■a<. 
 
 HAYNE'S 
 
 POTXETH or JTJLT 
 
 OMJtTIOJr, 
 
 AT CBA&&ES90H'. SOVXa-CAROLZHA. 
 
 1831. 
 
 MMMMMMlttMHIiiriaa 
 
Glass. tJ-^io 
 Book. 
 
 04-^ 
 
 \2h 
 
AN 
 ©elibeceti in tf)e 
 
 XXrSEPENDENT OR GONGREGATZONAIj CHURCH> CHARLESTON, 
 BEFORE 
 
 THE STATE RIGHTS & FREE TRADE PARTY, 
 
 THE STATE SOCIETY OF CINCINNATI, 
 
 THE REVOLUTION SOCIETY, 
 THE '76 ASSOCXATIOXV, 
 
 AND 
 
 SEVERAL VOLUNTEER COMPANIES OP MILITIA; 
 
 1831, 
 
 BBjlNQ THE 56TH ANNIVERSARY OF AMERICAN INDEPENDENCE. 
 
 By the Hon. ROBERT Y. HAYNE. 
 
 PUBLISHED BY REQUEST. 
 
 CHARLESTON: 
 
 PKII7TES AND PUBLISHED BY A. E. MIlLEIt. 
 No. 4 Broad-Street: 
 

 
 AT an unusually large assemblage of the State Rights and Free 
 Trade Party, convened at Fayolle's on the 12th of July, 1831: 
 
 On Motion of JAMES FERGUSON, Esq. it was 
 
 " Resolved, That the thanks of this meeting he returned to General 
 Hayne, for his able and eloquent Oration on the Mi of July last, and 
 that he he requested to furnish to the Secretary, a copy for the press.'" 
 
 Extract from the minutes. 
 
 THOMAS GADSDEN, Secretary. 
 
 'bo. 
 '^ ... 
 
ORATIOIV. 
 
 — QjQ©— 
 
 FELLOW CITIZENS! 
 
 ^ EVEN'i EEN y^^ais ago, on this day, and at this very hour, I stood- 
 ^ befoie you as the organ of a party, who like yourselves, had 
 determined to celebrate the Anniversary of American Independence 
 in the very spirit of '76. I was then just entering on the thresh- 
 old of life, find in the freshness of my youthful feelings, brought 
 the ofierings of a full heart to the altar of Liberty, and dedicat- 
 ing myself to lier service, swore eternal enmity to tyranny. I 
 stand hese this day, the supporter of the same free principles to 
 which were consecrated the efforts of my earliest youth. The 
 circumstances by which this community was then surrounded, were, 
 at least, as appalling, and the prospects before us as discouraging as 
 they are now, Bui blessed be God, we have lived to see the day, 
 when the dark clouds which then hung over our political horizon, 
 have been all dispersed, when tlie jealousies and dissentions which 
 then alienated the sons of Carolina from each other, have long since 
 ceased to exist, and when the disciples of the true-faith, are seen 
 with united hands and one heart, crowding to the temple, and 
 bringing the offerings of patriotism to the altars of their common 
 country. Well may it excite public confidence — infuse joy and 
 gladness into our own hearts, and strike terror into the souls of our 
 enemies, to witness this grand and imposing spectacle — to see, 
 you, gentlemen of the Cincinnati ! fathers of the Revolution, and 
 sons worthy of your sires ! and you, gentlemen of the Revolution 
 Society, and of the '76 Ar.sociation, long the guardians of the 
 sacred flame on the altars of Liberty, mingling on this grateful 
 occasion in delightful communion with us, and with each other, 
 she ' :.ng upon our cause the cheering influence of your approba- 
 tio a- \ the richer blessing of your living example. I can, even 
 now, .v-llow-citizens, carry my thoughts back to that day, and recall 
 the recollection of the deep gloom in which this city was then 
 shrouded, and I can remember well, how soon that gloom was dis- 
 pelled by the light of our victories, shining in the brightness of its 
 
 1 
 
gjoi-y upon the land and upon the wave. The contest for out 
 rig-his, which had been considered hopeless, w;is soon crowned with 
 success ; our armies, which it had been Ibretold, were to be dissi- 
 pated before the n)igluy hosts of Britain, "like chaff before the 
 wind," had met the invincibles of Wellington, in the very pride of 
 their power, and stood, confessedly, "the conquerors of the con- 
 querors of the world." Our fair cities, whi<h were to have been 
 sacked and reduced to ashes, still stood smiling in their beauty, 
 unscathed by the desolating flames of war — the livina; monuments 
 of our renown — while on the ocean, the " wooden walls o( Old 
 England," which had been converted into prisons, in which our 
 gallant tars had been immured, were beaten down by the thunder 
 of our cannon, and the consecrated banner waved triumphantly 
 aloft, bearing in its ample folds that noble inscription (at once the 
 herald and the badge of victory) — FiiKE Trade Ai\D Sailor's 
 Rights. 
 
 In recalling to your minds these events, fellow-citizens, believe 
 me, [ have a higher and a holier aim, than merely torevi\ethe 
 proud recollections which belong to them. I wish you to derive 
 instruction, and to draw encouragement from a retrospect so full of 
 interest. As suie as there is a God of Mercy and of Justice, the 
 gloom which surrounds us, shall, in like manner, be dissipated — the 
 delusions, wliich have turned away from us the hearts of our 
 brethren, shall be dispelled, and that happy day shall come, when 
 those who have wandered fronj us, will come back to the fold, 
 and all Carolina animated bv one spirit, will be found marching 
 together under the Palmetto banner to assured victory in the great 
 and just cause of IVee Trade and State Rights! 
 
 I know that it has been usual, on occasions like the present, to 
 give a history of the wrongs endured by our fathers. But, my 
 friends, we have prouder and more ennoblin*^ recollections, con- 
 nected with our Revolution. They are to be found in the spirit 
 displayed by our fathers, when all their petitions had been slighted, 
 their remonstrances despised, and their appeals to the generous sym- 
 pathies of their brethren utterly disregarded. Yes, my friends, 
 theirs was that pure and lofty spirit of devoted patriotism, which 
 never quailed beneath oppression, which braved all dangers, 
 trampled upon difficulties, and in " the times which tried men's 
 souls," taught them to be faithful to their principles, and to their 
 country — true; and which induced them, in the very spirit of that 
 BrutuSy (whose mantle has fallen, in our own day, upon the shoul- 
 ders of one so worthy to wear it) to swear on the altar of Liberty — 
 to give themselves up wholly to their country. There is one char- 
 acteristic, however, of the American Revolution, which, constitut- 
 ing as it does, its living principle — its proud distinction, and its 
 crowning glory — cannot be passed over in silence. It is this— 
 
that our Revoluiion had its origin, not so much in the weight 
 of actual opprission, as in the great principle — the sacred duty, 
 of resistance to the exercise of unauthurizid power. Other na- 
 tions have been driven to rebellion by the iron hand of despotism, 
 the insupportable weight of oppression, which, leaving men noth- 
 ing worth living for, has taken away the fear of de;itli itself, 
 and caused them to rush upon the spears of their enemies, or to 
 break their chains upon the heads ot their oppressors. But it was 
 a tax of three-pence a pound upon tea, imposed ivithout right, 
 which was considered by our fathers, as a burden too grievous to 
 be borne. And why? Because they were men "who felt oppres- 
 sion's lightest finger as a mountain's weight," and, in the fine lan- 
 guage of that just and beautiful tribute paid to their cliaracter by 
 one " whose praises will wear well" — they "judged of the griev- 
 ance, l)y the badness of the principle, they augured misgovern- 
 ment at a distance, and snuffed the approach of tyraimy in every 
 tainted breeze "- — because they were men, who, in the darkest 
 hour, could say to their oppressors, " we have counted the cost, 
 and find nothing so deplorable as voluntary slavery," and who 
 were ready to exclaim with the orator of Virginia, " give me 
 liberty or give me death." Theirs was the same spirit which 
 inspired the immortal Hampden to resist, at the peril of his life, the 
 imposition of ship-money, not because, as remarked by Burke, 
 "the payment of twenty shillings would have ruined his fortune, but 
 because the payment of half twenty shillings on the principle on 
 which it was demanded, would have made him a slave" It was the 
 Spirit of Liberty wi.ich still abides on the earth, and whose 
 home is in the bosoms of the brave — which, but \esterday, in 
 "beautiful France," restored their violated Charter — which even 
 )jow burns brightly on the towers of Belgium, and has rescued 
 Poland from the tyrant's grasp — making their sons, aye, and their 
 daughters too, the wonder and admiration of the world, the pride 
 and glory of the hiunan race ! 
 
 On the establishment of Independence, the several States form- 
 ed a Confederacy, but so jealous were they of their Liberty, 
 that they made it a fiindatnental article of their Union, that 
 taxes should only be levied through the States themselves. Diffi- 
 culties having arisen, chiefly from the neglect of the States, in 
 furnishing their respective quotas to the general finid, a Conven- 
 tion was called, in the 3 ear 1787, and new Articles of Union were 
 adopted, for the purpose, as is declared on the face of the Constitu- 
 tution itself, of forming "a more perfect Union, e.stablisliinjr justice, 
 providing for the common defence, promoting the general welfare, and 
 securing the blessings of liberty to ourselves, and our posterity." 
 This Constitution was formed by the several States, each acting 
 for itself, and in its sovereign capacity. From the express terms, 
 
4 
 
 and plain intent and meaninc: of this compact, it is clear that it 
 was not the intention of its framers; to create a ConsoHdalc.d , but a 
 Fedfral Government, not a government, " one and indivisible," 
 (a whole, composed of subordinate parts,) but a government with 
 a few definite powers, granted for specific purposes, while, what 
 Mr. Jefferson calls " the residuary mass of powers," stiil remained 
 in the States respectively. This ilivisiuti impcriumy\h\sw\we\ within 
 a wheel, this one government, for certain purposes, and manij go- 
 vernments for all other purposes," was certainly a novel expeiiment 
 in the science of government, and is, to this day, incomprehensible 
 to foreigners, and not well understood even by our own people. 
 And, yet, it woidd seem to be the simplest and most beauiiful con- 
 trivance imaginable ; the whole scheme consisting simply in this, 
 that as to all objects of a domestic nature, the State governments 
 shall retain exclusive jurisdiction, while the Federrd Government 
 should have jurisdicii.Mi granted to it over those matters of a gen- 
 eral nature, in which all must have a common concern. 
 
 To prevent disputes, as to the boundaries of jurisdiction, the 
 rul»^ was established, that before the General Government can law- 
 fully exercise any power, they must be able to sIk^w that it has 
 been clearly granted in the charter, while the Slates, on the contra- 
 ry, uiay exercise ail powers not expressly taken away. 
 
 Under this simple and beautiful theory, ncttiiing seems to be ne- 
 cessary to secure all the ohj-'Cts of the Union, and to preserve it 
 forever, but that the Federal Government should confine itself strict- 
 ly vvilhin the limits prescribed by the Constitution, and exert no 
 doubtfid powers. Now, fellow-citizens, this is all that we have 
 ever a>ked. We take the charter as it is, and say, *' adiiere to the 
 limits here marked down." And why is this not done .'' Why is 
 it, that the Federal Government will not consent to confine their 
 legislation to the few great and leading objects in which we all 
 have an equal interest, which would make the Union, forever a 
 common blessing, endear it to all hearts, and prevent the possi- 
 bility of collisioii ? h is because it has been discovered, that by 
 the exercise of unlimited power, certain great interests can be built 
 up at the expense of others ; and because it is found, that in the 
 actual condition of things, bounties to [)articular interests are, in 
 £nL-t, bounties to particular States. Now, if in the whole range of 
 powers, there be any which belong manifestly and exclusively to 
 the Slates, they must be those which relate to " internal improve- 
 ments," and the regulation of " (/owes«;ic' industry," and, yet, these 
 are the very powers which the Federal Government, in their lust of 
 dominion, or rather their lust of gain, have assumed to themselves. 
 No one denies that Congress may impose duties upon imports, (as 
 they may lay direct taxes,) for the purpose of raising the revenue 
 necessary for carrying on the operations of government, nor has it 
 
ever been denied, that under the power of regulating t:ommerce^ 
 commercial rei^uiations, looking to the advancement of trade, may 
 likewise be adopted ; and cases may even be conceived in which they 
 might have a right, as incident to a power expressly granted, to 
 make a military road, or even to cut a canal ; but that converting 
 «' the incident into the principal," they should, under the name of 
 raising revenue, but for the known and avowed purpose of pro- 
 moting domestic manufactures, by restrictions on foreign com- 
 merce, and of distributing the proceeds of these taxes in bounties 
 to Slates and Corporations — establish a GraM) Sv'STEM, by which 
 "the whole lattour and capital of the country is to be organized, 
 regulated and controlled," at their pleasure, is an usurpation with- 
 out a parallel in the history of free governments. 
 
 If the Federal Government can exercise this arbitrary power — if 
 they may tax us to the extent of our fortunes, and appropriate the 
 proceeds in bounties to States or individuals, to colonization, eman- 
 cipation, or what they please; disguise it as we may, ours is " a 
 government without limitation of powers. ^^ But this is not all. 
 While this system is specially directed against the Foreign Com- 
 merce on which the South depends for a market for her produc- 
 tions, it is a system, the c(nisummation of which, must inevitably 
 involve us, in irretrievable ruin. The question becomes then one 
 of vast importance, and demands our most anxious consideration. 
 What then is the true character of this system, which though construct- 
 ed out of the ruins of the rotten systems of Europe, its framers 
 have dared to call " The American System I" Founded on the 
 usurpation of powers which belonged originally to the States, and 
 which were refused to be given to the Federal Government* when 
 the Constitution was formed, its very corner stone is the assertion 
 of a right to regulate and control the domestic pursuits of our citi- 
 zens. To demonstrate that it could never have been the intention 
 of the framers of our Constitution to confer such a power, we have 
 only to ask ourselves whether it is possible that it should be ex- 
 ercised wisely, by a great central government composed of repre- 
 sentatives living thousands of miles apart, having rival interests, 
 and necessarily, in a great measure, ignorant of the feelings, habits 
 and pursuits of each other. Could such a power be exercised pru- 
 dently ? Would it be done honestly f Or is it not certain, and does 
 it not arise out of the very nature of things, that the power claimed 
 by Congress to organize and regulate, whether directly or by indi- 
 rection, the whole labour and capital of this vast confederacy, can 
 only be exercised, as it has heretofore been, arbitrarily, unjustly, 
 unequally and oppressively. Have we not sometimes seen them, 
 in very wantonness, scattering fire-brands and death amongst 
 
 * / * See Appendix A. 
 
us; and what will they not do, when they shall have the ready 
 means (if this power shall be conceded to them) of transferring, un- 
 der colour of law, your weahh into the pockets of their consti- 
 tuents ? 
 
 The true character of the ' American System' may he discovered 
 at a glance, and described in a (ew words. In its double aspect of 
 a tariff for the protection of manufactures, and appropriations for- 
 internal improvements, it consists in levying enormous taxes upon 
 the foreign commerce of the country, and out of the proceeds mak- 
 ing roads and canals for particular States, at the expense of the rest. 
 Tiie foundation of the system is the assertion of the unlimited pow- 
 er both of taxation and appropriation, and nothing can be plainer 
 than that the practical assertion of such a power does amount (in 
 the strong language applied by Mr. Jefferson, to this very case*) — 
 " to a combination of the ruling branches of the Federal Govern- 
 ment to strip their colleagues, the State authorities, of the powers 
 reserved to them, and to exercise themselves all powers, foreign 
 and domestic, — taking the earnings of one branch of industry, 
 and that, too, the most depressed, and putting ihem into the pockets 
 of another, the most flourishing of all." By tlie practical opera- 
 tion of tliis system, foreign commerce is enormously taxed to en- 
 hance the j)rof]ts of the manufacturers who live in one quarter of 
 the Union, while the money thus brought into the treasury is ap- 
 plied to make roads and canals in another quarter. 
 
