SPEECH
OF
GOVERNOR HAMILTON,
BEFORE THE
State Bights and Free Trade Association,
OF CHAULESTON,
ON THE 12TH SEPTEMBER. 1831.
CO UMBT % S. C.
Printed at the Times & Gazette Office-
SPEECH
Governor Hamilton, on taking the Chair, remarked, that in¬
dependently of the satisfaction he felt in having it in his power to
congratulate the Association on the vast accession to their numbers
since their last meeting, and on the formation of numerous auxili¬
ary associations in several of the Districts of the State, (a more de¬
tailed account of which they would receive in the Report of the
Standing Committee,) he likewise had it in his power to congratu¬
late them, not only on the salutary progress that the principles of
State Rights and Free Trade were every where making, but also
upon the appearance of a document which had powerfully con¬
tributed to these auspicious results. It was impossible that the
meeting should not understand that he could not allude to any thing
else, but the recent exposition of the Vice President of the United
States, This statesman, scorning the sordid calculations of a self¬
ish ambition, has come out and thrown the weight of his name and
gigantic intellect on the side of liberty and truth. He had, with all
the plainness and simplicity which belong to the most obvious and
familiar truths, exhibited the profound and abstract relations which
appertain to our State and Federative System—and in discussing
these deeply interesting topics, he has approached as near to de¬
monstration, as any subject short of mathematical combination or
analysis, would allow.
I am quite sure, (said Governor Hamilton) you will pardon my
trespassing on your attention for a few moments, whilst I say a
few words on this invaluable state paper, and the vital topics it
discusses.
The truth is, fellow-citizens, we are brought back to the era of
'98. The same doctrines are now advanced by our opponents in
sustaining power, and by us in resisting the abuses of power, that
characterized the contest between the Federalists and Republicans
of that day, with this difference, that the subject matter of the con¬
troversy which now divides us, is infinitely more inveterate and
A
malignant in its nature, than the cause of the division of the two
great parties at that time. The difference then was, mainly on
questions of personal security, resulting from our foreign relations
with France ard England, growing out of the French Revolution,
in ooiisequeiice oi w!m h the Alien and Sedition Laws were passed.
The same perversion oi the Constitution was then made to sanc¬
tion these usurpations, tnat is now made to justify the Tariff and
Internal Improvements. But these laws put money in no man's
purse, nor ministered to a pampered or luxurious wealth. The
oppressions, however, of which we complain, unfortunately find
their aliment in the strongest, the most invincible, and the basest
passions of our common nature, an insatiable avarice, and hence
the evil is infinitely more inveterate in its character, and more dif¬
ficult in its cure. The parallel, however, does not end here.
The Republicans of that day maintained the same doctrines, and
proposed the same remedy that we do now ; and the only reason
why it was not applied then, was, that the obnoxious laws became
harmless by the force of public opinion, and expired by their own
limitation, which superseded all necessity for State interposition.
The Republicjans of '98 maintained then, as we maintain now,
in the language of Mr. Calhoun (which .1 cheerfully adopt as af¬
fording a perfect exposition of our primary and elementary doc¬
trine, as the corner stone of our whole State and federative sys¬
tem) " that the General Government emanated from the people of
the several States, forming distinct political communities, and act¬
ing in their separate sovereign capacity, and not from all of the
people forming one aggregate political community ; that the Con¬
stitution of the United States is in fact a compact, <o which each
State is a party, in the character already described ; and that the
several States or parties, have a right to judge of its infractions and
in cases of a deliberate, palpable and dangerous exercise of a pow¬
er not delegated, they have the right in the last resort, to use the
language of the Virginia resolutions 11 to interpose for arresting
the progress of the evil, and for maintaining within their respect¬
ive limits, the authorities, rights and liberties appertaining to them"
This right oj interposition thus solemnly asserted by the State of
Virginia, be it called what it may, State Right, Veto, Nullification,
or by any other name, I conceive it to be the fundamental princi¬
ple of our system, resting on facts, historically as certain as our
Revolution itself, and deductions, as simple and demonstrative, as
that of any political or moral truth whatever ; and I firmly believe
that on its recognition depend the stability and safety of our politi¬
cal institutions."
I know that an effort has been made to show that Virginia, in
her celebrated Resolutions of '9S, either meant nothing by this
great right of State interposition, or she meant to assert the naked
right of resistance to unlawful power, i say Virginia, for 1 prefer
to speak of that great democratic commonwealth, than of Mr.
Madison, who happened, accidentally, to be the organ of her pub¬
lic sentiment. She abides, I trust in God, where she did. /iehas
crossed the Potomac, horse, foot and dragoons, and thrown him¬
self on the side of the monied oligarchy of the North, by espousing
all their profitable doctrines of Consolidation, arid repudiating all
those safe principles of construction to which Virginia owes her in¬
fluence and authority in this Confederacy. It is no new fact in
the history of the world, that many men have had the intellectual
power to strike out great truths, which they had not the moral
courage to sustain—and it is unfortunately, but too true, of Mr.
Madison, that there is scarcely a single principle which brought
him into power in 1800, that he has not discarded in 1880, and his
last opinions sanctify that most odious and dangerous heresy of
Consolidation, that long continued violations of the Constitution,
repeatedly affirmed by a majority, sanction the usurpation. Con¬
trast the letters of this gentleman on the Tariff, with his speech in
the first Congress, on the navigation, tonnage and duty bill; his
exposition of the Virginia Resolutions in that great Federal Jour¬
nal, the North American Review, with his own Report; his
speech on the Bill to incorporate a National Bank, with his recent
letter to Mr. Ingersoll, and the justice of these reflections will be¬
come sufficiently obvious.
The great right, on the part of the State, of sovereign, peaceful
and constitutional interposition, in cases of usurpation by the Gen¬
eral Government, which in South Carolina we call Nullification,
it can be demonstrated, is affirmed in these calebrated Resolutions
of Virginia.—Great and salutary truths cannot be repeated too of¬
ten.—You must bear with me gentlemen for a moment, whilst I
prove that Mr. Calhoun, in seeking to sustain his argument by the
corroborating strength of these State papers, has not travelled one
inch beyond the Record.—The whole pith of this State paper, in
relation to this subject, is comprised in the 3d Resolution, and its
explanatory elucidation in the Report, which is in these words:
" That this assembly doth explicitly and peremptorily, declare that
it views the powers of the Federal Government, as resulting from
the compact, to which the States are parties, as limited by the
plain sense and intention of the instrument constituting that com¬
pact, as no further valid than they are authorized by the grants
enumerated in that compact; and that in case of a deliberate, pal¬
pable and dangerous exercise of other powers not granted by the
said compact, the States who are parties thereto, have the right,
and are in duty bound, to interpose for arresting the progress of
the evil, and for maintaining within their respective limits, the
authorities, rights, and liberties appertaining to them."
