C-b^Z_L iQ7d

YALE UNIVERSITY LIBEAEY

1^^ w^JiiiSL ^Uinil i

if, 1

1

I^Bi^MII

rOBMED BT
James Abraham Hillhouse, B.A. 1749
James Hillhouse, B.A. 1773
James Abraham Hillhouse, B.A. 1808
James Hillhouse, B.A. 1875
Memoved 19-4:2 froin the
Mwnor House in Sachem's Wood
GIFT or
GEORGE DUDLEY SEYMOUR

SPEECHES

OP

HAYNE AKD WEBSTER,

ON

FOOT'S RESOLUTIOI,
JANUARY, 1830.

SPEECHES

MESSRS. piNE AND WEBSTER,

UIITED STATES SENATE,

ON THE

RESOLUTION OF MR. FOOT,

JANUARY, 1830.

HARTFORD :
PRINTED BY CASE, TIFFANY & CO.
SOLD BY PEASE & BOWEB8.
1850.

MR. HAYIE'S SPEECH.

Debate in the Seriate on Mr. Foot's Resolution, Thursday, Janu
ary 21, 1830. ^

Mr. Foot's resolution being under consideration :
[When Mr. Webster concluded his first speech on Wednesday, the
20th, Mr. Benton followed with some remarks in reply to Mr. W., but
as they -were principally embodied in his more extended speech some
days after, those remarks are omitted. On the day following, Mr Hayne
took the floor in the following rejoinder to Mr. Webster.]
Mr. HAYNE said, when he took occasion, two days ago, to throw out
some ideas with respect to the policy ofthe Government, in relation to the
public lands, nothing certainly could have been further from his thoughts,
than that he should have been compelled again to throw himself upon the
indulgence of the Senate. Little did 1 expect, said Mr. H., to be called
upon to meet such an argument as was yesterday urged by the gentleman
from Massachusetts, (Mr. Webster.) Sir, I questioned no man's opinions ;
I impeached no man's motives ; 1 charged no party, or State, or section of
country with hostility to any other, but ventured, as 1 thought, in a becom
ing spirit, to put forth my own sentiments in relation to a great national
question of public policy. Such was my course. The gentleman from
Missouri, (Mr. Benton,) itis true, had charged upon the Eastern States an
early and continued hostility towards the West, and referred to a number of
historical facts and documents in support of that charge. Now, Sir, how
have these different arguments been met ? The honorable gentleman from
Massachusetts, after deliberating a whole night upon his course, comes
into this chamber to vindicate New England ; and instead of making up
his issue with the gentleman from Missouri, on the charges which he had
preferred, chooses to oonsider me as the author of those charges, and losing
sight entirely of that gentleman, selects me as his adversary, and pours out
all the vials ofhis mighty wrath upon my devoted head. Nor is he willing
to stop there. He goes on to assail the institutions, and policy ofthe South,
and calls in question the principles and conduct of the State which 1 have
the honor to represent. When I find a gentleman of mature age and expe
rience, of acknowledged talents, and profound sagacity, pursuing a course
like this, declining the contest offered from the West, and making war upon
the unoffending South, 1 must believe, I am bound to believe, he has some
object in view which he has not ventured to disclose. Mr. President, why
is this ? Has the gentleman discovered in former controversies with the
gentleman from Missouri, that he is overmatched by that Senator ? And
does he hope for an easy victory over a more feeble adversary ? Has the
gentleman's distempered fancy been disturbed by gloomy forbodings of
" new alliances to be formed," at which he hinted ? Has the ghost pf the

murdered Coalition come back, like the ghost of Banquo, to " sear the
eye-balls of the gentleman," and wUl it not " down at his bidding ?" Are
dark visions of broken hopes, and honors lost forever, still fioating before
his heated imagination ? Sir, if it be his object to thrust me between the
gentleman from Missouri and himself, in order to rescue the East from the
contest it has provoked with the West, he shall not be gratified. Sir, I
will not be dragged into the defence of my friend from Missouri. The
South shall not be forced into a confiict not its own. The gentleman from
Missouri is able to fight his own battles. The gallant West needs no aid
from the South to repel any attaok whioh may be made on them from any
quarter. Let the gentleman from Massachasetts controvert the facts and
arguments of the gentleman from Missouri, if he can — and if he win the
victory, let him wear the honors ; 1 shall not deprive him uf his laurels.
The gentleman from Massachusetts, in reply to my remarks on the in
jurious operations ofour land system on the prosperity ofthe West, pro
nounced an extravagant eulogium on the paternal care which the Govern
ment had extended towards the West, to which he attributed all that was
great and excellent in the present condition ofthe new States. The lan
guage ofthe gentleman on this topic, fell upon my ears like the almost
forgotten tones of the tory leaders of the British parliament, at the com
mencement ofthe American Revolution. They too, discovered, that the
Colonies had grown great under the fostering care of the Mother Coun
try ; and I must confess, while listening to the gentleman, I thought the
appropriate reply to his argument was to be found in the remark of a
celebrated orator, made on that occasion : " They have grown great in
spite of your protection."
The gentleman, in commenting onthe policy ofthe Government in re
lation to the new States, has introduoed to our notice a certain Nathaii
Daiie, of Massachusetts, to whom he attributes the celebrated ordinance of
'87, by which he tells us, " slavery was forever excluded from the new
States north of the Ohio." After eulogizing the wisdom of this provision,
in terms of the most extravagant praise, he breaks forth in admiration of
the greatness of Nathan Dane — and great indeed he must be, if it be true
as stated by the Senator from Massachusetts, that " he was greater than
Solon and Lycurgus, Minos, Numa, Pompilius, and all the legislators and
philosophers of the world," ancient and modern. Sir, to suoh high au
thority it is certainly my duty, in a becoming spirit of humility to submit.
And yet, the gentleman will pardon me, when I say, that it is a little
unfortunate for the fame of this great legislator, that the gentleman from
Missouri should have proved, that he was not the author ofthe ordinance
of '87, on which the Senator from Massachusettts has reared so glorious a
monument to his name. Sir, I doubt not the Senator will feel some com
passion for our ignorance, when- 1 tell him, that so little are we acquaint
ed with the modern great men of New England, that until he informed
us yesterday that we possessed a Solon and a Lycurgus, in the person of
Nathan Dane, he was only known to the South as a member of a celebra
ted assembly, called and knowu by the name of " the Hartford Conven
tion." In the proceedings of that assembly, which I hold in my hand,
(at page 19,) will be found, in a few lines, the history of Nathan Dane ;
and a little farther on, there is conclusive evidence of that ardent devo
tion to the interest of the new States, which it seems has given him a just
claim to the title of " Father of the West." By the 2d resolution of the
" Hartford Convention," it is declared, " that it is expedient to attempt