 But how does this system operate upon the South ? We are 
 an agricultural people. God, in giving us a fertile soil, and ge- 
 nial climate peculiarly adapted to those great staples which supply 
 the world with food and raiment, has marked out this pursuit for 
 us too plainly to be mistaken, and, accordingly, all om- habits, as 
 well as oiu' inclinations, irresistibly impel us to the cultivation of 
 cotton and rice, for exportation. The foreign goods taxed for the 
 encouragement of American manufactures from 40 to 60, and, in 
 some instances, upwards of lOO per cent, are the very commo- 
 dities which we receive in exchange for our productions. Our 
 workshops are in Europe. We find it cheaper, more convenient, 
 and more agreeable to our tastes and habits to exchange our cot- 
 ton and rice for the cotton and woollen goods, and the iron of Eu- 
 rope, than to make these articles ourselves, and while, by the ap- 
 plication of our labour and capital to agriculture, we can obtain 
 more cloth or more iron, or of a better quality, than by manufac- 
 turing them ai home, why should we be prevented from buying where 
 we can buy cheapest, or be deprived of the common privilege of 
 regulating our own pursuits in our own way. In a national point of 
 view, what difference can it make, whether we manufacture our own 
 
 * See Appendix B. 
 
cloth, or raise the cotton which we excliange for that ch)th t Is 
 the industry which produces the cotton by which we pay for the 
 cloth, less American than that which would make the cloth? Or are 
 we more dependent on those who supply us with foreign goods, 
 than they are upon us for the raw material out Of which the goods 
 are manufactured? And yet we have heard a great deal about 
 the necessity of being " independent of foreign supply," and of 
 " encouraging home industry ;" as if any man could be more truly 
 " independent" than a South-Carolina planter under the old Sys- 
 tem,, who could command all his supplies in abundance, with his cot- 
 ton and rice ? Or any industry be more strictly domestic than 
 that employed in the cukivation of his own soil, and command- 
 ing, with the treasures drawn from its bosom, all the conveniences, 
 comforts, and elegancies of life. I speak, my friends, of those good 
 old tim.es, when commerce being essentially free, the profits of 
 Southern agriculture were not merely sufficient to enrich the plan- 
 ter, but to diti'use through the whole comrnimity thot healthful spirit 
 of industry, whose fruits were found in the universal prosperity of 
 our people ; when our merchants grew rich in effecting our ex- 
 changes with foreign countries ; when tlie ship-builder and the 
 mariner found profitable employment in constructing, in our own 
 ports, and navigating to every quarter- of the globe those gallant 
 barks, so long the pride and ornament of our waters, but which, 
 I fear, we are destined to behold no more — while amidst the busy 
 hum of commerce, our mechanics found constant and profitable 
 employment, and every class of our fellow-citizens partook largely 
 of the general prosperity and joy. Jt is true, these halcyon 
 days have passed away. And how could it have been otherwise ,? 
 The goods which we were accustomed to receive in exchange for 
 our productions, have been so enormously taxed, that many of them 
 can no longer be imported. The merchants em|)loyed in this trade, 
 with their mil lions of ca^iital have been driven out from amongst us, 
 and their places supplied by the agents of those American manu- 
 factures, wliich have been built up on the ruins of our dearest in- 
 terests ; our industry has been paralized, and in the interruption of 
 our foreign commerce, we must soon behold the wreck of all our hopes. 
 I cannot stop, fellow citizens, to enlarge on this topic, or to point 
 out all the evils of this odious system. South-Carolina has put her 
 seal upon it, " in thoughts that breathe and words that burn," and I 
 know there are none here who will gainsay them. In the Protest 
 of our Legislature, adopted in 1828, with almost entire unani- 
 mity, and speaking what was then known to be the voice of Ca- 
 rolina, it is solemnly denounced, as " UTTERLY UNCONSTITUTION- 
 AL, grossly UNEQUAL, and OPPRESSIVE, and such an abuse of 
 power, as is incompatible with the principles of a free 
 
 GOVERNMENT, AND THE GREAT ENDS OF CIVIL SOCIETY." And 
 
yet, fellow-citizens, have we not heard of late, every one of these 
 assertions gravely questioned, and by men too, who profess not 
 only to be Carolinians in heart, but to be as much opposed to this 
 system as we ourselves. It is said, among other things, to be a 
 " perfectly eg-M.fl/ s^si:em," as if a progressive tax, (rinining up from 
 40 to upwards of KK) per cent, and looking to prohibition,) levied 
 for the protection of Northern manufactures upon those foreign 
 goods, which we receive in exchange for our productions, could 
 possiblv be a just and equal tax. Can this portion of our foreign 
 trade, on which we depend, almost exclusively, for our markets, 
 be burthened, and shall we not feel the pressure ? Can this inter- 
 course be interrupted, and we suffer " no peculiar injury r " Can 
 it be destroyed, without our being irretrievably ruined ? All com- 
 merce is but an exchange of equivalents, and is founded on the 
 maxim of " give and TAKE," which is the first law of trade; and 
 if the laws prevent us from taking foreign goods, is it not plam to 
 every man of common sense, tliat our customers cannot take our 
 cotton, rice and tobacco, but will be compelled to supply them- 
 selves with these articles from other coiuitries ? To shew the une- 
 qual operations of this system, a single fact seems conclusive. No 
 less than THIRTY-FIVE MILLIOA'S OF DOLLARS worth of foreign 
 goods — more than two-thirds of the whole of our imports, and pay- 
 ing FIFTEEN MILLION'S annually in duties — are actually received 
 in exchange for the productions of the South, (embracing little 
 more than one-third part of the population of the United S(aies;) 
 and does not the mere statement of the case, demonstrate that a 
 war upon our foreign importations, is a war in disguise upon 
 Southern rights and interests ? 
 
 But we are told, that " the consumer pays the tax," and that we 
 do not consume all the articles received in exchange for our cotton 
 and rice. But if our Northern brethren do actually consume the 
 foreign goods, which are the produce of ouf labour, do they not re- 
 ceive an equivalent for any tax they may pay on them, in the protec- 
 tion afforded by the system itself to their manufactures, which ena- 
 bles them, in the enhanced prices of their commodities, to throw 
 back the burden upon us ? The Tariff is, to us, an unmitigated sys- 
 tem of burdens ; to the tariff-States, it is a bounty, more than 
 equivalent to all the taxes which they pay, and yet we are gravely 
 told, that this is a perfectly " equal system." But here, again, we 
 are told, that though considered as a whole, the tariff States do re- 
 ceive an enormous bounty under this system, yet that there are 
 classes of men among them, who have no share in that bounty. 
 But does this alter the sectional character of the system, which 
 bestows all its blessings upon one section, and visits the other only 
 with its curses .? It is useless, however, to disguise the fact, that in 
 several of the tariff States (as in Massachusetts, for example,) the 
 
9 
 
 manufacturing, is now the preponderating interest. Within ten 
 years, manufacturing villages have sprung up every where, as if 
 by enchantment ; men of every class are the owners of manufac- 
 turing stock, now yielding, if we may credit the latest accounts, 
 10, 15, and even 20 per cent. Farmers, mechanics, and mer- 
 chants, lawyers, and all classes and conditions of men, within the 
 circle of the maniifaciuring influence, partake of the general pros- 
 perity, and these circles run into each other. The proof of all this 
 is to be found in the facts — that, in the tarifi-States, the people 
 at large are constantly crying out for more taxes, and would re- 
 gard, as the greatest of misfortunes, that the duties should be les- 
 sened (and we all know that men do not seek to have burdens impos- 
 ed upon them) — that public men who are, m principle, opposed to 
 the system, find their interest'xw supporting it — and " though last not 
 least," that the tariff-majority in Congress, has constantly been in- 
 creasing, as was made manifest during the last session, when they 
 actually refused, by an overwhelming majority, even to consider a 
 proposition for a general reduction of duties after the payment of 
 the public debt — a proceeding which, as it amounted to a denial to 
 the South to be any longer heard on this subject, is, I will venture 
 to assert, an outrage without a parallel in the history of our legis- 
 lation. These may be unwelcome truths, but I stand here to speak 
 my honest convictions, and I would scorn to lull you by the syren 
 song of hope, when I believed there was no hope. But it has 
 been asserted — ay, even here, that the evils of this system have 
 been grossly exaggerated, and with a fatal blindness to the present, 
 if not to the future, it is said that they are merely *'■ prospective.'''' 
 
 Now, we have been long subjected to the operation of a pro- 
 gressive system of taxation, which our opponents admit, will in the 
 end involve "this fertile State in poverty and utter desolation." 
 This system has now been going on for ten years — the duties have 
 already run up from 15 and 20, to 40 and 50, and, in some cases, 
 to upwards of lOO per cent, and without our being generally aware 
 of the fact, they are still progressing,* and yet we are gravely told, 
 that, though the additional ten per cent, of the next year or the year 
 after that, may involve us in irretrievable ruin, yet, until that ruin 
 is effected, we suffer as producers, no injury. With your com- 
 merce crippled — your exchanges embarrassed — and the value of 
 your produce reduced to prices which hardly pay the cost of its 
 production ; brought to the very verge of destruction, and pre- 
 serving your great staples — even now, from annihilation, only 
 by the exercise of extraordinary industry and economy — there are 
 those among us who would persuade you, in spite of the evidence 
 ot your own senses, and the perfect consciousness which every plan- 
 ter feels of these painful truths, that you suffer no peculiar evil. As 
 
 * See Appendix C 
 
 2 
 
10 
 
 <vell might the patient, who finds himself in the last stapes ot^ u 
 consumption, be told by his physician, that until it actually stop- 
 ped his breath, he must be considered as in sound health. We 
 have often heard it said, that it is " the last ounce which breiiks 
 the back of the camel," but because the patient animal bears up 
 against his burden for a season, and though staggering under the 
 weight, does not fall at once to the ground, is his strength not im- 
 paired ? Is he not burdened at all ? Is the inevitable ruin which 
 all admit is to be the final result of this system, to come upon us 
 "like a thief in the night," without giving us the slightest warn- 
 ing of its approach? It is altogether incredible ; it is utterly im>- 
 possible. But what is the fact? Have we no warning of our ap- 
 proaching fate ? Are we, indeed, reposing under a cloudless sky ? 
 Look around you, fellow-citizens — remember what you 
 WERE, and behold what you are, and then say whether the fatal 
 effects produced upon your prosperity, are not precisely those in 
 character, and in degree, which were foreseen and predicted when 
 this system first went into operation, and which, if there be any 
 truth in the science of political economy, and if any reliance is to 
 be placed on the experience of mankind, must befal an agricultural 
 people, visited with the consuming curses of the restrictive system. 
 I pretend not to estimate, with any thing like accuracy, the precise 
 amount of the burdens which you bear either as consumers or pro- 
 ducers. That yon suffer grievously in both capacities, is unques- 
 tionable. The exports of South-Carolina amount to eight mil- 
 lions of dollars per annum, in round numbers, furnishing of course, 
 the means of paying for eight millions of imports, and yielding to the 
 government near three millions of dollars in duties. Let gen- 
 tlemen make what deductions they please, from this burden, and 
 there will be enough left to inflict upon us a vast amount of pre- 
 sent suflering, and still greater prospective evils. It is the curse 
 of every system of indirect taxation, that it comes not upon us like 
 the strong-man armed, at noon-day, but steals on the wings of the 
 wind, and, like the "pestilence walking in darkness," infuses the fatal 
 poison into our veins, and seals our destruction, before we are even 
 aware of its approach. If the true character and fatal effects of 
 this system, could be " brought home to the bosoms and business of 
 men" — if we could realize the weight of taxation it has imposed 
 upon us, and see the ruin which is impending over us, no voice 
 would be heard in this community, even in mitigation of its evils. 
 If every planter in this cotuitry knew, that on every hundred dol- 
 lars worth of goods, (afiected by the Tarifl*,) which he consumes, 
 whether foreign or domestic, he is taxed at least thirty dollars, 
 either as consumer, or in the diminished value of his produce ;* 
 
 * See Appendix D. 
 
11 
 
 if every worker in iron knew (what was proved, on oath, before 
 the Senate at their last session,) that the duty oai that description of 
 raw iron, out of which nineieen-tweniieihs of the hardware, used in 
 this country, is made, amounts to, from one hundred and fifty, to 
 two hundred and eighty dollars, on every hundred of the first cost;* 
 if everv family knew, that they paid three cents on every pound of 
 sugar, and, until lately, twenty cents on every bushel of salt — to in- 
 crease the proiits of a few wealthy manufacturers, of those neces- 
 saries of life — that the poor man pays four dollars for the privilege 
 of wearing a coat which costs him ten, and the rich man ten dollars 
 on a coat which costs him thirty, and that almost every article of 
 our consumption is, in a greater or less degree, taxed, how long 
 do you suppose, fellow-citizens, that such a system would be quiet- 
 ly submitted to ? — imposed, as it is, not because the Government 
 wants money (for the most difficult question, of finance with us, is, 
 how CO dispose of our " surplus revenue,") but because, it is deem- 
 ed expedient that Northern manxifaciures should he made profitable 
 at the expense of Southern industry. Ay, but we are told, that 
 we get our goods cheaper, and that the only efl*ect of protection, 
 is to lessen the price. Strange indeed ! that the manufacturers 
 should be so disinterested, as to cling, *' with the grasp of death," 
 to a system, which by lessening their prices, must of course di- 
 minish their profits. But does not every man of common sense 
 know, that this is a mere delusion ? That the tax is actually levied, 
 and goes into the coffers of the Government, and that it must 
 therefore be paid by somebody, is unquestionable. The merchant, 
 we all know, advances the amount at the custom-house, and if in- 
 stead of nddinfr, he deducts the tax from the price, he is a double 
 loser, and bankruptcy must soon close his career. You will see at 
 once therefore, the utter impossibility of its being true, that taxes 
 on foreign goods can possibly lessen prices, unless, indeed, we are 
 disposed to give credit to the idle and ridiculous stories of vast 
 combinations, which formerly existed among the manufacturers of 
 Europe, but which have been broken up by our acts of Congress. 
 The whole mistake on this subject, if indeed it be a mistake, aris- 
 es from not distinguishiug between an absolute, and relative fall in 
 prices, and not tracing effects to liieir proper causes. From the 
 embarrassments ofcomiiierce — the restoration of a sound currency — 
 vast improvements in machinery — the low interest of money, and 
 a consequent reduction in the wages of labour, prices have of late 
 years, fallen all over the world. Manufactured goods, must of 
 course have partaken in some degree of this reduction, which 
 embraces all manner of productions, and every description of pro- 
 perty throughout the world. But to know whether the price of 
 
 * See Report on the Blacksmiths' Petition, and testimony of John SarcliPt 
 
112 
 
 any commodity has been really reduced, we must compare it with 
 other articles, and this comparison will shew conclusively, that 
 while agricultural productions, especially those of the Southern 
 States, have actually been reduced below their proper level, Ame- 
 rican manufactures still remain far above that level.* Has not our 
 cotton fallen from twenty, to seven or eight cents ; rice, from six 
 dollars to two and a half, and lands and negroes, houses and lots 
 in the same proportion ? And, (to apply a test which cannot de- 
 ceive us,) I appeal to every cotton planter to say whether it does 
 not take more cotton to procure his supplies now than it did ten 
 years ago ? And I will appeal to every merchant, whether the cot- 
 ton and woollen goods which have been protected by the tariff, are 
 not now much higher than goods of the same description in Eng- 
 land ft Away then, at once and forever, with this absurd and ri'.li- 
 culous pretension of the manufacturers, that the Tariff has actually 
 given us our supplies at a cheaper rate. The prices of manufac- 
 tures have not, in fact fallen, but on the contrary, iiave been rela- 
 tively increased, and if the duties were taken off lo-rnorrow, my 
 life upon it, we should not only get our goods much cheaper than we 
 do now, but at the same time, find a better market for our produce. 
 I hope I will not be considered as making a vain boast of patriot- 
 ism, when 1 declare that there is hardly any sacrifice that I would 
 not make, to secure to my country the blessings of Free Trade, 
 even for a single year, for sure I am, that this would give a new im- 
 pulse to Southern enterprise, bring back once more, those happy 
 days, when industry of every description was sure of its reward, 
 and by satisfying the minds and uniting the hearts of all classes of 
 our fellow-citizens in support of the great principles of Free Trade, 
 would establish them on a foundation never again to be shaken. 
 
 But we are told a great deal about the " blessed consummation" 
 of having " a HOME MARKET substituted for a foreign market for 
 our cotton." Now, no man can estimate the possible domestic 
 consumption of cotton in the United States at more than two hun- 
 dred thousand bales, and we are, by this scheme, to run the risk 
 of having seven hundred thousand bales left to perish on our 
 hands. For, unless American manufactures can supplant the 
 foreign in the markets of the world, (an idea too extravagant to be 
 worthy of a thought — for surely if we cannot enter into competition 
 at home, without a protecting duty of 50 per cent, it is absurd to 
 suppose, we can do so abroad without any protection atall) — itis de- 
 monstrably clear, that the substitution of a domestic for a foreign 
 market for our cotton, must deprive us of a market entirely for 
 three-fourths of our productions. Let any practical man examine 
 this question. Let us suppose that South-Carolina now sends to 
 
 * See Table of Prices in the Banner of the Constitution, 1 vol. 424. 
 + See Appendix E. 
 
13 
 
 Great-Britain one hundred thousand bales of cotton, worth three 
 millions of dollars, for which she pays us in cotton goods of equal 
 value, the manufacture of which would require about twenty-five 
 thousand bales of cotton, the remaining seventy-five thousand bales, 
 being worked up into goods which are disposed of in Europe. 
 But the importation of these goods is to be prohibited, and we are 
 to be compelled to go for them to New-England. Now, how much 
 of our cotton can New-England take in exchange for cotton goods ? 
 no more than she wants to make them — and the raw material 
 being just one-fourth part of the manufactured article, she could 
 of course, take no more than twenty-five thousand bales of our 
 cotton — worth seven hundred and fifty thousand dollars — so that 
 instead of haying a foreign market for three millions of our 
 produce, we are to have a home market for seven hundred and 
 fifty thousand dollars, thereby losing a market entirely for two mil- 
 lions and a quarter, out of every three millions of our produc- 
 tions. Such are the glorious prospects held out to reconcile 
 the South to the American System.* But here, we are told, by 
 our Northern brethern, that " the production of cotton is over- 
 done," that we must make no more cotton than they want, and 
 turn our attention to something else. A modest demand truly ! 
 that the manufacturers should not only have a monopoly of the 
 home market for their productions, but a monopoly also of our raw 
 material, at their own prices. I could easily show that this assump- 
 tion of the over-production of cotton is wholly unfounded.! But 
 
 * It is believed that the case is not stated here too strongly. If the system is to 
 be pushed to the extent of cutting off the foreign market for our cotton, and we are 
 correct in supposing that the American manufactures cannot consume more than two 
 hundred thousand bales, then it is clear, that we should lose a market entirely for 
 seven hundred thousand bales ; more than three-fourths of the whole - and just 
 so far as we may be driven by the operation of the protecting system, from the fo- 
 reign, into the home market, must we lose a market for a portion of our cotton, and 
 this simply because Great-Britain can supply the whole of Europe with cotton goods, 
 manvfadured out of American cotton, while the American manufacturers cannot. The 
 effect stated would be produced even where cotton goods are received in exchange for 
 our cotton, but it is obvious, that where other articles are received the loss would be 
 total. Great-Britain may receive one hundred thousand bales of our cotton, and 
 pay us in woollens, or in hardware, because she may find a market for this cotton on 
 the Continent — but could New-England do the same thing ? Surely not, unless she 
 can enter into competition with Great-Britain in the markets of the world, without 
 any protection whatever; and if she can do this, she surely cannot stand in need of 
 a Tariff of protection at home. The case then is a very plain one. New-England is 
 either prepared to manufacture for the markets of the world without any discriminating 
 duty, or she is not. If she is so prepared she wants no Tariff for her protection, il 
 she is not, the consequences above stated inevitably follow^. 
 
 t With open markets and unrestricted commerce we do not think that over-prc 
 DUCTioN would be an evil to be much apprehended by us. Cotton is by far the cheap- 
 pstof all known raw materials, and is fast superseding flax, hemp, wool and silk in the 
 consumption of the world. Proof of this, is to be found in a fact stated by the late Mr. 
 Huskisson, that during the period when the woollen manufactures of England had ad 
 vanced {rom Jive millions of pounds sterlingper annum to «x millions; the cotton man- 
 '.ifacture had advanced from less than one, to thirty millions. Let us suppose that, in 
 
H 
 
 we have another and shorter answer to give to such an argument. 
 We say to those who urge it, who made you rulers and judges over 
 us in this matter ? We believe ourselves to be the best judges of 
 our own concerns. We have a right to cultivate cotton and rice, 
 so long as we choose to do so, and we utterly deny the right of 
 the manufacturers, with Congress at their backs, to drive us from 
 the pursuits of our choice to those which they may happen to think 
 most conducive to our interests — or perhaps their own. This is 
 the true answer, and while South-Carolina shall continue *' a free 
 sovereign and independent Slate," and the constitutional compact 
 shall be the bond of Union, it can never be, that the right shall be 
 surrendered to the Federal Government of regulating our labour 
 and capital, and driving us from one pursuit to another, according 
 to their arbitrary will and pleasure. But this is not merely a ques- 
 tion of calculation, it is also one of principle. For if the power 
 claimed by Congress in this case be conceded, then there is an end 
 to all limitations on the powers of the Federal Government. The 
 Constitution is a dead letter, and the will of a majority, is the su- 
 preme law. They may tax you at pleasure, render your property 
 worthless, overturn your institutions, and reduce you to slavery. 
 
