1 
 
 •i§^; 
 
 -I /I V 
 
 .5-^ 
 
 M/k''- '% .<^ 
 
 "^ik^. ^% 
 
 ' •<>, 
 
 ^>' '£ 
 
 A 
 
4>^ -^^ 
 
 
 
 t'.. 
 
 
 \ 
 
 A 
 
 * .0- 
 
 o > 
 
HARVARD HISTORICAL STUDIES 
 
 PUBLISHED UNDER THE DIRECTION OF 
 THE DEPARTMENT OF HISTORY 
 
 FROM THE INCOME OF 
 
 THE HENRY WARREN TORREY FUND 
 VOLUME III 
 
HARVARD HISTORICAL STUDIES 
 
 I. The Suppression of the African Slave-Trade 
 to the United States of America, 1638-1870. 
 By W. E. B. DuBois, Ph.D., Editor of 
 "The Crisis." 8vo. $1.50 net. 
 
 II. The Contest over the Ratification of the 
 Federal Constitution in Massachusetts. 
 By S. B. Harding, Ph.D., Professor of Euro- 
 pean History in Indiana University. 8vo. 
 
 $1.25 net. 
 
 III. A Critical Study of Nullification in South 
 Carolina. By D. F. Houston, A.M., LL.D., 
 Secretary of Agriculture. 8vo. $1.25 net. 
 
 IV. Nominations for Elective Office in the 
 United States. By Frederick W. Dallinger, 
 A.M., late Member of the Massachusetts 
 Senate. 8vo. $1.50 net. 
 
 V. A Bibliography of British Municipal His- 
 tory. Including Gilds and Parliamentary 
 Representation. By Charles Gross, Ph.D., 
 late Gurney Professor of History and Pohti- 
 cal Science in Harvard University. 8vo. 
 
 $2.50 net. 
 
 VI. The Liberty and Free Soil Parties in the 
 Northwest. By Theodore Clarke Smith, 
 Ph.D., Professor of History in Williams 
 College. 8vo. $1.75 net. 
 
 VII. The Provincial Governor in the English 
 Colonies of North America. By Evarts 
 Boutelt Greene, Ph.D., Professor of History 
 in the University of Illinois. 8vo. 
 
 $1.50 net. 
 
 VIII. The County Palatine of Durham. A 
 Study in Constitutional History. By 
 G. T. Lapsley, Ph.D., FeUow of Trinity Col- 
 lege, Cambridge. 8vo. $2.00 net. 
 
 IX. The Anglican Episcopate and the Amer- 
 ican Colonies. By Arthur Lyon Cross, 
 Ph.D., Professor of European History in the 
 University of Michigan. 8vo. $2.50 net. 
 
 X. The Administration of the American Rev- 
 olutionary Army. By Louis Clinton Hatch, 
 Ph.D. 8vo. $1.50 net. 
 
 XI. The Civil Service and the Patronage. 
 By Carl Russell Fish, Ph.D., Professor of 
 American History in the University of Wis- 
 consin. 8vo. $2.00 net. 
 
 XII. The Development of Freedom of the 
 Press in Massachusetts. By C. A. Duni- 
 way, Ph.D., President of the University of 
 Wyoming. 8vo. $1.50 net. 
 
 XIII. The Seigniorial System in Canada. 
 By W. B. Munro, Ph.D., LL.D., Professor 
 of Municipal Government in Harvard Uni- 
 versity. 8vo. $2.00 net. 
 
 XIV. The Frankpledge System. By William 
 Alfred Morris, Ph.D., Assistant Professor 
 of English History in the University of Cal- 
 ifornia. 8vo. $1.50 net. 
 
 XV. The Public Life of Joseph Dudley. By 
 Everett Kimball, Ph.D., Associate Professor 
 of History in Smith College. 8vo. 
 
 $2.00 net. 
 
 XVI. M6moire de Marie Caroline, Reine de 
 Naples. Edited by Robert Matteson 
 Johnston, A.M., Assistant Professor of 
 Modem History in Harvard University. 
 8vo. $2.00 net. 
 
 XVII. The Barrington-Bemard Correspon- 
 dence. Edited by Edward Channing, 
 Ph.D., McLean Professor of Ancient and 
 Modem History in Harvard University. 
 8vo. $2.00 net. 
 
 XVIII. The Government of the Ottoman 
 Empire in the Time of Suleiman the Mag- 
 nificent. By Albert Howe Lybyer, Ph.D., 
 Associate Professor of History in the Uni- 
 versity of Illinois. 8vo. $2.00 net. 
 
 XIX. The Granger Movement. By S. J. 
 Buck, Research Associate in History in the 
 University of Illinois. 8vo. $2.00 net. 
 
 XX. Burgage Tenure in Mediaeval England. 
 By Morley de Wolf Hemmeon, Ph.D., some- 
 time Austin Teaching Fellow in Harvard 
 University. 8vo. $1.50 net. 
 
 XXI. An Abridgment of the Indian Affairs 
 contained in four folio volumes, transacted 
 in the colony of New York, from the year 
 1678 to the year 1751, by Peter Wraxall. 
 Edited with an introduction by Charles 
 Howard Mcllwain, Ph.D., Assistant Pro- 
 fessor of History in Harvard University. 
 8vo. $2.00 net. 
 
 XXII. English Field Systems. By Howard 
 Levi Gray, Ph.D., Assistant Professor of 
 History in Harvard University. 8vo. 
 In press. 
 
 HARVARD UNIVERSITY PRESS 
 
 CAMBRIDGE, MASS., U.S.A. 
 
A CRITICAL 
 
 STUDY OF NULLIFICATION 
 
 IN SOUTH CAROLINA 
 
 BY 
 
 DAVID FRANKLIN HOUSTON, A.M. 
 
 ADJTTNCT-PROFESSOR OF POLITICAL SCIENCE IN THE UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS 
 SOMETIME MORGAN FELLOW OF HARVARD UNIVERSITY 
 
 CAMBRIDGE 
 HARVARD UNIVERSITY PRESS 
 
 LONDON: HUMPHREY MILFORD 
 Oxford University Press 
 
ETsst 
 
 .3 
 
 Copyright, i8g6 
 By the President and Fellows of Harvard College 
 
PREFACE. 
 
 THE nullification movement with which this mono- 
 graph deals derives its chief interest from the 
 terrible issues of 1860-65, which were its logical out- 
 come. The secession movement dates definitely from 
 1824. In the period from 1824 to 1832 all the princi- 
 ples that were fought for in the Civil War were formally 
 enunciated in South Carolina, and a determination to 
 apply them, if it should become necessary, was repeat- 
 edly expressed. Secession became a subject of daily 
 thought and conversation ; and familiarity with it bred 
 contempt for its possible dangers. Further, in this pe- 
 riod the bearing of the institution of slavery on political 
 and economic issues became clearly recognized both in 
 the North and in the South ; the fears of the South- 
 erners for the safety of the institution were awakened, 
 and their passions were raised to the highest pitch. By 
 1832 the feelings of the majority of South Carolinians 
 were alienated from the Union. The State remained in 
 the Union, it is true ; but her ordinary attitude towards 
 it from this time was one at least of indifference. Many 
 
vi PREFACE. 
 
 of her wisest and most far-sighted citizens felt that the 
 final struggle was only a matter of time, — only a matter 
 of arousing the more conservative Southern States. 
 
 The writer has not here undertaken to discuss nullifi- 
 cation in all its aspects. It would have been extremely 
 tedious to go over the ground that has been covered in 
 a masterly way by the great constitutional writers and 
 speakers of the past and present. His aim is principally 
 to look at the movement from within, to trace its origin 
 and development inside the boundaries of South Caro- 
 lina, and to discuss the validity of the leading doctrine 
 in the light of the precedents on which the nullifiers 
 mainly relied and of South Carolina's earlier history. 
 Most of the existing accounts of this subject are incom- 
 plete and unsatisfactory, because their authors, writing 
 from the outside, and as a part of a more general 
 work, fixed their attention to an unwarranted extent 
 on the doings of certain conspicuous public men from 
 South Carolina, whose motives and conduct were 
 assumed to be truly representative. The present writer 
 has attempted to place these so-called leaders in their 
 proper perspective, to trace the growth of popular 
 feeling and to estimate its influence. While his attempt 
 is not satisfactory even to himself, still he feels that the 
 subject stands out in a truer light when viewed from 
 within. His study of this particular movement from 
 the point of view here indicated confirms his early 
 impressions that many periods of American history 
 
PREFACE. vii 
 
 must be rewritten after careful investigations have been 
 made of tendencies and developments within particular 
 States or groups of States. The results of this investi- 
 gation seem to differ in several important respects from 
 the conventional, accepted views, and are presented with 
 due deference to possible criticism. Errors of fact and 
 judgment will doubtless be pointed out, and will gladly 
 be corrected. 
 
 The materials on which the account is based were 
 collected while the writer was a member of the Gradu- 
 ate School of Harvard University, under the special 
 oversight of Professor Albert Bushnell Hart, to whom 
 many obligations are acknowledged. 
 
 DAVID FRANKLIN HOUSTON. 
 
 University of Texas, Austin, 
 June I, 1896. 
 
CONTENTS. 
 
 CHAPTER I. 
 
 PAGK 
 
 Broad Construction in South Carolina, i 789-1823 ... .1 
 
 CHAPTER n. 
 Theories of the Constitution in South Carolina, i 789-1828 16 
 
 CHAPTER HI. 
 
 Causes of Nullification. 1823-1828 33 
 
 CHAPTER IV. 
 South Carolina's Change of Attitude. 1823-1828 .... 53 
 
 CHAPTER V. 
 Formulas of Nullification. 1828-183 2 65 
 
 CHAPTER VI. 
 Progress of Nullification Sentiment. 1828-183 2 .... 86 
 
 CHAPTER VII. 
 
 The Issue Joined. 183 2-1 833 106 
 
 CHAPTER VIII. 
 Significance of Nullification 134 
 
 APPENDICES. 
 
 A. Calhoun's Statement OF HIS Constitutional Principles. 1824 143 
 
 B. Ordinance Nullifying the Force Bill. 1833 .... 149 
 
 C. Protest against a Protective Tariff. 1840 151 
 
 D. Protest against the Tariff of 184 i. 1841 152 
 
 E. Nullification Reaffirmed. 1842 . . . . '. . . . . 153 
 
 F. Protest against the Tariff of 1842. 1844 154 
 
 G. Bibliography of Nullification 156 
 
 Index ifli 
 
 ix 
 
A CRITICAL STUDY 
 
 OF 
 
 NULLIFICATION 
 
 IN 
 
 SOUTH CAROLINA. 
 
 CHAPTER I. 
 
 BROAD CONSTRUCTION IN SOUTH CAROLINA. 
 1789-1823. 
 
 The accepted accounts of the famous episode which Influence of 
 this monograph attempts to describe furnish evidence fxtgg^ated 
 of a tendency of American historians, in their study of 
 our great political movements ; they lay undue stress on 
 the personal element ; they pay much attention to indi- 
 viduals and comparatively little to conditions. It is not 
 difficult to comprehend why such should be the case. 
 To observe the movements of the masses under favor- 
 able conditions is by no means easy; it is impossible to 
 follow them in a distant and crudely developed com- 
 munity unaccustomed to record-keeping. The conduct 
 of a man of marked individuality at the centre of the 
 nation's political activities lies in stronger light, and 
 every act appears to the observer to carry with it special 
 significance. 
 
 South Carolina, the centre of the nullification move- 
 ment, has never laid herself open to the charge of 
 extravagance in expending energy or money in making 
 
BROAD CONSTRUCTION TO 1823. 
 
 [Ch. I. 
 
 Illustrated in 
 accounts of 
 nullification. 
 
 South 
 Carolina 
 to 1820. 
 
 Object of the 
 movement 
 to prevent 
 centralization. 
 
 for posterity careful records of her own great deeds or 
 those of her great men. She has been as backward in 
 preserving records as she has been forward in furnishing 
 acts worth recording. And during the period in ques- 
 tion she was represented in the eyes of the nation by a 
 man of remarkably strong individuahty. Hence, to 
 every historian of the time the nullification movement 
 has been Calhoun first, Calhoun last, and Calhoun all 
 the time. One writer, for example, goes so far as to 
 represent the movement as a petulant outburst of a 
 schemer, soured and embittered by his disappointment, 
 who preferred to be the first statesman in the Slave 
 States rather than the second in the Union ; and who 
 with singular ability addressed himself to the promotion 
 of sectionalism.^ Without wasting time in criticising 
 this misrepresentation, and others of its kind, we may 
 proceed at once to consider the true character of the 
 movement, — its causes, its progress, its effects. 
 
 To execute this task properly, it is necessary to go 
 back as far as 1789 and to notice briefly the course of 
 federal legislation and the attitude of South Carolina 
 down to about 1820, when an organized opposition to 
 the course of the federal government began to make 
 itself felt in that State. This review will serve as a 
 background for the whole discussion ; for it will tend to 
 make clear that the nullification movement, instead of 
 being the outcome of personal spite or disappointment, 
 was the natural result of an attempt of a central body to 
 legislate for a country having two large sections whose 
 social and industrial conditions were radically different. 
 
 The nullification movement was set on foot to check 
 what was believed to be the tendency on the part of the 
 federal government to centralization, and to more active 
 interference in every direction. The leaders in South 
 
 1 J. W. Draper, Civil War, I. 381. 
 
1789] IMPORT DUTIES. 3 
 
 Carolina were convinced that the policy already entered 
 upon by the federal government was destructive to the 
 interests of the South ; and they had no doubt that such 
 a policy, if persisted in, would lead to the impoverish- 
 ment of their section and to the disruption of all its 
 institutions. They therefore began, about 1820, to Attack on 
 organize their followers in opposition to every step that po°ky.'*^^ 
 tended directly or indirectly towards centralization. 
 Chief among the measures that gave evidence of such 
 a tendency were those looking to the strengthening of 
 the National Bank, the extension of internal improve- 
 ments, and the raising of protective duties. Inasmuch 
 as the protective policy seemed to be most aggressive, 
 and most clearly and immediately harmful, it was selected 
 as the principal point of attack. It is to the tariff policy 
 of the federal government, therefore, and to the attitude 
 of South Carolina thereon, that attention must first be 
 called. 
 
 South Carolina may fairly claim that her political South 
 conduct has always been consistent at least in one opposition to 
 direction, namely, in her opposition, not to import ^^^^ policy, 
 duties as such, or to high import duties, where the 
 necessities of the treasury demanded them, but to high 
 import duties laid for the sake of protection. To those 
 who may be inclined to question this statement it may 
 be necessary to point out that the statement is made, 
 not of Calhoun, but of South Carolina; for South Caro- 
 lina and Calhoun did not always stand for the same 
 thing. Against high import duties for the sake of pro- 
 tection, South Carolina entered her protest in the very 
 first Congress, and it has stood to the present day. In 
 the House, in 1789, we find Sterling Tucker urging 
 members from other States to exercise liberality and 
 moderation in their demands, and to desist from press- 
 ing measures " big with oppression and tending to bur- 
 
BROAD CONSTRUCTION TO 1823. 
 
 [Ch. I. 
 
 Dissolution 
 threatened, 
 1789. 
 
 High duties 
 contested. 
 
 Attitude 
 on the 
 
 constitutional 
 question 
 inconsistent. 
 
 den particular States." ^ But it was in the Senate that 
 the most vigorous attacks were made on the proposed 
 tariff legislation. When a report was presented recom- 
 mending certain duties that were intended to be pro- 
 hibitory, Pierce Butler, only lately arrived from South 
 Carolina, took the floor, and, as Maclay, the eccentric 
 senator from Pennsylvania, tells us, " flamed like a 
 meteor. He arraigned the whole impost law, and 
 charged indirectly the whole Congress with a design of 
 oppressing South Carolina." ^ He threatened " a dis- 
 solution of the Union, with regard to his State, as sure 
 as God was in the firmament."^ 
 
 From this time down to 18 16, although no high 
 tariffs were proposed, nevertheless whenever a prop- 
 osition was made to increase duties for the purpose 
 of affording protection to particular interests. South 
 Carolina entered her protest. It has already been stated 
 that the State did not oppose duties levied for the sake 
 of revenue. We may go further: in this earlier period 
 the State did not yet take a stand against the principle 
 of protection or deny the constitutionality of its exer- 
 cise. What she did contest was simply the expedi- 
 ency and justice of levying high duties for the sake of 
 affording full protection to domestic, that is, to North- 
 ern, manufacturers. So far was she, in the earlier 
 period, from denying the constitutionality of the prin- 
 ciple of protection, that she was willing to allow a moder- 
 ate application of it by way of compromise, and was not 
 averse to the proposition to protect her own people in 
 their attempt to grow hemp along her coast.* In this 
 respect alone was South Carolina's conduct really in- 
 consistent. In the earlier period, in fact down to 1823, 
 
 ^ Annals of Cong., i Cong., i sess., 148 (1789-91). 
 
 * Maclay, Sketches of Debate in the First Senate, 75. 
 3 /hid., 77. 
 
 * Annals of Cong., i Cong., i sess., 155 (1789-91). 
 
1789-1816.] SOUTH CAROLINA ON THE TARIFF. 5 
 
 her representatives in Congress based their objections 
 to the principle of protection only on grounds of expe- 
 diency and justice, tacitly admitting its constitution- 
 ality ; whereas, from that time on they vigorously 
 denied the constitutionality of its exercise to any 
 extent whatever. 
 
 It may perhaps be objected that the action of South Did repre- 
 Carolina's leading representatives with reference to the sentatives_^ 
 tariff act of 18 16 proves that she was not averse, for 
 once at any rate, to high protective duties. On this 
 point several answers might be made. The conditions 
 at that moment were abnormal ; the measure was in- 
 tended to assist in the transition from war to peace; 
 it was not looked upon as the beginning of a system to 
 be perpetuated and extended. But it is a sufficient 
 answer that, at the passage of this measure, South 
 Carolina and her representatives who voted for it parted 
 company. Calhoun himself was severely censured for 
 his part in the struggle ; and some of his constituents 
 went so far as to charge that he had sold his State for 
 the Presidency. He himself later admitted that even 
 his friends thought he had gone too far.^ 
 
 The dissatisfaction of South Carolina over the action The turning 
 of Calhoun and others in voting for the tariff bill of P°'"*" 
 18 1 6 was the beginning of the end. It marks the time 
 when South Carolina began to feel that the interests of 
 the South were not identical with those of the North; 
 that the general government was falling into the hands of 
 Northerners, for whose unselfishness there was no guar- 
 anty ; that, in short, the powers of the government were 
 likely to be stretched more and more along lines not 
 laid down in the Constitution. One form of statement 
 might be that it marks the time when South Carolina 
 erased from her program liberality, breadth of view, and 
 
 1 Cong. Globe ^ 25 Cong., 2 sess., Appendix, 246 (1837-38). 
 
6 BROAD CONSTRUCTION TO 1823. [Ch. I. 
 
 unselfishness, and wrote in their place niggardliness, nar- 
 rowness, and selfishness; when she began to turn from 
 union towards separation. From another point of view, 
 it marks the time when, not South Carolina, but the 
 other sections of the country which had secured control 
 of aff'airs, changed their policy from a broad to a sec- 
 tional one. From a third and higher standpoint, it marks 
 the time when the less admirable qualities of both sec- 
 tions became conspicuous in a struggle for what each 
 section believed, or appeared to itself to believe, was for 
 its own interest, and also for that of the country at large. 
 The liberal There is no questioning the truth that after 18 16 South 
 
 period, Carolina beean to change her attitude towards the pol- 
 
 1812-17. ° ° . r J 
 
 icy of the general government, and, m fact, towards 
 the union of the States. For some years a Federalist 
 State, later a supporter of Jefferson, the Commonwealth 
 had heartily indorsed the national administrations of 
 the first quarter century. In fact, the people of the 
 State were only following the leadership of a group of 
 their own young and talented public men, William 
 Lowndes, Langdon Cheves, John C. Calhoun, and David 
 R. Williams. They had entered with enthusiasm into 
 the war of 1812; and Jackson's victory at the end of 
 that war had left them boiling over with nationality. 
 One Fourth of July a year was hardly enough for their 
 ardent patriotism. They were broad-minded, and in- 
 tolerant of littleness wherever manifested. With Cal- 
 Calhoun's houn, they had desired to see the nation pursue an 
 enlarged policy. They were willing to undergo every 
 necessary sacrifice for the sake of the security of the 
 country and the advancement of the national interests. 
 " The gradual increase of the navy, a moderate military 
 establishment, properly organized and instructed, a sys- 
 tem of fortifications for the defence of the coast, a res- 
 toration of specie currency, a due protection of those 
 manufactures which had taken root during the period 
 
 breadth. 
 
 X 
 
1816-24.] CHANGE OF TARIFF ATTITUDE. 7 
 
 of war and restriction, and finally a system of connect- 
 ing the various portions of the country by a judicious 
 system of internal improvement," ^ — such were the 
 measures which Calhoun could assert he had advocated 
 down to the year 18 17, not doubting the disposition of 
 his constituents to uphold him. They applauded his 
 declaration that the Union ought to be free from ex- Liberty and 
 
 ternal danger and internal difficulty : ^ that the liberty Union 
 
 ° _ •' ' ^ inseparable, 
 
 and union of the country were inseparably connected ; 
 
 that disunion comprehended the sum of political dan- 
 gers.^ They felt with him that the rulers of America 
 had been charged by Providence, not only with the hap- 
 piness of a great and rising people, but, in a consider- 
 able degree, with that of the human race.* 
 
 When we consider South Carolina's attitude during 
 the period down to 18 17, and in fact to 1824, on the 
 more general subject of the interpretation of the Con- 
 stitution, we shall find the most striking confirmation 
 of what has just been said as to her broad spirit. The 
 State countenanced a very liberal exercise of implied Exercise of 
 powers; not only did she support measures which J^^g^s 
 rested upon the doctrine of implication, but she also, advocated, 
 through her representatives, championed the exercise 
 of such powers in utterances of remarkable force. In 
 fact, if they had been striving for effect, her most noted 
 representatives could not have employed language that 
 would have contrasted more strikingly with that the 
 same men habitually employed after 1824. 
 
 It would be difficult to find views more liberal than Eidred 
 those expressed by Eidred Simkins in 1818.^ He had 
 
 ^ Calhoun at Abbeville, May 27, 1825, Niles Register^ XXVIII. 
 266. 
 
 2 Annals of Cong., 14 Cong., i sess., 729 (1815-16). 
 8 Ibid., 1335-36. 
 
 * Ibid., 839. 
 
 * McDuffie's law partner, whom McDuffie was to succeed a 
 few years later. 
 
 Simkins. 
 
8 BROAD CONSTRUCTION TO 1823. [Ch. I. 
 
 no fears of a vague, indefinite assumption of powers, 
 and least of all was he afraid of " a consolidation of 
 state sovereignties, or a destruction of state rights, by 
 men coming from and identified with the people of the 
 States. This alarm of state rights has been gotten up 
 and encouraged by gentlemen most strangely. It would 
 really seem that both the State and the general gov- 
 ernments were not the governments of the same people, 
 identified by the same interests. . . . Such strict con- 
 \ struction would launch us into an ocean of uncertainties, 
 
 and would fritter away all the Constitution worth pre- 
 George serving."^ McDuffie expressed himself not less admira- 
 
 ^24 "^^' ^^y several years later. His remarks are, in themselves, 
 well worth quoting at length; and they are especially 
 striking in view of the action of the South Carolina 
 legislature the next year after his utterance. As late 
 as February, 1824, we find him saying: — 
 
 " To lay it down as a general rule, that all municipal 
 powers, not expressly granted to the general govern- 
 ment, belong to the State governments, either renders 
 nugatory most of the powers of this government, or 
 it does not advance us a single step towards the de- 
 cision of the question we are discussing. 
 
 "From this we are brought to the obvious conclu- 
 sion, that the convention did not regard the State 
 governments as sentinels upon the watchtowers of free- 
 dom, or in any respect more worthy of confidence 
 than thp general government. . . . 
 
 " In determining whether a given subject of legisla- 
 tion should belong to Congress or to the State Legisla- 
 ture, the inquiry before the convention was, not which 
 of these will be most likely to abuse the trust, but to 
 which of them does it appropriately belong in reference 
 both to their organization and to the great objects they 
 
 - 1 Annals of Cong., 15 Cong., i sess., 1920, 1921 (1817-1S). 
 
1824.] MCDUFFIE'S HIGHER PRINCIPLES. 9 
 
 were designed to accomplish. ... In this view of the Implied 
 subject, I would lay it down as a general rule that all P'^^^''^- 
 those subjects of legislation which concern the general 
 interest of the whole union, which have a plain and obvi- \ 
 ous relation to the powers expressly granted, and which a 
 single State government cannot regulate, naturally be- 
 long to the general government, unless it can be 
 shown that the regulation of these subjects by Con- 
 gress impairs the powers of the State legislatures to 
 regulate their own internal police. . . . But, sir, in 
 giving a construction to a power of this description McDuffie's 
 p'To establish post roads"! we must ascend to much "'^.'S'ler 
 
 ■- ^ -' principles 
 
 higher principles than either law-books or lexicons 
 can furnish. . . . 
 
 " Driven, then, from the ground of precise constitu- 
 tional investigation, gentlemen have conjured up a 
 phantom which they denominate Consolidation, and 
 which I shall now endeavor to exorcise. ... If they 
 mean by it a firm and indissoluble union of the States, I, 
 for one, am decidedly in favor of it; but if they mean 
 by it the annihilation of the State governments, or the 
 destruction of a single power that appropriately belongs 
 to them, there is no man who disapproves of it more, 
 and, I will add, who fears it less than I do." ^ 
 
 What was the attitude of the man who later came to Caihoun, 
 be recognized as the leader and champion of the State '^''^° 
 Rights party? How did John C. Calhoun stand on the 
 fundamental questions of constitutional interpretation 
 and of protection? 
 
 On the question of constitutional interpretation Cal- 
 houn had expressed himself superbly in 1817 : "He 
 was no advocate for refined arguments on the Consti- 
 tution. The instrument was not intended as a thesis 
 
 ^ McDuffie's Speech in 1824, Annals of Cong., 18 Cong., i sess., 
 1372-1385 (1S23-24). 
 
1512-20. 
 
 10 BROAD CONSTRUCTION TO 1823. [Ch. I. 
 
 for the logician to exercise his ingenuity on. It ought 
 to be construed with plain good sense. ... If the 
 framers had intended to limit the use of money to the 
 powers afterwards enumerated and defined, nothing 
 could be more easy than to have expressed it plainly. 
 Our laws are full of instances of money appropriated 
 without reference to enumerated powers." It is quite 
 true that he said the Constitution was founded on posi- 
 tive and written principles, not on precedent, but still he 
 introduced instances, such as the Louisiana purchase, 
 "to prove the uniform sense of Congress and the country 
 (for they had not been objected to) as to our powers ; 
 and surely, said he, they furnished better evidence of 
 the true interpretation of the Constitution than the 
 most refined and subtle arguments."^ 
 Calhoun, On the question of protection Calhoun declared him- 
 
 self repeatedly, in the years from 181 2 to 1820. That 
 he did ably, pointedly, and repeatedly advocate govern- 
 mental aid for the manufacturing interests is as useless for 
 later generations to undertake to deny as it was for him- 
 self. In vain did he contend, in 1833, that his remarks on 
 the tariff measure were impromptu ; that his expressions 
 were unguarded ; and that the tariff then proposed was 
 purely a revenue measure.^ He had committed him- 
 self to the principle of protection as early as 1814, to 
 the extent of saying that " moderate but permanent pro- 
 tection " was " the great requisite to the due encourage- 
 ment" of certain manufacturing interests,^ and that 
 " he hoped to see manufactories encouraged by appro- 
 priate duties and had no idea of their being left without 
 such protection."* Again, in January, 18 16, speak- 
 
 1 Annals of Cong., 14 Cong., 2 sess., 855-56 (1816-17). 
 
 2 Ibid., 22 Cong., 2 sess., 525 (1832-33). 
 
 3 Ibid., r3 Cong., 2 sess., 1990 (18 13-14). 
 * Ibid., 1984. 
 
j8i2-20.] CALHOUN ADVOCATES PROTECTION. 1 1 
 
 ing on the general revenue policy which he wished to "Encourage- 
 see Congress adopt, he advocated governmental inter- "actorks"""" 
 ference, and distinctly repudiated " laissez faire" in the 
 following words : " The question relating to manufac- 
 tures must not depend on the abstract principle that 
 industry left to pursue its own course will find in its 
 own interest all the encouragement that is necessary. 
 I lay the claims of the manufacturers entirely out of 
 view; . . . but on general principles ... a certain 
 encouragement should be extended at least to our 
 woollen and cotton manufactures."^ The subject, he 
 contended in a later speech, was connected with the 
 safety of the country. Security, he argued, depends 
 on the means of the country, and the means depend 
 on the moneyed resources. Further, war would cut 
 off agriculture and commerce from manufacturers. It 
 was to be hoped that Congress would adopt a far- 
 sighted policy ,2 All this was but a part of the broad 
 policy which Calhoun, as has been pointed out,^ was, 
 during this period, urging Congress to pursue. He 
 wished to see the government act on an enlarged 
 policy, take advantage of experience, and add to its 
 reputation. 
 
 It was in this period that John Quincy Adams came john Quincy 
 
 in contact with Calhoun, and found him a model. " Cal- '^^^'"f. 
 
 on Calhoun. 
 
 houn is a man of fair and candid mind, of honorable 
 principles, of clear and quick understanding, of cool 
 self-possession, of enlarged philosophical views, and of 
 ardent patriotism. He is above all sectional and fac- 
 tional prejudices more than any other statesman of this 
 Union with whom I ever acted." * " Calhoun has no 
 petty scruples about constructive powers and state 
 
 ^ Annals of Cong., 14 Cong., i sess., 837 (1815-16). 
 
 2 Ibid., 1330 (1815-16). 
 
 ' See above, pp. 6-7. 
 
 * John Quincy Adams, Memoirs, V. 361. 
 
12 
 
 BROAD CONSTRUCTION TO 1823. 
 
 [Ch. I. 
 
 Calhoun, 
 1831. 
 
 Calhoun, 
 1833- 
 
 rights. His opinions are, at least, consistent." ^ Such 
 was Calhoun down to 1822. 
 
 What a different picture Adams draws of him in 
 1831 ! Writing then, he says that during the early part 
 of Monroe's administration Calhoun pursued a course 
 *' from which I anticipated that he would prove ... a 
 blessing to his country. I have been deeply disappointed 
 in him, and now expect nothing from him but evil." ^ 
 It is not at all necessary to accept this statement entirely 
 as Adams intended it. It is quoted simply to show how, 
 to a man who began political life as a warm admirer, 
 Calhoun appeared to change. Adams could only with 
 great difficulty recognize the broad patriotic statesman 
 of 18 1 7 in the Senator who was well on towards the 
 point where he could proclaim that he appeared, not as 
 the representative of the whole people, but as a repre- 
 sentative of one of the States of the Union, sent to 
 watch over its particular interests, and to promote the 
 general welfare so far as was constitutional.^ The 
 Calhoun who advocated protection in 1814 and 1816 
 was very different from the Calhoun who, in 1833, em- 
 bodied in formal resolution the proposition that Con- 
 gress had no power to encourage manufactures, and that 
 it could do no more than levy import duties to execute 
 the inspection laws.^ Of course, it does not follow 
 that Calhoun should be censured for advocating the 
 tariff act of 18 16, and then turning about and opposing 
 the measures that were offered later. It is not the part 
 of true statesmanship to adhere blindly to a given policy: 
 a statesman will note every alteration in the political and 
 economic situation. Protection in moderation may be 
 beneficial ; any further application of the principle may 
 
 ^ John Quincy Adams, Memoirs, VI. 75. 
 2 Ibid., VIII. 411. 
 
 * Cong. Globe, 25 Cong., 2 sess., Appendix, 246 (i8l7-3'*^). 
 
 * Senate Documents, 22 Cong., 2 sess., I, No. 57 (1832-33) 
 
1816,1831.] CALHOUN'S INCONSISTENCY. 1 3 
 
 be harmful. It was open to Calhoun to advocate the 
 
 tariff bill of 18 16 on grounds of expediency, and to Calhoun's 
 
 oppose that of 1828 on the same grounds; but he o"nth?tS 
 
 could not consistently assume in 18 16 that Congress 
 
 had power to levy protective duties, and then in 1828 / 
 
 utterly deny the existence of such a power. Yet he did 
 
 do precisely that; and his admirers will hardly succeed 
 
 in making his conduct at this time appear altogether 
 
 satisfactory. The truth of the matter seems to be that 
 
 Calhoun did not foresee what would be the consequences 
 
 of the policy inaugurated in 18 16. He had not felt called 
 
 upon to define his views, and to hedge them about. It 
 
 was not politically convenient for him so to do. It was 
 
 not till after the passage of the tariff act of 1828 that he 
 
 felt it necessary to define what really were his permanent 
 
 views. 
 
 In this connection it may be well to contrast Cal- Calhoun 
 houn's earlier views on the question of slavery with °" ^ avery. 
 those which he held after his " diligent scrutiny of the 
 Constitution" in 1828, in order to show that his views 
 had changed all along the line. In 1816 it covered him 
 with confusion even to state the fact in Congress that it 
 had been the plain intention of the Constitution to toler- 
 ate the slave trade till 1808. " He felt ashamed of such a 
 tolerance, and took a large part of the disgrace, as he 
 represented a part of the Union by whose influence it 
 might be supposed to have been introduced." ^ It was 
 an " odious traffic." Four years later, he was in favor 
 of the Missouri Compromise.^ In the thirties, when 
 the abolition struggle was on, we find him regretting 
 that he had not followed the lead of Randolph in the 
 Missouri Compromise struggle. At the time he had 
 regarded Randolph as too uncompromising, but experi- 
 
 1 Annals of Cong., 14 Cong., i sess., 531 (1815-16). 
 
 * Cong. Globe, 25 Cong., 2 sess., Appendix, 70 (1837-38). 
 
14 
 
 BROAD CONSTRUCTION TO 1823. 
 
 [Ch. L 
 
 Calhoun on 
 
 Louisiana 
 
 purchase. 
 
 Precedents 
 ignored. 
 
 ence had taught him his error; and now, in 1837, he 
 would redeem himself by his devotion to an interest 
 he had put in jeopardy in his less experienced days. He 
 would proclaim that slavery, as it actually existed, was 
 a good thing for the white as well as for the black ; and 
 that, " in fact, the defence of human liberty against the 
 aggressions of despotic power had been always the 
 most efficient in states where domestic slavery was 
 found to prevail." ^ 
 
 One more specific instance of the radical change in 
 Calhoun's views may here be conveniently mentioned. 
 Attention has already been called to the argument in 
 which Calhoun cited the Louisiana purchase as a prece- 
 dent for appropriating money without reference to the 
 enumerated powers.^ That reference he introduced, he 
 said, " to prove the uniform sense of Congress and the 
 country ... as to our powers." " And surely," said he, 
 " they furnish better evidence of the true interpretation 
 of the Constitution than the most refined and subtle 
 arguments." As John Quincy Adams says: " Calhoun 
 thought the case of Louisiana had settled the Constitu- 
 tional question."^ It is almost impossible to believe 
 that the following sentences, which occurred in the 
 exposition drawn up in 1828 for the committee of the 
 South Carolina Legislature could have been penned by 
 the man who made use of the language quoted above. 
 " In the absence of arguments drawn from the Constitu- 
 tion itself, the advocates of the power [to levy protective 
 duties] have attempted to call in the aid of precedent. 
 The Committee will not waste their time in examining 
 instances quoted. If they were strictly in point, they 
 would be entitled to little weight. Ours is not a gov- 
 ernment of precedent; nor can they be admitted, 
 
 * Cong. Debates., 24 Cong., 2 sess., 719 (1836-37). 
 
 ^ See above, p. 10. 
 
 ' John Quincy Adams, Memoirs, VI. 72. 
 
i828.] PRECEDENTS IGNORED. 15 
 
 except to a very limited extent, and with great caution, 
 in the interpretation of the Constitution, without chan- 
 ging, in time, the entire character of the instrument." ^ 
 Or, in plainer language, no precedents can have weight 
 which prejudice South Carolina's case. 
 
 One wishes that the South Carolina leaders in this Southern 
 period might have had an opportunity to reach the subdued, 
 highest development of their powers, unhampered by 
 the selfish local interests of contending sections. Their 
 natural conceptions were noble and their spirit was ad- 
 mirable; and one feels that they might have accom- 
 plished much for the nation. At least, one regrets that 
 they did not have a chance to make the attempt; and 
 that they were crushed by the weight of local interests 
 that pressed down upon them and around them from 
 every side and from every section. One scarcely knows 
 which to regret most, the excessive disregard of general 
 interest which met them, or the lack of moderation which 
 they displayed when they turned to contend against it. 
 It is to the grasping, selfish spirit of a large class oi 
 Northern manufacturers and their allies that we must 
 attribute a considerable share of the responsibility for 
 the disagreeable events of the period between 18 16 and 
 1833. 
 
 1 Exposition^ in WorkSy VI. 3. 
 
CHAPTER II. 
 
 Theory of the 
 
 Constitution 
 
 shifting. 
 
 Supports 
 for the 
 new theory. 
 
 The 
 Federalist. 
 
 THEORIES OF THE CONSTITUTION IN SOUTH 
 CAROLINA. — 1789-1828. 
 
 The change in attitude on the tariff and allied sub- 
 jects, is only one of several evidences that the whole 
 theory of the Constitution was shifting in South Caro- 
 lina. The process ended in 1828, when the doctrine of 
 nullification was enunciated. To support it, Calhoun 
 and his school appealed to the Federalist; cited the 
 Virginia and Kentucky Resolutions; recalled the pro- 
 ceedings in New England during the war of 1812; 
 pointed to the controversy between Georgia and the 
 general government, not then settled ; and, finally, 
 rested upon the understanding that South Carolina 
 had had from the beginning as to the nature of the 
 Union. It will be profitable, therefore, to go over this 
 ground with some care, and to inquire whether any of 
 the authorities or cases appealed to really furnished 
 substantial support for the doctrine. First in order is 
 the Federalist. 
 
 For a subtle and systematic discussion of the abstract 
 question of sovereignty, of the nature of the Union, 
 and the like, we should look in vain in the Federal- 
 ist or in any of the early documents. The framers 
 of the Constitution and the advocates of its adoption 
 were engaged in a very practical, common-sense, and 
 extremely urgent undertaking. The existence of the 
 Union itself was at stake. They devoted all their fac- 
 ulties in the first place to devising a plan that would 
 
1787-88.I THE FEDERALIST EXAMINED. 17 
 
 work, that would establish the Union on a firm basis ; 
 and then they bent their energies to the task of securing 
 the adoption of the system they had devised. They 
 did not set out, as Frenchmen do, determined to be 
 logical at every hazard. Therefore, as might be ex- Constitution 
 pected, the result of their labors was not a model from perfect!*^^ ^ 
 a logical point of view. It was, so to speak, a jumble 
 of principles, one here running into another there, a 
 system of checks and balances, a " bundle of compro- 
 mises " ; and therefore any conclusion purporting to be 
 deduced from any single principle would necessarily be 
 only a half truth or no truth at all. 
 
 While therefore, happily, we do not find in the 
 Federalist the subtle and metaphysical discussions in 
 which some of our public men later revelled, we do 
 find anticipated and discussed almost every constitu- Calhoun 
 tionai point that vexed our fathers. And there is not 
 one substantial position assumed by Calhoun in his 
 Exposition of 1828 upon which the Federalist does not 
 touch. 
 
