, Mr. Clay would be glad to learn whether the
administration is in favor of or against this measure, or stands
neutral and uncommitted. This inquiry he should not make, if the
recent relations between the senator who introduced this bill
and the head of that administration, continued to exist; but
rumors, of which the city, the circles, and the press are full,
assert that those relations are entirely changed, and have,
within a few days, been substituted by others of an intimate,
friendly, and confidential nature. And shortly after the time
when this new state of things is alleged to have taken place,
the senator gave notice of his intention to move to introduce
this bill. Whether this motion has or has not any connection
with that adjustment of former differences, the public would, he
had no doubt, be glad to know. At all events, it is important to
know in what relation of support, opposition, or neutrality, the
administration actually stands to this momentous measure; and he
[Mr. C.] supposed that the senator from South Carolina, or some
other senator, could communicate the desired information."
Mr. Calhoun, besides vindicating himself, rebuked the indecorum
of making his personal conduct a subject of public remark in the
Senate; and threw back the taunt by reminding Mr. Clay of his own
change in favor of Mr. Adams.
"He said the senator from Kentucky had introduced other, and
extraneous personal matter; and asked whether the bill had
the sanction of the Executive; assigning as a reason for his
inquiry, that, if rumor was to be credited, a change of personal
relation had taken place between the President and myself within
the last few days. He [Mr. C.] would appeal to the Senate
whether it was decorous or proper that his personal relations
should be drawn in question here. Whether he should establish
or suspend personal relations with the President, or any other
person, is a private and personal concern, which belongs to
himself individually to determine on the propriety, without
consulting any one, much less the senator. It was none of his
concern, and he has no right to question me in relation to it.
"But the senator assumes that a change in my personal relations
involves a change of political position; and it is on that he
founds his right to make the inquiry. He judges, doubtless, by
his own experience; but I would have him to understand, said
Mr. C., that what may be true in his own case on a memorable
occasion, is not true in mine. His political course may be
governed by personal considerations; but mine, I trust, is
governed strictly by my principles, and is not at all under the
control of my attachments or enmities. Whether the President is
personally my friend or enemy, has no influence over me in the
discharge of my duties, as, I trust, my course has abundantly
proved. Mr. C. concluded by saying, that he felt that these were
improper topics to introduce here, and that he had passed over
them as briefly as possible."
This retort gave new scope and animation to the debate, and led to
further expositions of the famous compromise of 1833, which was a
matter of concord between them at the time, and of discord ever
since; and which, being much condemned in the first volume of this
work, the authors of it are entitled to their own vindications when
they choose to make them: and this they found frequent occasion to
do. The debate proceeded:
"Mr. Clay contended that his question, as to whether this was
an administration measure or not, was a proper one, as it was
important for the public information. He again referred to
the rumors of Mr. Calhoun's new relations with the President,
and supposed from the declarations of the senator, that these
rumors were true; and that his support, if not pledged, was at
least promised conditionally to the administration. Was it of
no importance to the public to learn that these pledges and
compromises had been entered into?--that the distinguished
senator had made his bow in court, kissed the hand of the
monarch, was taken into favor, and agreed henceforth to support
his edicts?"
This allusion to rumored pledges and conditions on which Mr. Calhoun
had joined Mr. Van Buren, provoked a retaliatory notice of what
the same rumor had bruited at the time that Mr. Clay became the
supporter of Mr. Adams; and Mr. Calhoun said:
"The senator from Kentucky had spoken much of pledges,
understandings, and political compromises, and sudden change of
personal relations. He [said Mr. C.] is much more experienced
in such things than I am. If my memory serves me, and if
rumors are to be trusted, the senator had a great deal to do
with such things, in connection with a distinguished citizen;
now of the other House; and it is not at all surprising, from
his experience then, in his own case, that he should not be
indisposed to believe similar rumors of another now. But whether
his sudden change of personal relations then, from bitter enmity
to the most confidential friendship with that citizen, was
preceded by pledges, understandings, and political compromises
on the part of one or both, it is not for me to say. The country
has long since passed on that."