 Here, aj[?ain, I must avail myself of the language of the Slate in 
 her Protest of 1828. I can urge nothing half so strong, and it 
 comes with authority as the voice of Carolina. " The encourage- 
 ment (say our Legislature) of domestic industry implies an abso- 
 lute CONTROL OVER ALL THE INTERESTS, RESOURCES AND 
 PURSUITS OF A PEOPLE, and is inconsistent with the idea of any 
 other, than a simple consolidated governmeixt." It follows 
 then, that if this power be yielded, you have nothing left which 
 you can call your own, but the poor privilege of unavailing com- 
 plaints ; — your liberty is gone, and State Rights but an empty 
 name — *' a sounding brass, and a tinkling cymbal." The question 
 
 addition to the purposes to which cotton is now applied, it siiould come into general 
 use for sails, blankets, broadcloths, hats, &c. might not the quantity of cotton now pro- 
 duced in the world be doubled, without over-production, and under asystem of fair and 
 equal connpetition, is it not probable that our cotton would drive the cottons of other 
 countries out of the markets of the world and if so. what limits can be put to our 
 prosperity and wealth ? But it is, at the same time, certain, that cotton is an article 
 capable of being produced in so may countries, that there is great danger of our being 
 driven from the cultivation of it entirely by the operation of the American system. 
 Great-Britain ca?? supply herself with cotton to any extent from South-America, Egypt 
 and India, and she must do so, if our restrictive system is persevered in. for it will then 
 become her interest so to do It is certain that Great-Britain is preparing for this 
 even now. The late tax of five-eighths of a penny imposed on foreign cotton 
 amounts to a discriminating duty of near a cent and a half a pound, in favour ot In- 
 dia cotton, and against our own One step more in this course, and our ruin is sealed, 
 for when our cotton trade is once destroyed, it can never be restored. And yet our 
 government in the exercise of a power admitted to be doubtful, is putting in jeopar- 
 dy the great staple of the South, amounting to near thirty millions of dollars per an- 
 num, for the purpose of stimulating the indiastry of the North, by forcing their man- 
 ufactures into premature existence. And yet we hear it said, that " we have no pecu- 
 liar cause of complaint." 
 
13 
 
 then presents itself what is to be done, under this mighty tyranny— 
 this grievous oppression, which is grinding us to powder — which is 
 causing the grass to grow in our streets — which has ruined our 
 merchants — caused our last ship to be sold — prostrated all me- 
 chanic employments — is driving our most enterprizing citizens in- 
 to exile ; and has converted our hospitable mansions into " si- 
 lent and solitary halls," — and O God ! — worse than all — is bowing 
 down the VERY SPIRIT OF OUR PEOPLE IN THE DUST. In the 
 contemplation of this altered condition of a people, upon whose 
 heads heaven had showered down her choicest blessings — of a land 
 rich in the bounties of nature, but blasted by the hand of man, 
 well might your Representative in Congress* indignantly exclaim, 
 "if these things be consistent with a Constitution, formed to estab- 
 lish justice, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our 
 posterity, then have words lost their meaning, then is our indepen- 
 dence but a phantom ; ihe patriots of the Revolution have toiled 
 and bled in vain ; it would be better for us to return to our for- 
 mer colonial vassallage, when, if unjustly taxed, the burthen was 
 imposed without discrimination upon all our countrymen, when 
 if oppressed, our oppressors were not our representatives, when 
 if enslaved, we were guiltless of forging the chains ourselves, with 
 which our liberty was manacled." What then, my countrymen, 
 remains to be done ? Are you for submission ? No ! that is impos- 
 sible. What then ? Shall we dissolve the Union ? God forbid ! 
 Fearful as is the tyranny — awful as is the ruin which is impending 
 over us — I trust the bitter cup may yet pass away from us, without 
 our being compelled either to drain it to the dregs, or forcibly to 
 dash it from our lips. But, in order to decide what we ought now 
 to do, it is proper to see what we have already done. As far back 
 as 1820, the people of South Carolina, took up the subject of the 
 Tariff, in their primary assemblies, and solemnly denounced it as 
 "utterly subversive of their rights and interests." I well recol- 
 lect, that at a large and respectable meeting in this city, a gentleman, 
 who has since become a leading member of the Union Party, stood, 
 almost alone, in opposition to the sentiments of this commnnity 
 embodied in that masterly Memorial to Congress, which rcnains 
 an enduring monument of the wisdom of that most estimable man, 
 who died as he had lived, without a rival in the confidence and af- 
 fections of his fellow-citizens. t There is not a district in the whole 
 State, which has not, within the last ten years, over and over again 
 forwarded similar memorials to Congress, until the very name of 
 petitions against ihe Tarifl', became hateful to the ears of the majori- 
 ty, who would not consent to read them, nor hardly suffer them 
 to be printed. In this state of things, finding the petitions of her 
 
 * Col. Drayton's Speech fit St. Paul?. t The late Stephen Elliott. 
 
16 ' 
 
 citizens unheeded, the Legislature of the State took up the subject, 
 and in December 1 825, solemnly resolved, " that it was an uncon- 
 stitutional exercise of power, on the part of Congress, to tax the 
 citizens of one State, to make roads and canals for the benefit of cit- 
 izens of another State, and that it is also an unconstitutional exer- 
 cise of power on the part of Congress to lay duties to protect 
 domestic manufactures.''^ These resolutions having also been en- 
 tirely disregarded by Congress, the Legislature again, in Decem- 
 ber 1827, took up the subject, and after asserting (the true State 
 Rights doctrine,) " that the Constitution of the United States is a 
 compact between the people of the different States, as separate, in- 
 dependent sovereignties,''^ proceeded to pronounce ' ' the tariff-laws (the 
 object of which, is not the raising of revenue, or the regulation of 
 foreign commerce, but ihe protection of domestic manufactures) as 
 violations of the Constitution, and instructed their Representatives 
 in Congress to continue to oppose all measures of that character." 
 In 1828, when it was ascertained that in the face of all these re- 
 monstrances, Congress, instead of repealing the Tariff', had passed 
 a new bill, ten times more oppressive than the former (the " bill of 
 abominations") — our Legislature began to feel that it did not be- 
 come the dignity of a sovereign State to continue to make un- 
 availing remonstrances against the violation of the constitutional 
 rights of her citizens, and she therefore determined on a most im- 
 posing measure ; the entering a solemn Protest on the journals of 
 the Senate. After declaring " that the opinions of the Legislature, 
 as expressed in 1825 and 1828, remained unchanged, and that the 
 Legislature were now only restrained /row the assertion of the 
 SOVEREIGN RIGHTS OF THE State, (which they declared to be 
 purely a question of EXPEDIENCY, and not of ALLEGIANCE,) by 
 the hope, that the magnanimity and justice of the good people of 
 the Union, would effect an abandonment of a sy?,Xem, partial in its 
 nature, unjust in its operations, and not within the powers delegat- 
 ed to Congress'" — they, among other things, solemnly resolved, 
 " that this system is utterly unconstitutional, grossly unequal and 
 oppressive, and such an abuse of power as is incovipatible with the 
 principles of free government, and the great ends of civil society — 
 and that as South-Carolina, from her climate, situation, and pecu- 
 liar institutions, not only is, but must ever continue to be, wholly de- 
 pendent upon agriculture and commerce, not only for her prosperity ^ 
 but her very existence, if, by the loss of her foreign commerce, her 
 products should be confined to inadequate markets, the fate of this 
 fertile State would be POVERTY and UTTER DESOLATION, her citi- 
 zens, in despair, would emigrate to more favoured regions, and the 
 whole frame and Constitution of her civil polity be impaired and de- 
 ranged, iC not entirely dissolved'' — and that " deeply impressed with 
 these considerations, and feeling it to be their bounden duty to ex- 
 
17 
 
 pose<, and to RESIST all encroachments upon the true spirit of the 
 Constitution ; they claimed, in the name of the Ccmmomvcalth of 
 South-Carolina, " to enter vjmn the journals of the Senate of the 
 United States, their Protest against the system of protecting duties 
 as nnconstitutional, oppressive and unjust.''^ 
 
 Surely, if there ever was a season when South-Carolina had a 
 right to expect of all her citizens tbat they would " speak out, or 
 forever after hold their peace," this was the very hour — when she was 
 about, in the tare of the world, to avow principles, and commit her- 
 self to a course of measures, from whicli there could be no retreat. 
 What then are we to think of those, who being the supporters — 
 the advocates — the very fathers of this PuoTESTj-are now striving 
 to arrest — not the iLsurjMtioji, but our honest cflorts against it ?^ — 
 who are endeavouring to j)aralize all our exertions, by crying out 
 at the corners of our streets, " war, revolution and blood '^-and 
 are labouring to bring about a degradhig submission to a system, 
 whose character they have themselves drawn in the language (ne- 
 ver to be forgotten) which you have just heard read ? 
 
 In obedieuQC, fellow-citizens, to this high command, my col- 
 league and myself, in our places in the Senate, in the presence of 
 the Representatives of the several States, and in the face of the 
 whole American people, dich, in the name and behalf of the State of 
 South-Carolina, enter her solemn Protect against this system of 
 protecting duties, " as unconstitutional, oppressive, and unjust ;" 
 and caused that Protest to be spread upon the journals, " that the 
 record might bear witness for us, to all future times, that before 
 South-Carolina would proceed to the assertion of the sovereign rights 
 of the State in this matter, she liad earnestly remonstrated with her 
 brethren, against the extension of an unwarrantable jurisdiction 
 over us, and, with ample experience of the ruinous eilects of this 
 system, had pronounced it to be utterly destructive of her interests, 
 and threatningher very existence as a State." It is worthy of ob- 
 servation, that at the very session at which this Protest was adopted, 
 five thousand copies of the celebrated South-Carolina exposi- 
 tion, reported by a committee of the House of Representatives, 
 were printed by order of that house for general distribution, in 
 which the right of the State to interpose its sovereign power to nul- 
 lify an unconstitutional act of Congress, is distinctly avowed, 
 and ably vindicated. Nor was this all. In the Senate, by a vote 
 of thirty-six to six, the system was pronounced to be " a TYRANNY 
 
 IN PRINCIPLE AND IN PRACTICE" which " DELIVERS OVER OUR 
 
 CITIZENS, BOUND, HAND AND FOOT, TO DESPOTISM ;" and that 
 
 " not to RESIST IT— if need be — at every Hazard," would be 
 io *' betray our trust," and a violal^ion of the <« bounden du- 
 ty OF THE state." 
 
 3 
 
18 
 
 it ii Dot to be denied that these proceedings, taken in connexion, 
 produceil for the time, a profound impression at Washington. 
 They were regarded as a distinct annunciation of the unalterable 
 determination of South-Carolina, not to submit to the "American 
 System," and, if driven to that necessity, of interposing in the last 
 resort, the invincible Tcgxsoi State Sovereignty ^01 the protection of 
 the constitutional rights of her citizens. So deep and solemn was 
 the impression made on the minds of the Tarift-party by this pro- 
 ceeding, that (with the best means of judging) I became thorough- 
 ly convinced, that nothing was necessary but the continued display 
 of the same (hfermincd purpose on the p-art of South-Carolina, to 
 secure us an e<\sy, a peaceful, and a certain victory. Strong as the 
 " American System" is, its supporters well know that it never has 
 been, and is not now, strong enough to be sustained in public opin- 
 ion, at tlie smallest hazard to the Union, or the' least risk of shed- 
 ding one drop of patriot blood. They well know, that at the 
 sound of the first musket fired in its support, the "system" would 
 crumble into ruins. The South has never proposed to take away 
 from the manufacturers the incidental protection to be derived from 
 a just and equal system for revenue ; and t/iis, though not as much 
 as they wish, is all that they absolutely need, and with this they 
 will be content rather than expose their system to the risk of colli- 
 sion with any State in the Union. The truth is, fellow-citizens, 
 the Tariff-party know, that their "system" cannot survive any direct 
 collision with a Sovereign State, standing on the solid foundation 
 ot her constitutional rights. Ours is a government, not of force, 
 bat of opinion, and every one feels that the only secure basis of 
 the Union, are the affections of the people, founded on a convic- 
 tion of the justice of the government, and the perfect equality of 
 its dispensations ; and ^Acy surely, have not conceived the true spi- 
 rit of our institutions, who suppose that the States composing this 
 Confederacy, instead of being drawn together by that sublime sym- 
 pathy which holds the planets in their spheres, " wheeling unshaken 
 in the void immense," are to be held in bonds of iron, or forced into 
 iiarmonious action, by violence and blood-shed. My friends, if the 
 Drospect of a peaceable redress of our wrongs be now less favoura- 
 ble than it has been — if we hear it now announced even from high 
 places, that all our proceedings are but " menace and bluster"— to 
 which the manufacturers, " shall not yield," no, " not an inch"— 
 if you see the Tariff-party assuming fresh courage, and meeting in 
 Convention, to devise means for moulding our laws to suit their 
 own purposes — forming their as^ciations. — establishing their press- 
 es and displaying in the worst of causes, the zeal and energy. 
 
 which we have not exhibited in the best— believe xm-, we are indebt- 
 ed for all this, to the rumour which has gone abroad — (founded on 
 nvr unhappi/ divisions at home)~-io the belief that exists, that 
 
19 
 
 South-Carolina, " ia41en from iicr lilgh estate" — in pre4)ai-ii)o- to 
 recede from all her grounds — and, presenting a broken front to the 
 common enemy, can be driven (if now pressed home) to UMCOM)!- 
 T[ONAL SUBMISSION. In this awful situation the question arises 
 what is to be done ? T-Jethinks I hear a voice running through this 
 vast assembly and calling to us in solemn accents, " men and bre- 
 thren what shall we do f" This i.s^ iixlecd, an awful question- I: 
 can only be answered by the people. It may be expected of me. 
 however, that I should not keep back my own poor opinion, i 
 say then, fellow-citizens, VOU BEHOLD WITH YOUR 0Wi\ EYES.THI. 
 RUIN WHICH IS AROUND YOU — before yon, there may possiblij be 
 danger (though I believe it not) but behind you there is foul 
 disgrace. I should think you cannot long stand where you are, and if 
 you consult eitheryourinterests or your honour, orlook to your rights 
 or your duties — retreat is impossible. It does seem to me that 
 South-Carolina can»02; abandon the hi^h grounds she has taken ; and 
 that her course must be onward. You vnisi advance, with the sin- 
 gleness of heart and pure devotion of the pilgrim, to the holy sepul- 
 chre — your ONLY OBJECT, the protection of your RIGHTS and 
 LIBERTIES — the restoration of the CONSTITUTION, and the preser- 
 vation of tl>e UNroN. I have shown you those rights invaded — 
 the very ark of the covenant polluted, and siiall not yours be 
 the pious office of bringing it back to the temple, and replacing it 
 before the altar f You must advance to the performance of this 
 sacred duty, steadily though calmly — temperately ihough firvily — 
 and with a fixed, and unaherrble purpose to accomplish the object 
 in the end. Try every method which promises success. If rea- 
 son and argument — petition and remonstrance, have not been 
 already exhausted, resort to them again. If it be deemed neces- 
 sary to make a last appeal to your sister States — the oppressor h and 
 the oppressed — let that appeal be made, — solemni}' warning the for- 
 mer, of the inevitable consequences of continuing to exert an ini- 
 warrantable control over our domestic pursuits, and aft'ectionately 
 appealing to the latter for that countenance and support which we 
 have a right to expect at their hands. But, should " the argument 
 be exhausted" — should all our efibrts utterly fail, and the only al- 
 ternative left, be submission to this usurpation of power, or she 
 interposition of the sovereign authority of the state, 
 I say with Mr. Jefferson "there ought to be no hesitation." But 
 this we are told will be Nullification. Be it so. When nulli- 
 fication shall be our only means of deliverance from this oppres- 
 sion, who is there that would not be a nullifierf We do not pro- 
 pose to apply this remedy except "in the last resort," and as the 
 only alternative to submission to the " American System" " as the 
 settled policy of the country," — and is any one here ready to avow 
 himself " a submission man ?" We will take any remedy that may 
 
