Calhoun — Nullification Explained. ' 235
"blind admirers" of the late Baron von Munchausen, "if there still be any left," to look to his laurels."
So far from having been written with a " determination to have the die cast without delay," it seems to us, from our side of the shield, that no candid, fair-minded man, of ordinary intelligence, and acquainted with the history of those times, can read the letter to General Hamilton without recognizing and admitting that next after combatting the secession programme, its chief object was de- lay — " to allow time for further consideration and reflection." On page 82, von Hoist himself seems to have been aware of this, for he there quotes these very words of Calhoun. The truth is, that Calhoun was fighting the secession programme in the only way in which it could then be fought successfully.
Two years before, 13th April, 1830, Jackson had given his cele- brated volunteer toast at the celebration of Jefferson's birthday : "Our Federal Union; it must be preserved." But it was well understood then that this was aimed at nullification, not at seces- sion. If Jackson ever denied the right of secession, his denunciation fell far short of the more emphatic language of Calhoun. In his celebrated proclamation against the South Carolina Nullification Ordinance, he admitted that the right of "resisting unconstitutional acts" was an "infeasible right," but denied that a State could, con- sistently with the Constitution, "^ retain Us place in the Union' ^ and yet nullify its laws ; that is to say, prohibit their execution within its limits, pending the reference to. and decision by, the States in Con- vention of the question of their constitutionality.
Hon. Alexander H. Stephens, in his history of the United States, page 347, quotes this passage from the Proclamation, and says:
" By many who did not approve of the course of South Carolina, the Proclamation, taken as a whole, was looked upon as amounting in substance to a denial of the right of secession on the part of any State for any cause whatever. This was the view taken generally by the old Federalists and the extreme advocates of State Rights, but the President afterwards maintained that an erroneous construction had been put upon those parts of the proclamation referred to, and in a full explanation he declared his adherence to the principles of Mr. Jefferson as set forth in the Kentucky and Virginia resolutions of 1798 and 1799."
The practical question then was and may hereafter again be, how and by what methods should this " indefeasible " right of" resistance " be exercised ? Shall it be by armed force within the Union ? which