<>
When Virginia was called upon to explain what she meant by
this Resolution, whether she intended revolution or not ?—What
was her reply ?—Let her speak for herself.—" On this Resolution,
the Committee have bestowed all the attention which its import¬
ance merits; they have scanned it not merely with a strict, but a
severe eye ; and they feel confidence in pronouncing, that in
its just and fair construction, it is unexceptionably true in its sev¬
eral positions, as wreli as Constitutional and conclusive in its in¬
ferences."
It seems, she contended that this right of interposition was not
only " unexceptionably true, but constitutional and conclusive
in its inferences." She then could not have intended Revolution,^
by interposing by physical force, because that wduld have put an
end to the Constitution ana the Union. But it is said, no, she
merely intended to protect and remonstrate against usurpation,
and to call upon other states to concur with her in procuring an
amendment of the Constitution, prohibiting the exercise of such a
power as had been usurped in the Alien and Sedition Law.—By
this Resolution, she designed something more, because she confided
an affirmation of these means to another and distinct Resolution.—
The 3d Resolution affirms a sovereign right, altogether superremi-
nent to the mere priviledge of protest and remonstrance.—For sup¬
pose protest and remonstrance did not arrest the progress of the
evilf the right still remains with the evil."—By the Resolution,
it is manifest that each state is " bound to arrest the evil within its
own limits," which fixes the very sphere in which Nullification is
to operate. But to place this matter beyond all doubt, the Report
in further explanation of this Resolution, goes on to say, " But the
Resolution has done more than guard against misconstruction, by
expressly referring to cases of a deliberate, palpable and danger¬
ous nature.—It specifies .the object of the interposition which it
contemplates, to be solely that of arresting the progress of the evil
of usurpation, and maintaining the authorities, rights and liberties
appertaining to the States, as parties to the Constitution.—From
ibis view of the Resolution, it would seem inconceivable that it
can incur any just disapprobation from those, who laying aside all
momentary impressions, and recollecting the genuine source and
object of the Federal Constitution, shall candidly and accurately in¬
terpret the meaning of the General Assembly.—If the deliberate
exercise of dangerous powers, palpably withheld by the Constitu¬
tion, could not justify the parties to it, in interposing evenso far as
to arrest the progress of the evil, and thereby to preserve the Con¬
stitution itself, as well as to provide for the safety of the parties to
it; there would be an end to all relief from the usurped power,
and a direct subversion of the rights specified," (the reserved
rights or nothing) "and recognized under all the State Comtitu-
V
lions, as well as a plain denial of the fundamental principle on
which our independence itself was declared."
What man can for a moment believe, on reading this explana¬
tion, that Virginia intended by this, the indication of any thing
short of the right, by an act of her legislative authority to arrest the
usurpation within her own limits, for she says that the Resolution
" specifies the object of the interposition which it contemplates, to
be solely that of arresting the progress of the evil of usurpation,
and maintaining the authorities, rights and liberties appertaining to
the States as parties to the Constitution.'''' She, therefore, " as a
party to the Constitution," could not have contemplated forcible
resistance, and the absurdity of arresting the progress of the evil
by protest, has been sufficiently demonstrated.
A very worthy and distinguished gentleman (Col. Drayton,) in
a series of notes which he has appended to an oration he delivered
on the 4th of July in this city, has, in my humble judgment, fallen
into a mistake, by assigning the explanation given in the Report to
the 7th Resolution to the 3d Resolution. The two are totally dis¬
tinct j the 3d relates to the sovereign rights of the States, and the
7th to seeking the co-operation of the other States, by acting
through Congress. The first treats of the separate action of the
States through their own sovereignty, and the 7th to their joint
and confederate action. It may be seen by reference to the Reso¬
lutions, that they consist altogether of seven in number, each af¬
firming distinct and independent propositions.
The 3d Resolution stands by itself and affirms broadly the great
Right of Constitutional interposition on*the part of a Sovereign
State, to arrest the progress of usurpation within her limits. This
the Report re-affirms without the smallest qualification, limitation
or exception.
The 7th Resolution calls upon the States to concur with her,
(Virginia) in declaring the Alien and Sedition Law, unconstitu¬
tional. And it is to this resolution alone that the report has refer¬
ence as to the expedients of protest and remonstrance, and to the
asking the co-operation of the other States in procuring an amend¬
ment to the Canstitution. It leaves the great right, solemnly af¬
firmed in the 3d Resolution, altogether unaffected. Really gen¬
tlemen, I cannot waste your time any longer on a controversy,
which is soon destined to be considered as at rest forever. But
contemporary testimony is not to be slighted entirely on a ques¬
tion of this description, although the Resolutions and Report must
be allowed to speak for themselves. Whilst on this subject, I
must beg leave, to read you two letters from two gentlemen of Vir¬
ginia, in explanation of this very subject.
It is well known to you that in the Ilth number of the Southern
Review, in the article on the Debate in the Senate of the United
States on Foot's Resolutions, that it is there contended that the
Resolutions of Virginia meant nothing more nor less than the Car¬
olina doctrine of Nullification. I wrote to one of the best inform¬
ed, and most experienced politicians of Virginia, a man of cautious
judgment and great moral worth, requesting him to read the article,
and to tell me whether a just interpretation was not put on the doc¬
trines of Virginia. Here is his reply, in which he not only de¬
clares that our version is the true interpretation of '98, but en¬
closes me a copy of an act of palpable Nullification, passed by
the Legislature of Virginia, by which Virginia had Nullified the
Sedition Law within her own limits, so far as the members of her
Legislature could be affected by that law. Allow me, gentlemen,
to lead this letter to yoil.
VIRGINIA, August 19, 1830.
Dear Sir—I received your two letters and the pamphlet sent
lire last night, for which I beg you to receive my most sincere
thanks. I have given the article a hasty perusal, and find it to
contain nothing more or less than the doctrines of Virginia in
1798-9, carried out to their legitimate effects, as she was prepared
to have done at that time, provided she had not otherwise gained
her object. I have been from home for a week, and have not time
now to write at any length, but will do so when more at leisure.
In the mean time, I hasten to forward you a copy of the act you
wish, which you will find enclosed.
The Law enclosed, you are aware, provided a penalty of six
months imprisonment, and a fine of two thousand dollars, against
any and all persons adjudicating or enforcing the sedition law a-
gainst the members of the Legislature. I know it has been said by
the gentleman (Col. Drayton) to whom I have before referred,
that this act was merely passed to supply a defect in the Constitu¬
tion of Virginia, which omitted to exempt members from arrest.
