George Washington Flowers 
 Memorial Collection 
 
 DUKE UNIVERSITY LIBRARY 
 
 ESTABLISHED BY THE 
 FAMILY OF 
 COLONEL FLOWERS 
 
Digitized by the Internet Archive 
 in 2014 
 
 https://archive.org/details/signsoftimesorreOOcare 
 
SIGNS 
 
 OF THE TIMES : 
 
 REFLECTIONS 
 
 0$ 
 
 BY A CITIZEX OF ABBEVILLE. €c 
 
 COLUMBIA, S. C. 
 
 PRINTED AT THE OFFICE OF THE FREE PRESS AND HIV?!, 
 
 1831. 
 
rHE FLOWERS COLLEUTK)-.' 
 
 INTRODUCTIOxN. 
 
 THE Essays originajly published in the Eree Press and Hive, signed 
 Madison, are now offered to the public in pamphlet form, after having been re- 
 vised and corrected by the Author. 
 
 In the opinion of the Publisher, never was the body politic infected with a 
 more dangerous disease than nullification, and never did disease meet with a 
 more effectual antidote than is found in these Essays for that singular political 
 epidemic. 
 
 In addition to the lucid illustration and conclusive arguments contained in 
 these Essays, we would ask the nullifiers if they suppose a body of free, inde- 
 pendent and happy yeomanry, blessed with unparalleled civil and religious lib- 
 erty — with a trade as free as the winds with twenty-four United States, includ- 
 ing almost every salubrious and productive climate from the equator to the poles, 
 and many of their memories still echoing the advice of Washington, which their 
 own ears heard as it fell from his lips — We say can the Nullifiers expect to 
 make followers of such men when they propagate doctrines unknown to their 
 fathers and incomprehensible to themselves ? 
 
 A few quotations will show the opinions entertained by respectable Southern 
 editors of these Essays. The Macon (Ga.) Telegraph, an ably edited paper, 
 lias the following remark : — " They are evidently from the pen of a sound and 
 intelligent lawyer, who disdains appealing to the passions, but commits his 
 cause, and that of his country, to impartial reason. Never has Nullification 
 been met with more power or been more severely handled." 
 
 The Georgetown (S. C.) Union, says : — " They place this doctrine in so ab- 
 surd a light that no one except a political partizan, blinded by his previously 
 conceived notions, and determined at all hazards to abide by them, can resist the 
 conclusion of their utter fallacy." 
 
 The Planters' (Alabama) Gazette says: — " Those who wish to see the new 
 fangled ' heresy' of State Rights vitally exposed, are requested to read the fol- 
 lowing lucid extract, from the pen of a brilliant writer, signing himself ' Madi- 
 son,' in the ' Columbia Free Press and Hive.' The author is worthy of his as- 
 sumed name. He appears to have drank deep at the fountain of knowledge, 
 anxious to hand down to posterity the rich legacy bequeathed to na by our foffi* 
 fathers. While such patriots exist in the land, America will never have cause 
 to exclaim. 1 farewell, a long farewell to all my greatness !' " 
 
ESSAYS. 
 
 NO. 1. 
 
 A plain man would have believed from the smoke that iloat- 
 ed in the political atmosphere, during the last summer, and from 
 the mighty gasconading that exhibited itself in the ranks of the nulli- 
 fies, that the party reaih intended to do something ; if only for the 
 purpose of redeeming their pledges with the people ; and giving evi- 
 dence that they believed the doctrine they had so industi iouslj r 
 preached. 1 can only say, that, were I of their creed, and did 1 
 believe what they profess, I should have regarded myself as recre- 
 ant to that high sense of honor and chivalry which they claim, if, 
 when the crisis came, I had found myself making an}' excuses against 
 immediate " action." What, sir, believe that the people of this 
 state were unjustly and unconstitutonally taxed by a corrupt go- 
 vernment to an amount equal to 40 per cent, on all they made ! 
 believe too that we held in our own hands a peaceful and constitu- 
 tional remedy ; from the exercise of which there could be as little 
 danger of harm, as there is of a planet's departing from its orbit ! ! 
 Believe this, I say, and yet as a representative of that people, not 
 be firm enough to make the experiment ! ! It is too bad. 'Tis a 
 feebleness of nerve, both moral, and physical, that I would be un- 
 willing to attribute to any creature having the form and propor- 
 tions of a man. 
 
 It is conceded by both parties, that the nullifiers had a majority 
 in the Legislature. Why then, I ask, did they not bring forward 
 this famous specific — this panacea, that is to cure us of every ill ? 
 Do they in their consciences, believe that it is a constitutional and 
 peaceful remedy ; involving in its exercise no danger whatever I 
 And do they believe it will have the effect they assert? If the\ 
 do, then their course has proved them the veriest bragadocios, and 
 bobadills, that ever exhibited themselves before the public. That 
 the Legislature has power to nullify is contended for by the text 
 books of their party, nor as far as I know, is it denied by any pro- 
 minent man amongst them. Indeed as there must, in order to nul- 
 lify, be a law imposing sanctions, and penalties, it would seem that 
 no other body could do it. Why then has it not been done? And 
 why has not this majority ai rested the law, as they so often promis- 
 ed, and relieved the people from the Tariff? The question may 
 be a delicate one, and gentlemen may not like to reply — Permit me 
 therefore to come to their assistance. The answer, I think is, easy : 
 
they cio uoifeet clear on the point ; they have virions doubts as to 
 its peaceful qualities; and well know, that in all human probabili- 
 ty, its exorcise would be followed, either by a skulking out on the 
 part of the state, or by bloodshed. This is no doubt the reason 
 why the thing has not been attempted, lor the experience of the 
 summer had satisfied them, that whenever this was made fully mani- 
 fest to the people, their political days would be numbered, and 
 soon it might be said of them, as 'twas said of ancient Troy — Ilium 
 fuit. 
 
 The party have conjured up a creature of a diseased brain — a 
 phantom, to be found, certainly not in the constitution of the Union, 
 nor any where else, except, perhaps, in those heads, the chief at- 
 tribute of which may be nullification itself. It is now used as u 
 talisman, to keep together, and enable particular men to ride the 
 wave — direct the storm — and keep themselves in power; and while 
 this can be effected, some oj them at least will be content. " To 
 reign in hell rather than serve in heaven," is the maxim of ambi- 
 tion ; and there may be some amongst us, that would prefer the 
 Chief Magistracy of the JSation of South Carolina, to thai of a pri- 
 vate station in the Union. 
 
 This party claim to be republicans. It is a slander on common 
 sense. They exhibit themselves as the enemies of the very first 
 and cardinal principles of republicanism ; and Inculcate a doctrine 
 which, taken in all its bearings, would annihilate free institutions 
 altogether. Mr. M'Duffie in his " one of the people" says, that 
 this creed is the doctrine of the Ilohj Alliance of Crowned Heads 
 
 in Europe and Ue says true — for it is capable of demonstration, 
 
 that under the operation of this faith, republics are at an end. It 
 allows no majority to act, without the consent of the minority. It 
 permits the minority to construe the constitution, and carry that 
 construction into execution, and yet it denies the same right to the 
 majority ! ! And to cap the climax of absurdity, it authorises seven 
 states to rule in all cases the other seventeen, although they may 
 be the smallest and most insignificant in the Union. It subverts 
 the natural order of things-— makes the minor rule the major pow- 
 er ; and is precisely that principle which places kings on thrones ! 
 
 What more could a disciple of Sir Robert Filmer wish, to establish 
 the necessity of universal monarchy, than the doctrine, that the " ma- 
 jority in a republic are necessarily corrupt" — "that they will oppress 
 the minority" — and that that minority must have the right to arrest 
 the proceedings of the government at all times, and under all circum- 
 stances, when to them it seemeth good 1 Any one could sec?, or 
 ought to sm', that a republican government could not get along at 
 all under this restriction ; and, of course, the alternative presented 
 would be anarchy, or monarchy ; no government at all. or bow ihe 
 ueck to a kinjr, «»nd thus permit the lowest possible minority to 
 rule ! In all free governments, having constitutions, ihe checks 
 and balances that are intended to counteract the exercise of Hibi- 
 trary power, are always all specified, and indeed it is for this ex- 
 press purpose that constitutions are made. Unless gentlemeu, 
 therefore, can shew me that this doctrine is either drawn from the 
 
(J 
 
 constitution, or ks exorcise perfectly compatible with the power* 
 given away by tiiat instrument, they must pardon me for not as- 
 senting to their faith. 
 
 JfO. 2. 
 
 I shall in this number proceed to make a few observations on 
 a. phrase which is in every one's mouth, but which with all due de- 
 ference I mu-it say few seem to understand; We live in an age of 
 cant — and the pigmy politicians of the da}', so actively employed in 
 producing disaffection to the Union, well aware of the sophistry of 
 their creed, cautiously keep clear of reason or argument, and de- 
 pend upon sustaining themselves m ainly by ringing the changes on 
 cant phrases, thereby hoping to mislead the community. Of these 
 cant isms (if I may be permitted to coin a word) none are more 
 conspicuous, nor oftener heard, than " State Sovereignty" — and 
 this, too, often from the mouths of persons who understand it not. 
 
 The nullMer, well aware that his doctrine is utterly inconsistent 
 with any other state attitude than that of " sovereignty," sets ou; 
 with the pompous declaration, that she is " free, sovereign, and in- 
 dependent." If this were true, there could be no doubt of the cor- 
 rectness of the balance of his creed ; for sovereignty knows no su- 
 perior, and consequently is bound to obey no law. But is it the 
 fact, that any one State in this Union, while continuing a member of 
 this confederacy, is " sovereign and independent" 1 This is what 
 1 wish to inquire into : and in the first place, what is sovereignty ? 
 Abstractly taken, it is clear that sovereignty is ideal, and can only 
 be denned by reference to its attributes. A state is sovereign 
 which possesses the attributes of sovereignty : and it is a misnomer 
 to call one sovereign that is deprived of those attributes. Whal 
 then are the attributes of sovereignty ? I answer ; in a govern- 
 ment, it is the right and power to declare and carry on war — to 
 conclude peace — to form alliances— to coin money— to regulate 
 commerce— and to make all those laws that are necessary for the 
 people over which it presides ; and all this without let or hindrance 
 from any other power on earth. I do not say that these are all 
 the attributes of sovereignty, but they are the principal, and are suf- 
 ficient for my present purpose. Now does the nullifier intend to 
 admit the binding efficacy of the Constitution of the United States ? 
 If he does, then permit me to ask him, can the state declare 
 war ?— can she conclude peace ?— can she form alliances ?— can 
 she coin money? — can she keep standing armies in time of peace 
 Or can she adopt any form of government, or pass any law, in- 
 compatible with the Constitution of the Union ? Each of the pow- 
 ers here mentioned is essential to the character of sovereignty, and 
 I put it to the candor of the nullifier to say, whether the state has 
 'he- right to do any of these things. If he admits that she has nor. 
 
and I am satisfied that no Candid man, I care not to what party lit 
 belongs, will assert that she lias ; then 1 again ask him what kind ot 
 sovereignty is it that has none of its principal attributes'? The 
 State has not the right to do any of the acts above specified ; these 
 acts are essential to sovereignty ; therefore the States are not 
 sovereign. 
 
