Page images
PDF
EPUB

and charging up to the camp killed Sur- naval expeditions in the valley of the geon John B. Gibbs and two marines. Mississippi were fitted out. The attack lasted until morning, when the assailants were forced to retire under the fire of the American field-guns. During the night of June 13, the Spaniards again attacked the camp, and kept up such a continuous fire that the Americans had no rest. The next night, however, the same plan did not work, as a force of Cubans under Colonel La Borda, who had hastened to the camp, were sent out on skirmish duty. On the following day a company of marines with the Cubans advanced against the Spanish camp, and by a well-directed attack drove them away. In this action the American losses were six killed and three wounded, while more than forty of the Spanish were killed. See GUANTANAMO BAY.

Caldwell, JAMES, clergyman; born in Charlotte county, Va., in April, 1734. Graduating at Princeton in 1759, he became pastor of the Presbyterian Church at Elizabethtown in 1762. Zealously espousing the revolutionary cause, he was much disliked by the Tories. Appointed chaplain of a New Jersey brigade, he was for a time in the Mohawk Valley. In 1780 his church and residence were burned by a party of British and Tories; and the same year a British incursion from Staten Island pillaged the village of Connecticut Farms, where his family were temporarily residing. A soldier shot his wife through a window while she was sitting on a bed with her babe. At that time Mr. Caldwell was in Washington's camp at Morristown. In the successful defence of Springfield, N. J., June 23, 1780, when the wadding for the soldiers' guns gave out, he brought the hymn-books from the neighboring church and shouted, "Now put Watts into them, boys." In an altercation at Elizabethtown Point with an American sentinel, he was killed by the latter, Nov. 24, 1781. The murderer was afterwards hanged.

Cairo, OCCUPATION OF. The city of Cairo, Ill. (population, 1900, 12,566), is situated near the extremity of a boatshaped peninsula, at the confluence of the Ohio and Mississippi rivers, 175 miles below St. Louis. It is a point of great importance as the key to a vast extent of navigable waters, and to it National troops were sent at an early period in the Civil War. Both the national government and Governor Yates, of Illinois, had Calef, ROBERT, author; place and date been apprised of the intention of the Con- of birth uncertain; became a merchant federates to secure that position, hoping in Boston; and is noted for his controthereby to control the navigation of the versy with Cotton Mather concerning the Mississippi to St. Louis, and of the Ohio witchcraft delusion in New England. to Cincinnati and beyond. They also Mather had published a work entitled hoped that the absolute control of the Wonders of the Invisible World, and Calef Mississippi below would cause the North- attacked the book, the author, and the western States to join hands with the subject in a publication entitled More Confederates rather than lose these great Wonders of the Invisible World. Calef's trade advantages. The scheme was foil- book was published in London in 1700, ed. Governor Yates, under the direc- and in Salem the same year. About this tion of the Secretary of War, sent Illinois time the people and magistrates had come troops at an early day to take possession to their senses, persecutions had ceased, of and occupy Cairo. By the middle of and the folly of the belief in witchcraft May there were not less than 5,000 Union was broadly apparent. Mather, however, volunteers there, under the command of continued to write in favor of it, and to Gen. B. M. Prentiss, who occupied the ex- give instances of the doings of witches treme point of the peninsula, where they in their midst. "Flashy people," wrote cast up fortifications and gave the post Mather, "may burlesque these things, but the name of Camp Defiance. Before the when hundreds of the most sober people, close of May it was considered impreg- in a country where they have as much nable against any force the Confederates mother-wit certainly as the rest of manmight send. It soon became a post of kind, know them to be true, nothing but great importance to the Union cause as the absurd and froward spirit of Sadduthe place where some of the land and cism [disbelief in spirits] can question