Yes, so it was, but with a special reference to an unconstitutional
act of Congress, and for the purpose of arresting the progress of
the evil within the limits of Virginia, as far as the members of her
Legislature, could be affected by it, and who were peculiarly ex¬
posed to the penalties of this law, from the high degree of excite¬
ment existing in the Legislature of Virginia at that time, on ac¬
count of the usurpations of the General Government. The fact is
incontrovertable, that the law of Virginia was a legitimate conse¬
quence of, and a striking commentary on the right, affirmed in the
3d Resolution of her Legislature. This law, Mr. Giles has pub¬
lished in his political miscellanies, with this title " an act to pro¬
tect the members of the Legislature of Virginia from the penalties
of the sedition law." As he voted for the law, being a member
of the legislature at the time, it is quite fair to infer, that he knew
for what purpose it was passed, and on what principle; and in the
work to which I have alluded, he holds this very significant lan¬
guage.
"In 1798 and 1799, under much more discouraging circumstan¬
ces than the present, Virginia was again threatened for daring to
assert her rights. For daring.to resist the alien and sedition laws.
Her Representatives on this floor, were threatened with arras—
with incarceration. Did they then meanly and timidly yield to
these alarms ? No, sir, they determined again, to regain their
rights, or perish in the attempt. They then went earnestly and
systematically to work. The first measure they then adopted, was
to pass a law to protect them in the freedom of debate ; requiring
the State Judges, in the event of any member being imprisoned
for words used in debate, to issue a writ of habeas corpus, and to
replace the incarcerated member in his place on this floor. They
then determined to arm the militia, and to make provision to pur¬
chase 5000 stand of arms. Then it was, sir, that the foundation
for the regular supply of arms to the militia was laid, in the estab¬
lishment of your armory. To defray the expenses of these mea¬
sures, they raised the whole taxes of the State 25 per cent, with a
single scrape of the pen. Backed by these measures, they entered
a solemn protest, against the offensive laws. These were mea¬
sures truly worthy of Virginia.
" Did they eventuate in war ? In Disunion ? No sir. They saved
the Union—they saved the nation—These measures regained our
liberty; and once more we were free. These measures well de¬
served success ; and they were successful.—See Mr. Giles' Speechi
March, 1827, in the Legislature of Virginia."
Some stress has been laid on the fact of the Legislature of Vir¬
ginia, after full debate, striking out the clause in the Resolutions
declaring the Alien and Sedition Laws null and void. On this
subject, instead of my. conjectures, I beg leave to read a letter
which I received from Mr. Giles, a short time before his death.
You will perceive, gentlemen, from this communication, that noth¬
ing but the illness and subsequent decease of this eminent states¬
man and inflexible Republican, prevented my having a full and
satisfactory account of the celebrated resolutions of '98,—a cir¬
cumstance which subsequent events, both in Virginia and in our
own State, have caused me to deplore, independently of the loss
of such a man at such a crisis, as no one at that time living, could
have done such entire justice to the subject.
VIRGINIA, Sept. 16, 1830.
Dear Sir—I regret that I am compelled to defer my reply to
your interrogatories in part at least; but I give you, sir, the assu¬
rance, that I will readily comply with your request, to present you
my views on this interresting subject, should an indulgent Provi¬
dence ever bestow on me a sufficient restoration of health, to ena-
10
ble me to do so. 1 am rejoiced, indeed, that this call has been
made upon me, and especially at this time, for I had intended to
have offered some remarks to the public, connected with this sub¬
ject, in reply to an article lately published in the Richmond Enqui¬
rer. In that article it was stated, that 1 had moved in the Virginia
Assembly to strike out that clause in Mr. Madison's Resolutions,
which went to declare the Alien and Sedition Laws null and void
in this State, and that this motion was carried. So far this state¬
ment is perfectly correct. But it seems to have been the intention
of this writer to throw upoa me the whole merit or demerit of that
motion ; whereas the true history of the transaction is briefly this.
Mr. Madison and myself finding, as I then understood, that we could
effect nothing in Congress by our utmost exertions towards coun¬
teracting the unconstitionai and despotic spirit then dominant in the
United States—and stimulated by every effort of the General Gov¬
ernment, determined to relinquish our seats there ; with the under¬
standing at least, that we should become members of the General
Assembly of our own State, and endeavour to produce a counter
current in the United States through that body. From some cause
unknown to me, Mr. Madison did not attend the first year. Hav¬
ing resigned my seat in Congeess, J was elected to the Assembly
from my own county; and my friend Mr. Joseph Eggleston, who
then represented it, having also resigned his seat for the purpose,
was elected in the place I had formerly occupied in Congress. I
arrived at the seat of government after the Assembly had met, and
after this subject had been in discussion some days; when several
of the leading republican members had pledged themselves to vote
for this clause, and when it had been ascertained that if this clause
were retained we should lose some votes at least, and perhaps fail
of a majority altogether. It was, therefore, determined in a caucus
of the republican party, on the night of my arrival, that I should
make the motion to stiike out this clause. 1 was selected for this
purpose also, because I was generally thought one of the most vio¬
lent politicians of the party, and this was considered a fair oppor¬
tunity afforded me to redeem my character in that respect. It is
manifest then, that the motives which induced the Republican Par¬
ity to advise this motion, and certainly the views under which I
\ acted, were founded entirely upon considerations of policy, and
never were thought to have the slightest relation, to the principles
involved in the question. Those who were opposed to the nulli¬
fying clause, but finally voted with us, were, notwithstanding, in
favor of the principles of the Resolutions, which ivent to confer
t that power on the State Government; and they only grounded
their opposition to that clause, upon an unwillingness to apply the
principle at that time, and upon the opinion that we should at first
move with the utmost moderation and caution. In this view, it wr.s
tl
considered that this clause was not at all material; and a major!
being all important to our cause, and its influence dependii
much upon its numbers, it was agreed by the Republican Part
under these circumstances to strike those words from the Resol
tions, by which, I believe a number of votes were secured. Tl
act was never considered as weakening, in the slightest degree, t
force of any principles avowed in those Resolutions, and was i\
adopted, indeed, with any reference whatever to any one of the
principles.
This is a general but correct history of this part of the procee
ings on Mr. Madison's Resolutions, and it will enable you, so 1
at least, to form a more correct view of the motives which go
erned the Republican Party at that time. It must also serve, 1
the present, as the extent of my reply to your letter ; but shoo
my health have sufficiently improved, when my son returns fron
trip of a week or tyvo, which he is about to take, I will do mys
the honor to give you a more enlarged, and 1 trust a more satisfi
tory answer.
1 will beg leave, Sir, to add, with my best thanks for your ki
wishes, the assurance of my high consideration and sincere p<
sonal regard, &c.
WM. B. GILES.
James Hamilton, jun. Esq.
You will perceive, gentlemen, that Mr. Giles in this letter, d
tinctly avers, " that those w ho were opposed to the Nullifyi
clause, but finally voted with us, were notwithstanding, in fa\
of the principles of the Resolutions, which went to confer tl
power on the State Government, and that they only grounded thi
opposition to that clause, from an unwillingness to apply theprin
pics at that time.