to make provision /or restraining Congress in the exercise of an unlimited
power to make new States, and admitting them into the Union." So much
for Nathan Dane, of Beverly, Massachusetts.
In commenting upon my views in relation to the public lands, the gen
tleman insists, that it being one of the condition of the grants, that these
lands should be applied to " the common benefit of all the States, they
must always remain a fund for revenue y" and adds, "they must be treated
as so much treasure." Sir, '•he gentleman could hardly find language
strong enough to convey his disapprobation of the policy which I had ven
tured to recommend to the favorable consideration of the country. And
what, Sir, was that policy, and what is the difference between that gen
tleman and myself, on this subject ? I threw out the idea that the public
lands ought not to be reserved forever, as " a great fund for revenue ;"
that they ought not to be "treated as a great treasure;" but, that the
course of our policy should rather be directed towards the creation of
New States, and building up great and flourishing communities.
Now, Sir, will it be believed, by those who now hear me — and who
listened to the gentleman's denunciation of my doctrines, yesterday — that
a book then lay open before him — nay, that he held in his hand, and read
from it certain passages of his own speech, delivered to the House of Rep
resentatives in 1825, in which speech he himself contended for the very
doctrines I had advocated, and almost in the same terms. Here is the
speech of the Hon. Daniel Webster, contained in the first volume of Gales
and Seaton's Register of Debates, (p. 251,) delivered, in the House of
Representatives on the 18th of January, 1825, in a debate on the Cumber
land road— the very debate from which the Senator read yesterday. I
shall read from the celebrated speech two passages, from which it will
appear that both as to the past and the future policy of the Government in
relation to the public lands, the gentleman from Massachusetts maintained,
in 1825, substantially the same opinions which I have advanced; but which
he now so strongly reprobates. I said, Sir, that the system of credit sales
by which the West had been kept constantly in debt to the United States,
and by which their wealth was drained off to be expended elsewhere, had
operated injuriously on their prosperity. On this point the gentleman from
Massachusetts, in January, 1825, expressed himself thus: " There could
be no doubt if gentlemen looked at the money received into the Treasury
from the sale of the public lands to the West, and then looked to the
whole amount expended by Government, (even including the whole
amount of what vs^as laid out for the Army,) the latter must be allowed
to be very inconsiderable, and there must be a constant drain of money
from the West to pay for the public lands. It might indeed be said that
this was no more than the refluenoe of capital which had previously gone
over the mountains. Be it so. Still its practical effect was to produce
inconvenience, if not distress, by absorbing the money of the people."
I contended that the public lands ought not to be treated merely as " a
fund for revenue," that they ought not to be hoarded " as a great treas
ure." On this point the Senator expressed himselfthus : " Government,
he believed, had received eighteen or twenty millions of dollars from the
public lands, and itVas with the greatest satisfaction he adverted to the
change which had been introduced in the mode of paying for them ; yet
he could never think the national domain was to be regarded as any great
source of revenue. The great object of the Government in respect of
these lands, was not so much the money derived from iheir sale, as it was

the getting them settled. What he meant to say was, he did not think they
ought to hug that domain as a great treasure, ivMch was to enrich the
Exchequer." Now, Mr. President, it will be seen that the very doctrines which the
gentleman so indignantly abandons, were urged by him in 1825 ; and if I
had actually borrowed my sentiments from those which he then avowed,
I could not have followed more closely in his footsteps. Sir, it is only since
the gentleman quoted this book, yesterday, that my attention has been
turned to the sentiments he expressed in 1825, and, ifl had remembered
them, I might possibly have been deterred from uttering sentiments here,
which it might well be supposed, I had borrowed from that gentleman.
In 18-25 the gentleman told the world, that the public lands " ought not
to be treated as a treasure." He now tells us, that "they must be treated
as so much treasure." What the deliberate opinion of the gentleman on
this subject may be, belongs not to me to determine ; but I do not think he
¦ can, with the shadow of justice or propriety, impugn my sentiments, while
his own recorded opinions are identical with my own. When the gentle-
mad refers to the conditions of the grants under which the United States
have acquired these lands, and insists that, as they are declared to be
" for the common benefit of all the States," they can only be treated as so
much treasure, I think he has applied a rule of construction too narrow
for the case. If in the deeds of cession it has been declared that the grants
were intended for " the common benefit of all the States," it is clear from
other provisions, that they were not intended merely as so much property :
for it is expressly declared, that the objeot ofthe granfs is the erection of
new States ; and the United States, in accepting this trust, bind themselves
to facilitate the foundation of these States, to be admitted into the Union
with all the rights and privileges of the original States. This, Sir, was
the great end to which all parties looked, and it is by the fulfillment of
this high trust, that " the common benefit of all the States" is to be best
promoted. Sir, let me tell the gentleman, that in the part of the country
in which I live, we do not measure political benefits by the money stand
ard. We consider as more valuable than gold, liberty, principle, and
justice. But, Sir, if we are bound to act on the narrow principles con
tended for by the gentleman, I am wholly at a loss to conceive how he
can reconcile his principles with his own practice. The lands are, it
seems, to be treated " as so much treasure," and must be applied to the
" common benefit of all the States." Now, if this be so, whence does he
derive the right to appropriate them for partial and local objects ? How
can the gentleman consent to vote away immense bodies of these lands ;
for canals in Indiana and Illinois, to the Louisville and Portland canal, to
Kenyon College in Ohio, to Schools for the Deaf and Dumb, and other
objects of a similar description ? If grants of this character can fairly be
considered as made " for the common benefit of all the States," it can
only be, because all the States are interested in the welfare of each — a
principle which carried to the full extent, destroys all distinction between
local and national objects ; and is certainly broad enough to embrace the
principles for whioh I have ventured to contend. Sir, the true difference
between us, I take to be this : the gentleman wishes to treat the public
lands as a great treasure, just as so much money in the Treasury, to
be applied to all objects, constitutional and unconstitutional, to which the
public money is constantly applied. I consider it as a sacred trust which
we ought to fulfill, on the principles for which I have contended.

The Senator from Massachusetts has thought proper to present in strong
contrast, the friendly feelings of the East towards the West, with senti
ments of an opposite character displayed by the South in relation to ap
propriations for Internal Improvements. Now, Sir, let it be recollected
that the South have made no professions ; I have certainly made none in
their behalf, of regard for the West. ¦ It has been reserved for the gentle
man from Massachusetts, while he vaunts over his own personal devotion
to western interests, to claim for the entire section of country to whichhe
belongs, an ardent friendship for the West, as manifested by their support
ofthe system of Internal Improvement, while he casts in our teeth the
reproach that the South has manifested hostility to Western interests in
opposing appropriations for such objects. That gentleman, at the same
time, acknowledged that the South entertains constitutional scruples on this
subject. Are we then, Sir, to understand, that the gentleman considers it
a just subjeet of reproach, that we respect our oaths, by whioh we are
bound " to preserve, protect and defend the Constitution ofthe U. States ?"
Would the gentleman have us manifest our love to the West, by tramp
ling under foot our constitutional scruples I Does he not perceive, ifthe
South is to le reproached with unkindness to the West, in voting against
appropriations, which the gentleman admits they could not vote for with
out doing violence to their constitutional opinions, that he exposes him
self to the question : whether, if he was in our situation, he could vote
for these appropriations, regardless of his scruples 1 No, Sir, I will not
do the gentleman so great injustice. He has fallen into this error from
not having duly weighed the force and effect of the reproach which he
was endeavoring to cast upon the South, lii relation to the other point,
the friendship manifested by New England towards the West, in their
support of the system of Internal Improvement, the gentleman will par
don me for saying, that I think he is equally unfortunate in having intro
duced that topic. As that gentleman has forced it upon us, however, I
cannot suffer it to pass unnoticed. When the gentleman tells us that the
appropriations for Internal Improvement in the West, would, in almost
every instance, have failed, but for New England votes, he has forgotten
to tell us the when, the how and the wherefore — ^this new born zeal for the
West sprung up in the bosom of New England. If we look back only a
few years, we will find in both houses of Congress an uniform and steady
opposition, on the part of the members from the Eastern States, generally
to all appropriations of this character. At the time I became a member
of this House, and for sometime afterwards, a decided majority of the
New England Senators were opposed to the very measures which the
Senator from Massachusetts tells us they now cordially support. Sir,
the Journals are before me, and an examination of them will satisfy every
gentleman of that fact.
It must be well known to every one whose experience dates back as far
as 1825, that up to a certain period. New England was generally opposed
to appropriations for internal improvements in the West. The gentleman
from Massachusetts may be himself an exception, but if he went for the
system before 1825, it is certain that his colleagues did not go with him.
In the session of 1824 and '25, however, (a memorable era in the history
of this country,) a wonderful change took place inNew England, in rela
tion to Western interests. Sir, an extraordinary union of sympathies and
of interests was then effected, which brought the East and the West into
close alliance. The book from which I have before read contains the first