20 
 
 be pt^opasecl to us, short of disunion, but should it come finally to 
 this, that we must either Guhtnit — interpose the sovereign authority 
 of the State — or secede — and we are determined not to submit, 
 what possible objeciion can any one then have to tiiis interposition, 
 (if it weic merely an experiment to save the Union) — call it Nnlli- 
 lication, or call it what you will? Wliy do our opponents prefer 
 secession to WuUifK-ation ? Surely (heij are not disunionists ? — 
 or would they drive us to submission by appealing to our fears f The 
 truth is, that though wc n)ay differ among ourselves now, the time 
 is at hand, >vhen there will be but two parties on this question — 
 thofe who stand by the State in this controversy, and those who 
 do not, — those who intend quietly to submit to the usurpation, and 
 those who, when all hope shall be" lost, tr.ean to maintain their 
 rights. It is preposterous to tell us, that [)arties are divided only 
 as to the remedy. An ngreeraent in principle, and a difteience as to 
 measures, is always a h-iendly difference of ojiinion among mem- 
 bers of the same party, but is tiicre no reason in this case to fear, 
 that many of those who profess to wage war only against whattliey 
 call our " extreme remedies,'''' are in fact Tariff-men in heart — the 
 supporters of Consolidation, and opposed to State Rights altoge- 
 ther ? Have tee ever proposed a test oath on the subject of a rem- 
 edy for our grievances? Who was it that made Nullification and 
 Convention test questions for a seat even in the City Council ? 
 The question of remedy is a question for consultation and conces- 
 sion, among all those who agree in the principle of eflectual opposi- 
 tion. We go for the rights of the State — we stand up for the con- 
 stitutional privileges of the citizen — we insist on a REDRESS OF 
 OUR GRIEVANCES. All who are prepared to go with us to this end, 
 are with us — all others are against us. Let our opponents shew us 
 any means of accomplishing these objects. Let them submit their 
 plan, and we will pl-edge ourselves to take any course they may 
 suggest, short of submission, or secession. But, if in truth, they 
 have no plan — if after all that has been said and done, they do 
 really mean to submit to the usurpation notv and forever, are you 
 prepared to go with them ? To all who honestly difler only us to 
 the remedy — who really believe that a State has RIGHTS, and 
 are prepared to maintain them — we say " come, let us reason to- 
 gether," that whatever we do, may be done with one heart and one 
 mind. We quarrel v\ith no man, who maintaining State Rights, dif- 
 fers with us only as to the means of supporting them. I believe that 
 the apprDpriaie remedy, when remonstrance shall have been ex- 
 hausted, is " the interposition of the sovereign authority of the 
 gt;,te" — a remedy which has been called " Nullification." 
 
 I am aware that ! cannot go at large into this doctrine here, but 
 J cannot iorbear from endeavouring to rescue it from misrepresen- 
 tation. By Nullification then we understand nothing more than 
 
21 
 
 such an interposition of State sovereignty, as may be eftectual for 
 the preservation of State Rights. 
 
 This doctrine was first distinctly asserted in the celebrated Vir- 
 ginia Resolutions of '98, where it is laid down " that in case of a 
 deliberate, palpable and dangerous exercise, by the Federal Go- 
 vernment, of povters not granted by the Constitution, the Stales 
 have a right and are in duty bound to intekpose, for arresting 
 the progress of the evil, and maintaining WITHIN their respec- 
 tive LIMITS, the authorities, rights and liberties appertaininc to 
 them." Ingenuity may effect much — authority more, but no iuge- 
 unity or authority, merely human, can ever shew that the right of a 
 State to resort to such means as she may deem necessary, effectu- 
 ally to protect within her own limits her own reserved rights, is 
 not here distinctly aud unequivocally asserted. If it be true (as 
 asserted by Mr. Madison, in his report,) that the several States are 
 the sole guardians of their reserved rights — if (to quote his very 
 words) — " the Constitution was formed by the sanction of THE 
 States given by each in its sovereign capacity, and being par- 
 ties to the Constitution, in their sovereign capacity, it follows of ne- 
 cessity, that THERE CAM BE AO TRIBUNAL ABOVE THEIR AUTHOR- 
 ITY" to decide in the last resort, whether the- compact made by them 
 be preserved or violated, and consequently that, as the parties to it, 
 THEY MUST THEMSELVES DECIDE in the last resort such questions 
 as may be of sufficient magnitude to require their interposition" — 
 the conclusion is irresistible, that each State must — and (" in 
 cases of sufficient magnitude to justify such interposition") 
 uouldbe"iu duty bound," to afford effectual protection to her 
 citizens from the operation of unconstitutional laws. If this 
 be not the true meaning of the Virginia Resolutions of '98, they 
 have no meaning at all. 1 know that laboured attempts have 
 been made to explain aicay these Resolutions, as well as Mr. 
 Madison's report upon them, but all these efforts must be for- 
 forever vain. They speak for themselves, ajijd in a language too 
 plain to be misunderstood. It has been said that the " interposi- 
 tion^^ spoken of, relates only to memorials and protests, and other 
 " appeals to public opinion." But is it to be credited for a moment 
 that such infinite pains should have been taken by Mr. Madison to 
 establish the right of a State to " interpose by reason and argu- 
 ment to enlighten the public mind ?" Is it to be credited that he 
 should have written an elaborate treatise going to the very foundations 
 of the constitutional compact, and establishing the sovereignty of 
 the States, if nothing more was meant than to maintain the right 
 of petition and protest? Can it be believed that " to guard against 
 misconstruction," he should have found it necessary to declare that 
 the exercise of the right contended for — (viz : " the interposition 
 of the parties to the compact in their sovereign capacity") — was to 
 
be exerted only lii " THE last resort,'' and could only be call 
 ed for " by occasions deeply and essentially affecting the vital princi- 
 ples of our political system" — and, that he should have " express- 
 ly required for such interposition the case of a deliberate, palpa- 
 ble and dangerous breach of the Constitution, by the exercise of 
 powers not granted by it," if nothing more was meant than harm- 
 less expressions of opinion ? It is impossible. Look at the man- 
 ner in which these resolutions were received and treated throughout 
 the United States at that time, and it will be seen at once, that they 
 were not regarded as of this innocent character. The very same 
 denunciations which are urged against this doctrine now, were ut- 
 tered then. In the minds (says fVirt in his life of Patrick Henr3') 
 even of great and good men," these resolutions conjured up the 
 most frightful visions of civil vtar, disunion, blood and an- 
 archy, and under the influence of these phantoms, they declar- 
 ed that such opposition, on the part of Virginia, to the acts of the 
 General Government, must beget their enforcement by military 
 povirer; this involved civil war — civil war, foreign alliances — and this 
 must necessarily end in subjugation to the powers called in." The 
 historian indeed now treats all this as " the fears of the brave, and 
 follies of the wise." But the Virginia Resolutions were as potent 
 in conjuring up these phantoms, as the Carolina doctrines. A re- 
 ference to the Protests of the dissenting Stales which repudiated 
 the Virginia Resolutions in '93, will shew, that they were then un- 
 derstood in the very sense in which the Carolina doctrines are now- 
 understood, and were denounced by the advocates of Consolidation 
 as "hazarding the peace of the State by civil discord," and reduc- 
 ing the Federal Government to " a mere cypher — to the form and 
 pageantry of authority without the energy of power."* But our 
 opponents finding this unmeaning version of the Virginia Resolu- 
 tions wholly inconsistent, both with the letter and the spirit of those 
 Resolutions — turn round at once, and say that the "interposition" 
 alluded to, must mean revolution, " a power above and beyond 
 all Constitutions," looking not to the preservation of the Federal 
 Government, but to its overthrow ; and, in support of this view 
 of the subject it is stated that Virginia replenished her arsenals, 
 and was making preparations for supporting her principles hy force. 
 But to put an end at once to this argument we have the express de- 
 claration in the Report itself, that the object of the "•interposition 
 contemplated," was " solely that of arresting the progress of the 
 evil of usurpation, and of maintaining the authorities, rights and 
 liberties of the States as parties to the Constitution'"-— duxd that, " if 
 the deliberate exercise of dangerous powers palpably withheld by 
 the Constitution, could not justify the parties to it in interposing 
 
 * See No. 12 of the Southern Review. Nov 1830, page 508, where the proceed- 
 ings of these States a«e collected and commented on. 
 
23 
 
 even so far as to arrest the progress of the evil, and, thereby, to 
 PRESERVE THE CONSTITUTION ITSELF, Sic. — there would be an 
 end to all relief from usurped power." The object then, most 
 clearly, was not Revolution, which must of course have destroyed, 
 and not preserved the Constitution. But again, we are told that 
 this *' interposition," whatever may be its character, is to be made 
 by the States and not by an individual State. But the whole argu- 
 ment in support of the claim rests on the right OF sovereignty, 
 which resides in each State, and which therefore can only be exert- 
 ed by the States individually. By what Joint action of the States 
 are the rights of each to be preserved " within their respective limits?" 
 The proposition involves a gross and palpable absurdity. But if 
 more than one State must unite in this " interposition," how many 
 are necessary .'' If the right exrsts in the majority or in any other 
 number it must exist in each. That the right of State " interpo- 
 sition," contended for by Mr. Madison, does not relate to proposi- 
 tions to amend the Constitution, is certain — for such a right never 
 having been denied, did not require to be vindicated. Virginia 
 made no proposition to amend the Constitution in relation to the 
 Alien and Sedition laws, but simply sent forth her declaration that 
 these laws were unconstitutional, and that it was the right of the 
 States, acting in their sovereign capacitj', to arrest the progress of 
 usurpation and " to maintain within their respective limits their 
 authorities, rights and liberties." But Virginia did more. She 
 carried out these principles at the time into a distinct act OF nul- 
 lification. The Sedition law made words of a certain charac- 
 ter and tendency liable to punishment whenever uttered. Virginia 
 passed a law (in special reference to the Sedition law, as I have un- 
 derstood fvovo high authority) expressly exempting the members of 
 their legislature from all liability for words written or spoken in the 
 course of their legislative proceedings — directing their discharge 
 ijy the State judges if arrested or imprisoned for the causes above 
 mentioned, and imposing penalties on all persons aiding in arrest- 
 ing, or prosecuting them. Now, is there the smallest difference in 
 principle between an act exempting one class of her citizens, or 
 every class, from the operation of unconstitutional acts of Congress? 
 Assuredly not. The right in question, therefore, was distinctly as- 
 serted by Virginia, both in theory andin |)ractice, and if she did not 
 in the first place go so far as tonullify the Sedition law entirely, within 
 her limits, this can only be accounted for by supposing, that appre- 
 hending that she might be brought into collision with the United 
 States on this subject she chose to make up her issue with the Fede- 
 ral Government in a particular case, which, while it would test the 
 principle, would present the strongest possible appeal to public 
 sympathy. It was not necessary for her in the first instaijce to go 
 ♦^'iirther than this, since the acts of which she complained were li- 
 
2f4 
 
 UJitted in tlieir duration, and it was natural and proper that having 
 taken these steps, she should wait to see if the Federal Government 
 would venture to revive them. They expired by their own limita- 
 tion ; Virginia triumphed — and the great principles of State Rights 
 so nobly asserted, triumphed with her. These Resolutions have 
 come down to us " as a light to our feet and a lamp to our path;" 
 her act of Nallijication remains unrepealed upon her statute book, 
 in perpetual testimony of the riglit of a State to interpose, for the 
 protection of he rcitizens, within her own limits, and until all the 
 records of the country shall be destroyed, we can never be depriv- 
 ed of the benefit of this precedent, of successful resistance by a 
 single State against the usurpations of the Federal Government, 
 without disunion, war, revolution, or bloodshed.* Kentucky the 
 daughter of Virginia responded to her doctrines both in '98 and '99, 
 in those celebrated Resolutions, attributed to Mr. Jefferson, and 
 which bear the stamp of his mighty mind.t The doctrine assert- 
 ed in th<^ Resolutioirs of '99, as v^u shall see presently contain 
 Nullification, not only in principle but in name. In the Kentucky 
 Resolutions of '98, Mr. Jefierson asserts the doctrine of Nullifica- 
 tion in terms which amount to a definition and to which nothing 
 can be added. I beg you to mark the ivords — he says " That 
 the several States composing the United States of America, are not 
 united o?» the principle of unlimited submission to their General 
 Government ; but that by compact, under the style and title of a 
 Constitution for the United States, and of amendments thereto, 
 they constituted a General Government for special purposes, dele- 
 gated to that government certain definite powers, reserving each 
 State to itself the residuary mass of riji;ht to their own self-govern- 
 ment ; and that, whensoever the General Government assum.es unde- 
 legated potvcrs, its acts are unauthoritative, void, and of no force; 
 that to this compact each State acceded, AS A State, and is an 
 integral party, ITS CO-STATES forming as to itself, the other par- 
 ty ; that the government created by this compact was not 31ADE 
 
 THE EXCLUSIVE OR FINAL JUDGE OF THE EXTENT of the POWERS 
 
 DELEGATED TO ITSELF: since that would have made its discretion, 
 and not the Constitution, the measure of its powers; but that AS 
 IN ALL OTHER CASES OF COMPACT AMONG PARTIES HAVING NO 
 COMMON JUDGE, EACH PARTY HAS AN EQUAL RIGHT TO JUDGE 
 FOR ITSELF, AS WELL OF INFRACTIONS, AS OF THE MODE AND 
 31EASURE OF REDRESS." 
 
 If this be not Nullification, we contend not for it. This great 
 republican truth, (the very foundation of State Rights, and the kej- 
 stone to the whole Federal System,) the support or abandonment of 
 wliich must forever decide the question whether ours is to be a Con- 
 
 * See Appendix F. t See Appendix G- 
 
»5 
 
 ^olidated or Fedfiral Government— ha\ing thus Sj^rung into being 
 from the master mind of Jeflerson, like Minerva from the brain of 
 Jove, all radiant in the flowing armour ofliberty and truth— want- 
 ed but a name to stamp its character in the world ; and that it 
 should be dedicated to the cause of State Rights. In the Resolu- 
 tions of '99, we accordingly find it laid down — "That the princi- 
 ple and construction contended for, by sundry of the Stale Legis- 
 latures, that the General Government is the exclusive judge of the 
 extent of the powers delegated to it, stop nothing short of despo- 
 tism; since the discrcrwn of those who administer the government, 
 and not the Constitution, would be tht3 measure of their powers. 
 That the several States who formed that instrument, being sove- 
 reign and independent, have the unquestionable right to Judge of 
 its "infraction, and thai a NulUJication by those sovereignties, of nil 
 wiaathorized acts done under colour of that instrument, i^ the right- 
 ful remedy.'''' 
 
 Here then it will be seen that we trace the doctrine of Nullifi- 
 cation, both in principle and in name, to a period upwards of thirty 
 years back, and yet with these historical f\icts staring ihem in the 
 face, the Tariff-party have d-enounced it, as a new thing, a novel doc- 
 trine, never' heard of until the last two years, and well meaning men 
 among ourselves have been deluded into a belief of the assei-tion. 1 
 am not surprised, however, that a war of extermination should have 
 been wai:;ed against it, by the wjiole Tariff party, and every sup- 
 porter of Consolidation — for from the establishment of our princi- 
 ples, they justly augur the overthrow of their system.; and in the 
 very name of State Rights, they hear the knell of all their hopes ; 
 but it is " passing strange," that any true friend of State Rights 
 should be found joining in the senseless cry, of " civil war, revo- 
 lution and blood." — AVhen we contetnplatL; the means which have 
 been resorted to, on this subject, to poison the public mind, and, with 
 a total disregard of the character of the State, to heap odium on the 
 heads of as honourable and patriotic uien as any age or country 
 could boast of, and when we witness the partial success of these 
 efforts even in our own commimity, we may well blush for Caroli- 
 na. It is fortunate, fellow-citizens, thatoui lot has been cast in a 
 liberal and enliglitened age, or who can tell whether we might not 
 have been made the victims of another popish plot, a jjre?ew</c^/co?t5pi- 
 racy, invented by some modern Tims Gates; or how soon we might 
 even now, be committed to the tender mercies of a Jeffries, or the 
 impartial judgment of Sir Williaiii Scroggs. 
 