 In the next place, the governments of the stales have not only 
 no power to exercise any of the acts of sovereignty above alluded 
 to, but the people of the states are subject to laws made by another, 
 power ; nor have the state governments any right to protect them 
 from the opeiation of those laws. Now sovereignty makes its own 
 laws, and protects its own subjects or citizens from the operation of 
 the laws of all other powers. Look to ttie history of the world, and 
 you cannot find an instance of a sovereign state submitting to the 
 annual legislation of another power. Now we know that Congress 
 has the right, (and has for the last forty years been exercising it 
 too,) of making laws that are obligatory on the people of the states ; 
 and how any one can claim sovereignty for his state, and at the 
 same time tamely submit to the annual legislation of Congress, is to 
 me incomprehensible ! Soveieignty makes its own laws, and go- 
 verns, exclusively, its own people ; Congress has the right to make 
 certain laws for the people ol the states, and the states have no 
 right to forbid it— therefore the states are not sovereign. 
 
 In the next place, sovereignty taxes its own people, and prohibits 
 the tax laus of all other powers from having force within its territo- 
 ry. Congress has the right to tax the people of the states, and the 
 states cannot prevent it, therefore, in this respect, also, the states 
 are not sovereign. 
 
 Again, sovereignty calls its own troops into the field, in defence 
 of its own territory, and no other power has a right to interfere or 
 make such requisitions. The government of the United States has 
 this power in regard to the citizens of the states, and the states 1 
 governments have no right to prevent it— therefore in this respect 
 likewise, they are not sovereign. 
 
 But again, the states are not only shorn of certain cardinal pow- 
 ers of sovereignty, and their people bound to obey the laws of the 
 General Government as already demonstrated ; but they are re- 
 strained and controlled by the Constitution of the Union in the ex- 
 ercise of those powers which they have reserved to themselves. 
 11 Sovereignty," says Judge Rowan, in his famous speech on Foot's 
 resolutions, " knows no superior but the God of battles." If, there- 
 fore the state government, in the exercise of its own functions, is 
 controlled by any other power than its own will, it is not sovereign. 
 Let us, therefore see, whether it is not controlled. Suppose a state 
 was to propose to establish a government, composed of a King, 
 Lords and Commons ; could she do so ? Most assuredly not ; for 
 the Constitution of the Union controls her — prohibits any form of 
 government other than republican— and forbids titles of nobility. 
 Suppose she- were to attempt to dispense with the trial by Jury, or 
 pass laws impairing the obligation of contracts, or laws in their na- 
 ture ex pest facto ; could she do so ? Most certainly not, for in 
 
s 
 
 doing so, she would violate the Constitution of the Union, and ail 
 laws that violate it arc null and void. Sovereignty is independent 
 of earthly comrol ; the states are controlled; therefore the states 
 are not sovereign. 
 
 Now if there is error or sophistry in the above remarks, I shall 
 be glad to have it exposed ; for truth is my object. The state go- 
 vernment has its particular orbit in which to move— its circle of 
 duties to perform— and those duties are presented, and limited by- 
 its own constitution, as well as that of the Union. The Constitu- 
 tion of the state directs the government what it may do ; and the 
 Constitution of the Union what it may not do. The assumption of 
 sovereignty and independence, therefore, on the part of the state, 
 is a throwing off the obligations we owe to the Constitution of the 
 Union, a charter which we have sworn to obey and protect ; and 
 is a virtual declaration to the other states that we hold them as we 
 do the rest ot the world, " enemies in war; and in peace, friends." 
 
 NO. 3. 
 
 Permit me in this number to investigate these points a little 
 further— for in a controversy like the present, it is exceedingly im- 
 portant that we should understand the true theory of our institu- 
 tions. I think 1 have shewn in the last number, that the states, 
 while they continue members oi the confederacy, are not " sove- 
 reign and independent," but, on the contrary, are governments of 
 limited powers, being controlled and circumscribed in the sphere of 
 their action by the Constitution of the Union. The same observa- 
 tion is equally true in regard to the General Government ; with 
 this difference, that in the latter case, the only powers the govern- 
 ment has, is derived from the constitution ; while in the former, 
 the powers taken away, and which of course the states have no 
 right to exercise, is specified and set out in the constitution. 
 
 Anterior to the formation of the present constitution, there ex- 
 isted a Supreme Council, then, as now, called a Congress ; and also 
 a kind of union, denominated a Confederation. This Congress, 
 however, had no authority to pass laws that were obligatory on the 
 people. Its requisitions issued in the shape of resolutions, and were 
 intended to operate on the state governments ; but they carried 
 with them no sanctions, nor was there any power to enforce them. 
 In this state of things it is easy to see that the resolutions of that 
 body would be considered by the states as mere advice^ to be 
 obeyed or not, as to them seemed good. With a government thus 
 restricted, totally unable to enforce its decrees, no foreign power 
 of course would form treaties, for it would be obviously nugatory to 
 form treaties with a government that had not power to enforce, or 
 comply with its own part of the stipulation. This state of things 
 was so palpably deleterious to the welfare of the people, that it was 
 
determined to alter the frame of the Union, and give to the General 
 Government more power than belonged to it ; and lor this pur- 
 pose a convention ol' all the states assembled in solemn council in 
 the city ol' Philadelphia. 
 
 The present Constitution of the United States is the result of the 
 deliberations of that body, was reported to Congress by General 
 Washington, sent to the states, and ratified by them severally in 
 convention, and is now the supreme law of the Union, " any thing 
 in the laws or constitution of any state to the contrary notwith- 
 standing.'* 
 
 This constitution called the General Government into existence; 
 and defines all its pou t is either by express grant or necessary and 
 rational implication. Whenever the government, therefore, attempts 
 to exercise any power not granted, or fairly and reasonably deduci- 
 ble as a necessary corollary, to some given power, it is usurpation, 
 and ought to be opposed. When I say ought to be opposed, I cer- 
 tainly do not me m physical resistance, for this instead of remedy- 
 ing the evil would increase it a thousand fold ; and would be about 
 as wise as the conduct of the idiot, who to get rid of the rats in his 
 house, put fire to the building itself. If we resort to this kind of 
 expedient for every law which we regard as unconstitutional, we 
 will soon have according to the frames of our mind, the mortifica- 
 tion or pleasure of seeing the government of the Union evaporate 
 in smoke, " and like the baseless fabric of a vision, leave not a 
 wreck behind." No ; this is not the course to be pursued. If the 
 government is wrong, it is the fault of those who administer it ; on 
 them let your resentment fall ; scrutinize closely the conduct of 
 those who officiate at the altar ; but beware how you lay your 
 hands on the altar itself. If Congress has done wrong, change its 
 members. If it is objected that we cannot change them in the oth- 
 er states, 1 answer it is true ; but the people there can ; they have 
 the same rights at stake that we have, and surely we would not 
 wish to elect our own members and theirs too ! Ours is a govern- 
 ment of common concession, and common interest ; we meet in 
 Common council, and legislate for the common good, they for us, 
 and we for them, reciprocally. 
 
 The people of each state can and will change their own mem- 
 bers whenever they displease them ; and this shows the true na- 
 ture of this controversy. It is not a contest between us the people 
 on the one hand, and the government on the other. Not so : far 
 from it. It is a controversy between us, a minority of the people, 
 and a large majority of the same body in other parts of the Union, 
 who sustain and force the government into the course h haspnrsued. 
 This shews likewise the futility of resistance, for it would not be a 
 contest with the government in which we w ould be engaged, but on 
 the contrary with the great mass of the people who are friendly to the 
 law. Unless to be sure we wish to destroy the Union, our business 
 is with reason and argument ; our weapons must be moral and not 
 physical, if we expect to succeed. Moral weapons belong to, and 
 are recognized by the constitution, physical weapons are of ajiother 
 2 
 
10 
 
 school, and carry in their train the destruction of that altar, and that 
 temple, at and in which every patriot should worship. 
 
 I know that so far as the minority are concerned this may be 
 considered as a defect in our system ; and that theoretically speak- 
 in?, lie cannot be considered as free who has to submit to laws 
 made by men, over whom he has no political control. This is a 
 pi lusi )le difficulty ; yet it is one that all free people have had to 
 bear, and which no human ingenuity can obviate. How would you 
 get clear of this difficulty here % Will you annihilate ihe state bound- 
 aries altogether, and elect members of Congress by general ticket 
 throughout the nation ] This would evidently increase rather than 
 lessen the evil : for the small states would get no members at all ; and 
 in relation to ourselves, a candidate would only have to proclaim 
 himself hostile to certain doctrines, and domestic institutions amongst 
 ms, and he would be elected, even if he got not one vote in the 
 state. 
 
 This project will, therefore, not do. What then 1 Shall we 
 separate 1 This is the only other alternative. We have to remain 
 as lot are — by adhering to our present institutions — consolidate — 
 or separate — choose ye between them. To those who are prepared 
 foi separation, I have no aigument to uige ; for argument and rea- 
 son are thrown away on insanity. Insane and a curse to his coun- 
 try is that man, who by word or deed countenances the separation 
 of these states, and richly does he deserve to 
 
 — — " Go down 
 
 To the vile dust from whence he sprung, 
 Unwept, unhonor'd, and unsung." 
 
 He who objects to be legislated for by men, over whom as con- 
 stituent he has no control, strikes at the root of all government 
 whatever, and overturns our state institutions, as well as those of the 
 Union : for precisely the same difficulties occur in the one case as 
 in the other. Each district elects its own members, nor does any 
 man pretend to claim the right of voting, except in one place; and 
 yet he is bound to obey the laws passed by men from other parts of 
 the state. If, therefore, he is a slave, because he is legislated for 
 by men in Congress from other states, he is equally so at home, and 
 in his own state, and if he would be free, he must subvert both ty- 
 rannies together. 
 