Here I might rest the case, but I know it will be said that B
Madison's testimony is adverse to that of Mr. Giles.—My only i
ply to this is, to state a fact on which I will not make a single co
mentary. That Mr. Madison had so entirely forgotten the di
of his own Resolutions, when he wrote his letter to the Editoi
the North American Review, that in that letter he asserts thatt
Supreme Court is the final arbiter, whilst it was the primary obj
of the Resolutions and Report of '98 and '99, drawn by himself,
deny that this very Court was the umpire between the Sta
and the General Government. But, gentlemen, the doctrines
the Veto, State Interposition, or Nullification, can be traced tc
much less dubious source than the conflicting opinions of I
Madison.—To Mr. Jefferson, is unquestionably due;, the reno
of having first pointed out this effective check in our federative s
tem to the usurpation of undelegated power.—His celebrated Re
lutions tVere passed on the 10th November. 1798, by the Kentut
12
Assembly—those oi' Virginia by Mr. Madison, were subsequently
passed by the Legislature of that State, on the 21st December,
1798.—Mr. Jefferson, in the former, affirms it as the corner stone
on which the doctrine of Nullification rests : " Resolved, That the
several States composing the United States of America, are-not
united on the principle of unlimitteu submission to the General
Government ; but that by compact under the style and titleofa
Constitution for the United States, and of amendments thereto,
they constituted a General Government for special purposes, dele¬
gated to that Government certain definite powers, reserving each
State to itself, the residuary mass of right to their own self govern¬
ment; and that whenever the General Government assumes un¬
delegated powers, its acts are unauthoratative, void, and of no
force; that to this compact each state acceded as a State, and is an
intergal party, its co-States forming, as to itself, the other party;
thatthfs Government created by this compact, was not made the ex¬
clusive or final judge of the extent of the powers delegated to
itself; since that would have made its discretion, and not the Con¬
stitution, the measure of its powers ; but that, as in all other cases
of compact among parties having no common judge, each party has
an equal right to judge for itself, as well of infractions, as the mode
and measure of redress."
However trite it may be, to recite this Resolution, it cannot be
repeated too often.—On the conservative doctr ine which it asserts,
depends the liberty, happiness and very existence of the Southern
States. It should, like the laws of the Twelve Tables, be com¬
mitted to memory by ourselves and our children, for it compre¬
hends by a powerful condensation, withih a brief compass, the best
exposition extant of what State Rights, State Security, and State
remedies really are. I am aware that it has been affirmed, that
Mr. Jefferson was not the author of these resolutions, and some
writer from Virginia, under the extraordinary signature of " A
Virginian," republished in our prints, has made the same assertion.
In the 4th volume, however, of Mr. Jefferson's Memoirs, the fact
is set at rest forever, for he admits, in his letter to Col. Nicholas,
that he was the author of the Kentucky Resolutions, and his ad¬
mission is made so broadly, and without qualification or exception,
that the inference is altogether justifiable, that he was likewise the
author of the Supplemental Resolutions, which in express terras
declare eo nomine, the right of Nullification, in this remarkable
clause in these Resolutions,—" That the several States, being sov¬
ereign and independent, have tfic unquestionable right to judge of
its infractions (the Constitution,) and that a Nullification by tkose
sovereignties of all unauthorized acts, is the rightful remedy."—
This deduction is sustained by the internal evidence of the striking
similitude of the style of both papers, in a manner so remarkable.
as to satisfy any unprejudiced mind, of their being written by one
and the same hand.
Besides, it is a fact beyond all dispute that Mr. Jefferson sub¬
scribed, in practice, to the validity of the doctriqe of Nullification,
without deeming the intervention of the Federal Judiciary neces¬
sary to pronounce the acts null in the first instance. It was on this
avowed principle, that he remitted the penalty, after he became
President, to which Callender had been sentenced under the Se¬
dition law, for a libel on President Adams, and it is equally well
known that when the celebrated Hamilton Rowan wrote him to
inquire whether he could come with safety into Virginia, after the
passage of the Alien Law, to the penalties of which he was liable,
Mr. Jefferson actually offered the Irish patriot, in the following
sentence, extracted from his letter to that gentleman, the protec¬
tion of Virginia Nullification for his security. He says to him—
" In this State, however, the delusion has not prevailed.—They
(the people) are sufficiently on their guard to justify the assurance,
that should you choose it (Virginia) for your asylum, the laws of
the land administered by upright Judges, would protect you
against the exercise of any power unauthorised by the Constitution
of the United States." 1
I am, however ashamed, gentlemen to detain you seemingly on
such an unprofitable discussion, in which repeated and undeniable
refutation appears to" have not the smallest effect on the hardihood
of obstinate assertion, for, after all, it must be admitted, that if
truth cannot rest on its own basis, human authority can add little
stability to its foundation. The right of a Sovereign State, in a
Confederate Government of limited powers, to interpose within
its own limits by the peaceful authority of its own laws, to protect
its own citizens from an usurpation of those rights and powers,
which they have not delegated to the Confederate Government,
but have reserved to themselves, is intrinsically, either a reasona¬
ble or an unreasonable doctrine. We maintain the former propo-.
sition, and to this Mr. Calhoun has lent a new and invincible force,
by the illustrations of his original and aecute intellect.—The whole
difficulty in the case arises, however, from our opponents seeing
nothing but the inconvenience of the application of the sovereign
interposition of a State, whilst they shut their eyes entirely to the
abuses of power, which it is designed to remedy. Their doctrine
stops nothing short of this, that a violation of the solemn compact
of Government, is a lesser evil than the interruption of the uni¬
form operation of Government, although it does oppress—in other
words, that the convenience of those who govern, is much more to
be considered, than the rights of those who are governed. It is re¬
lated, that when Mr. Fox visited France, during the consulate, he
had an interview'with Buonaparte, who remarked to him, " Mr.