 Calhoun, as we shall see, took as his fundamental Calhoun's 
 principle the proposition that the States before the sovereignty. 
 Union were sovereigns, — that to the Union the people 
 of the several States acceded as States. From this he 
 evolved the doctrine of nullification and secession. It 
 is no easy task to keep track of the meaning of the 
 words " sovereign " and " sovereignty " in the writings 
 of our statesmen present or past ; but it is not difficult to 
 ascertain that Madison and Hamilton, when they spoke 
 of the "sovereignty of the States" in 1787, did not 
 mean by the expression what Calhoun meant by it in 
 1828. A careful reading of the Federalist, a rational Federalist on 
 comparison of its various parts, reveals as to essential 
 matters a consistent body of principles in support of the 
 proposition that the States were not, when the Consti- 
 tution was framed, and had never been, separate and 
 
 2 
 
l8 CONSTITUTIONAL THEORIES TO 1828. [Ch. II. 
 
 independent sovereigns.^ There would be little dis- 
 position to question the correctness of this statement so 
 far as Jay and Hamilton are concerned. If, however, 
 confirmation were wanted as to Madison's view, it 
 would be necessary only to refer to his expressions in 
 the Constitutional Convention itself. Language could 
 Madison on scarcely be more explicit. " Some contend that the 
 Sovereignty, g^^^-gg ^j-g sovereign, when in fact they are only political 
 societies. There is a gradation of power in all societies, 
 from the lowest corporation to the highest sovereign. 
 The States never possessed the essential rights of sov- 
 ereigns. These were always vested in Congress. Their 
 voting as States in Congress is no evidence of sover- 
 eignty. The State of Maryland voted by counties. 
 Did this make the counties sovereign? The States, at 
 present, are only great corporations, having the power 
 of making by-laws, and these are effective only if they 
 are not contradictory to the general Confederation. 
 The States ought to be placed under the control of the 
 general government, — at least as much so as they 
 formerly were under the King and British Parlia- 
 ment." ^ Madison, with Jay and Hamilton, contended 
 that even under the Confederation a Union existed 
 which could exercise powers that no State could con- 
 stitutionally question, which no State could legally ob- 
 struct, a Union whose bonds no State could legally 
 throw off.^ The authors of the Federalist speak not of 
 establishing a union, but of preserving the Union, and 
 of the evils that would result from its dismemberment. 
 
 But, while Jay, Hamilton, and Madison denied the 
 individual sovereignty of the States under the Confed- 
 
 ■• Federalist (" 25th edition " in Lodge's edition of Works of 
 Alexander Hamilton^ IX.), Nos. ii. 8; vii. 33 ; xiii, 74 ; xiv. 81,82; 
 xxii. 128, 135; XXX. 175, 176. 
 
 2 Elliot's Debates, I. 461, 462, June 29, 1787. 
 
 * See below, p. 21. 
 
1787-S8.] THE FEDERALIST EXAMINED. 19 
 
 eration, and that any State could secede, and were aware Federalist on 
 that the nature of the Union could legally be changed ^f^t^e"°" 
 only by the consent of every member in it; yet they Constitution 
 were engaged in advocating a plan which proposed radi- 
 cal alterations, and which was to go into operation when 
 only nine of the members had assented. At this point, 
 although these writers labored hard, they did not suc- 
 ceed in disguising the fact that the action proposed and 
 taken was revolutionary. They stated that, in order to 
 make the matter appear as equitable as possible, and 
 also for reasons of convenience, it had been determined 
 that each State was to exercise its free will in the mat- 
 ter of ratifying the Constitution ; that it was decided to 
 consider each State, at the time of ratification, "as a 
 sovereign body, independent of all others, and only to 
 be bound by its own voluntary act." ^ The instrument 
 adopted, the States would of course be subordinated to 
 the general government to a greater extent than before ; 
 but still an indistinct portion of the supremacy over all Federalist 
 persons and things would be reserved to the States, and, 
 in the powers reserved, the States would be " no more 
 subject ... to the general authority than the general 
 authority," in its delegated powers, would be sub- 
 ject to them.2 In a sphere somewhat indefinite, each 
 State would be a legal sovereign exercising certain 
 reserved powers; in another sphere equally undefined, 
 the general government would be a legal sovereign, 
 exercising certain delegated powers, with power through 
 
 * Federalist, xxxix. 236. That Madison would have attached 
 to the method by which the Constitution was ratified the signifi- 
 cance that Calhoun gave it, is negatived by the spirit of all Madi- 
 son's writings. Madison would probably have raised no objection 
 to the language used by Chief Justice Marshall in McCulloch v. 
 Maryland in speaking on this very point. See Curtis, Decisions of 
 the United States Supreme Court, IV., pp. 419-20. 
 
 2 Federalist, Nos. xxxii. 186; xxxix. 238, 239; xlv. 286, 287. 
 
 on division of 
 powers. 
 
20 
 
 CONSTITUTIONAL THEORIES TO 1828. Ch. II. 
 
 Supreme 
 Court the 
 arbiter. 
 
 Federalist vs. 
 Calhoun. 
 
 individuals. 
 
 Remedies 
 for federal 
 aggressions. 
 
 the Supreme Court to pass on cases of conflict. That 
 Madison undoubtedly had in mind the very question 
 of the division of powers, as referred to by Calhoun in 
 his Exposition and elsewhere, is made evident in a pas- 
 sage where he speaks of " controversies relating to the 
 boundary between the two jurisdictions." And it is 
 worthy of note that the Supreme Court is designated 
 as the tribunal which should settle such controversies.' 
 
 Not only do we find such general principles as 
 the foregoing plainly expressed or clearly implied in 
 the Federalist; but we also find specific expressions 
 on the particular points that Calhoun emphasized, and 
 we find that these expressions are diametrically op- 
 posed to Calhoun's positions. For instance, in a spirit 
 directly contrary to Calhoun's first inference from his 
 fundamental principles that there was no immediate 
 connection between the individual citizen and the 
 general government, we find Hamilton writing : " The 
 great and radical vice in the construction of the exist- 
 ing Confederation is in the principle of legislation for 
 states or governments, in their corporate capacities, and 
 as contradistinguished from the individuals." And 
 again : " We must extend the authority of the Union to 
 the persons of the citizens, — the only proper objects of 
 government." ^ That this principle prevailed in the 
 Constitutional Convention it is needless to argue. But 
 the authors of the Federalist went further; they con- 
 sidered fully the questions as to what remedies might 
 be adopted in case the general government should 
 exercise powers that might be thought unwarranted. 
 Their conclusions were about as follows. In the first 
 place, appeal should be made to the Supreme Court, 
 which was to be considered the bulwark of the Con- 
 stitution.^ " In the last resort, a remedy must be 
 
 1 Federalist, No. xxxix. 238. 2 /^/^.^ ^o. xv. 86-88. 
 
 • Ibid., Nos. xxxix. 238 ; xliv. 282 ; Ixxix. 284-287. 
 
1787-88.] REMEDIES FOR FEDERAL AGGRESSIONS. 21 
 
 obtained from the people, who can, by the election "Interposi- 
 of more faithful representatives, annul the acts of the gested"^ 
 usurpers." ^ There was a further remedy suggested, 
 which is exceedingly interesting because it is in sub- 
 stance what Madison suggested to Virginia in 1798. 
 Encroachments of the federal government, he wrote in 
 the Federalist, would not excite the opposition of a sin- 
 gle State or of a few States. " They would be signals of 
 general alarm. Every government would espouse the 
 common cause. A correspondence would be opened. 
 Plans of resistance would be organized. One spirit 
 would animate and conduct the whole." ^ Unless 
 the innovations should be renounced, there would be 
 an appeal to force. But the federal government could 
 not go to such a degree of madness. It would be 
 folly for a few representatives to oppose the people 
 themselves. 
 
 These were all the remedies suggested. But there Secession 
 was one which was pointedly rejected, and that was a^remedy!^ 
 the interference of particular States.^ There is a pas- 
 sage which has a very marked bearing on the ques- 
 tion of secession. Hamilton had just referred to the 
 gross " heresy " that a party to a compact could revoke 
 that compact, a doctrine which, in a discussion relating 
 to the Confederation, had found some respectable advo- 
 cates. " The possibility of a question of this nature 
 proves the necessity of laying the foundations of our 
 national government deeper than in the mere sanction 
 of delegated authority. The fabric of the American 
 empire ought to rest on the solid basis oi the consent of 
 the people!' * 
 
 Thus it appears, from a fair examination of the Fed- Virginia and 
 eralist, that Calhoun's doctrine must look elsewhere for ResoluUons 
 support. What now of the Virginia and Kentucky 
 
 1 Federalist^ No. xliv. 283. ' Ibid., No. xvi. 96. 
 
 '^ Ibid., No. xlvi. 295-297. < Ibid., No. xxii. 135, 
 
22 
 
 CONSTITUTIONAL THEORIES TO 1828. [Ch. II. 
 
 Doctrine 
 of '9S. 
 
 Remedies 
 proposed. 
 
 Resolutions? It was upon these documents that the 
 South Carolina leaders mainly relied. They were con- 
 tent so long as they had " the good old Republican 
 doctrine of '98 " to stand on. The sentiments and 
 the very language of the documents were freely appro- 
 priated by those who drafted the nullification reports 
 and resolutions. 
 
 In general, the two sets of resolutions, that of Vir- 
 ginia and that of Kentucky, are substantially the 
 same, at least in spirit. They give the same account 
 of the origin and nature of the general government, 
 declaring that, by compact under the title of the Con- 
 stitution of the United States, the States created a 
 general government with definite powers for special 
 purposes ; that to this compact each State acceded as a 
 State ; and that the government created by this compact 
 was not made the final judge as to the extent of its 
 powers. Just at this point a slight difference between 
 the two sets arises. In pointing out the final judge of 
 controversies between the two jurisdictions, the State 
 and the Federal, the Virginia Resolutions declare that 
 "In case of a deliberate, palpable, and dangerous ex- 
 ercise of other powers not granted by the said com- 
 pact, 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 " ; while the Kentucky Resolu- 
 tions set forth 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 of the mode and measure of redress." ^ Madison, 
 in the Virginia Resolutions, followed strictly the line he 
 
 ^ For the Resolutions and an account of them, see E. D. War- 
 field, The Kentucky Resolutions of 1798 : An Historical Study, 
 1887. 
 
1798-99] VIRGINIA AND KENTUCKY. 23 
 
 had laid down in the Federalist; * the Kentucky Reso- 
 lutions, following Jefferson's lead, seem to go further. 
 
 The sentence just quoted from them was made to do Virginia and 
 very effective work by the nullifiers. In fact, it was very mfsconstrueA 
 much overworked. It appears that the expression is not 
 in harmony with the general spirit of the resolutions ; it 
 certainly is scarcely in keeping with the particular 
 course that was pursued at the time. Kentucky merely 
 declared that the construction which the general govern- 
 ment had applied to certain articles of the Constitution 
 was unwarranted and dangerous ; that the proceedings 
 of the government under color of those articles should 
 be reserved for correction at a time of greater tranquil- 
 lity; that certain statutes, among them the Alien and 
 Sedition Acts, were null and void ; and that the condition 
 of things called for immediate redress. The Governor 
 was therefore authorized to communicate the Resolu- 
 tions to the Legislatures of the several States ; the Sena- 
 tors and Representatives were called upon to present 
 them in their respective Houses ; and the co-States were Appeal to 
 requested to express their sentiments, and to join with ^°" * ^^* 
 Kentucky in securing the repeal of the obnoxious 
 measures at the next session of Congress. Thus did 
 Kentucky bring herself alongside of the Federalist 
 and the Virginia Resolutions. Virginia regretted the 
 tendency of the government to enlarge its powers by 
 forced construction; protested against the Alien and 
 Sedition Laws as infractions of the Constitution; ap- 
 pealed to other States to concur in declaring those laws 
 unconstitutional, and to take the " necessary and proper 
 measures " for co-operating with Virginia ** in maintain- 
 ing unimpaired the authorities, rights, and liberties re- 
 served to the States respectively, or to the people." 
 
 Only the most forced construction could find a war- 
 rant in either or both of these sets of resolutions for 
 * See above, p. 21. 
 
24 CONSTITUTIONAL THEORIES TO 1828. [Ch. II. 
 
 No warrant the extreme doctrine to which South Carolina gave her 
 docSe!"""'^ sanction in 1828. Madison himself denied that either 
 Jefferson or himself meant by the proceedings in 1798 
 what Calhoun and others claimed for them ; the course 
 of South Carolina to 1827 indicates that she had the 
 same understanding of the proceedings as Madison had ; 
 and in 1832 there were seventeen thousand out of the 
 thirty-nine or forty thousand voters in South Carolina 
 who, notwithstanding the great pressure upon them, 
 denied the validity of Calhoun's construction. 
 
 One would naturally expect the remedy adopted in 
 1798 to be different from that of 1832. The problems of 
 the two periods were radically different. In 1798 the 
 question before Jefferson and Madison was how to check 
 the measures of the general government which they be- 
 The problems lieved were obnoxious to the great majority of the peo- 
 different. ^^^^ ^^^ ^^ ^^^ ^-^^ States. The case before them was 
 
 one where a few representatives of the people were op- 
 posed to the whole people, a case to which Hamilton 
 had directed attention in the Federalist. The men of 
 '98 had not recovered from their dread of a monarchy. 
 The course of the government furnished some ground 
 for alarm. Later, in 1832, the question was not how to 
 assure the will of the majority, but how to devise a 
 remedy by which the minority might control the major- 
 ity and the Union be still preserved. South Carolina's 
 grievance was that the measures of the government 
 did have the support of the majority of the people 
 and the majority of the States. Her position was, not 
 that an oligarchy at the seat of government should not 
 rule, but that the majority should not rule. In the 
 one case, the States could be appealed to with some 
 confidence ; in the other, the appeal to the States was 
 a failure. 
 Georgia's From the Georgia controversy, South Carolina de- 
 
 disobedience. ^.j^^^ considerable satisfaction ; for she was aware that 
 
1798, 1832.] PROBLEMS OF 1798 AND 1832. 2$ 
 
 Georgia had defied the Executive till 1829, when an Ex- 
 ecutive came in who winked at her misdoings. She 
 noted that Georgia at the next stage of the controversy 
 treated the injunctions of the Supreme Court with open 
 contempt, and was not called to account. Seeing, then, Jackson's 
 that Jackson, if not disposed to side openly with Geor- connivance, 
 gia, was at least indifferent, she drew the reasonable 
 conclusion that Jackson would scarcely coerce her. 
 She professed to base her resistance upon principles 
 which Georgia had enunciated.^ 
 
 From the proceedings in New England during the Hartford 
 war of 1 8 12, South Carolina could attempt to make Convention, 
 capital only with very bad grace; for her legislature 
 had, at the time, pointedly rebuked New England's atti- 
 tude; and throughout the State, the Hartford Conven- 
 tion had aroused execration, and had been termed a 
 •traitorous association.^ 
 
 In fact, it is extremely unfortunate for South Carolina South 
 that she had to originate, or at least to put into practice, ^3^^]°'},"^? 
 the doctrine of nullification. There was nothing in the against 
 past conduct of the State, and little or nothing in the 
 expressions or actions of any of her representatives, to 
 give support to the doctrine. On the contrary, the 
 early history of the State speaks as strongly as possible 
 in condemnation of it. The evidence for this is so strik- 
 ing as to justify extended notice. 
 
 Charles Pinckney, Charles Cotesworth Pinckney, Her 
 John Rutledge, and Pierce Butler were South Caro- coSutional 
 lina's delegates to the Constitutional Convention. Of Convention, 
 these, the two Pinckneys and Rutledge were decidedly 
 in favor of establishing a strong national government, 
 
 1 The encouragement from Georgia's attitude is shown in a * 
 
 speech of Senator Miller of South Carolina, Cong. Debates, 22 
 Cong., 2 sess., 453, 454 (1832-33), and in John Quincy Adams's 
 Memoirs, VIII. 262. 
 
 ^ David R. Williams: Charleston Mercury, Aug. 27, 1828. 
 
26 
 
 CONSTITUTIONAL THEORIES TO 1828. [Ch. II. 
 
 State 
 
 sovereignty 
 
 condemned. 
 
 State 
 Convention. 
 
 capable of effectively executing its acts and of dis- 
 pensing its benefits and protection. The two Pinckneys 
 could scarcely find language sufficiently forcible to 
 express their condemnation of the doctrine that the 
 States were separately and individually sovereign. The 
 delegation, except Charles Pinckney, opposed giving 
 Congress power to negative laws passed by any State 
 contravening the articles of union, but advocated mak- 
 ing acts of Congress the supreme law of the land.^ 
 Charles Pinckney favored the Congressional veto and 
 moved to give Congress power to negative all State laws 
 which Congress should judge proper, grounding his 
 motion on the need of a strong controlling power.* 
 When Randolph, of Virginia, declared that certain reso- 
 lutions which he introduced were intended, not for a 
 federal, but for a strong national government, in which 
 all idea of States should be nearly annihilated, Charles 
 Pinckney asserted that his principles were the same as 
 Randolph's.^ Such sentiments were not only expressed 
 in the Constitutional Convention, but were also uttered 
 with even more emphasis in the State Legislature itself. 
 Charles Pinckney there expressed his fear that it was 
 almost impossible to provide any government on re- 
 publican principles sufficiently vigorous to extend its 
 influence to all parts of the country, " The State 
 governments will too naturally slide into an opposition 
 against the general one and be easily induced to con- 
 sider themselves as rivals."* Charles Cotesworth Pinck- 
 ney boldly proclaimed that attempts to weaken the 
 Union, by pretending that each State was separately 
 and individually independent, were political heresies 
 which would produce serious distress. " The separate 
 independence and individual sovereignty of the sev- 
 
 > Elliot, Debates, I. 207. 
 » Ibid., I. 400. 
 
 3 Ibid., I. 391. 
 * Ibid., IV. 259. 
 
1787-1817.] STATE SOVEREIGNTY CONDEMNED. 27 
 
 eral States was never thought of by the enlightened 
 band of patriots who framed this Declaration." ^ 
 
 Coming down to a later date, let us examine the Langdon 
 opinion of one of the most eminent men South Carolina Cheves 
 
 ^ against 
 
 has given to the republic. Langdon Cheves, in 1812, Calhoun, 
 was speaking on a bill concerning the militia. To dis- 
 cover the intent of the Constitution on that subject, 
 he felt it necessary to discuss the nature of the gov- 
 ernment. Is it federal or national ? he asked, — a 
 government of the States, or of the people? For the 
 purpose of making war, it was essentially national. 
 The difiference between a federal government and a 
 national government might be seen by comparing the 
 present government with the old Confederation. " The 
 last, unlike the former, was not in itself a sovereign." 
 It could make no law immediately binding on the per- 
 sons and property of the citizens of the several States. 
 The present government can. " This, then, is a defi- 
 nition of a national government or a government of the 
 people. It acts immediately on the person and the 
 property of the citizen, and such, as to the power of 
 declaring and making war, is the nature of the govern- 
 ment of the United States." ^ A considerable difference 
 there is between these sentiments and the later doctrine 
 of Calhoun that there is no direct connection between 
 the citizen and the general government, and that the 
 only connection is through the State, a doctrine which 
 he considered the first inference from the nature of the 
 relations between the States and the general govern- 
 ment.^ 
 
 In 1817 Langdon Cheves, then a State judge, was Cheves on 
 called upon to pass upon the right of the Judiciary to ^"^^f'"^ 
 declare an act of the Legislature unconstitutional, and 
 
 J Elliot, Debates, IV. 301. 
 
 * Annals of Cong., 12 Cong., I sess., 735 (l8ir-i2). 
 
 3 One of the People, Oct. I, 182 1, in McDuffie's Essays. 
 
28 
 
 CONSTITUTIONAL THEORIES TO 1828. [Ch. II. 
 
 George 
 McDuffie vs. 
 state sover- 
 eignty, 182 1. 
 
 State not 
 the arbiter. 
 
 he made use of the following language : " The co-ordi- 
 nate authority of the Judiciary and its right and duty to 
 determine where its functions involve the question on 
 the constitutional validity of a legislative act, I take to 
 be a point now settled by the judgment of almost every 
 respectable judicial tribunal, and confinned by the ap- 
 probation and acquiescence of all wise and sober states- 
 men in the Union; but it is still a power to be exercised 
 with great circumspection, and a duty which is incum- 
 bent only in very clear cases. On this subject I adopt 
 with entire approbation the language of the Supreme 
 Court of the United States." ^ 
 
 But the most sweeping denunciation by a South 
 Carolinian of the doctrine of strict construction and of 
 state sovereignty is yet to be mentioned. In 1821, 
 George McDuffie wrote a pamphlet in reply to a 
 Georgia paper which had contended for the sound- 
 ness of these two doctrines. That pamphlet had the 
 indorsement of Governor Hamilton. The principles 
 enunciated are truly Websterian ; the general govern- 
 ment is as certainly the government of the whole people 
 as the State is of part of the people ; the Constitution was 
 ordained by " the people of the United States " ; it was 
 not intended that national officials should be restrained 
 by the lawless resistance of State officials. The central 
 government was as worthy of confidence as that of a 
 State. It was not an object of dread. The State sys- 
 tems tended more to disunion than to consolidation. It 
 has been asserted that, in case of conflict, each party 
 has a right to judge for itself. " No climax of political 
 heresies can be imagined in which this might not claim 
 the most prominent place. To suppose a general gov- 
 ernment has the right to exercise certain powers, and 
 that each has the right to determine its own relative 
 powers, is to suppose the existence of two contradictory 
 1 JVt/es Register, XII. 248. 
 
1821-26.] FUNCTIONS OF THE SUPREME COURT. 29 
 
 and inconsistent rights." This pamphlet was written 
 the year McDuffie and Hamilton took their seats in 
 Congress, Only a few years later we find both these 
 men among the most active in carrying into practice 
 the principles here so strongly condemned. 
 
 Even these striking public expressions of well known South 
 leaders do not complete the evidence. The represent- Carolina on 
 atives of South Carolina on various occasions passed the Supreme 
 judgment upon the specific question as to whether the 
 State or the Supreme Court was the final judge of the 
 constitutionality of an act of Congress. Their decision 
 was invariably in favor of the Supreme Court, and, 
 so far as public records show, passed without pro- 
 test from their colleagues or from their constituents. 
 Such opinions were given at different times from 1798 
 to 1826, by no less distinguished representatives than 
 Robert Goodlow Harper,^ John Rutledge, Jr., William 
 Lowndes,^ and even William Harper, the able exponent 
 of the nullification doctrine. In 1802, John Rutledge, 
 speaking on a measure affecting the Judiciary, ably 
 pointed out its function in our system : the people, 
 he observed, could never have adopted the Constitution 
 had they not regarded the Judiciary as co-ordinate with 
 the Legislative and Executive, and as the check essen- 
 tial to the duration of the government; the State gov- Reverence for 
 ernments reverenced the Judiciary as the fortress of their the Judiciary, 
 safety. So long as it remained, there could not be 
 much permanent oppression. The people through the 
 Constitution had given the Judiciary power to declare 
 unconstitutional laws passed by Congress in defiance of 
 the Constitution. In 1820, William Lowndes remarked 
 that it was foreseen by the framers of the Constitution 
 that a State might attempt to break over the barriers 
 
 ^ Annals 0/ Cong., 5 Cong., 2 sess., 1991 (1797-99). 
 * Ibid., 16 Cong., 2 sess., 515 (1820-21). 
 
30 
 
 CONSTITUTIONAL THEORIES TO 1828. [Ch. II. 
 
 South 
 
 Carolina 
 
 Legislature 
 
 national, 
 
 1824. 
 
 of the Constitution. Provision had been made for 
 such a contingency. The Judiciary had been provided 
 to settle such constitutional questions.^ But even 
 more striking, perhaps, is the declaration of Senator 
 Harper as late as 1826 that the Supreme Court was 
 made by the Constitution the arbiter between the con- 
 flicting elements of our complicated system, and that its 
 office was to restrain, not only the powers of the States, 
 but also those of the general government; the Supreme 
 Court was the guarantee of the Constitution.^ 
 
 To turn for a moment to the South Carolina Legis- 
 lature: In December, 1824, the tariff act passed by 
 Congress in the spring of that year was brought to the 
 attention of the Legislature and was referred to a com- 
 mittee of which Judge Prioleau was a member. A 
 statement known as Prioleau's report was brought in ; 
 it declared that if the tariff bill was in fact a bill to en- 
 courage manufacturers at the expense of agriculture, it 
 would meet with decided disapproval ; " but whether 
 the act be or be not unconstitutional, has not been 
 decided by the only proper tribunal, the Federal Judi- 
 ciary." ^ The following very striking resolutions were 
 thereupon adopted. 
 
 " Resolved : That the people have conferred no power 
 upon their State Legislature to impugn the Acts of 
 the federal government or the decision of the Su- 
 preme Court of the United States. 
 
 " Resolved : That any exercise of such a power by 
 this state would be an act of usurpation. 
 
 ** Resolved : That the Representatives of the people 
 in Congress are only responsible under God to the 
 people themselves." 
 
 * Annals of Cong., 6 Cong., 2 sess., 932 (1799-1800). 
 
 * Co7ig. Debates, 19 Cong., i sess., 549 (1825-26). 
 
 8 Five Letters to Gov. Hamilton. No. 4 in pamphlet in Bosi 
 ton Athenaeum (Library No. B. 1065). 
 
1824-29.] BROAD CONSTRUCTION PERSISTS. 3 1 
 
 It must not be overlooked, that down to 1828 the Confused 
 South CaroHna leaders seem to have had a confused sovereignty 
 conception as to the nature and the seat of sovereignty. 
 The confusion into which Senator Hayne fell in 1830 in 
 his discussion of the origin of the Union has been pointed 
 out by several writers. It will be remembered that he 
 made the general government one of the sovereign par- 
 ties to the compact. That he did so is not remarkable : 
 it was very common in South Carolina and elsewhere to 
 speak of the sovereign federal government on the one 
 hand, and of the sovereign States on the other. " Sid- 
 ney," as we shall see,^ fell into the same confusion in 
 1828; as did also James Hamilton, in his address to his 
 constituents at Walterborough in October of the same 
 year.^ We have even the serious remonstrance of the 
 South Carolina Legislature in 1827, where it is repre- 
 sented to be important that South Carolina should ap- 
 proach the national government as a sovereign and an South 
 equal. She had not then adopted Calhoun's view that ^-^^^^^udX " 
 the national government was a mere creature. So far 
 as there was any definite opinion at all, it appears to 
 have been that both the State and the general govern- 
 ment were sovereign, each in its own sphere, and that 
 in cases of conflict the Supreme Court was the arbiter. 
 
 The truth is that the question had come to be 
 one that could not be decided by weight of authority. 
 So much Hayne declared in 1829, when he said that 
 his State would never yield to great names when such Submission 
 principles were at stake ; and so much McDuffie im- '""P"^^' ^• 
 plied when he asked if it could be supposed that 
 South Carolina could submit to a practical interpre- 
 tation of the compact by which her interests would 
 
 ^ See below, page 75. 
 
 2 " Let our antagonist be a co-equal Sovereign, and let us meet 
 him on equal grounds." 
 
32 CONSTITUTIONAL THEORIES TO 1828. [Ch. II. 
 
 be sacrificed. One thing was settled : the extreme 
 state rights leaders had determined to make a test of 
 their doctrine, and to ascertain whether their rights 
 could be trampled upon " under the forms of the 
 Constitution, but in direct violation of its spirit." 
 
CHAPTER III. 
 
 CAUSES OF NULLIFICATION. 
 1823-1828. 
 
 To the people of South Carolina everything seemed Change in 
 to go wrong after the defeat of Andrew Jackson in 1824. demaliS 
 The times appeared to be out of joint: had not the 
 "Adams Dynasty" imposed itself on the country by 
 fraud and corruption ? Had it not deviated from the 
 conservative policy of preceding administrations and 
 announced principles that were at variance with the well 
 established rights of the States? " A union of the black- Discontent 
 leg and the Puritan," what better could be expected of 0^1824!^ '°" 
 it? Public sentiment in the State demanded such a 
 change in the electoral machinery as would prevent a 
 recurrence of the surprise of 1824. In no event should 
 Congress be permitted to choose the President. Gov- 
 ernor Manning, in his message, December i, 1826, ex- 
 pressed the opinion that the time was not far distant 
 when it would be found expedient to change the method 
 of electing the President; the House of the State Legis- 
 lature agreed with him, but deemed it unwise, at the 
 time, to agitate the matter. McDufifie championed this 
 reform both in and out of Congress, to the great satis- 
 faction of his constituents. 
 
 To add to the discontent of the South Carolinians Discontent 
 came the renewed demands of the protectionists for ^J^^g^ 
 higher duties, after the slight revulsion of 1825-26. 
 In the session of Congress of 1826-27, the woollen in- 
 terests, in particular, clamored for aid. A bill was in- 
 troduced embodying their demands, and would have 
 
 35 
 
34 
 
 CAUSES. 
 
 [Ch. III. 
 
 Harrisburg 
 Convention. 
 
 Responsi- 
 bility for 
 "Hill of 
 Abomina- 
 tions," 1828. 
 
 Fighting the 
 Devil with 
 fire. 
 
 become a law but for the casting vote of the Vice- 
 President, Calhoun. This only intensified the agita- 
 tion outside of Congress. A national convention was 
 held in Harrisburg in the summer of 1827, which rec- 
 ommended duties on woollens and a number of other 
 commodities, higher even than those of the rejected 
 tariff bill of 1827. The contest was renewed in Con- 
 gress immediately after it assembled ; the struggle that 
 ensued was remarkable.^ The opponents of protection 
 adopted the principle of " fighting the devil with fire." 
 Their intention was to prepare a dose that even New 
 England could not swallow. But they had not taken 
 the measure of New England's gullet correctly; they 
 did not know the capacity of that section when it came 
 to swallowing tariffs ; for the " Bill of Abominations " 
 went down with scarcely a hitch. The over-shrewd- 
 ness of the low tariff men had resulted in their dis- 
 comfiture. The tariff bill of 1828 was more hideous 
 to its pretended friends than to its supposed enemies; 
 and the responsibility for many of its most obnoxious 
 features rested as much upon the representatives of 
 South Carolina as upon those of any other State. 
 Thomas R. Mitchell had frankly said that he would 
 vote for retaining the duty on molasses, " because he 
 believed that keeping it in the bill would get voters 
 against the final passage of the bill; and if the bill 
 must pass, he wished the poor to be made to feel its 
 oppressive operations, that a stronger interest might 
 be created in the country against the tariff system."^ 
 McDuffie, in 1844, gave the same explanation of his 
 action and that of his colleagues.^ But, in spite of the 
 
 1 See Taussig, Tariff History of the United States, 86-101, 
 
 2 Cong. Debates, 20 Cong., i sess., 2344 (1827-28). 
 
 8 " We saw that this system of protection was about to assume 
 gigantic proportions, and to devour the Substance of the Country, 
 and we determined to put such ingredients in the chalice as would 
 
1827-28.] TARIFF OF 1828. 35 
 
 tactics of the Democrats, in spite of the protests of the 
 South Carolina Legislature, in spite of memorials from 
 nearly every district in the State, and in spite of the 
 remonstrances and the threats of the representatives 
 from South Carolina, the " bill of abominations " be- 
 came a law. 
 
 The passage of this measure convinced South Caro- Grievance 
 
 stated 
 lina that it was time to clear the deck for action. It 
 
 only confirmed the convictions of those who had given 
 warning of danger, and, as will be shown further on,^ it 
 impelled Calhoun to cast in his lot with his former op- 
 ponents. To understand the conduct of the people of 
 South Carolina from this time forward, it will be neces- 
 sary to endeavor to enter into their state of mind, to 
 ascertain their grievances more clearly, and to take 
 cognizance of their apprehensions. For this purpose, we 
 cannot do better than to make an examination of the im- 
 passioned arguments of George McDuffie in Congress; 
 and, later, of the torrent of denunciation, warning, ex- 
 hortation, and appeal that Robert J. Turnbull poured 
 out, in 1827, in ''The Crisis." For a fair presentation 
 of McDuffie's views, we must not confine ourselves to 
 any particular speech, but look rather at his whole 
 course through the debates on the tariff bill of 1824, 
 
 poison the monster and commend it to his own lips. This is what 
 is sometimes called 'fighting the devil with fire,' a policy which, 
 though I did not altogether approve, I adopted in deference to 
 the opinions of those with whom I acted." Cong. Globe, 28 Cong., 
 I sess., Appendix, 747 (1843-44). These tactics were not entirely 
 novel. In 1789, Tucker, of South Carolina, said: "I could not 
 answer for my conduct if I did not agree to a heavy tax on the 
 Eastern states, when I found the Southern states taxed in that pro- 
 portion. If the gentlemen from Massachusetts think the duty on 
 molasses bears too heavy on their state, they may remedy the evil 
 by agreeing to a general reduction." — Annals 0/ Cong., i Cong., 
 I sess., 293 (1789-91). 
 ^ See below, p. 63. 
 
36 
 
 CAUSES. 
 
 [Ch. III. 
 
 George 
 McDufifie. 
 
 McDuffie as 
 
 an orator. 
 
 the woollens measure of 1827, the struggle of 1828, and 
 even through the debates of 1830. 
 
 McDuffie was well fitted for the part he had to play. 
 A suspicion that any injustice was intended against his 
 people was sufficient to set his soul on fire. And the 
 conviction was gradually gaining strength with him that 
 he was breathing an atmosphere of injustice. Few men 
 of his time equalled him in ability to persuade the 
 masses. Clear-headed, pure-hearted, frank, bold, deter- 
 mined, he had passionate convictions, was not afraid to 
 utter them or to act in accordance with them. He 
 could not stop half way, and was perhaps too uncom- 
 promising. He rejected as a " perfect solecism " Cal- 
 houn's contention that a State could nullify an act of 
 Congress by virtue of any power derived from the Con- 
 stitution. He placed the right on higher ground, on 
 the mere fact of the sovereignty of the State; in 
 fact, he accepted the doctrine of nullification at all 
 only because he could not reasonably hope for a more 
 effective measure. It would seem that he was willing 
 to rest the case of the State upon the bare right of 
 revolution. In 1833 he was opposed to accepting the 
 Clay Compromise, but yielded in deference to the great 
 majority of his colleagues. 
 
 McDuffie was the most sensational orator of his time. 
 When it was known that he was going to speak on the 
 floor of Congress, the galleries usually filled at an early 
 hour. He was a bitter opponent of the Adams admin- 
 istration ; and against it and its defenders he hurled 
 denunciation and vituperation day after day. Josiah 
 Ouincy gives us a picture of him in action at this time: 
 " McDuffie was certainly an orator, if earnestness and 
 fluency can make one. His effort, and it may well be 
 so called, for he gesticulates all over, lasted the greater 
 part of two days, and was always lively, if never conclu- 
 sive. He was not guilty of sawing the air with his 
 
1824-33] MCDUFFIE'S CHARACTER. 37 
 
 hands after the manner which Hamlet deprecates, for he McDuffie's 
 preferred to pound that element with tightly clenched ^^ °^' 
 fists. * Will not those fists of McDuffie's fly off" and hit 
 somebody? ' whispered Miss Helen to me during one of 
 the tempests, or, as I may say, whirlwinds of passion." ^ 
 The " over-emphasis " of this " high-talking South- 
 erner " was too much for the proper taste of the cold 
 and phlegmatic New Englander. It is to be regretted 
 that so little is known about McDuffie's character and 
 career outside of the halls of Congress. " He was a 
 spare, grim looking man, who was an admirer of Milton 
 and who was never known to jest or smile." ^ He was 
 taciturn, reserved, seemed to commune with himself; 
 yet he was a man of strong feeling, and was easily 
 affected. A visit with an old schoolmate to the scenes 
 of his school days could soften his stern expression and 
 move him to tears. 
 
 McDuffie entered Congress in 1821,^ succeeding his 
 
 * Quincy, Figtires of the Past, 283. 
 
 ^ Ben Perley Poore, Per ley's Reminiscences, I. 81. 
 
 3 Since there is no formal biography of McDuffie, a few notes sketch of 
 may here be presented. McDuffie is said to have been born in McDuffie. 
 Columbia County, Georgia, about 1788. For a while he clerked in 
 the store of James Calhoun, in Augusta. We next find him at 
 William Calhoun's, in Abbeville County, South Carolina, where he 
 had been taken to board, so that he might attend the famous Wad- 
 dell School at Wilmington. At this school he was a noted boy, 
 and in after years was remembered as one of its lights. In De- 
 cember, 181 1, he entered the Junior Class at the South Carolina 
 College, where he was acknowledged to be first. He graduated 
 in 1 81 2 with first honors, his graduating speech, as fate would have 
 it, being on the "Permanence of the Union." Admitted to the 
 bar in 1814, he settled in Pendleton, became a candidate for Soli- 
 citor, was defeated, and then settled down to practice with Colonel 
 Simkins, of Edgefield. With him he entered into a large practice, 
 had access to a fine library, and had an opportunity to mingle in the 
 very best society. His rise was rapid. In 1818 he was elected to 
 the State Legislature, serving his term in the Lower House as one 
 of its very conspicuous members. In 1821 he began his career in 
 
38 
 
 CAUSES. 
 
 [Ch. hi. 
 
 McDuffie's 
 principles. 
 
 McDuffie on 
 protection. 
 
 friend and law partner, Colonel Eldred Simkins. He 
 began his career thoroughly imbued with the liberal 
 principles of the Calhoun school. To the end he main- 
 tained a modern attitude on certain questions, and was 
 driven from his high ground only by the unwise aggres- 
 sion of the protectionists and the blind attacks of the 
 abolitionists. 
 
 It is not necessary that we should follow McDuffie, or 
 any of the other South Carolina representatives, through 
 those parts of their arguments in which they vigorously 
 and ably attacked the protective system on general 
 economic grounds. We are concerned only with those 
 passages that deal with the particular grievances of 
 South Carolina and indicate the state of mind of the 
 people. Government, said McDuffie, could not exist 
 upon a system of taxation which perverted the powers 
 granted for national objects to the oppression of one 
 part of the Union for the benefit of another. He 
 warned Congress that his constituents could not be ex- 
 pected to remain calm spectators of a ceremony by 
 which their agricultural and commercial interests were 
 sacrificed to Boston monopolies. If the councils of the 
 country were ever to be distracted, they would be dis- 
 
 Congress, serving his State ably till 1834, when he became Gover- 
 nor. From 1836 to 1842 he was in retirement, but came out in the 
 latter year to enter the United States Senate. In 1846 his health 
 failed. He resigned, and till 1851 was little more than a dying 
 man. A duel with Colonel Cummings, of Georgia, about 1822, 
 resulted in a spinal wound which affected McDuffie's health, and 
 probably materially altered his disposition. He is said to have 
 shown no irritability up to the time when he was wounded. The 
 duel was brought on by a dispute arising out of the rivalry be- 
 tween Crawford and Calhoun for the Presidency, but the indiscre- 
 tion of friends of both parties was largely responsible. In 1829 
 McDuffie married a member of a wealthy family, a daughter of 
 Colonel Richard Singleton. McDuffie's daughter was married to 
 Colonel Wade Hampton. O'Neall, Bench and Bar of South Caro- 
 lina, II. 463-468. 
 
1824-33] EXPORT TAX THEORY. 39 
 
 tracted by measures of that description. All the sordid Mercenary 
 and mercenary principles of human nature unavoidably 
 mingled in such discussions. " In the very nature of 
 things, it must be a conflict into which no sentiment of 
 patriotism can enter; a conflict between a self-interested 
 majority on the one hand, attempting to disguise under 
 the pretence of some public and patriotic motive the true 
 character of the measure ; and of an oppressed minority 
 on the other, equally outraged by the injuries inflicted 
 and the mockery of flimsy pretences by which their 
 understandings are insulted. Such a contest has all the 
 elements of settled hostility and permanent alienation 
 of feeling without anything to soothe the angry passions 
 it necessarily brings into action." ^ 
 
 To illustrate the operation of the tariff, McDuffie The export 
 elaborated his famous "export tax" or "40 bale" theory, ^ ^°^^' 
 maintaining that an import duty imposed upon articles 
 of foreign merchandise, received in exchange for the 
 domestic produce of the planting States, was precisely 
 equivalent — our commercial relations being what they 
 then were — to an export duty levied upon the pro- 
 ducts of those States.^ 
 
 It would be tedious to follow McDuflie through the 
 elaborate and ingenious argument in which he undertook 
 to sustain his proposition. He advanced it first in 1830, 
 but found later that he had left out a very important 
 consideration, and so in 1832 he returned to the task 
 and perfected his theory.^ We need notice here only 
 his conclusion that the actual operation of the protect- 
 ive system, stripped of all disguises, was such as to 
 raise the entire amount of the federal taxes upon one 
 fifth of the products of the Union, and to leave four 
 
 1 Concessional Dedafes, 19 Cong., 2 sess., 1007 (1826-27). 
 
 2 /dt'd., 21 Cong., I sess., 844(1829-30). 
 8 /did., 843-847, 3 1 42-3 1 50. 
 