 I know that this doctrine of Nullification has been said, to involve 
 a question of " political metaphysics," hard to be understood, and 
 however true in theory, incapable of being reduced to practice. 
 Now let us try it by the rules of common sense and if it cannot stand 
 that test let it be condemned. Away then with all abstractions and 
 
 4 
 
26' 
 
 lei Us take a plain, piactical view of the subject. No one denies tha{ 
 each State was independent and sovereign before the Constitution was 
 adopted. That by that compact certain definite powers were yield- 
 ed to the Federal Government — and that as to all powers not surren- 
 dered eac!i State continued Sovereign. This is, indeed, expressly 
 declared to be so, in the Constitution itself. All this being clear, 
 then it is certain that a State has rights, which existed before the 
 Constitution, and having never been given up, exist still, and the 
 true and only question is, has, she the right to preserve and protect 
 ihcm? It has been asked when and where did the States acquire 
 this sovereign right ? " But we desire to know, when it was taken 
 away?" When the Federal Government exercises a power clearly 
 granted by the Constitution, their laws are supreme; just as the 
 laws of a State are supreme within the sphere of her powers. But 
 when a power not granted is usurped, all acts done under colour 
 of such authority aie utterly null and void. All this will be con- 
 ceded. Then the simple, indeed, the only question, is, whether a 
 State having rights which she is bound to preserve and protect, 
 must not of necessity "judge of the infractions as well as of the mode 
 and measure of redress r" Now if (as is contended for on the other 
 side) the Federal Government " are the exclusive judges of the 
 extent of their own powers," and the States are bound in all cases, 
 no matter how gross or palpable the usurpation, implicitly to sub- 
 mit (unless, indeed, her people should rise up in rebellion, and 
 overturn the government) then it is as clear as the sun at noon 
 day, that THE STATES have no rights, or theirs are rights with- 
 out remedies, which we all know amount to no rights at all. State 
 Rights then exist only in theory, they may be recorded in parch- 
 ment, but they are at best but beautiful abstractions for the con- 
 templation of the studious. Every one who examines this question 
 must see, that the States either possess the right contended for, or the 
 General Government must be " the exclusive judges of the extent 
 of their own powers;" there is no middle ground. But this would 
 clearly constitute a consolidated GOVERNAIENT, and (as Mr. 
 Jelferson insists) " by making the discretion of the Federal Gov- 
 ernment and not the Constitution the measure of their powers, 
 would stop nothing short of despotism." But our opponents have 
 endeavoured to take refuge in the Supreme Court, who they tell 
 us are "the arbiters appointed by the Constitution." But this 
 makes the matter worse. For surely if the Federal Government, 
 in all of its departments, cannot decide ultimately and conclusively 
 on the rights of the States, it is absurd to suppose that this omnipo- 
 tent power — to limit, and control, enlarge and restrict, at pleasure, 
 the powers of a sovereign State— can be vested in one of those 
 departments — the Judiciary. But say our opponents — " there 
 must be an arbiter somewhere." " True (says Mr. Jefferson) but 
 does that prove it must be yi cither parti/. The ultimate arbi- 
 
2^3 
 
 TER is the people assembled by their depiUiee UN CO.NVRi\r:oN. 
 Let them decide to which they mean to give an authority claimed 
 by two of their organs." 
 
 In contests betvj een private individuals, judicial tribunals have 
 been provided to settle the rights of the jiarties ; and to Courts of 
 Justice properly lielong the decision of" cases of law and equity," 
 involving the rights of individuals. But political questions belong- 
 not to such tribunals, questions of sovereignty are too mighty for 
 their grasp, and even the Supreme Court has in the late Georgia 
 case disclaimed such a power. The idea that the Supreme Court 
 are the arbiters, specially appointed by the Constitution to decide 
 these great questions of conflicting sovereignty, receives no coun- 
 tenance from the letter or spirit of that instrument, and is indeed 
 so monstrous in itself, that it excites astonishment that it should 
 have found a single advocate o>ut of the pale of the ultra-federal- 
 ists of the school of '98. The proposition, that an ahsolute control 
 over an independent sovereign State, (holding perhaps in its hands 
 the lives and property of millions of people) is to be exercised by 
 seven individuals, any four of whom may, by a simple decree, di- 
 vest her of all her rights, is so shocking to human reason — so ab- 
 horrent to -all our notions of liberty, that I am totally at a loss to 
 conceive how it could be seriously entertained, even for a moment. 
 But the very questions to be decided by these chosen arbiters, are 
 those which concern the relative rights and powers of the sovereign 
 parties to the constitutional compact, while they are themselves the 
 agents and oflicers of the Federal Government (itself the mere 
 creature of that compact) called into existence by that Government 
 and liable to be moulded to its will. Now, can it be believed, that 
 it was ever intended by the framers of the Constitution, that a so- 
 vereign State should be dragged to the bar of a Federal Court, 
 there to receive judgment of ozfs^e/- of her rights ? Or, that though 
 the Constitution forbids this to be directly done, that it may be 
 done indirectly, by making up, perhaps, a teigned issue, between 
 individuals ? Mr. Madison (who now contends that thi^ power bo- 
 longs to the Supreme Court,) in his celebrated Report of '9S 
 branded the doctrine — as we now do — as a monstrous political 
 heresy. Hear the language of Mr. Madison on this point. In 
 his Report on the Virginia Resolutions of '93, in answer to the 
 arguments of the Consolidation men of that day, who had insist- 
 ed, (almost in the very words of Mr. Madison's late letter,) 
 " that the Federal Judiciary is to be regarded as the sole exposi- 
 tor oi the Constitution in the last resort" — He says, " that there 
 may be instances of usurped power which the forms of the Con- 
 stitution would not draw within the contj-ol of the judicial de- 
 partment ; and that the resolution relates to those great and ex- 
 traordinary cases, in which all the forms of the Constitution may 
 prove ineffectual against infractions dangerous to the essential 
 
28 
 
 .liahis ol" live parties. The resolution supposes that dangerous 
 powers not delegated may not only be usurped and executed by 
 the other departments, but that the judicial department also, uiay 
 cxerchc, or sdnct'wii dangerous powers, beyond the grant ot the 
 Constitution, and consequently that the ULTIMATE right of THE 
 PARTIES to the Constitution TO JUDGE whether the compact has 
 been dangerously violated, must extend to violations by one dele- 
 gated authority as well as by anotiier — by the Judiciary, as well as 
 by the Legislature. However true, therefore, it may be that the 
 judicial department is, in all questions submitted to it by the forms 
 ol' the Constitution, to decide in the last resort, this resort must 
 necessarily be deemed the last in relation to the authority of the 
 oilier departments of the Goverinnent ; ,\o'i' FN relation to THE 
 
 RIGHTS OF THE PARTIES TO THE Co,". SlITUTlON AL COMPACT, 
 
 from which the judicial as well as the other departments hold their 
 delegated trusts. On any other hypothesis, the delegation of ju- 
 dicial power would annid the authority delegating it ; and the con- 
 currence of this department with the others in usurped powers, 
 might Siibvert forever, and beyond the possible reach of any right- 
 ful remcdi/, the very Constitution, which ail were instituted to pre- 
 serve.'' 
 
 But how absurd is it to talk of the Supreme Court l)eing the 
 tribunal to decide in the last resort, all questions touching the usur- 
 ])ations by the Federal Government ofthe rights of the States, when 
 a Stale could not be made a party to a suit before that Court in- 
 volving any such question, and when we all know (what our op- 
 ponents are compelled to admit) that in most ofthe usurpations now 
 complained of, or justly to be apprehended, that Court could not 
 take jurisdiction of the qu£stions even incidentally. Let us test 
 this. Can that Court try the constitutionality ofthe ' AMERICAN 
 SYSTEM?' Flow can you bring before a Court the question ofthe 
 constitutionality of a protective Tariff, in relation to a bill which 
 on its face fraudulently purports to be for revenue'? Or how will 
 von test liw validity of any appropriation for Internal Improve- 
 nicnts — Colonization — Emancipation or any thing CISC'* When, 
 therefore, our opponents refer us in such cases to the Supreme 
 Court it must be in mockery of our complaints. " We ask them 
 for bread and they give us a stone."* There is one test on this 
 
 * This has nowliere been more strongly stated, than l)y Gen. Blair, in his Speech 
 in Cons;refp, in Mav, 18:i0:— " Let us not be told thai the Supreme Court, that crea- 
 ture of a crerttui-e, must tiltimateiy decide this great question. This would be a mock- 
 ery— -.m absolute mockery. It is well known that the Judges of that Court, accord 
 ill" to their own decisions, either cannot, or will not, look into \\\ft motives anA m- 
 tenlions of Congress. In the language of the bar, they ' cannot travel out of the re- 
 cord'— they regard only the /i//e of the act; and the Tariff Laws of 1824 and Viiii 
 purport to be nvenuc laws.— You refused to call them by their right names. Any 
 hope, therefore, that that tribunal would redress our grievances, would be utterly 
 rain and idle." 
 
29 
 
 subject that cannot deceive us. The opponents of our doctrines 
 claim also to be the supporters of state rights. They admit then 
 that the States have rights which ought to be supported. Now ask 
 them if these rights may not be violated ? They admit that they 
 have been grossly violated. Next ask them how these rights are to 
 be protected, in the very cases which they admit to be usurpations, 
 by any means — short of revolution ? They are dumb — they cannot 
 answer you. And thus it is made manifest that while our opponents 
 have been stigmatising us as disunionists, and repelling the impu- 
 tation of being submission-men themselves — the very foundation 
 on >vhich they stand is, that the only alternative in any caise of 
 usurpation however gross, is submission or disunion ; the former of 
 course yielding up all rights, and the latter (as they contend) 
 an uprooting of the very foundations of society, and not intended 
 to support the rights of the States under the compact, since it 
 annihilates the government and destroys the Constitution. It is 
 then made manifest, that the opponents of this doctrine cannot be- 
 lieve that A STATE, AS SUCH, has any rights, but is entirely at the 
 mercy of the Federal Government. They practically hold that 
 ours is "a SIMPLE CONSOLIDATED GOVERNMENT," having a right 
 to decide " ultimately and conclusively as to the extent of tlieir own 
 powers;" and it is impossible to shut our eyes to the fact, that 
 this doctrine (to borrow the language of the Kentu<:ky Resolutions 
 of '99) " STOPS NOTHING SHORT OF DESPOTISM." I know there are 
 plausible and very imposing arguments urged against the Carolina 
 doctrine, but if this doctrine be indispensible to the preservation of 
 Constitutional Liberty, and to the very existence of State Rights, 
 these objections cannot be insuperable. All tlie objections of our 
 opponents may be summed up in this simple proposition, "thafrour 
 doctrine amounts to a claim on the part of a single State to control 
 the operations of the Federal Government, and is inconsistent with 
 the republican maxim that the majority must govern." Now vviien 
 this proposition is closely examined, it will be found to be co.n- 
 posed entirely of assumptions. It is no part of the Federal Sys- 
 tem that the will of the majority should be the supreme law. If 
 this were so, ours would be a Consolidated Government, and the 
 declaration that this rule must prevail, amounts (to borrow again 
 from Mr. Jeflerson, whose words I love to quote because they come 
 in the garb of wisdom, invested with authority,) " to a declaration 
 that the compact is not to be the measure of the powers of the 
 Federal Government," but that the iviajority, " may proceed in 
 the exercise over the States of all powers whatever, thereby annihi- 
 lating the State Governments." 
 
 What then say our opponents, are the minority to govern f No. 
 It is the constitution which is to govern. But though the 
 
minority may not govern, the Constitution expressly provides tor 
 numerous cases in which they may arrest the progress of the majo- 
 rity. The President (who is but an individual, and may as in the 
 case of Mr. Adams be the representative of a minority,) may by 
 his simple veto, arrest the progress of a majority of both houses of 
 Congress and of the whole nation; a majority of the Senate, repre- 
 senting a small minority of the people, may arrest the progress of 
 any other department, and half a dozen Judges are in the constant 
 habit of nullifying the acts of Congress at their pleasure. 
 
 Now we merely say, that in a particular class of cases, compara- 
 tively iew in number, and which from the nature of things, must i)e 
 of rare occurrence, a similar power may be exercised by a sovereign 
 State. We do not claim the right to interfere in anyway with that 
 which is alone, strictly speaking a latv, — an act " passed in pursu- 
 ance of the Constitution." We claim no control for the State over 
 the Federal Government. As to that large class of powers clear- 
 ly granted to them by the Constitution, no pretension is set up to 
 interfere in any way with the full and free exercise of their discre- 
 tion. It is only with unconstitutional acts, void in themselves, and pas- 
 sed in derogation of State Rights,! hat the States have anything to 
 do. It is only when a power is exerted by the Federal Government, 
 which the State claims to belong to her, that this great conservative 
 principle would be called into operation, and if in such a case it did 
 not exist, usurpation must be sanctified, or war, revolution and 
 bloodshed must assuredly follow. On this point Mr. Jefierson has 
 pointed out the true remedy, A convention of the states, 
 which can only be called by the majority, and to which they must 
 resort when there is a settled difference of opinion as to the boun- 
 dary of jurisdiction, and neither party will consent to yield. We 
 have shewn tiiat the power, thus claimed for a State, is indispensi- 
 ble to the preservation of all our rights, and that without it, ours 
 must become, nay, it already is, " a government without limitation 
 of powers." It is strictly analogous to similar powers exerted by 
 the several departments of the government- The Jiulges are sure- 
 ly NuUlfiers, tor they set aside the laws every day, yet who claims 
 for them the right " of controlling the operations of government," 
 and overthrowing "the great republican maxim that the majority 
 must govern r" And why .'' because they claim only to arrest the 
 progress of unconstitutional acts, in cases of law and equity which 
 may be brought before them. And yet we know tliat Congress 
 must submit to their decision, or amend the Constitution. In like 
 manner the President, even when acts of Congress have been re- 
 cognized as laws, by the repeated sanction of every departm.ent of 
 the government, claims the right (acting on his own individual 
 judgment) of arresting the progress of any law which he may deem 
 unconstitutional. Mr. Jefferson refused to execute the Sedition Law, 
 
31 
 
 on the ground of its unconstitutionality, and this, after the Federal 
 Courts had pronounced it to be constitutional. General Jackson, 
 as we all know, following this example, has refused to comply with 
 the positive injunctions of several treaties and acts of Congress in 
 relation to the Indians on the same ground, whereby, these acts 
 and treaties, though remaining unrepealed upon your statute book, 
 have been most effectually Nullified. It is notorious that men who 
 deny the right of Nullification to a State, acting in its sovereign 
 capacity, yet supported the repeal of the 25th section of the Judi- 
 ciary Act, whereby the right would have been conceded to one of 
 its departments; and that which we propose to use only as the " ex- 
 treme medicine of the State, would have become our daily bread." 
 Thus the greatest NuUifiers in the land — Nullifiers by wholesale, 
 turn up their eyes to heaven and abjure Nullification, as they would 
 " the world, the flesh and the devil." Surely so gross a delusion can- 
 not last long. But say our opponents, how absurd is it to suppose 
 that a State can be " in the Union and out of the Union at the same 
 time." Now some five or six States have in various instances 
 asserted this power, and we have never yet heard that the Union 
 was dissolved. 
 
 Is Georgia ii> the Union now — who doubts it.'* And yet do we not 
 all know that she has Nullified several treaties and acts of Congress, 
 making them void within her limits, by acts of her own Legisla- 
 ture ? Did not Pennsylvania, in the Olmstead case, Nullify the 
 proceedings of the Federal Court, and remain for ten years in pos- 
 session of the fruits of her Nullifying act, and was she all that time 
 actually out of the Union ? If so, never having been readmitted 
 she is out of it still. And to come nearer home, has not South- 
 Carolina, bj' an act of her Legislature in relation to persons of co- 
 lour coming- into ttiis State on board of foreign ships, Nullified a 
 treaty according to the opinion of the late Attorney General, of the 
 President of the United States, and the Federal Judiciary.' It 
 becomes a grave question therefore, whether we are not out of 
 the Union now, or are we " in the Union and out of the Union 
 at the same time ?" Let me, however, not be misunderstood. 
 I do not mean to contend that if any State should proceed to 
 arrest, within her own limits, an act of Congress deemed by the 
 other States to be clearly constitutional that these States would 
 be bound to sul)mit to her judgment. I believe that each party 
 has an equal right to judge for itself. In the exercise of this right 
 collisions may unquestionably take place. Mr. Jefferson has con^ 
 templated this very difficulty, and has in his letter to Major Cart- 
 wright, clearly pointed out THERE3IEDY. His words are these. Ipray 
 you to mark them. '*With respect lo our State and Federal Govern- 
 ments, 1 do not think their relations are understood by foreigners. 
 Thej suppose the forraer subordinate to the latter- This isnot the 
 
case. They are co-ordinate departments of one simple and integral 
 whole. But, you may ask, if the two departments should claim each 
 the same subject of power, where is the umpire to decide ultimately 
 between them ? In cases of little importance or urgency, the pru- 
 dence of both parties will keep them aloof from the questionable 
 ground ; but if it can neither be avoided or compromised, a Con- 
 vention of the States must be called to ascribe the doubtful power 
 to that department they may think best." On another occasion, Mr. 
 Jefl'erson declares it to be " a fatal heresy to suppose that either our 
 State fijovernments are superior to the Federal, or the Federal to the 
 State," and emphatically adds, " that in diflerences of opinion, the 
 appeal is to the people peaceably assembled by their Representa- 
 tives in Convention;'' and again he tells us "that it is the peculiar 
 felicity of our Constitution to have provided this peaceable appeal, 
 where that of other nations is at once to force." But suppose the 
 majority (by whom only a Convention can be called) should refuse 
 to call one, and insist, that the dissenting State, should either con- 
 form to their judgment or that the Union should be dissolved — it is 
 not to be denied that under such circumstances (unless the dissent- 
 ing State should recede) a dissolution might follow; but it does 
 appear to me that matters will never be pushed to such an extre- 
 mity, until that unity of interest and harmony of feeling, which has 
 heretofore bound the States together, shall be so completely des- 
 troyed as to render Union no longer possible or even desirable. 
 But though a dissolution may under such circumstances take place, 
 yet it appearstomethat in no possible event "could civil war, revo- 
 lution and bloodshed" be brought upon a State by the Federal Gov- 
 ernment. It is admitted by our opponents " in the most unquali- 
 fied manner, that a State has a right to secede ;"* and can it be be- 
 lieved that the Federal Government would und»r such circumstan- 
 ces attempt to resort to force, unless for the purpose of driving a 
 State out of the Union, an object which, when it shall be desired, 
 they can find a thousand other ways of accomplishing ! The Fe- 
 deral Government, therefore, may dri\e a State out of the Union, 
 but never can make war upon her ; the attempt would produce at 
 once a dissolution of the Union. I consider Nullification by a 
 State therefore, simply as a high act of sovereignty,, by which she 
 makes known to her sister States that slue deems her constitutional 
 rights violated, in so essential a particular that she cannot consent 
 to submit to the violation. When a sovereign State takes such 
 high ground she must of course he prepared to abide the issue. 
 