public annunciation of that happy reconciliation of conflicting interests,
personal and political, which brought the East and West together, and
locked in a fraternal embrace the two great' orators of the East and the
West. Sir, it was on the 18th January, 1825, while the result of the
Presidential election, in the House of Representatives, was still doubtful,
while the whole country was looking with intense anxiety to that Legis
lative Hall, where the mighty drama was so soon to be acted ; that we
saw the leaders of two great parties in the House and in the nation,
" taking sweet counsel together," and in a celebrated debate on the Cum
berland Road, fighting side by side for Western interests. It was on that
memorable occasion that the Senator from Massachusetts held out the
white flag to the West, and uttered those liberal sentiments, which he,
yesterday so indignantly repudiated. Then it was, that that happy union
between, the members of the celebrated coalition was consummated, whose
immediate issue was a President from one quarter qf the Union, with the
succession, (as it was supposed,) secured to another. The " American
system," before a rude, disjointed and misshapen mass, now assumed
form and consistency. Then it was that it became " the settled policy
of the Government," that this system should be so administered as to
create a reciprocity of interests, and a reciprocal distribution of Govern
ment favors. East and West, (the Tariff and Internal Improvements,)
while the South  '.jea. Sir, the impracticable South was to be " out of
your protection." The gentleman may boast as much as he pleases of
the friendship of New England for the West as displayed in their sup
port of Internal Improvement — but when he next introduces that topic, I
trust that he will tell us when that friendship commenced, how it was
brought about, and why it was established ? Before I leave this topic, I
must be permitted to say that the true character of the policy now pursued
by the gentleman from Massachusetts aud his friends, in relation to ap
propriations, of land and money, for the benefit of the West, is in my
estimation very similar to that pursued by Jacob of old towards his brother
Esg.u, " it robs them oftheir birthright for a mess of pottage."
J^n^he gentleman from Massachusetts, in alluding to a remark of mine,
tnat before any disposition could be made of the public lands, the National
debt, (for which they stand pledged,) must be first paid, took occasion to
intimate " that the extraordinary fervor which seems to exist in a certain
quarter, (meaning the South, Sir) for the payment of the debt, arises from
a disposition to weaken iheties which hind the people to the Union." While
the gentleman deals us this blow, he professes an ardent desire to see the
debt speedily extinguished. He must excuse me, however, for feeling
some distrust on that subject until I find this disposition manifested by
something stronger than professions. I shall look for acts, decided and
unequivocal acts ; for the performance of which an opportunity will very
soon, (if I am not greatly mistaken,) be afforded. Sir, if I were at liberty
to judge ofthe course which that gentleman would pursue, from the prin
ciples which he has laid down in relation to this matter, I should be
bound to conclude that he will be found acting with those with whom it
is a darling object to prevent the payment of the public debt. He tells us
he is desirous of paying the debt, " because we are under an obligation
to discharge it." Now, Sir, suppose it should happen that the public
creditors, with whom we have contracted the obligation, should release
us from it, so far as to declare their willingness to wait for payment for
fifty years to come, provided only, the interest shall be punctually dis
charged. The gentleman from Massachusetts will then be released from

9
the obligation which now makes him desirous of paying the debt ; and,
let me tell the gentleman, the holders of the stock will not only release
us from this obligation, but they will implore, nay, they will even pay us
not to pay them. But, adds the gentleman, so far as the debt may have
an effect in binding the debtors to the country, and thereby serving as a
link to hold the States together, he would be glad that it should exist for-
ever. Surely then, Sir, on the gentleman's own principles, he must be
opposed to the payment ofthe debt.
Sir, let me tell that gentleman, that the South repudiates the idea that a
pecuniary dependence on the Federal Government is one of the legitimate
means of holding the States together. A monied interest in tiie Govern
ment is essentially a base interest; and just so far as it operates to bind
the feelings of those who are subjected to it, to the Government,-^ ust so
far as it operates in creating sympathies and interests that Would not oth
erwise exist — is it opposed to all the principles of free government, and at
war with virtue and patriotism. Sir, the link which binds the public
creditors, as such, to their country, binds them equally to all governments,
whether arbitrary or free. In a free government, this principle of abject
dependence, if extended through all the ramifications of society, must be
fatal to liberty. Already have •vye made alarming strides in that direction.
The entire class of manufacturers, the holders of stocks, with their hun
dreds of millions of capital, are held to the Government by the strong link
oi pecuniary interests ; millions of peeple — entire sections of country, in
terested, or believing themselves to be so, in the public lands, and the pub
lic treasure, are bound tothe Government by the expectation oi pecuniary
favors. If this system is carried much further, no man can fail to see that
every generous motive of attachment to the country will be destroyed, and
in its place will spring up those low, grovelling, base and selfish feelings
which bind men to the footstool of a despot by bonds as strong and'endur-
ing as those which attach them to free institutions. Sir, I would lay the
foundation of this Government in the affections of the people — I would
teach them to cling to it by dispensing equal justice, and above all, by se
curing the " blessings of liberty" to " themselves, and to their posterity."
The honorable gentleman from Massachusetts, has gone out ofhis way
to pass a high eulogium on the State of Ohio. Inthe most impassioned
tones of eloquence, he described her majestic march to greatness. He told
us, that having already left all the other States far behind, she was now
passing by Virginia, and Pennsylvania, and about to take her station by
the side of New York. To all this. Sir, I was disposed most cordially to
respond. When, however, the gentleman prooeeded to contrast the State
of Ohio, with Kentucky, to the disadvantage of the latter, I listened to him
with regret ; and ivhen he proceeded further to attribute the great, and as
he supposed, acknowledged superiority ofthe former in population, wealth
and general prosperity, to the policy of Nathan Dane of Massachusetts,
which had secured to the people of Ohio, (by the Ordinance of '87,) a
population of freemen, I will confess that my feelings suffered a revulsion,
which I am now unable to describe, in any language sufficiently respectful
towards the gentleman from Massachusetts. In contrasting the State of
Ohio, with Kentucky, for the purpose of pointing out the superiority ofthe
former, and of attributing that superiority to /Ae existence of slavery, in the
one State, and its absence in the other, I thought I could discern the very
spirit ofthe Missouri question, intruded into this debate, for objects best
known to the gentleman himself. Did that gentleman, Sir, when he formed