them." Calef first attacked Mather in a crease Mather, President of Harvard Colseries of letters, which were subsequently lege, caused copies of the work to be pubpublished in book form, as above stated. licly burned on the college green. Calef In these letters he exposed Mather's died about 1723. credulity, and greatly irritated that really Calendar. Our present calendar is the good man. Mather retorted by calling creation of Julius Cæsar, based on a Calef a "weaver turned minister." Calef slight error which in the course of 1,600 tormented Mather more by other letters years amounted to ten days. Pope Gregin the same vein, when the former, be- ory XIII. rectified the calendar in 1582. coming wearied by the fight, called the The Gregorian calendar was accepted ullatter "a coal from hell," and prosecuted timately by all civilized nations, with him for slander. When these letters of the exception of Russia, which still conCalef were published in book form, In- tinues the use of the Julian Calendar.

CALHOUN, JOHN CALDWELL

tically carried out by acts of nullification, brought South Carolina to the verge of civil war in 1832; and it made that State foremost and most conspicuous in inaugurating the Civil War. He died in Washington, D. C., March 31, 1850. His remains

Calhoun, JOHN CALDWELL, statesman; very great; and his political tenets, pracborn in Abbeville District, S. C., March 18, 1782. His father was a native of Ireland; his mother, formerly Miss Caldwell, was of Scotch-Irish descent. The son was graduated, with all the honors, at Yale College, in 1804, and studied law in the famous law-school in Litchfield, Conn. In 1807 he began the practice of the profession in his native district. Thoughtful, ardent, and persevering, he soon took high rank in his profession, and gained a very lucrative practice. Fond of politics, he early entered its arena, and in 1808-10 was a member of the State legislature. He was sent to Congress in 1811, where he remained, by successive elections, until 1817. Mr. Calhoun was very influential in pressing Madison to make a declaration of war with Great Britain in 1812. President Monroe called him to his cabinet as Secretary of War (Dec. 16, 1817), and he served as such during the President's double term of office. In 1824 he was chosen Vice-President of the United States, and was reelected with Andrew Jackson in 1828. In 1831 he was elected United States Senator by the legislature of South Carolina. He was Secretary of State in 1844-45, and from 1845 till 1850 he was again a member of the United States Senate. The doctrine of State sovereignty and supremacy, and that the Union was a compact lie under a neat monument in St. Philip's of States that might be dissolved by the church-yard at Charleston, S. C. His writsecession of any one of them, indepen- ings and a biography have been published dent of all action on the part of others, in 6 volumes. See WEBSTER, DANIEL. was held by Mr. Calhoun nearly all his Government of the United States.-The life. His influence in his own State was following is Senator Calhoun's conception

[graphic]

JOHN CALDWELL CALHOUN,

of the national government, from his dis- absolutely; and can be rightfully exercised course on "The Constitution": only in furtherance of the objects for which they were delegated.

Ours is a system of government, compounded of the separate governments of the several States composing the Union, and of one common government of all its members, called the government of the United States. The former preceded the latter, which was created by their agency. Each was framed by written constitutions; those of the several States by the people of each, acting separately, and in their sovereign character; and that of the United States, by the same, acting in the same character, but jointly instead of separately. All were formed on the same model. They all divide the powers of government into legislative, executive, and judicial; and are founded on the great principle of the responsibility of the rulers to the ruled. The entire powers of government are divided between the two; those of a more general character being specifically delegated to the United States; and all others not delegated, being reserved to the several States in their separate character. Each, within its appropriate sphere, possesses all the attributes, and performs all the functions of government. Neither is perfect without the other. The two combined, form one entire and perfect government. With these preliminary remarks, I shall proceed to the consideration of the immediate subject of this discourse.

It is federal as well as democratic. Federal, on the one hand, in contradis tinction to national, and, on the other, to a confederacy. In showing this, I shall begin with the former.

It is federal, because it is the government of States united in a political union, in contradistinction to a government of individuals socially united-that is, by what is usually called, a social compact. To express it more concisely, it is federal and not national, because it is the government of a community of States, and not the government of a single State or nation.