All this taunt on both sides was mere irritation, having no
foundation in fact. It so happened that the writer of this View,
on each of these occasions (of sudden conjunctions with former
adversaries), stood in a relation to know what took place. In one
case he was confidential with Mr. Clay; in the other with Mr. Van
Buren. In a former chapter he has given his testimony in favor of
Mr. Clay, and against the imputed bargain with Mr. Adams: he can
here give it in favor of Mr. Calhoun. He is entirely certain--as
much so as it is possible to be in supporting a negative--that no
promise, pledge, or condition of any kind, took place between Mr.
Calhoun and Mr. Van Buren, in coming together as they did at this
juncture. How far Mr. Calhoun might have looked to his own chance
of succeeding Mr. Van Buren, is another question, and a fair one.
The succession was certainly open in the democratic line. Those
who stood nearest the head of the party had no desire for the
presidency, but the contrary; and only wished a suitable chief
magistrate at the head of the government--giving him a cordial
support in all patriotic measures; and preserving their independence
by refusing his favors. This allusion refers especially to Mr. Silas
Wright; and if it had not been for a calamitous conflagration, there
might be proof that it would apply to another. Both Mr. Wright and
Mr. Benton refused cabinet appointments from Mr. Van Buren; and
repressed every movement in their favor towards the presidency.
Under such circumstances, Mr. Calhoun might have indulged in a
vision of the democratic succession, after the second term of Mr.
Van Buren, without the slippery and ignominious contrivance of
attempting to contract for it beforehand. There was certainly a talk
about it, and a sounding of public men. Two different friends of Mr.
Calhoun, at two different times and places,--one in Missouri (Thomas
Hudson, Esq.), and the other in Washington (Gov. William Smith,
of Virginia),--inquired of this writer whether he had said that
he could not support Mr. Calhoun for the presidency, if nominated
by a democratic convention? and were answered that he had, and
because Mr. Calhoun was the author of nullification, and of measures
tending to the dissolution of the Union. The answer went into the
newspapers, without the agency of him who gave it, and without the
reasons which he gave: and his opposition was set down to causes
equally gratuitous and unfounded--one, personal ill-will to Mr.
Calhoun; the other, a hankering after the place himself. But to
return to Messrs. Clay and Calhoun. These reciprocal taunts having
been indulged in, the debate took a more elevated turn, and entered
the region of history. Mr. Calhoun continued:
"I will assure the senator, if there were pledges in his case,
there were none in mine. I have terminated my long-suspended
personal intercourse with the President, without the slightest
pledge, understanding, or compromise, on either side. I would
be the last to receive or exact such. The transition from their
former to their present personal relation was easy and natural,
requiring nothing of the kind. It gives me pleasure to say,
thus openly, that I have approved of all the leading measures
of the President, since he took the Executive chair, simply
because they accord with the principles and policy on which I
have long acted, and often openly avowed. The change, then,
in our personal relations, had simply followed that of our
political. Nor was it made suddenly, as the senator charges. So
far from it, more than two years have elapsed since I gave a
decided support to the leading measure of the Executive, and on
which almost all others since have turned. This long interval
was permitted to pass, in order that his acts might give
assurance whether there was a coincidence between our political
views as to the principles on which the government should be
administered, before our personal relations should be changed.
I deemed it due to both thus long to delay the change, among
other reasons to discountenance such idle rumors as the senator
alludes to. That his political course might be judged (said Mr.
CALHOUN) by the object he had in view, and not the suspicion
and jealousy of his political opponents, he would repeat what
he had said, at the last session, was his object. It is, said
he, to obliterate all those measures which had originated in
the national consolidation school of politics, and especially
the senator's famous American system, which he believed to be
hostile to the constitution and the genius of our political
system, and the real source of all the disorders and dangers to
which the country was, or had been, subject. This done, he was
for giving the government a fresh departure, in the direction
in which Jefferson and his associates would give, were they now
alive and at the helm. He stood where he had always stood, on
the old State rights ground. His change of personal relation,
which gave so much concern to the senator, so far from involving
any change in his principles or doctrines, grew out of them."