 * Col. Drayton, in his speech at the State Rights' celebration, asserts this right— 
 and we do not know a single individual, of any reputation in the ranksof our oppo- 
 nents, in this State, who has questioned it. The time, however, is not far distant, 
 when this right, like all others, will be denied to the States by the supporters ofthr. 
 'America7i System." 
 
33 
 
 Jihe has a right to take it if she pleases, and it brings about a crisis^ 
 but it is no dissolution of the Union, though if her sister States, 
 love the usurpation, bjetter than the Union it may possibly lead to it. 
 No State will ever resort to Nullification, except in a case where she 
 is unalterably determined that the nuisance must be abated, that the 
 usurpation, either from its practical eflects, or the principle invol- 
 ved in it, cannot possibly be submitted to. In such a case it is licr 
 right, — it is her duty to interpose her sovoreigut} — and Nidiifica- 
 tion is better than Secession, simply because it presents the alterna- 
 tive to the other side* — gives time for reflection — and in uiost cases 
 will lead to a compromise, and as we have seen in the case of Geor- 
 gia, does not of necessity lead to disunion. Nullification, as I un- 
 derstand it, consists in no particular act. It is, when applied to the 
 action of a State, as the word imports, the rendering an act which she 
 deems unconstitutional, null, void, and of no force within her limits; 
 and this may be effected by any means which produce this result. 
 Where the efficacy of an actdej)ends on the voluntary obedience of' 
 the citizens, or where it can only becnfbiced througii the jury box, 
 a simple declaration by the State would in most cases be sufficient, 
 effectually to nullify the unconstitutional law. Georgia resorted to 
 countervailing legislation, and so did Virginia, at least in part ; so 
 that after all, 'the doctrine for which we contend, cannot be better 
 defined than in the language of Mr. Jeflerson, when ho says that, 
 " it consists in the right of a State to JUDGL OF Tin: LNFUACTlOKy 
 of the Constitution, as well as of the BIODE AND "MEASUilE. of llt- 
 DRESS.f" I have said, fellow-citizens, that this right of State in- 
 terj)osition, by whatever name it may b.e called, is essential to the 
 preservation of Slate Rights. A State must either have the right 
 to interpose for the protection of her resei'ved rights, or she liolds 
 them entirely at the mercy of the Federal Government. There is 
 
 " We liave had a great deal of idle discussion on the question whether iNuIlifica 
 I'lon cdi\ he propev\y called a consliliUional remedy. When Mr. M'Dufiie said that 
 this right was derived " not /rom the Constitution, but from asoui'ce bn/ondihc Con- 
 stitution," it was at once said, " that Mr. M'Duftie had rejected NullirKjlioii." Now 
 the truth is, that while our opponents have been indulging themselves in a mere 
 verbal dispute, there has not been the slightest ditference of opinion on this point 
 among those who support this doctrine. If by a Constitutional right is meant, a liHit 
 granted by the Constitution, no oneluis ever contended that iN'ulliiicntion or any other of 
 tfierights of the States, are derived irom that source; but if lliose rights Jirc toLe called 
 co7istilutional, which from whatever source they may be derived, ;ire consistent with 
 the principles of the Constitution, and the form and structure of the government, 
 then these rights are constitutional. State Rights, though recoiinized, are not <»ranted 
 by the Constitution, — they are derived from a source " beyond the Constitution " 
 viz:— the SOVEREIGNTY OF THE STATES,— which existed before the Constitution, and 
 never having been surrendered, exists still. The right of the States to judge for them- 
 selves " of infractions of the constitutional compact, as well as of the mode and mea- 
 sure of .redress" is an incident to sovereignty, and when thev cease to possess it 
 They cease to be sovereign. " ' 
 
 t See Appendrx H. 
 
34 
 
 no other alteriifrtive. If there be — let it be pointed out. Thia 
 interposition must, from the very nature of things, be reserved for 
 cases " deeply and vitally affecting our political system" — and so far 
 from there being any danger of its being too freo,uently exercised, 
 and thus operating as a constant check to the regular progress of 
 the General Government, I conscientiously believe that the danger 
 is, that it v» ill be resorted to, too seldom to preserve the healthful 
 action of the Federal System. I cannot entertain a doubt, that the 
 principles openly contended for on the other side lead directly and 
 inevitably " to consolidate the States into one sovereignty; and 
 that the tendency and result of this consolidation would be to trans- 
 form the republican system of the United States into a monarchy''''* 
 if it should not break up this glorious Union into fragments. 
 Suppose our principles established, what would be the conse- 
 quence ? The Federal Government would be obliged to confine 
 their operations to the few great leadlngobjects, which clearly belong 
 to them and concerning which there could be no dispute, such as — 
 war and peace — the Avmy and navy — the post-office and the mint — 
 foreign intercourse and the regulation of commerce, &c. and can 
 any man seriously doubt that, by so doing. Liberty would be pre- 
 served, the Constitution maintained, and the peace and prosperity 
 of our comnjon country greatly promoted. Under such a system, 
 ours might continue a free and united country, for ages yet to come. 
 While the exercise of the powers now claimed by the Federal 
 Government must be a source of irever ending discord, endanger- 
 ing Liberty, and exposing the Union to perpetual hazard. 1 have 
 ventured, fellow-citizens, to express my opinion on these interest- 
 ing topics with the freedom due to the occasion, and (he frankness 
 which I trust belongs to my character. In conclusion, let me say 
 to you, that whatever may be the issue of this controversy, let it be 
 the" unalterable determination of the State Rights and Free Trade 
 Party, so to act, that if the great principles for which we have so 
 long'and so faithfully contended, are destined to be overthrown — 
 if State Rights are to be utterly destroyed — if the Constitution is 
 lo be trampled under foot, and Liberty beaten down— if the very 
 name of Carolina is to become " a by-word and a re|)roach," for 
 having basely abandoned this noble struggle, after having " thrown 
 herself fearlessly into the breach"— you may each and every one of 
 you be able to lay your hands upon your hearts, and appealing 
 to the Supreme Judge of the World— call your God to witness, 
 that YOU HAVE DONE YOUR DUTY, and be able to exclaim in the 
 spirit of the noble Roman, " if Rome must fall, that you are 
 innocent." 
 
 You have heard it said, gentlemen, that those who mculcate these 
 principles are evil counsellors, who are seeking their own personal 
 * Mr. lV%dison's Report. 
 
35 
 
 aggrandizement, and endeavouring to gratify a criminal ambi- 
 tion, at the expense of the peace, the welfare and the honour of 
 their country. When you look at the men against whoiu this vile 
 slander has "been uttered, is there one in this vast assembly who be- 
 lieves it ? No, not One. Do your adversaries believe it ? No, fellow- 
 ciiizeng, no man does believe, no man can believe, that on r own HAMIL- 
 TON, the embodied spirit of Carolina's chivalry— iM'DuFFlE, whose 
 only as;piiations are for his country's welfare — or Martin, or Da- 
 vis, or Barnwell, (and a host of others equally distinguished, 
 whose names will readily suggest themselves to your thoughts,) 
 men whose souls are attuned to the loftiest aspirations of honour — 
 would, for the poor, pitiful and paltry love of office, or for "so 
 much gold as may be grasped thus," barter away their good name, 
 "the immediate jewel of their souls" — defile their minds, or ima- 
 gine aught against your honour or your interest. And who are 
 those against wham this foul and most unnatural conspiracy has 
 been alleged ? They are men whose feelings and interests are all 
 identified with your own — through v^hose bosoms that weapon must 
 first pass which reaches your heart's^ — they are the "Pilots who will 
 weather the storm," or stick to the ship while there is a plank that 
 will float. But the course which they have pursued is entirely in- 
 consistent with all selfish purposes. From the very origin of this 
 controversy, could any man be so infatuated as not to see that to 
 stand up for State Rights, against the overwhelming power and 
 patronage of the Federal Government, was to espouse the cause of the 
 weak against the strong. If ambition were their ruling passion, 
 what could Carolina bestow upon her most honoured sons, at all to be 
 compared in the estimation of mankind with the high places of this 
 Republic, the heads of their departments, their Supreme Judiciary, 
 or their splendid foreign missions? Let m,e tell you gentlemen, 
 that there never has been a time, when a more pliant course would 
 not have brought such places within their reach, and it Is as cer- 
 tain as that we are now here, that the shortest and smoothest road 
 to preferment, even now, would be the betrayal of (heir Trust, and 
 the sacrifice of your interest to their ambition. If there were one, 
 among these gifted sons of Carolina, base enough to compromise 
 5'our rights — to sell their principles for gold — to barter their cou- 
 sciences for power, he has only to renounce his pretended errors, 
 to make a hypocritical profession of repentance, to give up State 
 Rights and cry out Umon, and the door to honour and to office 
 would be thrown wide open — they would kill for him the "fatted calf," 
 and there would be more rejoicing over the repentant sinner, thaw 
 over " ninety and nine just men, who need no repentance." 
 
 For myself gentlemen, as God is my judge, I have espoused 
 the cause of Liberty and the Constitution, and stood up for the 
 rights of our suffering State, aod for the protection of your dear- 
 
36 
 
 qAt i)itei^2sts--*-ui the perfect integrity of my heart, and if for this I 
 am to bear a traitor's name, or meet a traitor's doom, I tru-^t I shall 
 }iever forget that my ancestors were traitors before me, and I pray 
 Cod that I may never be deterred, by unmerited reproach — or the 
 fear oC (hmi^er, from followiiiii (if need be) their gkirious example. 
 
 We have BEfW CHARGED \V[ Til BEING EMEiAIIES TO THE UNION. 
 
 li) the indignant spirit of insulted patriotism, yon have, in the face 
 of the world, and with one voice, hurled back the slander on the 
 heads of its propagators. For mijself (and I know I may say the 
 same for you) I speak in the perfect sincerity of my heart when I 
 declare my entire devotion to the Union. To preserve it I would 
 do all that may become a |)atriot, who would do more is none. 
 But mine is a rational attachment, founded on no blind confidence 
 in the saving virtues of a name, but in the deep conviction of the 
 benefits of the Union, when faithfully administered. I value Union 
 as the nteans of preserving peace at home, and security abroad, 
 and because I feel that we have a common property in the glory 
 of our country, and I would preserve the Union as a beacon-light 
 for the benighted nations of the world. But, dear as is the Union, 
 the Constitution is dearer to my heart, and Liberty dearest of all. 
 The love of the Union, without a corresponding devotion to Lib- 
 erty and the Constitution, is like faith without works, it is dead ; 
 and however we may deceive ourselves or delude the world, he 
 who loves not the Constitution more than the Union, and Liberty 
 above all, is no disciple of the true faith. But why is it that our love 
 of the Union is to be appealed to, to induce us to submit to tlie vio- 
 lation of our constitutional rights, instead of carrying that ap- 
 peal to the hearts of our brethren, to induce them to stay the 
 Iiand of oppression ? And is it to be endured, that those who 
 v\ould secure thuiir unrighteous gains by perverting the Constitu- 
 tion from its true objects — and, by rendering the Union no longer a 
 common blessing, would break it into fragments — is it to be endur- 
 ed, that such men should dare to reproach us, with a want of at- 
 tachment "to the Union — whose only objects are the preservation of 
 the Constitution, and the protection of our rights .? While the love 
 of the Union does not restrain them trom violating the Constitu- 
 tion, and practising oppression, dare they appeal to our love of 
 Union to induce us quietly to submit to their exactions. 
 
 Fellow-citizens, who is it that may not lift up his voice in favour 
 sf the Union f There is in every quarter of the globe a class of 
 men who call themselyes lovers of order, but who are in truth 
 lovers of repose — men, who take things as they come; who cling to 
 the powers that be, and are always opposed to reform in every 
 sliape — Christians in this country, they would be Mahometans in 
 Turkey, and worshippers of the Prophet in Khorasan — Republi- 
 cans ip America — Monarchists in Europe ; and who, if tbey were 
 
37 
 
 now in Spain, would be seen lifting up their fettered arms, not to 
 break their chains on the heads of their oppressors, but to clang 
 them in rude harmony to the degrading cry of '* long live the abso- 
 lute Kins; •'" Could such men be with us ? No ! they could only 
 be found shouting hosannas to the Union. 
 
 It is the votary of freedom alone, who regarding her blessings as 
 above all price, can in spirit and in truth, bring the first fruits of 
 his heart to her altars, and look with pious confidence, for the bright 
 token of acceptance from heaven. 
 
 I know that there are in the ranks of the Union party, as genu- 
 ine lovers of Liberty as any which this country holds, and among 
 them many of my faithful and most valued friends. But these are 
 not the men, who have been branding us as disunionists and traitors. 
 Conscious of their own integrity, they are slow to suspect the in- 
 tegrity of others — they honour our motives, though they believe us 
 to be in error — and should the time unhappily arrive, when we shall 
 be compelled " to strike for Liberty," they will be found in the fore- 
 most rank, " grappling the Constitution to their bosoms, with nolu- 
 mus mutari on their lips." 
 
 It has been cast as a reproach into our teeth, that our party is 
 chiefly composed of rash young men, who despising the counsels 
 of age and experience — would rush headlong into danger, reckless 
 of consequences. Now, we do most heartily rejoice that the youth 
 of Carolina are ivith us, since, as it has been eloquently said, '* if 
 we can find no indemnity for the past, it promises us some security 
 for the future." But my friends, though the young and the ardent, 
 the generous and the brave, are here, it is a foul slander to say that 
 the patriots of the Revolution are against us. Where are the Cin- 
 cinnaii9 Where stood Thomas Pinckney, the President General 
 of that illustrious band ? — the man of whom it was justly said " that 
 he combined as many of the qualities of Washington as perhaps 
 the world is ever destined to behold in the person of an indivi- 
 dual .''" With his latest breath, he told us of the way which we 
 should go — devoted his gallant sons to our cause, and left with us 
 his benediction. 
 
 Look at that venerable man who stands in the ranks of our Re- 
 volutionary soldiers, alone and unapproachable. I speak of him 
 who bears upon his manly form the deep impression of many a 
 wound, all received in front, and who stampt upon the events of the 
 Southern war, the might of his unconquerable arm, and the ma- 
 jesty of his own great name, " Carolina's Game Cock" — the im- 
 mortal Sumter. 
 
 " Clarum et venerabile uomea ! " 
 His heart is with us, he has publicly espoused the Carolina doc- 
 
^ri/ies— asserts our rights, and bids us go on *' conqu€Lring and to 
 conquer." 
 
 Need I name that other venerable man,* the friend and com- 
 panion of Marion, who stands this day at your head, lending to 
 your celebration the mild lustre of his virtues; the man "whose sons 
 rise up and call him blessed," and in whose lot nothing is to be re- 
 gretted, but that he cannot bring this day to the altar of his coun- 
 try that other son (my once cherished friend)t (would that he were 
 alive) — " who had a head, a heart, and a hand, suited to the times 
 in which we live." 
 
 Nor can we forget on this occasion, that gallant soldier and 
 most estimable citizen, whose modesty is only equalled by his vir- 
 tues, the last survivor of the battle of Fort Moultrie.^ Animated 
 by the heroic spirit of his youth, see him still grasping with his 
 aged arms his own Palmetto — planting it once more on the ram- 
 parts of Liberty, and pointing to the inscription on its trunk — "en 
 hoc signo vinces.^^ 
 
 But who is he, fellow-citizens, whom we behold, with his tall and 
 venerable form, standing in the ranks of our party, (at the head of 
 the Cincinnati,^) — the companion of Washington throughout the 
 war, who assumed his arms at the heights of Dorchester, and only 
 laid them down when the last gun was fired on the plains of Caro- 
 lina.'' His is a name, doubly dear to our hearts. Happy father ! 
 more fortunate than Ormond,— it is thy living Ossory, whom thou 
 wonldst not exchange '-for any son in Christendom," and whom thou 
 hast lived to see elevated to i\\e first office in the gift of Carolina, 
 and standing first in the confidence and affections of his country- 
 men. 
 
 Fellow-citizens, THAT CAUSE MUST surely be strong, which 
 is supported by pillars like these. Can that cause be weak which 
 is founded on the eternal principles of justice — which rests on the 
 basis of immutable truth — and which is consecrated to " Liberty — 
 the Constitution, and the Union" ^ — a cause which combines in its 
 support, the wisdom of age, and the ardour of youth, — on which so 
 many of the fathers of the Revolution have bestowed their cherish- 
 ed blessings, — and on which, even the fair daughters of Carolina 
 (whose best ornaments are their virtues) have bestowed the sweet- 
 est smiles of their approbation. In the spirit of their sainted mo- 
 thers, they have delivered into your hands this day the sacred 
 
 * Keating Simons, Esq, + The late Col. Keating Lewis Simons. 
 
 * Capt. Richard B. Baker. 
 
 ^ Major James Hamilton, sen. President of the Cincinnati, and father of Govern- 
 or Hamilton. 
 
39 
 
 BANNER,* under which every true son of Carohna will forever rally. 
 On it is inscribed, in letters of fire, FREE TRADE, and while 
 it shall wave over our heads, we will support it in the spirit of 
 that hero, who exclaimed, even with his dying breath — " Don't 
 GIVE UP THE SHIP." 
 