m .
the determination fo cross the southern border, fn order to rnvade the Btaiff
of South Carolina, deem it prudent or necessary to enlist under his banners-
ihe prejudices of the world, which, like Swiss-troops, may be engaged in
any cause, and are prepared to serve under any leader ? Did he desire to
avail himself of those remorseless allies, the passions of mankind, of which
it may be more truly said than of the savage tribes of the wilderness, " that
their known rule of warfare is an indiscriminate slaughter of all ages,
sexes and conditions ?" Or was it supposed, Sir, that in a premeditated,
and unprovoked attack upon the South, it was advisable to begin by a gen
tle admonition oiour supposed weakness, in order to prevent us from mak
ing tbat firm and manly resistance, due to our own character, and our
dearest interests ? Was the significant hint of the weakness of slave-holding
States, when contrasted with the superior strength of free States, — like the
glare ofthe weapem half drawn from its scsAbard, intended to enforce the
lessons of prudence and of patriotism, v/hich the gentleman had resolved,
O'Ut of his abundant generosity, gratuitously to bestow upon us ? Mr,
President, the impression which has gone abroad, of the weaknest of the
South as connected with the slave question, exposes us to such constant
attacks, has done us so much injury, and is calculated to produce such
infinite mischiefs, that I embrace the occasion presented by the remarks
ofthe gentleman of Massachusetts, to declare that we are ready to meet
the question promptly, and fearlessly. It is one frCm which we are not
disposed to shrink, in whatever form or nnder whatever circumstances it
may be pressed upon ua.
We are ready to make up the issoe with the gentlemen, as to the influ
ence of slavery on individual and national character — on the prosperity
and greatness, either of the United States, or of particular States. Sir,
when arraigned before the bar of public opinion, on this charge of slavery,
we can stand up with conscious rectitude, plead not guilty, and put our-
selves Upon God and ou-r country. Sir, we will not consent to look at
slavery in the abstract. We will not stop to inquire whether the black man,
as some philosophers have contended, is of an inferior race, nor whether
his color and condition are the effects of a curse inflicted for the offences
of his ancestors ? We deal in no abstractions. We will not look back to
inquire whether our Fathers were guiltless in introducing slaves into this-
country ? If an inquiry should ever be instituted in these matters, how
ever, it will be found tbat the profits of the slave trade were not confined
to the South. Soathern ships and Southern sailors were not the instru
ments of bringing slaves to tbe shores of Ameriea, nor did our merchants-
reap the profits of that " accursed traflfick." But, Sir, we will pass over
all this. If slavery, asit now exists in this country be an evil, we ofthe
present day found ii ready made to our hands. Finding our lot cast among
a people, whom God had manifestly committed to our care, we did not sit
down to speculate on abstract questions of theoretical liberty. We met it
as a practical question of obligation and duty. We resolved to make the
best ofthe situation in which providence had placed us, and to fulfill the
high trusts which had devolved upon us as the owners of slaves, in the only
way in which such a trust could be fulfilled, without spreading misery
and ruin throughout the land. We found that we had to deal with a peo
ple whose physical, moral and intellectual habits and character, totally
disqualified them from the enjoyment ofthe blessings of freedom. We
could not send them back to the shores from whence their fathers had been
taken ; their numbers forbade the thought, even if we did not know that

11
their condition here is infinitely preferable, to what it possibly could be
among the barren sands and savage tribes of Africa ; and it was wholly
irreconcilable with all our notions of humanity to tear asunder the tender
ties which they had formed among us, to gratify the feelings of a false
philanthropy. What a commentary on the wisdom, justice, and human
ity of the southern slave owner is presented by the example of certain
benevolent associations and charitable individuals elsewhere. Shedding
weak tears over sufferings which had existence in their own sickly im
aginations, these " friends of humanity" set themselves systematically to
work to seduce the slaves of the South from their masters. By means of
missionaries and political tracts, the scheme was in a great measure
successful. Thousands of these deluded victims of fanaticism were se
duced into the enjoyment of freedom in our Northern cities. And what
has been the consequence ? Go to these cities now and ask the question.
Visit the dark and narrow lanes, and obscure recesses which have been
assigned by common consent as the abodes of those outcasts of the world,
the free people of color. Sir, there does not exist on the face of the whole
earth, a population so poor, so wretched, so vile, so loathsome, so utterly
destitute of all the comforts, conveniences, and decencies of life, as the
unfortunate blacks of Philadelphia, and New York, and Boston. Liberty
has been to them the greatest of calamities, the heaviest of curses. Sir, I
have had some opportunities of making comparison between the condition
of the free negroes of the North, and the slaves of the South, and the com
parison has left not only an indelible impression of the superior advantages
ofthe latter, but has gone far to reconcile me to slavery itself. Never
have I felt so forcibly that touching description, " the foxes have holes,
and the birds of the air have nests, but the Son of Man hath not where to
lay his head," as when I have seen this unhappy race, naked and house
less, almost starving in the streets, and abandoned by all ihe world. Sir,
I have seen in the neighborhood of one of the most moral, religious and
refined cities ofthe North, a family of free blacks, driven to the caves ofthe
rocks, and there obtaining a precarious subsistence from charity and
plunder. When the gentleman from Massachusetts adopts and reiterates the old
charge of weakness as resulting from slavery, I must be permitted to call
for the proof of those blighting effects which he ascribes to its influence.
I suspect that when the subject is closely examined, it will be found that
there is not much force even in the plausible objection of the want of
physical power in slave holding States. The powerof a country is com
pounded of its population and its wealth, and in modern times, where,
from the very form and structure of society, by far the greater portion of
the people, must, even during the continuance of the most desolating
wars, be employed in the cultivation ofthe soil and other peaceful pur
suits, it may be well doubted, whether slaveholding States, by reason of
the superior value of their productions, are not able to maintain a num
ber of troops in the field, fully equal to what could be supported by States
with a larger white population, but not possessed of equal resources.
It is a popular error, to suppose that in any possible state of things, the
people of a country could ever be called out en masse, or that ahalf, ora
third, or even a fifth part ofthe physical force of any country, could ever
be brought into the field. The difficulty is not to procure men, but to
provide the means of maintaining them ; and in this view of the subject, it
may be asked whether the Southern States are not a source of strength^
and p ower, and not of weakness to the country ? — whether they have no

12
contributed, and are not now contributing largely to the wealth and pros
perity of every State in this Union ? From a statement which I hold in
my hand, it appears that in 10 years — from 1818 to 1827, inclusive — the
whole amount of the domestic exports of the United States was $521,811,-
045. Of which three articles, (the product of slave labor,) viz, — Cotton,
rice and tobacco, amounted to $339,-203,232 — equal to about two-thirds
ofthe ivhole. It is not true, as has been supposed, that the advantages of
this labor is confined almost exclusively lo the Southern States. Sir, I
am thoroughly convinced, that at this time, the Stales North of the Poto
mac, actually derive greater profits from the labor ofour slaves, thanwe do
ourselves. It appears from our public documents, that in 7 years, from
1821 to 1827, inclusive, the six Southern States exported $190',337,281 —
and imported only $55,646,301. Now the diflference between these two
sums, (near $140,000,000)^assecZ through the hands ofthe Northern mer
chants and enabled them to carry on their commercial operations with all
the world. Such part of these goods as found its way back to our hands,
came charged with the duties, as well as the profits of the merchant, the
ship owner, and a host of others, who found employment in carrying on
these immense exchanges; and for such part, as was consumed af the
North, we received in exchange Northern ¦manufactures, charged with an
increased price, to cover all the taxes which the Northern consumer has
been compelled to pay on the imported article. It will be seen, there
fore, at a glance, how rauch slave labor has contributed to the wealth and
prosperity of the United States, and how largely our Northern brethren
have participated in thc profits of that labor. Sir, on this subject I will
quote an authority, which will, I doubt not, be considered by the Senator
from Massachusetts as entitled to high respect. It is from the great
Father ofthe "American System," honest Matthew Carey — no great
friend, it is true, at this time, to Southern rights and Southern interests,
but not the worst authority on that account, on the point in question.
Speaking of the relative importance to the Union of the Southern and
the Eastern States, Matthew Carey, in the 6th edition of his Olive
Branch, (p. 278,) after exhibiting a number of statistical tables to show
the decided superiority ofthe former, thus proceeds :
" But I am tired of this investigation — I sicken for the honor of the
human species. What idea must the world form ofthe arrogance ofthe
pretensions on the one side, [the East,] and of the folly and weakness of
the rest of the Union, to have so long suffered them to pass without expo
sure and detection. The naked fact is, that the demagogues in theEast-
; ern States, not satisfied with deriving all the benefit from the Southern sec
tion of the Union that they would from so many wealthy colonies — with
making- princely fortunes by the carriage and exportation of its bulky and
valuable productions, and supplying it with their own manufactures, and
the productions of Europe, and the East and West Indies, to an enormous
amount, and at an immense profit, have uniformly treated it with outrage,
(insult, and injury. And regardless of their vital interests, the Eastern
I States were lately courtiug their own destruction, by allowing a few rest-
lless, turbulent men to lead them blindfolded to a separation which was
pregnant with their certain ruin. Whenever that event takes place, they
sink into insignificance. If a separation were desirable to any part of the
Union, it would be to the Middle and Southern States, particularly the
latter, who have been so long harrassed with the complaints, the restless
ness, the turbulence, and the ingratitude of the Eastern States, that their

