Calhoun — Nullification Explained. 239
when all reasonable hope of relief by the ordinary action of the Gov- ernment had failed — their's whenever the Constitution stands in the way of their "wills" or "convictions."
4. His nullification sought to preserve the Union as ordainpd by the Constitution, with powers neither increased nor diminished, unless done in the way prescribed by the Constitution — their's seeks to make the Constitution " nothing but a dead piece of parchment, not even able to resist the attacks of moths and mice, with no magical force in it," etc. (See p 295.)
This last idea of Dr. von Hoist naturally springs from this other idea of his, that it was not intended that the Union should remain as ordained by the Constitution, because " where there is life there is development" (see p. 79), or, in other words, that the Constitution is subordinate, not only to individual "wills" and "convictions," but also to individual notions of " development."
We of the South have inherited from our Revolutionary sires the " conviction " that constitutional government is preferable to despotic sway, and that the very object of a Constitution is to prevent govern- ment being "developed" into despotism. It has become second nature with us to revere the Constitution as the most precious legacy left us by those sires. Hence the difficulty of our comprehending how Dr. von Hoist's ideas of " development " can find acceptance in New England.
To the doctrine that a State may compel the general Government to submit a question of its powers to all the States in convention, Dr. von Hoist makes this objection : that " thereby one fourth of the States would get the power to change the Constitution." How? Why ? Because, forsooth, it requires three-fourths to make amend- ments !
To us of the South, accustomed to treat constitutional questions with becoming seriousness, this looks like something more and worse than " egregious trifling." If it were true that, in the case supposed, one-fourth of the States would get the power to change the Consti- tution at will, then all that Dr. von Hoist so flippantly says about " the Federal legislation being turned into a balky machine more fatal to healthy political life than Juggernaut's car to the fanatical worshippers," might apply to the Constitution itself and its framers, but not to those who accept it as it was framed.
But let Dr. von Hoist .=peak for himself. He says :
" Suppose — and the case might easily happen^that the Federal Government exercises a power which has been actually granted to it
