He sought in his legislative speeches to arouse Virginians to a sense of their lethargy and the need of action that their state should not be left behind in the race for prosperity and power. His appeals were not without success, for many of the finest public works in the state were the result of his labors. Had his political philosophy for the whole country been as comprehensive and sound as was his zeal for Virginia, he would have won imperishable laurels. In his state he showed the qualities of a statesman, and the people appreciated them. Here his politics did not fetter him.

In December, 1825, Mr. Tyler was elected governor of Virginia, and the next year was re-elected. His success as a state legislator had won him great popularity.

John Randolph was then one of Virginia's United States Senators. His eccentric genius, singularity and general uncertainty, did not make him popular. He often hurt his friends and his cause. Many Virginia democrats regretted his eccentricities and mistakes. And yet a certain wild genius for public speech made him a hard man to displace. The most considerate men opposed to him, believed that Governor Tyler could be elected in opposition to him. The movement was made and the governor was elected to the Senate of the United States. A public dinner was given him; speeches were made; he made one himself in which he glorified his political principles, and announced himself as opposed to the president, John Quincy Adams. Adams' message he said, "Had in it an almost total disregard of the federative principle." His whole political career had stood for the "federative principle," that is, that the Union is a confederacy of the several separate states to remain while they are satisfied, and to fall apart one by one as they came in, when they are dissatisfied. This view magnified the states above the nation, made every citizen's supreme loyalty that to the state. In the beginning the democratic party favored this "federative principle," and it was always especially strong in the South. The federalists regarded the confederation as made by the "people of the United States," and hence the Union as indissoluble-the nation to be self

existent and self-defensive till some power strong enough should bring it to an end. This was the original and essential difference between the parties. There were other differences, but this was the vital one.

Yet it is worthy of note that though this difference was much discussed from the beginning, the federalists put their principles into the constitution, at the start, and though the government has much of the time been administered by democrats there has been no permanent law or amendment enacted since, contrary to the original federalist constitution. The essential principles which the federalists put into the government at the beginning, have stood as a wall against which the Jeffersonian opposition has beat in vain since. The true democracy which stands for the interests of the whole people, is in a strong government-an indissoluble union of the whole people

a bulwark against anarchy and misrule from within, and enemies from without. Adams stood for this idea of the government; Tyler went into the Senate to oppose it. It was this "federative principle," as Mr. Tyler called it, which from near the beginning, and especially after his time, dwarfed and misled the statesmanship of the South and of the party which maintained it. The Jeffersonian party, though it has always had great numbers and much of the time been in power, has never moved a foundation or turret stone of the government. The statesmanship which laid deep and built strong, has been in other parties; and this chiefly because of the political heresies that entered early into the doctrines of this party.

As soon as in Congress Mr. Tyler allied himself with the opposition. Mr. Adams was non-partisan, and was beyond question the broadest statesman of his age. But his very breadth spoiled him for the Virginia senator. Mr. Tyler lost no occasion to magnify his views so popular in his own state, especially those concerning the powers of the general government and the commercial policy of the country.

When General Jackson came in after Mr. Adams, Mr. Tyler gave a cheerful and sympathetic support to his administration in the main. He opposed the recharter of the national bank.

That was a national institution, gave circulation to a national currency, supported a national credit and tended to make the nation a monopoly over the states. His doctrine was that the states should authorize banking and the emission of paper money, and give the country what currency it had, save gold and silver, which should be the only national money. The heart of the objection to the national bank was the fact that it fostered a nationality which overshadowed state power. It was opposed to the "federative principle." The opposition was consistent with the "federative principle," which contained the seeds of nullification, rebellion, disunion and destruction. Nationality would not be long possible under the "federative principle" which Senator Tyler so magnified.

Senator Tyler opposed a protective tariff with great vehemence and show of political learning, and made a three days' speech against it, which of itself was enough to show the fallacy of his argument; and yet he contended for a tariff for revenue. In his opposition he complained that the tariff operated against the South and kept it poor and hindered it from keeping pace with the North in advancing in wealth and power. He failed to see that the South was her own hinderance in her slave labor which made white labor dishonorable, the whites idlers and cumberers of the ground, prevented immigration, invention, enterprise, education and civilization. He failed to see that slavery prevented all skilled labor, and, therefore, prevented manufactures, commerce and business enterprise, and reduced society to the dead level of slow producers of raw material from the soil with hand labor.