13
patience has been tried almost beyond endurance. ' Jeshuran waxed fat
and kicked' — and he will be severely punished for his kicking, in the
event ofa dissolution ofthe Union." Sir, I wish it to be distinctly un
derstood, that I do not adopt these sentiments as my own. I quote them
to show that very different sentiments have prevailed in former times as
to the weakness of the slaveholding states, from those which now seem to
have become fashionable in certain quarters. I know it has been suppo
sed by certain ill-informed persons, that the South exists only by the
countenance and protection of the North. Sir, this is the idlest of all idle
and ridiculous fancies that ever entered into the mind of man. In every
State of this Union, except one, the free white population actually pre
ponderates ; while in the British West India Islands, (where the average
white population is less than ten per cent, qf the whole,) the slaves are
kept in entire subjection : it is preposterous to suppose that the Southern
States could ever find the smallest difficulty in this respect. On this sub
ject, as in all others, we ask nothing of our Northern brethren but fo " lei
us alone." Leave us to the undisturbed management of our domestic
concerns, and the direction of our own industry, and we will ask no more.
Sir, all our difficulties on this subject have arisen from interference from
abroad, which has disturbed, and may again disturb, our domestic tran
quillity, just so far as to bring down punishment upon the heads ofthe
unfortunate victims ofa fanatical and mistaken humanity.
There is a spirit, which, like the father of evil, is constantly " walking
to and fro about the earth, seeking whom it may devour :" it is the spirit
of false philanthropy. The persons whom it possesses, do not indeed
"throw themselves into^he flames, but they are employed in lighting up
the torches of discord throughout the community. Their first principle
of action is to leave their own affairs, and neglect their own duties, to
regulate the affairs and duties of others. Theirs is fhe task to feed the
hungry, and clothe the naked, of other lands, while they thrust the naked,
famished, and shivering beggar from their own doors ; — to instruct the
heathen, while their own children want the bread of life. When this
spirit infuses itself into the bosom of a statesman, (if one so possessed can
be called a statesman,) it converts him at once into a visionary enthusiast.
Then it is, that he indulges in golden dreams of national greatness and
prosperity. He discovers that "liberty is power," and not content with
vast schemes of improvement at home, which it would bankrupt the treas
ury ofthe world to execute, he flies to foreign lands, to fulfill obligations
to " the human race," by inculcating the principles of " political and re
ligious liberty," and promoting the " general welfare" of the whole hu
man race. Itis a spirit which has long been busy with the slaves ofthe
South ; and is even now displaying itself in vain efforts, to drive the Gov
ernment from its wise policy in relation to the Indians. It is this spirit
which has filled the land with thousands of wild and visionary projects,
which can have no effect but to waste the energies and dissipate the re
sources ofthe country. It is the spirit, of which the aspiring politician
dexterously avails himself, when, by inscribing on his banner the magical
words liberty and philanthropy, he draws to his support that class of
persons who are ready to bow down at the very name of their idols.
But, Sir, whatever difference of opinion may exist as to the effect of
slavery on national wealth and prosperity, if we may trust to experience,
there can be no doubt that it has never yet produced any injurious effect
on individual or national character. Look through the whole history of

14
the country, from the commencement of the Revolution down to the pres
ent hour; where are there to be found brighter examples of intellectual
and moral greatness, than have been exhibited by the sons ofthe South ?
From the Father ok his Country, down tothe distinguished chieftain
who has been elevated by a grateful people to the highest office in their
gift, the interval is filled up by a long line of orators, of statesmen, and of
heroes, justly entitled to rank among the ornaments oftheir country, and
the benefactors of mankind. Look at " the Old Dominion," great and
magnanimous Virginia, " whose jewels are her sons." Is there any
State in this Union which has contributed so much to the honor and wel
fare of the country ? Sir, 1 will yield the whole question — I will acknow
ledge the fatal effects of slavery upon character, if any one can say, that
for noble disinterestedness, ardent love of country, exalted virtue, and a
pure and holy devotion to liberty, the people of the Southern States have
ever been surpassed by any in the world. I know, Sir, that this deroitoM
to liberty has sometimes been supposed to be at war with our institutions ;
but it is in some degree the result of those very institutions. Burke, the
most philosophical of statesmen, as he was the most accomplished of ora
tors, well understood the operation of this principle, in elevating the sen
timents and exaltiing the principles ofthe people in slaveholding States.
I will conclude my remarks on this branch of the subject, by reading a
few passages from his speech "on movinghis resolutions for conciliation
with the Colonies," the 22d of March, 1775.
" There is a circumstance attending the Southern Colonies, which
makes the spirit of liberty still more high and haughty than in those to
the Northward. Itis, that in Virginia and the Carolinas they have a
vast multitude of slaves. Where this is the case, in any part of the world,
those who are free are by far the most proud and jealous of their free
dom. Freedom is to them not only an enjoyment, but a kind of rank and
privilege. Not seeing there, as in countries where itis a common bless
ing, and as broad and general as the air, that it may be united with much
abject toil, with great misery, with all the exterior of servitude, liberty
looks among them like something more noble and liberal. I do not mean,
Sir, to commend the superior morality of this sentiment, which has, at
least, as much pride as virtue in it — but I cannot alter the nature of man.
The fact is so; and these people of the Southern Colonies are much
more strongly, and with a higher and more stubborn spirit, attached to
liberty, than those to the Northward. Such were all the ancient com
monwealths—such were our Gothic ancestors — such, in our days, were
the Poles — and such will be all masters of slaves who are not slaves ihem-
sehes. In such a People, the haughtiness of domination combines with
, thespirit of freedom, fortifies it, andrenders it imiincible."
In the course of my former remarks, Mr. President, I took occasion to
deprecate, as one of the greatest evils,^/te consolidation qfMsGqvfimmc'rU.
The gentleman takes alarm at the souiid . """^^"^nsoTiMMonTliI^ the tartff,
grates upon his ear. He tells us, " we have heard much of late about
consolidation ; that it is the rallying word of all who are endeavoring to
weaken ihe Union, by adding to the power of the States." But consoli
dation (says the gentleman) was the very object for which the Union was
forraed ; and, in support of that opinion, he read a passage from the ad
dress of the President of the Convention, to Congress, which he assumes
to be authority on his side ofthe question. But, Sir, the gentleman is
mistaken. The object ofthe framers of the constitution, as disclosed in