The latter part of this reply of Mr. Calhoun is worthy of universal
acceptance, and perpetual remembrance. The real source of all the
disorders to which the country was, or had been subject, was in
the system of legislation which encouraged the industry of one
part of the Union at the expense of the other--which gave rise
to extravagant expenditures, to be expended unequally in the two
sections of the Union--and which left the Southern section to pay
the expenses of a system which exhausted her. This remarkable
declaration of Mr. Calhoun was made in 1839--being four years after
the slavery agitation had superseded the tariff agitation,--and
which went back to that system of measures, of which protective
tariff was the main-spring, to find, and truly find, the real source
of all the dangers and disorders of the country--past and present.
Mr. Clay replied:
"He had understood the senator as felicitating himself on
the opportunity which had been now afforded him by Mr. C. of
defining once more his political position; and Mr. C. must say
that he had now defined it very clearly, and had apparently
given it a new definition. The senator now declared that all
the leading measures of the present administration had met his
approbation, and should receive his support. It turned out,
then, that the rumor to which Mr. C. had alluded was true, and
that the senator from South Carolina might be hereafter regarded
as a supporter of this administration, since he had declared
that all its leading measures were approved by him, and should
have his support. As to the allusion which the senator from
South Carolina had made in regard to Mr. C.'s support of the
head of another administration [Mr. ADAMS], it occasioned Mr.
C. no pain whatever. It was an old story, which had long been
sunk in oblivion, except when the senator and a few others
thought proper to bring it up. But what were the facts of that
case? Mr. C. was then a member of the House of Representatives,
to whom three persons had been returned, from whom it was the
duty of the House to make a selection for the presidency. As
to one of those three candidates, he was known to be in an
unfortunate condition, in which no one sympathized with him
more than did Mr. C. Certainly the senator from South Carolina
did not. That gentleman was therefore out of the question as a
candidate for the chief magistracy; and Mr. C. had consequently
the only alternative of the illustrious individual at the
Hermitage, or of the man who was now distinguished in the House
of Representatives, and who had held so many public places with
honor to himself, and benefit to the country. And if there was
any truth in history, the choice which Mr. C. then made was
precisely the choice which the senator from South Carolina had
urged upon his friends. The senator himself had declared his
preference of Adams to Jackson. Mr. C. made the same choice;
and his constituents had approved it from that day to this, and
would to eternity. History would ratify and approve it. Let the
senator from South Carolina make any thing out of that part
of Mr. C.'s public career if he could. Mr. C. defied him. The
senator had alluded to Mr. C. as the advocate of compromise.
Certainly he was. This government itself, to a great extent,
was founded and rested on compromise; and to the particular
compromise to which allusion had been made, Mr. C. thought no
man ought to be more grateful for it than the senator from
South Carolina. But for that compromise, Mr. C. was not at all
confident that he would have now had the honor to meet that
senator face to face in this national capitol."
The allusion in the latter part of this reply was to the President's
declared determination to execute the laws upon Mr. Calhoun if an
_overt_ act of treason should be committed under the nullification
ordinance of South Carolina; and the preparations for which (overt
act) were too far advanced to admit of another step, either
backwards or forwards; and from which most critical condition the
compromise relieved those who were too deeply committed, to retreat
without ruin, or to advance without personal peril. Mr. Calhoun's
reply was chiefly directed to this pregnant allusion.
"The senator from Kentucky has said, Mr. President, that I, of
all men, ought to be grateful to him for the compromise act."
[Mr. CLAY. "I did not say 'to me.'"]
"The senator claims to be the author of that measure, and,
of course, if there be any gratitude due, it must be to him.
