magnificent flights of eloquence which distinguished the Reply to Hayne,
this speech of February 16, 1833, was filled with close and powerful
reasoning. Once and for all he maintained:

"1. That the Constitution of the United States is not a league,
confederacy, or compact between the people of the several States, in
their sovereign capacities, but a government proper, founded on the
adoption of the people, and creating direct relations between itself and
individuals.

"2. That no State authority has power to dissolve these relations; that
nothing can dissolve them but revolution. And that consequently there
can be no such thing as secession without revolution."

The importance of that argument in the history of our country cannot be
overestimated. As James Ford Rhodes has put it: "The justification
alleged by the South for her secession in 1861 was based on the
principles enunciated by Calhoun; the cause was slavery. Had there been
no slavery, the Calhoun theory of the Constitution would never have been
propounded, or had it been, it would have been crushed beyond
resurrection by Webster's speeches of 1830 and 1833. The South could not
in 1861 justify her right to revolution, for there was no oppression nor
invalidation of rights. She could, however, proclaim to the civilized
world what was true, that she went to war to extend slavery. Her defense
therefore is that she made the contest for her constitutional rights,
and this attempted vindication is founded on the Calhoun theory. On the
other hand, the ideas of Webster waxed strong with the years; and the
Northern people, thoroughly imbued with these sentiments, and holding
them as sacred truths, could not do otherwise than resist the
dismemberment of the Union."