15
that address, was not the consolidation of the Government, but " the con
solidation ofthe Union." It was not to draw power from the States, in
•order to transfer it to a great National Government, but, in the language
¦of the Constitution itself, "to form a more perfect Union," — aud by what
means? By "establishing justice, promoting domestic tranquillity, and
securing the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity." This
is the true reading ofthe Constitution. But, according to the gentleman's
reading, the object ofthe Constitution was, to consolidate the Government,
and the means would seem to be, the promotion of injustice, causing do
mestic discord, and depriving the States, and the People, " of the bless
ings of liberty" forever.
The gentleman boasts of belonging to the party of National Republi
cans, National Republicans ! — A new narae, Sir, for a very old thing.
The National Republicans of the present day, were the Federalists of '98,
who became Federal Republicans 'A\u'\ag the war of 181-2, and were man
ufactured into National Republicans somewhere about the year 1825.
As a party, {hy whatever name distinguished,) they have always been
animated by the same principles, and have kept -steadily in view a com
mon object, the Consolidation of the Government. Sir, the party to which
I am proud of having belonged, from the very commencement of my po
litical life, to the present day, were the Dem,ocrats ^ '98, (Anarchists,
Anti-Federalists, Revolutionists, I think they were sometimes called.)
They assumed the name oi Democratic Republicans, in 1822, and have
retained their name and principles, up to the present hour. True to their
political faith, they have always, as a party, been irt-fayor of limitations
_a£430wer ; they have insisted that all powers not delegated to the Federal
Government, are reserved, and have been constantly struggling, as they
now are, to preserve the rights of the States, and to prevent them from
being drawn into the vortex, and swallowed up by one gre^t consolida
ting Government.
Sir, any one acquainted with the history of parties in this country, will
recognize in the points now in dispute between the Senator from Massa
chusetts and myself, the very grounds which have, from the beginning,
divided the two great parties in this Country, and whioh, (call these par
ties by what names yau will, and amalgamate them as you may,) will
divide thera forever. The true distinction between those parties is laid
down in a celebrated manifesto, issued by the Convention of the Feder
alists of Massachusetts, assembled in Boston, in February, 1824, on the
occasion oforganizing a party opposition to the re-election of Governor
Eustis. The gentleraan will recognize this as the " canonical book of
political scripture;" and it instructs us that, " when the American Col
onies redeemed themselves from British bondage, and became so many
independent nations, they proposed to form a National Union — (not a
Federal Union, Sir, but a National Union.) Those who were in favor of
a Union ofthe States in this form, became known by the name of Federal
ists J those who wanted no Union of the States, or disliked the proposed
form of Union, became known by the name of Anti-Federalists. By
means which need not be enumerated, the Anti-Federalists became (after
the expiration of twelve years) our national rulers, and, for a period of
sixteen years, until the close of Mr. Madison's administration, in 1817,
continued to exercise the exclusive direction ofour public affairs. Here,
Sir, is the true history of the origin, rise and progress of the party of
National .Republicans, who date back to the very origin of the Govern-

16
ment, and who then, as now, chose to consider the Constitution as having
created, not a Federal but a National Union ; who regarded "consoli
dation" as no evil, and who doubtless consider it " a consummation de
voutly to be wished" to build up a great " central Government," " one
and indivisible." Sir, there have existed, in every age, and every coun
try, two distinct orders of men — the lovers of Freedom, and the devoted
advocates of Power.
The same great leading principles, modified only by the peculiarities
of manners, habits, and institutions, divided parties in the ancient repub
lics, animated the whigs and tories oi Great Britain, distinguished in our
own times the liberals and ultras oi France, and may be traced, even in
the bloody struggles of unhappy Spain. Sir, when the gallant Riego,
who devoted himself, and all that he possessed, to the liberties of his
Country, was dragged to the scaffold, followed by the tears and lamenta
tions of every lover of freedom throughout the world, he perished amid
the deafening cries of " long live the absolute king !" — The people whom
I represent, Mr. President, are the descendants of those who brought
with them to this country, as the most precious oftheir possessions, " an
ardent love of liberty;" and while that shall be preserved, they will
always be found manfully strugglmg agSimst the consolidation qf fhe Gov
emment — as the worst of evils.
The Senator from Massachusetts, in alluding to the Tariff, becomes
quite facetious. He tells us that " he hears of nothing but Tariff, Tariff,
Tariff ; and, if a word could be found to rhyme with it, he presumes it
would be celebrated in verse, and set to music." Sir, perhaps the gen
tleman, in mockery of our complaints, may be himself disposed to sing the
praises ofthe tariff, in doggrel verse, to the tune of" Old Hundred." I
am not at all surprised, however, at the aversion of the gentleman to the
very name of Tariff. I doubt not that it must always bring up some very
unpleasant recollections to his mind. If 1 am not greatly mistaken, the
Senator from Massachusetts was a leading actor at a great meeting got
up in Boston, in 1820, against the tariff. It has generally been supposed
that he drew up the resolutions adopted by that meeting, denouncing the
Tariff system as unequal, oppressive, and unjust; and ifl am not much
mistaken, denying its consiituiionality. Certain it is, that the gentleman
made a speech on that occasion in support of those resolutions, denoun
cing the system in no very measured terms ; and if my memory serves
me, calling its constiiuiionality in question. I regret that I have not been
able to lay my hands on those proceedings ; but I have seen them, and
cannot be mistaken in their character. At that time. Sir, the Senator
from Massachusetts entertained the very sentiments in relation to the
Tariff which the South now entertains. We next find the Senator from
Massachusetts expressing his opinion on the Tariff, as a member of the
House of Representatives from the city of Boston, in 1824. On that oc
casion, Sir, the gentleman assumed a position 'Which commanded the re
spect and admiration of his country. He stood forth the powerful and fear
less champion oifree trade. He met, in that conflict, the advocates of re
striction and monopoly, and they "fled from before his face." With a
profound sagacity, a fullness of knowledge, and a richness of illustration
that has never been surpassed, he maintained and established the princi
ples of commercial freedom, on a foundation never to be shaken.- Great
indeed was the victory achieved by the gentleman on that occasion ; most
striking the contrast between the clear, forcible, and convincing argu-

17
ments, by which he carried away the understandings of his hearers, and
the narrow views and wretched sophistry of another distinguished orator,
who may be truly said to have " held up his farthing candle to the sun."
Sir, the Senator from Massachusetts, on that, the proudest day of his
life, like a mighty giant, bore away upon his shoulders, the pillars of the
temple of error and delusion, escaping himself unhurt, and leaving his
adversaries overwhelmed in its ruins. Then it was that he erected to
free trade, a beautiful and enduring monument, and, " inscribed the mar
ble with his name." Mr. President, it is with pain and regret that I now
go forward to the next great era in the political life of that gentleman,
when he was found on this floor, supporting, advocating, and finally voting
for the Tariff of 1828, — that " bill of abominations." By that act. Sir,
the Senator frora Massachusetts has destroyed the labors of his whole life,
and given a wound to the cause of free trade, never to be healed. Sir,
when I recollect the position which that gentleman once occupied, and
that which he now holds in public estimation, in relation to this subject,
it is not at all surprising that the Tariff should be hateful to his ears.
Sir, if I had erected to ray own fame, so proud a monument as that which
the gentleman built up in 18^4, and I could have been tempted to destroy
it with my own hands, I should hate the voice that should ring " the ac
cursed Tariff" in my ears. I doubt not the gentleman feels very much,
in relation to the Tariff, as a certain knight did to "instinct," and with
him would be disposed to exclaira — v
Ah ! no more of that, Hal, an' thou lovest me."
But, Mr. President, to be more serious ; what are we of the South to
think of what we have heard this day.? The Senator from Massachu
setts tells us that the tariff is not an Eastern measure, and treats it as if
the East had no interest in it. The Senator from Missouri insists it is
not a Western measure, and that it has done no good to the West. The
South comes in, and, in the most earnest manner, represents to you, that
this measure, which we are told "is of no value to the East or the West,"
is " utterly destructive of our interests." We represent to you, that it
has spread ruin and devastation through the land, and prostrated our
hopes in the dust. We solemnly declare that we believe the system to
be wholly unconstitutional, and a violation of the compact between the
States and the Union ; and our brethren turn a deaf ear to our complaints,
and refuse to relieve us frora a system " which not enriches them, but
makes us poor indeed." Good God ! Mr. President, has it come to ihis ?
Do gentlemen hold the feelings and wishes of their brethren at so cheap
a rate, that they /efuse to gratify them at so small a price ? Do gentle
men value so lightly the peace and harmony of the country, that they
will not yield a measure of this description to the affectionate entreaties
and earnest remonstrances of their friends ? Do gentlemen estimate the
value of the Union at so low a price, that they will not even make one
effort to bind the States together with the cords of affection ? And has it
come to this ? Is this the spirit in which this Government is to be ad-
ministered ? If so, let me tell gentlemen, the seeds of dissolution are
already sown, and our children will reap the bitter fruit.
The honorable gentleman from Massachusetts, (Mr. Webster,) while
he exonerates me personally, from the charge, intimates that there is a
party in the country, who are looking to disunion. Sir, ifthe gentlemen
had stopped there, the accusation would have " passed by me like the idle
2