 The truth is, these objections are the result of fanciful and theo- 
 r ical ideas of perfection in human institutions, that are utterly at 
 war with all experience and common sense. There is a morbid 
 sensibility, in relation to restraint of every kind, at work in this 
 State, at this time, that is totally inconsistent with all government ; 
 and its advocates in order to realize and enjoy this their darling 
 idol, would do well to make their way to the wilds of the Missouri, 
 where the strongest arm and keenest knife would furnish the only 
 law to which they wouid be subjected. 
 
11 
 
 NO. 4. 
 
 Before entering on the main objections which I entertain 
 against nullification, permit me, in this paper, to investigate the 
 light and title which the party have to the honorable designation of 
 republicans. Whether they are state rights men will be seen here- 
 after. The nullifier, in order to catch that portion of the commu- 
 nity who are in the habit of avoiding the drudgery of thinking, who 
 worship at particular shrines, and huzza for particular names, are 
 continually trumpeting themselves as the true republicans, and their 
 creed as the pure, genuine, unmixed republicanism, promulgated by 
 Jefferson and M ;dison in the years '98 and '99. If any one, at 
 any time, has had the hardihood to call in question the soundness of 
 their creed, ihey immediately exclaimed against the heresy of the 
 infidel, and he was forthwith put down by the authority of Jefferson 
 and Madison. Mr. Jefferson, unfortunately for us, is no more ; but 
 we have it on record, over his own signature, that on this subject, 
 lie and Mr. Madison thought alike, so that in arriving at the opinions 
 of he latter, we have that of the former. The late letter of Mr. 
 Madison gives his opinion of the doctrine ; he shows that it is ut- 
 terly inconsistent with the integrity of the Union, and goes so iai 
 as to assert that it is only the connexion of certain names that pre- 
 vents it from sinking into contempt. If, therefore, the nullified 
 claim to be republicans in consequence of imagining themselves the 
 disciples of Jefferson and Madison, we have only to say to them, 
 that their master has disowned them, denounces their creed, and 
 treats it even with contempt. Mr. M idison has told them, in lan- 
 guage the most forcible, that their doctrine is incompatible with the 
 continuance of the Union. The mantle of these sages has, there- 
 fore, not descended upon them ; they are not their disciples, and 
 consequently, from this source, have no claims to republicanism. 
 
 In the second place, permit me to ask gentlemen to explain a sin- 
 gular inconsistency into which they have fallen in the course of 
 their campaign in relation to this same claim on republicanism. It 
 will be recollected that Gen. Hayne, in his famous nullifying speech, 
 delivered in the Senate of the United States on Foot's Resolutions, 
 took occasion to review the conduct of the ultra federal and Hart- 
 ford Convention party of New-England during the late war ; and 
 in consequence of their factious opposition to the government, de- 
 scribed them in colors black as night, and hateful as the cloven- 
 footed prince of darkness himself. Not content with this, he went 
 further — hailed and lauded the then republican pany there, who 
 boldly came forward and sustained the administration, and by every 
 mean in their power opposed and reprobaied the doctrine and con- 
 duct of their opponents. General Hayne did this, in the Senate of 
 the United States, not two years since, at the very time, and on the 
 very occasion, when he promulgated his nullifying doctrine, and 
 thus fell into the amazing inconsistency of sustaining a doctrine, and 
 arging a course for his party, which, at that moment, he had con- 
 
12 
 
 demned and reprobated in the federalists of New-England." This 
 is not all. It is well known that within the limiis of our own state,' 
 this nullifying party have brought forward the conduct of these blue 
 lights of New-England as practical illustrations of their own doc- 
 trine ; nay, have gone so far as to publish and distribute pamphlets, 
 containing a history of their proceedings, thus holding them up to 
 public approbation, as worthy of imitation by all " true republi- 
 cans." I appeal to the public for the truth of this statement, and 
 if it is denied, can prove it, in any court in Christendom : an J yet 
 these nullifiers have the amazing assurance to call themselves re- 
 publicans. 
 
 Is it to be " republican," to follow in the footsteps of the most 
 ultra federalists that our country has ever produced 1 Or is it to be 
 a " friend of the Union" io imitate the conduct of a most hateful 
 faction, that previous to our day has ever attempted to sever Uicse 
 states ] In one moment we are told that, this federal parry of New- 
 England were a most ha'eful junto, and in the very next breath, 
 that their conduct was nobly patriotic, and will confer on any person 
 who will now follow in 'heir steps the enviable name of " true re- 
 publicans ;" will the gentlemen be so good as to let us know when 
 we are to believe them ? Shall it be when they denounce these old 
 blue lights'? Or shall it be when they call on us to imitate their 
 glorious example ? If they cJa'tn a name from this part of their Creed 
 or conduct, they must have it, it is abeady cut and dried, fashion* 
 ed and approved of by (he public, and given, on a former occasion, 
 by one of iheir own party to that junto, whose conduct they are 
 now imitating, and is nothing mo-e nor less than ******* 
 
 There is, in the third place, a very suspicious cir cumstance, which 
 goes far to shew that he who is the very life-blood of the whole 
 doctrine, has at least his doubts as to its " republicanism," and 
 which I now beg leave to notice. It is well known, in this state at 
 least, who it is that is the greatest leader of the party ; who it is 
 that moves all the agents of this creed, with the same absolute sway 
 as are the wires of a puppet-show, and who it wasthat wrote the book, 
 first promulgating the dogmas, since called the " Carolina Exposi- 
 tion." This pamphlet was first produced in Columbia, during the 
 session of 1828, with singular mystery; an attempt was made to 
 palm it on the House, as the production of a committee : and the 
 nullifiers say it contains the u true doctrine of republicanism." If 
 this latter assertion be true, why such mystery about its authorship 1 
 Why is the brat unclaimed 1 And why is it that no one is willing to 
 " rock the cradle" of its infancy, until, invigorated by time and nur- 
 ture, it walks abroad in its own strength 1 Is the writer afraid to 
 acknowledge himself the author of a " republican pamphlet ?" Or is 
 it true that tepublicanism is at so low an ebb in the United Sia.^s, 
 that in doing so, he would injure his reputation 1 I must be p u- 
 doned for saying that this mystery furnishes pretty strong evidence 
 of the author's own doub's on the subject, and I must say further, 
 that When the magister grcgis is unwilling to cne'orse, publicly, 'be 
 doctrines privately taught| the people have a right to suspect that 
 Something, at least, is " rotten in Denmark.'* 
 
13 
 
 The circumstances already mentioned go far to show that the 
 ^mllificrs themselves are not quite sure to what denomination they 
 belong, which, taken in connection with one or two c.her difficul- 
 ties yet before us, demonstrate, pretty clearly, that they may as 
 well assume the name of " delusionists," or " fire-eaters," as re- 
 public an s. 
 
 If I were to define a republican, I would say, he is one who 
 wishes to see the government administered in a spirit of economy, 
 with an eye single to a strict and rational construction of the consti- 
 tution, and utterly opposed to latitudinarian isrns of every kind. If 
 we apply this rule to the leaders of nullification, it will not fit a sin- 
 gle act of their political lives. Heretofore, they were found con- 
 struing the constitution in the most broad and latitudinarian m inner, 
 in order to obtain footing on which to build, not only the tariff of 
 protection, passed in 1816, but also the United States B nk, and 
 internal improvement : and in relation to these latter favorites, the 
 most of them hold on yet. So opposed were they to every thing 
 like economy and strict construction, that it is a singular tact, that 
 these offences were the charges brought against Judge Smith at the 
 election, when he was turned out of the Senate of the United States 
 by Gen. H vyne. It is said, however, that they have changed. I 
 deny the fact. I admit that there is a change of feeling, but not 
 of principle. Their rules of construction are the same now as for- 
 merly. Heretofore, they gave forced constructions of the constitu- 
 tion, in order to furnish power to the government to effect their fa- 
 vorite objects at the expense of the states ; now they resort to the 
 same rules of construction ; nay, go further, and commit a rape on 
 that instrument, to take from the government the rights and powers 
 that legitimately belong to it, and at the same time, confer on the- 
 states those to which they have, not now, and never had, any pre- 
 tensions. It is thus perfectly obvious, that it is their feelings and 
 not their principles that are changed; they are latitudinarian con- 
 structionists still, and that too of the wildest kind ; and if this pre- 
 vented them from the legitimate denomination of republicans here- 
 tofore, His even so yet. Daniel Webster is called a federalist, be- 
 cause he refuses to adhere to a close and rigid construction of the 
 constitution, and yet neither this gentleman, nor any other of his 
 party, ever went the lengths that the nullifiers do, in forcing our po- 
 litical compact from all common sense, in order to find footing on 
 which to rest this their new bantling. 
 
 But I am not yet done with this question. How can he be a re- 
 publican who maintains principles that strike at the root of all free 
 institutions'? The nullifier maintains that the " majority are cor- 
 rupt" — " that the minority have nothing to hope from them ;" 
 " that the minority are slaves, and will be oppressed, unless you 
 give them the power to arrest, at pleasure, the wheels of the govern- 
 ment. This principle makes the whole subject to the parts — the 
 minor rule the major power, and is more destructive to free institu- 
 tutions than the doctrine of the u divine right of kings." It is a 
 creed that goes no roundabout way to work, but strikes, at once, at 
 the root of the tree, nor trunk, nor branches, nor foliage is left ben 
 
14 
 
 hind. If this doctrine prevails, tyrants and despots are (irmly fixed 
 in their thrones forever, while the countless millions, the migliiy 
 mass of human kind, may raise their manacled hands, and invoke 
 the spirit of free institutions and liberty in vain J 
 
 NO. 5. 
 
 This creed claims for a state the constitutional right super- 
 vising, or reviewing any act of Congress, determining on its cons i- 
 tutionality, and if in its opinion, inconsistent with the spirit of rhat 
 instrument, arresting its operation, within its borders, by means of 
 its sovereign veto ; the act to remain so suspended, until Congress 
 shall call conventions of all the states to determine the question ; 
 the decision of three fourths of which, being in favor of the law, 
 makes it valid, and reverses the state veto : the decision of seven= 
 states on the contrary being in favor of the state, repeals the law, 
 makes it void, and settles the constitution on that point for ever 
 afterwards. 
 
