ting and somewhat contemptuous audacity
with which he hurries to the unforeseen conclusion those who have once
been simple enough to admit his premises. Towards men who have some
logical capacity his tone is that of respectful impatience; but as he
goads on the reluctant and resentful victims of his reasoning, who
loiter and limp painfully in the steps of his rapid deductions, he seems
to say, with ironic scorn, "A little faster, my poor cripples!"

So confident was Mr. Calhoun in his capacity to demonstrate the validity
of his horrible creed, that he was ever eager to measure swords with the
most accomplished of his antagonists in the duel of debate. And it must
be said that he despised all the subterfuges and evasions by which, in
ordinary controversies, the real question is dodged, and went directly
to the heart of the matter,--a resolute intellect, burning to grapple
with another resolute intellect in a vital encounter. In common
legislative debates, on the contrary, there is no vital encounter. The
exasperated opponents, personally courageous, but deficient in clear and
fixed ideas, mutually contrive to avoid the things essential to be
discussed, while wantoning in all the forms of discussion. They assert,
brag, browbeat, dogmatize, domineer, pummel each other with the
_argumentum ad hominem_, and abundantly prove that they stand for
opposite opinions; we watch them as we watch the feints and hits of a
couple of pugilists in the ring; but after the sparring is over, we find
that neither the Southern champion nor the Northern bruiser has touched
the inner reality of the question to decide which they stripped
themselves for the fight. In regard to the intellectual issue, they are
like two bullies enveloping themselves in an immense concealing dust of
arrogant words, and, as they fearfully retreat from personal collision,
shouting furiously to each other, "Let me get at him!" And this is what
is commonly called grit in politics,--abundant backbone to face persons,
deficient brain-bone to encounter principles.

Not so was it when two debaters like Mr. Calhoun and Mr. Webster engaged
in the contest of argument. Take, for example, as specimens of pure
mental manliness, their speeches in the Senate, in 1833, on the question
whether or not the Constitution is a compact between sovereign States.
Give Mr. Calhoun those two words, "compact" and "sovereign," and he
conducts you logically to Nullification and to all the consequ