wind, which I regard nof." But when he goes on fo give to his accusa
tion a local habitation, and a name, by quoting the expression of a distin-
guished citizen of South CaroHna, (Dr. Cooper,) " that it was time for
the South to calculate tbe value ofthe Union," and in the language of
the bitterest sarcasm, adds, "surely then the Union cannot last longer
than July, 1831 ;" it is impossible to mistake either the allusion, or thc
object of the gentleman. Now, Mr. President, I call upon every one
who hears me to bear witness, that this controver.sy is not of my seeking.
The Senate will do me the justice to remember, that at the time this un
provoked and uncalled for attack was made upon the South, not one word
had been uttered by me, in disparagement of New England ; nor had I
made the most distant allusion either to the Senator from Massachusetts,
or the State he represents. But, Sir, that gentleman has thought proper,
for purposes best known to himself, to strike the South, through me, the
mostunworthy of her servants. He has crossed the border, he has inva
ded the State of South Carolina, is making war upon her citizens, and en
deavoring to overthrow her principles and her institutions. Sir, when
the gentleman provokes me to such a conflict, I meet him atthe threshold,
I will struggle while I have life, for our altars and our firesides — and, if
God gives me strength, I will drive back the invader discomfited. Nor
shall I stop there. If the gentleman provokes the war, he shall have
war. Sir, I will not stop at the border — I will carry the war into the
enemy's territory, and not consent to lay down my arms, until Ihave ob
tained " indemnity for the past, and seourity forthe future." It is with
unfeigned reluctance, Mr. President, that I enter upon the performance
of this part of my duty — I shrink almost instinctively from a course,
however necessary, which may have a tendency to excite sectional feel
ings, and sectional jealousies. But, Sir, the task has been forced upon
me; and 1 proceed right onward to the performance of my duty. Be the
consequences what they may, the responsibility is with those who have
imposed upon me this necessity. The Senator from Massachusetts has
thought proper to cast the first stone ; and if he shall find, according to a
homely adage, " that he lives in a glass house" — on his head be the con
sequences. The gentleman has made a great flourish about his fidelity
to Massachusetts — I shall make no professions of zeal for the interests
and honor of South Carolina — of that, my constituents shall judge. If
there be one State in the Union, Mr. President, (and I say it not in a
boastful spirit,) that may challenge comparisons with any other, for an
uniform, zealous, ardent, and uncalculating devotion to the Union, that
State is South Carolina. Sir, from the very commencement of the Revo
lution, up to this hour, there is no sacrifice, however great, she has not
cheerfully made ; no service she has ever hesitated to perform. She
has adhered to you in your prosperity ; but in your adversity she has
clung tn you, with more than filial affection. No matter what was the
condition of her domestic affairs, though deprived of her resources, divi
ded by parties, or surrounded with difficulties, the call of the country has
been to her as tbe voice of God. Domestic discord ceased at the sound —
every man became at once reconciled to his brethren, and the sons of
Carolina were all seen crowding together to the temple, bringing their
gifts to the altar of their common country.
What, Sir, was the conduct ofthe South during the Revolution ? Sir,
I honor New England for her conduct in that glorious struggle. But
great as is the praise which belongs to her, I think, at least equal honor

19
is due to the South. They espoused the quarrel of their brethren, with
a generous zeal, which did not suffer them to stop to calculate their inter
est in the dispute. Favorites of the mother country, possessed of neither
ships nor seamen to create a commercial rivalship, they might have found
in their situation a guaranty, that their,trade would be forever fostered
and protected by Great Britain. But trampling on all considerations either
of interest or of safety, they rushed into the conflict, and fighting for prin
ciple, periled all, in the sacred cause of freedom. Never was there ex
hibited in the history of the world higher examples of noble daring, dread
ful suffering and heroic endurance, than by the Whigs of Carolina during
the Revolution. The whole State, from the mountains to the sea, was
overrun by an overwhelming force of enemy. The fruits of industry
perished on the spot where they were produced, or were consumed by the
foe. The " plains of Carolina" drank up the most precious blood of her
citizens. Black and smoking ruins marked the places which had been
the habitations of her children ! Driven from their homes, into the gloomy
and almost impenetrable swamps, even there the spiritof liberty survived,
and South Carolina (sustained by the exaraple of her Surapters and her
Marions) proved, by her conduct, that though her soil might be overrun,
the spirit of her people was invincible.
But, Sir, our country was soon called upon to engage in another revo
lutionary struggle, and that too was a struggle for principle. I mean the
political revolution which dates back to '98, and which, if it had not been
successfully achieved, would have left us none ofthe fruits ofthe revolu
tion of '76. The revolution of '98 restored the Constitution, rescued the
liberty of the citizen from the grasp of those who were aiming at its life,
and in the emphatic language of Mr. Jefferson, " saved the Constitution
at its last gasp." And by whora was it achieved ? By the South, Sir,
aided only by the democracy of the North and West.
I come now to the war of 1812 — a war which I well remember was
called in derision (while its event was doubtful) the Southern war, and
sometimes the Carolina war ; but which is now universally acknowledged
to have done more for the honor and prosperity ofthe country, than all
other events in our history put together. What, Sir, were the objects of
that war ? " Free trade and sailor's rights !" It was for the protection of
Northern shipping and New England seamen, that the country flew to
arms. What interest had the South in that contest ? If they had sat down
coldly to calculate the value of their interests involved in it, they would
have found that they had everything to lose, and nothing to gain. But,
Sir, with that generous devotion to country so characteristic of the South,
they only asked, if the rights of any portion of their fellow-citizens had
been invaded ; and when told that Northern ships and New England sea
men had been arrested onthe common highway of nations, they felt that
the honor Of their country was assailed ; and acting on that exalted senti
ment " which feeis a Stain like a wound," they resolved to seek, in open
war, for a redress of those injuries, which it did not become freemen to
endure. Sir, the whole South, animated as by a comraon impulse, cordi
ally united in declaring and promoting that war. South Carolina sent to
your councils, as the advocates and supporters of that war, the noblest of
her sons. How they fulfilled that trust, let a grateful country tell. Not a
measure was adopted, not a battle fought, not a victory won, which contrih.
uted in any degree, to the success of that war, to which Southern councils
and Southern valor did not largely contribute. Sir, since South Carolina