 The first impression made on the mind after examining this creed 
 is that of amazement, that any gentleman at all acquainted with the 
 nature of our institutions, should maintain this doctrine, as constitu- 
 tional, or at all compatible with the progress of the government or 
 integrity of the Union. The constitution was evidently given as a 
 guide to conduct and control the operations of the government ; 
 and yet this creed deprives it of the right of construing that instru- 
 ment or of acting under its authority and places these rights and 
 powers exclusively in the hands of the states severally. Why 1 
 would ask this inconsistency 1 and why give a rule of conduct, if it 
 is not to be acted under 1 At this rate Congress has no rule, ex- 
 cept the will of the states, and this will, from the number of the 
 states, may present itself in twenty-four different forms, in which 
 ,case I would ask, who is Congress to obey ? As I understand the 
 constitution, it requires a concurrence of three fourths of the states 
 to alter or amend that instrument, and the government is equally 
 authorized to pass laws that are obligatory on the people by bare 
 majorities of its own body. 
 
 One of the difficulties to this new creed, is, that it imposes on the 
 government the necessity of getting eighteen states of the twenty- 
 four, to ratify its acts before they are certainly valid : and another 
 is, that it gives to the state which takes the start, and imposes the 
 veto, a politic d consequence more than equal to seventeen other 
 states, for it requires eighteen to undo what it has done. In addi- 
 tion to these absurdities, it authorizes one state to suspend and seven 
 to govern, in all cases absolutely, the other seventeen, and what if 
 possible, is more absurd still, it authorizes this minority of seven 
 to alter, amend, or abolish the constitution, at pleasure. 
 
 I presume the absurdities here laid down, will not be denied, 
 except, perhaps, in the last instance, and here it remains for me to 
 
15 
 
 prove the assertion made. 1 assert this creed not only makes seven 
 states rule absolutely the balance of the Union, but also enables 
 them to alter, amend, or abolish the constitution at their pleasure ; and 
 now for the proof. Suppose Congress declares war ; a state nulli- 
 fies the act ; Congress calls conventions of all the states to decide 
 the constitutionality of the act declaring war ; seventeen states de- 
 cide that the act is constitutional, the other seven say no ; eighteen 
 states not having decided in favor of the government, the act is void, 
 and of no force, and all such acts in future are to be regarded as un- 
 constitutional; for the nullifier contends that the decision in the 
 case is to operate as an amendment to the constitution, and three 
 fourths of the whole, or eighteen states, being necessary to an amend- 
 ment, and there not being that number in favor of the act, the 
 amendment has not prevailed, and consequently the clause is fixed 
 and made offeree in future by the vote of the seven states, the sev- 
 enteen to the contrary notwithstanding. 
 
 Take another case, suppose Congress should see proper to pass 
 a declaratory law, asserting that slaves are personal property, that 
 Congress has no control over them, and that under the constitu- 
 tion that body has no power to emancipate them. We of the 
 south would have no objection to this act ; but Ohio, if you please, 
 nullifies it ; Congress calls conventions to determine the question, 
 eighteen states are not found in favor of the act ; but on the con- 
 trary, seven say it is an unconstitutional act, the law is upset, and 
 the consequence is a new clause to the constitution, denying that 
 slaves are personal property, and affirming for Congress the right 
 to emancipate them at pleasure. 
 
 Take another case, suppose Congress pass a declaratory law as- 
 serting that the states are sovereign in all those cases of power that 
 are not expressly surrendered to the General Government and that 
 the constitution is to be the exclusive guide and controller of the go- 
 vernment in all its acts : a state nullifies it, conventions ate called, 
 and seven states are found to say that the whole act is unconstitu- 
 tional, eighteen not being for it, the act is null and void. What is 
 the consequence? a new clause to the constitution, which annihi- 
 lates the reserved rights of the states, and repeals the whole consti- 
 tution and substituting therefore the will of Congress in all cases. 
 Now if this would not produce a grand consolidated government, 
 without limitation of power, I know nothing that would ; nor do I 
 believe a better plan could be devised, for that purpose, than for the 
 states to submit to the practical operation of this creed. If the 
 doctrine did not have the credit of separating the states, it would at 
 least consolidate them; if it did not leave us in anatchy, we would 
 have no cause to exclaim at the absence of despotism. 
 
 But take another c.tse, suppose Congress passes a law in relation 
 to the next ratio of representation in that body from the different 
 states, and directing that all free whites and three-fifths of the blacks 
 should be represented, as at present we understand the constitution. 
 Rhode-Island nullifies the act on the ground that none other than 
 citizens are entitled to be represented, conventions are called to 
 settle the question, and seven states are found to entertain the same 
 
16 
 
 opinion, the government has not gotten eighteen states to sustain 
 her, the law is abandoned, citizens only are to be represented, and 
 the southern states hereafter iose twenty two members in Congress, 
 and thus we are deprived of our rights and in our opinion the con- 
 stitution palpably altered by the vote of seven states, the wishes of 
 the whole government and the other seventeen states to the contra- 
 ry notwithstanding. 
 
 I flatter myself that I am clearly understood, lest however I 
 should be mistaken, I beg leave to recapitulate. The doctrine of 
 nullification contends, that when a state nullifies, the general go- 
 vernment is bound to acquiesce, and unless she can get the con- 
 currence ot eighteen or three fourths of the states in favor of the 
 constitutionality of the act nullified, it falls to the ground, and of 
 course any act of the same character, in future, is unauthoiized and 
 unconstitutional. If this creed be true, then it is perfectly clear 
 that a junto of seven states have it in their power not only to con- 
 trol completely, the whole operation of government, but to repeal 
 every law that the government has ever enacted from its creation 
 to the present time, and in doing so of depriving the government of 
 all authority to act in any shape, manner, or form. 
 
 Now if I had not one other objection to urge to this creed, it 
 would appear that what has already been said is amply sufficient to 
 show the utter inadmissibility of such a construction to our political 
 compact. Tt is a construction that enables a small minority, not 
 only in all cases to govern the majority, but also to amend or de- 
 stroy the constitution itself, at pleasure ! Common sense can yield 
 to neither of them. 
 
 It is no answer to tell me that in some of the cases put, it is not 
 •probable the difficulty would occur, the states not having it in their 
 power to reach the law so as to nullify. If this objection to what I 
 have said be urged, 1 will for the sake of argument admit it, and in 
 doing so, the nullifier will find that in the changing of his position 
 he has not improved it, but on the < ontrary renJeied himself liable 
 to an objection of great force from another quarter. 
 
 If it be objected that in the two intermediate cases put, the pow- 
 er on the part of the state to nullify, c nnot be brought to operate, 
 in consequence of 1 here being nothimr on Which to act, and that con- 
 sequently from the evils noticed and objections utged we have no- 
 thing to fear : I reply that this objection strikes at the root of the 
 remedy by nullification altogether ; for that doctrine which is to 
 operate on human action, cannot he sound, if it cannot be made 10 
 meet the evil complained of. If the constitution intended nuliilicu- 
 tion as a remedy for its own violations, it surely exhibited little 
 foresight on the part of its framers, thus to devise one tfbat cannot 
 be brought to operate in a tenth of the cases occurring. Indeed this 
 is one of the objections fairly urgeable against the whole creed, that, 
 only here and there could be a law found that could he practicat/y 
 nullified. If, however, the nullifier intends to assert that the single 
 fact of a state's placing its veto on an act of Congress, imposes upon 
 that body the obligation of calling conventions, «fcc. then the whole 
 objections urged remain in full force, and I defy the party to eel 
 
It 
 
 clear of them. If, on the contrary, it is admitted that very few 
 acts of Congress, from their nature can be practically nullified, 'hen 
 the creed falls to the ground from its own inefficiency ; for it is im- 
 material what the virtue of a remedy is, if it cannot be adminis- 
 tered. 
 
 If gentlemen are not satisfied with the objections thus far urged, 
 pray let us pass on, for; if 1 am not mistaken there is much before us 
 yet. 
 
 In the first place the state is to stop the operation of the act of 
 Congress : the law is to be suspender), within its borders, by state 
 authority in some shape or other. Every one will see that this 
 step is necessary in order to arrive at the next stage in the process, 
 for Congress is to be forced to call conventions, and it is perfectly 
 obvious that there could be no inducement on the part of that bady 
 to do so, if her laws are permitted to continue in operation. Alt 
 the government can ask, all it can wish, under the most favorable 
 circumstances, is, to see its laws obeyed, and while this state of 
 tilings continue, it is very clear there will be no conventions sum- 
 moned by its authority. Now I ask gentlemen to tell me how this 
 is to be done? Some few nullifiers of the up couirry, have pro- 
 posed to use the instrumentality of the United States' District Court 
 for this purpose, and as this project forms a kind -of episode in this 
 grand epic of nullification, I beg leave to dispose of it before I go 
 further. The only objection I have to this project of a court nul- 
 lification, is its futility, and the ridicule that would necessarily at- 
 tach to the state assuming the pompous attitude of sovereignty, for 
 the purpose of enabling a citizen to be sued on his bond given for 
 duties, and thus getting a decision of the District Court. Every 
 one must know that this would result in a force ; but to those who 
 still contend for this remedy, I beg leave to put a few plain ques- 
 tions. The object of going into court is to get the verdict of a 
 jury ; for it is admitted on all hands, that all the judges will decide 
 against us. Consequently if we cannot get at this verdict, even ad- 
 mi ting tKat \\ would be for us, which I regard as very doubtful, 
 the remedy must fail, and lor this purpose permit me to ask, 
 
 1st. Is not the constitutionality of the tariff law a pure law ques- 
 tion 1 r.rxl is ir not ihe particular province of a judge to decide all 
 questions of law unmixed with facts 1 
 
 2d. Do not these gentlemen know that the practice on these 
 bonds is to take judgment on mere motion before the judge, the 
 first term, without emparlance, and that the defendant is not allow- 
 ed to be heard, except he will swear that there has been a mistake 
 made in calculating the duties? And in the third place I would 
 ask whether in cases of appeal, the Supreme Court does not, in 
 cases reversed, enter up its own judgment, instead of sending it 
 back to the court below ? I put these questions to the candor of 
 persons acquainted with such matters, and ask them, under these 
 circumstances, how the case can be gotten to a jury at all? If it 
 is replied that the constitution guarantees the right .of trial by juiryj 
 I respond and admit the fact, in all proper cases, but not here. 
 Tins is a tax, and that makes the dniereace. Look at home, botf 
 3 
 
18 
 
 does your own state do 1 your own legislature ? They tax you, 
 and if it is not paid on the day, the collector issues an execution 
 instanter, without the intervention of court or jury. 
 