40 
 
 CAUSES. 
 
 [Ch. in. 
 
 The South 
 oppressed. 
 
 The South 
 
 cannot 
 
 submit. 
 
 fifths exempt. How much truth there was in the theory- 
 will be a matter for discussion later. It is sufficient 
 here to note that it obtained very wide acceptance in 
 South Carolina. 
 
 Having thus demonstrated the truth of his proposi- 
 tion to his own satisfaction, and to that of many of his 
 constituents, McDuffie proceeded next to argue that 
 there could be no protection against such injustice 
 through ordinary legislative channels. It was clear to 
 his mind that, owing to the extent of the country, there 
 were two great interests which were diametrically and 
 irreconcilably opposed to each other: the manufactur- 
 ing interest of the North, which could not hold its own 
 against foreign competition without the aid of bounties ; 
 and the agricultural interest of the South, which could 
 buy and sell more satisfactorily in foreign markets. 
 That power should be lodged with one to deal with the 
 other as it saw fit, he held unjust. And was it not patent 
 to all that such was the case? It was of no consequence 
 that the South had fifty or sixty representatives in Con- 
 gress out of two hundred and thirteen, for those who 
 passed protective measures had no sympathy for cotton 
 growers. " What nonsense would it be to talk of rep- 
 resentative responsibility when those who destroy our 
 prosperity believe it to be their interest and their right 
 and duty to destroy that prosperity ! If, sir, as the advo- 
 cates of this tariff allege, it is the interest of two thirds of 
 this Union to destroy the prosperity of the other third, 
 . . . would it be possible for the other third to submit 
 to a practical interpretation of the compact of the Union, 
 by which the right of the two thirds would be recognized 
 to destroy the other? "^ The South had no security 
 against taxation but the will of those who had a settled 
 interest in increasing its burdens. There could be no 
 more insulting mockery than to tell his constituents that 
 
 ^ Congressional Debates, 20 Cong., i sess., 2404 (1827-28). 
 
1827-30.] MINORITY RULE. 4I 
 
 they were secured by the principle of representative 
 responsibility, when the men who made the laws were 
 responsible only to those who were clamoring for 
 higher impositions. The people of the South could The South 
 not manufacture; all their habits disqualify them for ^ ^^ 
 the business. They could not rival the manufactories 
 of Europe or of the North.^ Continue the system, and 
 his State would be ruined. They could not resort to 
 other employments. Could it be expected that they 
 would abandon their lands, free their slaves, and seek 
 their fortunes in other lands? " No, sir, our citizens 
 would sooner perish than be thus driven from their 
 rightful inheritances and the homes of their fathers by 
 this unrighteous system of oppression." ^ 
 
 To the objection that the majority must govern, Minority rule 
 McDuffie ingeniously replied that the principle was true ^"^^o'^^^'^*^- 
 where it applied, but that it was subject to two limita- 
 tions. The first limitation was the Constitution ; that 
 charter was founded upon the conviction that an un- 
 checked majority was as dangerous as an unchecked 
 minority. In the second place, the right of a majority 
 to govern, in a political system composed of confeder- 
 ated sovereigns and extended sections having different 
 
 * This was uttered in 1830. In 1828 he had threatened the 
 protectionists with the prospect of the South's changing its whole 
 economy, and becoming the rival of the North. The South, he 
 said, would be driven to make the experiment of manufacturing with 
 slave labor. Slave labor could manage the ordinary operations of 
 machinery better than Northern labor. Nothing but an experiment 
 was needed to prove that the South could drive the North out of 
 its own market, at least. By 1830 McDuffie had examined the sub- 
 ject more closely, and had discovered that slavery would prevent 
 an experiment being made. This change affords a striking illus- 
 tration of that unsteadiness of McDuffie's mind to which Josiah 
 Quincy alluded. — Congressional Debates, 20 Cong., i sess., 2400 
 (1827-28). 
 
 2 Jbid., 21 Cong., i sess., 845 (1829-30). 
 
42 
 
 CAUSES. 
 
 [Ch. III. 
 
 Protest 
 against the 
 majority 
 principle. 
 
 Comparison 
 with the 
 Colonies. 
 
 interests, was limited to cases where interests were com- 
 mon. McDuffie seems to have been unconscious that 
 he was assuming a great deal in stating that our political 
 system was a confederation of sovereigns ; nor did he 
 appear to himself to be absurd in claiming for the 
 minority a right which could not safely be intrusted 
 to the majority. In denying to the majority the right 
 to govern, he was only following in the footsteps of 
 Calhoun, who had elaborated the doctrine of minority 
 rule in the Exposition of 1828, and of Senator William 
 Smith, who was especially emphatic on the subject in his 
 remarks on presenting South Carolina's protest in 1829. 
 *' I, as Senator from South Carolina, announce to you 
 that South Carolina can never consent to that doctrine, 
 to that dangerous principle, that a majority shall rule. 
 If a majority is to rule, away with your Constitution at 
 once. All governments have fundamental principles, 
 and so far as those of this government are correct 
 South Carolina agrees with them, but she protests 
 against the principle that a majority shall rule." ^ 
 
 The Southern States, McDuffie concluded, were in 
 very much the same relation to the North as the Colo- 
 nies were to Great Britain, the difference being that 
 the tribute exacted from the South for the benefit 
 of the North amounted to more in a single year than 
 all the impositions placed upon the Colonies from the 
 time of the Stamp Act to the breaking out of the Revo- 
 lution.^ Oppression had been carried to an extremity. 
 South Carolina understood her position, and would main- 
 tain it regardless of consequences. 
 
 Truly, if the foregoing representations were correct, 
 if McDuffie's conclusions were sound, then the peo- 
 ple of South Carolina would have been justified in 
 
 ^ Congressional Debates, 20 Cong., 2 sess., 55 (1828-29). 
 2 Ibid., 21 Cong., i sess., 859 (1829-30). 
 
1828-33] MCDUFFIE'S FALLACY. 43 
 
 resorting, not only to every constitutional means of McDuffie's 
 resistance, but also at once to the right of revolution, ^ ^^^' 
 which belongs to every people suffering intolerable 
 oppression. But, unfortunately for South Carolina, 
 McDuffie was not infallible. His export tax theory was 
 skilfully constructed, and was in the main quite sound ; 
 but it had no application to the period in question. 
 The weak point in his position is that the trade rela- 
 tions were not such as he assumed ; and this breaks 
 the force of his argument. He assumed that the United 
 States was exporting more than it was importing; that 
 consequently specie was flowing in; that prices were 
 falling abroad and rising at home : but this assumption | 
 
 was not warranted by the facts. The report of the Sec- 
 retary of the Treasury shows that, during the period in 
 question, (from 1821 to 1833, inclusive,) the total value 
 of all imports, exclusive of specie and bullion, was 
 $1,039,000,000; and of all exports, exclusive of specie 
 and bullion, $933,200,000 ; leaving a balance on the side 
 of imports of $105,800,000. During the same period, 
 the imports of specie and bullion were $89,000,000, 
 and the exports were $98,600,000, leaving an excess of 
 specie exports of $8,800,000.^ The facts were against 
 McDuffie's contention; the conditions were such as to 
 cause a rise of prices abroad and a fall at home, and not 
 a rise at home and a fall abroad. It was not till after 
 1833, and then for only a few years, that there was any 
 considerable excess of imports of specie and bullion 
 over exports. 
 
 Cotton was, of course, the commodity the price King Cotton 
 of which McDuffie had particularly in mind ; and he 
 pointed to the considerable decline in the price of that 
 product through 1821-33, as an illustration of his point. 
 Undoubtedly, the fall in the price of cotton during 
 
 1 Report of the Secretary of the Treasury, 1854-55, pp. 105, 109, 
 113. 
 
44 
 
 CAUSES. 
 
 [Ch. III. 
 
 Price of 
 cotton. 
 
 Influence 
 of the tariff 
 exaggerated. 
 
 that period was very great; but a mere glance at the 
 statistics reveals the secret. In 1821 the production 
 of cotton in the United States was 124,900,000 pounds, 
 and the average price was i6| cents; in 1832 the pro- 
 duction was 322,200,000 pounds, and the average price 
 was 9| cents. The production had more than doubled ; 
 the price had fallen considerably less than one half. In 
 1823 the production was 173,700,000 pounds, and the 
 average price was 11 1 cents; in the following year the 
 production was 142,000,000 pounds, and the average 
 price was 15I cents.^ McDuffie does not appear to have 
 been impressed with the relation between the price and 
 the supply. No time need be wasted in arguing that in 
 that relation is the true explanation of the fall in price 
 which gave him so much concern. 
 
 It would seem, therefore, that the statesman and his 
 followers very greatly exaggerated the influence of the 
 tariff; and it is said that McDuffie, towards the close of 
 the controversy, admitted that he had been led too far. 
 
 * Report of the Secretary of the Treasury^ 1855-56, p. 116. 
 following figures may be interesting : — 
 
 The 
 
 
 Millions 
 
 Average 
 
 Value 
 
 
 Millions 
 
 Average 
 
 Value 
 
 Year. 
 
 of 
 
 Price in 
 
 in 
 
 Year. 
 
 of 
 
 Price in 
 
 in 
 
 
 Pounds. 
 
 Cents. 
 
 Millions. 
 
 
 Pounds. 
 
 Cents. 
 
 Millions. 
 
 1821 
 
 124,9 
 
 16.2 
 
 20,0 
 
 1838 
 
 595.9 
 
 10.3 
 
 61,5 
 
 1822 
 
 144.7 
 
 16.6 
 
 24,0 
 
 1839 
 
 413.6 
 
 14.8 
 
 61,2 
 
 1823 
 
 173.7 
 
 II.8 
 
 20,4 
 
 1840 
 
 743.9 
 
 8-5 
 
 63,9 
 
 1824 
 
 142,0 
 
 154 
 
 21,9 
 
 1841 
 
 530.0 
 
 10.2 
 
 54.3 
 
 1825 
 
 176,4 
 
 20.9 
 
 36,8 
 
 1842 
 
 584.7 
 
 8.1 
 
 47.6 
 
 1826 
 
 204,5 
 
 12.2 
 
 25.0 
 
 1843 
 
 792.0 
 
 6.2 
 
 49,1 
 
 1827 
 
 294.3 
 
 lO.O 
 
 29,0 
 
 1S44 
 
 663,6 
 
 8.1 
 
 54,1 
 
 1828 
 
 210,6 
 
 10.7 
 
 22,4 
 
 1845 
 
 872.9 
 
 5-9 
 
 51.7 
 
 1829 
 
 264,8 
 
 10.0 
 
 26,6 
 
 1846 
 
 547.5 
 
 7.8 
 
 42.7 
 
 1830 
 
 298,5 
 
 9.9 
 
 297 
 
 1847 
 
 527.0 
 
 10.3 
 
 53,4 
 
 1831 
 
 276,9 
 
 9.1 
 
 25.3 
 
 1848 
 
 814,0 
 
 7.6 
 
 61,9 
 
 1832 
 
 322,2 
 
 9.8 
 
 31.7 
 
 1849 
 
 1026,6 
 
 6.4 
 
 66,4 
 
 1833 
 
 324.7 
 
 II. I 
 
 36,2 
 
 1850 
 
 635.4 
 
 II-3 
 
 71.9 
 
 1834 
 
 384.7 
 
 12.8 
 
 49.4 
 
 1851 
 
 927,2 
 
 12. 1 
 
 112,3 
 
 1835 
 
 3S7.3 
 
 16.8 
 
 64.9 
 
 1852 
 
 1093,2 
 
 8.0 
 
 87.9 
 
 1836 
 
 423,6 
 
 16.8 
 
 71.3 
 
 1853 
 
 1 1 1 1 ,6 
 
 98 
 
 109,4 
 
 1837 
 
 444,0 
 
 14.2 
 
 63,0 
 
 1854 
 
 987,8 
 
 9.4 
 
 93,6 
 
1821-33-] INFLUENCE OF TARIFF EXAGGERATED. 45 
 
 Still South Carolina undoubtedly had some cause for The South 
 complaint. It can scarcely be maintained that the State high^duties. 
 received any benefit from a high tariff: she had no 
 manufactured products to protect, and was not likely 
 to have any so long as she fought against any change 
 in her social and political system. With slavery, manu- 
 facturing on any considerable scale was impossible. A 
 community which, a few years later, had to be rebuked 
 by its Governor for unreasoning prejudice against the 
 mercantile class, and which at the same time was urged 
 not to send its young men North to imbibe false notions 
 with respect to the " peculiar institution," was scarcely 
 one which was likely to catch the manufacturing craze. 
 Since, therefore, the State could not manufacture, it was 
 natural that she should object to commercial restric- 
 tions merely that another section might prosper ; it was 
 natural for her to contend that she should be allowed to 
 buy and sell where she pleased. 
 
 Furthermore, South Carolina undoubtedly had a right Conduct of 
 to complain of the selfishness and the overbearing dispo- Ij^rltattn^"'^ 
 sition of the majority. That majority was sectional ; and 
 South Carolina felt that there was very little likelihood 
 that it would ever take a broad, patriotic view of affairs, 
 or that it could be held in check by any ordinary means. 
 The State, therefore, became violently irritated and lost 
 her head. This was extremely unfortunate ; for, by this 
 time, there were signs that the excesses of the ma- 
 jority would lead to a reaction throughout the country. 
 The State should have possessed her soul in patience. 
 But a disposition to possess her soul in patience has 
 never been considered the most striking characteristic 
 of South Carolina ; and it was not likely to seize her 
 when she saw herself steadily falling behind other 
 States, both industrially and politically. Falling behind 
 she undoubtedly was, not, as has just been pointed out,^ 
 ^ See above. 
 
46 
 
 CAUSES. 
 
 [Ch. III. 
 
 Decline of 
 
 South 
 
 Carolina. 
 
 Slave-holding 
 conamunities. 
 
 from the effects of the tariff, but from deeper causes 
 that must now be indicated. 
 
 That South CaroHna was on the decline, or at least 
 that she was not advancing, was a fact noticed by 
 nearly all thoughtful men in the State. The accom- 
 plished scholar and jurist, Hugh S. Legare, writing 
 in 1834, lamented that the soil of the low country had 
 worn out ; the old fields, he said, had been left to run 
 to waste and " thickets of stunted loblolly pines, half 
 choked with broom-grass and dog-fennel," had taken 
 possession.^ The whole population about the Wateree 
 and Congaree had been represented to him as breaking 
 up and moving en masse to the West. At first, he said, 
 the deserted settlements were only in Goose Creek, 
 Williamsburg, and Saint Stephen's ; but later the disease 
 appeared to him universal.'-^ In the convention of 1833, 
 J. L. Wilson, of Charleston, spoke to the same effect. 
 He represented many of the fields as being deserted, 
 the labor as fleeing to Alabama, Louisiana, and else- 
 where, the cities as falling into ruin, and the commerce 
 as destroyed. Much of the injury, he added, might be 
 put down to the withdrawal of capital due to the opera- 
 tion of the tariff.^ 
 
 The low country, where slaves were more numerous, 
 suffered more than the western part of the State. The 
 decrease in population was very marked in Charleston 
 District, and began to show itself long before the tariff 
 bill of 1828 became a law. A census of the State in 
 1829 showed an increase of whites in a lower district 
 of only 43 in the nine previous years, and a decrease 
 in Charleston District of 2,000.^ From 1790 to 1800 
 
 ^ Legard, Works, I. 218. 
 » Ibid., 221. 
 
 ^ Journal of the South Carolina Convention of 1833, p. 30. 
 * In James Hamilton's Speech at Walterborough, Oct. 21, 1828, 
 we get the same picture, a trifle more highly colored. He says : 
 
1790-1834-] ECONOMIC EVIL. 47 
 
 the white population of the State had increased 40 per population 
 
 cent, and the slaves 36 per cent; from 1800 to 1810, the ^"^ wealth. 
 
 white 9 per cent, and the slaves 34 per cent; from 18 10 
 
 to 1820, the white 11 per cent, and the slaves 32 per 
 
 cent; from 1820 to 1830, the white 8 per cent, and the 
 
 slaves 22 per cent; and from 1830 to 1840, the whites 
 
 only 0.5 per cent and the slaves but 3 per cent. In 
 
 1820 the lots in the upper division of the State were 
 
 valued at $1,389,406, and in the lower at $8,587,663; , 
 
 in 1825, in the same divisions, at $1,766,472, and 
 
 $9,272,684; and in 1834, at $1,944,340, and $8,353,403.1 
 
 In 1820, the lands in the upper division were valued at 
 
 $4,562,897, and in the lower at $5,852,251 ; in 1825, at 
 
 $4,592,011, and $5,808,020; and in 1834, at $4,839,121, 
 
 and $5,252,746! 2 
 
 All these facts point in the strongest possible manner Slavery the 
 to the real cause of the backwardness of South Carolina, economic evil. 
 
 " The consciousness that South Carolina was sinking had dawned 
 upon them suddenly. Did they want the melancholy signs of 
 coming decay, let them look abroad through the land and see 
 the wilderness regaining her empire ; let them look at the waste 
 and desolate spots that had lately teemed with life and fertility. 
 Where were the beautiful homesteads and venerable chateaux 
 which once thronged the land ? ' On the very hearthstone where 
 hospitality once kindled the most genial fires that ever blazed on 
 her altars, the fox may lie down in security and peace, and from 
 the mouldering casement of the very window from which the notes 
 of virtuous revelry were once heard, the owl sends forth to the 
 listening solitude of the surrounding waste her melancholy descant 
 to mark the spot where desolation has come.' If such signs 
 were not enough, let them look at their metropolis, designed to 
 be the emporium of three States, lately visited by every flag of 
 the civilized world, and where were the ships, the capital, the 
 merchants ? All gone in the ruin of its foreign trade ; and with 
 them, the hopes of the people." See Tariff Discussions (^1^27-2,2)^ 
 pamphlet in Harvard College Library (Library No. VI. 4706). 
 
 ^ Seventh Census, Compendium, 340. 
 
 * Comptroller's Reports, in South Carolina Laws {1820, 1825, 
 1834). 
 
48 
 
 CAUSES. 
 
 [Ch. III. 
 
 Slavery 
 fundamental. 
 
 The 
 
 institution 
 
 threatened. 
 
 Panama 
 debate. 
 
 namely, the existence of slavery; and it seems to us 
 now rather remarkable that McDuffie and Legar6 and 
 others could dwell so constantly on the situation and 
 fail to see that slavery was the fundamental factor. 
 Slavery, as has been said,^ made it inevitable that the 
 South should rely mainly on one commodity, the price 
 of which was steadily falling, because of the opening 
 up and cultivation of fresher lands in the West. South 
 Carolina recognized early that slavery prevented the 
 introduction of manufacturing, and therefore rendered 
 acquiescence in the protective policy impossible. It 
 soon became obvious that there was a conflict of inter- 
 ests ; but it does not seem to have occurred to her that 
 slavery was, in itself, an economic evil. 
 
 If there had been no slavery, there might still have 
 been very considerable opposition to the tariff in the 
 South, because the Southern soil was naturally better 
 adapted to agriculture than the Northern, and this, of 
 itself, would have tended to delay the development of 
 manufacturing interests. One thing, however, is quite 
 certain : but for slavery the opposition to the tariff in 
 South Carolina would not have been so unanimous, and 
 would not have gone to the same lengths. As it was, 
 every discussion directed attention more and more 
 strongly to slavery. At first it was recognized as the 
 institution which rendered a conflict of interests inevi- 
 table. Next it was felt that every question that was 
 raised involved it in a very definite way, and that either 
 the policy of the general government or the institution 
 would have to be given up. Slavery thus became a 
 conscious element in the struggle. 
 
 The Panama debate, in 1826, fixed public attention 
 
 on the subject, and drew out some remonstrances and 
 
 threats from the South; but there does not seem to 
 
 have been a great deal of uneasiness till later. Hayne 
 
 1 See above, p. 41. 
 
1826-27.] 
 
 SLAVERY THREATENED. 
 
 49 
 
 and McDuffie, in 1826, apprehended no violation of The South 
 the constitutional rights of the South; but before 1833 ^''^^sed. 
 their views had undergone a radical change. There 
 were many others in the State who had been seriously 
 alarmed from the time the subject first came up for 
 discussion in 1826. The Charleston Mercury, July 28, 
 1826, contained a communication warning the people of 
 their danger. " The negro bigot still prates of the ab- 
 stract rights of man ; and from the village pulpits to 
 the halls of Congress, in defiance of the Constitution, 
 we hear the enunciation of sentiments that can only 
 breed among us insurrection and bloodshedding." " 
 The interests of the South, the writer continued, had 
 been disregarded; wealth had been extorted by a 
 vicious and unjust tariff; and the Constitution had 
 been unduly extended in still other directions. There 
 was but one source of salvation, — the talent of the 
 Carolina Representatives. That alone could preserve 
 the Union. " Superiority in talent may counterpoise 
 superiority in numbers. We have not hitherto been 
 blind to this policy." ^ 
 
 In 1827 appeared a series of articles which probably "The Crisis." 
 had more influence than all others. These were " The 
 Crisis," or " Essays on the Usurpations of the Federal 
 Government, by Brutus." ^ Through thirty-one num- 
 
 * Charleston Mercury^ July 28, 1826. 
 
 * " Brutus " was Robert J. Turnbull, of Charleston. His father 
 had moved to Charleston from East Florida in 1780. The son's 
 first act of manhood was, as he himself stated, to take an oath to 
 support first the Constitution of South Carolina, and, second, 
 that of the United States. He could not, he added, forget the 
 supremacy of his first oath. Turnbull was one of the most popu- 
 lar of the anti-Union leaders, taking rank with James Hamilton, Jr., 
 Hayne, and McDuffie. He was a devout follower of Jefferson, 
 from whom he claimed to have received his doctrine. He lived to 
 see his principles incorporated in resolutions, remonstrances, and 
 protests. Immediately after reading the President's proclamation, 
 
 4 
 
 Sketch of 
 Turnbull. 
 
so 
 
 CAUSES. 
 
 [Ch. III. 
 
 Phantom of 
 consolidation. 
 
 Unwarranted 
 powers. 
 
 Secession 
 advocated. 
 
 bers, and more than one hundred and fifty pages, 
 " Brutus " poured out a torrent of rhetoric against the 
 policy of the general government, and called upon his 
 fellow citizens to resist. " Brutus " dealt sledge-hammer 
 blows and struck at every evil in sight in such a bold, 
 fearless, direct manner as to win the unbounded ad- 
 miration of the masses. The phantom of consolidation 
 was brooding over his faculties; the government, he 
 argued, had made more rapid strides towards consoli- 
 dation in the six years since 1821 than in the thirty 
 preceding; it was to the interest of the North and West 
 for the general government to usurp powers and depart 
 from the social compact. 
 
 The South, therefore, from every consideration, should 
 oppose the doctrine of implied powers ; and this dan- 
 gerous doctrine " Brutus" proceeded to discuss In every 
 aspect through eighty long pages. Hostility to the 
 South was manifest, he added, not simply in the ten- 
 dency of the government to go beyond its powers in 
 the matter of the tariff and internal improvements ; the 
 presses were belching anathemas against the Southern 
 system and the Southern policy; insurrectionary doc- 
 trines were being promulgated in a thousand ways ; 
 an insidious attack was meditated against the tran- 
 quillity of the South. "The time approaches when 
 Congress can take no vote that shall not be an expres- 
 sion of opinion on the subject of slavery. The South 
 should not permit any expressio7i of opinion whatever ; 
 but should the subject be discussed, there should be but 
 one sentiment as to what should be the consequence." 
 
 There was no time for delay. Congress must not have 
 an opportunity to express an opinion against slavery as 
 an evil. " It will be an act of decided, unequivocal 
 
 he offered his services to Governor Hayne, requesting to be attached 
 to the corps which should be assigned to the post of greatest dan- 
 ger. He died on June 14, 1833. 
 
1827-28.] SILENCE OR SECESSION. 5 1 
 
 hostility. It will be a declaration of War and must be Discussion 
 treated and resisted as such. It will be the Entering ^"S^''°"s. 
 Wedge, with which at some future day our vital in- 
 terests are to be Split asunder. It will be the Landing 
 of an enemy, and a bitter enemy too, on our soil. . . . 
 He must be resisted. There must be no discussion. 
 Discussion will cause Death and Destruction to our negro 
 property. , . . The Colonization Society must be driven 
 out of the Halls of Congress, and driven out with Disgrace. 
 Should Congress ever countenance it, my wishes will be 
 for Disunion . . . Let us say then, ' Hands off — mind 
 your own business — attend to your own Post Office.' 
 If this fails, let us separate. It is not a case for reason- 
 ing or ttegotiation. It must be a word and a blow. The 
 man who comes into my yard and preaches to my slaves, 
 must not expect to go out with whole bones." ^ 
 
 Further proof of the proposition that slavery was South 
 a conscious element in the nullification controversy Ledsiauire 
 might be gathered from contemporary speeches. It on slavery, 
 is sufficient to note that " Brutus's " views were em- 
 bodied in the resolutions of the South Carolina Legis- 
 lature in 1828. Congress, it was resolved, has no 
 power to meliorate the condition of free colored or 
 slave property. On this subject there can be no rea- 
 soning between South Carolina and any other govern- 
 ment. It is a question altogether of feeling. " Should 
 Congress claim the power to discuss and take a vote 
 upon any question connected with domestic slavery 
 of the Southern States, it is not for your committee 
 to prescribe what course ought to be adopted to coun- 
 teract the evil and dangerous tendency of public dis- 
 cussions of this nature. The minds of our citizens 
 are already made up that, if such discussion appertain 
 as a matter of right to Congress, it will be neither more 
 
 ^ See The Crisis, Nos. 2, 3, 4, 25, 26, 27. The Italics ia the 
 foregoing extracts are the author's. 
 
52 CAUSES. [Ch. III. 
 
 nor less than the commencement of a system by which 
 the pecuHar poHcy of South Carohna, upon which is 
 predicated her resources and her prosperity, will be 
 shaken to its very foundation. In the opinion of your 
 committee, there is nothing in the catalogue of human 
 ills which may not be preferred to that state of affairs in 
 which the slaves of our state shall be encouraged to look 
 for any melioration in their condition to any other body 
 than the Legislature of South Carolina. Your Committee 
 forbear to dwell on this subject. It is a subject on which 
 no citizen of South Carolina needs instruciioji. One com- 
 mon feeling inspires us all with a firm determination 
 not to submit to a species of legislation which would 
 light up such fires of intestine commotioji in our borders 
 as ultimately to consume our country." ^ 
 
 ^ Resolutions, in South Carolina Laws, 1828. The Italics are 
 those of the author of this monograph. 
 
CHAPTER IV. 
 
 SOUTH CAROLINA'S CHANGE OF ATTITUDE. 
 1823-1828. 
 
 The political attitude of South Carolina up to about Change 
 1823 had been based partly on old Federalist tradi- ° P^^^V- 
 tions, partly on the leadership of the remarkable body 
 of young men who came into public life about 1812, but 
 principally on a belief among very influential men that 
 the interests of the State were best served by a broad 
 and national policy. As we have just seen, however, 
 soon after 1820 both the economic and the political 
 condition of the country began to alter; on one side 
 the North was calling for an extension of freedom ; on 
 the other side, the South began to be conscious of the 
 danger to slavery. The inevitable result was a revul- 
 sion in the policy of the State: notwithstanding a 
 stubborn resistance by a considerable minority, the 
 ten years from 1823 brought the State to the issue of 
 Nullification. 
 
 The first warning that South Carolina was to break Mitchell leads 
 away from the liberal leadership of Calhoun, Mc- congrYss" 
 Duffie, and others was given by Thomas R. Mitchell 
 in the House of Representatives in 1823. His speech 
 sounded a new note from South Carolina.^ For the 
 first time, so far as appears, was the constitutional ob- 
 
 1 The Mitchell to whom Mr. Adams refers in his Memoirs as 
 " a good-humored man, and of very good talents." J. Q. Adams, 
 Memoirs^ VIII. 449. 
 
follows. 
 
 54 CHANGE OF ATTITUDE. [Ch. IV. 
 
 jection to a tariff measure raised by one of her repre- 
 sentatives. His words, therefore, have a significance not 
 measured by Mitchell's lack of eminence. " He was 
 opposed to the measure," he said, " because it would 
 graft into our government the restrictive system, the 
 pernicious effects of which had been experienced by 
 every nation which had adopted it to any extent; and 
 because there were constitutional difficulties to its 
 passage, in his mind. . . . The gentleman may bap- 
 tize the bill as he pleases, and it will still be a bill 
 to enrich one branch of industry at the expense of 
 another ; to tax agriculture and commerce for the 
 benefit of manufactures." ^ 
 Hamilton This year Mitchell stood alone, but the following 
 
 year, in the session of 1823-24, he was joined by James 
 Hamilton, Jr. and Robert Y. Hayne. These two, the 
 former a Representative, the latter a Senator, at once 
 began to organize a systematic opposition to the cen- 
 tralizing policy of the government. Their speeches 
 on the tariff bill of 1824 are worthy of notice, because 
 for the first time we get a glimpse of the principles 
 which they endeavored to apply in 1833. Hamilton 
 was the more emphatic of the two. " The encourage- 
 ment of manufactures," he said, " is destructive of that 
 uniformity of taxation which is the imperative precept 
 of the Constitution. The cunning implication by which 
 you get at this power only adds a mockery to an un- 
 justifiable wrong. . . . But the objects of this Con- 
 federacy furnish the principles for the interpretation of 
 the instrument. We are independent States, and our 
 league merely looks to common defence, external and 
 internal commerce, an army, navy, judiciary, and the 
 powers necessary to carry these objects into effect. No 
 one member of this Confederacy could have contem- 
 
 ^ Annals of Cong., 17 Cong., 2 sess., 1002 (1822-23). 
 
1823-24.] CONSTITUTIONAL QUESTION RAISED. 55 
 
 plated joining a union in which * the common defence 
 and general welfare ' meant a sacrifice of any part of it 
 under fanciful and arbitrary considerations of * good of 
 the whole.' We are not a consolidated empire, and 
 consequently we have no right partially to oppress any 
 portion of the state, however trifling may be the inter- 
 est violated. . . . But on the ground of expediency, is 
 it nothing to weaken the attachment of one section of 
 this country to the bond of union? . . . Let no man, 
 however, tax me with holding incendiary doctrines; 
 I know that South Carolina will cling to this Union as 
 long as a plank of it floats on the troubled ocean of 
 events. I know her lofty nationality and generous 
 patriotism." ^ Rarely has a great prophet worked 
 harder than did Hamilton to blast his own reputation. 
 
 Hayne's remarks were in the same strain, and furnish Hayne 
 a fitting prelude to his constitutional exposition on the ^°^^°^^' 
 floor of the Senate six years later. Where, he asked, 
 did the government get the power to adopt a system 
 to encourage a particular branch of industry? To say 
 that government had the right to encourage certain 
 pursuits and to prohibit others, was to make it, not 
 merely a consolidated, but an unlimited government. 
 *' Gentlemen surely forget that the supreme power is 
 not in the government of the United States. They 
 do not remember that the several States are free and 
 independent sovereigns, and that all power not ex- 
 pressly granted to the federal government is reserved 
 to the people of those sovereigns." ^ 
 
 When we compare these utterances of Mitchell, a remarkable 
 Hamilton, and Hayne in 1823 and 1824 with those of <^^^"S«- 
 Simkins, McDuffie, and Calhoun in 18 17, we observe a 
 remarkable change. And these speeches, as we shall 
 
 * Annals of Cong., 18 Cong., i sess., 2208 (1823-24). 
 » Ibid., 648. 
 
56 
 
 CHANGE OF ATTITUDE, 
 
 [Ch. IV. 
 
 William 
 Smith 
 opposes 
 Calhoun. 
 
 Thomas 
 Cooper. 
 
 see, only reflected the sentiments which had begun to 
 spread among the people of South Carolina eight years 
 earlier, and which by this time were probably entertained 
 by the majority. Let us turn now to trace this change 
 within the State. 
 
 To Judge William Smith must be assigned the prin- 
 cipal place in organizing the movement, and directing 
 it, up to 1826. With his first political breath he com- 
 menced his opposition to the policy advocated by 
 Calhoun. In his maiden speech in the United States 
 Senate in 1817, he opposed the "Bonus Bill," and in 
 the following year made a vigorous fight against the 
 tariff. In 1823, probably because he had antagonized 
 Calhoun too strongly, he was compelled to make room 
 for Robert Y. Hayne. Thereupon he returned to the 
 State, and organized his forces for an attack all along the 
 line.^ 
 
 Judge Smith had a valuable ally in the President of 
 the South Carolina College, Dr. Thomas Cooper, of 
 whom Jefferson wrote to Cabell : " He is acknowledged, 
 by every enlightened man who knows him, to be the 
 greatest man in America in the powers of his mind and 
 in acquired information, and that without a single ex- 
 ception." Perhaps we get a more correct estimate of 
 the same man from President John Quincy Adams : " A 
 learned, ingenious, scientific, and talented mad-cap is 
 Dr. Cooper." 2 Cooper was born in England in 1759, 
 and was educated at Oxford. Threatened with prosecu- 
 tion at home for a political tract which he published, he 
 left England, and, after a short stay in France, where 
 he associated on intimate terms with the Republican 
 leaders, came to America in 1792. A few years later 
 he took an active part in the agitation against the Sedi- 
 
 1 O'Neal!, Bench and Bar of South Carolina, I. 109; Benjamin 
 F. Perry, Reminiscences, 81. 
 
 ^ La Borde, History of the South Carolina College, 163 et seq. 
 
1817-24.] SMITH AND COOPER. 57 
 
 tion Act, and got himself sentenced to six months' im- 
 prisonment and a fine of four hundred dollars for libel. 
 After filling the Chair of Chemistry first at Dickinson 
 College, Pennsylvania, and then at the University of 
 Pennsylvania, he went to South Carolina to take the 
 same Chair in the State College. He served as Presi- 
 dent from 1820 to 1834, and at the same time delivered 
 lectures on politics and economics.^ He printed his Cooper's 
 " Lectures on the Elements of Political Economy " in ^"^^"S^. 
 1826, and somewhat earlier a "Manual of Political 
 Economy"; and in 1823 he had issued a tract "On 
 the Proposed Alteration of the Tariff, submitted to the 
 Consideration of the Members from South Carolina in 
 the Congress of 1823-24." This was his third attempt 
 to direct attention to the subject. He had published 
 a similar article in the Analectic Magazine, July, 18 19; 
 and one in the National Intelligencer, January, 1822, 
 over the signature of "Terra." 
 
 In his economic doctrines Dr. Cooper showed him- Cooper as 
 self a thorough-going advocate of laissez faire. In ^" agitator, 
 the above mentioned tract,^ addressed to the South 
 Carolina Congressmen, he contended that the power 
 given to Congress to regulate trade and commerce 
 should be construed as a reasonable discretion, to be 
 exercised in conformity to the main objects of society; 
 that, if regulations burdened one part of the nation's in- 
 dustry more than another, they were unconstitutional 
 and unjust; and that the proposed alterations would 
 work this very injustice. Agriculture, he said, was the 
 chief industry of the country; to foster every other 
 interest at the expense of the agricultural was the very 
 reverse of sound policy. Furthermore, retaliation would 
 decide other nations to retaliate. The existence of 
 the Southern States depended on their great staples. 
 
 ^ Pamphlet (Boston Public Library). 
 2 Ibid. 
 
58 
 
 CHANGE OF ATTITUDE. 
 
 [Ch. IV. 
 
 Cooper's 
 influence. 
 
 Protests. 
 
 Great Britain would be driven to foster Brazilian com- 
 petition. " Let the Southern States look to it, . . . 
 they are threatened, . . . not with taxation, but- de- 
 struction." ^ 
 
 Whatever Dr. Cooper could do to spread his free 
 trade principles, he did with all his might. He did 
 more : he lost no opportunity to insist on the absolute 
 necessity of maintaining the sovereignty of the States, 
 and of resisting federal encroachment; it was he who 
 created such a sensation in July, 1827, at a meeting 
 in Columbia, by declaring that the State would soon 
 have to calculate the value of the Union. It is cer- 
 tain, then, that he had no little share in arousing in the 
 people of South Carolina the feeling that there was 
 oppression and danger in the policy of the general 
 government. At any rate, we find such a share ascribed 
 to him, in 1830, by Joel R. Poinsett in a letter to Presi- 
 dent Jackson on the condition of affairs in the State: 
 Poinsett wrote that he found public sentiment poisoned 
 by the opinions of leading politicians and "by the per- 
 nicious doctrines of the President of the College, Dr. 
 Cooper, whose talents and great acquirements give 
 weight to his perverse principles, and render him 
 doubly dangerous." 2 
 
 The task before Judge Smith and Dr. Cooper became 
 easy in proportion as the demands of the protectionists 
 became immoderate ; and moderation had now become 
 a thing of the past. From 1821 to 1824 protests poured 
 into Congress from almost every county of South Caro- 
 lina, — from Abbeville, Charleston, Richland, Beaufort, 
 Darlington, Kershaw, Sumter, Georgetown, Newberry, 
 Chesterfield, Spartanburg, and others. The Congres- 
 sional delegation voted solidly against the passage of 
 the bill of 1824, and two of the members delivered 
 
 1 Pamphlet (Boston Public Library). 
 » Stilld, Life of Poinsett, 57. 
 
1821-25.] RESOLUTION OF 1826. 59 
 
 themselves of the sentiments to which attention has 
 been called. But the most significant action was that 
 taken by the South Carolina Legislature in the year 
 following the passage of the tariff measure. 
 
 Judge Smith was elected a member of the State House The State 
 of Representatives in 1824, and on December 15, 1825, J^oTtHct^^ 
 succeeded in carrying through a set of resolutions which construction, 
 reversed Calhoun's policy and formally pledged the State 
 to the doctrine of strict construction.^ By the passage 
 of these resolutions, the State deliberately entered upon 
 that course of opposition to the general government 
 which ended only with the surrender at Appomattox. 
 For this reason, they are deserving of extended notice. 
 They declare that Congress had no power to adopt a 
 general system of internal improvement; that it was 
 unconstitutional for Congress to tax the citizens of one 
 State to make roads and canals for citizens of another; 
 and that protective duties were unconstitutional.^ The 
 report which accompanied the resolutions discussed at 
 length the origin of the Union, setting forth that the 
 two ideas which prevailed at the adoption of the Con- 
 stitution were the two, and only the two, which led to 
 the calling of the Federal Convention, namely, to give 
 better protection to our foreign commerce, and to prop 
 up the national credit. It may be remarked here that An important 
 most of the thinking and reasoning of South Carolina, ,Vnore^d °" 
 and in fact of the Southern statesmen after 1825, is 
 characterized by the same failure to recognize the very 
 important distinction between the work which it was 
 generally supposed that the delegates to the Consti- 
 tutional Convention would do, and the work which 
 they did. 
 
 ' Mr. Simkins recorded on the Journals a protest against the 
 resolution. The vote stood : House, 73 to 38 ; Senate, 22 to 20. 
 Niles Register, XXIX. 293. 
 
 * South Carolina Laws (iSzs), 88. 
 
60 
 
 CHANGE OF ATTITUDE. 
 
 [Ch. IV. 
 
 Calhoun. 
 
 Calhoun 
 
 follows. 
 
 Here we must turn our attention to Calhoun, and as- 
 certain what part he was playing all this time. Where 
 was this " leader of the South in its opposition to the 
 tariff" while South Carolina was undergoing such a 
 remarkable change? Is it true that the State moved 
 "like a Cartesian image" under the pressure of Cal- 
 houn's finger, or would there rather be more truth in 
 saying that South Carolina did the pressing and Cal- 
 houn the moving? A brief examination of the great 
 statesman's career from 1811 to 1828, as shown in a 
 previous chapter ; and a comparison of his attitude with 
 that of South Carolina, and of his earlier with his later 
 views, will help us form a correct idea of his influence 
 on the course of affairs. 
 
