Edward Everett, from a letter from Reverdy
Johnson, an intimate friend of Calhoun, to
Mr. Everett. Mr. Johnson says :
"The letter I read in the speech which I
made in Frederick, should be conclusive evi-
dence that, at its date, Mr. Calhoun denied
the right of secession, as a constitutional
right, either expressed or implied.
"But, in addition to this, I had frequent
opportunities of knowing that this was his
opinion. It was my good fortune to be a
member of the Senate of the United States,
whilst he wag one of its greatest ornaments,
for four years, from 1845, until I became a
member of Glen. Taylor's administration, and
during two sessions (I think 1846 and 1847)
I lived in the same house with him. He did me
the honor to give me much of his confidence,
and frequently his nullification was the sub-
ject of conversation. Time and time again
have I heard him, and with an increased sur-
prise at his wonderful acuteness, defend it on
Constitutional grounds, and distinguish it,
in that respect, from the doctrine of secession.
This last he never, with me, placed on any
other ground than that of revolution. This,
he said, was to destroy the Government; and
no Constitution, the work of sane men, ever
provided for its own destruction. The other
was to preserve it, was, practically, but to
amend it, and in aconstitutional mode. As
you know, and he was even told, I never took
that view. I could see no more Constitu-
tional warrant for this than for the other,
which, I repeat, he ever in all our interviews
repudiated, as wholly indefensible as a Con-
stitutional remedy. His mind, with all its
wonderful power, was so ingenious that it
often led him into error, and attimes to such
an extent as to be guilty of the most palpa-
ble inconsistencies. His views of the tariff
and internal improvement powers of the Gov-
ernment are instances. His first opinions
upon both were decided, and almost ultra.
His earliest reputation was won as their ad-
vocate, and yet four years before his death he
denounced both with constant zeal and with
rare power, and, whilst doing so, boldly as-
serted his uniform consistency. It is no mar-
vel, therefore, with those who have observed
his career and studied his character, to bear
it stated now that be was the advocate of
Constitutional secession."
So I say that some of the gentlemen seem
to have got beyond Calhoun.
What is the proposition when fairly stated ?
because to much of the argument of the gen-
tleman who has just taken his seat (Mr. Mil-
ler) and to much of the argument of the gen-
tleman from Prince George's, who first ad-
dressed the Convention (Mr. Clarke,) I have
no objection.
It is certain that States are sovereign as
well as the United States Government, each
in its own sphere, clearly defined by the Con-
stitution. I would adopt even the analogy |
presented by the gentleman from Prince
George's (Mr. Clarke,) that as the planets in
the heavens revolve around the great central
sun of the system, each pursuing its own
course, within its own sphere, so the General
Government and the States are sovereign in
their several spheres. But I would carry
the figure a little farther, and say that when
the great central orb pours its rays upon the
earth, it is the source of beat and vegetation
and life, and the stars pale away before it,
but when it ceases to operate directly, then
these planets give forth they feebler light as
they revolve in their respective spheres. So
the great central government operates directly
within its sphere with greater power upon
the State as well as the individual. It does not
act upon me through the State sovereignty ;
but it demands of me directly military duty,
and it operates directly upon my rights of
property and person. The States operate in
a more limited sphere.
What is the objection to this section? Let
us analyze it, and see what it amounts to.
"Paramount allegiance" to the Govern-
ment; that is the difficulty with gentlemen.
They are willing to say they owe an allegi-
ance to the Constitution of the United States
and the laws made in pursuance thereof; but
this " paramount allegiance to the Govern-
ment" stuns them. Let us examine the words
and see what they mean:
"Paramount" means "superior," or su-
preme. They are unwilling, therefore, to say
that they owe any superior allegiance to the
Government of the United States; and there-
fore the gentleman from Calvert, (Mr. Bris-
coe,) desires to strike out "paramount;"
and is willing to let it stand that he owes
allegiance, not paramount.
Next, what is the meaning of "allegiance?"
Some of the law dictionaries define it to be
derived from the Latin "ligo," to "bind,"
or to " tie." It is the bond that ties the nat-
ural born subject or citizen to his govern-
ment on account of the protection that it
affords. Are gentlemen unwilling to say
that they owe allegiance to this government?
Will they say that it does not protect them,
and that therefore they are unwilling to ren-
der allegiance to it? What is the protection
which the States give? One gentleman from
Prince George's, (Mr. Belt,) said the other
day, as I recollect, that the General Govern-
ment gave no protection at all, but that the
States afforded all. Can the States levy war or
make peace? When you go beyond the seas
to a foreign land, if an injury is done to
yon, do you appeal to the little petty State of
Maryland to redress it? No; sir; it is the
pride of every man that he is an American
citizen; and the American flag protects him
everywhere, on land or on sea, wherever civ-
ilization has gone. Do they owe no allegi-
ance for protection ?
But I fear it is the "Government," after |
