had been done; Genet was instructed to treat with America for a new treaty of commerce.*

The events which followed the naming of Genet as minister to the United States are familiar history. Suffice it to say that his choice was most unfortunate for the friendship of the two countries. In view, however, of the repeated suggestions made by Jefferson, both as minister to France and later as Secretary of State, concerning the adoption of some kind of a policy which would place the citizens of each nation on the same plane in both countries as far as commercial matters went, it is not surprising that the instructions of Genet asked for such liberal concessions. Especially is this true when one considers that the new revolu tionary government was looking for sympathy from the United States. But it was precisely the unsettled condition of affairs that prevailed in France which made Washington unwilling to enter into any further alliance with that country, even though France had good reason to believe such a thing was desired by the United States.

*Ibid., I., 395, Morris to Washington, Dec. 28, 1792. Also, I., 350, Morris to Jefferson, Feb. 13, 1793.

Two Studies in Southern Biography*

BY WILLIAM K. BOYD

Professor of History in Trinity College

It is now a generation since the beginning of that intensive study of American history and institutions which has secured an ever increasing hold on the educational institutions and literary talent of our country. From the very inception of this intellectual movement the South has been a favored field of inquiry. The books, monographs, and magazines on the South contributed by the members of one university number nearly four hundred, while the university interest in certain phases of Southern life, especially Reconstruction, seems steadily increasing. The time seems coming when the results of this specialized investigation will find their way into popular historical knowledge. Evidence of this is the output of distinctively Southern biographies during the past two years. The American Crisis Biographical Series, published by Jacobs, of Philadelphia, has already issued lives of Benton, Benjamin, Lee, Davis, and Stephens; at least three other biographies of Davis are being written, one of William H. Crawford is just from the press, while the services of a number of such half-known leaders as Robert J. Walker and William B. Giles will in time be given the place they deserve in national and local history.

Timely it is, that this nascent interest in Southern biography should bring forth studies of Calhoun and Hayne, for no two ante bellum leaders have a larger place in national and local history than they. Moreover, the previous biographies of Calhoun are either prejudiced and unsympathetic or too local and provincial in tone, while no life of Hayne has hitherto been written. Adequate appreciation of their services has been found only in monographs on special topics, the debates in Congress, the Calhoun correspondence, and a few histories of broad and generous insight. What then are the old impressions confirmed,

*John C. Calhoun. By Gaillard Hunt. (American Crisis Biographies). Philadelphia: George W. Jacobs & Co., 1908.

*Robert Y. Hayne and His Times. By Theodore D. Jervey. New York: The Macmillan Company, 1909.

and the new light thrown, on these men and their State by these recent studies of their lives?

Certain conceptions of the political tendencies in South Carolina are strongly confirmed. Among these is the predominance of national and federalistic ideas in the early days. Mr. Jervey, a Charleston lawyer and officer of the South Carolina Historical Society, quotes and often refers to the words of Charles Pinckney uttered in 1788, in urging ratification of the federal constitution. "In every government there necessarily exists a power from which there is no appeal and which, for that reason, may be termed absolute and uncontrollable. The person or assembly in whom this power resides is called the sovereign or supreme power, and is the State. With us the sovereignty of the Union resides in the people. . . In their individual capacities as citizens the people are proportionately represented in the House of Representatives. the States will find in the Senate the guards of their rights as political associations. On them, I mean the State systems, rests the general fabric .. each depending upon and supporting and protecting the other; nor, so intimate is the connection, can the one be removed without prostrating the other; like the head and body, separate them, and they die. . . On what depends the enjoyment of these rare inestimable privileges-on the firmness, on the power of the Union to protect and defend them. It must be obvious

that without a superintending government it is impossible the liberties of the country can long be secured. . . Let us, then, be careful in strengthening the Union."

