the power to interfere with the domestic institutions of the several States. This constitutional doctrine of State protection was extended to the Territories as well as to other places where Congress had control, as in the District of Columbia, the dock yards, navy yards, etc.

Democratic party holds to the Resolutions of 1798-1799. In 1856, when the Republican party disturbed the repose of Democratic leaders, the latter in convention assembled took advanced position on the doctrine of State rights and resolved “That the Democratic party will faithfully abide by and uphold the principles laid down in the Kentucky Resolutions of 1797 and 1798, and in the report of Mr. Madison to the Virginia legislature in 1799; that it adopts these principles as constituting one of the main foundations of its political creed and is resolved to carry them out in their obvious meaning and import." This was true Jeffersonian theory. While the pronouncement was stimulated by the critical situation of the Union over the agitation of the slavery issue, it did no violence to Democratic doctrine to make it. It was the determination of the slavocracy to use the principle to protect the peculiar institution that led to Civil War. This extreme, however, was not reached by the whole party, but only by the slaveholding section of it.

Slavery and State rights. When the issue was made up between Secession and national integrity, which precipitated war, the greatest possible test was submitted to the Strict Constructionists. It was the extreme test which was probably the legitimate outcome of the theory of liberty of the individual and rights of the State carried to an ultimate conclusion. In this crisis the party of Jefferson divided upon the slavery question rather than political theory, and cast 2,223,110 votes for its two candidates: 1,375,157 for the leader in the free States and 847,953 for the leader in the slave States. The Hamiltonian theory, now represented by Lincoln, cast about the same number of votes, but Lincoln received only 1,866,452

votes. In four years the Jeffersonian following fell off in the canvass 420,873 votes, while the Hamiltonian gained 347,213. The Democrats and the war. This disparity can be accounted for upon at least two grounds, namely: the existence of the war favored the vote cast for the party in power, which was prosecuting it to a successful end; the right to vote was extended to the soldier on the field which increased the vote of the party in power. The extreme length to which the slavocracy had carried its contention caused many desertions from the party. However, it must be conceded that while the following of the opposition did not support Lincoln, the greater portion of it did support the government. It is unfair to assert that the 1,802,237 men who voted for McClellan against Lincoln in 1864 opposed the war, although it was prosecuted by the party in opposition to them. However, the blow which war gave the Jefferson theory was almost sufficient to destroy the party in both the State and the nation, except in the slaveholding section of the country.

The Democracy of Lincoln. Upon the question of slavery, Lincoln and his party became the exponents of the Jefferson theory of individual liberty. Jefferson himself never went further in the advocacy of this theory than Lincoln went in practise. But it would not be correct to argue from this that the two men were votaries of the same political theories. Jefferson espoused the doctrine of individual liberty from clearly defined belief, while Lincoln put it into execution as a war measure. Lincoln was not unlike Jefferson in his supreme faith in the people. Perhaps he was never surpassed in this point. But in all that distinguished the loose from the strict construction, national supremacy from State Sovereignty, the Hamiltonian from the Jeffersonian theory of politics, Lincoln essentially belonged to the former in both profession and practise.

CHAPTER X

JOHN CALDWELL CALHOUN, THE EXPONENT OF

NULLIFICATION

Dramatic figure. One of the most dramatic figures in the political history of the United States was he whose name heads this chapter; dramatic because of the tragic seriousness with which he defended losing issues. In the zenith of his power he espoused for the sake of a theory the dogma of State Sovereignty, and later in life became not only the defender, but the eulogist, of an institution which civilization had decreed must cease. The brilliancy with which he espoused his favorite dogma and the sincerity he manifested in defense of slavery render his career an interesting chapter in the political history of the country.

The real issue between parties. It will be remembered that the first formal pronouncement of the State rights theory was made by the legislatures of Kentucky and Virginia in the Resolutions of 1798, 1799, and 1800. Other States at various times promulgated the same theory. But the most conspicuous action, aside from that of Kentucky and Virginia, was that of the Hartford convention in 1814. Radical methods were threatened by that convention in relief of the States from the burdens entailed by the general government. The war of 1812 had largely destroyed the commerce of New England. This was declared unnecessary and the government was assailed. Quite naturally the party in power the Jeffersonian, or the Strict Constructionists defended its action,

as the Hamiltonians, or the Loose Constructionists, defended the enactment of the Alien and Sedition Laws against which the Resolutions of 1798-1800 were passed. The dominant party sought relief in a threefold policy, comprehending the tariff with the protection feature, a National Bank, and internal improvements.

Early recognition of the talents of Calhoun. Conspicuous in this remedial legislation was John C. Calhoun, whose brilliant parts led the Speaker of the House of Representatives, Henry Clay, to place him upon the Committee of Foreign Affairs where he at once took high rank among his colleagues. His first speech in Congress was made before he was thirty years old. It was upon the war resolutions in December, 1811. He plunged with the vigor of buoyant youth and penetrating intellect into the support of President Madison in the prosecution of the war. At the close of the war he was one of the most active in the legislation designed to relieve the country of the inevitable effects of war. Hence his espousal of the nationalizing policy. When the question of constitutionality was injected by the opponents of the Administration, he answered it upon the ground of national defense. As Monroe's Secretary of War he gave no sign of change of theory, but was consistent in requiring an effective administration of the government. His rapid appreciation put him in the ranks of those mentioned for the presidency. He withdrew from the race for the presidency and accepted the nomination for the vice-presidency.

Calhoun and the administration of Adams. Calhoun affected to take offense at this thwarting of the people's will. He pretended that the House had no right to ignore the pleasure of the voters. Therein the President and Vice-President disagreed. There is evidence that Calhoun took delight in the bitter opposition waged against the President from the opening of the administration to its close. At any rate it is true that as presiding officer of the Senate he permitted the most scurrilous