 Just at what time Calhoun changed from a protec- 
 tionist to a free trader, from a liberal to a conservative, 
 from a liberal constructionist to a strict constructionist, 
 from a progressionist to an obstructionist, has been 
 difficult to determine. One thing is clear: his change 
 followed that of the majority of the people of the State ; 
 and whatever pressure there was, was exerted by the 
 State on him, and not by him on the State. Unfortu- '^ 
 nately, Calhoun gave up his seat in Congress in 181 7, 
 just at the time when we especially wish to know his 
 views; and consequently we have comparatively few 
 satisfactory expressions from him on questions of great 
 public importance during the most interesting period 
 of his career. Perhaps the expressions are the more 
 scarce and the more unsatisfactory during this period 
 because of his aspirations for the Presidency and of a 
 very natural desire not to give offence. 
 
 Fortunately, we now have a remarkable letter,^ not 
 
 ^ Letter to Hon. Robert S. Garnett, of Virginia, dated Wash- 
 ington, D. C, July 3, 1824. See Appendix A for the letter in 
 full. It was published in the Daily Advertiser of Montgomery, 
 Ala., March 7, 1893. Mr. A. S. Garnett, of Lloyds, Essex County, 
 
l8ii-28.] CALHOUN'S RULE OF CONSTRUCTION. 6l 
 
 made public till 1893, which throws light on his attitude Letter to 
 as late as the summer of 1824. In this letter Calhoun Gamett m 
 touches upon the fundamental principles underlying our 
 form of government, as well as upon questions of pol- 
 icy that were then before the country. After express- 
 ing his complete satisfaction with the distribution of 
 powers between the States and the general govern- 
 ment, in the concrete as well as in the abstract, he 
 turned his attention to questions more immediately 
 at hand ; namely, how the line separating the powers 
 of the States and the general government should be 
 drawn ; or upon what principles the Constitution should 
 be construed. " I can give but one solution to this in- 
 teresting question, and that is, it ought to be drawn in 
 the spirit of the instrument itself I know that there 
 has been an anxious desire among many of our best 
 patriots to devise some one general and artificial rule 
 of construction to be applied to any portion of the 
 Constitution, but I cannot persuade myself that it is 
 practicable, and believe that all such attempts must 
 end in weakening rather than strengthening the rights 
 of the States. It has been said, for instance, that the 
 construction ought to be invariably rigid against the 
 power of the general government. ... I am forced 
 to the result that any doubtful portion of the Constitu- 
 tion must be construed by itself in reference to the true 
 meaning and intent of the framers of the instrument, 
 and consequently that the construction must, in each 
 part, be more or less rigid, as may be necessary to effect 
 the intention."^ 
 
 Calhoun then proceeded to test his general principles Calhoun and 
 by his past acts. He had never uttered a word that ^'^'^ "g^^s. 
 could give offence to the most ardent defender of state 
 
 Va., son of the Hon. Robert S. Garnett, states, in reply to my letter 
 of inquiry, that the original is still in his possession. 
 
 1 Ibid. 
 
62 
 
 CHANGE OF ATTITUDE. 
 
 [Ch. IV. 
 
 Calhoun on 
 the Bank. 
 
 Calhoun on 
 internal im- 
 provements. 
 
 rights. His views on this subject had been misrepre- 
 sented to the people of Virginia. He had done no act 
 which any one could condemn without condemning Jef- 
 ferson and Madison and Monroe. As to the National 
 Bank, Madison had approved one bill which he, Cal- 
 houn, had contributed to pass, and Jefferson had ap- 
 proved the extension of a branch of the old bank to 
 New Orleans. When advocating the passage of the 
 bill, he had said nothing which could offend any one. 
 He had left the constitutional question untouched. " I 
 felt satisfied that the power existed ; but at the same 
 time respected those who took the opposite view, for I 
 have always considered the power the least clear of 
 those which have been exercised by Congress." ^ 
 
 Calhoun in this letter next reviews his course with 
 reference to the question of internal improvements. It 
 had been objected, he said, that he was a friend to the 
 system. Here again he shields himself with Jefferson 
 and Madison and Monroe: the same objection could 
 be made against every distinguished public man on the 
 stage, and most of them are more deeply committed 
 than he. " I have never yet committed myself beyond 
 the mere right of making an appropriation. ... I am 
 perfectly open to the examination of that question 
 should I ever be called on to act. It is, however, due 
 to candor to say that my impression is that the power 
 does exist to a certain extent; but as I have always 
 believed that it should not be exercised without a clear 
 necessity, and as I do believe that the mere right of ap- 
 plying our money, not as a sovereign without the con- 
 sent of those to be affected, but as a mere proprietor with 
 their consent, will be found sufificient in practice, I have 
 carefully abstained from coming to any final conclusion 
 until it becomes absolutely necessary." ^ It was fast 
 becoming absolutely necessary ; for his State found it 
 * Letter to Garnett. ^ /^/^, 
 
i8ii-28.] CALHOUN ON IMPLIED POWERS. 63 
 
 desirable the very next year to declare that Congress 
 had no power to adopt a general system of internal 
 improvements, — that is, such a system as Calhoun had 
 urged in 18 17. 
 
 Calhoun in this letter was absolutely silent on the Calhoun on 
 tariff question. But the following year a dinner was secuonalism. 
 given to him at Abbeville, South Carolina, by his con- 
 stituents. May 25, 1825 ; there he touched upon the 
 tariff as well as upon all the other questions with which 
 he had had to deal, holding up his course for the ap- 
 proval of his constituents, and expressing no doubt as 
 to their disposition.^ In June of the same year he was 
 still far from sectionalism ; we find him in Augusta say- 
 ing: "No one would reprobate more pointedly than 
 myself any concerted union between States for inter- 
 ested or sectional objects. I would consider all such 
 concert against the spirit of the Constitution, which was 
 intended to bind all the States in one common bond of 
 union and friendship." ^ 
 
 It is an indisputable fact that Calhoun did not find it Date of 
 necessary to break with his past, and to join the oppo- ^hlftirig" ^ 
 sition forces of his State, till after the passage of the 
 tariff act of 1828. The conditions which brought about 
 the change are almost exactly as he stated them in 
 his speech on the Force Bill in 1833.^ The circum- 
 stances attending the passage of the tariff of 1828 
 seem to have opened his eyes to the full extent of the 
 danger and oppression lurking in the protective system, 
 and he began to doubt whether Jackson's election would 
 guarantee the desired reforms. The ambiguous con- 
 duct of the supporters of Jackson had awakened his 
 suspicions. And, although he did not abate his zeal 
 for the election of Jackson, still he began a diligent 
 scrutiny of the Constitution, in order, as he stated, to 
 
 1 Miles Register, XXVIIL 266. * Ibid., 267. 
 
 8 Works, IL 396, 397. 
 
64 CHANGE OF ATTITUDE. [Ch. IV. 
 
 ascertain the nature of our political system. It would 
 have required no spirit of prophecy to predict that the 
 . nature of our political system would be found, under 
 such circumstances, such as to open a way of escape 
 for the South. The pressure was too great: both par- 
 ties had heaped on too much fuel and generated too 
 much steam to permit the trouble to pass away quietly. 
 Calhoun led Enough has been established as to Calhoun's course 
 
 y IS a e. ^^ dispose of the absurd statements of Draper and 
 others. Their theory of Calhoun's influence on the 
 course of events in South Carolina down to 1830 was 
 evolved largely from their inner consciousness and 
 prejudices. It is clear that Calhoun did not take the 
 initiative in opposing the aggressions of the federal gov- 
 ernment till after 1828; and that the movement which 
 reached its climax in 1833 was not due to mere politi- 
 cal disappointment. It would be much nearer the truth 
 to say that South Carolina coerced Calhoun, than to say 
 that Calhoun misguided South Carolina. .Further evi- 
 dence on this point from Calhoun's own writings will be 
 presented later, when the origin of the nullification doc- 
 trine is under discussion. 
 
CHAPTER V. 
 
 FORMULAS OF NULLIFICATION. 
 1828-1832. 
 
 The disorders, then, from which South Carolina was Discontent in 
 suffering in 1832 were due to the policy of the cen- caroHna. 
 tral government in only a very slight degree, if at 
 all. This was as clear a case of post hoc, ergo propter 
 hoc, as one could wish. But still the majority of the 
 people of South Carolina had worked themselves up, 
 or had been worked up by their leaders, into believing 
 that the steady encroachment of the central govern- 
 ment was the source of all their woes ; and it is with 
 this belief, and the action that it led to, that we have 
 to deal here, and not with the foundation for the belief. 
 We turn now to the remedy that was adopted, — to 
 its inception and development. 
 
 Just as the full extent of the disorders was grasped Jackson 
 only by degrees, so the necessity for any other than the [^e State.° 
 ordinary political remedy was not seen at the outset. 
 Through 1826, 1827, and 1828, even after the conduct 
 of Jackson's supporters during the tariff struggle had 
 alarmed the South Carolina leaders, the election of 
 Andrew Jackson to the Presidency was looked upon as 
 all that was needed to insure a return to the good old 
 republican principles of 1798. In 1826, in an address 
 before the Agricultural Society of Edisto Island, 
 James Hamilton, Jr. reminded his hearers that the 
 only remedy for the disease which the unholy union 
 of discordant spirits had generated was the election 
 of the "hero of New Orleans." He drew a striking 
 
 5 
 
66 FORMULAS. [Ch. V. 
 
 contrast between the character of Jackson and that of 
 Adams, laying stress upon the extraordinary common 
 sense of the former, his unbending integrity, and his 
 exalted notion of honor and justice. When he thought 
 of Jackson's virtues and transcendent military services, 
 and when he recurred to the fact that Jackson was a 
 Southern man, with Southern feelings and prejudices, 
 he saw in him a man in whom the people could confide 
 and by whose energies and wisdom the nation could be 
 brought back to the " governance of rightful principles. " 
 Jackson Mr. Hamilton, the reporter assures us, resumed his 
 
 praise . ^^^^ amid the plaudits of the people, whose bosoms 
 
 faithfully responded to the solemn and instructive truths 
 he had uttered. ^ Something should be pardoned in 
 this to the spirit of the Fourth of July. There was 
 much rhetoric on such occasions, and from 1825 to 1828 
 Jackson was the source of inspiration. He was toasted 
 from one end of the State to the other. There was 
 strong competition to see who could sing his praises 
 loudest, and the palm fell to those who a few years 
 later heaped the harshest abuse upon his head. In 
 1826 Jackson was the "Saviour of the West and the 
 pride of the country," a hero who was "in war as 
 terrible as the roaring of a cataract, in peace as gentle 
 as the unweaned lamb." In 1833, the same man was, 
 in the eyes of the same men, "a President whose 
 choicest aliment is human blood. "^ in 1826 these 
 people believed that Jackson was of their way of think- 
 ing, and would not oppose them in anything; in 1833 
 they knew that he would hang them if the occasion 
 should arise. 
 
 Perhaps the most substantial indication of the strong 
 sentiment of the State in favor of Jackson is the action 
 
 i Charleston Mercury, July 21, 1826. 
 
 * Ibid., July 10, 1826; Proceedings of the Convention of 1833 y 
 p. 31. 
 
I82S-30.] RELIANCE ON JACKSON. 6/ 
 
 taken by the members of both branches of the Legis- Legislature 
 lature on the 19th of December, 1826. On that day, j°3isonf^ 
 just after adjournment, a meeting was held in the 
 hall of the Lower House, at which all the Representa- 
 tives and Senators, except about twenty, were present ; 
 and, by a vote of 135 to 2, it was resolved that the 
 State of South Carolina would support Andrew Jack- 
 son in the next general election. The preamble set 
 forth that Jackson had contributed more to the reputa- 
 tion of the country than any man since Washington; 
 that he had been an advocate of public faith, of just 
 laws, of sound policy, and an uncompromising enemy 
 of fraud and corruption; that his would be an admin- 
 istration strong in rectitude of purpose, public con- 
 fidence, and affection; and that measures would be 
 recommended not to conciliate one section of the coun- 
 try, but for the general good.^ The insight of this 
 Legislature seems to have been better than that of the 
 Legislature of 183 1. 
 
 It would be tedious to trace the current of affection Jackson 
 for Jackson during the years immediately after 1826. Jjoi^^^^^' 
 It will suffice to say that as late as 1830 it was still 
 warm and rapid. In that year in the "Great State 
 Rights Celebration," Robert Y. Hayne called upon 
 his audience "to pour forth the acknowledgments of 
 a nation's gratitude to the author of the Maysville 
 Road Bill veto. . . . Great as are the claims of General 
 Jackson to the gratitude of his country, this act has 
 given him new titles to our regard. On no occasion of 
 his eventful life has he displayed a more generous 
 disregard of all selfish considerations, more exalted 
 patriotism, or more heroic courage; and should this 
 prove to be only the first step in a course which is to 
 restore the Constitution to its original principles and 
 
 * Charleston Mercury ^ December 26, 1826, 
 
68 
 
 FORMULAS. 
 
 [Ch. V. 
 
 Jackson 
 trusted. 
 
 Policy of 
 the State. 
 
 Reliance on 
 the ballot-box 
 advised. 
 
 bring back the government to a sound and wise policy, 
 the name of Jackson will go down to posterity as the 
 Washington of his day and generation."^ It may be 
 wondered if Hayne recalled these words two years 
 later, when he was composing his " Counter Proclama- 
 tion. " As Professor Woodrow Wilson remarks, the 
 people followed Jackson to Washington in 1829, and 
 surely in all the procession none could be found dis- 
 posed to yell more lustily or to throw their hats higher 
 in the air than the South Carolinians. They had 
 triumphed. Jackson was with them. Had they not 
 stood by him from the beginning.^ Now at last they 
 would make headway against the destroyers of their 
 peace and prosperity. If their idol would not openly 
 come to their assistance, he would at least not offer 
 any direct opposition to their plans. Their faith was 
 great. We shall see with what difficulty they were 
 convinced that it was misplaced. 
 
 Although much was expected from Jackson, still it 
 was thought best that the State should pursue such a 
 course as might, in the mean time, defeat the policy 
 of the general government, and might have also the 
 effect of bringing the majority round to a more just 
 line of action. What that course should be was a 
 question on which great difference of opinion was 
 manifested. 
 
 In the first place, there were those who were disposed 
 to trust public opinion and the ballot-box, and who 
 were outspoken in their determination to oppose any 
 project tending directly or indirectly to weaken the 
 bonds of union. Among these men was conspicuous 
 the same William Smith who, from 1820 to 1825, had 
 organized the opposition to the Calhoun school. Verily 
 his lines had fallen in hard places. In 1822, as we have 
 
 1 Great State Rights Celebration, 1830, Proceedings. 
 
182S-31.] RELIANCE ON THE BALLOT-BOX. 69 
 
 seen, he was turned out of the United States Senate wiiiiam 
 because he was too narrow; in 1830 he was again •'^.'""hs con- 
 displaced, and this time because he was too broad. 
 Not himself, but his masters, had changed, or at least 
 they had advanced much more rapidly than he. In 
 1830 he was still a strong advocate of state rights, but 
 he was no nullifier. His sentiments, freely expressed, 
 were that public opinion, and public opinion alone, 
 could correct the abuses complained of, and that party 
 violence in a single State would be worse than use- 
 less.^ Governor Taylor likewise advised reliance on 
 the ballot-box. The tariff, he said, possessed the es- 
 sence of tyranny; it was the duty of the State to use 
 all fair means to secure its repeal. To those who Gov. Taylor 
 would go further, he would say. Look to the neighbor- opi)oses 
 
 y o secession. 
 
 ing States. It would be folly for South Carolina to go 
 alone. Secession would be accompanied with difficul- 
 ties : the project of forming conventions and withdraw- 
 ing Representatives from Congress would repeal no 
 law; the general government, if it did its duty, would 
 bring about a collision. "If I have any influence, it 
 will be exerted to preserve the Union. " ^ The old war- 
 horse, David R. Williams, also counselled moderation : wniiams 
 reason, he said, not force, should rule; the people had <^o»Vseis 
 
 ' ^ 1^ moderation. 
 
 discovered that the protective system was unconstitu- 
 tional because it lay heaviest on them ; war would follow 
 if the Legislature should take the remedy into its own 
 hands. ^ 
 
 Working shoulder to shoulder with Smith and Taylor 
 and Williams were Judge John Peter Richardson; Ex- 
 
 ' Speech at Spartanburg, August i, 1831. Boston Public Li- 
 brary Collection of Congressional Speeches (Shelf No. 4325, 107). 
 
 2 Dinner of the Republican Light Infantry Co., Columbia, S. C. : 
 The Telescope y July 16, 1828. 
 
 3 Reply to a Committee of Gentlemen from Union District : 
 Charleston Mercury, August 27, 1 828. 
 
70 
 
 FORMULAS. 
 
 [Ch. V, 
 
 Union men. 
 
 Nullification 
 leaders. 
 
 McDuffie 
 suggests non- 
 intercourse. 
 
 Governor Richard J. Manning; Congressman William 
 Drayton; Judge Daniel E. Huger; the diplomat and 
 statesman, Joel R.Poinsett; Judge John Belton O'Neale; 
 Judge David Johnson; the brilliant lawyer, James L. 
 Petigru; the jurist, Hugh S. Legar6; and able rep- 
 resentatives from such families as the Presslys, the 
 Pringles, the Gaillards, and the De Saussures. These 
 were men who, in point of ability, were not inferior 
 to the more widely known leaders of the state rights 
 party, and who in point of temperament were undoubt- 
 edly better qualified to direct a constitutional govern- 
 ment. As we shall see, their judgment stands out in 
 striking contrast to that of their opponents. 
 
 Opposed to these men as to the measure of resist- 
 ance were, in the beginning, James Hamilton, Jr., 
 frank, gallant, but too impetuous of action; George 
 McDuffie, full of determination, full of fire, uncom- 
 promising, but well qualified to play a part in stirring 
 times; Robert J. Turnbull, vigorous and outspoken; 
 Chancellor William Harper, a man of strong mental 
 powers, comprehensive, scarcely inferior to Calhoun as 
 an expounder of metaphysical doctrines; Robert Barn- 
 well Smith (Rhett), hot-headed, the most extreme of 
 all; Langdon Cheves, genial, broad-minded, widely 
 experienced; Judge Colcock; Congressman W. D. 
 Martin; Ex-Congressman Eldred Simkins; Robert 
 W. Barnwell; A. P. Butler, Pickens, Bonham, and a 
 host of others. 
 
 Down to the autumn of 1828 these leaders had not 
 come to an agreement as to the best course to be 
 adopted. That resistance of some kind should be made 
 was the only point on which all united. Some urged 
 an excise duty on the consumption of protected articles. 
 McDuffie, in particular, advocated this measure:* a 
 
 * Dinner to McDuffie and Martin, Columbia: Charleston Mer- 
 cury, June 28, 1828. 
 
1828.] NON-INTERCOURSE SUGGESTED. 71 
 
 heavy tax levied on Northern manufactured goods after 
 they had become incorporated with the mass of the 
 property of the State would, he maintained, be consti- 
 tutional. This proposition received the approval of Non-inter- 
 certain public meetings,^ and was indorsed by Calhoun. ^ course 
 The object was to exclude protected articles from the 
 State. No such tax was imposed, but the object was 
 attained to some extent by the action of individuals. In 
 all parts of the State meetings were held and resolu- 
 tions were adopted, pledging those in attendance to pur- 
 chase no protected articles from the North, and to stop 
 intercourse with Kentucky and adjoining States till the 
 tariff was repealed. ^ At Edgefield, July 26, 1828, at a 
 meeting said to have been greater than any before wit- 
 nessed in South Carolina, it was resolved to suspend all 
 commercial intercourse with the tariff States, and, in 
 particular, to abstain from purchasing the manufactures 
 of the North, and the horses, mules, hogs, and cattle of 
 the West. A committee was appointed to communicate 
 with committees and meetings of other Southern States 
 to insure union and concert.'* Their proceedings had a 
 decidedly revolutionary flavor about them. One can 
 easily imagine the enthusiasm that was aroused when 
 the leaders, having cast off their broadcloth, appeared 
 defiant in the cooler and more comfortable homespun.^ 
 
 It was apparent to some from the beginning, as it TumbuU 
 soon became apparent to all, that, while homespun and state 
 committees of correspondence might add color and fla- intervention, 
 vor, they would be hopelessly ineffectual as measures 
 to check the encroachment of the general government. 
 " Brutus " in " The Crisis " was foremost in urging the 
 
 ^ Charleston Mercury, July 7, 1828. 
 2 Works, VI. 57, note at end of the " Exposition." 
 ' Charleston Mercury, July 12, August 4, September 8, 10, and 
 October 9, 1828. 
 
 * Ibid., August 4, 1828. 5 Ibid., July 16, 1828. 
 
72 
 
 FORMULAS. 
 
 [Ch. V. 
 
 " Resistance " 
 
 in 
 
 " The Crisis." 
 
 Nullification 
 
 in 
 
 " The Crisis." 
 
 abandonment of feeble measures, and the adoption of a 
 bold and radical policy.^ He would have no temporiz- 
 ing. Let the issue be squarely joined. Let the tariff 
 be got rid of by Resistance, he cried. The conse- 
 quences would not be awful. Let coercion be employed, 
 and the government would be without power. Georgia 
 resisted; and the issue was well known. The govern- 
 ment had not advanced far enough towards consolidation 
 to enable it to coerce a State. If war should result, 
 the government could not put the State down. This 
 could be done only in case all the Southern States were 
 leagued against South Carolina. ^ "The Constitution 
 is a compact between the states, and there are no par- 
 ties to it, excepting the people of the different states in 
 their corporate capacities." Therefore the government 
 is only a trustee, to perform certain duties. The 
 States being sovereign parties to the compact, it is 
 their right in all instances of usurpation to remonstrate; 
 such a right belongs to the Legislature. When States 
 differ as to the true intent of the compact, they should 
 not look to the Supreme Court. To allow the federal 
 government to appoint the Supreme Court as the arbiter 
 would be to make it the sole judge in its own cause. 
 It is not the business of the Supreme Court to decide 
 political questions. On questions of vital interest 
 there was no tribunal of last resort, and no sovereign 
 State could submit such questions to any arbiter on 
 earth. ^ 
 
 Much has been written on the origin of the nullifi- 
 cation doctrine. " The Crisis " has been overlooked. 
 In it we find all the doctrine stated in strong, vigor- 
 ous language. Only the name is wanting. Robert J. 
 Turnbull, and not John C. Calhoun, gave the world the 
 first formulation of the nullification doctrine. "The 
 
 1 The Crisis, 1827. " Ibid., No. 33. » Ibid., Nos. 8, 22. 
 
1827-28.1 "THE CRISIS" ON NULLIFICATION. 73 
 
 Crisis" had great influence; it created much excitement 
 
 in the State; Calhoun must have seen it, and, as he Calhoun and 
 
 uses many of its precise phrases, we are almost forced 
 
 to conclude that when, after the passage of the "bill 
 
 of abominations," he entered upon an examination of 
 
 the Constitution to find an ultimate remedy, he kept 
 
 his eyes fixed upon "The Crisis." Calhoun refined the 
 
 doctrine, put it into shape, and elaborated it, but it 
 
 would seem that Robert J. Turnbull was the originator 
 
 of the South Carolina doctrine. 
 
 Turnbull was moving too fast; the time for taking 
 the ultimate step had not yet arrived; the crisis as 
 yet existed only on paper. The leaders preferred to 
 await the action of Congress, which would meet in 
 December. Congress met; the tariff struggle began 
 promptly, and ended in the defeat of the free-traders. 
 
 On May 24, 1828, the "tariff of abominations" was Conference of 
 agreed to. This was the signal for action on the Carolina 
 part of the South Carolina leaders. Shortly after the delegation, 
 passage of the act, all the members of the South Caro- 
 lina delegation, except Senator Smith, met at Senator 
 Hayne's to consult as to the course they should pursue. 
 Hamilton was for acting promptly: the proper thing, 
 he thought, was for the delegation to vacate their seats, 
 and not to return unless specially instructed by their 
 constituents so to do. As the State was laboring under 
 taxation without representation, the form of represen- 
 tation might as well be dispensed with. He had 
 resolved to take the step himself the moment the ques- 
 tion was settled, to address a letter to the Speaker, and 
 vacate his seat, but had been prevented from doing 
 so by Hayne, McDuffie, Martin, and Drayton. 
 
 It was distinctly asserted at this meeting that a con- 
 tinuation of the prohibitory system would lead to a 
 dissolution of the Union. A long and ardent con- 
 versation followed on the question of the ability of 
 
74 
 
 FORMULAS. 
 
 [Ch. V. 
 
 Confidence. 
 
 The Wal- 
 
 terborough 
 
 address. 
 
 the State to sustain herself in such a contingency. 
 Hamilton thought the idea that the general govern- 
 ment could enforce an unconstitutional law at the 
 point of the bayonet too absurd for contradiction. 
 The adjoining States would not permit the recruits 
 from the power-looms to march through their terri- 
 tories. He had faith in the spirit of his people, and 
 believed that, if South Carolina were invaded, the vic- 
 tories of the loth of June, Eutaw and Cowpens, would 
 be re-enacted on a larger scale. Hamilton added, 
 however, that these remarks were not intended to set 
 forth the propriety of separation. McDuffie applauded 
 these sentiments, and said that his constituents would 
 have to get another Representative, if they failed to 
 resist the tendencies that would make them paupers. 
 The delegation agreed to correspond with one another, 
 after they returned home, to acquaint one another with 
 the views of their constituents, to meet in Columbia so 
 as to give any advice the Legislature might desire, to 
 allay excitement till after the election, and then to let 
 opinion take its course.^ 
 
 But the excitement was not easy to allay. The 
 passage of the act of 1828 produced an outburst of feel- 
 ing in the masses like that caused by the passage of the 
 acts of 1824 and 1832. At Walterborough, Colleton 
 County, a meeting was held on June 12, 1828, at which 
 Robert Barnwell Smith (Rhett) submitted for adoption 
 an address to the people of South Carolina. The 
 document declared that resistance to the tariff was ad- 
 vised, "not from a desire of disunion," but to bring 
 back the Constitution to its original principles. 
 Appeal to the courts, it declared, would be in vain : 
 the decision of every court in the land upholding the 
 constitutionality of the tariff could not convince the 
 
 1 Niles Register, XXXV. 199-209. 
 
l828.] "SIDNEY" ON NULLIFICATION. 75 
 
 understandings of the people of Colleton County. 
 This address was adopted unanimously/ and the Gov- 
 ernor was enjoined to convene the Legislature in order 
 that some definite action might be taken.^ Meetings 
 held at other places made the same demand, but Gov- 
 ernor Taylor was firm : the Legislature was allowed to 
 stand adjourned till the regular day of meeting. 
 
 In the mean time, a second attempt to formulate a Second 
 constitutional doctrine of resistance was made. On n°umfication.°^ 
 July 3, 1828, appeared in the Mercury the first of a 
 series of three communications from "Sidney." This 
 writer did not come to the point in his first communica- 
 tion; he was laboring under excitement. South Caro- 
 lina was paying one hundred thousand dollars tribute 
 that a "miserable, plundering band of grovelling, sordid 
 wretches " might fatten at her expense. Well might 
 her people inquire as to the value of Union with such 
 men. They should take their stand under the sover- 
 eignty of the State, "and, if necessary, die in the 
 ditch." On the 4th, the second communication ap- 
 peared; and on the 8th, the third. The Legislature, 
 it was suggested, should meet, enumerate the different 
 tariff acts, declare them null and void, open the ports, 
 and face the question like freemen. Merchants could 
 then refuse to pay duties; suits would come before the 
 courts, which would declare the law unconstitutional; 
 and thus a plain issue would be made up between two 
 sovereign parties. One sovereign in its delegated A plain issue. 
 powers declares something to be law; another in its 
 reserved powers declares it to be no law : who is to 
 decide ? Not the Supreme Court : it is the creature 
 of one of the sovereigns. Only the power that made 
 the Constitution can construe it. South Carolina, 
 standing upon her sovereignty, could declare the tariff 
 
 1 Charleston Mercury, June 18, 1828. ^ Ibid. 
 
76 
 
 FORMULAS. 
 
 [Ch. V. 
 
 Three fourths 
 doctrine. 
 
 Governor 
 Taylor 
 advises "In- 
 terposition." 
 
 Question of 
 a tribunal. 
 
 laws null and void, remain passive, and compel the 
 general government to move. This brings the subject 
 before the States. If South Carolina has one fourth 
 on her side, she is safe. Three fourths must declare 
 to the contrary. If the majority attempt to enforce 
 what is not law, then the cause of the minority would 
 be a glorious one. ^ 
 
 This communication appeared about one week before 
 Calhoun put the finishing touches on the " Exposi- 
 tion." "Sidney" may have been one of those who 
 visited Calhoun at his summer home, and discussed 
 with him the ultimate measures that the State should 
 adopt. When the Legislature met in regular session, 
 in the latter part of November, expectation was on tip- 
 toe. Everybody thought something would be done; 
 only a few knew what course would be taken. Governor 
 Taylor, in his message, after denouncing the "tariff of 
 abominations," proceeded to consider how redress might 
 be obtained. He advised the Legislature to declare the 
 act unconstitutional and in its judgment not binding 
 on the citizens of South Carolina, to publish the decla- 
 ration far and wide, to appropriate money to test the 
 question before every tribunal known to the Constitu- 
 tion and to the law, and to invite other States to do the 
 same. The jury-box and the ballot-box, what could 
 they not do ! He would not even fear to approach the 
 Supreme Court of the United States. 
 
 "The Constitution created this third power as a 
 check upon the Executive and Legislative branches of 
 the government, with the high office of umpirage be- 
 tween the Sovereign States of which the Union is com- 
 posed. " It would be humiliating to suppose that it 
 could only register the behests of the co-ordinate 
 branches of the government. He would oppose any 
 
 ^ Charleston Mercury^ July 3, 4, 8, 1828. 
 
i828.] TAYLOR ADVISES INTERPOSITION. 'Jf 
 
 plan that would not be taken up by other suffering 
 
 States, or that would excite the hostile feelings of any 
 
 State in the Union. " Whether the remedies proposed, Responsibil- 
 
 or such others of a like character as your wisdom may I'J shifted to 
 
 -' J the Legisla- 
 
 devise, are competent to remove the grievances of which ture. 
 we complain; whether this question has arrived at that 
 stage in which it becomes one of those great and 
 extraordinary cases in which all the forms of the Con- 
 stitution prove ineffectual against infractions dangerous 
 to the essential rights of the parties to it — and whether 
 the crisis has yet arrived when the sovereign power of 
 the people of the State of South Carolina is called upon 
 to judge in the last resort if the * bargain made in the 
 formation of the Constitution has been pursued or dis- 
 regarded, ' will no doubt receive from you that profound 
 and deliberate consideration due to their magnitude 
 and importance. " ^ 
 
 Governor Taylor's message might as well not have Legislature 
 been written. The action of the Legislature had prac- ^^"*^^'^- 
 tically been decided for it by the committee of seven,^ 
 which had been appointed at the session of 1827. The 
 resolution,^ which indicated the direction the work of 
 the committee was to take, has little in common with 
 the report which the committee submitted. The reso- 
 lution, like the proposition which, as we have just 
 seen, Governor Taylor submitted in his message of 
 1828, truly breathed the spirit of the Virginia and 
 Kentucky Resolutions. The report which the com- 
 mittee submitted was the doctrine of nullification, fresh 
 from the pen of John C. Calhoun. 
 
 Calhoun's connection with the proceedings of the 
 Legislature came about in this way. In the summer 
 and autumn of 1828, the period of excitement following 
 
 1 Niles Register, XXXV. 274, 275. 
 
 » Calhoun, Works, VI. i. • Ibid. 
 
78 
 
 FORMULAS. 
 
 [Ch. V. 
 
 The Fort Hill the passage of the act of 1828, many leading citizens 
 interviews. ^^ ^^^ State visited Calhoun at his residence to get 
 his views as to the remedies that should be adopted. 
 Unfortunately, we have neither the letters nor the diary 
 of any man who took part in those conversations, but 
 we know that Calhoun freely stated his opinions, and 
 advised preparations for the worst. The passage of 
 the act of 1828 opened his eyes to the full extent of the 
 danger of the protective system and to the possibility of 
 failing to secure the desired reform through the election 
 of Jackson. This event he regarded as certain, but he 
 thought that the part Jackson's supporters had played 
 made it doubtful whether any relief could be looked for 
 in that direction. James Hamilton shared this feel- 
 ing with Calhoun. In a speech to his constituents 
 at Walterborough, October 21, where he had gone 
 directly from the mountains, probably fresh from com- 
 munion with Calhoun, Hamilton lamented the fact that 
 "the venerable patriot who will go into office ' by all 
 our wishes blest ' must remain, in spite of his devoted 
 patriotism and Roman honesty, a passive spectator of 
 the conflict." ^ Calhoun therefore thought it necessary 
 to seek some ultimate and more certain measure of 
 security. This is the time when he turned to the Con- 
 stitution for a remedy, and "directed a more diligent 
 and careful scrutiny into its provisions, in order to 
 ascertain fully the nature and character of our political 
 system."* 
 
 1 It was in this speech of Hamilton's that the doctrine of nullifi- 
 cation was first proclaimed to the people from the stump. This is 
 the speech which Sargent, in his Ptiblic Men and Events, and 
 Professor Sumner, in his Life of Andrew Jackson, refer to, and 
 which they erroneously place in the fall of 1827. — Speech at din- 
 ner given by his constituents of Colleton County, in collection of 
 "Tariff Discussions," Pamphlet No. 14, in Harvard College Li- 
 brary (Library No. VL 4706). 
 
 2 Speech on the Force Bill : Works, IL 396, 397. See above, 
 p. 26. 
 
 Calhoun 
 seeks a 
 remedy. 
 
i828.] "EXPOSITION OF 1828." 79 
 
 Among the leading men who visited Calhoun that Calhoun 
 summer and autumn was William C. Preston, a member "Exposition 
 of the committee of seven. Preston asked Calhoun to °^ 1828." 
 give him his views on the questions before the com- 
 mittee. This Calhoun did, without hesitation; and he 
 was then asked to prepare a report for the committee. 
 The result was the famous "Exposition of 1828." 
 
 Calhoun's connection with this report was not known 
 for some time; and the fact that he approved of the 
 doctrine was not generally understood till several years 
 later. As late as 1830 Judge Richardson could say: 
 " If I understand aught, not one of our great statesmen 
 has said that the constitutional right to nullify a fed- 
 eral law is clear; and that this is the time for the 
 people to practise it. Whatever obscure rumor there 
 may be on the subject, we cannot trace the principle 
 to any direct sanction of our esteemed Vice-Presi- 
 dent."* The very natural disinclination of the LegisT 
 lature to have it known that outside aid had been 
 called in, Calhoun's sense of the impropriety of lending 
 the countenance of the Vice-Presidency at this time 
 to a party in conflict with the general government, and, 
 probably, a desire not to damage his chances for the 
 succession to the Presidency, may be assigned as rea- 
 sons for the fact that Calhoun's connection with the 
 proceeding was for a time kept a secret. 
 
 It will be convenient at this stage to state once for Different 
 all the doctrine of nullification as it was outlined in nullification. 
 the " Exposition. " It would not be possible to describe 
 the forms the doctrine was made to assume by its 
 different expounders. Many who undertook to explain 
 it only fell into hopeless confusions and inconsisten- 
 cies. It is no wonder that they did so, when such 
 
 ^ J. S. Richardson, An Address to the People : Camden Jour- 
 nal, 1830. 
 
8o 
 
 FORMULAS. 
 
 [Ch. V. 
 
 Nullification 
 a creature of 
 circumstances. 
 
 Calhoun and 
 Harper the 
 expounders. 
 
 men as Hayne and Hamilton failed at first to get a 
 thorough mastery of it.^ Nullification, as Senator 
 Smith remarked, was very much a creature of circum- 
 stances ; it required time even for able men to perceive 
 its import. " Nullification assumes a new character 
 and a new remedy according to the orator who declaims 
 it. Chancellor Harper leaves the remedy to the native 
 powers of the Constitution. , . . Governor Hamilton 
 tells us we are to find an effectual remedy in the verdict 
 of a jury. And yet each method is perfectly constitu- 
 tional. McDuffie, in his dinner speech, comes to the 
 point at once. He says : " I will readily concede that 
 a State cannot nullify an act of Congress by virtue of any 
 power derived from the Constitution. It would be a 
 perfect solecism to suppose any such powers were con- 
 ferred by the Constitution. This right flows from a 
 higher source. All that I claim for the State in this 
 respect necessarily flows from the mere fact of sover- 
 eignty. ' " 2 Reference will be made at a later stage to 
 the confusion into which the South Carolina Legislature 
 and Hayne and others fell when the fundamental prin- 
 ciples of the doctrine were under consideration. Cal- 
 houn and Chancellor Harper were the two masters of 
 the subject. They were pre-eminently the expounders ; 
 and it is as an expounder, and as little else, that Calhoun 
 figures in the controversy. He was not the originator 
 of the doctrine, and he played scarcely any part as an 
 actor in front of the scenes up to January, 1833. 
 
 Before proceeding to outline the doctrine, a word 
 must be said about a document which contains the 
 most elaborate statement of nullification. This is 
 Calhoun's remarkable public letter to Hamilton. Ham- 
 ilton had written from Pendleton, July 31, 1832, telling 
 
 ^ See below, pages 94, 95. 
 
 » Senator Smith at Spartanburg, August I, 183 1. For McDuf- 
 fie's speech see Charleston Mercury^ May 25, 183 1. 
 
1831-32] CALHOUN AND HAMILTON. 8 1 
 
 Calhoun that he had just read a communication sent Calhoun's 
 by him, in the summer of 183 1, to the editor of the Hamilton. 
 Pendleton Messenger. He felt satisfied, he said, from 
 a remark of Calhoun's in the communciation, and from 
 the degree of condensation, that "there were still a 
 variety of lights in which the truth and vital importance 
 of this highly conservative principle to the liberties of 
 the state were familiar to the reflections " of Calhoun. 
 Would Calhoun fill out the argument and go more into 
 the detail both of the principles and the consequences of 
 the doctrine? Calhoun replied from Fort Hill, August 
 28, 1832, in a manner that completely satisfied Hamil- 
 ton, who then asked permission to make the letter 
 public. He had "risen from its perusal with a vastly 
 augmented confidence in the truth and importance of 
 the doctrines we believe and are ready to maintain." 
 Calhoun readily gave his consent. His only fear was 
 that Hamilton had over-estimated the importance of 
 his views. "As to the responsibility necessarily in- 
 curred in giving publicity to doctrines which a large 
 portion of the community will probably consider new 
 and dangerous, I feel none. I have too deep a convic- Calhoun's 
 tion of their truth and vital importance to the Constitu- ^?^P ^°"' 
 
 ^ viction. 
 
 tion, the Union, and the liberty of these States, to have 
 the least uneasiness on the point." ^ 
 
 The doctrine, as Calhoun unfolded it, is substan- 
 
 1 " Important Correspondence on the subject of State Interpre- 
 tation between his Excellency Governor Hamilton and Hon. John 
 C. Calhoun, Vice-President of the United States, copied by the 
 Pendleton Messenger, isth September, 1832." (Boston Athenaeum 
 Library, No. B 1065, No. 13.) Calhoun had brooded over his doc- 
 trine so long that, as Hugh S. Legar^ wrote, Nullification had be- 
 come with him "what the French call an idee fixe^ — a monomania; 
 in short, he is quoad hoc ^?,X?iX\i mad, just as H. [Hamilton] and per*' 
 haps one or two more of their leaders. It is really lamentable to 
 think that Calhoun's pre-eminent abilities as a politician have been 
 so wofully applied." Legar^, Writings^ I. 217. 
 
 6 
 
82 
 
 FORMULAS. 
 
 [Ch. V. 
 
 Calhoun's 
 principle. 
 
 Calhoun's 
 first in- 
 terference. 
 
 tially as follows: "The great and leading principle 
 is, that the general government emanated from the 
 people of the several States, forming distinct political 
 communities, and acting in their separate and sover- 
 eign capacity, and not from all of the people forming 
 one aggregate political community; that the Consti- 
 tution of the United States is, in fact, a compact, to 
 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 case of a 
 deliberate, palpable, and dangerous exercise of power 
 not delegated, they have the right, in the last resort 
 (to use the language of the Virginia Resolutions) * to 
 interpose for arresting the progress of the evil, and for 
 maintainittg, within their respective limits, the authori- 
 ties, rights, and liberties appertaining to them. ' " The 
 general government is only the joint agent of two dis- 
 tinct sovereignties. The people of each State, through 
 their state government, exercise separately the powers 
 reserved by the Constitution ; and through the general 
 government they exercise jointly with the people of 
 every other State the powers delegated. ^ The Union 
 is a union of States as communities, and not a union of 
 individuals. There is, in fact, no direct and immediate 
 connection between the individual citizens of the several 
 States and the general government. ^ Should a conflict 
 arise between the joint agent and one of the sovereigns, 
 it follows that the power which created the joint agent 
 may be invoked. The States themselves, three fourths 
 of which form a power whose decrees are the Consti- 
 tution itself, may be appealed to. 
 
