he Acts of Congress which imposed duties under the authority to lay
imposts, were acts not for revenue, as intended by the Constitution, but
for protection, and therefore null and void." "The terms union, federal,
united, all imply a combination of sovereignties, a confederation of
States. The sovereignty is in the several States, and our system is a
union of twenty-four sovereign powers, under a constitutional compact,
and not of a divided sovereignty between the States severally and the
United States."

His attitude towards slavery is illustrated by the remarks he delivered
in the Senate. "This agitation has produced one happy effect at least;
it has compelled us of the South to look into the nature and character
of this great institution of slavery, and correct many false impressions
that even we had entertained in relation to it. Many in the South once
believed that it was a moral and political evil. That folly and delusion
are gone. We see it now in its true light, and regard it as a most safe
and stable basis for free institutions in the world. It is impossible
with us that the conflict can take place between labour and capital,
which makes it so difficult to establish and maintain free institutions
in all wealthy and highly civilized nations, where such institutions as
ours do not exist."

Calhoun's attempt to have his doctrine set forth on the floor of the
Senate Chamber met a crushing blow. When the hour came, he chose, to
present his view, Hayne of South Carolina, who defended the doctrine of
nullification with great brilliancy and energy. Hayne took the ground
that nullification was the old view always held by Virginia, that it was
the doctrine of Thomas Jefferson, and had been urged by Josiah Quincy of
Massachusetts itself. He was a most gifted orator. After a century of
preparation, at length slavery had chosen its strategic position and
drawn the battle line. From that moment it was certain that slavery must
go, or that the Union must go. A feeling of apprehension spread over the
land. Fear fell upon the hearts of the people. The one question of the
hour was whether Webster could answer the Southern orator and sweep away
the fog with which Hayne had enveloped the discussion, and make the old
Constitution stand out as firm as a mountain, with principles as bright
as the stars.

By universal consent Webster's reply is our finest example of forensic
eloquence. The essence of the argument was the right of th