14
Eox, I do not like your Trial by Jury in England, it must be so
very inconvenient to government.*' " It is for this very incon¬
venience^ replied Mr. Eox, " that I like it." May we not affirm
the same of State interposition? But there is one proposition,
which I think we may fairly make to our opponents, that if they
will give us a remedy equally peaceful and effectual, and in their
opinion, more consonant to the Constitution, we will cheerfully a-
dopt it. But, for " palpable, .deliberate, and dangerous violations
•of the compact," they have nothing to offer us but revolution and
secession on the one hand, or submission to-unauthorised power on
the other. They maintain the cheerless proposition, that our sys¬
tem contains no middle ground, on which to rest our liberty and
hopes—that, when these States declared themselves, of right free
end independent, and formed the present compact, reserving to the
State jurisdictions all the powers which they did not delegate to
the General Government, they provided no other security for these
reserved powers than the right of rebellion, That our State au¬
thorities, in short, have constitutionally no power to protect their
own citizens ! I ask for what purpose then, have we a State Gov¬
ernment, if it is not for the security of those rights we have not del¬
egated to the General Government. Our opponents, it is true,
tell us for our comfort, that in case the General Government does
violate or usurp these rights, our citizens may resist by force of
arms; but that the depository of their sovereign power their own
Legislature, cannot pass a solitary law for their protection, with¬
out violating the Constitution of the United States, and throwing
itself out of the Union. Can any thing be conceived more palpa¬
bly and mischievously absurd than this proposition ? When the
.Constitution of the United States expressly guarantees to the
States, that the powers not delegated to the General Government,
are reserved respectively to the States, an inevitable incident to
this reservation, must be a recognition of the constitutional author¬
ity of a State, in its sovereign capacity, to protect by its own laws,
the powers so reserved. Now how stands the argument with us ?
We maintain, that, among our reserved rights, is an exemption of
our people from taxation, except for the specified purposes set forth
in the Constitution, and that we never delegated to Congress the
power to tax us for the purpose of conferring bounties in effect, on
the people of the other states, or for making Roads and Canals for
them. If the Legislature of our State cannot, in such cases, pro¬
tect its people from such usurpation, for what purpose have we a
legislature ? For what purpose do we cherish such an insignifi¬
cant phantom, as a State Government ? Let us now see carried
out, to its practical consequences, the difference in the remedies
between us and our opponents. Let me suppose a case, which I have,
bv the way. seen put with unanswerable force, in a recent article
15
in the United States' Telegraph. That Congress should levy an
export duty of $ 5, on ever bale of cotton, (which, in effect, is now
levied under the operation of the existing system of imports, in the
reduction of the exchangeable value of this staple) and that the
officers of our Customs should attempt its collection—that this in¬
fraction should have been persevered in, in contempt and defi¬
ance of our protests and remonstrances for eleven years—the rem¬
edy of our opponents would be to secede from the Union, or by
force of arms to deluge our streets with blood, and to blow up the
Custom House. Now, here is the reverse of the picture,—ours
would be to pass a law, declaring such a tax unconstitutional, and
making its collection penal within our limits. In this event, the
General Government would be brought to a pause—They have
either to repeal the law, or call a convention of the States to settle
the disputed power, or appeal to force. What man, in his sense?,
doubts which alternative would be selected, although wre should be
unworthy of our liberties, if we were not prepared for either.
But does any one capable of forming a just estimate of civil
freedom, and a well regulated love for liberty, think that force can
be the arbiter of our system ? Has not Mr. Jetferson hit upon the
true theory of our form of government and the ultimate appeal,
when he says,
" With respect to our State and Federal Governments, I do not
think their relations are correctly understood by foreigners. They
suppose the former subordinate to the latter. This is not the
case. They are co-ordinate departments of one simple and inte-
gral whole. But you may ask if the two departments shoujd
cla.im each the same subject of power, where is the umpire to de¬
cide between them ? In cases of little urgency or importance, the
prudence of both parties will keep them aloof from the questiona¬
ble ground ; but if it can neither be avoided nor compromised, a
convention of the States must be called to ascribe the doubtful
power of that department which they may think best."
But the important question arises, how is this appeal to be ob¬
tained ? The majority, when they can be secure in their usurpa¬
tion, by the mere force of theii numbers in Congress, will not con¬
sent to go into Convention, where three fourths of the States would
haye to ascribe affirmatively, " to which department the doubtful
power belonged." No, they will not consent until the sovereign
interposition of one or more States, by their veto compels this ap¬
peal ; and it is in this point of view, 1 consider that Nullification is
entitled to its benign and pacific character, because I believe that
it is destined, essentially and vitally, to contribute to a preserva¬
tion of the Union.
I know that it is asked, what security have we, that the States
from the delirium of popular excitement, and from hasty and rash
10
counsels, may not annul a constitutional law ? I say the same se¬
curity which we have for our now remaining in the Union, and
abstaining from revolution and the crimes it entails—responsibility
to the public opinion of the whole world—the tremendous con¬
sequences of ill-advised and unjust legislation—the vigilence of in¬
ternal rival parties, and the moral sense of an enlightened commu¬
nity. But, gentlemen, Mr. Calhoun has placed this part of the
argument on such unanswerable grounds, that I can employ no
reasons so satisfactory as his own. He says, very justly ; "I do
not deny that a power of so high a nature may be abused by a
State ; but when I reflect, that the States unanimously called the
General Government into existence with all of its powers, which
they freely surrendered on their part, under the conviction that
their common peace, safety and prosperity required it, that they
are bound together by a common origin, and the recollection of
common suffering and common triumph in the great and splendid
achievement of their independence ; and that the strongest feel¬
ings of our nature, and among them, the love of national povver and
distinction, are on the side of the Union ; it does seem to me that
the fear, which would strip the States of their sovereignty and de¬
grade them, in fact, to mere dependent corporations, lest they
should abuse a right indispensable to the peaceable protection of
those interests, which they reserved under their own peculiar
guardianship, when they created the General Government, is un¬
natural and unreasonable. If those who voluntarily created the
system, cannot \>e trusted to preserve it, what power can P
But, in this world, compromise things as we may, we cannot
arrive at abstract perfection. In the choice of evils, we must make
the best selection we can, and I ask you, which would be most likely
to abuse power, a gigantic General Government like ours, with
sectional majorities, totally irresponsible to sectional minorities ;
or a feeble State, single handed, with (as I said before) internal
rival parties, watching every measure of the public authorities in
power. The whole theory of our government is founded, in re¬
gard to powers clearly delegated, upon these checks, as furnishing
a security to minorities. The adjustment of the representation in
the Senate, and mode of voting for Chief Magistrate, in a certain
contingency, are illustrative of this truth. Is it therefore con¬
ceivable, that, for the protection of powers not delegated, this
check can be unlawfully exercised by a State, who, in regard to
the possession of the powers she has reserved, is as sovereign as
she was before the Constitution was adopted ?
If I maintain a dangerous heresy, I have high authority for it,
and less liable to be distrusted in the opinion of some persons, as
it comes from North of the Potomac. Chief Justice Tilghman, in
the memorable case of Olmestead, declared in toiidem verbis, what
17
what we mean by Nullification. He declared, "that the nature of
the Federal Constitution leraves the States absolute supremacy in
all cases, in which it is not yielded to the United States. The
United States have no power, Legislative or Judicial, except what
is derived from the Constitution. When these powers are clearly
.exceeded, the independence of the States and the peace of the
Union, demand that the States' Courts should, in the cases
brought before them, grant redress. There is no law that for¬
bids it; the oath of office enacts it, and if they do not, what course-*
is to be taken ? We must be reduced to the miserable extremity
of opposing force to force, arraying citizen against citizen, for it is
vain to expect that the States, will submit to manifest and flagrant
usurpations of power by the United States, if (which God forbid)
they should ever attempt it. If Congress should pass a Bill of at¬
tainder, or lay a tax or duty on articles exported from any State,
such laws would be null and void, and persons acting under them,
trespassers ?