The underlying causes of the reaction from the predominance of such national sentiments to radical State rights and nullification were primarily economic, of which the people themselves were unconscious. On the surface there were movements full of interest. Pinckney's leadership gave place to that of Lowndes, Cheves, Calhoun, and Hayne-all nationalists. There was also in the early nineteenth century evidence of a humanitarian interest in the slave and the free negro, followed by a movement for re-opening the slave trade with other States which triumphed in 1819. In political creed an extreme national theory was expressed as late as 1819 by Judge Nott. The city council of Charleston levied an assessment of one-half per cent. on all hank stock held in the

city. The stockholders of the Bank of the United States secured a restraining order to prevent the levy. The order was reversed. Judge Nott, dissenting, fell into the following "modernist" judicial language:

"It is not merely a question whether the city council has the power to impose a tax on bank stock, neither is it a question between the United States and an individual State. But the real question which we are called upon to decide is, whether, when Congress has adopted a measure confessedly within its jurisdiction, any corporate body existing under the authority of a State, and having the power to pass by-laws, may by one of its ordinances defeat such act of the General Government? The great objects of the federal compact are declared to be 'to form a more perfect union, to establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare and secure the blessings of liberty.' To effect these great and important objects, certain powers are delegated to the General Government; and it seems now to be admitted by all the commentators on the Federal Constitution, that where the exercise of any power by a State is inconsistent with or incompatible with such delegation, it must be considered as exclusively granted to the General Government. It is also further declared that Congress shall have power to pass all laws necessary to carry into effect all the powers so delegated by the Constitution. For what pur

pose, let it be asked, does the Constitution contain such a provision, if the operation of any act of Congress may be defeated by an act emanating from the authority of a State? If such is the situation of our government, it does appear to me the people of the United States have failed in the attempt to effect, at least, one of the great and avowed objects of the confederation, that of securing to themselves and their posterity 'domestic tranquility.' I cannot conceive a more effectual source of domestic discord than a power in the States to resist or defeat the operation of a constitutional act of the General Government. If the powers of Congress are too great they may be abridged by an amendment of the Constitution. If they are abused, they may be corrected by a change of representation. If they are exceeded, they may be controlled by the judiciary. But to give to one government the power of passing laws, and to another the right

of resisting them, or to defeat their operations, or rather to give to a government a power to legislate and to a single member or branch of it to defeat its acts, would be like harnessing horses to the hindmost part of the carriage to check the impetuosity of those in front. It would necessarily lead to a contest for power. And whether the machine would move forward or go backward or be torn asunder in the struggle, would depend on the relative force of the conflicting powers."

The drift into nullification was identified with three forces, the tariff, factional politics, and the rise of radical theories of government. The strength of Hayne was directed against the first of these. He was one of the ablest opponents of protection that the country has ever produced. His argument in the Senate against the act of 1824 is far less widely known than Webster's in the House; but Hayne brought about thirty-seven amendments to the original bill-certainly an unsurpassed record against a victorious cause. Mr. Jervey has well made his abstract of Hayne's speech from a pamphlet edition instead of the imperfect and incomplete report in the Debates in Congress.

The rise of nullification theory, first expressed in the press, then in pamphlets, and its antecedents are well told by Mr. Hunt. But he hardly does justice to Calhoun's genius as a political philosopher; those phases of his political thought which mark a cleavage with the fathers of the Republic and the leading thinkers of Europe are not emphasized. Just when Hayne became a convert to the new theory of government, and the influences, personal or otherwise, bringing it about, are not told by Mr. Jervey. The speech on the public lands in 1830 still remains as the first evidence of his conversion to nullification views.

The influence of partisanship on the radical movement is emphasized by Mr. Hunt. It was not until he saw that Jackson's election would cause no change in the tariff policy that Calhoun allied himself with the State rights party and elaborated the theory of nullification. Moreover, there was wide difference of opinion among those opposed to the tariff. A majority seem to have worked or spoken against it; some of these believed it unconstitutional, others would not go so far, and comparatively few, at first, were willing to resort to the extreme measure of nullification. The divergence of the regular State rights men