 How to exercise the power of interpretation a State 
 alone can decide. The spirit of forbearance, as well 
 as the nature of the right itself, forbids a recourse 
 
 1 Calhoun, Works, VI. 60. 
 
 2 Ibid., 148. 
 
1832.] THE CAROLINA DOCTRINE. 83 
 
 to any measure, except in case of dangerous infractions caihoun 
 
 on maim< 
 of exercise. 
 
 of the Constitution, and then only when all reasonable °" manner 
 
 hope of redress through the ordinary channel has failed. 
 But if, in the opinion of the State, matters have come 
 to such a pass, it would be competent for her, in her 
 sovereign capacity, in a convention specially called for 
 the purpose, to declare the acts complained of null and 
 void, and not binding upon her citizens. The practical 
 effect of this step would be to compel the general gov- 
 ernment to pause, afford an interval for compromising 
 the difficulty, or to submit the question at issue to the 
 principals themselves.^ This is the utmost extent of 
 the power claimed for a single State. If on appeal to Three fourths 
 the principals in convention assembled three fourths of ^°<^'""^- 
 them decide in favor of the agent, a disputed power will 
 be converted into an expressly granted power, and it 
 will be the duty of the aggrieved State to submit, or 
 secede. 
 
 It is objected that this course would make it possible 
 for one fourth of the States to change the Constitution, 
 and thus take away powers which have been granted. ^ 
 The objection is specious. "The right of the State is Objections 
 not to resume delegated powers, but to prevent the caihoun. ^ 
 reserved powers from being assumed by the govern- 
 ment." The right may be abused; delegated powers 
 may be resumed, but the danger cannot be avoided 
 without creating a greater and opposing danger. The 
 denial of the right to the State would yield to the 
 general government authority to assume all reserved 
 powers at pleasure. It is a question of a choice of 
 evils. Conceding the right to the State would be the 
 lesser evil, for the great number of people by whom it 
 would be exercised, the solemnity of the mode, the 
 delay, the deliberation, would be conducive to calm 
 
 » Calhoun, IVorks, VI. 160. » /did., 177. 
 
84 
 
 FORMULAS. 
 
 [Ch. V. 
 
 Calhoun on 
 inference. 
 
 Powers of 
 the Supreme 
 Court. 
 
 investigation and decision. The strong influence of 
 public opinion outside the State, the influence of pub- 
 lic men aspiring to national office, the pressure of 
 adverse local feeling, would render the right free from 
 danger. And if the right were known to exist, there 
 would be less likelihood of an occasion for its exercise: 
 moderation would characterize the general government 
 in employing doubtful powers. 
 
 It constitutes no valid objection to the right that it 
 rests on mere inference from the Constitution.^ It 
 rests on inference, but inference so clear "that no 
 express provision could render it more certain. The 
 Constitution professes to enumerate the powers assigned 
 to the general government ; the powers of the States 
 are reserved in general terms. It may constitute a 
 presumption against the former that a power claimed is 
 not enumerated, but that a power claimed by the latter 
 is omitted, raises not the slightest presumption against 
 its existence. . . . Like all other reserved rights, it is 
 not to be inferred from the simple fact that it is not 
 delegated, as is clearly the case in this instance. "^ 
 To concede to the Judiciary the right to determine the 
 line between reserved and delegated powers would be 
 to confide the right to the majority, whose creature the 
 Judiciary is. The discretion of the majority, or of 
 the general government representing the majority, and 
 not the Constitution, would become the measure of 
 powers. The powers of the Supreme Court are judicial, 
 and not political. Of the powers that have been dele- 
 gated, that Court may, when occasion arises, say which 
 belong to this department of the general government, 
 and which to that ; but it cannot go beyond this, and say 
 what powers are reserved and what are delegated.^ 
 
 If the State, acting upon its clear right to protect its 
 
 » PVoris, VI. 43^4.6. 
 
 a Hid., 69. 
 
 « yj/V/., 162, 
 
1832.] THE CAROLINA DOCTRINE. 85 
 
 citizens, declare any act null and void, it could legally Calhoun's 
 and peaceably enforce its declaration, while it would measure, 
 be impossible for the general government to take any 
 legal step to carry its act into execution. Resort to 
 the courts of the State would be useless unless jury 
 trials could be avoided. Appeal to the Supreme Court 
 would avail nothing. A copy of the record is requisite 
 to review the judgment of a state court, and the State 
 could devise means for withholding the copy. But if 
 obtained, it would avail nothing against the penal 
 enactment of the State. 
 
 " Beaten before the courts, the government would be No coercion, 
 compelled to abandon its unconstitutional pretensions, 
 or resort to force."* Such resort would be folly and 
 madness. There would be no law resisted, unless 
 failure to render judgment for the government is resist- 
 ance; no armed force to reduce; no insurrection to 
 suppress; nobody against whom force could be em- 
 ployed ; no one would be guilty of treason or any crime 
 under the Constitution. "There are only two methods 
 of coercion resorted to by water, — blockade and aboli- 
 tion of ports of entry." The former presupposes a 
 state of war, and would not be respected unless war in 
 due form were declared. The latter directly violates 
 the constitutional provision against giving preference to 
 the ports of one State over those of another. The con- 
 flict, in short, must be constitutional, — a moral contest, 
 not a contest of brute force. 
 
 1 Calhoun, Works, VI. 163. 
 
CHAPTER VI. 
 
 PROGRESS OF NULLIFICATION SENTIMENT. 
 1828-1832. 
 
 "Exposition" WiTH the adoption by the South Carolina Legisla- 
 circulated. ^^^^^ -^^ December, 1828, of the " Exposition," reported 
 by the committee of seven, the struggle in the State 
 between the Union men and the nullifiers began in 
 earnest. The " Exposition " was printed and appeared 
 in pamphlet form early in 1829. The Legislature took 
 no further step at this session ; but the pamphlet was 
 scattered throughout the State by the nullifiers, furnish- 
 ing, of course, topics for endless discussions in private 
 and in public meetings. The nullification element gained 
 ground steadily through 1829, and thereafter more rap- 
 idly; by 1830 it had almost secured the ascendency. 
 National The sounds of the struggle that had begun were 
 
 heard beyond the borders of the State. Some expres- 
 sions that bore with them no love for the Union had 
 been carried to the ears of the statesmen at Washing- 
 ton; and one Senator, not the least in ability and cour- 
 age, thought it time to direct public attention to the 
 quarter whence they came, and to do what in him lay 
 to strengthen the defences of the Union. It has been 
 customary to state that the great nullification debate 
 of 1830 came on in the Senate by accident; but per- 
 haps deeper investigation may show that the issue was 
 sought by Webster, and that due preparation was made. 
 On the 29th of December, 1829, Senator Foot, of 
 Connecticut, offered in the Senate a very harmless 
 
 interest. 
 
1829-30.] FOOT RESOLUTION OF 1830. 8/ 
 
 looking resolution relating to the sale of public lands.^ Foot's 
 Senator Benton detected in this resolution a design to '■^s°'"^*°"* 
 check immigration to the West, " an old and favorite 
 policy with some politicians." ^ The Senator from 
 Connecticut might shake his head, but he could not 
 shake the conviction out of Benton's mind that a check 
 to Western immigration was intended. Benton could 
 trace through forty-four years measures to check immi- 
 gration. "It was time to arrest them, ... to face about; 
 and to fight a decisive battle in behalf of the West. . . . 
 The young West had been saved from an attempt to 
 strangle it in the cradle, forty years ago, by Virginia 
 and the South." He would ask the Senate to wait till 
 the Virginia Senators, then absent, returned, so that their 
 assistance might once more be had. The Senate waited. 
 
 The resolution actually came up for discussion on Benton and 
 Wednesday, January 13, 1830, on which day an inter- ^^y"^- 
 esting debate took place. On Monday, the i8th, the 
 discussion was resumed, and Benton proceeded to make 
 a set speech. He again denounced the East for hos- 
 tility to the West, and made the specific charge that 
 the East was anxious to depress the southern interest, 
 and to prevent it from predominating there ; the West 
 might be too weak to defend herself, but she knew 
 where to look for help. On the following day, January 
 19, Hayne for the first time joined in the discussion.^ 
 Dismissing with a few words the propriety of instituting 
 the proposed inquiry, he passed to the more important 
 
 ^ " Resolved, that the Committee on Public Lands be instructed 
 to inquire into the expediency of limiting for a certain period the 
 sales of the public lands to such lands only as have heretofore been 
 offered for sale and are subject to entry at the minimum price. 
 And, also, whether the office of Surveyor General may not be abol- 
 ished without detriment to the public interest." — Congressional 
 Debates^ 21 Cong., i sess., 3 (1829-30). 
 
 2 Ibid.y 4-24- « Ibid., 31-35. 
 
attack. 
 
 88 PROGRESS OF NULLIFICATION. [Ch. VL 
 
 question, " the policy which ought to be pursued in re- 
 lation to the pubHc lands." He distrusted the purpose 
 of creating a great national treasury. It would be a 
 fund for corruption, destructive to the purity and fatal 
 to the duration of our institutions; "It would be 
 equally fatal to the sovereignty and independence of 
 the States." He was one of those who believed that 
 the very life of our system was the independence of the 
 States, and that there was " no evil more to be depre- 
 cated than the consolidation of this government." This 
 was the sentence that gave offence. 
 Webster's Next day, January 20, Webster stood up, and, point- 
 
 edly turning entirely aside from Benton's direct and 
 vigorous attack on the East, began his first speech in- 
 cited by Hayne. The South Carolinian had been very 
 moderate in his remarks. In his sentiments there was 
 little to surprise Webster greatly; and the only ap- 
 parent reason for not confining his observations to the 
 sectional issue raised by Benton was the design to strike 
 a blow over Hayne's head at the agitators in South 
 Carolina. " I know that there are some persons in the 
 part of the country from which the honorable member 
 comes who habitually speak of the Union in terms of 
 indifference, or even of disparagement. . . . They sig- 
 nificantly declare that it is time to calculate the value 
 of the Union; and their aim seems to be to enumerate 
 and to magnify all the evils, real or imaginary, which 
 the government under the Union produces. The ten- 
 dency of all these ideas and sentiments is obviously to 
 bring the Union into discussion as a mere question of 
 temporary expediency ; nothing more than a mere 
 question of profit and loss." Webster may have wished 
 merely to draw Hayne out, and to learn whether he 
 shared such sentiments. "The honorable member is 
 not, I trust, and can never be, one of these." ^ 
 
 1 Congressional Debates^ 21 Cong., i sess., 35-41 (1829-30). 
 
1830.] WEBSTER'S PREPARATION. 89 
 
 By such shrewd remarks Webster accomplished a "Great Re- 
 double object: he dealt a blow at the malcontents in ftlVecL'^^™^'^" 
 South Carolina, and at the same time forced Hayne to 
 commit himself. On Webster, therefore, rests the re- 
 sponsibility for precipitating the controversy at that 
 time in the Senate ; he knew what he meant to say, and 
 he desired a fit opportunity to say it. Much has been 
 written about Webster's second speech, the familiar 
 " Reply to Hayne"; the conventional statement is that 
 the general line of argument had long been familiar to 
 him, and that he had only to clothe his thoughts in 
 words. But the speech contains evidence that he had 
 made a recent careful and detailed examination of the 
 nullification doctrine. Doubtless his long experience in 
 Congress and at the bar had familiarized him with all 
 general questions relating to the formation and nature 
 of the Union; but whence did he come by his evident 
 familiarity with the nullification doctrine in its minutest 
 details? He certainly did not hear it in Hayne's second Against 
 speech, to which his great reply is supposed to have ^^*"°"'^- 
 been made ; Hayne had not attempted an elaboration 
 of the doctrine, but had limited himself to stating it 
 and supporting it with quotations from the Virginia and 
 Kentucky Resolutions, and from Madison and Jefferson. 
 Only in the last paragraph did Hayne stop quoting 
 authorities, and emphasize the intolerable condition 
 that would result from the acceptance of the principle 
 that the federal government should be the final arbiter. 
 Webster's reply was really not directed against Hayne, 
 but against Calhoun, or rather against the ideas ex- 
 pressed in the latter's " Exposition " of 1828. That 
 document had been laid before Congress, and, as already 
 stated, had been spread abroad. Webster referred spe- 
 cifically to this South Carolina doctrine of 1828, and his 
 argument follows the lines of its development. 
 
 Whatever may have been Webster's original plan, 
 
90 PROGRESS OF NULLIFICATION. [Ch. VL 
 
 Hayne he Certainly succeeded in drawing out Hayne, who was 
 
 aroused. eager to defend his friends and his State.^ On Thurs- 
 
 day, January 21, 1830, the subject was resumed, and a 
 request was made for postponement till Monday, so 
 that Webster could be present Hayne saw Webster 
 in his seat and hoped the debate would proceed at once, 
 so that he might reply to certain observations in Web- 
 ster's speech of the 19th. " He would not deny that 
 some things had fallen from that gentleman which 
 rankled here [touching his breast] from which he would 
 desire at once to relieve himself The gentleman had 
 discharged his fire in the face of the Senate. He hoped 
 he would now afford him an opportunity of returning 
 it." Webster was not less dramatic, as, with folded 
 arms, he replied : " I am ready to receive it. Let the 
 discussion proceed." Benton rose and spoke for an 
 hour, and then gave way to Hayne, who occupied the 
 time till adjournment. 
 Hayne's By Monday, the 25th, the day on which the discus- 
 
 sion was resumed, the news had spread that a great 
 struggle was in progress in the Senate, and crowds 
 had gathered to witness it. Both Webster and Hayne 
 stood high in the estimation of the public. Both were 
 in their prime. They had few characteristics in com- 
 mon, except great ability and lofty character. Hayne ^ 
 
 1 Congressional Debates, 21 Cong., i sess., 41-43 (1829-30). 
 
 ' Hayne was born in St. Paul's Parish, South Carolina, Nov. 
 10, 1 791. He studied law under Langdon Cheves \ was elected to 
 the Legislature when he was only twenty-three ; and at twenty-five 
 was elevated to the Speakership. After serving for some time as 
 Attorney General, he was sent, in 1822, to the United States 
 Senate to succeed Senator William Smith. He was the young- 
 est man who had ever represented his State there ; in fact, he was 
 barely qualified in point of age. He succeeded James Hamilton, 
 Jr., as Governor in 1832 ; became Intendant of Charleston in 1835, 
 and President of the Louisville, Cincinnati, and Charleston Railroad 
 Company in 1836 ; and died in Asheville, N, C, of fever contracted 
 
 qualities. 
 
1830.] HAYNE'S GREAT EFFORT. 9 1 
 
 was high-minded, courteous, frank, and sincere; his 
 oratory was impassioned and persuasive, his voice clear 
 and distinct. As McDuffie said of him, he nearly pro- 
 duced a disposition to be convinced before he began 
 his argument. In his greatest efforts, however, there 
 was always more rhetoric than close logical argument. 
 He could move his audience deeply, but the impres- 
 sion was not likely to be permanent. The best speech Hayne and 
 of his life was probably that made on this day; but it "^^^^ter. 
 falls far below that of his rival in expression, in con- 
 struction, and in sweep of sentiment. It was happy 
 and eloquent, but lacked the essentials of greatness. 
 Webster, if not so graceful as Hayne, and not quite so 
 likely to win good will at sight, was certainly a more 
 striking figure, with his abundant black hair, his superb 
 brow, and his dark, piercing, deep-set eyes. He could 
 command attention and admiration at once, whether he 
 won affection or not. It would be a waste of time to 
 attempt a description of his oratory; too many others 
 have failed to do it justice. 
 
 Hayne ^ began by protesting that he had not ex Hayne's 
 pected to meet such arguments as had been urged by °P®"^"S' 
 the Senator from Massachusetts; he had questioned 
 no man's opinions, impeached no man's motives, and 
 had charged no party. State, or section with hostility 
 to any other. The Senator from Massachusetts, after 
 deliberating a whole night, had come into the chamber 
 to vindicate New England, and, instead of making up 
 his issue with the Senator from Missouri, " selects me 
 as his adversary, and pours out all the vials of his 
 
 while on his way there to attend a convention of his company. 
 See McDuffie's Eulogy on Hayne, 1840, Pamphlet in Harvard Col- 
 lege Library (Library No. 7392.65) ; O'Neall, Bench and Bar of 
 South Carolina, IL 11-33. 
 
 1 For the speech, see Congressional Debates, 21 Cong., i sess., 
 43-50(1829-30). 
 
92 
 
 PROGRESS OF NULLIFICATION. 
 
 [Ch. VL 
 
 Hayne's 
 authorities. 
 
 Public 
 interest. 
 
 mighty wrath on my devoted head. Nor is he will- 
 ing to stop there. He goes on to assail the institu- 
 tions and policy of the South, and calls in question 
 the principles and conduct of the state which I have 
 the honor to represent." With even pace, with smooth, 
 well rounded sentences, Hayne touched upon the various 
 topics that had been suggested. For the first time he 
 turned his attention to the sectional issue, — it would 
 have been better for his reputation if he had not done 
 so. " By way of defending South Carolina from what he 
 thinks an attack upon her, he first quotes the example 
 of Massachusetts, and then denounces that example in 
 good set terms." ^ From this point Hayne labored 
 rather hard till he entered upon the defence of those 
 principles of his friends and of his State to which Web- 
 ster had referred. Webster had not condescended to 
 examine the question, but had simply thrown the weight 
 of his great authority into the scale against it. Hayne 
 did not attempt any formal or elaborate statement of 
 the doctrine of nullification, but merely threw into the 
 opposite scale the authorities upon which his State 
 relied, — the Virginia and Kentucky Resolutions, Jef- 
 ferson, and Madison. Hayne closed at four o'clock; 
 Webster rose to reply, but yielded to a motion to 
 adjourn. 
 
 On Tuesday and Wednesday, January 26 and 27, 
 Webster replied. The Senate Chamber was crowded ; 
 the House of Representatives was nearly deserted ; move- 
 ment on the floor of the Senate was almost impossible; 
 in the rear of the Vice President's chair the pressure 
 was especially great, due in no small degree to the 
 presence there of Dixon H. Lewis, the weighty Con- 
 gressman from Alabama.^ The excitement ran high; 
 
 1 Webster: Congressional Dedafes, 21 Cong., isess., 72 {iS2g-2o). 
 9 He is said to have weighed 500 pounds. 
 
1830.] WEBSTER'S REPLY TO HAYNE. 93 
 
 feeling was intense ; but Webster's first sentence put the 
 audience at ease. 
 
 Webster's great speech is too familiar to call for ex- Webster's 
 tended notice ; his magnificent exordium, his parrying of ^^^^' 
 Hayne's thrusts are well known. For our purposes what 
 is important is his discussion of the doctrine of nullifica- 
 tion. Expressing great respect for the constitutional 
 opinions of Madison, he contended that a wrong con- 
 struction had been put upon them by South Carolina. 
 He admitted the right of revolution, but would not con- 
 cede that under the Constitution, and in conformity with 
 it, there was any mode by which a State government, 
 as a member of the Union, could interfere and stop the 
 progress of the general government " by force of her 
 own laws under any circumstances whatever." This 
 led him to inquire into the origin of the government. 
 Was it the creature of the State Legislatures or of the 
 people? " It is, sir, the people's Constitution, the peo- "The People's 
 pie's government; made for the people, made by the Constituuon." 
 people, and answerable to the people.^ . . . We are all 
 agents of the same supreme power, the people. The 
 general government and the State governments derive 
 their authority from the same source. Neither can, in 
 relation to the other, be called primary, though one 
 is definite and restricted, and the other general and 
 residuary." 
 
 In cases of conflict, who will be the arbiter? "If The arbiter, 
 there be no power to settle such questions independent 
 of either of the States, is not the whole Union a rope of 
 sand?" Would not the country be thrown back again 
 precisely upon the old Confederation? " It is too plain 
 to be argued : four and twenty interpreters of consti- 
 tutional law, each with a power to decide for itself, 
 and none with authority to bind anybody else, and 
 
 ^ Tliis clause probably suggested Lincoln's famous sentence in 
 his Gettysburg address. 
 
94 
 
 PROGRESS OF NULLIFICATION. 
 
 [Ch. VI. 
 
 Provisions 
 in the Con- 
 stitution. 
 
 Hayne's 
 rejoinder. 
 
 this constitutional law to be the only bond of union." 
 Would the Senator admit that the New England States 
 would have been justified in interfering to break up the 
 Embargo? Could they have allowed it? Methods of 
 relief had been provided, as Webster pointed out, in the 
 Judiciary, in frequent elections, and in the power of 
 amendment. " If, sir, the people in these respects had 
 done otherwise than they have done, their Constitution 
 could neither have been preserved, nor would it have 
 been worth preserving." It might be admitted that the 
 right of judging should not have been lodged with 
 the general government, but the question was whether 
 the right had not been so lodged. If there were fears, 
 there were also hopes. The people had preserved their 
 Constitution for forty years, had " seen their happi- 
 ness, prosperity, and renown grow with its growth, and 
 strengthen with its strength. . . . Overthrown by direct 
 assault, it cannot be ; evaded, undermined, nullified, it 
 will not be, if we, and those who shall succeed us 
 here as agents and representatives of the people, shall 
 conscientiously and vigilantly discharge the two great 
 branches of our public trust, faithfully to preserve and 
 wisely to administer it."^ 
 
 When Webster sat down, Hayne ^ began his second 
 rejoinder. It is not necessary for us to follow him over 
 the familiar ground ; he added nothing to Calhoun's 
 "Exposition" of 1828, except an element of confusion.^ 
 
 1 For the speech, see Congressional Debates, 2\ Cong., i sess., 
 58-80 (1829-30). 
 
 '^ Congressional Debates, 21 Cong., i sess., 82 et seq. (1829-30). 
 
 3 Ibid., 92, 93. In restating his view of the origin of the gov- 
 ernment, Hayne used the following language : " Here, then, is a 
 case of compact between sovereigns, and the question arises. 
 What is the remedy for a clear violation of its express terms by 
 one of the parties .-' And here the plain, obvious dictate of com- 
 mon sense is in strict conformity with the understanding of man- 
 kind, and the practice of nations in all analogous cases : ' tliat. 
 
1830] EFFECT OF THE DEBATE. 95 
 
 Webster closed the day's debate in a third speech, re- Webster's 
 markable for its compactness, exposing the weak places ^"'"'"^'^y* 
 in Hayne's rejoinder, and giving a masterly summary of 
 his own views. The debate dragged on for about a 
 month, Benson, Clayton, Woodbury, Grundy, Living- 
 ston, Smith, and others joining in ; but, so far as the 
 record shows, the resolution out of which the discussion 
 had grown was never brought to vote. 
 
 The speeches of both Hayne and Webster were well 
 received, especially by their respective sympathizers. 
 In South Carolina, Hayne's rejoinder was distributed as 
 " a complete answer." A contemporary,^ indulging his Effect of 
 imagination perhaps too freely, tells us that after the ^^^ debate, 
 delivery of Hayne's speech a Southerner could be 
 detected by his buoyant, joyous expression and con- 
 fident air; the Yankee, by his timid, anxious eye and 
 depressed bearing. Benton could scarcely find words to 
 express his praises, " Much as he [Hayne] had done 
 before to establish his reputation as an orator, a states- 
 man, a patriot, and a gallant son of the South, the efforts 
 of these days eclipse and surpass the whole. They will 
 be an era in his senatorial career which his friends and 
 his country will remark and remember, and look back 
 upon with pride and exultation."^ The reports of 
 
 where a resort can be had to no common superior, the parties to 
 the compact must themselves be the rightful judges whether the 
 bargain has been pursued or violated.' (Madison's Report, p. 20.) 
 When it is insisted by the gentleman that one of the parties (the 
 Federal Government) 'has the power of deciding ultimately and 
 conclusively upon the extent of its own authority,' I ask for the grant 
 of such power. ... If it is to be inferred from the nature of the 
 compact, I aver that not a single argument can be urged in favor 
 of the Federal Government, which would not apply with at least 
 equal force in favor of a state." Ibid.y 86. See Webster's remarks 
 on this position, Ibid., 92. 
 
 ^ Charles W. March, Reminiscences of Congress, 118 et seq. 
 
 * Congressional Debates, 21 Cong., i sess., 118(1829-30). 
 
96 
 
 PROGRESS OF NULLIFICATION. 
 
 [Ch. VI. 
 
 Was Webster 
 on new 
 ground ? 
 
 Had the 
 
 South stood 
 still ? 
 
 Webster's speech were read with eagerness. He had 
 done for the men of the national party what Calhoun 
 had done in his " Exposition " for the men of the State 
 Rights party ; he had formulated their views in a mas- 
 terly argument, and through his boldness had given them 
 renewed courage and confidence. We are told that the 
 •' New England men walked down the streets that day 
 with a firmer, bolder air. You would have sworn they 
 were some inches taller. They devoured the way in 
 their stride. Their elation knew no limits. Every 
 one was ready to exclaim, ' Thank God, I too am a 
 Yankee I '"1 
 
 It has been said that the ground which Webster took 
 in this debate was new, while that of Hayne was old ; 
 that Webster's position was one toward which the 
 greater part of the nation was steadily advancing, while 
 Hayne's was one upon which the South was presently 
 to stand quite alone; that the political and economic 
 condition of the North had advanced, and with it pub- 
 lic opinion, while politically and economically the South 
 had remained the same, and opinion had also remained 
 stationary.^ This judgment hardly represents the situa- 
 tion correctly. The North had undoubtedly advanced, 
 but the South, or rather South Carolina, had not stood 
 still ; she had retrograded. She had kept up with the 
 progressive forces till 1820, had in fact kept in the very 
 front rank ; but about that time she called a halt, and 
 finally obstructed the way. The principles on which 
 Hayne based his argument in 1830 were old in one 
 sense; in fact, they had died of old age in 1789, and 
 were buried under the Constitution. Hayne now un- 
 earthed the mummy, and held it up to frighten the 
 nation. 
 
 The issue had thus been joined and practically fought 
 
 * Charles W. MzrcY^y Reminiscences of Congress, 149. 
 
 * Woodrow Wilson, Division and Reunion, 47. 
 
1830.] JACKSON'S ATTITUDE. 97 
 
 out In the legislative body. But it was not the legisla- Jackson 
 tive so much as the executive which just at that time ^°^"^ ® 
 disturbed the nullifiers. The question was, What would 
 Jackson do? Would he sympathize with them or not? 
 The nullifiers were not long in finding out how little 
 ground there was for their confident expectations. 
 Jefferson's birthday was to be celebrated on the 15th 
 of April, 1830; and for that occasion a dinner was 
 arranged by the State Rights element, to which Jack- 
 son was invited. If the object of the meeting was to 
 draw Jackson out, it did not fail. Toasts were called for 
 and Jackson promptly responded with: "The Federal "it must be 
 Union; — it must be preserved." Calhoun had his wits P'^^served." 
 about him ; when called upon, he gave with feeling the 
 appropriate sentiment: "The Union, — next to our lib- 
 erty most dear. May we all remember that it can only 
 be preserved by respecting the rights of the states and 
 distributing equally the benefit and the burthen of the 
 Union." This incident became known to the leaders 
 of both elements in South Carolina, but the State 
 Rights leaders insisted on taking Jackson's sentiment 
 in a " Pickwickian sense." With unaccountable obtuse- 
 ness, they insisted that Jackson meant that the Union 
 was to be preserved along the lines that Calhoun 
 had indicated in his sentiment.^ In fact, during the 
 agitation in the summer of 1830, intended to arouse the 
 sentiment of the State in favor of calling a State Con- 
 vention, the nullifiers went so far as to represent that 
 the Union party was acting contrary to the President's 
 wishes ,'2 and this representation was the more readily 
 accepted because of the opinion that prevailed as to 
 the President's views in general. 
 
 ' See Proceedings of the Celebration of the Fourth of fuly, 
 1 83 1, at Charleston^ S. C, by the State Rights and Free Trade 
 Party, p. 27, in Harvard College Library (Library No. 12354.58). 
 
 ' C. J. StilM, Life and Services of Joel R. Poinsett, 1888, p. 57. 
 
 7 
 
98 
 
 PROGRESS OF NULLIFICATION. 
 
 [Ch. VL 
 
 Movement 
 to call a 
 convention. 
 
 Union party 
 celebration. 
 
 The movement to call a convention to nullify the 
 tariff laws showed much strength in the election of 
 1830, and was held in check only with great difficulty.^ 
 The election of members to the Legislature turned 
 upon that issue, and, when the Legislature assembled, 
 reports favoring a convention were presented in both 
 Houses. The cause of the general government was 
 ably advocated by Judge Daniel E. Huger, Jr., P. 
 Richardson, William M. Willie, T. R. English, and 
 others.^ Every point was discussed with moderation, 
 — the attitude of the President, the operation of the 
 tariff, the nature of the government, and the questions 
 of secession and nullification. It was declared that a 
 State Convention could not nullify or arrest the execu- 
 tion of an act of Congress, under either the law of 
 nations or the Constitution of the United States, with- 
 out running the risk of a national or a civil war of 
 extermination. The opposition was successful in pre- 
 venting the calling of a convention, and the Legislature 
 contented itself with a set of resolutions compiled 
 from the Kentucky Resolutions of 1798. 
 
 After the adjournment of the Legislature, there were 
 no developments of any importance till the summer 
 of 1 83 1. Then occurred an incident which, at last, 
 opened the eyes of the nullifiers to the real attitude 
 of the President. As it happened, each party had 
 determined to take advantage of the Fourth of July 
 to arouse the enthusiasm of its adherents and to 
 attach those who wavered. Monster celebrations were 
 planned in Charleston ; each party was bent on making 
 the other appear as insignificant as possible. The 
 Union party probably desired, in addition, to convince 
 the nullifiers once for all that President Jackson would 
 
 * Congressional Debates, 21 Cong., 2 sess., 611 (1830-31). 
 " Debate in South Carolina Legislature, December, 1830. Docu- 
 ment in Kennedy Library, Spartanburg, S. C. 
 
1830-31.] UNION PARTY IN 1831. 99 
 
 not countenance any schemes tending to impair the 
 dignity and authority of the general government; and 
 they made elaborate arrangements accordingly.^ 
 
 Tlie morning of the Fourth was ushered in by the 
 firing of cannon, the ringing of bells, and the parade of 
 the militia; and at ten o'clock the party began to assem- 
 ble between Meeting Street and the Bay. From this 
 point, the procession, several thousand strong, gay 
 with banners and brass bands, moved to the First 
 Presbyterian Church, at the corner of Meeting and 
 Trade Streets, where the first ceremonies of the day 
 were to be held. " The whole formed a sublime and 
 imposing spectacle, the moral grandeur of which it "Imposing 
 would be difhcult to give an adequate idea of in 
 words. It was the spontaneous movement of a vast 
 multitude, assembled in the presence of their God, to 
 sacrifice at the altars of their country, and to vow 
 before Him their unalterable determination to defend 
 her institutions and her laws against the attacks of 
 all her enemies, whether they exist in her own bosom, 
 or come against her from abroad." At the church 
 original odes were sung ; Washington's Farewell Address 
 was read by Daniel E. Huger, and was received "with 
 strong and repeated emotions, particularly those parts 
 of the Address which are admonitory as to the causes 
 that may threaten disunion and the attempts that would 
 be made to effect it" ; and an oration was delivered by 
 William Drayton. At the close of the ceremonies at 
 the church, the party adjourned to reassemble in the 
 afternoon for the dinner and the speaking. 
 
 For the dinner and the speaking, a building covering Union party 
 a space of forty-five feet in width by one hundred and 
 fifty feet in length had been erected at the corner of 
 Meeting and George Streets. "The lot and the build- 
 ing in which the party dined were decorated with a 
 
 * Capers, Life and Times of Memminger, 37-105. 
 
 dinner. 
 
decorations. 
 
 lOO PROGRESS OF NULLIFICATION. [Ch. VI. 
 
 taste at once showy and becoming. Festoons of ever- 
 greens encircled the pillars, which, though we cannot 
 exactly consider or designate them ' Corinthian col- 
 umns,' were nevertheless very neat and substantial. 
 Union The hickory, entwined with the palmetto and the pine, 
 
 were conspicuous as appropriate emblems in illustrat- 
 ing the pride and strength of our country; and from 
 the archway, one of which being appropriated to each 
 individual, were suspended shields bearing the names 
 of Moultrie, Warren, Lafayette, Manning, Sumpter, 
 Hampton, Lincoln, . . . and many others who had dis- 
 tinguished themselves in the cause of liberty in the 
 fields and on the shores of Carohna. Transparencies 
 of Washington, Hancock, Franklin, and others, encir- 
 cled with boughs and luxuriant foliage, hung at the 
 upper end of the vast hall. In front of the building 
 the eye was attracted to the novel appearance in our 
 streets of a palmetto and a hickory tree, transplanted 
 in full bloom from the soil in which they originally 
 grew, and waving in that of their adoption as freshly 
 as they ever did before. The front of the building was 
 decorated with two full-rigged frigates, manned and 
 armed, mounting each fifty-two guns, and one rakish- 
 looking and elegant tender, — all perfect models of 
 naval architecture. These were each surmounted by 
 a broad, transparent archway, over the centre of which 
 appeared illuminated the words, ' Don't give up the 
 Ship ! ' Three other transparencies, allegorical and 
 emblematical, directly beneath the archway, completed 
 the decorations in front." ^ The wines were excellent, 
 and the heat was extreme. 
 
 After the dinner came the intellectual repast, the 
 toasts,^ — nearly two hundred in number altogether, — 
 
 * Capers, Life and Times of Memminger, 37-44. 
 
 ' Two of the regular toasts deserve notice : — 
 
 " 18. State Sovereignty : If one State has the right to change 
 
i83i.] UNION CELEBRATION IN 1831. lOI 
 
 the speeches, and the letters. The principal speeches Union 
 were made by Thomas R. Mitchell, Hugh S. Legare, ^P^^^^^^- 
 James L. Petigru, and Daniel E. Huger. Those of Le- 
 gare and Petigru especially deserve attention. Issue was 
 joined with the nullifiers on every point : it was main- 
 tained with truth that the past history of the State con- 
 demned their proceedings ; that the injurious effect of 
 the tariff had been exaggerated ; ^ that there was no 
 authority for the doctrine of nullification in the history 
 of the Union or in the law of nations ; and that, if the 
 doctrine were pushed to its logical result, civil war 
 would ensue. Letters were read from many prominent 
 men in the State ; but they were overshadowed by the 
 letter 2 which the committee had received from Presi- Jackson's 
 dent Jackson in reply to an invitation to be present. ^^"^'■• 
 This was their big gun, which was expected to carry 
 consternation into the camp of the State Rights and 
 Free Trade party. The committee had reminded the 
 President of the " portentous omens which threatened 
 the State with civil war," and informed him that they 
 conceived it of infinite importance to expose the fatal 
 errors of opinion with which the youth were growing 
 up ; and further that it was their aim to " revive in its 
 
 the government, the others have a right to prevent it. (Ye Mortals 
 whom fancy and troubles perplex)." 
 
 " 22. ' Nullification,' ' Secession,' and ' Putting the State on its 
 Sovereignty': Revolution in disguise. (Black Joe).'' Capers, 
 Life and Times of Memminger, 44. 
 
 1 Petigru went so far as to say : "That the tariff of protecting 
 duties ought never to have been passed ; that it is contrary to the 
 spirit of amity and concession in which the Constitution was con- 
 ceived, and in which the government ought to be executed, I freely 
 admit; that it is injurious to the South, I firmly believe; but that 
 it is unconstitutional, I wholly deny; and that it is ruinous in its 
 operations, is no more than a rhetorical flourish." Capers, 
 Ibid., 61. 
 
 3 Ibid., 46-48. 
 
I02 PROGRESS OF NULLIFICATION. [Ch. VL 
 
 full force the benign spirit of Union." Jackson declined 
 the invitation, but sent the letter, which was probably 
 all the committee hoped for. " Every enlightened citi- 
 zen," the President wrote, " must know that a separa- 
 tion, could it be effected, would begin with civil discord 
 and end in colonial dependence on a foreign power, an 
 obliteration from the list of nations. But he should 
 also see that high and sacred duties, which must and 
 will at all hazards be performed, present an insurmount- 
 able barrier to the success of any plan of disorganiza- 
 tion, by whatever patriotic name it may be decorated, or 
 whatever high feeling may be arrayed for its support." 
 The letter was read in four different quarters of the 
 assemblage, and was received with enthusiastic cheers. 
 State Rights Rumors of this letter had reached the State Rights 
 Trade"^^^ and Free Trade party, which was celebrating not far 
 celebration. off; but apparently it failed to produce the effect in- 
 tended. The preparations of this rival body had been, 
 if anything, rather more elaborate than those of the 
 Union party. The preliminary ceremonies of the 
 morning closed with the presentation of a banner by 
 the ladies of Charleston, with the march of a proces- 
 sion including the societies of the Cincinnati, of the 
 Revolution, and of '']6, and a body of seamen bear- 
 ing banners inscribed with stirring sentiments. Then 
 came an oration by Robert Y. Hayne at the Circular 
 Church, " which for cogency of reasoning, purity and 
 elevation of sentiment, and eloquence and impressive- 
 ness of delivery, has certainly never been exceeded in 
 this or perhaps in any other city of the Union." At 
 three o'clock the crowd reassembled for the march to 
 the pavilion. This booth, erected at the corner of 
 Meeting Street and South Bay, in the form of a penta- 
 gon, and arranged to accommodate over twelve hundred 
 people, was decorated in very much the same manner 
 as the building of the opposing party. Many of the 
 
1831.] STATE RIGHTS CELEBRATION. IO3 
 
 leading nullifiers of the State were present, Governor state Rights 
 James Hamilton, Jr., Senator Hayne, Robert J. Turn- speeches, 
 bull, Henry L. Pinckney, Judge Colcock, and others. 
 Toasts, regular and irregular, were proposed without 
 number; and long speeches were made by Hamilton, 
 Hayne, Turnbull, and Pinckney. The audience was 
 assured that the nullification remedy would work as 
 smoothly as could be desired ; that no bloodshed should 
 follow. Hamilton and Turnbull assured their hearers 
 that the President could not mean what the plain words 
 of his 15th of April sentiment seemed to indicate; for, 
 coercion could not be employed. Hamilton referred 
 to the rumor that there was then a letter in the city from 
 the President expounding his meaning, but he dismissed 
 the subject with a reminder that old Waxsaw still stood 
 where Jackson left it, and that the old stock of '^6 had 
 not given out.^ 
 
 Of course before the next day the nullifiers knew that The Legis- 
 there was good foundation for the rumor which had jackson. 
 reached them. The leaders bided their time; they 
 waited for the assembling of the Legislature, and then 
 their wrath broke loose. The Legislature fumed and 
 raved.^ Was it to be schooled and rated by the Presi- 
 dent of the United States? Was it to legislate under 
 the sword of the Commander in Chief ? " The Execu- 
 tive of a most limited government, the agent of an 
 agency, but a part of a creature of the States, under- 
 takes to prescribe the line of conduct to a free and 
 sovereign State under denunciation of pains and pen- 
 alties ! It cannot but be esteemed a signal instance of 
 forbearance calmly to inquire into this assumed power 
 of the President over the State." After cooling down a 
 little, the committee reporting proceeded to declare that 
 
 ^ Proceedings of the Celebration of the Fourth of July, 1831, 
 at Charleston, S. C, by the State Rights aftd Free Trade Party. 
 2 South Carolina Laws (1831), Resolutions, p. 59. 
 
I04 
 
 PROGRESS OF NULLIFICATION. 
 
 [Ch. VI. 
 
 Secession 
 justified. 
 
