238 Southern Historical Society Papers.
itself, forbids a recourse to it, except in cases of dangerous infractions of the Constitution, and then only in the last resort, when all reason- able hope of relief from the ordinary action of the Government has failed ; when, if the right to interpose did not exist, the alternative would be submission and oppression on one side, or resistance by force on the other. That our system should afford, in such extreme cases, an intermediate point between these dire alternatives, by which the Government may be brought to a pause, and thereby an interval obtained to compromise differences, or, if impracticable, be compelled to submit the question to a constitutional adjustment, through an ap- peal to the States themselves, is an evidence of its high wisdom ; an element not, as is supposed by some, of weakness, but of strength ; not of anarchy or revolution, but of peace and safety. Its general recognition would, of itself, in a great measure, supersede the necessity for its exercise by impressing on the movements of the Government that moderation and justice, so essential to harmony and peace in a country of such vast extent and diversity of interests as ours, and would, if controversy should come, turn the resentment of the aggrieved from the system to those who had abused its powers — a point all important — and cause them to seek redress, not in revolution or overthrow, but in reformation It is in fact, properly understood, a substitute where the alternative would be force, tending to prevent or, if that fails, to correct peaceably the aberrations to which all systems are liable, and which, if permitted to accumulate without correction, must finally end in a general catastrophe."
Such was nullification as advocated by Calhoun ; this its " utmost extent" ; no more. Such were the arguments by which he sought to dissuade the staple States from secession in 1831-32. His "im- pure idol " was the Union, as ordained by the Constitution; his "un- holy cause" the preservation of that Union as our fathers framed it.
The distinctive features of his nullification and of the nullification of those whom Dr. von Hoist represents and seeks to defend by mis- representing him, are :
1. His nullification was a temporary measure, analogous to the Presidential veto, to " allow time for further consideration and reflec- tion," and for a constitutional decision of the question by the States in convention. Their's was final and conclusive.
2. His nullification was applicable only to acts of the law-making power — their' s to the Constitution itself
3. His nullification was to be exerf^ised only in "cases of danger- ous infractions of the Constitution, and then only in the last resort,