That it is federal and not national, we have the high authority of the convention which framed it. General Washington, as its organ, in his letter submitting the plan to the consideration of the Congress of the then confederacy, calls it in one place "the general government of the Union," and in another "the federal government of these States." Taken together, the plain meaning is, that the government proposed would be, if adopted, the government of the States adopting it, in their united character as members of a common Union; and, as such, would be a federal government. These expressions were not used without due consideration, and an accurate and full knowledge of their true import. The subject was not a novel one. The convention was familiar with it. It was much agitated in their deliberations. They divided, in reference to it, in the early stages of their proceedings. It is democratic, in contradistinction to first, one party was in favor of a national aristocracy and monarchy. It excludes and the other of a federal government. classes, orders, and all artificial distinc- The former, in the beginning, prevailed; tions. To guard against their introduc- and in the plans which they proposed, the tion, the Constitution prohibits the grant- constitution and government are styled ing of any title of nobility by the United "national." But, finally, the latter gainStates, or by any State. The whole sys- ed the ascendency, when the term natem is, indeed, democratic throughout. tional" was superseded, and United States It has for its fundamental principle, the substituted in its place. The Constitugreat cardinal maxim, that the people tion was accordingly styled, The Constiare the source of all power; that the gov- tution of the United States of America; ernments of the several States and of the and the government, The government of United States were created by them, and the United States, leaving out "America" for them; that the powers conferred on for the sake of brevity. It cannot admit them are not surrendered, but delegated; of a doubt, that the Convention, by the and, as such, are held in trust, and not expression, “United States," meant the

The government of the United States was formed by the Constitution of the United States; and ours is a democratic, federal republic.

66

At

States united in a federal Union; for in no other sense could they, with propriety, call the government the federal govern ment of these States, and the general government of the Union, as they did in the letter referred to. It is thus clear, that the Convention regarded the different expressions, "the federal government of the United States"; "the general government of the Union," and "government of the United States" as meaning the same thing-a federal, in contradistinction to a national government.

Assuming it, then, as established, that they are the same thing, it is only necessary, in order to ascertain with precision what they meant by federal government, to ascertain what they meant by the government of the United States. For this purpose it will be necessary to trace the expression to its origin.

there might be no doubt how these States would stand to each other in the new condition in which they were about to be placed, it concluded by declaring—“ that these United Colonies are, and of right ought to be, free and independent States "; "and that, as free and independent States, they have full power to levy war, conclude peace, contract alliances, and to do all other acts and things which independent States may of right do." The United States" is, then, the baptismal name of these States-received at their birth-by which they have ever since continued to call themselves; by which they have characterized their constitution, government, and laws, and by which they are known to the rest of the world.

The retention of the same style, throughout every stage of their existence, affords strong, if not conclusive evidence that the It was at that time, as our history political relation between these States, unshows, an old and familiar phrase, hav- der their present constitution and governing a known and well-defined meaning. ment, is substantially the same as under Its use commenced with the political birth the confederacy and revolutionary governof these States; and it has been applied ment; and what that relation was, we are to them, in all the forms of government not left to doubt; as they are declared exthrough which they have passed, with- pressly to be free, independent, and soverout alteration. The style of the present eign States. They, then, are now united, Constitution and government is precisely and have been, throughout, simply as conthe style by which the confederacy that federated States. If it had been intended existed when it was adopted, and which by the members of the convention which it superseded, was designated. The in framed the present Constitution and govstrument that formed the latter was call- ernment, to make any essential change, ed, Articles of Confederation and Perpetu- either in the relation of the States to each al Union. Its first article declares that other, or the basis of their union, they the style of this confederacy shall be, "The would, by retaining the style which desigUnited States of America"; and the sec- nated them under the preceding governond, in order to leave no doubt as to the ments, have practised a deception, utterly relation in which the States should stand unworthy of their character, as sincere to each other in the confederacy about and honest men and patriots. It may, to be formed, declared-“ Each State re- therefore, be fairly inferred, that, retaintains its sovereignty, freedom, and inde- ing the same style, they intended to attach pendence; and every power, jurisdiction, to the expression, "the United States," and right, which is not, by this confedera- the same meaning, substantially, which tion, expressly delegated to the United it previously had; and, of course, in callStates in Congress assembled." If we go one step further back, the style of the confederacy will be found to be the same with that of the revolutionary government, which existed when it was adopted, and which it superseded. It dates its origin with the Declaration of Independence. That act is styled "The unanimous Declaration of the thirteen United States of America." And here again, that

