Battle of New Orleans. We must call attention, too, to the fact that the one great battle of the war on land, in which the British were overwhelmingly defeated and made to understand that they would have to beware how they invaded American territory, was won by a native South Carolinian, Andrew Jackson, on January 8, 1815, at New Orleans. So it appears that the Second War for Independence, the war that was to make the flag of the Union respected on the high seas and transform it from "a painted rag" into "Old Glory," a war that was to force England to consider American soil sacred for all

ANDREW JACKSON

time from the footsteps of the invader, was inaugurated, sustained, and brought to a glorious triumph under the leadership of South Carolinians as statesmen and soldiers. We have seen that it was a South Carolinian who led the sailors of Paul Jones to the first victory gained by America on the high seas, and in this Second War for Independence how South Carolina did more than any other State in the Union to exalt the national character. We have seen also what a large part she had

in making the fundamental law of our Federal Government. These memories should inspire the devotion of Carolinians of today to the flag and to the nation.

It is not within the province of this volume to give the details of history, and, therefore, we omit mention of the very interesting and encouraging results of the small actions around Charleston during the War of 1812. It was a strange, but fortunate happening, that the few warships of the United States should have gained so many victories on the seas and lakes in conflict with the mistress of the seas. The names of Isaac Hull and his Constitution, Perry and Macdonough and Lawrence are immortal in our naval history, in which South Carolina feels a great national pride.

CHAPTER XVI

HAYNE AND WEBSTER

Hayne-Webster Debate. The discussion between South Carolina's representative, Robert Y. Hayne, and the representative of Massachusetts, Daniel Webster, in January, 1830, in the Senate, of the questions dividing the North and South into two camps, is properly called "The Battle of the Giants." The debate has been pronounced the forerunner of the War Between the Sections, and one philosophic Northern historian goes so far as to say that "the peroration of Webster's speech was Lee's surrender at Appomattox." This accords entirely with the best Southern view. It puts the issues of the war where they should be put and kept, as it clears away completely the thought that slavery was the chief cause of the conflict in arms in the sixties.

Slavery Not Cause of War. The truth is slavery was the immediate occasion, but not the cause of this deathgrapple. The initial cause of the war was the denial, on the part of the North of the right of the South, under the Constitution, to prevent the collection of taxes by a system which, in practical operation, enriched the Northern manufacturers at the expense of the Southern planters. Under the tenth amendment of the Constitution, which reserves to the States or to the people all "powers not delegated to the United States," Hayne pleaded for the protection of the South against the monstrous injustice of a tariff tax, which, by the exclusion

of foreign goods, enables the manufacturers of similar home goods to sell them at an advance on the price about equal to the amount of the tax. This placed the burdens of taxation on the South, while it carried its vast benefits to the North. The people of South Carolina should be exceedingly proud of the fact that they debated this question with great patience and self-restraint in the halls of legislation for thirty years before they resorted to secession; and the best minds of the North are now admitting that the war was fought over that issue.

True American Ideals.-South Carolinians should be gratified that it was their representative who took that view of the American Constitution which shows it to be a unique instrument in the feature of reserved rights, which guarantees local self-government and makes a distinction between modern and ancient forms of government. The great Massachusetts Senator, on the other hand, argued that the United States is a consolidated republic, and was thus contending for a system as old as the governments of Greece and Rome. Consolidation and "imperialism" are not novelties in government, and Webster was, therefore, representing no new ideas or ideals, and his argument was commonplace, tending to show that the American people had made no progress over earlier nations in the form of their government. The true expounder of the new Federal system was the South Carolinian, who met him with a force of logic and a display of oratorical powers that charmed his hearers and delighted the adherents of his theory of our gov

ernment.

South Carolina can safely appeal to time in vindication of the principles of the American system of government, which would give protection to local interests as against consolidated power, and prevent the imposing of a tax that could be collected from one section for the purpose of enriching another. The best minds and noblest spirits of the North are today opposed to consolidation and "imperialism" and the iniquities of the tariff. We wish to remind such intelligent Americans that it was precisely for these things that South Carolina put forth her greatest efforts in the debate in Congress, first by Hayne and then by her matchless statesman, John C. Calhoun, in opposition to the Massachusetts Senator, who is conceded to be the greatest orator and rhetorician that has ever argued for centralization and for theories of government that have long been abandoned by progressive peoples. We wish it emphasized that it may be ever remembered that South Carolina's statesmen, Calhoun, Hayne, McDuffie, and others contended in the Congress of the United States for the same principles for which Lee and Jackson, of Virginia, fought on the battlefields in the great War Between the Sections.

The bodies of men can be shot to death in battle, but the principles of justice and fair play are indestructible. If the leaders in the physical conflict had to surrender to superior numbers and resources, we are grateful to know that the leaders in the debate did not have to surrender, and that the appeal for justice, for fair play, for equality of privilege and opportunity for freer trade, and for unrestricted commercial enterprise, is as irrepressible