The only retreat from a clear demonstration of this argument,
(which is our argument) our opponents at home can have, is in the
denial of the unconstitutionality of the Tariff. Do they make this
denial yet? No, they dare not bravepublic opinion, but to this
complexion, their objections " must come at last." Gentlemen,
you will understand me* I am sure, when I say that is no part of
my purpose, to inculcate the necessity of our urging, that this rem¬
edy should be adopted by the State at the present time. . I am ad¬
monished of the obvious impropriety of holding any such language
in this place. This is a question of expediency, to be determined
by the Legislature, and to be governed by considerations resulting
from an entire failure of all other modes of redress. My object
has been to settle the doctrine, not to urge its application. The
doctrine itself, I believe to be the citadel of our safety. Without
it, our outposts are entirely uncovered. Let us cling to it then,
with unyielding and undying firmness, as the broad iEgis under
whose protection, not alone the rights of the States, but the integ¬
rity of the Union also will be secure.
In this controversy, independently of the strong constitutional
grounds, Upon which we may rest our case, wre ought not, aS Mr.
Calhoun very justly says: " to overlook, in considering the ques¬
tion, the different character of the claims of the two sides. Tlbe
one asks from the Government no advantage, but simply to be let
alone in the undisturbed possession of their natural advantages
and to secure which, as far as was consistent with the other ob¬
jects of the Constitution, was one of their leading motives in. en
teriug into the Union ; while the other side claims,lor the advance-
ment of their prosperity, the positive interference of the Govern-
jjnent.-—In such cases, on every principle of fairness and justice
3
IS
such interference ought to be restrained within the'limits strictly
compatible with the national advantages of the other." That we
are right in the ground of our controversy, and that we ask nothing
but justice, is a circumstance in itself of inestimable importance,
and makes our position one of invincible strength. Gentlemen,
what, in point of fact are we contending for ? That others may be
taxed for our benefit ? No. But that we should not be taxed for
theirs, in violation of the common compact, subsisting between us.
Do you believe that the interests for which we are striving, are not
worth the contest ? No, I know there is not one in this assembly,
that believes any such thing. But our opponents, solicitous to
moderate public feeling down to the proper tone for submission,
are employing every effort of extenuation and apology, for
the very system, the principle of which they are compelled to
condemn.
We may do ample justice (and it would be uncharitable not to
so do) to the motives of those who maintain those opinions; but
what are we to think of that sagacity, that can consider as trivial
and unimportant, a,system which puts its prohibitory ban over the
industry of a country essentially agricultural—which stretches
from the Capes of Virginia to the Sabine ; which depends upon
a foreign market for the purchase of eight tenths of its surplus pro¬
ductions, and whose slave labour and climate place it out of the
range of possibility, that it should ever successfully embark in
manufactures ? But even if it could, where is a market to be ob¬
tained for such production's ? We have no colonies south of us
bearing the same relation to us, that we do to manufacturing
States, whose market we could command, as they command ours,
by legislative coercion. With all the skill and industry of the
manufacturers of the .Middle and Eastern States, could they sus¬
tain the competition of foreign nations in our markets, for a year,
were it not for the infamous injustice of those laws, which have, in
effect, decreed that we shall be Colonies—that we shall buy of the
favoured monopolists of the other States, at an average of 4T per
cent, dearer than what we would pay for the same articles else¬
where, were it not for these flagrant and oppressive restrictions ?
"Let no man cavil at my using the word colonies. I say the
South comes fully within their distinctive and primary character
—that of a condition of things, by which one country is compelled
to buy of, and sell to, another contrary to which it is a depen¬
dency. Whether this coercion is the result of the edicts of a dis¬
tant and Imperial Parliament, or of a despotic majority at home,
in violation of the compact of government surely is a matter of lit¬
tle consequence, except in. the estimation of those who think that
the Constitution of free and sovereign States, may be violated with
infinitely greater impunity, than the privileges of subjugated and
'"oleni^ed suhiont^.
19
Without indulging in any complex abstractions as to what the
producer may pay, in his character of producer, it is impossible to
close our eyes to the fact, that the worst part of the system falis
upon the production, however grieviously it may visit with unne¬
cessary burdens the consumption of. the Plantation States. If we
look at the Treasury Reports, we shall find that, whenever the
imports, contrary to all the absurd and exploded theories of the
balance of trade, ranged up to any thing like the maximum of the
consumption of the country, we enjoyed the highest degree of pros¬
perity. The solution of this lies upon the surface. It results ob¬
viously from the fact, that no piece of English broadcloth, cotton
calico or muslin, Welsh plains, German osnaburghs, Swedish iron,
Dundee cotton bagging, or a hogshead of West India sugar,
French wine, or a case of silk, china or hardware, can come into
the country, nine times out often, without carrying out, as the re¬
presentative of their exchangeable value, a hogshead of tobacco, a
bale of cotton, or a barrel of rice. Demand creates competition,
and an excess of our supplies in foreign markets, must drive out
the agricultural productions of other countries, which cannot afford
to produce them as cheap as ourselves. So true is this position,
that the decay of the plantation. States may be measured parra
passu, almost by the annual and successive fall in our imports. Im¬
ports may then be taken as the medium of purchasing the exports
of a country. In 1822, about ten years ago, when our population
was less by three millions than it is at present, our exports amount¬
ed to $88,241,541. Last jrear they amounted to $70,876,920.
Taking the basis of our population in 1798, at six millions, and our
imports, which were at that time about sixty millions, we ought now
to import, and would import, about 110 millions of dollars of value,,
but for the blighting paralysis of the American System. I would
ask any man of common sense what would be the condition of the
Southern States, if this amount of value was annually let loose,
seeking its investment for the purposes of commercial exchange in
the highly valuable products of the South ?—To this it is replied,
that this amount of foreign goods is supplied now, by the produc¬
tions of the manufacturing States. Our answer is, that these
States will not take to the same extent, our Tobacco, Rice and
Cotton in exchange for their products, and that from the very limit¬
ed market which they allow us to enjoy with foreign nations, 'we
have, with difficulty and at low prices, to realize the spectacle, to
purchase the very articles which, by the coercion of prohibitory du¬
ties, they compel us to buy from them at high prices. That this
is the operation of the system, I feel as clearly convinced as if it
could be proved by those mathematical demonstrations which be¬
long to the exact sciences.