 The difficulties here noted seem to be admitted by the party, for 
 a new project has been suggested ; the merchant is to refuse to en- 
 ter his goods at the custom-house, permit them to be seized and 
 then bring his action of replevin. This is a miserable expedient t 
 first, because it would completely hang up the" business of the mer- 
 chant, for he would have to give bond in double the value conditions 
 ed to return the goods if the suit went against him : and secondly, 
 because by taking this course, ten to one he would forfeit the goods 
 altogether : and I now put it to the nullifier to say whether if a man 
 refus.es to enter his goods, or in any other way attempts to defraud 
 the custom-house, is he not in the eye of the law a smuggler and his 
 goods forfeited accordingly"? 
 
 But let us go on, the party thus acting throws off his allegiance 
 to the government altogether, and refuses to pay all taxes, as well 
 those laid for revenue, as those for protection, and place* himself in 
 the singular predicament of a being who claims the protection of 
 the government, -while as a citizen he will make no return; nay 
 more, asks the courts of the government whose laws he thus re/uses 
 to obey, to protect him in that disobedience ! Indeed this self 
 same objection applies to those who refuse to pay their bonds ; for 
 judgment must pass for all or none. Now what is right in one citi- 
 zen is equally so in another : suppose all do so ? all refuse to pay I 
 How long will the government of our country last? He who can 
 recommend this course, or aid and abet another in it, may trumpet 
 his patriotism as much as he pleases, but his 'acts prove him the ene- 
 my of his country, if not of freedom itself. 
 
 The truth is this whole bond system of procedure is a catch- 
 penny affair, thrown out in a particular region of the state, to lull 
 the indignation of the people, and to make them believe that the 
 only contest would be of lawyer's tongues, it certainly is not recog- 
 nised by the " Exposition," nor by Messrs. Hayne's, Rowan's, or 
 Grundy's speeches in the Senate of the United States on the sub- 
 ject ; nor, as far as I know, by the Mercury junto in Charleston. 
 Indeed it is an abandonment of the whole doctiine of state sove- 
 reignty, for the state virtually admits that she has no power to act, 
 when she bows to this petty tribunal. The doctrine of nullifica- 
 tion is, that the state is to arrest the law by virtue of its sovereign' 
 ty, and it must be a poor sovereignty indeed that is reduced to this 
 dilemma. Sovereignty petitioning the district court for a boon ! ! 
 Alas for poor human nature ; how weak its fancied strength ! ! and 
 how shallow, too often, its best devices !! " Tell it not in Gath, 
 publish it not in the streets of Askelon," the new baptised state 
 rights men of Carolina, after rejecting the jurisdiction of the su- 
 preme court and charging it as a crime in any one who yielded to 
 it, are now urging the surrender of their state sovereignty to th« 
 lowest tribunal known to the laws ! ! 
 
 But, paulo majora canamus. Let us be done with this little af- 
 fair, and inquire in the next place, how the state is to arrest the 
 
19 
 
 operation of this law ; for that, I take it, is the true question 
 There are two ways; first, to pass a law making it an indictable 
 offence to collect the duties : and secondly to authorize the Gover- 
 nor to take possession of the custom-house, and resist the collection 
 by force, and if there is any other plan I~know it not.* One mo- 
 ment's reflection, on the nature of the first of these plans will satis- 
 fy us that it would fail, if from no other reason, because the custom- 
 house officers when indicted, if convicted, under the constitution would 
 be enabled to carry their cause to the supreme court, and from that 
 body we have nothing to hope in a crusade of this kind. Indeed 
 from our own courts we could not calculate on being sustained in 
 so unholy a cause, nor do I believe that there is a judge in the state, 
 who would not pronounce such a state law unconstitutional. But sup- 
 pose they did not, suppose that party feeling got the better of good 
 sense, there can be no doubt about the decision of the supreme 
 court, and there the matter would end. I am not one of those who 
 think that the supreme court has the power to call a state to its bar ; 
 but at the same time it is very clear that the government must have 
 the power to enforce its revenue laws and protect its officers while 
 in the discharge of their duty. That the government has this pow- 
 er, and ought to exercise it, I have no doubt, and if the state re- 
 fuses submission, she must maintain herself by force, or secede. 
 
 But the second plan, and indeed the only rational and manly one, 
 if the paity intend to act up to their creed, is to take possession of 
 the custom-house, and resist the collection of the duties by execu- 
 tive authority. This, I take it, is really what is meant by arresting 
 the law by virtue of a sovereign veto, I can understand it in no oth- 
 er way, and if I am wrong, I hope the gentlemen will explain. It 
 is true that this plan has not been much urged except by mysterious 
 hints, and dark inuendoes, and the reason is very obvious, it is too 
 plain, too clear, too much an affair of common sense, every man 
 would be able to take it#in, and all would know that when the state 
 assumed this high handed position, civil war would be inevitable. 
 The party know that the people are not prepared for this, and, 
 therefore, there is as much as possible, a veil drawn over this part 
 of the scene. Raise the curtain, gentlemen, and shew us the full 
 face of your project, and let us see whether it is not more hateful, 
 more deformed, and more disgusting, than that of the veiled pro- 
 phet of Chorazin himself. 
 
 NO. 6. 
 
 I have asserted that the direct arresting of the operation of 
 the tariff law by state authority, would induce civil war: permit 
 me to illustrate this point more fully, before I proceed further. I 
 admit that if the law was an indifferent one, with which the opera- 
 tion of the government was in no way connected, that then, and in 
 that case, the government, rather than come to collision with the 
 
20 
 
 state, might, and probab'ywould, waive its rights and pay no atten- 
 tion to the matter. Indeed it is*higjily probable that there are many 
 laws, passed by Congress, that in no instance have been executed from 
 the fact that they have remained uncalled for ; the rights of the 
 people, anjl the necessities of the government, being secured with- 
 out their aid or assisiance. There are, however, certain cardinal 
 laics, on the prompt execution of which depends, not only the wel- 
 fare, but even the existence of the government ; and lie can have 
 very little knowledge of the nature of these things, who expects to 
 see it stand idly by, and permit laws of this character arrested with 
 impunity. 
 
 Precisely of -this sort is the law in question ; one which of all 
 others the, governmenr will sustain, and execute the most promptly, 
 because from it is drawn its whole monied income, as well to meet its 
 necessary expenses as to discharge the public debt. There are 
 three reasons that should satisfy us that this law, until modified or 
 repealed, will be enforced, " at all and every hazard." The first 
 is the President's oath of office, he being sworn " to execute the 
 laws faithfully and this one belongs peculiarly to his depaitment. 
 The second is the influence of public opinion ; the majority of the 
 people being clearly convinced that it is necessary to their prosperi- 
 ty ; and the third is, the absolute necessity of the case, the govern- 
 ment not being able to carry on its operations without its revenue,- 
 and which is well known to be drayn almost entirely from this 
 source. While, therefore, the government- has the power to en- 
 force, it is unreasonable to expect to see it take any other course; 
 and under these circumstances I feel well warranted in saying that 
 5uch conduct on the part of the state would produce civil war. 
 
 If it be urged that the stopping the law in this state, will not have 
 that effect in the others, and that consequently the revenue will be 
 impaired only to a small extent ; I answer, by denying the fact ; and 
 assert, that if the law is constitutionally arrested here, and the peo- 
 ple exonerated from payment, that this exemption operates forth- 
 with throughout the Uninn ; for the constitution expiessly declares 
 "that all duties, imposts and excises, shall be uniform throughout 
 the United States. *? It is therefore perfectly obvious, that if the 
 people of ofte^state get clear, or exempt from legal liability to pay, so 
 are all the others. 
 
 But how unreasonable, and even dishonorable, is the natuie of 
 our demands ! We claim in the first place to make our own laws,, 
 and refuse to obey those of Congress, in such way, as by necessary 
 consequence to dictate to the other states of the Union ! In the 
 second place we propose to stay in the Union, participate in its ben- 
 efits and protection, and yet refuse to bear any part of its burthens, 
 .unless the whole of the other states will bow to, and acknowledge the 
 supremacy of Carolina ! And in the third place, and what is worse 
 still, we propose to take this course, refuse obedience to the laws of 
 the Union, refuse to bear any part of its expenses, and yet send our 
 delegates as usual to participate in the deliberations of the National 
 Councils! Am I mistaken or am I wrong when I say, that under 
 ■these circumstances, no honorable man would accept the station ? 
 
21 
 
 But let us pass on, for there are many difficulties before us # yet. 
 As I understand the nullifying process, it is to opeiate as an amend- 
 ment to the constitution, and the act of Congress nullified, is to be 
 considered as the proposed amendment, and' which ol course fails if 
 eighteen states do not ratify : and Congress is forced to the sub- 
 mission of this question, in consequence of the resis.ance of the la.w 
 on the part of the state. To. me this is a new clause to the consti- 
 tution. There •lire only two authorities that Rave a right to pro- 
 pose amendments to that instrument. The first is tfoe Congress of 
 the United States itself, it may do so at pleasure ; but when it does 
 so, it is compelled t& 'pass its proposed amendments by a vote of 
 two thirds of both branches of its own body; and then, and not till 
 then, is the amendment sent to the legislatures or conventions in 
 each of the states, as Congress may direct for ratification. This 
 p ssing by two thirds is an indispensable first step, on the part of 
 Congress, without which no amendment, or paper intended to ope- 
 rate as an amendment, can be submitted to the states for ratifica- 
 tion, by that body, without the most manifest violation of the con- 
 stitution. I refer to the fifth article of the constitution and chal- 
 lenge contradiction. The, tariff law, therefore, not having been 
 passed by a voto of two thirds of Congress, can never be submitted 
 to the states for ratification. So that this expedient of forcing Con- 
 gress to send its laws to the states for ratification as an amendment 
 to the constitution, must inevitably fail in all those cases, where 
 they have not in the first place been passed by a majority of two 
 tjlirds, and t|iis furnishes an insurmountable obstacle to the pro- 
 ject ; were we even to set aside the absurdity of calling a law pass- 
 ed palpably for other purposes, an amendment to the constitution. 
 