ing the present government "the federal government of these States" they meant by "federal" that they stood in the same relation to each other—that their union rested, without material change, on the same basis-as under the confederacy and the revolutionary government; and that federal and confederated States meant substantially the same thing. It follows, also, that the changes made by the pres

ent Constitution were not in the founda- States is federal, in contradistinction to

tion, but in the superstructure of the system. We accordingly find, in confirmation of this conclusion, that the convention, in their letter to Congress, stating the reasons for the changes that had been made, refer only to the necessity which required a different organization of the government, without making any allusion whatever to any change in the relations of the States towards each other, or the basis of the system. They state that "the friends of our country have long seen and desired that the power of making war, peace, and treaties; that of levying money and regulating commerce, and the correspondent executive and judicial authorities, should be fully and effectually vested in the government of the Union: but the impropriety of delegating such extensive trusts to one body of men is evident; hence results the necessity of a different organization." Comment is unnecessary.

We thus have the authority of the convention itself for asserting that the expression, "United States," has essentially the same meaning, when applied to the present Constitution and government, as it had previously; and, of course, that the States have retained their separate existence, as independent and sovereign communities, in all the forms of political existence through which they have passed. Such, indeed, is the literal import of the expression, “the United States," and the sense in which it is ever used, when it is applied politically-I say, politically— because it is often applied, geographically, to designate the portion of this continent occupied by the States composing the Union, including Territories belonging to them. This application arose from the fact, that there was no appropriate term for that portion of this continent; and thus, not unnaturally, the name by which these States are politically designated, was employed to designate the region they oceupy and possess. The distinction is important, and cannot be overlooked in discussing questions involving the character and nature of the government, without causing great confusion and dangerous misconceptions.

But as conclusive as these reasons are to prove that the government of the United

national, it would seem, that they have not been sufficient to prevent the opposite opinion from being entertained. Indeed, this last seems to have become the prevailing one; if we may judge from the general use of the term “national,” and the almost entire disuse of that of "federal." National is now commonly applied to the "general government of the Union "-and "the federal government of these States "-and all that appertains to them or to the Union. It seems to be forgotten that the term was repudiated by the convention, after full consideration; and that it was carefully excluded from the Constitution, and the letter laying it before Congress. Even those who know all this-and, of course, how falsely the term is applied—have, for the most part, slided into its use without reflection. But there are not a few who so apply it, because they believe it to be a national government in fact; and among these are men of distinguished talents and standing, who have put forth all their powers of reason and eloquence, in support of the theory. The question involved is one of the first magnitude, and deserves to be investigated thoroughly in all its aspects. With this impression, I deem it proper-clear and conclusive as I regard the reasons already assigned to prove its federal character-to confirm them by historical references; and to repel the arguments adduced to prove it to be a national government. I shall begin with the formation and ratification of the Constitution.

That the States, when they formed and ratified the Constitution, were distinct, independent, and sovereign communities, has already been established. That the people of the several States, acting in their separate, independent, and sovereign character, adopted their separate State constitutions, is a fact uncontested and incontestable; but it is not more certain than that, acting in the same character, they ratified and adopted the Constitution of the United States; with this difference only, that in making and adopting the one, they acted without concert or agreement; but, in the other, with concert in making, and mutual agreement in adopting it. That the delegates who con

« PreviousContinue »