 State Rights 
 and Free 
 Trade 
 convention. 
 
 each State was sovereign, and might withdraw from the 
 Union whenever it saw fit, and that such action would 
 be neither treason nor insurrection ; that whether it 
 could be a cause of war on the part of the general gov- 
 ernment might be questionable ; that the notion was 
 monstrous that the President himself could declare war. 
 The committee further announced that, if the State 
 should declare any enactment of the general govern- 
 ment void, her judgment would be paramount, and any 
 attempt to enforce such enactment would be an exercise 
 of the law of tyrants, the exertion of brute force. If 
 such a case should occur, the State would throw her- 
 self on Providence, and, if her destiny was to be sla- 
 very, she would not be mocked by the forms of a free 
 government. 
 
 A convention had been held in Columbia in 1831, 
 just before Congress assembled, and when there was 
 hope that Congress would take favorable action on the 
 tariff; but months had passed, and the indications were 
 far from satisfactory. Hence the next step of the nul- 
 lifiers was to hold a great convention of delegates from 
 all the State Rights and Free Trade associations in the 
 State, " to devise the best means of maintaining the 
 reserved sovereignty of the States and of recovering for 
 the country the lost but inestimable blessings of Free 
 Trade, ... to consider and measure the best means of 
 diffusing among our people a just knowledge of their 
 rights, ... of cherishing and invigorating an enlight- 
 ened public sentiment, ... of offering up again our 
 pledges that, if the public tranquillity is disturbed, it 
 shall not be of our seeking; and that our only object, 
 with a preservation of the Union of these States, is to 
 maintain those very rights and privileges which union 
 was designed to render perpetual." ^ 
 
 1 The State Rights and Free Trade Convention, 1832. (Boston 
 Public Library Pamphlet.) 
 
1831-32] STATE RIGHTS CONVENTION, 1832. 105 
 
 The convention assembled in Charleston, Wednesday, Leaders. 
 February 22, 1832. Only one district, Pendleton, was 
 unrepresented. One hundred and eighty delegates 
 were enrolled, and Governor Hamilton was elected 
 President. Many men were present who were already, 
 or were soon to be, conspicuous in public life, — Isaac 
 E. Holmes, C. J. Colcock, H. L. Pinckney, Waddy 
 Thompson, Jr., Alexander I. Sims, A. P. Butler, Wil- 
 liam C. Preston, S. H. Butler, T. D. Singleton, Robert 
 Barnwell Smith (Rhett), Franklin H. Elmore, and James 
 H. Hammond. A committee of thirteen was appointed 
 to prepare an address, and to report at the next meet- 
 ing, Saturday, the 25th. The committee reviewed the 
 sufferings of the State and the remonstrances that had 
 been made. They would not moot constitutional ques- 
 tions ; the argument was exhausted. What was to be 
 done? " W/iy, Resist f" The State had nothing to Resistance 
 do but to say on her high authority that her citizens ^ ^^^^^^ • 
 should not pay tribute, and tribute would not be paid. 
 " The State looks to her sons to defend her in whatever 
 form she may choose to proclaim her purpose to Re- 
 sist." They had merely paused to await the decision of 
 Congress. Sanguine expectations of relief from that 
 source were not entertained, and it was agreed on all 
 hands that the decision soon to be made by Congress 
 would be final. The convention unanimously adopted 
 a set of resolutions, recommending the semiannual pub- 
 lication and distribution of tracts, and particularly — 
 since it was important that the people should under- 
 stand the process by which their burdens might be 
 removed without either secession or revolution — of 
 tracts " explaining and inculcating nullifi cation as the 
 legitimate, peaceful, and rightful remedy for all oppres- 
 sive and dangerous violations of the federal compact." 
 
CHAPTER VII. 
 
 THE ISSUE JOINED. — 1832-1833. 
 
 Tariff of 
 1832. 
 
 South 
 
 Carolina 
 
 election. 
 
 For once the nullitiers had read the signs aright. 
 Congress finished its work; the hoped for relief was 
 not afforded. On the contrary, the act of July 14, 
 1832, was passed, stripping the act of 1828 of some of 
 its most obnoxious features, it is true, but still not 
 providing for any such reductions as South Carolina 
 thought dictated by justice. Hayne declared in the 
 Senate that he regarded the bill as fixing the protec- 
 tive system upon the country forever, without hope of 
 relief; and that, if it passed, the prosperity of the 
 South, so far as it depended on the general govern- 
 ment, would be destroyed. The people of his State had 
 been advised to wait patiently till certain conditions 
 were satisfied, and then, if their demands were not 
 heeded, to take decisive action. The crisis had come: 
 Jackson was in power; the public debt had practically 
 been extinguished; there was no longer any necessity, 
 from a revenue standpoint, for high duties; and yet 
 Congress, instead of lessening the burdens imposed by 
 the tariff, had simply decreed that they should be per- 
 manent. At least such was the view of the majority of 
 the people of the State. He declared that action could 
 no longer be delayed. ^ 
 
 The elections for the State Legislature were to be 
 held in the fall of the year 1832. Canvassing went on 
 
 1 Congressional Debates. 22 Cong., i sess., 1217, 1292 (1831-32). 
 
1832.] CALL OF NULLIFICATION CONVENTION. 107 
 
 during the summer, the issue being the call of a con- 
 vention to nullify the tariff laws. The Union men did 
 what they could to stem the tide, but their efforts were 
 unavailing. Their total vote was not very much below 
 that of the nullifiers, but they carried comparatively 
 few districts.^ 
 
 Governor Hamilton, seeing how the election had Convention 
 resulted, called the Legislature to meet in extra ses- recommended 
 sion on October 22. His message was promptly laid 
 before both Houses. The Governor represented the 
 act of July 14 as a measure under which three fourths 
 of the revenue of the general government would be 
 drawn from the Southern States. Desiring to see the 
 issue made up before the next meeting of Congress, he 
 recommended that the Legislature proceed immediately 
 to call a convention. "As it was by an assembly of 
 identical and equivalent authority that our compact was 
 formed under the Constitution with the co-states, . . . 
 so on no tribunal can more appropriately devolve the 
 high province of declaring the extent of our obliga- 
 tions under this compact." He forbore to suggest 
 what remedy the convention should ordain : it should 
 pass on the whole subject uninfluenced by any official 
 expressions.^ 
 
 With almost no delay, the Legislature carried out 
 the Governor's recommendation. On October 26th it Call of the 
 passed a bill for calling the convention, by a vote in convention" 
 the House of 96 to 25, and in the Senate of 31 to 
 13.5 It was enacted, that a convention of the peo- 
 ple "shall be assembled at Columbia, on the third 
 Monday in November next,* then and there to take 
 
 ^ Unionists, about 17,000; nullifiers, about 23,000. De Bow, 
 Political Annals of South Carolina^ 1845, p. 39. Legard, Writ- 
 ings^ I. 209. 
 
 2 Niles Register, XLIII. 173. 
 
 * Ibid., 152. < November 19. 
 
io8 
 
 ISSUE JOINED. 
 
 [Ch. VII. 
 
 Functions 
 of the Con- 
 vention. 
 
 Election of 
 delegates. 
 
 U nionists. 
 
 into consideration the several acts of the Congress of 
 the United States, imposing duties on foreign imports 
 for the protection of domestic manufacturers, or for 
 other unauthorized objects, to determine on the char- 
 acter thereof, and to devise the means of redress, and 
 further, in like manner, to take into consideration such 
 acts of the said Congress, laying duties on imports, 
 as may be passed in amendment of or substitution for 
 the act or acts aforesaid; and also all other laws and 
 acts of the government of the United States which 
 shall be passed, or done for the purpose of more effectu- 
 ally executing or enforcing the same. " ^ It was pro- 
 vided that the delegates should be elected in the same 
 manner as members of the Legislature, each district 
 sending as many delegates as it had Senators and Rep- 
 resentatives, and the voting to take place in the same 
 manner and at the same places. Unless sooner dis- 
 solved by itself, the convention was to continue twelve 
 months from the day of election, and was to adjourn 
 from time to time if it saw fit. 
 
 In the election which followed, the Union men did 
 not exert themselves, since the real struggle had 
 taken place in the fall at the election of members of 
 the Legislature. Consequently, while in the Legisla- 
 ture thirteen Senators and twenty-five Representatives 
 were Unionists, only twenty-six Unionists in all were 
 chosen to sit in the convention. They had carried 
 solidly the important counties of Greenville, Spartan- 
 burg, Lancaster, Chesterfield, Darlington, Kershaw, 
 and Clarendon; most of their ablest leaders, such as 
 Drayton and Petigru, had not secured seats, but Benja- 
 min F. Perry, John Belton O'Neall, Daniel E. Huger, 
 and J. S. Richardson were men of high character and of 
 good ability. On the other hand, the nullifiers were 
 
 1 South Carolina Laws (1834), Appendix, 47 ; also Niks 
 Register, XLIII. 152. 
 
1832.] MEMBERS OF THE CONVENTION. 109 
 
 as conspicuous for ability as for numbers. Of the one 
 hundred and sixty-two delegates actually in attendance, 
 one hundred and thirty-six were nuUifiers; and among Nullifiers. 
 these were Governor James Hamilton, Jr. ; Senators 
 Robert Y. Hayne and Stephen D. Miller; Chancellor 
 and Ex-Senator William Harper; Congressman George 
 McDuffie; future Senators Franklin H. Elmore, William 
 C. Preston and Robert W, Barnwell ; and, in addition, 
 Armistead Burt, D. H. Means, C. J. Colcock, and 
 Robert J. Turnbull. 
 
 The convention met on the appointed day in the Hall Action of the 
 of the House of Representatives. The convention was *^°"^®"^^°"- 
 in session six days, from Monday, November 19, until 
 Saturday, the 24th. Governor Hamilton^ was elected 
 
 * It is time that an account should be given of this, the most Sketch of 
 active of all the nullifiers. Hamilton was an actor rather than a Hamilton, 
 counsellor. He was prompt, vigorous, and firm, — a manipulator of 
 parties. He was quick and fluent rather than profound, and was 
 popular with the masses. He was almost as fiery as his life- 
 long friend, John Randolph of Roanoke, with whom during the en- 
 tire nullification controversy he kept up a constant correspondence. 
 Hamilton was born in Charleston in 1786. He served several 
 terms in the Legislature, and was a member of that body when the 
 negro outbreak occurred in 1822. In that year he was elected to 
 Congress to succeed the lamented William Lowndes. When 
 Jackson was elected President, he desired to invite Hamilton to 
 take a seat in his Cabinet, but indicated that certain persons had 
 taken exception to Hamilton on account of his violent course on 
 the tariff, hoping probably that Hamilton would show a willingness 
 to tone down a little and accept the position ; but Hamilton, thank- 
 ing him for the intended compliment, remarked that he was more 
 highly honored by the ground on which he had been excluded. 
 Hamilton served as Governor from 1830 to 1832. After the close 
 of the nullification controversy, he moved to Texas, and exerted 
 himself to get her independence recognized by foreign nations. 
 He was active in procuring the admission of Texas into the Union, 
 and was rewarded by election to the United States Senate. But 
 apparently he did not take his seat. He was drowned in a col- 
 lision near the Texas coast, November 15, 1857. 
 
no 
 
 ISSUE JOINED. 
 
 [Ch. VII. 
 
 Proceedings 
 of the 
 convention. 
 
 Ordinance of 
 nullification. 
 
 president, and a committee of twenty-one was appointed 
 to take into consideration the call of the Legislature, 
 and to lay out the work of the convention. Very little 
 was done before Thursday, when Hayne, in behalf of 
 the committee, read an elaborate exposition, and Judge 
 Colcock, the chairman of the committee, introduced 
 the Ordinance of nullification. On Friday an address 
 to the people of South Carolina was reported, and later 
 an address to the people of the United States was read 
 by McDuffie. Final action on these reports was post- 
 poned till Saturday, when the Ordinance was adopted 
 by a vote of one hundred and thirty-six to twenty six.* 
 While all the proceedings of the convention were seri- 
 ous and dignified, those of the last days were especially 
 sober. The signing of the Ordinance was accompanied 
 with unusual solemnity; the seven old members of the 
 convention who had borne arms in the Revolutionary 
 War were called upon to affix their signatures first; the 
 other members signed alphabetically.^ 
 
 The Ordinance followed the precedent of the Ken- 
 tucky Resolutions in declaring all acts imposing duties 
 on foreign commodities, and, in particular, the acts of 
 May 19, 1828, and July 14, 1832, unauthorized by the 
 Constitution, "null, void, and no law, not binding upon 
 this state, its officers or citizens " ; to counteract the 
 power of the United States courts, it prohibited appeal 
 to the Supreme Court in cases touching either the 
 authority of the Ordinance, or the validity of acts of 
 the Legislature enforcing it, or of the acts of Congress 
 nullified; to assure the State of the allesriance of its 
 
 ^ The Union delegates offered very little opposition to any of 
 the measures ; their leaders had counselled silence. Whatever 
 counteraction was necessary was to be taken by the convention of 
 their party which was then in session in the city. 
 
 2 For the proceedings of the convention, see State Papers on 
 Nullification. 
 
1832.] ORDINANCE OF NULLIFICATION. m 
 
 people, the Ordinance enjoined on all officers of the 
 State, except members of the Legislature, and on all 
 jurors, the duty of taking an oath to obey and enforce Oath. 
 the Ordinance and the acts which should be passed 
 to give it effect; and ordained that no authorities 
 should enforce the payment of duties within the State. 
 Details were left to the State government, but it was 
 provided that the acts which the Legislature was 
 required to pass in order to carry into execution the Time of 
 purposes of the convention, and to arrest the opera- °P^''^*'°"- 
 tion of the acts of Congress, should take effect from 
 February i, 1833. Finally, the Ordinance expressed 
 the determination of the people of South Carolina not Secession, 
 to submit to force, and, in case the general government 
 should undertake to exercise coercion, to hold them- 
 selves absolved from all political connection with the 
 people of other States, and to organize a separate 
 government. Before adjourning, the president was 
 authorized, "if in his opinion the public exigencies" 
 should demand, to assemble the body any time be- Reassembling, 
 fore November 12, 1833. Furthermore, a committee, 
 consisting of William Harper, Robert Y. Hayne, Ben- 
 jamin Rogers, Thomas Harrison, and John S. Maner, 
 was appointed to act in case of the death or disqualifi- 
 cation of the president. January 31, 1833, the day 
 before the acts of the Legislature were appointed to 
 go into effect, was designated as " a day of solemn fast- ^^* ^^y- 
 ing, humiliation, and prayer. " 
 
 When the Legislature assembled on the 27th of 
 November, the message* of Governor Hamilton was 
 promptly laid before it. Attention was directed to the 
 requirements of the Ordinance which had become a 
 part of the fundamental law of the State. The die 
 had now been cast; there was no longer a question for 
 
 * South Carolina Laws (1832). 
 
112 
 
 ISSUE JOINED. 
 
 [Ch. VII. 
 
 Hamilton's 
 belligerent 
 message. 
 
 Action of the 
 Legislature. 
 
 Replevin Act. 
 
 Federal 
 authorities. 
 
 debate. The Legislature was advised to take such 
 measures as would accomplish the purposes of the 
 Ordinance. A revision of the militia system was 
 recommended by Hamilton ; and authority was asked to 
 accept the services of two thousand volunteers for the 
 defence of Charleston, and of ten thousand to be organ- 
 ized as a State guard. The remedy, the Governor said, 
 was, or ought to be, a peaceful one, and should be such 
 so far as South Carolina was concerned. Confidence 
 was expressed that arbitration would be granted by a 
 call of a general national convention; but still it was 
 declared to be the part of wisdom to prepare for the 
 worst. This was Hamilton's last communication as 
 Governor. December 13, 1832, his successor, Robert 
 Y. Hayne, delivered his inaugural address.^ Governor 
 Hayne began his term of office by announcing his deter- 
 mination to uphold the sovereignty of his State, and to 
 recognize no allegiance as paramount to that which was 
 due her. 
 
 Upon the Legislature now devolved the duty of car- 
 rying out " the peaceable remedy " of nullification ; and 
 it acted promptly upon the recommendations of Gov- 
 ernor Hamilton. The first measure, the Replevin Act, 
 was intended to meet the probable detention of goods 
 on which the payment of duties was refused.^ By this 
 act any goods detained for the non-payment of duties, or 
 under pretence of securing duties, could be recovered 
 with damages. 
 
 Provision was also made for the case of refusal of the 
 United States authorities to deliver the goods in ques- 
 tion ; the sheriff, upon a writ conferring the authority, 
 was empowered to seize the personal effects of the of- 
 fender and to hold them till the goods were delivered. 
 It was further provided that any person who should pay 
 
 * South Carolina Laws (1832). 
 
 Ibid. 
 
J832.] NULLIFICATION STATUTES. II3 
 
 any duty might recover the same, and, if arrested up- 
 on a judgment obtained in a federal court for duties 
 claimed, might avail himself of the provisions of the 
 Habeas Corpus Act ; and sales of property of importers 
 to secure the amount of duties were declared illegal. 
 The dangerous question of appeals was to be settled Appeals, 
 by a provision by which clerks were forbidden, under 
 penalty, to furnish courts with copies of record; and 
 heavy penalties were imposed on any one who should 
 in any manner obstruct proceedings under the act. A 
 third series of measures provided for military defence, 
 if necessary: a Militia Act was passed ; ^ and the Gov- Defence, 
 ernor was authorized, in case an effort was made to 
 coerce the State, or any forcible resistance was offered 
 to the measures of the State, to call out such part 
 of the militia as he should deem necessary. He was 
 further empowered to purchase ten thousand stand of 
 small arms, and such other munitions as circumstances 
 might justify. This power conferred upon the Gover- 
 nor was made applicable to cases of insurrection, inva- 
 sion, imminent danger, and all cases where the laws were 
 opposed by combinations too powerful for the ordinary 
 civil officers. The last, and to the Union men the most 
 obnoxious measure, was the Test Oath Act, ^ requiring Test oath, 
 every officer, civil or military, to take the oath pre- 
 scribed in the act, — and in particular the judges in 
 Charleston, before sitting upon any case involving the 
 injunctions of the Ordinance. 
 
 By the Union men all these proceedings were regarded 
 as despotic in the last degree, as well as treasonable 
 and revolutionary. The nullifiers had raved and 
 ranted about the rights of the majority. The tyranny 
 of an irresponsible majority was the theme on which 
 they had thundered with most effect; and yet, compared 
 
 * South Carolina Laws (1832). * Ibid. 
 
 8 
 
114 
 
 ISSUE JOINED. 
 
 [Ch. VII. 
 
 Unionist 
 protests. 
 
 Unionists 
 prepare to 
 resist. 
 
 to the despotism of their own conduct, that of which they 
 had complained was mildness itself. Well might one of 
 the most moderate of the Unionists, Hugh S. Legar^, 
 write: "When I read your Ordinance, I rubbed my 
 eyes to be sure that I was not in a dream. I could not 
 believe it possible that such insolent tyranny was in 
 the heart of any man, educated as and where I myself 
 imbibed my detestation of all arbitrary power, though 
 its sceptre be in my own grasp. I don't speak of it as 
 a federal or as an anti-federal measure, — I refer to it 
 exclusively as a measure of government in South Caro- 
 lina, and I declare to you solemnly that for the first 
 time during this controversy I felt the spirit of civil 
 war burning within me, and that I fervently prayed 
 that my friends of the Union party would, without any 
 hesitation, swear that it should never be enforced but 
 at the point of the bayonet." ^ The special objection to 
 the Test Oath Act was, that, without trial of any kind, 
 it would prevent Union men from holding office; it 
 ousted those who were then in official positions, and it 
 placed them under judges who were creatures of their 
 opponents. 
 
 Naturally, every effort was made to organize an effect- 
 ive resistance. The Union leaders were determined 
 to keep a close watch over the proceedings of the nulli- 
 fiers, and to hold themselves in readiness to meet any 
 emergency. They therefore issued a call for a conven- 
 tion of their party to be held in Columbia while the 
 nullifiers were in session. This convention did very 
 little; it contented itself with passing resolutions ex- 
 posing the inconsistency and injustice of the dominant 
 party. The leaders kept in constant touch with Wash- 
 ington, and received the advice and encouragement of 
 
 ^ Legar^, Writings, I. 208. (Letter to Isaac E. Holmes, from 
 Brussels.) 
 
1832.] UNIONIST PREPARATIONS. II 5 
 
 the federal authorities and promise of sufficient support 
 through Joel R. Poinsett, who was Jackson's confidential 
 agent in the State, and through Drayton and Huger. 
 Poinsett, Drayton, and Huger, as well as Jackson, were 
 very anxious that the nullifiers should be put down 
 without the aid of the federal government; but still 
 no precaution was neglected. The Unionists began 
 to organize their adherents; military companies were 
 formed throughout the State; regular drills were pre- 
 scribed; men were enrolled who would obey the call 
 of the President; and, in March, 1833, eight or nine 
 hundred are reported to have volunteered to act in 
 any emergency.^ 
 
 Nor were Jackson's preparations any less complete Jackson's 
 and satisfactory. In anticipation of the action of the P''^P^^^'io"s. 
 convention, the commander in Charleston Harbor, Major 
 Heileman, was warned, in the latter part of October, to 
 guard against attempts which the militia would probably 
 make to surprise the forts. The collector at the port 
 was directed to regulate his conduct as the emergency 
 demanded: to place on board of every vessel arriving a 
 sufficient number of officers, who should remain till the 
 duties were paid and till a regular permit was granted; 
 and, if the duties were not paid, to sell the cargo. The 
 collector was further instructed to resist the State law; 
 to remain in Charleston as long as it was safe to do so, 
 and, when exposed to danger, to remove to a place of 
 security within the port. An additional revenue cutter 
 was placed at the disposal of the collector, and during 
 the months of November and December troops from 
 Fortress Monroe, and two vessels, the Experiment and 
 the Natchez, were ordered to Charleston. General General Scott 
 Scott had been directed to take the chief command: 
 he was ordered to strengthen the defences in the har- 
 
 * Proceedings of the Convention <7/" 1833, pp. 72, 73. 
 
ii6 
 
 ISSUE JOINED. 
 
 [Ch. VII. 
 
 Jackson's 
 opinions. 
 
 Coercion 
 promised. 
 
 bor, and to call for what reinforcements he should 
 deem necessary; nothing was to be done in any direc- 
 tion to irritate the inhabitants ; the officers were cau- 
 tioned to be courteous but firm ; and Major Heileman 
 was even instructed, if the demand was made upon him, 
 to turn the Citadel over to the State, and also what- 
 ever arms belonged to South Carolina.^ 
 
 Jackson's letters ^ written at this time to his confiden- 
 tial correspondent, Joel R. Poinsett, are characteristic. 
 He made no attempt to conceal his feelings towards 
 Calhoun ; he evidently thought the late Vice President 
 was breaking down under the load he was carrying. 
 Calhoun, he wrote, had, on a certain occasion, vented 
 a little of his ire against him in the Senate, but was 
 confused, and cut a sorry figure. And again, " Mr. 
 Webster replied to Mr. Calhoun yesterday, and it is 
 said completely demolished him. It is believed by 
 more than one that Mr. C. is in a state of dementation, 
 — his speech was a perfect failure; and Mr. Webster 
 handled him as a child." Jackson's fighting spirit was 
 aroused. To him the action of the " Nullies " was folly 
 and madness ; the followers were deluded ; the leaders 
 were wickedly laboring to destroy themselves and the 
 Union ; they were all demagogues. The first act of 
 treason would implicate all who aided or abetted the 
 execution of it. Let the first overt act be committed, 
 and nullification would be demolished by striking at 
 the leaders; the moment there was a hostile array, 
 they would be arrested. If the marshal should be 
 opposed by twelve thousand men, his posse would be 
 raised to twenty-four thousand. The threats of South 
 Carolina were impotent. What could she do, divided 
 
 * Congressional Debates, 22 Cong., 2 sess., Appendix, 177-198 
 
 (1832-33)- 
 
 " Stills, Life and Services of Joel R. Poinsett. 
 
1832.] NULLIFICATION PROCLAMATION. I17 
 
 at home, against the whole Union ? He had had offers 
 of volunteers from every State in the Union, and could 
 march two hundred thousand men into the State in forty 
 days. Let the Union men have no fears. 
 
 The President, in his fourth annual message,^ Jackson's 
 December 4, 1832, called the attention of Congress to P'-ocl^n^^tion 
 the threatening attitude of South Carolina, but indi- 
 cated that the existing laws were sufficient for all 
 immediate attempts that were likely to be made. He 
 promised to give notice and make suggestions if dif- 
 ficulties arose. On December 1 1, the nullification 
 proclamation appeared, — moderate and impressive, 
 dignified and yet direct, positive and yet appealing: 
 free from the ingenuity of the metaphysician, the 
 document expressed the sense of the nation. ^ It is a 
 credit to its authors, Jackson and Livingston, both of Authors, 
 whom, it may be noted, were Southerners. To South- 
 ern statesmen, therefore, belongs the distinction of 
 giving to the country the first great national refutation, 
 embodied in legal form, of the doctrines upon which 
 thirty years later the people of the South staked their 
 lives and fortunes. 
 
 Strict duty, the President solemnly proclaimed, would Doctrine, 
 require of him nothing more than to execute the laws 
 and preserve the peace of the Union. But the impos- 
 ing aspect of the opposition, and the interest which 
 the people of the United States felt in rendering a 
 resort to more extreme measures unnecessary, demanded 
 an indication of his views and of the course which 
 he felt bound to pursue. The doctrine of the State 
 veto was inherently absurd ; the constitutional history 
 of the country contained sufficient evidence that it would 
 have been indignantly rejected by the founders of our 
 
 * Statesman's Manual, II. 786, 787. 
 « Ibid., 794-807. 
 
ii8 
 
 ISSUE JOINED. 
 
 [Ch. VII. 
 
 State 
 sovereignty. 
 
 Response 
 of the 
 "co-States." 
 
 government. " I consider, then, the power to annul a 
 law of the United States, assumed by one State, incom- 
 patible with the existence of the Union, contradicted 
 expressly by the letter of the Constitution, unauthor- 
 ized by its spirit, inconsistent with every principle on 
 which it was founded, and destructive of the great ob- 
 ject for which it was formed." 
 
 Having stated the general principle, the President 
 passed on to consider the objections which the Ordi- 
 nance had urged against the federal laws, and then to a 
 discussion of the right of secession; and here he directly 
 joined issue with Calhoun on the fundamental question. 
 The States severally, he argued, did not retain their un- 
 divided sovereignty. The most conclusive evidence of 
 this was the fact that they had expressly ceded the 
 right to punish treason against the United States. The 
 reasons which forbade secession were obvious ; all the 
 other States, in self-defence, would be compelled to 
 oppose it. Then followed an appeal to the citizens of 
 his native State. ^ In simple terms, Jackson warned 
 them that they had been deluded by men who were 
 deceived or deceivers. The evil had been exaggerated; 
 their pride, their courage, and their passions had 
 been appealed to. He warned them that their remedy 
 could not be peaceful. The object of the leaders was 
 disunion; and disunion by armed force was treason. 
 Finally, an appeal was made to the people of the United 
 States, in which confidence was expressed that he 
 would meet with their undivided support, and that the 
 integrity of the Union would be preserved. 
 
 The President's confidence in the other States was 
 not misplaced. State after State, from Maine to Mis- 
 sissippi, promptly gave formal expression of their 
 approval of the President's sentiments, and of their 
 
 * See Proclamation, Statesman's Manual, II. 804. 
 
1832.] RESPONSE OF THE CO-STATES. 1 19 
 
 determination to support him in the exercise of his 
 legitimate powers.^ Not one State failed emphatically • 
 to condemn nullification. The Northern States were 
 more unreserved than the Southern ; for, as a rule, they 
 not only denied the validity of the doctrine of State 
 veto, but also of the doctrine of secession. The South- 
 ern States, with the exception of Maryland, had nothing 
 to say on the nature of the government or on the right 
 of secession, but confined themselves to the question 
 immediately before them. Georgia and Alabama Georgia and 
 joined with South Carolina in recommending that a ^°^^^' 
 general convention should be called, which should 
 settle once for all the questions that had excited dis- 
 content in the various States. Georgia went so far as 
 to draw up a plan for a convention, and Alabama sug- 
 gested March i, 1834, as the date, and Washington as 
 the place. Virginia and Alabama requested that South 
 Carolina suspend her Ordinance, and that Congress 
 modify the tariff, Virginia reaffirmed the principles Virginia, 
 of the Resolutions of 1798 and of the Report of 1799, 
 but could not regard them as sanctioning the measures 
 of South Carolina. Her Legislature voted to send a 
 commissioner to South Carolina to effect an accommo- 
 dation if possible, — a step which displeased Jackson 
 extremely, but which was again substantially followed 
 by Virginia in 1861. Her determination to send a 
 commissioner, he wrote, had done more harm than good, 
 for it had led South Carolina to expect assistance from 
 her. She should simply have denounced nullification, 
 and this would have brought about a repeal of South 
 Carolina's Ordinance. 
 
 The proclamation was greeted by the South Carolina 
 Legislature with a defiant spirit. To quote from John 
 Quincy Adams, " It was a blister plaster.'*^ Governor 
 
 1 State Papers on Nullification, 101-292. 
 ' John Quincy Adams, Memoirs, VIII. 511. 
 
120 
 
 ISSUE JOINED. 
 
 [Ch. VII. 
 
 The Procla- 
 mation 
 in South 
 Carolina. 
 
 Randolph's 
 sympathy. 
 
 Hayne was called upon to issue a counter proclamation, 
 "warning the good people of this state against the 
 attempt to seduce them from their allegiance," and on 
 December 20th a long set of resolutions was adopted. 
 The proclamation was declared to be an unwarranted 
 interference with the affairs of the State; the Presi- 
 dent had no right to promulgate his exposition of the 
 Constitution with the sanction of force. The right of 
 secession was reaffirmed, and the primary allegiance of 
 the citizen was declared to be due to the State. The 
 President had not attempted to disguise his personal 
 hostility; his measures were regarded with indigna- 
 tion, and force would be repelled by force. ^ 
 
 Governor Hayne's proclamation, issued on December 
 20th, was written in his usual happy and plausible 
 style. The familiar doctrine was ably and elegantly 
 restated. No new arguments were advanced, but a just 
 criticism was made on the President's apparent deter- 
 mination not to see that South Carolina had expressed 
 an anxious and sincere desire to submit her grievance 
 to a general convention, or to recede from her position 
 if a revenue tariff should be adopted. Further, the 
 imputations of the President against the motives of the 
 leaders were justly resented. All citizens were ex- 
 horted to be "fully prepared to sustain the dignity and 
 protect the liberties of the State, if need be," with 
 their "lives and fortunes. "^ 
 
 The President's proclamation was the signal for 
 some of the most ardent nuUifiers to offer their services 
 to the State government. A most daring but somewhat 
 antiquated knight from a sister State had already 
 indicated his intention to die for South Carolina. 
 "If I cannot be booted and mounted for the conflict," 
 
 1 Executive Documents, 22 Cong., 2 sess., I., No. 45 (1832-33). 
 a Mies Register, XLIII. 308-312. 
 
1832-33] SOUTH CAROLINA BELLIGERENT. 121 
 
 wrote John Randolph, "I will at least be borne, like 
 Muley Moluc, in a litter to the field of battle and die 
 in your ranks." ^ 
 
 Hayne had not been backward in carrying out the 
 instructions of the Legislature relating to the militia, 
 and had done everything in his power to put the State 
 in an attitude of defence. The Citadel, which, as we 
 have seen, was occupied by the federal authorities, was Measures of 
 vacated at his request, in accordance with the instruc- "®"*^®- 
 tions of the Federal Executive. Certain claims of the 
 State upon the general government, payable in arms, 
 amounting in value to $41,625, had been presented and 
 satisfied even before the expiration of Governor Ham- 
 ilton's term, in December, 1832. After the passage 
 of the Militia Act of that year, the enrolling of volun- 
 teers began, and within a few weeks as many as twenty 
 thousand had presented themselves; drilling was the 
 order of the day; arsenals and depots were established 
 at various places in the State ; and all necessary arrange- 
 ments for handling troops were perfected. 
 
 Thus every movement made by one of the parties was The critical 
 met by a counter movement on the part of the other. ^ ^' ^ ' ^' 
 Through the latter part of December, 1832, and the 
 early part of January, 1833, they stood watching each 
 other. It is surprising that so few collisions occurred. 
 The middle of January passed by, the first of February 
 drew near, — the day appointed for the Ordinance to take 
 effect ; and still there was no change in the situation. 
 To all appearances a trial of strength would soon take 
 place. The President had sent to Congress his Force 
 Bill message of January 16, 1832; but the president of 
 the South Carolina Convention had made no arrange- 
 ments for calling the delegates together. 
 
 » //t7es Register, XLIV. 383; Letter to Hamilton before the 
 appearance of the Proclamation. 
 
122 
 
 ISSUE JOINED. 
 
 [Ch. VII, 
 
 Charleston 
 meeting. 
 
 Ordinance 
 suspended. 
 
 There was in reality very little danger. The leaders 
 of the nullifiers had a surprise in store. On Monday 
 evening, January 21, at a meeting of a large number 
 of citizens at the Circus, in Charleston, the Ordinance 
 was practically suspended.^ Lieutenant Governor 
 Charles C. Pinckney presided over the meeting; Judge 
 C. J. Colcock, chairman of the committee of thirteen 
 in the Convention, presented the resolutions, which 
 were adopted; and Ex-Governor Hamilton, president of 
 the Convention, seconded the resolutions and supported 
 them in a speech of considerable length. Thus the pro- 
 ceedings, though of an informal character, had full 
 official countenance. Through several long sections, 
 the nullifiers hurled denunciations and defiance at the 
 general government, as if to dispel the idea that they 
 were receding from any of their demands; and then 
 they proclaimed that they had " seen with lively satis- 
 faction, not only indications of a beneficial modifica- 
 tion of the tariff, but the expressions of sentiments in 
 both branches of Congress, as well as in other quarters, 
 auspicious to the peace and harmony of the Union" 
 which should be met by a corresponding disposition 
 on the part of the State. Therefore, " It is hereby 
 declared that it is the sense of this meeting that, pend- 
 ing the process of the measures here alluded to, all 
 occasion of collision between the federal and state 
 authorities should be sedulously avoided on both sides 
 in the hope that the painful controversy in which South 
 Carolina is now engaged may be thereby satisfactorily 
 adjusted, and the union of these states be established 
 on a sure foundation." The next resolution pledged 
 each citizen, in case expectations were disappointed, 
 to sustain the Ordinance of the Convention. The right 
 of secession was distinctly affirmed. President Hamil- 
 
 ' Niles Register, XLIII. 380-382. 
 
1833-] ORDINANCE SUSPENDED. I23 
 
 ton, in seconding the resolution, said that it was only Secession 
 proper to avoid a conflict while the tariff bill was ^®™*='*- 
 before Congress. " We owe this to our friends out of 
 the State. We could pause with honor. His own con- 
 duct would be guided by the tone of the resolutions 
 proposed. He had himself made an importation of 
 sugar. He would allow his importation to go into the 
 Custom House stores and wait events. He would not 
 produce an unnecessary collision; but, if our hopes of 
 a satisfactory adjustment of the question were disap- Coercion, 
 pointed, he knew that his fellow-citizens would go even 
 to the death with him for his sugar." With regard to 
 the President's call for power to coerce South Caro- 
 lina, he said that, if Congress granted it, he would im 
 mediately " reassemble the convention and submit to 
 them the question of secession, and none could doubt 
 what their choice would be." Congress very promptly ^ 
 granted the power, but Hamilton did not submit the 
 question. 
 
 The action of this meeting was as remarkable as it Nullification 
 was wise; and, indeed, its wisdom stands out the more ^y consent, 
 when one considers its source. It was not merely the 
 setting aside of an ordinary law, — that would have 
 been sufficiently startling ; this was practically the nul- 
 lification, by general consent, of a fundamental statute 
 emanating from the sovereignty of the State. The rea- 
 sons assigned for the action are not quite satisfactory. 
 It is true that it would have been inexpedient to press 
 forward into a conflict, when there were signs that ac- 
 tion approximating what the State demanded, at least in 
 one direction, would be taken by Congress. But such 
 signs had appeared several weeks before; why was not 
 the Ordinance suspended earlier.^ Partly because the 
 nullifiers had not been able to convince themselves that 
 the general government would stand firm. They had 
 not seriously expected to come to blows; this was not 
 
124 ISSUE JOINED. [Ch. VII. 
 
 down on their program; the remedy was above all 
 things a peaceful one; at least as such they had per- 
 sisted in speciously representing it to the people. 
 Concessions They consciously or unconsciously expected that con- 
 expecte . cessions would be made by the general government. 
 They had expected the support of some of the States 
 and of the President, and they had not received it. If 
 Jackson had not taken a determined stand, or if he had 
 remained indifferent, as in the case of Georgia, this 
 action of the leaders on January 21 would scarcely have 
 been taken. Nor, in all probability, would South 
 Carolina have yielded so hurriedly if there had been no 
 indications whatever that Congress would pass a satis- 
 factory tariff bill. 
 
 In fact, for several months there had been clear and 
 unmistakable indications of a reaction against the pro- 
 tective policy. President Jackson, in his first three 
 messages, had recommended reform, indicating the 
 lines along which action should proceed.^ As early 
 as March, 1832, Judge Baldwin had formulated a plan 
 New tariff for settling the tariff question. It was simply to re- 
 duce all duties to the uniform rate of 20 per cent. 
 This plan, having the entire approval and support of 
 the President, was submitted to Hayne and McDuffie. 
 They showed no enthusiasm over it, and did not say 
 whether they would support it or not.^ McDuffie, 
 Chairman of the Committee on Ways and Means, had 
 only the month before introduced a bill with a long 
 report, practically proposing to reduce all duties to I2| 
 per cent.^ Then followed the election of 1832; and it 
 was found that a majority of the candidates who were 
 in favor of reform had been successful, and would take 
 
 * Statesman's Manual, II. 703, 704, 748-750, 763, 764. 
 ' John Quincy Adams, Memoirs, VIII. 482. 
 
 * House Reports, 22 Cong., i sess., II., No. 279 (1831-32) ; Con- 
 gressional Debates, 22 Cong., I sess., 1763 (1831-32). 
 
 bUls. 
 
1832-33] TARIFF BILLS. 12$ 
 
 their seats in the fall of 1833. This strengthened Jack- 
 son's expressions in his fourth message,^ and had a per- 
 ceptible influence on the protective leaders. 
 
 The drift of public sentiment could no longer be dis- Administra- 
 , , T , • 1 • r T-. u tion tariff bill. 
 
 regarded. Jackson, in his message 01 December 4, 
 
 devoted more space to the tariff. He recommended a 
 cautious reduction of the whole range of duties to a 
 revenue standard. The public debt would practically 
 be extinguished by January i, 1833, and thus a con- 
 siderable burden on the revenue would be taken off. 
 On December 2^, the Verplanck Bill, favored by the 
 administration, was reported in the House. This bill 
 proposed a considerable immediate reduction of duties, 
 with still further reduction in 1834- This was a decided 
 blow at protection. The bill was, however, defeated 
 by skilful manoeuvring : debate dragged along ; amend- 
 ments were proposed and carried through ; and finally 
 the bill became almost unrecognizable. At last, on 
 February 12, Clay asked permission to introduce a tariff Clay's 
 measure. Calhoun seconded Clay's efforts ; and the ^^P"""^ 
 compromise measure was ushered in. Calhoun ap- 
 proved of the general objects for which the bill was 
 introduced. He was no advocate of any policy by 
 which manufacturing interests would sustain a rude 
 shock. While he objected to many of the details, 
 he thought that, as a spirit of mutual compromise 
 should prevail, no difficulty would arise in settling dif- 
 fcrences.2 The measure was railroaded through Con- 
 gress, having been before it only two weeks when it 
 was passed in both Houses, February, 26, 1833. 
 
 A few days after the passage of the measure, Cal- Calhoun's 
 houn specified the details to which he had objected. 
 He thought the reduction too slow in the first period, 
 
 * Statesman's Afanual, II. 785, 786. ' ^ 
 
 * Congressional Debates, 22 Cong., 2 sess.,477, 478, 791 (1832-33). 
 
 cnticism. 
 
126 
 
 ISSUE JOINED. 
 
 [ch. vir. 
 