 On the reverse, stands engraved the great and glorious name of 
 STATE RIGHTS, inscribed on the trunk and sheltered by the leaves 
 of our own Palmetto. As a fit emblem of a Constitutional Union 
 we have the Thirteen Stare, in all their original bright7iess, shining 
 with undiminished lustre. There too is the proud motto of Caro- 
 lina ** Animis opibusque parati^^ — in the cause of Liberty, " pre- 
 pared with strength and courage" — and that other sentiment, 
 equally dear to our hearts, " Dum spiro spero,^^ let our hopes of 
 success in the good cause, be yielded up, only with our latest 
 breath. Then over all — like the wings of the Cherubim spread 
 over the mercy seat — is that noble sentiment, which has identified 
 the name of PmcKNEY with the glory of his country, — and will 
 be forever a pillar of fire to guide us in the darkest hour to Li- 
 berty and safety — " Millions for defence, btjt not a Cei\t 
 FOR tribute." 
 
 " Tbe Banner here alluded to, tvas that presented by the Ladies on the morning 
 of the 4th of July to the Free Trade Party, which, having been brought into the 
 Church, was placed to the right of the rostrum. The following description of the 
 Banner with the ceremony of receiving it, is taken from the account of" the Proceed- 
 ings, &c." which has been published: — "The Procession, thus arranged, and with 
 the Banners and Decorations above described, moved along East-Bay-street, to the 
 residence of the lale Gen. C. C. Pinckney, where a large number of Ladies were 
 collected, and where it was understood, a Standard was to be presented, in the 
 name of the Ladies to the Free Trade Party. Accordingly soon after the Procession 
 halted, Captain Lynah came forward with a splendid Standard, the appearance of 
 which wa^ greeted by the multitude with reiterated shouts. It displayed on one side, 
 the Anns of the State, on the other was a Palmetto Tree, at the foot of which were 
 bales of cotton and barrels of rice, the whole encircled with the State Ri-^hfs motto 
 inscribed in go\A—'' Millions for defence, not a Cent for tribute !" This° Standard' 
 beautifully painted upon satin, was executed by Mr. Davis, and excited the unquali- 
 fied admiration of all who beheld it. Capt. Lynah accompanied its delivery with an 
 address, which was repeatedly interrupted with bursts of applause. To this address 
 John Izard Middleton, Esq. who was deputed to receive the Standard, rpnlied - also 
 amidst the reiterated cheers of the people " 
 
APPENDIX 
 
 % .• 
 
 A.— p. 5. 
 
 Power io protect Manufactures. — That the power to protect manufactures tva< 
 refused to the Federal Government by the Convention which framed the Consti- 
 tution, has been conchisively proved by "Brutus" in the 14th and 15th num- 
 bers of the "Crisis," to which we refer for the argument at length. It appears 
 from the Journal of the Convention, that on the 24th of August, a proposi- 
 tion was made to provide for a Secretary of Domestic Affairs, and that it 
 was to be his duty "to attend to matters of general police, the state of agricubure, 
 MANUFACTURES, the oi)ening of roads, and navigation \_hitcrnal improvements'] Ac. 
 and to recommend such measures, and establishments as might tend to promote such 
 objects." On the 22d August, a report was made, proposing — not to give power to 
 Congress over manufactures, roads, and canals, in express terms — but to give them 
 power over "the general interest and welfare," quite extensive enough to embrace 
 these objects. But neither of the propositions were agreed to, and the Constitution 
 • was finally adopted in its present form, confining the powers of the Federal Govern- 
 ment in relation to manufactures, to that of "promoting the progress of science and 
 the useful arts, by securing, for limited times, to authors and inventors, the exclusive 
 right to their respective writings and discoveries." If there be any other provision 
 in the Constitution, which embraces {he protection of maniifactures, it must be found 
 (as contended for by the author of the " Crisis") in the 10th section of the 1st article, 
 and can only be exercised by the aeveral States; not by the Federal Government. 
 
 B.— p. 6. 
 
 Mr. Jefferson^s opinion of the American System. — The attempt has frequently of 
 late been made to shew, that Mr. Jefferson always admitted the poiver of the Federal 
 Government to establish, and acknowledged the policy of, the protecting system. 
 It will be admitted that Mr. Jefferson has at some periods of his life, expressed him- 
 self favourable to manufactures, and before the true character of this system was 
 fully developed, and in contemplation perhaps of the incidental protection wliicii 
 manufactures would derive from a just and equal ^e^'^enue system may have spoken 
 of the policy of protecting manufactures, in strong terms. Btit to show what were 
 the deliberate opinions of Mr. Jefferson on this question after the system had been 
 fully established by the tariff of 1824 — we here give his letter to Mr. Giles, which 
 must settle this point conclusively. 
 
 Extract of a letter from Thomas Jefferson, to William B. Giles, dated 26th of De- 
 cember, 1825. — " I see as you do, and with the deepest affliction, the rapid strides 
 with which the Federal branch of otir government is advancing towards the usurpa- 
 tion of all the rights reserved to the States, and the consolidation, in itself, of all 
 powers foreign and domestic, and that too, by constructions, which if legitimate, 
 leave no limits to their power. Take together the decisions of the Federal Court, 
 the doctrines of the President — and the misconstructions of the constitutional compact 
 acted on by the legislature of the Federal branch; and it is but too evident, that the 
 three ruling branches of that department, are in combination, to sU'ip their colleagues, 
 the State authorities, of the powers reserved by them, and to exercise themselves, all 
 functions foreign and domestic. Under the power to regulate commerce, thej assume 
 indefinitely, that also over agriculture and manufactures; and call it 'regulation^ 
 too, to take the earnings of one of these branches ot industry, and that too, the most 
 depressed, and to put them into the pockets of the other, the most flourishing of all. 
 Under the authority 'to establish post roads,' they claim that of cutting down moun- 
 tains for the construction of roads, of digging canals; and aided by a little sophistry 
 on the words 'general welfare,' a right to do, not only the acts to effect that, whicU 
 
4i 
 
 IS specifieaTly enunaeratfid aod permitted; but whatsoever they shall thijik, or pre- 
 tend, will he for the general welfare." 
 
 Mr. Jefferson, here, in language not to be misunderstood, denounces the Tariff for 
 the protection of Manufactures, as weW as Internal Improvanent — as a violation both 
 of the spirit and letter of the Constitution, and considers the system as unequiil, 
 oppressive end unjust — and that he retained these opinions to the hour of his fleatli, 
 there is no reason to douM. In the Pkotest prepared hy him about the same time 
 for the Legislature of Virginia, (4 vol. of his Memoirs, p. 416) the claims set tip liy 
 the Federal Government in relation to the American system, arc- declareii to he 
 " usurpations of the powers retained by the States — mere interpolations of the com- 
 pact — and direct infractions of it " For our part, we protest against the general 
 declarations of statesmen, in favour of manufacturvs oi- inti.rnai. impkovement at 
 early periods in the history of the country ; and before the character or tendency of 
 the existing system was fully examined or understood, being received as autiiority in 
 favour of this system. 
 
 C— p. 9. 
 
 Progressive character of the System. — It is generally supposed that there has I)Cf.u 
 no increase of the duties since tlie tariff of 1828. This is so far from being the case, 
 that the duties have been constantly increasing, and are still progressing. This has 
 been effected by several ingenious contrivances, most admirably adapted to the 
 object. Some of these contrivances will be here sjiecified. The first is an express 
 provision in the bill itself, for successive additions to the tariff, at stated jieriods, 
 without any new arts of legislation, whereby additional burdens are S!7e7!</^ im/)ose^/ 
 upon the people, without their being at all conscious ot it. Thus, by t'le tariff of 
 1828, it was provided that there should be a successive increase of duties on a number 
 of articles. Take, for example, the case of Holland, English, and Russia r>ucK. On 
 the 30th of June of every year, until 1835, the duty is to be increased. About ten 
 per cent wasadcled on the 3Uth of June last. 
 
 Second. The next contrivance is what is called the mimmums, the object of which 
 is, under the pretence of imposing a duty of twenty-five per cent, to levy in reality 
 a duty of three times the amount Thus the duly on cotton goods is, ticenty -five per 
 cent advalorem, but it is provided that cotton goods which cost less than thirty-five 
 cents per square yard, shall he deemed and taken to have cost thirty-five cents, and the 
 twenty-five per cent is to be calculated not on the actual cost but on this fictitious 
 valuation. The duty, therefore, instead of being what it professes to be, a duty of 
 twenty-five per cent on the value, becomes a specific duty of eight and a half cents 
 per yard. If, therefore, the goods actually cost thirty-five cents — it pays a duty of 
 twenty-five per cent, but if it costs only eight and a half cents, it pays a duty of oiio 
 hundred per cent. This is just as fraudulent a mode of proceeding, as if an income 
 tax should be imposed of one tenth part of a man's income, and if sliould be added 
 that whatever a man's income may really be it shall be deemed and taken to he three 
 thousand dollars — whereby the poor man with an income of six hundred dollars, would 
 be taxed fifty perct. ($300) while the rich man, whose income was five, times as grenl, 
 would pay no more, being just ten percent. Suppose a fax on Stills of ten cents 
 per gallon — what would the farmers of Pennsylvania say to a law which should 
 provide that, though a still actually contained but ten gallons, it should be taxed as 
 if it contained thirty gallons? And yet this is exactly the principleof taxation involved 
 in this system of minimums. 
 
 Third. The next contrivance for silently increasing the duties, is the general sub- 
 stitution of specific for advalorem duties. The fair and equal method of imposing 
 duties, is to require the payment of a certain proportion of the cost, a half or a Ojurth 
 as the case may be — fifty or twenty-five per cent. But the tariff provides for the jjay- 
 raent of so many cents per scjuare yard, and this in many cases, (as we liave already 
 shewn) without any distinction as to quality or price. Now, the obviotr, effect of 
 this system, is to increase the amount of the duty with every successive reduction in 
 the price of the goods, and this system being imposed at a time when from general 
 causes in operation all over the world, the prices of goods of every description were 
 regularly diminishing — the duties have been constantly increasing up to the present 
 hour, and are increasing still. The following table of the prices of iron in England 
 from 181.5 to 1829, inclu ive, derived from an unquestionable source, will shew this 
 tegular diminution in prices, and the consequent regular increase of the duty. The 
 doty on this deseription of irenis fhirtj'-seven dollars per ton. which in l^Jl;) would 
 
42 
 
 nave been less than forty per cent, but in 1829, it is upwwds of one hundred pier cent, 
 having been regularly increasing at the rate of about four per cent per annum. 
 
 By a statistical work published at London in 1825, entitled " Statistical Illustra- 
 tions of the territtn-ial extent and population, commerce, taxation, consumption, 
 insolvency, pauperism, and crime of the British empire," it appears that the average 
 value of the iron of all kinds, such as pig, bar, bolt, rod, hoop, castings, anchors, 
 nails, and all others, and steel exported from Great Britain in the years below 
 named, was as follows, viz; 
 
 1815, 64,102 tons, average per ton, £20 00 equal, at par, to $88 88 
 
 1816, 63.427 " 17 5 " 76 66 
 
 1817, 83,370 " 14 10 " 64 44 
 
 1818, 94.667 " 15 8 " 68 40 
 
 1819, 73.243 " 15 15 " 70 00 
 
 1820, 85,070 " 13 6 " 59 10 
 
 1821, 92,647 " 12 3 " 54 00 
 
 1822, 93,289 " 11 7 " 50 44 
 
 1823, 97,224 " 11 1 " 49 11 
 
 1824, 83,215 " 13 2 " 58 21 
 
 From this it appears that a gradual reduction in the price of iron took place i* 
 Great Britain during the ten years preceding the year 1825. It now remains to show 
 that this reduction has gone on, in an equal ratio, since that period: and here we are 
 happy to have it in our power to prove that the fall alluded to has continued up 1o the 
 last year, of the imports of which the Secretary of the Treasury has furnished his 
 official statements. By the tables accompanying the last annual report of that officer, 
 it appears that the quantity and cost of rolled, bar, and bolt iron, imported into the 
 United States since 1S24, was as follows : 
 
 1825, 85,010 cwt. $224,497, equal per ton to $52 80 
 
 1826, 88,741 223.259, " 50 32 
 
 1827, 162,052 347,792, " 49 92 
 
 1828, 205,897 441,000, " 42 82 
 
 1829, 66,408 119,326, " 35 92." 
 
 The same thing is true of nearly all the protected articles, so that it will be seen at 
 once, that the amount of duties under the tariff has been i7icr easing yearly, and is 
 still increasing, while the people at large are altogether unconscious of the fact. 
 
 Wc have taken the pains to obtain a list of cotton goods imported into Charleston 
 during the present year from Europe, by two mercantile houses, which exhibit the 
 following striking results. The nominal duly on cotton goods is twenty-five per cent. 
 But the minimum is thirty-five cents, that is to say, all goods which cost less than 
 thirty-five cents per square yard, are to be valued at thirty-five cents. 
 
 These two houses imported 71,536 square yards of cotton goods, of various des- 
 criptions and prices, costing $13,047, 70 cents, and paying a duty of $6,418, 78 cts. 
 being an average duty of near fifty per cknt. Of this quantity only 2,857 yards 
 paid the advalorera duty of twenty-five per cent, the whole of the remainder amount- 
 ing to near 70,000 yards, by means of the false valuation imposed by the law, was 
 chars;ed with duties varying from forty to near sixty per cent. Such are the iniquities 
 of this system. 
 
 D. and E.— pp. 10 and 12. 
 
 Amount of tax imposed by the Tariff, price of goods, S(c — The average amount ot 
 duties imposed by the tariff of 1828, on the protected articles, is about/or/^ sevenper 
 cent, though on many articles which enter largely into the consumption of the South, 
 (such as cottons and iron, «fcc.) tlrey run up much higher. In assuming thirty per 
 cent, therefore, as the average amount of the tax paid by the Southern planters, on 
 protected articles, foreign and domestic, a considerable reduction has been made 
 from (he average rate of duties. It is not believed that prices are in all cases increased 
 in proportion to the amount of the duties. No doubt, however, can be entertained, 
 that just so far as the tarift" operates as a tax on the consumer, by increasing the price 
 of the foreign article, will it in general enhance the price of the domestic article, and 
 the only ditlerence is, that in the one case the amount of the tax goes into the trea- 
 sury, and in the other into the pockets of the manufacturer. When the country is 
 fully prepared to innnufiicture any article as cheaply as the foreign article can be 
 imported, a high duty on the latter must operate as a prohibition, and in that case. 
 
43 
 
 the producer of our exports loses his market. If the AmCT-icfln manufacturer caniio; 
 enter into competition with the foreign manufacturer, on equal terms, and the duty 
 cnubles him to ad I to the price, then the consumer is equally taxed wlietlier he buys 
 the foreign or the domestic article. This is too clear to need illustration Now 
 what is the fact in relation to the effect of the tariff upon the prices of the protected 
 articles ? And here, the true question is, not what may have heen the fall in prices 
 generally, within the last ten years, but whether the protected articles cduld now 
 be obtained ciieaper, if it were not for the existence of the tarifV? This question h 
 answered at once, by merely comparing the present jirices of the same articles in 
 Europe and in this country. Is it not, however, also conclusively answered by the 
 fact, that cotton, woollen, and other goods, puyinir an average duly of near fifty per 
 cent, are still Hc.tuaily imported to a very large amount, and sold as low, and in sonie 
 cases lower, than (he American manufactures, which pay no duty at all. Could this 
 possibly take place, if these goods were as cheap in this country as in Europe ? If the 
 seventy thousand yards of cotton goods (before alluded to) imported durins; the pre- 
 sent year into Charleston and sold (after paying a duty of fifty per cent.) as low as 
 " domestics" of the same quality, had cost as much in England, could they have 
 been imported at all ? and is it not clear, that but for the duty they could have been 
 sold much cheaper here? The editor of the iJa?i?i£r of the Constitution, in the last 
 number of that valuable paper, states, that a merchant of Pennsylvania, who had 
 been an importer of cloths for thirty years, had recently made an examination of 
 thirty or forty pieces of American and English cloth, of the same quality. The Eng- 
 lish cloth was offered at $2 87^ cts. per yard ; the American at $3 25 <:ls. ; and yet 
 that " this English cloth, he had occasion to know, had peiid a duly of forty five per 
 cent, and a profit besides to the importer of twenty-five percent." Now, in this 
 case, but for the duty, the British cloth could have been obtained at nearly half 
 price, and the domestic must have come dov.'n to aliout the same standard, or it could 
 not have been sold at all. It follows, therefore, that both in woollens and cottons, 
 (and the same thing is true of most other protected articles.) the exist ing (ax operates 
 in increasing^the price both on the foreign and domestic article, and where it does 
 not so operate, it must fall upon the producer by cutting off his markets. 
 
 We are unable to give a table of relative prices, but we have been assured that 
 cottons can be purchased at eight cents in Europe, which would cost at least twelve 
 cents in this country, and that woollens can be got at one dollar fifty ceiits, wliich 
 would cost here at least two dollars — but cottons at eight cents, would pay a duty of 
 one hundred per cent, and woollens at one dollar fifty cents, would not pay much 
 less, so that neither of these desciiptions ca<i be imported at all. 
 
 A gentleman of this city, well acquainted with the operation of •' the system," has 
 exhibited to the writer a cloth coat which cost here (exclusive of making) ten dollars 
 fifty cents — the first cost of the cloth in England being only three dollars sevetuy-five 
 cents — the duties, charges, iSlc amounting to five dollars seventy-eight cents. A coat 
 of the same quality, made of American cloth, could not be procured for ten dollars 
 fifty cents. We are assured by gentlemen from England, and by others who have 
 actually made importations, that a broad clolh coat of the very firsl ()uality can be 
 purchased there for from fifteen to twenty dollars, in all rcsperis C(i;ial to what costs 
 in this country from thirty to forty dollars. 
 
 Advertisements have been put into our hands, shewing Xhcprcsad prices in E^igland. 
 We will extract a few of them— and let any j)erson acquainted with the pruies of 
 similar articles in this country, compare them, and then say whether our tariff has 
 lessened or incrcuned [irices. 
 
