from the head of the Judiciary Committee, the same principle revived, and, if possible, in a worse form; for, in Maryland, the anarchists assumed that they were sustained by the numerical majority of the people of the State in their revolutionary movements; but the utmost the chairman can pretend to have is a mere plurality. The largest number of votes claimed for this self-created assemblage is 8,000; and no man will undertake to say that this constitutes any thing like a majority of the voters of Michigan: and he claims the high authority which he does for it, not because it is a majority of the people of Michigan, but because it is a greater number than voted for the authorized convention of the people that refused to agree to the condition of admission. It may be shown by his own witness, that a majority of the voters of Michigan greatly exceed 8,000. Mr. Williams, the president of the self-created assemblage, states that the population of that State amounted to nearly 200,000 persons. If so, there cannot be less than from 21,000 to 30,000 voters, considering how nearly universal the right of suffrage is under its constitution; and it thus appears that this irregular, self-constituted meeting, did not represent the vote of one-third of the State: and yet, on a mere principle of plurality, we are to supersede the constitution of Michigan, and annul the act of a convention of the people regularly convened under the authority of the government of the State.

But, says the Senator from Pennsylvania (Mr. Buchanan), this assembly was not self-constituted. It met under the authority of an act of Congress; and that act had no reference to the State, but only to the people; and that the assemblage in December was just such a meeting as that act contemplated. It is not my intention to discuss the question, whether the honorable Senator has given a plausible interpretation to the act; but, if he has, I could very easily show his interpretation to be erroneous; for, if such had been the intention of

VOL. II.-38

Congress, the act surely would have specified the time when the convention was to be held-who were to be the managers -who the voters-and would not have left it to individuals, who might choose to assume the authority to determine all these important points. I might also readily show that the word "convention" of the people, as used in law or the constitution, always means a meeting of the people regularly convened by the constituted authority of the States, in their high sovereign capacity, and never such an assemblage as the one in question. But I waive this; I take higher ground. If the act be, indeed, such as the Senator says it is, then I maintain that it is utterly opposed to the fundamental principles of our Federal Union. Congress has no right whatever to call a convention in a State. It can call but one convention, and that is a convention of the United States to amend the federal constitution; nor can it call that, except authorized by two-thirds of the States.

Ours is a Federal Republic-a union of States. Michigan is a State,-a State in the course of admission,-and differing only from the other States in her federal relations. She is declared to be a State in the most solemn manner by your own act. She can come into the Union only as a State; and by her voluntary assent, given by the people of the State in convention, called by the constituted authorities of the State. To admit the State of Michigan on the authority of a self-created meeting, or one called by the direct authority of Congress, passing by the authorities of the State, would be the most monstrous proceeding under our constitution that can be conceived; the most repugnant to its principles, and dangerous in its consequences. It would establish a direct relation between the individual citizens of a State and the General Government, in utter subversion of the federal character of our system. The relation of their citizens to this Government, is through the States exclusively. They are subject to its authority and laws only because the State

has assented to it. If she dissents, their assent is nothing; on the other hand, if she assents, their dissent is nothing. It is through the State, then, and through the State alone, that the United States Government can have any connection with the people of a State; and does not, then, the Senator from Pennsylvania see, that if Congress can authorize a convention of the people in the State of Michigan, without the authority of the State-it matters not what is the objectmay in like manner authorize conventions in any other State for whatever purpose it may think proper.

it

Michigan is as much a sovereign State as any other—differing only, as I have said, as to her federal relations. If we give our sanction to the assemblage of December, on the principle laid down by the Senator from Pennsylvania, then we establish the doctrine that Congress has power to call, at pleasure, conventions within the States. Is there a Senator on this floor who will assent to such a doctrine? Is there one especially, who represents the smaller States of this Union, or the weaker section? Admit the power, and every vestige of State Rights would be destroyed. Our system would be subverted; and instead of a confederacy of free and sovereign States, we would have all power concentrated here, and this would become the most odious despotism. He, indeed, must be blind, who does not see that such a power would give the Federal Government a complete control of all the States. I call upon Senators now to arrest a doctrine so dangerous. Let it be remembered, that, under our system, bad precedents live for ever; good ones only perish. We may not feel all the evil consequences at once, but this precedent, once set, will surely be revived, and will become the instrument of infinite evil.

It will be asked, what shall be done? Will you refuse to admit Michigan into the Union? I answer, no: I desire to admit her; and if the Senators from Indiana and Ohio will agree, am ready to admit her as she stood at the begin

ning of the last session, without giving sanction to the unauthorized assemblage of December.

But if this does not meet their wishes, there is still another way, by which she may be admitted. We are told two-thirds of the legislature and people of Michigan are in favor of accepting the conditions of the act of last session. If that be the fact, then all that is necessary is, that the legislature shall call another convention. All difficulty will thus be removed, and there will be still abundant time for her admission at this session. And shall we, for the sake of gaining a few months, give our assent to a bill fraught with principles so monstrous as this?

We have been told that, unless she is admitted immediately, it will be too late for her to receive her proportion of the surplus revenue under the Deposit Bill. I trust that, on so great a question, a difficulty like this will have no weight. Give her at once her full share. I am ready to do so at once, without waiting her admission. I was mortified to hear, on so grave a question, such motives assigned for her admission, contrary to the law and the constitution. Such considerations ought not to be presented when we are settling great constitutional principles. I trust that we shall pass by all such frivolous motives on this occasion, and take ground on the great and fundamental principle that an informal, irregular, self-constituted assembly-a mere caucus, has no authority to speak for a sovereign State in any case whatever; to supersede its constitution, or to reverse its dissent deliberately given by a convention of the people of the State, regularly convened under its constituted authorities.

SPEECH

On the same subject, delivered in the Senate, January 5, 1837.

[MR. GRUNDY, chairman of the Committee on the Judiciary, having moved that the Bill to admit the State of Michigan into the Union be now read a thi:d time

Mr. Calhoun addressed the Senate in opposition to the Bill.]

I HAVE, said Mr. C., been connected with this Government more than half the term of its existence, in various capacities; and during that long period I have looked on its action with attention, and have endeavored to make myself acquainted with the principles and character of our political institutions, and I can truly say that, within that time, no measure has received the sanction of Congress which has appeared to me more unconstitutional and dangerous than the present. It assails our political system in its weakest point, and where, at this time, it most requires defence.

The great and leading objections to the bill rest mainly on the ground that Michigan is a State. They have been felt by its friends to have so much weight, that its advocates have been compelled to deny the fact, as the only way of meeting the objections. Here, then, is the main point at issue between the friends and the opponents of the bill. It turns on a fact, and that fact presents the question, Is Michigan a State?

If, said Mr. C., there ever was a party committed on a fact -if there ever was one estopped from denying it—that party is the present majority in the Senate,-and that fact is, that Michigan is a State. It is the very party who urged through this body, at the last session, a bill for the admission of the State of Michigan-which accepted her constitution, and