I, said Mr. Calhoun, made no allusion to that act; but as
the senator has thought proper to refer to it, and claim my
gratitude, I, in turn, now tell him I feel not the least
gratitude towards him for it. The measure was necessary to save
the senator politically: and as he has alluded to the subject,
both on this and on a former occasion, I feel bound to explain
what might otherwise have been left in oblivion. The senator was
then compelled to compromise to save himself. Events had placed
him flat on his back, and he had no way to recover himself but
by the compromise. This is no after thought. I wrote more than
half a dozen of letters home at the time to that effect. I shall
now explain. The proclamation and message of General Jackson
necessarily rallied around him all the steadfast friends of the
senator's system. They withdrew their allegiance at once from
him, and transferred it to General Jackson. The senator was
thus left in the most hopeless condition, with no more weight
with his former partisans than this sheet of paper (raising
a sheet from his desk). This is not all. The position which
General Jackson had assumed, necessarily attracted towards him
a distinguished senator from Massachusetts, not now here [Mr.
WEBSTER], who, it is clear, would have reaped all the political
honors and advantages of the system, had the contest come to
blows. These causes made the political condition of the senator
truly forlorn at the time. On him rested all the responsibility,
as the author of the system; while all the power and influence
it gave, had passed into the hands of others. Compromise was
the only means of extrication. He was thus forced by the action
of the State, which I in part represent, against his system, by
my counsel to compromise, in order to save himself. I had the
mastery over him on the occasion."
This is historical, and is an inside view of history. Mr. Webster,
in that great contest of nullification, was on the side of President
Jackson, and the supreme defender of his great measure--the
Proclamation of 1833; and the first and most powerful opponent of
the measure out of which it grew. It was a splendid era in his
life--both for his intellect, and his patriotism. No longer the
advocate of classes, or interests, he appeared the great defender
of the Union--of the constitution--of the country--and of the
administration, to which he was opposed. Released from the bonds
of party, and from the narrow confines of class and corporation
advocacy, his colossal intellect expanded to its full proportions
in the field of patriotism, luminous with the fires of genius;
and commanding the homage, not of party, but of country. His
magnificent harangues touched Jackson in his deepest-seated and
ruling feeling--love of country! and brought forth the response
which always came from him when the country was in peril, and
a defender presented himself. He threw out the right hand of
fellowship--treated Mr. Webster with marked distinction--commended
him with public praise--and placed him on the roll of patriots. And
the public mind took the belief, that they were to act together in
future; and that a cabinet appointment, or a high mission, would
be the reward of his patriotic service. (It was the report of such
expected preferment that excited Mr. Randolph (then in no condition
to bear excitement) against General Jackson.) It was a crisis in
the political life of Mr. Webster. He stood in public opposition to
Mr. Clay and Mr. Calhoun. With Mr. Clay he had a public outbreak
in the Senate. He was cordial with Jackson. The mass of his party
stood by him on the proclamation. He was at a point from which a new
departure might be taken:--one at which he could not stand still:
from which there must be advance, or recoil. It was a case in which
_will_, more than _intellect_, was to rule. He was above Mr. Clay
and Mr. Calhoun in intellect--below them in will. And he was soon
seen co-operating with them (Mr. Clay in the lead), in the great
measure condemning President Jackson. And so passed away the fruits
of the golden era of 1833. It was to the perils of this conjunction
(of Jackson and Webster) that Mr. Calhoun referred, as the forlorn
condition from which the compromise relieved Mr. Clay: and, allowing
to each the benefit of his assertion, history avails herself of
the declarations of each in giving an inside view of personal
motives for a momentous public act. And, without deciding a question
of mastery in the disputed victory, History performs her task in
recording the fact that, in a brief space, both Mr. Calhoun and Mr.
Webster were seen following the lead of Mr. Clay in his great attack
upon President Jackson in the session of 1834-'35.