 Issue of 
 resistance. 
 
 Calhoun 
 yields. 
 
 and eventually too rapid, and the time for final re- 
 duction too remote. By the terms of the bill, all the 
 duties imposed by the act of 1832 exceeding 20 per 
 cent were to have y^ of all excess over 20 per cent taken 
 off every second year, beginning January i, 1834, and 
 continuing till 1840. Then two sharp reductions were 
 to take place, and after July I, 1842, duties would stand 
 at the uniform rate of 20 per cent. Home valuation, 
 another objectionable feature, had been provided for by 
 amendment at a late stage in the progress of the bill, 
 and was intended to render the measure more accept- 
 able to the protectionists. Calhoun had immediately 
 declared that such an amendment could not be ac- 
 cepted: it was unconstitutional. Senator Clayton how- 
 ever at once declared that either that clause or nothing 
 would be offered. If South CaroUna accepted the bill 
 as thus amended, she would have a pretext for re- 
 scinding her Ordinance ; if she rejected it, she would 
 be forced into a conflict with the general government, 
 or make herself ridiculous. The South Carolina rep- 
 resentatives declared that the alternative presented was 
 one of acceptance or secession.^ They would accept 
 the measure as a peace offering. Calhoun was un- 
 doubtedly very much disturbed by the prospect of a 
 collision between his State and the central government, 
 and on this account was disposed to compromise. But 
 the principal reason why he threw his influence in favor 
 of the compromise measure was that it approximated 
 very closely to what he had desired. 
 
 Seven years later,^ Calhoun indicated what terms he 
 would have proposed and "dictated" if circumstances 
 had not prevented: to allow till 1840 for the reduction, 
 taking off annually ^ of all duties in excess of 1 5 per cent. 
 
 * See Speeches by Stephen D. Miller and Robert VV. Barnwell 
 in Convention ^1833, pp. 16-18. 
 
 ^ Congressional Globe, 26 Cong., i sess., 97 (1839-40). 
 
1833] COMPROMISE MEASURE. 12/ 
 
 He asserted that no gratitude was due to Clay for his part 
 in that struggle ; that he had the mastery over him on 
 that occasion: Clay had compromised to save himself; 
 for he would have experienced difficulty in bringing 
 even his constituents to sustain his previous system. 
 But the principal fact was that Jackson by means of his 
 Proclamation had drawn round him Clay's supporters. 
 Jackson and Webster were then in combination, and all 
 the advantage would have accrued to Webster if the 
 controversy had ended without a compromise. 
 
 The passage of the tariff measure was only one part Olive branch 
 of the program which the leaders of the dominant com- sword, 
 bination had laid out. More important was the passage 
 of a measure for more effectually securing the collection 
 of the revenue. There was a disposition on the part of 
 Congress and the President to go to some length to ap- 
 pease South Carolina ; but there was also a determination 
 that the supremacy of the federal government should in 
 any case be recognized and sustained. In fact, there 
 were those who, like Webster, would have preferred 
 first to compel submission to the federal laws, and then 
 to make whatever alterations in those laws expediency 
 might dictate.^ But as it was, concession and compul- 
 sion went hand in hand : the Compromise Measure and 
 the Force Bill received the President's signature on the 
 same day. The President in his message to Congress, 
 December 4, had promised, as has been stated,^ that, if 
 difficulties should be experienced in executing the laws, 
 he would give prompt notice and would suggest the 
 course to be pursued. On January 16, 1833, having re- 
 ceived the documents embodying the acts of the South 
 Carolina authorities, he submitted to Congress a long 
 message, in which the condition of affairs was described 
 and additional powers asked for. The provisions of 
 
 ^ Lodge, Webster, p. 223. ^ See above, page 125. 
 
128 ISSUE JOINED. [Ch. VIL 
 
 Jackson the acts passed by the South Carolina Legislature to 
 
 authority? enforce the Ordinance were presented at some length, 
 and an argument was advanced to show that the Con- 
 stitution was competent for its own defence. Authority 
 was asked to alter or abolish certain ports of entry, and 
 to use the regular forces and the militia to protect the 
 officers of customs in the discharge of their duties, if 
 necessary. Finally, it was suggested that it might be 
 desirable to revive the sixth section of the act of 
 March 3, 181 5, and to provide that, where suit was 
 brought in the State courts against an individual for 
 an act done under a law of the United States, the case 
 might be removed into the United States Circuit Court 
 without a copy ot the record ; that individuals acting 
 under the United States laws and receiving injuries for 
 disobedience of the State laws, might seek redress in 
 the federal courts; and that the marshals might be 
 authorized to make provision for keeping prisoners.-' 
 'The Bloody On January 21, the very day of the irregular sus- 
 pension of the Ordinance by the State Rights leaders, 
 a bill embodying the foregoing recommendations was 
 introduced into the Senate by Wilkins of Pennsylvania, 
 Chairman of the Judiciary Committee. Immediately 
 there began a bitter opposition on the part of Calhoun 
 and the other South Carolina leaders. Wilkins advo- 
 cated the passage of the bill in a speech in which he 
 attacked the doctrine of nullification. On the 22d, 
 Calhoun set up his line of opposition in a set of reso- 
 lutions on his favorite topic, of the relation between 
 the States and the general government.^ If his views 
 were sound, there could not be found in the Consti- 
 tution any authority for granting what Jackson asked. 
 On February 15 and 16, Calhoun delivered an elab- 
 
 * States77tan'' s Manual, II. 808-826. 
 
 ^ Congressional Debates, 22 Cong., 2 sess., 191 (1832-33). 
 
 Bill." 
 
1833] FORCE BILL. 1 29 
 
 orate speech on the Force Bill. It placed at the Calhoun 
 disposal of the President, he maintained, the army, P'^^'^^^* 
 the navy, and the entire militia of the nation to make 
 war against a sovereign State, not as a State, but 
 as an aggregation of outlaws.^ It did not, in fact, 
 do so reputable a thing: it did not declare war; it 
 decreed a massacre. South Carolina would resist its 
 enforcement to death itself. Webster followed Cal- 
 houn, but did not reply to his remarks on the Force 
 Bill. He drifted off into a discussion of secession and 
 nullification, placing the controversy back on the higher 
 and more extensive ground mapped out by Calhoun on 
 January 22.^ Calhoun rejoined on February 26, restat- 
 ing his old arguments.^ Two days later, he declared 
 that South Carolina would not attempt to stop the pro- 
 ceedings of the federal courts, but would maintain the 
 authority of her own judiciary. South Carolina would 
 employ force only to resist force. He regretted that 
 she could not appeal to the sense of justice of the 
 general government. 
 
 In the House, the South Carolina Representatives South 
 were more fiery. " The President," cried out Warren standrout 
 R. Davis, " is impatient to wreak his vengeance on 
 South Carolina. Be it so. Pass your measure, sir; 
 unchain your tiger; let loose your war dogs as soon 
 as you please." He knew his State, he said ; she would 
 resist the bill with scorn and indignation, whether the 
 compromise measure were passed or not. South Caro- 
 lina had received the insolent mandate of the President 
 commanding her to retrace her steps, and for answer 
 she sent him back the message from Utica to Caesar : 
 " Bid him disband his legions ; restore the common- 
 wealth to liberty; abide the judgment of the Roman 
 
 1 Congressional Debates, 22 Cong., 2 sess., 535, 536 (1832-33). 
 a Ibid., 553-587. • Ibid., 750-774- 
 
 9 
 
130 
 
 ISSUE JOINED. 
 
 [Ch. VII. 
 
 McDuffie's 
 protest. 
 
 Convention 
 called again. 
 
 Convention 
 reassembles. 
 
 Senate ; and strive to gain the pardon of the Roman 
 people." ^ On the day the measure passed, the ques- 
 tion of its title being before the House, McDuffie rose 
 to perform a solemn duty. The House was about to 
 destroy the rights of the State, was about to bury the 
 Constitution. He asked the poor privilege of writing 
 its epitaph. He then proposed to amend the title of 
 the bill by substituting " An Act to Subvert the Sov- 
 ereignty of the States of this Union, to Establish a 
 Consolidated Union Without Limitation of Powers, 
 and to Make the Civil Subordinate to the Military 
 Power." 2 All declarations and all arguments availed 
 nothing. The bill passed both Houses, March i, 1833, 
 and on the following day was sent to the President for 
 his signature. 
 
 It now remained to see what South Carolina would 
 do in her sovereign capacity. On February 5, the presi- 
 dent of the Convention, Ex-Governor James Hamilton, 
 was officially informed of the arrival of Benjamin Wat- 
 kins Leigh, the commissioner of the Commonwealth of 
 Virginia, bearing the resolutions soliciting South Caro- 
 lina to rescind or suspend her Ordinance till after the 
 adjournment of Congress.^ The resolutions were ac- 
 companied by a request from the commissioner that 
 the Convention be called together at an early moment 
 President Hamilton thought that no action would be 
 taken on the proposition submitted till it was known 
 what Congress would do, and therefore, in the procla- 
 mation which he issued on February 13, he named March 
 II as the day for reassembling. 
 
 At noon on the appointed day the delegates gathered 
 in the hall of the House of Representatives.* Hamil- 
 
 1 Congressional Debatesy 22 Cong., 2 sess., 1769, 1770(1832-33). 
 
 * Ibid., 1903. 
 
 ' Journal of the South Carolina Convention ^^1833, p. 12. . 
 
 * For the proceedings see \\\q Journal of the Convention. 
 
1833] ORDINANCE RESCINDED. 13I 
 
 ton, who, as Governor of the State, had been chosen 
 president of the Convention at the first session, resigned ; 
 and Governor Robert Y. Hayne was immediately elected 
 to fill the vacancy. The Virginia commissioner was 
 invited within the bar, and every courtesy extended to 
 him. Calhoun, who had hastened from Washington 
 after the adjournment of Congress, to use his influence 
 to have the convention accept the compromise meas- 
 ure, was invited to a seat on the floor and attracted a 
 great deal of attention. A committee of twenty-one 
 was instructed to take into consideration the communi- 
 cation from Virginia, and all other matters involved in 
 the controversy, and to suggest the course the con- 
 vention should pursue. On the i8th, the committee 
 brought in an Ordinance rescinding the Ordinance of Ordinance 
 November 24, 1832, and all acts of the Legislature 
 passed in pursuance thereof except the act amending 
 the militia laws ; accompanying the Ordinance was an 
 elaborate report on the compromise measure. The re- 
 scinding Ordinance was adopted March 15, by a vote of 
 153 to 4. 
 
 The Convention was convinced that the attitude of ^yhowas 
 South Carolina had been the one factor in bringing 
 about the reform of the tariff, and that therefore a glo- 
 rious victory had been won. South Carolina, said 
 Governor Hayne, had not obtained all she had a right 
 to demand ; but such an opportunity was offered for 
 adjusting the controversy that, consistently with her pre- 
 vious representations, she could not do otherwise than 
 take advantage of it. It was generally claimed that 
 the State had obtained substantially what she had con- 
 tended for during the ten preceding years. Some ex- 
 treme members were inclined to deny that any triumph 
 worth speaking of had been achieved ; but the majority 
 echoed the sentiments of Turnbull, who declared that it 
 was no little victory to have " foiled the barbarian fury" 
 
132 
 
 ISSUE JOINED. 
 
 [Ch. VII. 
 
 Coercion 
 ignored. 
 
 Force Bill 
 nullified. 
 
 of General Jackson. " With but our one-gun battery 
 of Nullification, we have driven the enemy from his 
 moorings, compelled him to slip his cables and put to 
 sea." In these boasting moods, the nullifiers evidently 
 confined their thoughts solely to the tariff issue. They 
 would have experienced some embarrassment in admit- 
 ting other considerations just at that time. What had 
 become of all their dread of consolidation? What had 
 they meant by asserting that they were not fighting 
 merely over a scale of duties, but over great principles? 
 What of their subsequent declarations that the struggle 
 had only begun? What of the Force Bill? Was it 
 not the most striking embodiment of centralizing ten- 
 dencies that had yet been made? What would they 
 do with it? 
 
 Some said that it was a dead letter, and needed no 
 attention ; but the committee of twenty-one thought 
 differently. It submitted a long report, declaring that 
 the act established a dangerous precedent ; that it was 
 permanent, and might be put into operation at any 
 time ; and its object was to consolidate the government. 
 It was recommended that the Convention nullify it, in 
 other words, that the Convention declare the law void 
 within the limits of South Carolina, and require the 
 Legislature to take the necessary steps to prevent its 
 enforcement, and to inflict the proper penalty on any 
 person doing any act in pursuance of it. What would 
 be the proper penalty to inflict on the army and navy, 
 and the militia? McDuffie ridiculed the proposed Or- 
 dinance, asking how the committee would nullify the 
 army provision of the Force Bill. The Convention ac- 
 cepted the recommendation of the committee, and, on 
 March i8, adopted both the report and the Anti-Force 
 Bill Ordinance^ by a vote of 132 to 19. On the same 
 day the Convention dissolved, and the State's interests 
 * See Appendix B. 
 
1S33] FORCE BILL NULLIFIED. I33 
 
 were once more intrusted to her ordinary authorities. Convention 
 It had been the wish of some delegates that the Con- dissolved, 
 vention should continue its existence so that it might 
 be ready to aid Georgia in the Cherokee controversy ; 
 but General Hamilton disposed of this by remarking 
 that the *' good king " would not " touch a hair " on 
 Georgia's head. The " amiable monarch," he observed, 
 had two measures of justice, one for Georgia and an- 
 other for South Carolina. 
 
CHAPTER VIII. 
 
 SIGNIFICANCE OF NULLIFICATION, 
 
 A victory for 
 the Union. 
 
 Tariff rates. 
 
 The struggle was thus brought to a close ; and what 
 had it settled? What had been gained by a resort to 
 such an unusual remedy, that could not have been 
 accomplished through the ordinary channels? Which 
 side had really come out of the controversy victorious? 
 
 All things considered, it must be admitted that the 
 issue of the controversy was decidedly a victory for the 
 general government, at least so far as principles are 
 concerned. It is true that the State's immediate griev- 
 ance had been partially removed, that the tariff sys- 
 tem had undergone a considerable degree of alteration ; 
 but the reform was not by any means so thorough- 
 going as South Carolina had demanded. On February 
 8, 1832, McDuffie, Chairman of the Committee of Ways 
 and Means, had submitted to the House, as has been 
 indicated,^ a tariff bill which, in substance, proposed to 
 reduce all duties on imports to 125^ per cent ad valorem?' 
 and this bill the South Carolina State Rights and Free 
 Trade Convention of 1832 formally approved as indicat- 
 ing the true constitutional point to which duties might 
 fall. The measure, which the nullifiers paraded as a 
 trophy at the close of the struggle, provided for only a 
 very gradual reduction of duties ; and only at the end of 
 
 * See page 124. 
 
 2 Congressional Debates^ 22 Cong., i sess., 1763 (1831-32). Mc- 
 Duffie and three other Southern members constituted the majority 
 of the committee. 
 
1833] NATIONAL SUPREMACY MAINTAINED. 135 
 
 nine years was the uniform rate of 20 per cent to be 
 reached. It would seem that the nulHfiers should at 
 least have restrained their enthusiasm within bounds. 
 
 Furthermore, it would be far from the truth to say Convention 
 that the action of Congress in 1833 is to be attributed "o^ 'decisive, 
 solely to the attitude of South Carolina. It has already 
 been pointed out that the conditions were ripe for 
 reform. South Carolina's opposition at most did little 
 more than hasten what, in all probability, must have 
 come about within a comparatively short time. The 
 revenue of the government under the tariff of 1832 was 
 too large for its necessities, and needed to be reduced. 
 
 But this is not all. If we may believe the declara- National 
 tions of the leaders of the nullifiers before and after the-^"^'^^'"*^^* 
 compromise, the mere question of a scale of duties was 
 an insignificant element in the struggle. Whether the 
 general government or the State was supreme, whether 
 the Constitution made a nation or a league, whether 
 there should be a government of the majority or a gov- 
 ernment of the minority, whether each State should 
 hold its destiny in its own hands, whether any opening 
 should remain through which attacks might be directed 
 against the peculiar institution of the South, — all these 
 made up the real issue, and all these, except one per- 
 haps, had been emphatically decided against the State, 
 so far as they could be decided peaceably. 
 
 As for the unique doctrine on which the State had Nullification 
 placed her reliance, had it not broken down at every * ^* ^^^' 
 point, and had not the expectations of all its advocates 
 been disappointed ? The leaders entered upon the 
 struggle confidently reckoning upon the sympathy of 
 the Executive ; and we find the President up in arms 
 and determined at every hazard to maintain the suprem- 
 acy of the Union. South Carolina looked for the en- 
 couragement and support of her sister States ; and yet 
 her measures were buried beneath the logic and indig- 
 
reaifirmed. 
 
 136 SIGNIFICANCE. [Ch. VIII. 
 
 nation of twenty-three out of twenty-four of them. 
 The remedy was to be above all things peaceful ; and 
 yet it became evident that it could be enforced only at 
 the risk of a civil war. The nullifiers expected the united 
 support of the people of South Carolina; and yet, with 
 all the pressure that was brought to bear, they were 
 able to command for their measures only a majority. 
 Where, then, was there a justification for the boasting 
 over the outcome ? Surely Robert Barnwell Smith 
 (Rhett) was right for once when he told the Convention 
 of 1833 that little could be found that furnished " cause 
 for a congratulation and triumph." 
 The doctrine Still South Carolina continued to boast of the glori- 
 ous stand she had made for hberty in 1832, and appar- 
 ently retained the highest opinion of her remedy. She 
 did not bring herself to the point of resorting to it 
 again, but she brought it out on more than one occa- 
 sion, and held it up as a threat to the protectionists. 
 During the tariff discussion in Congress in 1842, there 
 was again talk in South Carolina of nullifying any 
 measure that might be passed ; and the State Legis- 
 lature went so far as to assert the validity of the 
 nullification doctrine.^ The people of the State had 
 come to regard the compromise measure as a treaty 
 " made between belligerent parties with arms in their 
 hands, — solemnly ratified by the federal government on 
 the one part, and the Convention of South Carolina 
 on the other, and deposited among the archives of our 
 country " ; and therefore, when it seemed probable that 
 a high protective measure would be forced upon them 
 in 1842, their indignation knew no bounds. 
 
 Governor Hammond touched on the question in 1844, 
 and explained why South Carolina did not resort to nul- 
 
 ^ Laws of South Carolina (1842), and Messages of Governors 
 Henagan, Richardson, and Hammond, 1840, 1841, 1844. See 
 Appendices C and D below. 
 
1833-44] NULLIFICATION REAFFIRMED. 1 37 
 
 lification in 1842. The State, he said, was then closely Tariff of 1842. 
 united to the Democratic party on certain questions of 
 great moment, and this party had carried the Congres- 
 sional elections by a large majority. South Carolina 
 had awaited the action of the new Congress. But the 
 new Congress introduced no reforms, and Governor 
 Hammond reminded the State that she was bound by 
 her history and her principles to bring all her resources 
 to bear against the established policy, even physical 
 force if necessary. The possibility that the protective 
 policy might be continued when the year approached 
 for the uniform rate of 20 per cent to take effect, was 
 present in the minds of some of the leaders in 1833; 
 and James Hamilton, Jr., in the Convention of that year, 
 had introduced a resolution pledging the State to resist, 
 in such a contingency, by interposition or by any other . 
 mode she might deem expedient. The Convention, 
 however, thought the resolution inexpedient, and voted 
 not to consider it.^ 
 
 It remains now to point out certain general effects of Effects of the 
 the nullification controversy, and to suggest its connec- <^°"t''oversy. 
 tion with the subsequent history of South Carolina. 
 Attention has already been called to the fact that a 
 conviction had grown up that the interests of the North 
 and the South were diametrically opposed. The con- 
 troversy undoubtedly served to deepen and strengthen 
 this conviction. Connected with this variance, and es- 
 pecially worthy of notice as a result of the struggle, is 
 the alienation of the greater part of the people of South 
 Carolina from the general government, and a disposition 
 to look to secession as an ultimate necessity. '' 
 
 At an early stage of the struggle the value of any 
 connection with the Union at all had been called into 
 question, and this fact had aroused Calhoun to the 
 
 1 Proceediftgs of the Convention ^1833, p. 6. 
 
 / 
 
138 
 
 SIGNIFICANCE. 
 
 [Ch. VIII. 
 
 Early dis- 
 unionists. 
 
 Secession 
 aftirmed. 
 
 necessity of taking some positive step. At a meeting 
 in Columbia in the summer of 1827, President Cooper, 
 of the South Carolina College, had stirred up no little 
 excitement by concluding his speech as follows : " I 
 have said that we shall, erelong, be compelled to cal- 
 culate the value of our Union ; and to inquire of what 
 use to us is this most unequal alliance by which the 
 South has always been the loser and the North always 
 the gainer? Is it worth our while to continue this 
 union of States where the North demand to be our mas- 
 ters and we are required to be their tributaries } Who, 
 with the most insulting mockery, call the yoke they put 
 upon us the American System ! The question, how- 
 ever, is fast approaching to the alternative, submission 
 or separation."^ In 1828, James Hamilton, in his 
 Walterbo rough speech, had echoed this sentiment; and 
 before 1833 speaker after speaker had repeated it with 
 greater emphasis. More important, however, are the 
 formal expressions of the representative bodies of the 
 State as to the right of secession. So far as appears, 
 the first formal declaration of the right of secession was 
 made in a set of resolutions adopted by the Legislature, 
 December 20, 1828. Of course the adoption of the 
 " Exposition " of that year formally committed the 
 State to the doctrine. We have other declarations in 
 
 183 1 and 1832; 2 and the Ordinance of nullification of 
 
 1832 asserted the right, but made its exercise contingent 
 on the action of the general government. 
 
 1 Niles Register, XXXIII. 27-32. 
 
 ' South Carolina Laws (1828), p. 197 ; Ibid. (1831), p. 29 ; Ibid.^ 
 (1832), p. 29. In tlie set of resolutions adopted in 1832 we find 
 the following : " Each State of the Union has the right, whenever 
 it may deem such a course necessary for the preservation of its 
 liberty or its interest, to secede peaceably from the Union, and 
 that there is no constitutional power in the general government, 
 much less in the Executive Department, to retain, by force, such 
 State in the Union." 
 
1827-33] lilGHT OF SECESSION AFFIRMED. 1 39 
 
 It is undoubtedly true that the right of secession was 
 more generally admitted than was the right of nullifica- 
 tion. Such men, for instance, as William Drayton and 
 Langdon Cheves rejected the latter doctrine, but un- 
 qualifiedly accepted the former.^ Langdon Cheves Langdon 
 opposed nullification mainly on the ground of ex- ^^^^* 
 pediency. His proposal was to take measures to secure 
 the union of the Southern States, and to do nothing 
 without their co-operation ; for resistance by a single 
 State would be abortive. The question, he said, was Southern 
 a great Southern question. " We cannot, therefore, proposed 
 either in policy or justice, in my opinion, act without 
 seeking or awaiting their co-operation. This is the 
 more imperiously our duty, if we rely upon their co- 
 operation in any difficulties which may involve the 
 employment of national force. I therefore deprecate a 
 separate state action on the part of this State, at this 
 time, as premature and impolitic." ^ Whether or not 
 Cheves, before the struggle was over, would have been 
 glad to see the Southern States unite and secede, is a 
 matter of some doubt. In 1830 he thought that, if the 
 union was effected, secession would not be necessary, 
 because the demands of the South would be conceded. 
 But we certainly find him a few years later advocating 
 
 * Drayton, speaking at a State Rights and Free Trade Celebra- 
 tion held in Charleston in 1830, said: " A crisis might arise when 
 the bonds of union ought to be broken. The right of the state to 
 secede from the Union, I unqualifiedly concede ; but so long as she 
 belongs to it, if she be not bound by its laws, the monstrous 
 anomalies would exist of a government where acts were not obli- 
 gatory upon its citizens, and of a state constituting one of the 
 members of the union whilst denying the authority of its laws." 
 Proceedings of the State Rights Celebration at Char/eston, ]u]y i, 
 1830: Nullification Tracts (Boston Athenaeum, Library No. B, 
 1065). 
 
 2 /did. See also a letter of Cheves in Thomas, Reminiscences 
 and Sketches, II. 232. 
 
140 
 
 SIGNIFICANCE. 
 
 [Ch. VIII. 
 
 Disunionists 
 of 1833. 
 
 South Caro- 
 lina an armed 
 camp. 
 
 union for another purpose, and the part he played in 
 the Nashville Convention of 1848 is very well known. 
 
 Whatever the truth with regard to Cheves, there 
 certainly were men in the State who were openly in 
 favor of disunion in 1833. Phillips, of Chesterfield 
 County, told the Convention of that year that there 
 were honest men in his neighborhood standing aloof 
 from both the unionists and the nullifiers, waiting for 
 the formation of a party which would " go boldly and 
 openly for disunion." ^ And there were many more 
 who believed that the attempt to secede would have to 
 be made at no distant day. Judge Harper cautioned 
 the Convention which rescinded the Nullification Ordi- 
 nance that they were at the beginning, not at the end of 
 the contest. ** In less than another year, we may be 
 called to arms. . . . All men agree that we cannot 
 safely intermit our military preparations. I myself 
 believe that a contest will come at no distant day." ^ 
 Robert Barnwell Smith represented the extremists. He 
 could scarcely contain himself when he heard the senti- 
 ment expressed in a report submitted to the convention 
 of 1833 that " ardently attached to the union of these 
 States, the people of South Carolina were still more 
 devoted to the rights of the States." He could not play 
 the hypocrite, he said. He believed that he expressed 
 the feelings of his constituents when he declared that 
 under the government as administered there was no 
 ardent attachment on their part for the Union ; South 
 Carolina had no rights under the Union but such as she 
 was prepared to maintain by force ; and South Carolina 
 therefore must be an armed camp.^ 
 
 McDuffie declared that there was in the government a 
 proclivity to consolidation. The Southern States were, 
 by their peculiar interests and institutions, the sentinels 
 
 ^ Proceedings of the Convention ^1833, p. 66. 
 2 Ibid., 52. ' Ibid., 24-27. 
 
183CK60.] SECESSION THE LOGICAL OUTCOME. I4I 
 
 of liberty. He would bid them with his last breath " to McDuffie 
 act as if the day were at hand when they must defend disunion, 
 their freedom," The vigilance of the people of South 
 Carolina must not be abated. " I tell them we have 
 greater need to be prepared to defend ourselves against 
 these people than against a foreign enemy. I have 
 heard them even in Congress talk openly of attacking 
 us; and that in a manner, with exultation, that would 
 render fiends themselves as fit confederates for us as 
 these men. Without such preparations, and without a 
 strong military spirit, no people ever yet maintained 
 its liberties. But all our peculiar circumstances — all 
 our institutions — render a thorough system of defence 
 absolutely indispensable to our safety as well as freedom. 
 Our militia should be as well trained as the armies of 
 Napoleon." ^ 
 
 All this was not mere talk. We must bear in mind 
 the attention that was bestowed upon the militia after Secession 
 1832; and we should not lose sight of the abolition oiTtcome.^ 
 movement, which had begun to make itself felt in a 
 very disagreeable manner. This movement, coming just 
 when it did, when the people of South Carolina were 
 already uneasy and irritated, prevented any considerable 
 abatement of feeling, and added volume to the current 
 that was to sweep the State out of the Union in i860. 
 The secession movement was well defined in South 
 Carolina as early as 1830. 
 
 * Proceedings of the Convention o/iS^Z, p- 41. 
 
4 
 
APPENDIX A. 
 
 CALHOUN'S STATEMENT OF HIS CONSTITUTIONAL 
 PRINCIPLES, 1824. 
 
 Washington, D. C, July 3, 1824. 
 
 My Dear Sir: — In asking my opinion of the Con- 
 stitution, I understand you to refer to that portion of 
 the instrument which relates to State rights, and in 
 complying with your request I will accordingly Hmit 
 my observations to that point of view. 
 
 If there is one portion of the Constitution which I 
 most admire, it is the distribution of power between the 
 States and general Government. It is the only portion 
 that is novel and peculiar. The rest has been more or 
 less compiled. This is our invention and is altogether 
 our own, and I consider it to be the greatest improve- 
 ment which has been made in the science of government, 
 after the division of power into the legislative, executive, 
 and judicial. Without it, free states in the present con- 
 dition of the world could not exist, or must have existed 
 without safety or responsibility. If limited to a small 
 territory, they must be crushed by the great monarchial 
 powers or exist only at their discretion ; but if extended 
 over a great surface, the concentration of power and pat- 
 ronage necessary for government would speedily end in 
 terror. It is only by this admirable distribution that a 
 great extent of territory, with a proportional population 
 and power, can be reconciled with freedom, and conse- 
 quently that safety and respectability be given to free 
 States. As much then as I value freedom, in the same 
 degree do I value State rights. But it is not only in the 
 
144 APPENDIX A. 
 
 abstract that I admire the distribution of power between 
 the general Government and the States. I approve of 
 the actual distribution of the two powers which is made 
 by our Constitution. Were it in my power, I would 
 make no change. 
 
 These remarks bring me to the question which I 
 suppose you had more immediately in view. I mean 
 that of the construction of the Constitution, or, in other 
 words, how ought the line which separates the powers 
 of the general and State Governments to be drawn 
 where it is not distinctly delineated by the instrument 
 itself. I can give but one solution to this interesting 
 question, and that is, it ought to be drawn in the spirit 
 of the instrument itself. I know that there has been 
 an anxious desire among many of our best patriots to 
 devise some one general and artificial rule of construc- 
 tion to be applied to any portion of the Constitution, 
 but I cannot persuade myself that it is practicable, and 
 believe that all such attempts must end in weakening 
 rather than strengthening the rights of the States. It 
 has been said, for instance, that the construction ought 
 to be invariably rigid against the power of the general 
 Government. The rule allows no discretion, but must 
 be applied with equal severity to any portion of the 
 Constitution, — to that which delegates power acknowl- 
 edged by all to be essential to the safety of the nation, 
 and to that which provides checks against the abuse of 
 such power. I feel confident that such an application 
 of the rule (and without it, it is nothing) must lead into 
 perpetual difficulty and contradiction, which must finally 
 bring into discredit those who act on it, and thereby 
 weaken their authority when it may be most required. 
 Believing that no general and artificial rule can be 
 devised that will not act mischievously in its application, 
 I am forced to the result that any doubtful portion of 
 the Constitution must be construed by itself in reference 
 
CALHOUN'S CONSTITUTIONAL PRINCIPLES. I45 
 
 to the true meaning and intent of the framers of the 
 instrument; and consequently that the construction 
 must, in each part, be more or less rigid, as may be 
 necessary to effect the intention. 
 
 Such being my general principles, it only remains, in 
 complying with your request, to apply them to what 
 I have said or done since I have been in public life in 
 order to test their practical application, and I think it 
 may be said with confidence that I have never uttered 
 a sentence in any speech, report, or word in conversation 
 that could give offence to the most ardent defender of 
 State rights. On this point my character has been 
 grossly misrepresented to the people of Virginia. Feel- 
 ing the profoundest respect for the States, and believ- 
 ing their honor not to be greater than it ought to be, 
 I have at least never spoken disrespectfully of them, or 
 endeavored to establish principles that would weaken 
 them ; and for the truth of the assertion I appeal with 
 confidence to my opinions as recorded, both in my 
 speeches and reports. I have gone through a short, 
 but active political life, and in trying times, and if hostile 
 to the rights of the States, some evidence must be found 
 of it in one or the other. If, then, I have given offence, 
 it must be by my acts, and by them I am willing to be 
 tried, and, if I mistake not, I have never done an act 
 which, if condemned in me, Mr. Jefferson, Mr. Madison, 
 and Mr. Monroe must not (?) be equally condemned. 
 There are none of mine which are not covered by the 
 example of deliberate acts of these enlightened states- 
 men. For example, I am accused of advocating the 
 power of Congress to incorporate a National Bank ; but 
 those who make the accusation, and who profess to 
 admire Mr. Madison and Mr. Jefferson, seem to forget 
 that I had the weight of their authority with me. The 
 former approved the bill which I contributed to pass, 
 and the latter approved of one which extended a branch 
 
146 APPENDIX A. 
 
 of the old United States Bank to New Orleans. Must 
 I then be judged more rigidly than these old Republican 
 veterans, and they be excused for what I am con- 
 demned? Is this the justice of the ancient dominion? 
 
 Nor is there anything in the principle on which I 
 advocated the passage of the bank bill calculated to 
 give offence. I said nothing on the Constitution. I left 
 each member to make up his own opinion on that point. 
 I felt satisfied that the power existed, but at the same 
 time respected those who took the opposite view, for I 
 have always considered the power the least clear of 
 those which have been exercised by Congress. I rested 
 the argument for its passage on the necessity of restor- 
 ing specie payments, at the time the legal currency of 
 the United States had ceased to circulate, and to regu- 
 late, or to fix the value of that which did circulate. In 
 fact, we had no currency but notes of some specie pay- 
 ing banks incorporated by the States, and wholly under 
 their authority. Congress had wholly lost its consti- 
 tutional power over that subject. However brought 
 about, a state of things existed wholly incompatible 
 with the provisions of the Constitution. To give to 
 Congress virtually the power delegated to it by that in- 
 strument of fixing and regulating the value of the cur- 
 rency of the nation was the great object which I had 
 in view in aiding the passage of the bill incorporating 
 the United States Bank, and there certainly is much 
 satisfaction in the reflection that this clearly constitu- 
 tional object has been fully realized. If the measure 
 can ever be justified, it was justifiable in the then exist- 
 ing circumstances. 
 
 It is again objected to me that I am a friend to the 
 system of internal improvements, and that I assist a 
 power in Congress to make roads and canals. Here I 
 may cover myself by the same authority, Mr. Jeffer- 
 son, Mr. Madison, and Mr. Monroe have again and again 
 
CALHOUN'S CONSTITUTIONAL PRINCIPLES. 147 
 
 approved of bills making appropriations for internal im- 
 provements ; nor have I, in any instance, gone beyond 
 their example, though it is true that Mr. Madison rejected 
 the bill which I contributed to pass, and which set aside 
 the bonds of the United States Bank as a fund for inter- 
 nal improvements. It ought, however, to be remem- 
 bered the bill was not presented till the last moment of 
 the session, when, as you know, ... in the multitude of 
 bills presented for consideration, but little time is left 
 for the reflection of the President. I am satisfied that 
 it is owing to that cause that his argument on that occa- 
 sion partakes so Httle of his usual accuracy. In fact, 
 his leading objection that the consent of the States 
 could give no constitutional power, was misapplied. 
 The truth is that the bill did not even make an appro- 
 priation of money. It simply set aside a certain fund 
 for the purpose of improvements; that is, it provided 
 that it should be appropriated to no other purpose, 
 thus leaving it to be hereafter determined in what man- 
 ner it should be appropriated and applied, whether with 
 or without an amendment of the Constitution, providing 
 only that it should not be applied but by the consent of 
 the States to be affected. 
 
 I think it cannot be doubted that if the power existed 
 in Congress to appropriate money for internal improve- 
 ment for which we have the sanction of the three distin- 
 guished citizens to whom I have referred, there was 
 nothing in the bill to make it unconstitutional. But 
 I am really at a loss to know why this objection should 
 be made against me. What distinguished public man 
 is there now on the stage to whom the same may not be 
 made? And most of them are men much more deeply 
 committed than myself. I have never yet committed 
 myself beyond the mere right of making an appropria- 
 tion. I have nowhere in my public capacity asserted 
 the right of applying money so appropriated without 
 
148 APPENDIX A. 
 
 the consent of the States, or individuals to be affected. 
 I am perfectly open to the examination of that question 
 should I ever be called on to act. It is, however, due 
 to candor to say that my impression is that the power 
 does exist to a certain extent, but as I have always 
 believed that it should not be exercised without a clear 
 necessity, and as I do believe that the mere right of 
 applying our money, not as a sovereign without the 
 consent of those to be affected, but as a mere proprietor 
 with their assent, will be found sufficient in practice, 
 I have carefully abstained from coming to any final 
 conclusion until it becomes absolutely necessary. 
 
 I hope what I have written is sufficiently explicit. 
 It is intended to be perfectly so, but if you should find 
 it not so, I will at all times cheerfully give any addi- 
 tional explanation which you may require. 
 With sincere respect, I am, 
 
 J. C. CALHOUN. 
 
 Letter to Hon. RoBT. S. Garnet, Virginia. Daily 
 Advertiser, Montgomery, Ala., March, 7, 1893. 
 
APPENDIX B. 
 
 ORDINANCE NULLIFYING THE FORCE BILL. 
 
 South Carolina Convention. 
 
 We, the people of the State of South Carolina, in 
 Convention assembled, do declare and ordain that the 
 Act of Congress of the United States, entitled " An 
 Act further to provide for the collection of duties on 
 imports," approved 2nd March, 1833, is unauthorized 
 by the Constitution of the United States, subversive of 
 that instrument, destructive of public liberty, and that 
 the same is and shall be deemed null and void within 
 the limits of this State ; and that it shall be the duty of 
 the Legislature, at such time as they may deem ex- 
 pedient, to adopt such measures and pass such acts as 
 may be necessary to prevent the enforcement thereof, 
 and to inflict proper penalties on any person who shall 
 do any act in executing or enforcing the same within 
 the limits of this State. 
 
 We do further ordain and declare that the allegiance 
 of the citizens of this State, while they continue such, 
 is due to said State; and that obedience only, and not 
 allegiance, is due by them to any other power or author- 
 ity to whom a control over them has been or may 
 be delegated by the State ; and the General Assembly 
 of the said State is hereby empowered from time to time 
 when they deem it proper, to provide for the adminis- 
 tration to the citizens and officers of the State, or such 
 of the said officers as they may think fit, of suitable oaths 
 or affirmations, binding them to the observance of such 
 
150 APPENDIX B. 
 
 allegiance, and abjuring all other allegiance, and also to 
 define what shall amount to a violation of their alle- 
 giance, and to provide the proper punishment for such 
 violation. 
 
 R. Y. Hayne, President. 
 
 Journal of the South Carolina Convention ^/i 833. (March 
 18, 1833.) 
 
APPENDIX C. 
 
 PROTEST AGAINST A PROTECTIVE TARIFF. 
 
 From the Message of Governor Henagan, 1840. 
 
 I MUST confess that I am not so much surprised as 
 pained at this demonstration on the part of one of 
 our sovereign States of this Confederation, to fix again, 
 if possible, this odious system upon us. To this viola- 
 tion of the Constitution, this act of wanton and deliberate 
 injustice, aggravated by the recollection of our former 
 arduous struggle against it, South Carolina will never 
 consent. . . . May Heaven spare us the renewal of 
 those scenes of agitation which lately shook the Union 
 to the centre, and avert that necessity which would force 
 a sovereign State to seek common justice and vindicate 
 her plainest rights by the strength of her own arm. 
 
 South Carolina Laws (1840). 
 
APPENDIX D. 
 
 PROTEST AGAINST THE TARIFF OF 1841. 
 
 From the Message of Governor Richardson, Novem- 
 ber 23, 1841. 
 
 The living generation, who were witnesses of the 
 struggles and pledges in the late contest for her con- 
 stitutional rights, have not yet passed away; the monu- 
 ments of the times have not yet perished ; the very 
 altars consecrated by her vows are still before us ; — 
 even her preparations for defence are still in readiness 
 and requisition ; the age, its records and recollections, 
 have scarcely become a part of history, before the very 
 burdens and oppressions which they were intended to 
 resist are renewed with shameful infidelity, which seeks 
 neither pretext nor justification. A home valuation, 
 cash duties, and an unreasonable and exorbitant reve- 
 nue of more than thirty million dollars, it is believed, 
 are little less onerous in amount, or unconstitutional in 
 effect, than the enormous forty per cent duties which 
 the sovereignty of the State was so sternly interposed 
 to resist; and if, upon the principle of all protective 
 duties, they are destined to increase to an extent and 
 enormity to which our experience in the past as well as 
 the tendency of the times forebodes, then it will be for 
 you to say whether South Carolina has so fallen from 
 her high eminence of sovereignty and independence as 
 to submit by silent acquiescence in these wrongs and 
 grievances, that there is no mode, no remedy, no meas- 
 ure of redress. . . . There can arise no emergency in 
 which the hands and hearts of her citizens would not be 
 invincibly united in her defence. 
 