But, gentlemen, so insulious and complex is the system of Fed-
eral taxation, under which wc are suffering, that few men will
take the pains to understand its amount, character and tendency—
The prime cost, charges and duty are so blended, that we go on
eating, drinking and wearing, taking no heed of to-morrow, perfect¬
ly unconscious of the positive grievance and certain ruin, of a
scheme of taxation which has scarcely a parallel in its amount and
enormity even in the exactions which the Grand Sultan sometimes
thinks of levying on his conquered, tributary provinces.—The
most disgusting part of the whole system, is perhaps its gross and
heartless violation of all the long approved principles of taxation.
Most Governments laying any claim to the character of justice
and beneficence, have usually aimed at throwing the maximum of
the rate of taxation on the rich, and the minimum on .the poor.—
But our Tariff proceeds on a widely different principle.—It taxes
not in reference to the ability of the poor man to pay the contribu¬
tion, but in reference to the ability of the monopolist to supply the
article—for example, our manufactories cannot as profitably make
fine woollen cloths as they can coarse.
The coat which the poor man puts on his back, is burdened
with a tax of from 70 to 150 per cent—whilst the cloth of which
the rich man's coat is made, pays but 50 per cent.
Coarse cottons, with which the poor man clothes his family, are
burdened with a duty of 70 to 80 per cent.—whilst the fine mus¬
lins, with which the rich man's wife and daughters are clothecl,
pay 30 percent.
Salt, the essential condiment of animal life, pays, since the re¬
duction of the duty, 100 per cent.—a clear tribute of 15 or 20 cents
a bushel, which 12 millions of consumers pay to about 200 rich Salt
manufacturers.
Sugar, on all qualities, from 75 to 100 per cent.—On this arti¬
cle, every poor man in the country, on every pound of Sugar con¬
sumed in his family, pays a bounty of 3 cents to a rich Sugar plan¬
ter on the Mississippi. In one word, the effect of this duty is, that
12 millions of consumers are taxed 4 millions to raise a bounty of
2 millions for about seven hundred Sugar planters.
Iron, the implements of industry, with which the poor man
works either on the surface or in the bowels of the earth, is charged
with a tax of 37 dollars per ton, equal to 140 per cent, for the pur¬
pose of securing immense profits to a comparatively few rich Iron
masters, as they are justly and expressively called.
Tea, (an article of very, significant import ip our history) on
.which, for a tax of 3 cents, our fathers went to war, and achieved a
mighty revolution in consequence of the principle involved in the
imposition of the tax, now is charged with a tax of from 10 to 25
cents per lb.
That highly talented and patriotic paper, the Banner of the Con-
41
stiiution, has a very curious tabular statement of the comparative-
duties paid in Canada and the United States, which for the remark¬
able parallel it presents, I will read you verbatem et literatim.
ARTICLES.
Duties paid in Canada, &c.
by the subjects o f a King.
Duties paid in the If. States,
by the citizens of a Republic.
Cotton Uoods,
Silk Goods, -
Woollens, -
Linens, ....
Eearthen, China and Glass
Ware, -
Hardware,
Rolled Iron,
Iron in Bars, -
Hemp from Great Britain,
Foreign, -
Salt, -
Sugar,
Brandy, Gin and Ruin, -
Coffee, - -
Pepper and other Spices, if
from Great Britain,
Wine,
Teas, Bohea,
Hyson, -
Ail other kinds, -
Many other articles,
2 b per cent.
24
24
24
tlo.
do.
do.
2j do.
2£ do.
2§ do.
$1 to 34 per ton,
Free, -
$74 to 34 do.
Free,
1 cent per pound,
22 cents per Gallon,
1 cent per pound,
Free,
14 to 6 cents per Gallon,
4 cents per pound,
10 do. do.
6 at 7 cents per pound,
Free,
30 to 150 per cent.
22 to 35 do.
50 to 250 do.
274 do.
22 to 70 do.
274 do.
100 to 160 do. ,
$22 40 to 37 per cent.
^ 60 do.
10 cents per bushel.
3 to 4 cents per pound.
53 to 90 cents per Gallon;.
2 cents per pound.
Specific amt'g to 30 a 209
per cent.
10 to 50 cents per Gallon.
}
^4to 25 cents per pound.
Most non-enumerated ar¬
ticles, 15 to 20 per cent.
In some notes appended to an oration delivered on the 4th of
July, by the distinguished and most worthy gentleman of this city,
( Col. Drayton) to whom 1 before alluded, he makes the amount of
impost tax paid by a planter who works fifty slaves, on all articles
he consumes, liable to the payment of duties, at, I believe, 22 per
cent on $ 543, the cost of his articles in all, a tax of $ 119 40
cents.
Independently of this gentleman's making a concession which I
do not admit, that the Tariff of 1816 was a Revenue Tariff, and
hence that the difference between that Tariff and the one of 1828,
is the whole amount to be carried to the debt of the American
System; there are numerous omissions in the tabular statement■
he appends to his oration, which I am sure were the results of in¬
advertence ; for example, no Blankets are charged, no Medicines,
no Osnaburghs, Molasses or Sugar, and not one cent for the con¬
sumption of foreign articles by the planter's own family, on which
the tax would be of course, the most onerous. I have, gentlemen,
with some care, in order that I might ascertain the tax I paid to
the Custom House, or as a bounty to the manufacturers, and that
you might have some responsibility for the accuracy of the state¬
ment, prepared a table of my own plantation and family expenses
from ine 1st of August, 1830, to the 1st of August, 1831, taken
from ray factor's books and my private accounts.—The calculation
of the duties, ouj; of abundant caution, I have had revised by one
of the best informed, and most experienced merchants in the city.
[Here Governor Hamilton read a table, containing a statement of
the prime cost at the place of manufacture or growth of the principal
articles of consumption, the cost of the same here, the duty on first
cost, and the duty on second cost in Charleston.
It will be seen, gentlemen, from this table, that on foreign ar¬
ticles consumed on my plantation, estimated to have cost, at the
place of their growth or manufacture, $750, in round numbers, I
paid a tax of $375 or 50 per cent. duty.—That the same articles so
valued at $ 750 at the place of their growth or manfacture, cost in
Charleston $1500—that the following elements entered into the
cost of these articles.
First cost, $750
Ad valorem tax in the shape of a duty of 50 per cent, 375
1125
Ail charges, freight, insurance, commission, difference of
exchange, including the merchant's profit, : 375
In round numbers, : : : : : : $1500
By the next division in the table of my family expenses, it will be
seen that on $2750, purchased and consumed in the last year, of
articles liable to pay duty, that adopting merely the same ratio of
calculation, (when in point of fact the average of duty is much
higher on these articles than on those for plantation consumption)
I paid a tax to the Custom House, for protection to the Manufac¬
turers of $887 50, making the total amount of my tax to the Fed¬
eral Government or bounty to the manufacturers on my plantation
and family expenses for one year, twelve hundred and seventy two
x dollars, fifty cents, taking the lowest possible average of the ex-
listing duties. My tax to South Carolina, for its domestic protec¬
tion, during the same period was only one hundred and eighty
five dollars. I leave this statement with you, gentlemen, without
a comment.