 If it be contended that Congress may act in this matter by a bare 
 majority, on the application of the states, I admit it ; but in doing 
 so the nullifier will find that in this change of his position, he is very 
 far from bettering it. In the first place, when Congress acts at the 
 requisitions of the states it must be a number not less than sixteen 
 or two thirds of the whole states that make the call; otheiwise no 
 attention can be paid to it. So that if we put the remedy on this 
 footing, it cannot even be started by the call of one state, indeed 
 any number less than the two thirds. But this is not all ; no state 
 has a right Xo^jpropose amendments. Oh the application of sixteen 
 states Congress calls a general convention, composed of delegates 
 from all the states, and this convention may propose amendments, 
 which having passed that body, are to be sent, as in the case of 
 Congressional amendments, to the states for ratification. When 
 the states, therefore, apply to Congress, what is it for % Is it pre- 
 senting amendments on their parts ? Not so. No such thing. The 
 states have no authority to do so : ten, twenty, twenty-four states, 
 cant do it, much less one. I beg you to turn to the fifth article of 
 the constitution and read for yourself. The application of the 
 states is for Congress to call a convention, which convention may 
 propose amendtnents, and which amendments are to be sent to the 
 states for ratification, as just stated : and 1 now assert that there 
 
22 
 
 are no other authorities known to the constitution, that have the 
 right to propose amendments except the two here specified. 
 
 How then c;tn the .nullifying process work? I have just shewn 
 that the tariff law cannot be considered as an amendment, nor can 
 it be presented to the states for ratification, because it was not 
 passed in Congress by a majority of two thirds, and because it is a 
 violation of the lules of common sense, to call an act, signed by the 
 President, an amendment of the constitution, when it was notori- 
 ously passed for other purposes. The gentlemen nullifieis com- 
 plain bitterly that Congress has passed a tariff, ostensibly for reve- 
 nue, when, the real motive was protection, and on this account as- 
 sert that it is a palpable violation of the constitution : and yet pre- 
 sent a scheme of their own, which calls an act of Congress, passed 
 by a bare majority, and signed by the President, an amendment of 
 the constitution, and which they propose to submit to the stales for 
 ratification, in the very teeth of the instrument itself! ! To what 
 miserable expedients and shifts are men sometimes driven to main- 
 tain a favorite hobby ! ! 
 
 But shall the state veto or process of nullification, be considered 
 as the proposed amendment ? This cannot be, because as I have 
 just shown no state has a right to propose amendments. But sup- 
 pose a state has this right, and suppose Congress is bound to obey 
 its call, even then the state veto would not be sefct by Congress to 
 the states for ratification, but would have to go to a general con- 
 vention called by Congress ; for it must be remembered, that when 
 Congress acts at the requisition of the states, all it ha^s to do, is to 
 call a convention, and whatever is done, is done by. it, and then 
 sent to the states for ratification. But here again is a difficulty 
 for that body does not act on matter submitted to it, but proposes 
 amendments itself. Let us pass over this difficulty, however, and 
 suppose that the question of the state veto is not only entertained 
 by the convention, but approbated and agreed to, and then sent to 
 the states for ratification as an amendment to the constitution ; does 
 not every one see, that this position imposes upon us the necessity 
 of getting eighteen or three fourths of the states, in favor of our pro- 
 ject, for three fourths must ratify or the amendment fails'? And is 
 there a man in his senses in the state that believes that such would 
 be the result 1 
 
 But again, the constitution prescribes the form of its own amend- 
 ments, and unless those forms are complied with, it is perfectly evi- 
 dent it was intended it should remain as it is. Here, however, we 
 have in this new doctrine, a plan for amending, that operates inversely 
 to the intention of the amending power. For instance, if the constitu- 
 tional majority agree to ratify the proposed amendment ; then it is 
 no amendment, but merely a declaration of what the constitution is; 
 and a kind of endorsement to the validity of the law nullified : if on 
 the contrary, however, the constitutional majority are not found in 
 favor of ratifying the proposed amendment, then, and in that case, 
 the amendment prevails, and becomes part and parcel of the con- 
 stitution ! ! Thus we see, that the very fact that the amending 
 power determines to amend, defeats its own object : while on the 
 
23 
 
 contrary, if they see .no. cause for it,, and determine against the 
 cliange, " the deed is done," and the charter of our Union assumes 
 anew character. If tlfts creed', this nullifying creed, is not hocus 
 pocus or legerdemain in perfection, 1 know not what is. 
 • Again, get over all these difficulties, clear them all away, and 
 bring the matter fairly and fully before the several states, either in 
 convention or by their legislatures, for final decision, and I deny 
 that they can act at all : because they have no judicial functions, 
 The only, authority they have, is derived from the constitution, and 
 that is to ratify amendments, regularly before them. Amending, 
 or ratifying amendments to the constitution, is totally a different 
 ihing, from adjudicating the laws of the country. The one pro- 
 poses change or alteration in the charter of our Union: the other 
 determines what the late is, and is directly opposed to all change. 
 It is the province of legislative authority to make or change laws, 
 of judicial authority to expound them : and if these state conven- 
 tions have this latter power, I call for its exhibition ; shew it to me, 
 and tell me from what source it is drawn. In the case before us, 
 the legislatures or conventions of the states have their power clear- 
 ly marked out by the constitution, and the sum and substance of it 
 \s, to ratify amendments to that instrument: not to set in judg- 
 ment on the constitutionality of laws in existence, nor can they do 
 so without the most manifest usurpation. 
 
 I beg here to be understood, I am speaking of conventions, 
 known to, and recognized by, the constitution, and into whose hands 
 that instrument has submitted the ratification of all its own amend- 
 ments; for 1 am well aware that there is another kind of conven- 
 tion, sometimes chosen by a people, to lay anew the whole foun- 
 dations of their government, whose power is unlimited ; which 
 holds in its hands the attributes of sovereignty as well as of revolu- 
 tion — for it you can lay down no rules — prescribe no bounds — its 
 powei is commensurate with its' will ; nor is it responsible to any 
 tribunal on earth. To this kind of power, I hope no man in the 
 country would willingly submit the reserved rights of the state : 
 for it would in effect be making a revolutionary junto, composed of 
 men who have in common with us, no feelings of sympathy, sitting 
 perhaps in an extreme corner of the Union, the absolute arbiters 
 of all we are, and all we have. 
 
 But I have an objection to this doctrine, drawn from another 
 source, and to which I beg leave to refer before I close this paper. 
 I can regard it in no other light than a complete surrender, in the 
 end, of the whole reserved rights of the state. That it is so, in its 
 practical operation, I have already shown in a former paper. Let 
 me ask gentlemen on what foundation do they stand, when they 
 propose to submit the reserved rights of the state to a tribunal thus 
 organized and composed entirely of our opponents ? The law of 
 which we complain, was imposed on us, by the very party whom 
 in our wisdom, we would make the final judges in the case: and 
 our chance of success depends on the fact, that this party should 
 undo what they have just done ; and at the same time acknowledge 
 that they had violated their oaths — and violated the constitution, 
 
24 
 
 and this too from the meanest and most .ignoble of motives ! ! Idioc^ 
 itself, as it appears to me, could not calculate on success in a case 
 of this kind. Can gentlemen have any just claim to being consid- 
 ered the friends of state rights, who are thus willing to surrender all 
 of them to a tribunal of this kind, or indeed of any kind 1 I under- • 
 stand by reserved rights, such as the state keeps to herself exclu- 
 sively, ami whic h is in no case to be submitted to the jurisdiction of 
 any tribunal. And yet ihe nullifier, after dressing in a coat of mail 
 and making a pompous display of state sovereignty, submits all, 
 yea all, and that voluntarily too, to the arbitrament of their oppo- 
 nents ! ! They are the true. " submissionists" — [he ichole hog gen- 
 try, who reserve no rights to the states, but surrender them in mass, 
 nor leave even " a rose on the stock to tell where the garden has 
 been." 1 
 
 Permit me, in this paper, to notice some miscellaneous points, 
 connected with this controversy ; and in doing so, if there is nothing 
 reasonable in what I say, I am perfectly willing it should fall to the 
 ground. J am not so sanguine, as to imagine, that I can bring con- 
 viction to minds already fixed, or to those, who, from ignorance or 
 conceit, think that their own sapient opinion is the standard by which 
 all others are to be measured. No one is so blind as he that will not 
 see, nor is there any task so hopeless, as that of reasoning with pre- 
 judiced folly. 
 
 The nullifier asserts that our Union is a compact, between the 
 people of the different states, having no umpire to settle questions 
 of jurisdiction, and thai consequently each party must judge of in- 
 fractions for itself, and of course carry that judgment into effect. 
 Now, out of this right of judging, both on the part of the majority 
 and minority grow the difficulties of the whole question. I admit 
 the doctrine to the fullest extent ; I cant avoid it — it grows out of 
 the nature of things — and belongs not only to our institutions, but 
 all others. We call it, however, by different names ; and names 
 here are substantial things. Our opponents say, that this right of 
 arresting the laws, by die minority, is a constitutional right, that 
 can be exercised with perfect safety : while we, on the contrary, 
 assert, that it is a revolutionary right, unhioivn to the Constitution, 
 involving the shedding of blood, and consequently to be resorted to 
 only in extreme cases. This presents the naked point of the con- 
 troversy, and 1 think 1 have shewn in the two last numbers, that the 
 constitution never contemplated such a doctrine. • It is not oniy 
 silent on the subject, but such a power, exercised by the minority, is 
 utterly incompatible with the rights and powers, conferred by that 
 instrument, on the government of the Union. If the nullifier is 
 right, then the framers of the constitution were guilty of designedly 
 «fltroducing the elements of civil ?var 9 into an instrument, the very 
 
25 
 
 object of whose creation, was to avoid this evil. No government, 
 no people in framing a government, ever introduces the elements of 
 revolution into their institutions. The object is to avoid it, and 
 it is for this express purpose that governments are established. 
 