 South Carolina Laws (1841). 
 
APPENDIX E. 
 
 NULLIFICATION REAFFIRMED. 
 
 Report of the Committee on Federal Relations, 1842. 
 
 Each State of the Union, as an independent party 
 to the contract, had from the beginning, has now, and 
 will retain to the end of time, the undoubted right 
 to resort to this test, to try every law which is passed 
 by the Federal Legislature; and when that body as- 
 sume to make an enactment not sanctioned by that in- 
 strument, the States, by all the settled rules of right, may 
 refuse their sanction and obedience, and say, " Non in haec 
 federa veni." Such we understand to be the fundamen- 
 tal principle of State Rights Democracy. South Caro- 
 lina Laws (1842). 
 
APPENDIX F. 
 
 PROTEST AGAINST THE TARIFF OF 1842. 
 From the Message of Governor Hammond, 1844. 
 
 The proceedings of the last session of Congress 
 form an epoch in our history. With . . . the circum- 
 stances under which the Act of Congress, called the 
 Compromise Act, was passed, you are familiar. That 
 Act was in fact a treaty, made between belligerent par- 
 ties with arms in their hands, solemnly ratified by the 
 federal government, on the one part, and the Conven- 
 tion of the State of South Carolina on the other, and 
 deposited among the archives of our country. . . . By 
 that treaty South Carolina bound herself to submit for 
 nine years longer to an unconstitutional and most op- 
 pressive tariff, in consideration that its exactions should 
 be gradually reduced during that period. ... In 1842 
 the period arrived for the federal government to fulfil 
 its stipulations and reduce the tariff to twenty per cent 
 ad valorem or lower. . . . But, instead of reducing 
 them, the rates of duties were increased ... to a higher 
 point than the tariff which South Carolina had delared 
 null and void within her own limits in 1832 ; which dec- 
 laration led to the Compromise Act. History furnishes 
 no instance of a grosser or more insulting breach of faith, 
 while perhaps no law has ever been enacted by the regular 
 government of a civilized country so subversive of the 
 rights and destructive to the interests of any respectable 
 portion of its people as the tariff of 1842, considered in all 
 its bearings, is to the rights and interests of the planting 
 
PROTEST AGAINST THE TARIFF OF 1842. 15 5 
 
 States of this Confederation. It might naturally have 
 been expected that this State . . . would immediately 
 nullify the Act ; but she did not. Closely united at the 
 time with the great Democratic party of the Union on 
 the general principle of government, and on certain 
 questions of federal policy of the utmost moment, see- 
 ing that this policy had carried the election to the House 
 of Representatives by a large majority, she paused and 
 determined to await the action of another Congress. 
 The new Congress met. . . . Propositions were made in 
 both branches to modify the tariff, and signally defeated. 
 In the House, where the Democratic majority was large, 
 the proposition was disposed of almost without debate ; 
 and a majority of the Democrats north of the Potomac 
 actually voted against it. There seems to be no reason- 
 able or even plausible ground on which to rest a hope 
 that this law . . . will ever be repealed, or reduced to 
 the standard of the compromise. . . . 
 
 Under these circumstances, it devolves on South Caro- 
 lina to decide what course she will pursue in reference to 
 the tariff. ... It appears to me that our State is bound, 
 by her past history and the principle she professes, . . . 
 to adopt such measures as will bring all her moral, con- 
 stitutional, and, if necessary, her physical resources in 
 direct array against a policy which has never been 
 checked but by her interposition, and which impover- 
 ishes our country, revolutionizes our government, and 
 overthrows our liberties. South Carolina Laws (1844). 
 
APPENDIX G. 
 
 BIBLIOGRAPHY OF NULLIFICATION. 
 
 The following is a list of authorities consulted in the 
 preparation of this monograph. 
 
 Adams, John Quincv. The Memoirs of John Quincy Adams 
 Edited by C. F. Adams. 12 vols. Philadelphia, 1876. 
 
 Benton, Thomas Hart. Thirty Years' View ; or, A History 
 of the Working of the American Government for Thirty Years, 
 from 1820 to 1850. 2 vols. New York, 1861, 1862. 
 
 Calhoun, John C. Letter to the Hon. Robert S. Gamett, 
 of Virginia, dated Washington, D. C., July 3, 1824, printed in 
 the Montgomery Daily Advertiser, March 7, 1893. 
 
 Works of John C. Calhoun. Edited by Richard K. 
 
 Crall^. 6 vols. New York, 1883. 
 
 Capers, Henry D. Life and Times of C. G. Memminger. 
 Richmond, 1893. 
 
 Charleston Mercury. July 10, 21, 28, 1826; Dec. 26, 
 1826; June 18, 28, 1828; July 3, 4, 7, 8, 12, 1828; Aug. 4, 
 27, 1828; Sept. 8, 10, 1828; Oct. 9, 1828. 
 
 Chase, George Bigelow. Lowndes of South Carolina. An 
 Historical and Genealogical Memoir. Boston, 1876. 
 
 Columbia Telescope. July 16, 1828. 
 
 Cooper, Thomas. On the Constitution of the United States 
 and the Questions that have arisen on it. Columbia, 1826. 
 (Pamphlet.) 
 
 . A Tract on the proposed Alteration of the Tariff, 
 
 submitted to the Consideration of the Members from South 
 Carolina in the ensuing Congress of 1823-24. Charleston, 
 1823. (Pamphlet.) 
 
 . Account of the Trial of Dr. Thomas Cooper before 
 
BIBLIOGRAPHY OF NULLIFICATION. 157 
 
 the Board of Trustees of the South Carolina College, Dec. 3, 
 1832. (Pamphlet.) 
 
 Davis, Jefferson. The Rise and Fall of the Confederate 
 Government. 2 vols. New York, 1881. 
 
 De Bow, J. D. B. The Political Annals of South Carolina, 
 by a citizen. Charleston, 1845. (Pamphlet.) 
 
 Draper, John W. A History of the Civil War in America. 
 3 vols. New York, 1867-70. 
 
 Elliot, Jonathan. Debates in the Several State Conventions 
 on the Adoption of the Federal Constitution. 5 vols. Wash- 
 ington, 1836. 
 
 Federalist, The. Vol. IX. in Works of Alexander Hamilton. 
 Edited by Henry Cabot Lodge. New York and London, 1886. 
 
 Hamilton, James. Five Letters to Governor Hamilton, 
 by Anti-Guillotine. Charleston, 1831. (Pamphlet.) 
 
 . Speech of James Hamilton, Jr. On the operations 
 
 of the Tariff on the interests of the South and the Constitution- 
 ality of the Means of redressing the grievance. Charleston, 
 1828. (Pamphlet.) 
 
 Hammond, James H. Oration on the Life, Character, and 
 Services of John C.Calhoun, delivered in Charleston, Nov. 21, 
 1850, at the request of the City Council. Charleston, 1850. 
 (Pamphlet.) 
 
 Hare, J. L Clark. American Constitutional Law. 2 vols. 
 Boston, 1889. 
 
 Jefferson, Thomas. The Writings of Thomas Jefferson. 
 Edited by H. A. Washington. 7 vols. Washington, 1853. 
 
 Johnston, Alexander. Representative American Orations 
 to illustrate American Political History, 1 775-1881. 3 vols. 
 New York, 1884. 
 
 Laborde, Maximilian. History of the South Carolina Col- 
 lege, from its Incorporation, December, 19, 1801, to Novem- 
 ber 25, 1857, including Sketches of its President and Professors. 
 Columbia, 1859. 
 
 Lalor, John J. Cyclopaedia of Political Science, Political 
 Economy, and of the Political History of the United States. 
 3 vols. Chicago, 1883, 1884. 
 
158 APPENDIX G. 
 
 Legare, Hugh S. Writings of Hugh Swinton Legar6, con- 
 sisting of a Diary of Brussels and Journal of the Rhine ; 
 Extracts from his Private and Diplomatic Correspondence ; 
 Orations and Speeches ; and Contributions to the New York 
 and Southern Reviews. Prefaced by a Memoir of his Life. 
 Edited by his Sister. 2 vols. Charleston, 1846. 
 
 Lodge, Henry Cabot. Daniel Webster. (American States- 
 men Series.) Boston, 1886. 
 
 Maclav, William. Sketches of Debate in the First United 
 States Senate (i 789-1 791). 
 
 McDuFFiE, George. Eulogy on Hayne. Charleston, 1840. 
 (Pamphlet.) 
 
 . Essays: One of the People. (Pamphlet, 1821.) 
 
 Madison, James. Journal of the Federal Convention. Edited 
 by E. H. Scott. 2 vols. Chicago, 1894. 
 
 . Letters and Other Writings. 4 vols. Philadelphia, 
 
 1865. 
 
 March, Charles W. Reminiscences of Congress. New York, 
 
 1853. 
 
 Morse, J. T., Jr. Thomas Jefferson. (American Statesmen 
 Series.) Boston, 1886. 
 
 Niles' Weekly Register. 1811-1848. 
 
 O'Neall, John Belton. The Bench and Bar of South Caro- 
 lina. 2 vols. Charleston, 1859. 
 
 Perry, Benjamin Franklin. Reminiscences of Public Men. 
 Philadelphia, 1883. 
 
 Poore, Benjamin Perley. Perley's Reminiscences of Sixty 
 Years in the National Metropolis. 2 vols. Philadelphia, 
 1886. 
 
 Preston, H. W. Documents illustrative of American His- 
 tory. 1606-1863. New York, 1886. 
 
 Quincy, Josiah. Figures of the Past from the Leaves of old 
 Journals. Boston, 1883. 
 
 Richardson, J. S. An Address to the People. Camden 
 Journal, 1830. 
 
 Roosevelt, Theodore. Thomas H. Benton. (American 
 Statesmen Series.) Boston and New York, 1890. 
 
BIBLIOGRAPHY OF NULLIFICATION. 1 59 
 
 Sargent, Nathan. Public Men and Events from the Com- 
 mencement of Mr. Monroe's Administration in 181 7 to the 
 Close of Mr. Fillmore's Administration in 1853. 2 vols. Phila- 
 delphia, 1875. 
 
 ScHOULER, James, History of the United States of America 
 under the Constitution. 5 vols. New York, 1889-189 1. 
 
 ScHURZ, Carl. Life of Henry Clay. (American Statesmen 
 Series.) 2 vols. New York and Boston, 1888. 
 
 Shaler, N. S. Kentucky. American Commonwealth Series. 
 Boston, 1885. 
 
 Smith, William. Speech at Spartanburg, South Carolina, 
 Aug. I, 1831. Columbia, 1832. (Pamphlet in Congressional 
 Speeches.') 
 
 South Carolina. Laws of South Carolina, 1 800-1 850, 
 (Containing Acts, Governors' Messages, Resolutions, Reports of 
 Committee on Federal Relations, and, at times. Reports of 
 certain State Officers). 
 
 South Carolina. Debate in the South Carolina Legislature, 
 December, 1830. (Pamphlet.) 
 
 South Carolina. Speeches delivered in the Convention of 
 the State of South Carolina, held in Columbia, in March, 1833. 
 To which is prefixed the Journal of Proceedings. Charleston, 
 1833. (Pamphlet.) 
 
 South Carolina. Proceedings of the Celebration of the 
 Fourth of July, 1831, at Charleston, by the State Rights and 
 Free Trade Party. Charleston, 1831. (Pamphlet.) 
 
 South Carolina. Proceedings of the Convention of 1832, 
 in State Papers on Nullification. Boston, 1834. 
 
 South Carolina. State Rights and Free Trade Convention 
 of 1832. Charleston, 1832. (Pamphlet.) 
 
 Stephens, Alexander H. A Constitutional View of the War 
 between the States. Its Causes, Character, Conduct, and Re- 
 sults. 2 vols. Philadelphia, 1867. 
 
 STiLLifi, C. J. Life and Services of Joel R. Poinsett. Phil- 
 adelphia, 1888. (Pamphlet.) 
 
 Sumner, William G. Andrew Jackson. (American States- 
 men Series.) Boston, 1886. 
 
l60 APPENDIX G. 
 
 Taussig, F. W. The Tariff History of the United States. 
 New York and London, 1888. 
 
 Thomas, E. S. Reminiscences of the last Sixty Five Years, 
 commencing with the Battle of Lexington ; also. Sketch of his 
 own Life and Times. 2 vols. Hartford, 1840. 
 
 TuRNBULL, Robert J. The Crisis, or Essays on the Usurpa- 
 tion of the Federal Government, by Brutus. Charleston, 1827. 
 (Pamphlet.) 
 
 United States. American State Papers. Finances (1789- 
 1828). 5 vols. 
 
 United States. Annals of Congress (i 789-1823). 
 
 United States. Congressional Debates (1823-183 7). 
 
 United States. Congressional Globe (1833-1873). 
 
 United States. Executive Documents. 34 Cong., i sess. 
 Vol. IV., No. 10 (1855-56). 
 
 United States. Journals of the Senate and House of Rep- 
 resentatives ( 1 789-1835). 
 
 United States. Seventh Census, Compendium (1850). 
 
 United States. Statutes at Large, I-V. 
 
 Von Holst, H. The Constitutional and Political History 
 of the United States. 6 vols. Chicago, 1889. 
 
 . The Constitutional Law of the United States of 
 
 America. Translated by Alfred Bishop Mason. Chicago, 
 1887. 
 
 . John C. Calhoun. (American Statesmen Series.) 
 
 Boston, 1886. 
 
 Warfield, E. D. The Kentucky Resolutions of 1798: an 
 Historical Study. New York, 1887. 
 
 Williams, Edwin. The Statesman's Manual. 4 vols. New 
 York, 1854. 
 
 Wilson, Woodrow. Division and Reunion (1829-1889). 
 New York and London, 1894; Epochs of American History, 
 vol. IIL 
 
INDEX. 
 
 Adams, John Quincy, on Calhoun, ii, 12; on Louisiana pur- 
 chase, 14; on Jackson's proclamation, 119. 
 Alabama, recommends national convention, 119. 
 Alien Law, protest against, 23. 
 
 Bank, National, South Carolina opposed, 3 ; Calhoun's views, 
 
 145. 
 Benton, Thomas H., East and West, 87. 
 "Brutus." ^tv TurnbuU. 
 Butler, Pierce, opposes high duties, 4; threatens "dissolution," 4 ; 
 
 delegate to Convention, 25. 
 
 Calhoun, John C, connection with nullification, 2; tariff of 1816, 
 5; leadership, 6; early liberal policy, (i^']\ on interpretation of 
 Constitution, 9, 10; on Louisiana purchase, 10; on protection, 
 10, II, 12; inconsistency on tariff, 13; on slavery, 13; on Mis- 
 souri Compromise, 13, 14; regrets not having followed Randolph, 
 13 ; inconsistency on force of precedent, 14, 15; fundamental 
 principle, 17; casting vote against tariff of 1827, 34; policy re- 
 jected by South Carolina, 59; follows South Carolina, 60; influ- 
 ence in South Carolina, 60, 64 ; letter to Garnett, 60-63, ^43 > 
 on distribution of powers, 61 ; on implied powers, 62 ; his prece- 
 dents, 62 ; on sectionalism, 63 ; speaks in Augusta and Abbeville, 
 63 ; date of his change of view, 63-64 ; influenced by " The 
 Crisis," 73 ; connection with " Exposition of 1828," 77-79; eyes 
 opened in 1828, 78; begins to seek a remedy, 78; visited by 
 nullifiers in 1828, 78 ; expounder of nullification, 80; role in the 
 controversy, 80; correspondence with Hamilton, 80, 81; on 
 nature of Constitution, 82; on relations of individuals, 82; on 
 State as arbiter, 83, 84; on reserved rights, 84; on Supreme 
 Court as arbiter, 84, 85 ; on coercion, 85 ; toast in reply to Jack- 
 son, 97; accepts Compromise Act, 125, 126; indicates his terms, 
 126; on Clay's reasons for compromising, 127; opposes Force 
 Bill, 128, 129; attends Nullification Convention, 131; letter on 
 State rights (1824), 143. 
 
 II 
 
l62 INDEX. 
 
 Charleston, S. C, meeting to suspend Nullification Ordinance, 122. 
 
 Cheves, Langdon, leadership, 6; against Calhoun's views, 27; 
 on functions of Supreme Court, 28 ; admits right of secession, 
 139; proposes union of Southern States, 139; thinks threat of 
 secession would avail, 139; in Nashville Convention, 140. 
 
 Citadel, the, turned over to the State, 116, 121. 
 
 Clay, Henry, introduces Compromise Act, 125. 
 
 Clayton, John M., stand on Compromise, 126. 
 
 Coercion, Calhoun on, 85 ; threatened by Jackson, 116, 117. 
 
 Colcock, C. J., presents resolution, 122. 
 
 Columbia, S. C, Nullification Convention, 107. 
 
 Compromise Act, introduced, 125; accepted by Calhoun, 125, 126; 
 passed, 127; signed, 127; South Carolina on proposed repeal, 
 136 ; South Carolina considers it a treaty, 154. 
 
 Constitution, the, theory of, shifting in South Carolina, 16; not 
 logically perfect, 17 ; Calhoun's theory in 1824, 144. See Sover- 
 eignty of States. 
 
 Convention, national Constitutional, South Carolina delegates to, 
 25 ; recommended by Georgia and Alabama, 1 19. 
 
 Convention, Hartford. See Hartford Convention. 
 
 Convention, Nashville, (1848), 140. 
 
 Convention, Nullification, (1832), movement to call, 98; State elec- 
 tion of 1832, 107; recommended by Governor, 107; call issued, 
 107, 108; objects, 108; election of delegates to, 108; Union 
 leaders in, 108; Hamilton president, 109; Nullification leaders 
 in, 109; Ordinance adopted, no; Ordinance signed, no; pro- 
 ceedings, no; reassembles, 130; Hamilton resigns presidency, 
 131 ; Hayne elected president, 131 ; Leigh and Calhoun invited, 
 131 ; rescinds Ordinance, 131 ; adopts Anti-Force Bill Ordinance, 
 132. 
 
 Convention, State Rights, (of i83[), 104 ; (of 1832), 104, 105. 
 
 Convention, Union, called to meet in Columbia, n4. 
 
 Cooper, Dr. Thomas, opinions of Jeffenson and Adams on, 56; 
 career, 56, 57; lectures and tracts, 57 ; on implied powers, 57; 
 influence, 58; sensational speech, in Columbia, 58; value of 
 union, 138. 
 
 "Co-States," appealed to, by Jackson, n8 ; response of, n9; con- 
 demn nullification and secession, ng. 
 
 Cotton, production and price, (1821 to 1854), 44. 
 
 " Crisis," the, publication, 49; purport, 49-51. 7i. 72 ; influence on 
 Calhoun, 72, 73. See Brutus and Turnbull. 
 
 Davis, Warren R., denounces Jackson, 129, 130; denounces 
 Force Bill, 129. 
 
 Drayton, William, oration at Unionist Celebration (183 1), 99; ad- 
 mits right of secession, 139. 
 
INDEX. 163 
 
 " ExPOSiTiox," the, printed and circulated, 86; replied to, by 
 Webster, 89. See Calhoun. 
 
 Federalist, The, appeal to, by nulHfiers, 16 ; not a systematic 
 treatise, i6; anticipates Calhoun, 17; on sovereignty, 17; on 
 adoption of Constitution, 19; on division of powers, 19; against 
 Calhoun, 20 ; on remedies for federal aggressions, 20, 21. 
 
 Foote Resolution on Public Lands, debate on, S6-96 : terms, 87. 
 
 Force Bill, the, introduced, 128; opposition to, in Congress, 128- 
 130; signed, 127; South Carolina nullifies, 149. 
 
 Garnet, R. S., letter from Calhoun, 60-63, 143. 
 
 Georgia, controversy with federal government, 16; disobedient, 
 
 24, 25 ; Jackson's sympathy, 25 ; recommends plan for National 
 
 Convention, 119. 
 
 Hamilton, Alexander, on Sovereignty, 175 against secession, 
 
 21. 
 
 Hamilton, James, Jr., against State sovereignty, 28; confusion on 
 nature of the Union, 31, 54, 55 ; on decline of South Carolina, 
 46, 47, note ; denounces protection, 54 ; eulogizes Jackson, 65, 
 66; criticises Adams, 66; advises withdrawal from Congress, 73; 
 on helplessness of the federal government, 74 ; on nullification, 
 80; speech at State Rights Celebration, 1831, 103 ; on Jackson's 
 letter, 103; calls extra session of legislature, 107 ; recommends 
 a Convention, 107; sketch of, 109, n. ; president of the Conven- 
 tion, 109; directs attention to the ordinance, in, 112; succeeded 
 by Hayne, 112; on resolution to suspend ordinance, 122; ad- 
 vises secession in certain contingencies, 123; recalls Nullifica- 
 tion Convention, 130; resigns presidency, 131 ; on Jackson's 
 two measures of justice, 133; resolution to resist, 137; affirms 
 secession, 138. 
 
 Hammond, James H., on South Carolina's failure to resort to nul- 
 lification in 1842, 136, 137; on protection, 154. 
 
 Harper, Robert Goodloe, on Supreme Court, 29. 
 
 Harper, William, on Supreme Court, 29, 30 ; on nullification, 80; 
 expounder of nullification, 80 ; looks forward to secession, 140. 
 
 Hartford Convention, execrated in South Carolina, 25. 
 
 Hayne, Robert G., on sovereignty, 31, 94; declares against submis- 
 sion, 31; on tariff of 1824, 55; eulogizes Jackson, 67,68; on Foote's 
 resolution, 87 ; on evil of consolidation, 88 ; on evils of a national 
 surplus, 88 ; resents Webster's attack, 90; sketch of, 90, 91, n. ; 
 rejoinder to Webster, 91, 92 ; third speech on the resolution, 94; 
 effect on nullifiers, 95 ; vahdity of his argument, 96 ; oration at 
 State Rights Celebration, 102; on tariff of 1832, 106; reads 
 an exposition in Nullification Convention, no; gubernatorial 
 
1 64 INDEX. 
 
 inaugural address, 112; counter proclamation, 120; attitude of 
 
 defence, 121; president of the Nullification Convention, 131; on 
 
 outcome of Nullification struggle, 131. 
 Heileman, Major J. F., warned against surprise, 115; receives 
 
 instructions from Washington, 116. 
 Henagan, Governor, on protection, 151. 
 Huger, Daniel E., at Unionist Celebration, 99; speech, loi. 
 
 Internal Improvements, Calhoun's views on, 146. 
 
 Interposition, advised by Governor Taylor, 76. 
 
 Intervention, by States, early expression of McDuffie against, 28 ; 
 resolution of State legislature against, 30 ; advocated by Turn- 
 bull, 71; declared absurd by Jackson, 117, 118. 
 
 Jackson, Andrew, eulogized by Hamilton, 65, 66 ; hope of South 
 Carolina, 65, 66, 67, 68 ; nominated by South Carolina legisla- 
 ture, 67 ; attitude on nullification misrepresented to South Caro- 
 lina, 97 ; sounded by the nullifiers, 97 ; toast at the Jefferson 
 birthday dinner, 97 ; letter to the Unionist Committee, loi, 102 ; 
 his letter before South Carolina legislature, 103, 104 ; instructions 
 to the Collector, 115; orders Scott, vessels, and troops to Charles- 
 ton, 115; preparations to coerce, 115; warns Heileman, 115; 
 opinion of Calhoun, 116; letters to Poinsett, 116; promises coer- 
 cion, 116, 117; calls attention of Congress, 117; issues nullifi- 
 cation proclamation, 117; receives offers of volunteers, 117; 
 displeased with Virginia, 119; approves plan for reducing duties, 
 124; strengthens his recommendations after election of 1832, 
 125; determined to maintain federal supremacy, 127; asks more 
 authority, 127, 128; signs Compromise and Force Act, 130. 
 
 Jay, John, on Sovereignty, 18. 
 
 Jefferson, Thomas, connection with Kentucky Resolutions, 23 ; 
 cited as authority by Hayne, 92; cited by Calhoun, 145, 146. 
 
 Legare, Hugh S., on decline of South Carolina, 46; obtuseness 
 on slavery, 48; speech at Unionist Celebration, loi ; against 
 nullification, loi ; on tyranny of the nullifiers, 114. 
 
 Leigh, Benjamin Watkins, commissioner from Virginia to South 
 Carolina, 130; invited within NuUification Convention, 131. 
 
 Lewis, Dixon H,, at Hayne-Webster debate, 92. 
 
 Livingston, Edward, part in nullification proclamation, 117. 
 
 Lowndes, William, leadership, 6 ; on functions of Supreme Court, 29. 
 
 McDuffie, George, on consolidation, 8; on distribution of powers, 
 8, 9; condemns State sovereignty, 28; champions reform in 
 electing President, 33; explains his action on tariff" of 1828, 34; 
 accepts nullification doctrine reluctantly, 36; opposes the Com- 
 
INDEX. 165 
 
 promise Act, 36; as an orator, 36; willing to stand on right of 
 revolution, 36 ; character and principles, 36, 37, 38 ; career, 37, n. ; 
 on protection, 38; burden on the South, 39; export tax theory, 
 39 ; on tyranny of the majority, 40 ; advocates minority rule, 41 ; 
 on helplessness of the South, 41-;' inconsistency on slave labor, 
 41, n. ; on condition of Southern States, 42; fallacy in export 
 tax argument, 43 ; admits having exaggerated influence of the 
 tariflT, 44; ignores law of supply and demand, 44; obtuseness on 
 slavery, 48; suggests non-intercourse, 70, 71; on nullification, 
 80; address to people of the United States, no ; bill to reduce 
 duties, 124; protests against Force Bill, 130; ridicules Anti- 
 Force Bill Ordinance, 132; plan for tariff reduction, 134; looks 
 to secession as final resort, 140, 141. 
 
 Maclay, William, on Pierce Butler, 4. 
 
 Madison, James, on sovereignty, 17, 18; on adoption of the Con- 
 stitution, 19, n. ; in Federalist, 21; in Virginia Resolutions, 21, 
 22 ; against Calhoun's construction of the Virginia and Kentucky 
 Resolutions, 24; cited by Hayne, 92 ; cited by Calhoun, 145, 146. 
 
 Manning, Richard J., on electing the President, 23- 
 
 Marshall, John, on method of adopting the Constitution, 19, n. 
 
 Militia in South Carolina, organization suggested by Governor 
 Hamilton, 112; State Act, 113; enrolling and drilling of, 121. 
 
 Mitchell, Thomas R., on tariff of 1828, 34; breaks away from Cal- 
 houn, 53, 54 ; speech at Unionist Celebration, loi. 
 
 Minority Rule, advocated, 24, 41, 42. 
 
 Monroe, James, cited by Calhoun, 145, 146. 
 
 New England, during war of 1812, 16; rebuked by South Caro- 
 lina, 25. 
 
 Non-intercourse, suggested by McDuffie, 70, 71 ; adopted at Edge- 
 field, 71; approved by Calhoun, 71. 
 
 Nullification, not due to personal spite, 2; responsibility for, 15; 
 different from interposition, 24; early history of South Carolina 
 against, 25; leaders, 70; in "The Crisis," 72; second formula- 
 tion, 75; variety of forms assumed, 79, 80; gains ground, 86; 
 national interest in, 86; struggle begins, 86; Unionist Celebra- 
 tion in Charleston, 98-102; Legard and Petigru against, loi ; 
 State Rights Party Celebration, 102, 103 ; Jackson's letter, 103, 
 104; State Rights Convention of 1831, 104; State Rights Con- 
 vention of 1832, 104, 105; State Rights leaders, 105; tracts 
 circulated, 105; election of 1832 carried by nuUifiers, 107; Con- 
 vention called, 107, 108; preparations of Unionists to resist, 114; 
 preparations of Federal authorities, 115, 116; nullifiers threat- 
 ened by Jackson, 116; proclamation issued by Jackson, 117; 
 reception by the Le^^islature, 119, 120; nullification condemned 
 by the "Co-States," 1 19 ; counter proclamation issued by Hayne, 
 
l66 INDEX. 
 
 120 ; the critical dale (February i, 1833), 121 ; parties face to 
 face, 121; nuUifiers prepare for defence, 121; Ordinance sus- 
 pended, 122; prospects of an adjustment, 124; Force Bill intro- 
 duced, 128; Virginia's commissioner, 130; Convention recalled, 
 130; reassembles, 130; ordinance rescinded, 131 ; who was the 
 victor, 131, 132, 134, 135, 136; Force Bill nullified, 132, 149; 
 tariff schedule demanded by nullifiers, 134, 135; failure of nulli- 
 fication, 135, 136; doctrine reaffirmed, 136, 137; effects of the 
 struggle, 1 37-141 ; right reaffirmed (1842), 153. 
 
 Oath, enjoined on State officers, iii. 
 
 Ordinance, Anti-Force Bill, adopted by the Convention, 132; ridi- 
 culed by McDuffie, 132. 
 
 Ordinance, Nullification, introduced, no; adopted, no; signing 
 of, no; provisions, oath, ni ; when to take effect, ni ; seces- 
 sion, n I ; reassembling, n i ; fast-day, n i ; suspension requested 
 by Virginia, ng; suspended, 122; reasons for suspension, 122, 
 123, 124; nature of action suspending, 123; rescinded, 131. 
 
 Petigru, Jamks L., speech at Unionist Celebration, loi; on pro- 
 tection, 1 01 and note. 
 
 Pinckney, Charles, delegate to Constitutional Convention, 25 ; 
 favors strong national government, 25 ; condemns State sov- 
 ereignty, 26 ; favors Congressional negative, 26. 
 
 Pinckney, Charles Cotesworth, delegate to the Constitutional 
 Convention, 25 ; favors strong national government, 26. 
 
 Pinckney, Lieutenant-Governor Charles C, presides over meeting 
 which suspends the Ordinance, 122. 
 
 Pinckney, Ifenry L., speech at State Rights Celebration, 103. 
 
 Poinsett, Joel R., on Thomas Cooper, 58 ; confidential agent of 
 Jackson, n5, 1 16. 
 
 Proclamation, counter, issued by Governor Hayne, 120. 
 
 Proclamation, Nullification, character and sentiments, iiy, n8; 
 before tlie South Carolina le<.'islature, 119, 120. 
 
 Protection, policy of. See Tariff. 
 
 Randolph, John, offers services to the nullifiers, 120, 121. 
 Replevin Act, passed, 112; terms, n2. 
 Revenue Collections Bill. See Force Bill. 
 Rhett, Robert 15arnwell. See Robert liarnwell Smith. 
 Richardson, Governor J. t\, on protection, 152. 
 Rutledge, John, delegate to the Constitutional Convention, 25 ; 
 favors strong national government, 25; on Supreme Court, 29. 
 
 Scott, General Winfield, ordered to Charleston, 115. 
 Secession, right of, under the Confederation, denied, 18, 19; re- 
 
INDEX. 167 
 
 jected by the Federalist, 21; entertained by Turnbull, 50, 51; 
 views of Governor Taylor, 69 ; discussed by South Carolina 
 Congressmen, 73, 74; asserted by South Carolina (1831), 104; 
 affirmed in ordinance, iii ; denied by Jackson, 118; condemned 
 by the "Co-States," 119; affirmed by Charleston meeting, 122; 
 attitude of South Carolina, 137; Cooper's speech, 138; South 
 Carolina legislature on (1832), 13S ; asserted by James Hamilton, 
 138; in "Exposition," 138; compared with nullification, 139; ad- 
 mitted by Drayton and Cheves, 139; advocated in South Caro- 
 lina, 140, 141 ; looked to as an ultimate remedy, 140, 141 ; logical 
 outcome of nullification, 141 ; well defined in South CaroHna in 
 1830, 141. 
 
 Sedition Law, protest against, 23. 
 
 " Sidney," on nature of sovereignty, 31 ; formulates nullification, 75; 
 possible relation with Calhoun, 76. 
 
 Simkins, Eldred, condemns strict construction, y, 8; on consolida- 
 tion, 8. 
 
 Slavery: slave trade odious, 13 ; "bulwark of human liberty," 14; 
 prevents manufacturing in the South, 45 ; economic evils, 47, 
 48 ; public attention directed to, 48 ; an element in nullifica- 
 tion controversy, 48; responsible for irreconcilable conflict, 48 ; 
 responsible for Southern unanimity against protection, 48; 
 threatened, 49; not a subject for discussion, 50; South CaroHna 
 Legislature on, 51, 52. 
 
 Smith, Robert Barnwell [Rhett], address to the people of the United 
 States, 74; on failure of nullification, 136; looks to secession, 
 140. 
 
 Smith, William, advocates minority rule, 42 ; organizes opposition 
 to Calhoun, 56; elected to South Carolina Legislature, 59 ; ad- 
 vises reliance on ballot-box, 68 ; political ups and downs, 69. 
 
 South Carolina, records defective, 2 ; early attitude on federal 
 government, 2; opposition to federal policy appears, 2, 3; 
 not always represented by Calhoun, 2, 3 ; protests against high 
 duties, 3 ; consistency on high duties, 3 ; admits constitutionality 
 of protection, 4; favors protection to her hemp growers, 4; in- 
 consistency on protection, 4, 5 ; votes on tariff of 1816, 5; dissat- 
 isfaction with Calhoun, 5; turning point in her course, 5 ; liberal 
 period, 6; federalist in sentiment, 6; supports Jefferson, 6; 
 attitude on interpretation, 7 ; sanctions implied powers, 7 ; under- 
 standing as to Union, 16; on Virginia and Kentucky Resolu- 
 tions, 24; delegates to Constitutional Convention, 25; rebukes 
 New England for narrowness, 25 ; execrates the Hartford Con- 
 vention, 25 ; early indifference to Nullification, 25 ; on Supreme 
 Court, 29; resolutions against State intervention, 30; submission 
 impossible, 31; disappointed over Jackson's defeat, 33; griev- 
 ances, 35 ; industrial and political decline, 45, 46, 47; resolutions 
 
1 68 INDEX. 
 
 on slavery, 51, 52; change of policy, 53; committed to strict 
 construction, 59 ; discontent over federal aggressions, 65 ; looks 
 to Jackson for relief, 65-68 ; nominates Jackson for President, 67 ; 
 movement for Nullification Convention, 98; election of 1S30, 98 ; 
 celebration of unionists, 98-102; celebration of nuUifiers, 102, 
 103; legislature on Jackson's letter, 103, 104; State Rights Con- 
 vention, 104, 105; election of 1832, 107; legislature called, 107; 
 Nullification Convention called, 107, 108; legislature assembles, 
 III ; message of Governor Hamilton, in; Replevin Act, 112; 
 Militia Act, 113 ; Test Oath Act, 1 13 ; indignant over movement 
 to repeal Compromise Act, 136; reaffirms doctrine of nullifica- 
 tion, 136; alienated from the Union, 137; Ordinance nullifying 
 Force Bill (1833), 149; Henagan's protest, 151 ; Richardson's 
 protest, 152 ; nullification reaffirmed (1842), 153 ; protest against 
 tariff of 1842, 154. 
 
 Sovereignty, State, not upheld by Madison and Hamilton, 17, 19; 
 condemned, 18, 26, 28; conception of, confused, 31, JS^ 94 ^"d 
 note; denied by Jackson, 118: Calhoun's theory (1824), 143. 
 
 Supreme Court, the arbiter, 20 ; functions, 29, 30, 31, 76, 84, 85. 
 
 Tariff, opposition in South Carolina, 3 ; South Carolina votes 
 on bill of 1816, 5; discontent in South Carolina, 33 ; increase 
 demanded by protectionists, 33 ; bill of 1827 killed by Calhoun, 
 34; Harrisburg Convention, 34; bill of 1828, 34; protests 
 from South Carolina, 35 ; effects on South Carolina, 35 ; influ- 
 ence exaggerated, 44; injurious to the South, 45; selfishness 
 of the majority, 45 ; South Carolina's first constitutional objec- 
 tion, 54; South Carolina men on bill of 1824, 54, 55; protests 
 from South Carolina, 58, 59; South Carolina's action on bill of 
 182S, 73 ; Act of 1832, 106; prospects of satisfactory adjustment, 
 124; modifications recommended by Jackson, 124; bearing of 
 election of 1832 on, 124; Baldwin's plan for settling, 124; McDuf- 
 fie's plan, 124; Verplanck Bill introduced, 125; Compromise 
 Act passed, 125; Calhoun's plan, 126; schedule demanded by 
 nullifiers. 134, 135 ; South Carolina protests, (1840), 151, (1841), 
 152, (1844), 154. 
 
 Taylor, Governor John, advises reliance on the ballot-box, 69; 
 refuses to call legislature, 75; message to legislature, 76, 77; 
 advises interposition, 76 ; on Supreme Court, 76, yj. 
 
 Test Oath Act, passed, 113; protests of Unionists, 114. 
 
 Tucker, Sterling, opposes high duties, 3. 
 
 Turnbull, Robert J., sketch of, 49 ; writes " The Crisis," 49 ; on 
 consolidation, 50 ; on implied powers, 50 ; on slavery, 50 ; pre- 
 sents alternative of silence or secession, 50, 51; views on slav- 
 ery accepted by legislature, 51; advocates intervention, 71 : on 
 nature of the Union, 72 ; on Supreme Court, 72 ; gives first 
 
 k 
 
 ■7 
 ^07 
 
INDEX. 169 
 
 formulation of nullification doctrine, 72, ']'}, ; speech at State 
 Rights celebration, 103 ; on Jackson's letter, 103 ; on the out- 
 come of nullification, 131, 132. 
 
 Unionists, the, leaders of, 69, 70; celebration, 98-102 ; protest 
 against tyranny of the nullifiers, 113, 114; Convention of, called, 
 114; leaders in touch with Jackson, 115; organize to resist the 
 nullifiers, 115. 
 
 Virginia and Kentucky Resolutions, appealed to, by nulli- 
 fiers, 16, 22; on nature of the Union, 22; on the arbiter, 22; 
 misconstrued by nullifiers, 23, 24 ; resolution of the South Caro- 
 lina Legislature in 1827 in line with, T"]-^ cited by Hayne, 92. 
 
 Virginia commissioner to South Carolina, 119; requests suspen- 
 sion of the Ordinance, 119; on South Carolina's interpretation 
 of her resolutions of 1798, 119; petitions Congress to modify the 
 tariff, 1 19. 
 
 Webster, Daniel, brings on nullification debate of 1830, 86, 88; 
 attacks Hayne and the nullifiers, 88; object of attack, 88,89; 
 "Great Reply" premeditated, 89; familiarity with the "Exposi- 
 tion," 89; "Great Reply" really to Calhoun, 89; characteristics 
 of " Great Reply," 93 ; on nature of the Constitution, 93 ; on the 
 State as arbiter, 93 ; on remedies for federal aggressions, 94; 
 third speech on'nuUification, 95; effects of his three speeches, 
 95, 96 ; services rendered, 96; validity of his argument, 96; re- 
 plies to Calhoun on the Force Bill, 129. 
 
 Wilkins, William, introduces the Force Bill, 128. 
 
 Williams, David R., leadership, 6; counsels moderation, 69. 
 
 Vv^ilson, J. L., on decline of South Carolina, 46. 
 
 Wilson, Woodrow, on Jackson's hold on the people, 68. 
 

 «v 
 
,0 
 
 <> 
 
 f O 
 
 4> " 
 
 
 
 •^^ ■ .<.^ "^^ 
 
 « o ^ ^ 
 
 .V 
 
 
 o K 
 
 "^a^c,^^ 
 
 ^^-^^^ 
 
 
 
 :^ .,. 
 
 r^'b- 
 
 
 
 
 'o . » ♦ A 
 
 S." 
 
 \^ 
 
 
 
 
 ^^ 
 
 ^^ 
 
 
 "0 
 
 
 <^^ * 
 
 .• ^<^^ 
 
 
 .^^ 
 

 0' 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 ^^o.^^^ 
 
 ^ -^^^^ 
 
 
 
 f 
 
 
 ,<•■ #"*, -.« 
 
 
 A <. *'T7^* ■ .0^*^ '^. '^^. ' * -'\ < 
 
 APR .-JO. ■/■'< ^••^^^^ % ^^ *f.^f^^^^^ ^ 
 
 .1 ^'^T^^^^^"^C ■' 
 
 KvS:>/» .... 
 
 > ^h 
 
 5^°^_ -*W 
 
 
 o " » • '^