It has been said, in rebuke of the excitement in South Qarolina,
that after all, it is a sordid struggle for dollars and cents, and shall
we put this in competition with the blessings of Union? This de¬
clamation, my friends, will not satisfy minds capable of estimating
what civil and political freedom really means. The case of John
Hampden settled the true philosophy of this subject in a manner
which is so familiar to yourselves as to render it unnecessary for¬
me to repeat it. But of one truth you may be satisfied, that the
old expedients of tyranny are exploded. That the first assault on
liberty, in modern times, made through the invasion ot'tbe rights of
property, and not through the violation of personal liberty or by
the censorship of the press. These come afterwards to stifle the
ungracious complaints of rebellious subjects or revolted colonies !
There is no sounder or wiser maxim, than, " never to suffer an;
invasion of your political constitution, however minute the instance
may appear, without a determined and persevering resistance.
One precedent creates another. They soon accumulate and con-
stitue law. What yesterday was fact, to day is doctrine."
But the subject has wider, deeper and more interesting relations
than a question of mere individual profit and loss.—No people can
fall from a high condition of prosperity, without losing that which
is infinitely more valuable than wealth ; which, nevertheless, nati¬
onal prosperity often nourishes and sustains,-—a lofty and coura¬
geous spirit of independence, a sensability to national honor and
jealousy of freedom.—Nations, condemned by nature to a sterile
soil and rigorous climate, who have always been strangers to na¬
tional wealth, may, and very oiten do exhibit these virtues in a
super-eminent degree.—But, widly different is the condition of a
people, who, in possession of all the blessings God vouchsafes to man,
fall, by relaxation of public spirit, from riches into poverty.—They
fall to rise no more.—There is an utter, a desolate sinking in Uhe
public mind.—The spirit of enterprise, a high moral dignity, an jn-
tripid love for liberty, a taste for those sciences which enlighten, and
those arts which improve and embelish life, perish and become*.Ex¬
tinct forever.—To invoke a people thus prostrate, is to appeaUto
the " dull, cold ear of death."
But let not one feeling of despair enter our heart.—Our cause is
ajhost within itself. We must suuceed, and our success will add
new vigor to the Constitution, and permanency to the Union. The
light is breaking in upon us from all quarters.—I have not time to
read you one tythe of the letters of sympathy, support and congrat¬
ulation, on account of the progress of our principles, which are
pouring in upon me. But, in a spite of the intense heat of this
most crowded assembly, (to whose patient attention, I am essen¬
tially obliged,) I cannot refrain from reading you one w7hich I have
recently received from a friend in Georgia, a Republican of the
Old School, a man of deserved influence in our sister State, who,
if he has retired from the strife of public life, has carried with him,
that enlarged experience and matured resources for public useful¬
ness, which.confer so precious a value on his opinions.
To you, to ourselves, I say let us onward, onward in our patri¬
otic and public spirited struggle.
GEORGIA, August, 27th 1831.
Mr Dear Sir.—Upon the deeply interesting question that now agitates South Car¬
olina, there cannot be an honest man, unless he is an ignorant one, from the Potomac
to the Mississippi, who can behcvr that the Constitution gives to Congress a right to
44
"tax the whole, for the purpose of applying1 those taxes to the beneli of" a part. That
the Constitution gives to Congress a right to tax the labourers of the held, for the
-profit and to the benefit ofthe labourers of the loom ; and that if they do this in breach
of the high compact that was entered into, we have not a right to shake from us the
oppressive load, by whomsoever it is laid : and that a wrong can no more be sancti¬
fied because it is called American, than it could have been justified when it was
known as a British wrong.
I cannot believe that Georgia is now recreant to those high principles, and to those
solemn declarations made to her own people and to the Union at large ; but rather,
that she will be found, when the day comes, to array herself beside her Southern
brethren, however deep or doubtful the danger may be ; and that men, however
much we may love these men, will not be permitted, longer, to divide those, who
having one common interest, one common feeling, one common right, should move
and speak and act together.
And if these States having the power, the exclusive power of watching over the
• ■' prosperity of the people," how will they answer to their God, if they put not forth
all their zeal, and all their strength in the vindication of their rights. SV'ill the peo¬
ple of the South be expected to feel all wrongs but their own wrongs ? To vindicate
all rights but their own rights ? When the oppression of the Revolution came, did
Virginia and the Soutli pause to enquire whether tltev, or their brethrc n of the North
were the subjects of that oppression ? Did they pause to weigh the great struggle
that lay before them ? They did neither. They gave tiieir blood and treasure to a
-common cause. They were the greatest sufferers in the war of the Revolution.
Their country was overrun by the enemy, their negroes were taken away, their fields
were spoiled, their houses were burned, they entered into the war rich—they came
out poor,—did they complain ? No, they did not. IJut peace came, and with it re¬
newed prosperity. Were they satisfied with the Confederacy? They(were! And
what was the condition of the people under that Confederacy ? That they were duped
by Boston, New York and Philadelphia, into exchanging it for the present Consti¬
tution, which has been so construed as to have inflicted on us a Consolidated Gov¬
ernment. A letter from the wise and good Franklin, addressed to Mr. Jefferson,
then in Paris, and dated March 20, 1786, will shew.—"I do not remember ever to
haye seen, during my long life, more signs of public felicity than appear at present
throughout these States; the cultivators of the earth, who make the bulk of the nation,
have made good crops,-which are paid for at high prices and ready money ; the arti-
zans, too, receive high wages, and the value of all real estate is augmented greatly ;
■merchants and shopkeepers indeed complain that there is not business enough.
Hut this is evidently not owing to the fewness of the buyers, but to the too great
number of sellers; for the consumption of goods was never greater, as appears by the
dress, furniture, and manner of living of all ranks of people." But designing men for
sinister purposes, were crying out that this high felicity would not last; that the con¬
federacy would fall to pieces ; a confederacy, the only permanent government the
world has ever seen, would fall to pieces ! liven monarchy, despotic monarchy melts
away, and there is not now in Europe one monarchy that has stood unchanged for a
single century, while the Helvetic confederacy has shed Law and Liberty and light
and happiness upon its confederated people for more than five hundred years, and
has stood, like the rocks of their own hills, and the glaciries of their own vallies, un
changed, whilst mighty monarchies have mouldered to pieces around them.
Holland, while she was a simple confederacy of seven States, carried her commerce
and her arms, and her arts to the extremities of the world, and only became weak
when Statdholderian power had hooped her into one.
The Confederative principle of our government is its conservative principle; and
■all the dangers which now await us, arise from the tendency of our system to consoli¬
dation."
1