vociferously bruited as an "irrepressible conflict of antagonisms imbedded in the very nature of our heterogeneous institutions;" and, with all proper courtesy and deference, I shall venture to make direct issue with those, wheresoever they shall be found, who undertake to promulgate the notion that "the successive compromises whereby" civil war, with all its attendant horrors, "was so long put off," were, after all, but "deplorable mistakes, detrimental to our national character."* I shall, on the contrary, endeavor to maintain, more by an array of irresistible facts than by any effort of over-subtle reasoning, or by ingenious appeals to long-standing prejudices, that the fearful domestic troubles in which our noble republic has been so recently involved could not possibly have arisen but for the most unskillful and blundering management of men in power-the incessant agitation of sectional factionists, both in the North and in the South, and the unwise disregard of that august spirit of conciliation and compromise in which our complex frame of government is known to have had its origin, and to the faithful cultivation of which, if it be destined to endure for future ages, it must undoubtedly owe both its preservation and its maintenance.

Without in the least degree calling in question the patriotism or sincerity of others, I may be permitted to say that no dogma more fraught with mischief could possibly have been set afloat among the American people, or one better calculated, if widely diffused, to undermine the sacred compact of union established by our fathers, than that which has just been alluded to. Let two considera* Extract from Mr. Greeley's "American Conflict."

IRREPRESSIBLE CONFLICT.

17

ble segments or classes of a free and enlightened people any where be once induced conscientiously to believe. that such an irremovable incompatibility of essential interests exists between them that the permanent repose and happiness of the whole, or of certain of its parts, will be impossible, except by a great and fearful sacrifice on the one side or on the other, and it is most obvious that exciting thoughts and schemes of separation, and even of armed collision, would not be very long in making themselves manifest. Such, in fact, is known to have been the precise condition of things in the early days of the Roman republic, between the Patricians and the Plebeians; and hence certain noted attempts on the part of the weaker class in Rome, and the one which deemed itself oppressed, to provide security against future injuries by secession to Mons Sacer. So it was also with the people of the American colonies in the last century, when, becoming convinced that it was not at all consistent with their safety and happiness that they should remain longer under British rule, they boldly erected the all-inspiring standard of independence. The successful propagation of this theory of an "irrepressible conflict" of hostile forces, in two different sections of the same country, it is evident, must generate "geographical parties;" against the formation of which, Washington, in his Farewell Address, so solemnly and so pathetically warned his countrymen. The continued existence of these geographical parties, when once fairly organized, as our melancholy experience has now demonstrated, must naturally beget schemes of territorial partition; which, however peacefully and quietly put in execution, if resisted on the part of those

who shall chance to feel that they would be deeply injured thereby, more especially if the latter party shall suppose itself to possess adequate means of prevention, must inevitably lead to a civil war, more or less serious and protracted. And it is plain that the danger of such a result must be very greatly increased, if, in addition to the influences described, the opinion should be given currency that the antagonism asserted to exist is organic and permanent in its character, not growing out of interests superficial and temporary in their nature, and therefore subject to easy processes of modification and amelioration in one mode or another, but solid, enduring, and "imbedded in the very nature" of "institutions" thus solemnly adjudged to be "heterogeneous." Washington and his illustrious associates of a former age taught no such perilous and visionary doctrine; nor did the great statesmen who succeeded them in the administration of the government for several successive generations at all suspect the existence of any such fatal tendency to discord. and domestic feud to be lurking in the very vitals of our civil system. I am not prepared to assert that this "irrepressible conflict" theory originated either in the North or in the South exclusively. I know that a distinguished citizen of the State of New York has been given credit for the first formal promulgation of it; and recent occurrences would seem to indicate that this gentleman still firmly adheres to his well-known declaration on this subject. Certain it is, though, that I have heard this same radical incompatibility of interests between the Northern and Southern states of the Union-between that portion of the republic recognized until recently as the slave

JOHN C. CALHOUN.

19

holding one, and that which was non-slaveholding in its character—as earnestly urged, and as elaborately insisted upon also by certain well-known sectional politicians south of Mason and Dixon's line, as it ever could have been by individuals of the most extreme opinions on this subject to the north of that same mystical parallel of latitude. I only assert what I know to be true when I state that, for several years antecedent to his death, John C. Calhoun, one of the most intellectual and pure-minded men that has ever lived, habitually gave expression among his friends to the opinion (which there is no doubt he most conscientiously entertained) that the slaveholding states of the South and the free states of the North would never be able again to live in harmony with each other after the abolition agitation had been for several years in progress, and that the former would soon find it indispensable to the preservation of their own domestic peace and safety to resort to the expedient of separation. Early in the eventful year of 1850 he avowed to me and to certain others, some of whom are yet living, his own painful and firmly-riveted conviction on this subject, and declared, in language of extraordinary emphasis, that he regarded a peaceful withdrawal.from the Union as altogether practicable, provided its execution should be attempted under the lead of Maryland and Virginia; making known at the same time that he had already drawn out a Constitution for the new republic which he contemplated, in which the slaveholding principle had been given a predominant influence. Once, while discussing this interesting matter, he grew more enthusiastic than I ever saw him on any other occasion,

and exclaimed in language something like the following: "In looking back upon the history of past ages, I have sometimes been disposed to envy the glory of such men as Brutus, and Cato, and others; but if this project of peaceful separation can be accomplished, and my new Constitution shall be adopted by the people of the South, I shall feel that I too will have done something, in my own day and generation, to deserve the gratitude and veneration of the friends to a well-ordered system of confederative freedom."

The truth is, that between sectional factionists of the North and of the South, however conscientious many of them doubtless have been in the views supported by them, and in the measures from time to time by them propounded, there was oftentimes to be discerned a most singular and striking exhibition of similitude in regard both to general theories of government, and in reference to their action, in and out of Congress, upon several of the most exciting questions which have ever disturbed the public repose. Special evidences in proof of what has now been asserted will be hereafter adduced. I propose at present to bring forward what all America will, I fancy, deem as high an authority as could well be cited. The following memorable words were uttered in my hearing in the national Senate in the month of July, 1850, when the celebrated measures of compromise were under discussion in that body, by one of the wisest and most patriotic statesmen, as well as one of the most consummate orators that the world has known; whose profound and salutary counsels, had they been since that period faithfully observed by those for whose benefit he