Could the rest of the world afford to wait for that slow process? Could the rest of the world afford to keep itself poor and weak in enterprise because the South was bound to so continue? If he would have looked as a statesman, instead of as a Southern politician, he would have seen all the white people of the North busy in the production of wealth, enterprise and character,would have seen immigration pouring in from all Europe, with money, muscle, and energy, to settle up states, broaden and quicken society, a great variety of interests occupying the hands

and brains of enterprising millions,- would have seen a nationbuilding North developing every kind of talent and power, while the South was busy hugging the Delilah of slavery and arguing against the tariff and nationality. The truth was that a tariff was the upbuilding agency of the country, and it was the business of the South to adjust itself to it, instead of trying to force its own paralysis of business enterprise upon the rest of the country.

Senator Tyler also opposed internal improvements by the general government. He did this on the same principle that he opposed a national bank, and a national tariff, that it encouraged nationality and reduced state supremacy. In this he was narrowed by his sectional and partisan ideas of the dignity of a state and the subserviency of the national government. He did not seem to see that business, travel, society, education, know no state lines, that commerce, agriculture, and the wide interests of the nation know no North or South, East or West, much less state boundaries; nor did he seem to see that these great interests that concerned the good of the whole, needed the fostering hand of the general government, and that good policy and sound principles demanded that they should have it.

It was during Jackson's presidency that John C. Calhoun's nullification scheme came to the front, which was to repudiate, or nullify the tariff laws so far as the port of Charleston and the state of South Carolina was concerned, so as to let foreign goods come in duty free. It was simply rebellion against the laws of the United States,-one state resisting all the rest. Senator Tyler supported Mr. Calhoun and South Carolina in this nullification of the laws of his country. In this he was consistent with his political theory of the subserviency of the nation to the state, and so were Calhoun and South Carolina.

Jackson entertained the same general views that Tyler did, and if Calhoun had been his friend instead of his enemy, might have taken a very different view of his nullification; for the law stood very little in the way of his supreme desires.

Senator Tyler agreed with Jackson in his opposition to a national bank, but opposed Jackson's removal of the deposits

from the bank, on the ground that it was unlawful, or a nullification of the law.

In March, 1835, Senator Tyler was elected president of the Senate pro tempore, by the joint votes of the whigs and staterights senators. In February, 1836, the legislature of Virginia passed a resolution instructing its senators "to vote for a resolution directing the resolution of March 28, 1834, censuring the conduct of General Jackson, to be expunged from the journal of the Senate." Mr. Leigh, colleague of Mr. Tyler, refused to obey, and gave his reasons. Mr. Tyler would not obey, because he did not believe in the expunging doctrine, and yet would not vote against the instructions of his state, because he believed in the "right of instruction," so he resigned and gave his reasons therefor. Both senators were feasted by their constituents for their integrity.

In 1835 Mr. Tyler was nominated for vice-president on the ticket with Harrison, but both failed of an election. In the spring of 1836 he was elected to the Virginia Legislature. At this time he acted with the whig party in opposition to Van Buren. In 1839 he was made a delegate to the whig National Convention at Harrisburg, Pennsylvania, to nominate candidates for president and vice-president. He labored for the nomination of Clay, but General Harrison secured the nomination. To conciliate the irritated friends of Mr. Clay, Mr. Tyler was put upon the ticket for vice-president. His whole life had been against the principles of the whig party. It was its especial object to establish a national bank and remedy the bad condition of the finances of the country. But he was put upon the ticket as a compromise with the South and Mr. Clay's friends. It was a dear compromise to whig principles and the party. But Mr. Tyler made his speeches, letters and labors in the canvass satisfactory to the party, and the ticket was elected.

VICE-PRESIDENT AND PRESIDENT TYLER.

On the fourth of March, 1841, Mr. Tyler was inaugurated vice-president of the United States. In one month after being inaugurated, President Harrison died. Mr. Tyler was inau