tariff, and now we find that Mr Carlisle has done the same thing on the silver ques tion. After all, public men are very much influenced and controlled by their surround ings and by the interests of their section. It is perfectly natural for them to think that that is the wisest and best course which tends most to subserve their own interest and that of their constituents. However he may have looked on these questions at first, we find that in 1825, McDuffie, vigorously opposed the spending of money by Congress on internal improve ments in the States. He took strong ground in favor of the annexation of Texas, although at first he was opposed to that also. He advocated a change in the mode of electing the president and vice-president so that by no possible chance could the choice ever devolve upon the House of Representatives. At first he was a Jackson man in politics, but later on he took a de cided stand against the Hero of the Hermi tage. He denounced the removal of the deposits from the Bank of the United States in the severest terms, and spoke of it as "an act of usurpation, under circumstances of injustice and oppression, which warranted him in saying that the rights of widows and orphans had been trampled in the dust by the foot of a tyrant." He was an earnest advocate of a low tariff and many of his ablest speeches were made on this subject. He was a warm advocate of nullification ideas and views, and in fact shared with Calhoun in the leadership of these meas ures. In one respect, however, they differed. Calhoun thought that nullification was a constitutional measure; that it was a plan by which grievances could be redressed in a peaceable way. On the other hand, vvhile McDuffie regarded nullification as jus tifiable, still he looked upon it as a revolu tionary measure. It seems to me that McDuffie's view of the matter was the more practical and common-sense one of the two. It is true that we did not have war at the
time. The Great Pacificator, Mr. Clay, threw himself into the breach and by his consummate skill and management suc ceeded in averting war. But such a peace ful solution was exceptional and could not have been counted on again. The idea of one State nullifying a national law while still remaining in the Union was preposter ous and in the highest degree chimerical. Even though technically and logically a State might have had such a right, still it would have been practically a disruption of the government and would not have been justifiable except upon the principle of a revolution. If those who framed the Con stitution contemplated the exercise of such a right on the part of the States, then it was a reflection upon their wisdom; for they might easily have foreseen that a govern ment founded upon such a principle as that could not last long. While, according to the strict rules of logic, nullification may not have been unconstitutional, still for all prac tical purposes it was a revolutionary mea sure and may well have been looked upon as such. It would be well for us if we copied the example which the English people give us of looking over things from a prac tical rather than from a theoretical stand point. However,' as I have already said, McDuffie was one of the warmest advocates of nullification and made many eloquent speeches in its behalf. When the conven tion in South Carolina held that the tariff act was null and void, he wrote the address to the people of the United States which was published by that body. Mr. McDuffie was a fine orator and was exceedingly popular with the masses of the people. He was a power on the hustings and at the bar. He delivered a great many speeches in different parts of the country, some of which are still remembered by our more elderly citizens. One of these was made at Abbeville, South Carolina, in that part of the city which is now known as Klugh's Park. Another of his notable ora