 Ready made Clothing.—" Laiwee & Co. Tailors, 52 Alhrmarle-strcot, one door 
 from Piccadilly, respectfully submit their prices, which are for articles of dress war- 
 ranted the best in every respect that can be produced, let the price be what it may : 
 A superfnie extra iSaxony dress coat, £3 8s. ; if black or blue, .^:5 18s. ; trousers, 
 .■'.;i 12s. ; if black or blue £1 15s. ; waistcoats, 16s. ; a footman's suit of livery, cora- 
 jdete, £4 4s. , groom's do. £4 10s.; coachman's do. £4 13s." 
 
 " Calico .shirts. Is. each; fine India long cloth do. Is. 6d.; cotlon half hose, 3s per 
 doz.; silk liandei chiefs, 6s. per doz.; towels, 4s. 6d. per dor..; ionn trowsers, 28s. per 
 doz.; jeau waistcoats, 16s. per doz.; Scotch drill trowsers, 3s.' per pair," Ac. &'c. 
 
 It is impossible to reduce to figures (he amount of suffering inflicted upon the coun- 
 try by the American system. If the precise amount of M". /(/.r actually paid, could 
 be a.-ccertsined, there would still remain to be added the eflVct un the merchant and 
 ^Acprof/wcer of our exports, by the interruption of frff /r«r/(>, and the consequeni, 
 diminution in the value of our productions. 
 
44 
 
 ThefoUowirig estimate, ioundedonthe view taken by;>/a?i<ers, of ouracquaintancej 
 on (Ills subject, is subniitted, to shew, that while some gentlemen estimate the 
 Jiniouiit of tlie tax at almost nothtng, very difterent ideas are entertained hy others. 
 VVithiiut undertaking to vouch for the accuracy of this estimate, we are salislietl that 
 after making every possidle deduction enough will remain to shew that our citizens 
 do suffer enormous!}^ under the system : 
 
 ESTIMATE. 
 Suppose a planter's income to be ..... $4,00000 
 
 His /?/a?i<a/i'o7t «i<;;p/j>5 of protected articles may be about - $800 00 
 His supplies of similar articlcb/o;- /)»«.«(/' «Ht//amJ/(/, about - 1500 00 
 And supposing him to expend the whole of his income, (which 
 most planters now do) the remaindei will proba!'ly be expend- 
 ed as follows : — In the purchase of articles not taxed — in over- 
 seer's w:\ges, and the bills of physicians, schoolmasters, and 
 mechanics, in buildings, &c. «&c. ..... 1700 00 
 
 $4,000 00 
 
 The probable amount of his tax under such an expen- 
 diture of his income, would be as follows : — 47 per 
 cent, (the average of duties) on $2,300 expended 
 0!i protected articles, is, - - - - $1,081 00 
 
 But in consequence of the enormous burdens imposed 
 by this system on all persons ivith v^lioni the. planler 
 deals, he is obliged to pay more for their services, 
 atid even for some articles not taxed, than they 
 could otherwise be procured for. If JO per ct. be 
 added for this, we have, 170 tJO 
 
 Making together, $1,250 00 
 V Tax on an income of $4,000. 
 
 Vvhat proportion of the tax taay be necessary for revenue, no one can say. But if 
 the A itiericaii sv&tem were given up, and free trade restored, it is believed that it 
 would not exceed 10 or 15 per cent. If this 10 or 15 per ct. be deducted, and the 
 $170 above estimated be also deducted, it is believed that both of these will be more 
 than made up by the eftcct of (he system upon the planter, as producer, which is not 
 t;iken into the account in the above estimate. Let every man make the calculation 
 fur himself. 
 
 F.-p. 
 
 , The Virginia Kesoh'tions and Mr. Madison's opinions.— To shew that tlie construc- 
 tion whicirSouth Carolina lias put upon the Virginia Resolutions is an erroneous one, 
 the opinion expressed by Mr. Madison, iu his late letter to the editor of the North 
 Ameiicau Review, is confidently relied on, and it is asked witli an air of triumph, 
 well calculated to produce effect, "if Mr. Madison could possibly be mistaken as to 
 the meaning of Resolutions which he himself drew?" Now we admit that this is an 
 imuosiu'^ argument, but it is not conclusive. In giving the proper construction to a 
 hw or Sther legislative proceeding, the rule has long been settled, that we must look 
 to 'he law itself, and not to its author, and this because written documents, may be 
 morp certainly relied on than the frail memory of man. II the true meaning ot the 
 Vii-Muia Kesolulious and Madison's ileport, as understood by those who adopted 
 them was now to be fixed by the testimony of living witnesses, we have evidence be- 
 f(.re us whicii uould go far to shew that Mr. Madison is mistaken. But we have high- 
 er evidei re to c'^tablisii beyond a doubt that in the lapse of time, and under the 
 nressure of a^e Mr. Midisoa's present imi)ressions cannot be confidently relied on. 
 Viu-i he wrote his late letter lo the North American Review so entirely had Mr. 
 Mur'^on Vor^oZ/fM the true pnnciides, and even the contents ol his own Report on 
 the Virsriiiia Resolutions of '9H, (which it is obvious he had not recently examined,) 
 tlr^t he resists the construction put by us on those jiapers expressly on the ground that 
 t' ere must be ^ final A,'.ziT>:n someuhcre, of all disputes btlwcen the States and the 
 Ffc'-T'^i Govevament as to the bouiidaries of jnrisdicHon, and tliut this final akbitkr 
 ,s iH 'soPKi^Mi-: COURT, whereas we have already seen that it was the vkky foun- 
 Dv I .V OF THE WHOLE AhcamKNT of Mr. Madison's Report, that the Supreme Court 
 
45 
 
 neither was nor could be such an arbiter, — that the states must of necessity judsiE 
 FOK THEMSLLVES, aiid that there could be " no tribunal above their authokitv, 
 to decide in the last resort whether the compact had been preserved or violated." 
 This fact is conclusive to shew that Mr. Madison's impressions are not now to be re- 
 lied on in relation to the true principles of the Resolutions of '98, for on the very point 
 on which the whole question in issue maniteslly turns, viz: whether the Comlitution 
 has constituted the Supreme Court the final arbiter, or whether the several Slates must 
 of nec&ssity judge for themselves — he expressly maintained the latter opinion in '98, 
 and maintains the contrary now, without seeming at all nware of the discrepancy. It 
 may then be a question whether Mr Madison's present or former opinions are most 
 to be relied on, but there can be no question as to what these opinions then were or 
 now are. •' Littera scripta manet." It is not for us to explain, how it has happened 
 that Mr. Madison's views have undergone such a material change, in relation to the 
 Virgmia Ilesolutions. Entertaining the highest possible respect for his character and 
 gratitude for his public services, we cannot however but lament a circumstance cal- 
 culated we fear seriously to impair his reputation, and to produce a fatal influence oa 
 the character of our government. These changes of opinion, on the part of Mr. 
 fl? uiison, have not been confined to the Virginia Resolutions,— they extend to almost 
 every important question which has divided parties in this country The ablest ar- 
 argument, perhaps, ever made against the constitutionality of the Bank is that de- 
 livered by Mr. Madison He afterwards approved of a bill for its incorporation, and 
 is now an open and strenuous advocate of the renewal of its charter. He was o|)pos- 
 ed to Internal Improvements, and put his veto on the Bonus bill, on constitutional 
 grounds; and it is believed that he was equally opposed to the other branch of the 
 'American system'. On these subjects his opinions are believed to have undergone 
 great changes. Indeed judging from recent expressions of opinion, which Mr. Ma- 
 dison has given to the world, it appears that he inclines strongly towards the Con- 
 solidation doctrines of the old school; ajid, as to the rights of the States, and the power 
 of the Federal Government, we confess we have been unable to discover any essen- 
 tial difference between his present opinion and those of the leaders of that school — 
 If we were called upon to account for these manifest changes in the opinion of Mr. 
 Madison, we should perhaps say, that he has come back, in his old age, to the prin- 
 ciples of his youth. John Taylor, of Caroline, in his work entitled "Construction 
 Construed," insists that at the time Mr. Madison was concerned, as a member of 
 the Convention, in framing the Constitution, he was a strenuous advocate of a Con- 
 solidated National Government. This is proved from his exertions to incorporate 
 a proviso into the Constitution, giving to Congress the power of repealing State 
 laws — declaring (See Yates^ Secret Debates, p. 184,^ " that the States ought to be 
 placed under he control of the General Government at least as much so as they were 
 formerly, when under the King and British Parliament." Mr. Madison, however, 
 during the violent party struggles in Virginia, in 179^, took side with the Democrat- 
 ic party, and at that period inclined to State Right docli-ines. Having long retired 
 from public life — and keeping aloof from party politics, his opinions have not unnatu- 
 rally gone back to what they originally were. This we take to be the true account of 
 the matter. The authority of Mr. Madison, may therefore be adduced on both 
 sides of rao'^t of the great questions now in dispute — and after all, the only point to be 
 decided is, whether Mr Madison's ofiinion in 1^30, that the Supreme Court is the ulti- 
 mate arbiter, appointed by the Constitution, is to be preferred to his opinion in 1798, 
 that they are not. It is out of the question, however, to adduce his present opinion as 
 evidence to shew that he did not entertain a different opinion in '96, as liis opinion 
 was then expressed in the most positive, direct, and unequirocal terms.. 
 
 G.— p. 24. 
 
 The Kentucky Resolutions of '98 aiid '99. — If common reputation can settle any 
 thing, it has been long since settled that these Resolutions proceeded from the pen 
 OF Thomas Jefferso". Prior to the debate in the Senate on Foot's Resolution^ 
 no doubt had ever been expressed on the suliject. In answer to ti.e questions since 
 put to several distinguished Virginians, " wheiher the Kentucky Resolutions^of '99 are 
 not as certainly from the pen of Thomas Jefferson as those of '9»;'' the reply has 
 been •■ive never heard it doubted, that Mr. Jefferson was the author oi The Kkntucky 
 Resolutions, and if doubt had existed before, his Memoirs would dispel it; (see his 
 letter to Mr. Nicholas, 4th vol. p. 344.)' From ihe letter here referred to. it appears 
 that young 3Ir. Nicholas, after the death of his father Wilson Carey Nicholas (who 
 
46 
 
 flad some agensy in bringing forward these Resolutions) wrote a letter to Mr. Jef- 
 ferson, inquiring into the fact of the authorship of /he Kentucky ResoluHons. It does 
 not appear that he made any distinction between those of '9b and '99. Both 
 were then universally attributed to JMr Jefferson; they were obviously part of tlie 
 same transaction. Mr. Jefferson, in his reply (dated 11th December, 1821) avows 
 himself the author of the Kentucky Resolutions, without any discrimination 
 between those of '98 and 99, which he most assuredly would have made, if he was 
 the author only of the former, and Mr. Nicholas of the latter. To th\s positive testi- 
 tnony, there is nothing opposed, but a letter of Mr. Jefferson to Mr Nicholas while 
 in his neighbourhood, in Virginia, in the summer of '99— wherein, after giving him 
 a sketch of what the Resolutions ought to contain, he says, "he must decline pre- 
 paring any thing to avoid suspicions," and advisee Mr. Nicholas "to prepare some- 
 thing himself." That he did, however, afterwards consent to prepare these Reso- 
 lutions, is we think conclusively established, 1st. by the striking similarity of the 
 principles, structure and style between the Resolutions of '99 and those of '98, which 
 it is admitted that Mr Jefferson did prepare. The only difference we can discover 
 between them is in the introduction of the word nulHRcalion. in the former, a terra 
 peculiarly Jtffersonian. 2d. By the general reputation from that day to the present: 
 and 3d. by the letter above quoted, which can admit of no other construction, than 
 that Wilson Carey Nicholas was not, and Mr. Jefferson was the author of The 
 Kentucky Resolutions, which in the common acceptation have always embraced 
 those of '99, as well of '98, which related to the same subject matter, and promul- 
 gated identically, the same principles. 
 
 mF It is stated in the text, (page 21.) "that our doctrines ware first asserted ia 
 the Virginia Resolutions." This is an error. The Kentucky Resolutions were 
 adopted in November and the Virginia Resolutions in December, '98. The truth 
 however is, that A'^irginia mja* the mother of these doctrines, and Thomas Jefferson 
 their author. It was agreed among the leading Republicans of Virginia in '98— that 
 the principles embraced in these Resolutions should be promulgated as the doctrines 
 of the Republican parly. l\Ir. Jefferson was their leader — the very Mentor of that 
 party. "The principles being agreed in, to Mr. Madison was assigned the tisk of 
 drawing up the Virginia Resolutions, while Mr. Jefferson prepared those for Kentuc- 
 ky ; and it so happened that the latter wexe first adopted. 
 
 II.— p. 33. 
 
 Nullification. — For a collection of authorities in favour o( this doctrine, we refer to 
 the excellent articles recently published in the Mercury, under the signature of Hamp- 
 den. We will here only notice a few. We say nothing as to the propriety of ap- 
 plying these principles to the particular cases. We have already shewn that our 
 doctrines have been fully recognized by VIRGINIA and KENTUCKY. 
 
 The State of OHIO it is well known, imposed a tax upon the Bank of the United 
 States, and actually levied upon the funds of that institution and paid the amount into 
 the Slate Treasury. Tlie difficulty %vas finally comprojnised. But in the progress of 
 it, the following Resolutions among others were adopted by the Legislature of Ohio, 
 viz. 
 
 " First — That with respect to the powers of the government of the several States 
 that compose the American Union, and the powers of the Federal Government, this 
 General Assembly do recognize and approve the doctrines asserted by the Legislatures 
 of Virginia and Kentucky of 1798 and 1799, and do consider that their principles 
 have been recf)gnized anil adopted by a majority of the American people." (Carried 
 yeas o8, nays 7.) 
 
 " Resolved, That this General Assembly do protest against the doctrine that the po- 
 Illical rights of the several States that compose the American Union, and their powers 
 as sovereign States, may be settled and determined in the Superior Court of the United 
 States, so as to conclude and bind them, in cases contrived between individuals, and 
 where there are no one of them parties direct. — (Yeas t)4, nays 1.)" 
 
 [If this dispute had not been compromised, the plan of operations proposed by the 
 Legislature of Ohio, to assert the rights of the State in relation to the Bank was, as 
 follows, viz. to pa.ss a law, " prohibitino; the keepers of their gaols from having any 
 person committed at the suit of the Bank, prohibiting the State Officers from taking 
 acknowledgments of conveyances where the Bank is a parly, or whenniade for iheir 
 use, and from receiving or vending such conveyances, forbidding their Courts, Jus- 
 tices, Grand Juries, &.c. from taking cognizances of any wrong committed o« any 
 
47 ^ 
 
 species of property owned by the Bank, and prohibiting notaries from protesting their 
 bills, «Stc.]— See 19th vol. Niles' Register, p. 339. 
 
 When the Resolutions of South-Carolina, of Dec. 1827, were transmitted to the 
 other States, the Legislature of GEORGIA responded as follows : 
 
 " The States in forming the Constitution, treated with each other as sovereign and 
 independent governments, expressly acknowledging their rights of sovereignty, and 
 in as much as they divested themselves of those rights only which were expressly 
 delegated, it follows as a legitimate consequence, that the^ are still sovereign and 
 independent as to all the powers not granted. 
 
 The States rfspectivkly, therefore, have, in the opinion of your Committee, the 
 unquestionable right in case of any infraction of the general compact, or want of good 
 faith in the performance of its obligations, to complain, remonstrate, and even to 
 refuse obedience to any measure of the General Government manifestly against, and in 
 violation of the Constitution; otherwise, the Constitution might be violated with im- 
 punity and without redress, as often as the majority might think proper to transcend 
 their powers, and the party injured, bound to yield a submissive obedience to the 
 measure, however unconstitutional. This would tend to annihilate all sovereignty 
 and independence of the States, and to consolidate a/Z poller in the General Govern- 
 ment, which never was designed nor intended by theframers of the Constitution. 
 
 Resolved. That this Legislature concur with the Legislature of the State of So«th- 
 Carolina, in the Resolutions adopted at their December session in 1827, in relation 
 to the powers of the General Government and Staie Rights." 
 
 VIRGINIA responded as follows: — " This distribution of political power having 
 been established by the Constitution, the happiness and prosperity of the American 
 people demand, that it should be preserved. The theory of government as estab- 
 lished in America, contemplates the Federal and State Governments, as mutual 
 checks to one another, const: aining the various authorities to revolve within their 
 proper constitutional spheres. Each government is invested with supreme authority, 
 in the exercise of its ligitimate functions, whilst the authority of either is wholly 
 void, when exerted over a subject withheld from its jurisdiction. Should either de- 
 pository of political power, unhappily be disposed to disregard the Constitution, and 
 destroy the proportions of our beautiful theory, it devolves upon the other to interpose, 
 as well from a regard to its own safety, as for the perpetual preservation of our political 
 institutions." " If there be a characteristic of the federative syst«!m, peculiarly en- 
 titled to our admiration, it is the security which is found for individual liberty in the 
 separate energies of distinct governments, uniting and co-operating for the public 
 good; hul separating and conflicting, when the object is evil. 
 
 " Resolved, as the opinion of the Committee, That the Constitution of the United 
 States, being a Federal Compact, between Sovereign States, in construing which 
 no common arbiter is known, each State has the right to construe the compact for itself." 
 
 We know that Georgia has since, on the Indian Question, and especially in the 
 late case of Tassell's, not only avowed these principles, but carried them out suc- 
 cessfully into practice. South-Carolina has also again solemnly avowed them in the 
 R^solutioHs adopted by the Legislature in December. 1830- 
 
 PIU^ I s. 
 
*^