"Mr. Clay, rejoining, said he had made no allusion to the
compromise bill till it was done by the senator from South
Carolina himself; he made no reference to the events of 1825
until the senator had himself set him the example; and he had
not in the slightest and the most distant manner alluded to
nullification until after the senator himself had called it
up. The senator ought not to have introduced that subject,
especially when he had gone over to the authors of the force
bill and the proclamation. The senator from South Carolina
said that he [Mr. C.] was flat on his back, and that he was my
master. Sir, I would not own him as my slave. He my master! and
I compelled by him! And, as if it were impossible to go far
enough in one paragraph, he refers to certain letters of his own
to prove that I was flat on my back! and, that I was not only on
my back, but another senator and the President had robbed me!
I was flat on my back, and unable to do any thing but what the
senator from South Carolina permitted me to do!
"Why, sir, [said Mr. C.] I gloried in my strength, and was
compelled to introduce the compromise bill; and compelled, too,
by the senator, not in consequence of the weakness, but of the
strength, of my position. If it was possible for the senator
from South Carolina to introduce one paragraph without showing
the egotism of his character, he would not now acknowledge that
he wrote letters home to show that he (Mr. C.) was flat on
his back, while he was indebted to him for that measure which
relieved him from the difficulties in which he was involved.
Now, what was the history of the case? Flat as he was on his
back, Mr. C. said he was able to produce that compromise, and
to carry it through the Senate, in opposition to the most
strenuous exertions of the gentleman who, the senator from
South Carolina said, had supplanted him, and in spite of his
determined and unceasing opposition. There was (said Mr. C.)
a sort of necessity operating on me to compel me to introduce
that measure. No necessity of a personal character influenced
him; but considerations involving the interests, the peace
and harmony of the whole country, as well as of the State of
South Carolina, directed him in the course he pursued. He saw
the condition of the senator from South Carolina and that of
his friends; he saw the condition to which he had reduced the
gallant little State of South Carolina by his unwise and
dangerous measures; he saw, too, that we were on the eve of a
civil war; and he wished to save the effusion of blood--the
blood of our own fellow-citizens. That was one reason why he
introduced the compromise bill. There was another reason that
powerfully operated on him. The very interest that the tariff
laws were enacted to protect--so great was the power of the then
chief magistrate, and so rapidly was that power increasing--was
in danger of being sacrificed. He saw that the protective system
was in danger of being swept away entirely, and probably at
the next session of Congress, by the tremendous power of the
individual who then filled the Executive chair; and he felt that
the greatest service that he could render it, would be to obtain
for it 'a lease for a term of years,' to use an expression that
had been heretofore applied to the compromise bill. He saw the
necessity that existed to save the protective system from the
danger which threatened it. He saw the necessity to advance
the great interests of the nation, to avert civil war, and to
restore peace and harmony to a distracted and divided country;
and it was therefore that he had brought forward this measure.
The senator from South Carolina, to betray still further and
more strikingly the characteristics which belonged to him, said,
that in consequence of his (Mr. C.'s) remarks this very day, all
obligations towards him on the part of himself (Mr. CALHOUN),
of the State of South Carolina, and the whole South, were
cancelled. And what right had the senator to get up and assume
to speak of the whole South, or even of South Carolina herself?
If he was not mistaken in his judgment of the political signs of
the times, and if the information which came to him was to be
relied on, a day would come, and that not very distant neither,
when the senator would not dare to rise in his place and presume
to speak as he had this day done, as the organ of the gallant
people of the State he represented."
The concluding remark of Mr. Clay was founded on the belief,
countenanced by many signs, that the State of South Carolina
would not go with Mr. Calhoun in support of Mr. Van Buren; but he
was mistaken. The State stood by her distinguished senator, and
even gave her presidential vote for Mr. Van Buren at the ensuing
election--being the first time she had voted in a presidential
election since 1829. Mr. Grundy, and some other senators, put an end
to this episodical and personal debate by turning the Senate to a
vote on the bill before it.