ing the Constitution of the Republic rather severely. In 1825, in a speech to his neighbors at Abbeville, S. C., he said: "No man would reprobate more pointedly than myself any concerted union between States for interested or sectional objects. Such concert would be against the spirit of our Constitution, which was intended to bind all the States in one common bond of union and friendship." And yet only a few years after this he was pleading for a “concerted union" which should defend slavery and put that institution so far above the flying ar rows of its adversaries that it would be forever impregnable.

A study of the history of statesmen often reveals strange contradictions and startling changes in political opinions. For example, when preparations for the war of 1812 engaged the attention of the younger politicians of South Carolina, the patriotic New Englanders were attracted by their boisterous patriotism, and the idea was entertained in both sections that it was possible to form a coalition between South Carolina and New England to put down the "Virginia Dynasty," as it was called, whose narrow and anticommercial policy had greatly annoyed both sections. And yet the time came when New England and South Carolina were virtually arming themselves against each other and declaring a policy of non-intercourse.

It is not certain whether Calhoun will be best known in history as the ardent defender of slavery or as the great nullifier. The States rights

doctrine of Calhoun and his school was not, as its supporters maintained, necessarily secession or war, though it might lead eventually to both, as we have already seen. Calhoun insisted, with strange lack of logic, that the union of the States was really more secure by the establishment of his theory of States rights than it could be in any other way. The tariff of 1828 was extremely distasteful to the people of South Carolina, and the Calhoun school of politicians resolved that it should not be enforced. Calhoun's argument was that the State, having determined to protect its citizens by an act of nullification, would put an impassable barrier in the way of any penalty or sentence imposed by the Federal courts in consequence of an act of obedience to the State statute. Nullification was an act by the State nullifying within the borders of that State any law of the Federal Congress which might be distasteful to a majority of the citizens of the State. Calhoun contended that nullification did not disturb the legal relation between the State and the Union, but rather confirmed it. He said that the States had "entered" the Federal Union and that that entrance implied a free action on their part without binding any of the States to irremovable consequences thereafter. Force could not be employed by the Federal Government because the question was a moral one, and no physical resistance could be taken.

The Legislature of South Carolina, in November, 1832, passed an ordinance declaring the tariff act of 1828 null and void. It was also de

clared that the payment of duties should not be enforced within the State, and that any attempt on the part of the Federal Government to enforce its laws would absolve the State from all connection with the Union and it would immediately establish a separate and independent government. Secession would ensue if nullification were not agreed to by the Federal Government. Great excitement in South Carolina followed the passage of this ordinance, and President Jackson replied to it with a proclamation and a message to Congress threatening to apply physical pressure to the rebels of the Palmetto State. It was even said (although this statement was never verified) that Jackson threatened to hang Calhoun "as high as Haman." Jackson was a bold and sometimes reckless officer, but nobody knew better than he that he had no power to hang even a rebel leader, and Calhoun's personal courage was certainly equal to any emergency, and it would be unjust to suppose that he was for a moment deterred from his course by any menace from General Jackson.

Various expedients to dissolve the terrifying complication were proposed from the different States. While warlike operations were going on under the orders of President Jackson and General Scott, Clay introduced in Congress a new tariff which practically abandoned the policy of protection and conceded to South Carolina the principle for which she was contending. Peace was restored, and Calhoun and the nullifiers consented to postpone secession.

Clay's compromise bill, according to Thomas H. Benton, "made its first appearance in the House late in the evening, when members were gathering up their overcoats for a walk home to their dinners, was passed before their coats had got on their back, and the dinner which was waiting had but little time to cool before the astonished members, their work done, were at the table to eat it." South Carolina was appeased and the Union saved.

One of the most picturesque incidents in the career of Calhoun was his final break with President Jackson. Calhoun was a Cabinet minister during the Florida campaign, in which Jackson, as commander of the Federal forces, had carried things with a high hand. Without instructions, and without authority of law, he had conducted executions and had moved his troops in disregard of international law or usage. His course was severely criticised by the strict constructionists, but it commanded enthusiastic applause from the people of the United States. Years afterward, when Jackson was President and Calhoun was serving a second term as Vice-President, with an expectation of succeeding to the Presidency, the celebrated Eaton scandal broke out. Mrs. Eaton was the wife of Senator Eaton, of Tennessee, and by her light conduct had brought scandal upon herself and her husband. The wives of Cabinet ministers and other high functionaries refused to recognize Mrs. Eaton. Among others, Vice-President Calhoun and Mrs. Calhoun fell under the ban of President Jack