 The rights of revolution, however, remain in the hands of the 
 people, as it were in a state of abeyance, to be called into operation 
 whenever the exigencies of the times require it. It is a right, like- 
 wise, that can be exercised only by force ; and if an attempt is 
 made, and fails, the books tell us, it is rebellion or treason. I am 
 not laying down new theories ; they are as old as the pages of histo- 
 ry itself ; and all persons acquainted with these matters must admit 
 the fact. When that power, which is authorized to pass laws, does 
 so; and that other authority, which adjudicates, pronounces them 
 valid, any attempt to arrest the executive authority, in executing, if 
 successful, involves a principle of revolution; and if unsuccessful, 
 provided an overt act has been committed, is treason or rebellion. 
 " Treason," says the constitution, " shall consist in levying war 
 against the United States, in adhering to their enemies, or in giving 
 them aid or comfort." Ought we not, therefore, to weigh well, and 
 maturely, the situation in which we are placed, before we make a 
 move, from which there is no retreat, except over the ashes of our 
 institutions, or by an ignominious scaffold 1 
 
 1 regret to say, that the signs of the times are not encouraging. 
 There appears a dark and angry cloud hanging on the verge of our 
 political horizon. I see the fiery streaks — and I hear the distant 
 rumbling of the thunder. The cloud, instead of dissipating, ap- 
 pears to collect, more and more the elements of mischief. It is true, 
 that at present, there appears something of a calm ; but it is that 
 calm, that dread stillness, which harbingers the coming tempest ; 
 and whether it is to pass over us without injury to our institutions, 
 or uproot and hurl them before it, without leaving one stone upon 
 another, is yet beneath the veil of futurity. From the present as- 
 pect of affairs, it would seem that our fathers had fought and bled in 
 vain — in vain have they undergone the realities of a seven year's 
 war — in vain, suffered hunger and nakedness through summer's heat 
 and winter's cold — in vain did those sages labor, who founded our 
 present institutions ; and much were they deceived when th#y fondly 
 imagined that they were rearing a temple of freedom, in which, for 
 their posterity to dwell. A spirit of faction has gone abroad — the 
 people have been excited to madness, and high and honorable men 
 are fanning the flame. Our system is said to be a "splendid failure" ; 
 calls are publicly made tor a ." southern confederacy" ; and, in ma- 
 ny circles, it is considered as disreputable, even to apologise for that 
 government, which our fathers thought their richest legacy to their 
 children. This disorganizing — nullifying— factious— minority- 
 governing — monarchical doctrine — must be put down, and stamped 
 with public infamy or the " signs" deceive us, if 14 the days of the 
 years" of this Union are not nearly numbered. 
 
 But, admit we are injured, and I shall not deny it ; nay, I be* 
 lieve we are, in common with the great mass of the nation : admit 
 I say, that Congress have done us tnis injury, is that a reason wh* 7 
 4 
 
26 
 
 We should fall upon a project to destroy the very existence of the 
 government itself 1 Why should we violate and tear to pieces the 
 constitution of ihe Union, because, in our opinion, Congress has not 
 obeyed its precepts? Congress has injured «s, say the gentlemen, 
 and as a remedy, we are called on to destioy the constitution! ! 
 What would you think of the sapiency of a planter, who, late in the 
 season, finding his crop badly set with weeds, should order it to be 
 ploughed up by way of clearing it? Or what would you say to 
 the wisdom of a man, who finding his dwelling infested with rats, 
 should, by way of removing them, fire the building itself ? You 
 would doubtless say that there was no wisdom in the matter, and 
 yet these are remedies of precisely the same character, as is the 
 doctrine of nullification ! 
 
 It is impossible to look abroad upon the various movements of 
 late political events, without coming to the conclusion that this re- 
 pnblic is in. danger. The Union depends upon public opinion, and 
 whenever its cunent sets in an opposite direction, chains of brass 
 will not hold these states together. Indeed as things now stand, I 
 have not ©ne doubt that the first conflict that comes, or the first 
 gun that is fired, sounds the funeral knell of our political compact. 
 Men who live in the shades of retirement — who. know and see little 
 of the " signs of the times" — who are unacquainted with the move- 
 ment of distinguished public men — who scan not the history of de- 
 parted time and nations — and who forget that human nature is the 
 the same in every age ; may smile at this assertion, and exclaim, if 
 they please, that there is nothing to fear. Be it so. Hog your 
 fond delusions — gx> on to huzza for faction — pile fuel on the fur- 
 nace, and fan the flame ; but remember, this is the road to min ; 
 pursuing it, and by in all human probability, those rights and privi- 
 leges which heretofore we have valued .0 highly, will go down in 
 a scene of blood. 
 
 Prosperity and happiness, in this life, is an uphill affair, and re- 
 quires continual and unremitting exertions. Freedom is not the na- 
 tural state of man. This, all history proves. In all ages — in all 
 nations, (a very few excepted,) the mighty mass of human beings 
 b ive been the slaves of the chosen few, who with boot and spur 
 ride thed), as beasts of burthen. A time of peace and quietude, 
 when eacPi citizen is calmly pursuing, at home, the laudable occu^ 
 pation of providing for his own and children's comfort, is unpropi- 
 tious and unfavorable to the aspiring ambition of the demagogue. 
 He thirsts for " action" — he wishes for political excitement and 
 civil commotion ; for it is then he draws on his boots, and buckles 
 his spurs, to ride the whirlwind, and direct the storm — and when 
 the excrement is over — the tempest past — and the people have 
 opened their eyes, they find him who has thus been goading them 
 in the flanks, calmly resting on a throne of state, kindly prepared 
 to rule. : because, as he will tell them, he found them " incapable 
 of se lf government." This is man^-ambitious man : Let the peo- 
 ple look to it. 
 
 But, says the nullifier, the tariff' has depopulated, and rendered a 
 barren waste the face of our country. Is this true ? I challenge 
 human ingenuity to prove it ; and it is precisely on this point that 
 
ftiiere has been more extravagant declamation and sophistry, than 
 any other. The tariff cannot possibly act on us except in one of two 
 ways: first, in raising the price of goods, and secondly, in depre- 
 ciating the price of cotton. Now, have goods risen ? Will any 
 candid man say they have not fallen at least one half? A man 
 who has the least regard to truth cant deny it. But is this fall 
 caused by the tariff? I dont say that it is, nor is it necessary for 
 my argument : for all I wish to shew is, that goods have fallen, and 
 that the tariff has not prevented it ; although I am willing to admit, 
 and verily believe, that in many instances they would go still lower, 
 if the tax was removed. A distinguished gentleman has asserted 
 that the apparent fall of goods is deceptive ; that it is not so in fact ; 
 and that the only change on this point is, the appreciated value of 
 money, one dollar now being worth what two was a few years since. 
 The same gentleman has also attempted to shew, that the tariff has 
 fallen almost exclusively on, and destroyed the value of cotton. 
 Now, compare his arguments, and note the consequence. Goods have 
 not fallen, says he — the only change is in the value of money. Be 
 it so. Cotton was worth eight cents before the passage of the ta- 
 riff of 1828 ; on an average it has been worth more than eight since. 
 One dollar now is worth two formerly; therefore, we get equal to 
 sixteen cents for our cotton, and yet says the gentleman, the tariff 
 has destroyed the value of cotton ! ! 
 
 I am no friend of the tariff, and never have been ; l)ut in thi* 
 time of excitement, when this subject is dressed up in all the horrors 
 of a diseased imagination, to produce effect on the public^ and in- 
 duce it to sustain what the greatest of living patriots calls " a mad 
 project" against the government of our country, we are compellec^ 
 in defence of truth, to tear off the veil and expose the sophistry. 
 I admit the tariff an evil, and will, by all constitutional means assist 
 in its repeal or modification. But is it the cause of all mischief? 
 Is it the malaria that hangs like an incubus over the marshy dis- 
 tricts of the low country, and which has almost depopulated large 
 sections there ? Is it the cause why fences are disappearing, gates 
 falling from their hinges, chimnies and piazzas lying prostrate on the 
 green ; while only here and there, like " angel visits, few and far 
 between" appears a pale, tallow-faced human being, to break the 
 monotony of the scene? Is it the cause of these appearances in 
 particular sections of the low country ? If it is, then indeed is it a 
 most fearful foe ; for it has been operating for the last forty or fifty 
 years, long, long before it had its own existence, and by parity of " 
 reason, will continue to shed abroad its baleful influence, even after 
 it is repealed or nullified. If gentlemen wish so know what it is 
 that prevents the flourishing of these marshy districts, and induces 
 them to present so wild and desolating an appearance, the answer is 
 easy ; 'tis malaria, — 'tis fever, — 'tis disease and death, — 'tis some- 
 thing that cannot be nullified, and from which population fly more 
 hastily, than from the most deadly of human foes. I appeal to can* 
 dor and truth, and ask if this is not so ? 
 
 But why have not the Southern states generally, increased more 
 in population, and presented a more flourishing aspect* Here, 
 
28 
 
 again, the answer is equally easy, and on a moment's reflection, 
 must come home to every man's bosom. 'Tis emigration. Where 
 are our children 1 our brothers and sisters? our relations, friends 
 and acquaintances? Where are they ? Permit me to answer in 
 the words of the simple ballad — " over the hills and far away.' v 
 We are young quails ; we start from the nest with the shell on our 
 bricks. We regard not the places of our nativity, nor the scenes of 
 our youth. Visions of new and prolific countries, where the boun- 
 tiful hand of nature furnishes, almost gratuitously, the whole wants 
 of hamanity, haunt our imagination from infancy upwards ; and we 
 are taught to believe, that in them is to be found the grand specific 
 that is to cure us of every ill. If we have no settlement here — or 
 if our land* are exhausted and worn out — or if we wish to settle our 
 children around us — or if, from improvidence we have gotten into 
 difficulties and debt — or, finally, if we are in pursuit of wealth, 
 u that god of this world, before which every knee bows" ; in each 
 and every of these cases, a voice tells us, that the boon we seek 
 lies in these new countries in the west, or still further south, where 
 the lands are rich and cost nothing. Under these circumstances, is 
 it at all surpr ising that there should be a continual stream of emi- 
 gration ; or that large masses of our population should be seen con- 
 tinually climbing the craggy steeps of the Alleghanies, or passing 
 the b>oad streams that intervene to make their way to the rich val- 
 lies of the west, or the warm and verdant south'? I look around 
 me for my old friends and neighbors, but they are not here : their 
 place is occupied by a colored race, while there, the associates of 
 my youth are fattenirrg on the prolific soil of this western and south- 
 ern Egypt. Shall we complain of this 1 Shall we, repining at 
 their prosperity, pass laws to prevent emigration, and confine our 
 people to the malaria of the swamp, or sterility of the sand-hill, 
 there to linger the victim of disease and hopeless poverty ? Not 
 so. In the name of all that is good, let each citizen of the state go 
 and come as he may think best, for his own prosperity, nor let us 
 act the part of the dog in the manger, who would neither eat him- 
 self, noi permit others to do. so.* 
 
 These are the cardinal causes that have prevented our country 
 from presenting a more flourishing aspect, and compared with which 
 all others sink into insignificance. If proof is required, then roll 
 back the tide of population from the States of Kentucky, Tennes- 
 see, Alabama, Florida, Mississippi, and Louisiana, to within the 
 limits of the four Southern Atlantic States, from which nineteen- 
 twentieths of it came, and what a change would the whole exhibit ! 
 what cultivated fields ! what flourishing cities ! and what a dense 
 and teeming population would the whole present ! I repeat, that it 
 is emigration, that is the real cause of the stat onary condition of 
 the south : it is that ever moving stream that bears our friends away, 
 nor will there be a reflux until the broad valley of the Mississippi 
 teems with population. 
 
 * See Gov. Miller's message to the Legislature, where he hints at the pro. 
 |>riety of passing a law to prevent the people leaving the State- 
 
29 
 
 NO. 8. 
 
 In relation to the general charge, of decay, and delerioi atiou 
 of our state, I have replied in the last paper, and shewn, as I think, 
 why it is that she has not increased more in wealth and population. 
 There however may be, and probably is, a mistake in this matter ; 
 and from the extravagant and hyperbolical assertions made in re- 
 gard to it, it is not at all surprising it should be so. The truth is, the 
 state is not declining nor decaying. Not so. No such thing ; and 
 this will appear abundantly evident when I state, that notwith- 
 ing the unhealthiness of particular sections, and notwithstanding the 
 continual stream of emigration, yet the increase of population, as 
 shewn by the late census, for the last ten years, is equal to eighty- 
 three thousand inhabitants. It is also a matter of notoriety to those 
 who have paid attention to the matter, that the improvement in the 
 fiscal or moneyed department, has been about in the same proportion. 
 Let us therefore hear no more about this decaying state — this bar- 
 ren waste — this howling wilderness — unless there is better evidence 
 on which to found the assertions. 
 
 But I must bring these observations to a close, particularly as I 
 find that the topics connected with them are almost endless. I 
 could have wished to have given my own views of the nature of 
 our institutions generally, as a creed by which I am willing to he 
 judged, until I am convinced I am wrong. But as this would 
 lengthen out the present paper too much, I must on this subject 
 merely say that I concur most heartily in the views of the Hon. 
 Edward Livingston, as delivered in a speech on Foot's resolutions 
 in the Senate of the United States. I believe he there gave the 
 true theory of our government, and whoever goes to the right, or 
 left, of the line he laid down, is off the track. 
 
 A search of truth should be our main object ; and it is well 
 known that hours of passion, and political excitement, are pecu- 
 liarly unfavorable for this purpose. When called to sit in judg- 
 ment on the value of our institutions, passion should be laid aside, 
 and reason — cool, calculating reason, should assume the chair. 
 But is this our situation ? Or is this the state of things in our coun- 
 try at this time? Far from it. We cant deny that we have those 
 among us, who are making the most unremitting exertions to bring 
 into disrepute, and consequently, to put down those institutions, and 
 that government, which our ancestors reared and cemented with 
 their blood. No blood-hounds having their chase in view, ever ex- 
 hibited more determination for its destruction, than is now mani- 
 fested by some of this party, to come to collision with the general 
 government ; and it is openly proclaimed, that unless the law is 
 repealed we will resort to force. Alas ! for poor human nature ; 
 is it even so, that before the boasting of the glories of our happy 
 destiny and eountry, have even ceased sounding in our ears ; mad- 
 ness should thus seize, and induce us, to tear down the only temple 
 of free institutions on earth, and proclaim with a voice that will be 
 
80 
 
 heard with joy and exultation, in the palaces of kings, to the ut- 
 most verge of civilization, that "man is incapable of self govern* 
 ment ? 
 
 Let the conflict once commence ; let blood once be shed, and 
 the Union is gone ; and 1 would as soon expect to see a planet start 
 madly from its sphere, and roll beyond the verge of creation, as to 
 see republican and free institutions springing from the ashes of our 
 present system. The soil that drinks the blood of brothers shed in 
 civil commotion, rears no plants to freedom ; and when that period 
 comes, come when it may, military rule, and iron handed despots 
 ism, as certainly make their appearance as is the progress of time. 
 Shall the lessons of experience have no effect upon us 1 Shall we 
 scan the pages of departed time and nations, and yet be no wiser ? 
 O, if the hearts of some who are now exciting the people to mad- 
 ness, were exposed to public view, 1 much fear that more love of 
 self than country would be found there ; that visions of stars and 
 garters, offices and power, woufd be seen lurking beneath the pre- 
 sent flaming professions of patriotism. 
 
 If our public men do us mischief, let us endeavor to change them ; 
 if those who officiate at the altar, are found to be unworthy, on them 
 let your resentment fall. Watch closely the movement of those 
 who exercise the powers of the government, and if they go estray. 
 check them, or hurl them from their ill-gotten eminence by every 
 constitutional mean within your power ; but beware how you lay 
 your hands on the pillars of the temple itself; for if it falls — free- 
 dom dies — the drama will be closed — and it will be — exeunt omnes. 
 
 MAPISON. 
 
31 
 
 ADDITIONAL REMARKS. 
 
 BY THE PUBLISHER. 
 
 Perhaps, never, since the birth of our republic, have our in- 
 stitutions been exposed to more jeopardy than at the present mo- 
 mentous crisis — hence it becomes every patriot, every friend of 
 liberty, to weigh well the motives and the arguments of those who 
 would make us believe that the grand experiment of our govern- 
 ment has proved a " splendid failure" and that " disunion is our 
 only preservation!" — "tke United States no nation'''' — that " we arc 
 no better off than the Belgians and Poles" — and that the time has 
 come when patiiotism invites us " to calculate the value of the 
 Union" : and no longer " to tremble at disunion !" And to assist 
 the candid inquirer after truth, we would again most earnestly re- 
 commend the perusal of the foregoing essays, penned in a spirit of 
 moderation, strictly argumentative, and breathing throughout a spir- 
 it of the purest patriotism. 
 
 The plea of the milliners, whereon is so confidently predicated 
 the righteousness of resistance, " at any and every hazard," is a 
 " palpable" violation of the constitution : yet palpable as this vio- 
 lation now is, it was entirely unobserved by the Hon. Geo. M'Duf- 
 h*e and Governor Hamilton in 1821 ! The following are quota- 
 tions from a pamphlet, written in that year by the former gentle- 
 man, (Mr. IVPDuffie,) and prefaced by the latter : 
 
 " The states, as political bodies, have no original inherent rights. 
 That they have such rights, is a false, dangerous, and anti-republi- 
 can assumption which lurks at the bottom of all the reasoning in 
 favor of state rights." 
 
 " It is the ambition of that class of politicians who expect to 
 figure only in the state councils, and of those states who are too 
 proud to acknowledge any superior. An ambition and pride of the 
 most alarming and dangerous tendency, and which, if not dis- 
 countenanced by moderate and reflecting men, may, at some fu- 
 ture day, dissolve our happy union, and sweep away in a tide of 
 civil blood, all that constitutes the happiness of individuals, or the 
 glory of a nation." 
 
 " By the express letter of the national charter, Congress has 
 power to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts, and excises, to de- 
 clare war, &c. to raise and support armies, and to provide and main- 
 tain a navy. These powers are granted in the most general and 
 unlimited terms. Upon the discretion of Congress, in laying and 
 collecting taxes, and in raising and supporting armies, theii are no 
 restrictions but those imposed by nature*" 
 
" If after the National Judiciary has solemnly affirmed the con- 
 stitutionality of a law, it is still to be resisted by the state rulers, 
 the constitution is literally at an end: <z revolution w/ the go- 
 vernment is already accomplished, and anarchy waves its horrid 
 sceptre over the broken altars of this happy Union." 
 
 " You assert that when any conflict shall occur between the gen- 
 eral and state governments as to the extent of their respective pow- 
 ers, 4 each party has a right to judge for itself.'' I confess I am 
 at a loss to know how such a proposition ought to be treated. No 
 climax of political heresies can be imagined, in which this might 
 not fairly claim the most prominent place. It resolves the govern- 
 ment at once into the elements of physical force, and introduces us 
 directly into a scene of anarchy and blood. There is not a single 
 power delegated to the general government which it would not be 
 in the power of every state to destroy under this licentious princi- 
 ple." " Suppose Congress should pass a law ' to lay and collect 
 
 taxes, duties, imposts, and excises,' and a state legislature should 
 pass another declaring the object for which the revenue was intend- 
 ed, unconstitutional, and therefore prohibiting the officers of the 
 general government by severe penalties from collecting the ' taxes, 
 duties, imposts, and excises,' " &c. 
 
 " In all governments theie must be some owe supreme power ; in 
 oilier words, every question that can arise, as to the constitutional 
 extent of the powers of different classes of functionaries, must be 
 susceptible of a legal and peaceable determination, by some tribu- 
 nal of acknowledged authority, or force must be the inevitable con- 
 sequence ; and where force begins, government ends. And it is the 
 more astonishing that you have assumed positions involving such 
 tremendous consequences, when we consider that they are in di- 
 rect opposition to the 'strict letter' of the constitution, your favo- 
 rite test of the extent of delegated powers. It is therein provided, 
 ; that the constitution and laws of the United States which shall be 
 made in pursuance thereof,' shall be the supreme law of the land, 
 and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, any thing in 
 the constitution or law of any state to the contrary notivithstand- 
 ing'J" 
 
 " For you can hardly be ignorant that a law is a dead letter with- 
 out an organ to expound and an instrument to enforce it. I would 
 suppose, therefore, that no professional man could hesitate in saying 
 that a forcible opposition to the judgment of the federal court, 
 founded upon an act of Congress, by whatever state authority that 
 opposition might be authorized, would be the very case which the 
 framers of our constitution had in view when they made provision 
 for * calling out the militia to execute the laws of r the Union.' But 
 I sincerely hope that your licentious doctrines will never have the 
 effect of misleading the state authorities so far, as to render this ter- 
 rible resort unavoidable. I trust that the farewell address of 
 General Washington, admonishing his fellow-citizens to ' frown in- 
 dignantly' upon those who preach up doctrines tending to disunion, 
 & not yet forgotten." 
 
*