20
is assailed, I must be suffered to speak it to her praise, that at the very
moraent when, in one quarter, we heard it soleranly proclaimed, " that it
did not become a religious and moral people to rejoice at the victories of
our Army or our Navy," her Legislature unanimously
" Resolved, That we will cordially support the Government in the vig
orous prosecution ofthe war, until a peace can be obtained on honorable
terms, and we will cheerfully submit to every privation that may be re
quired of us, by our Government, for the accomplishment of this object."
South Carolina redeemed that pledge. She threw open her treasury to
the Government. .She put at the absolute disposal of the oflncers of the
United States all that she possessed — her men, her money, and her arms.
She appropriated half a million of dollars, on her own account, in defense
of her maritime frontier, ordered a brigade of State troops to be raised,
and when left to protect herself by her own means, never suffered the
enemy to touch her soil, without being instantly driven offer captured.
Such, Sir, was the conduct ofthe South — such the conduct of my own
State in that dark hour " which tried men's- souls."
When 1 look back and contemplate the spectacle exhibited at that time,
in another quarter- of the Union — when I think of the conduct of certain
portions of New England, and remember the part which was acted on that
memorable occasion by the political associates of the gentleman from
Massachusetts — nay, when I follow, that gentleman into the councils ofthe
nation, and listen to his voice during the darkest period ofthe war, I am
indeed astonished that he should venture to touch upon the topics which he
has introduced into this debate. South Carolina reproached by Massachu
setts ! And from whom does the accusation corae ? Not from the De
mocracy of New England : for they have been in times past, as they are
now, the friends and allies of the South. No, Sir, the accusation comes
from that party whose acts, during the most trying and eventful period of
our national history, were of such a character, that their own Legislature
but a few years ago, actually blotted them out from their records, as a stain
upon the honor of the country. But how can they ever be blotted out
from the recollection of any one who had a heart to feel, a mind to com
prehend, and a memory to retain, the events of that day ! Sir, I shall not
attempt to write the history ofthe party in N. England, to which I have
alluded — the war party in peace, and the peace party in war. That task
I shall leave to some future biographer of Nathan Dane, and I doubt not
it will be found quite easy to prove that the peace party of Massachusetts
were the only defenders of their country, during their war, and actually
achieved all our victories by land and sea. In the meantime. Sir, and
until that history shall be written, I propose, with the feeble and glim
mering lights which I possess, to review the conduct of this party, in con
nection with the war, andthe events which immediately preceded it.
It will be recollected. Sir, that our great causes of quarrel with Great
Britain, were her depredations on Northern commerce, and the impress-
ment of New England seamen. From every quarter weVere called upon
for protection. Importunate as the West is now represented to be on an-
toher subject, the importunity of the East on that occasion was far greater.
1 hold in my hands the evidence ofthe fact. Here are petitions, memo
rials, and remonstrances from all parts of New England, setting forth the
injustice, the oppressions, the depredations, the insults, the outrages com
mitted by Great Britain against the unoffending commerce and seamen of
New England, and calling upon Congress for redress. Sir, I cannot stop

21
to read these meraorials. In that from Boston, after stating the alarming
and extensive condemnation ofour vessels by Great Britain, which threat
ened " to sweep our commerce from the face of the ocean," and " to in
volve our merchants in bankruptcy," they call upon the Government
" to assert our rights, and to adopt such raeasures as will support the dig
nity and honor ofthe United States."
From Salem, we heard a language still more decisive ; they call ex
plicitly for " an appeal to arms," and pledge their lives -and property, in
support of any measures which Congress might adopt. From Newbury.
port, an appeal was raade " to the firmness and justice of the Govern
ment, to obtain compensation and protection." It was here, I think, that
when the war was declared, it was resolved " to resist our own Govern
ment even unto blood." (Olive Branch, p. 101.)
In other quarters, the comraon language of that day, was thatour com
merce, and our seamen, were entitled to protection ; and that it was the
duty of the Government to afford it, at evei'y hazard. The conduct of
Great Britain, we were then told, was " an outrage upon our National In
dependence." These clamors, which commenced as eai'ly as Jan., 1806,
were continued up to 1812. In a message from the Governor of one of '
the New England States, as late as the 10th October, 1811, this language
is held, " a manly and decisive course has become indispensable ; a course
to satisfy foreign nations, that while we desire peace, we have the means
and the spirit to repel aggression. We are false to ourselves, when our
commerce, or our territorj'^, is invaded with impunity."
About this time, however, a remarkable change was observable in the
tone and temper of those who had been endeavoring to force the country
into a war. The language of complaint was changed into that of insult ;
and calls for protection, converted into reproaches. " Smoke, smoke,"
(says one writer,) " ray life on it, our Executive have no more idea of
declaring war, than my grandmother.*" " The Committee of Ways and
Means," (says another,) " have come out with their Pandora's Box of
taxes, and yet nobody dreams of war." " Congress do not mean to declare,
war; they dare not." But why multiply examples ? An honorable mem
ber of the other House, from the city of Boston, [Mr. Quincy,] in a speech
delivered on the 3d April, 1812, says, " Neither proraises, nor threats,
nor asseverations, nor oaths, will make me believe that you will goto
war. The navigation States are saft-ificed, and the spirit and character
ofthe country, prostrated by fear and avarice;" "you cannot," said the
same gentleman, on another occasion, " be kicked into a war."
Well, Sir, the war at length came, and what did we behold ? The very
men who had been for six years, clamorous for war, and for whose pro
tection it was wagedj_becameat.^once equally clamorous against it. They
had received a miraculous visitation ; a ne W~Hght suddenly beamed upon
their minds, the scales fell from their eyes, and it was discovered, that the
war was declared from "subserviency to France ;" and that Congress,
and the executive, "had sold themselves to Napoleon ;" that Great Brit
ain, had in fact " done us no essential injury ;" that she was " the bulwark
ofour religion ;" that where "she took one ofour ships, she protected
twenty :" and, that if Great Britain had impressed a few of our seamen,
it was because " she could not distinguish them from her own." And so
far did this spirit extend, that a coramittee ofthe Massachusetts Legislature
actually fell to calculation, and discovered to their infinite satisfaction,
but to the astonishment of all the world beside, that only eleven Massa-

22
chusetts sailors had ever been impressed. Never shall I forget the ap
peals that had been made to the sympathies ofthe South in behalf of the
" thousands of impressed Americans," who had been torn from their fam
ilies and friends, and " immured in the floating dungeons of Britain."
The most touching pictures were drawn of the hard condition of the Amer
ican sailor, "treated like a slave," forced to fight the battles ofhis ene
my, "lashed to the mast, to be shot at like a dog." But, Sir, the very
moment we had taken up arms in their defense, it was discovered, that all
these were mere "fictions of the brain ;" and that the whole number in
the State of Massachusetts, was but eleven ; and that even these, had
been " taken by mistake." Wonderful discovery! The Secretary of
State had collected authentic lists of no less than six thousand impressed
Americans. Lord Castlereagh himself acknowledged sixteen hundred.
Calculations on the basis of the number found on board of the Guerriere,
the Macedonian, the Java, and other British ships, (captured by the skill
and gallantry of those heroes, whose achievements are the treasured monu
ments oftheir country's glory,) fixed the number at seven thousand : and
yet, it seems, Massachusetts had lost but eleven ! Eleven Massachusetts
sailors taken by mistake ! A cause of war indeed ! Their ships too, the
capture of which had threatened " universal bankruptcy," it was discov
ered that Great Britain was their friend and protector ; " where she had
taken one she had protected twenty." Then was the discovery made,
that subserviency to France, hostility to commerce, " a determination on
the part of the South and west,_ to,.break_dgffiji^ the E astern States," and
"i^pecialiyTtasTepgTted' by aTcommittee of the MasiacBusetts^Ijegislature)
"to force the sons of coramerce to populate the wilderness," 'were the
true causes of the war."* But let us look a little farther into the conduct
ofthe peace party of New England, at that important crisis. Whatever
difference of opinion might have existed as to the causes of the war, the
country had aright to expect, that, when once involved in the contest, all
America would have cordially united in its support. Sir, the war effected,
in its progress, a union of all parties at the South. But not so in New
England; there; great efforts were made to stir up the minds of the peo
ple to oppose it. Nothing was lefl undone, to embarrass the financial
operations of the Government, to prevent the enlistraent of troops, to keep
back the men and money of New England from the service of the Union,
to force the President from his seati» Yes, Sir, " the Island of Elba ! or
a halter !" were the alternatives they presented tothe excellent and ven
erable James Madison. Sir, the war was further opposed, by openly car
rying on illicit trade with the enemy, by permitting that enemy to estab
lish herself on the very soil of Massachusetts, and by opening a free trade
between Great Britain and America, with a separate Custom House.
Yes, Sir, those who cannot endure the thought that we should insist on a
free trade, in time of profound peace, could, without scruple, claim, and
exercise the right of carrying on a free trade with the enemy in a time
of war ; and finally, by getting up the renowned " Hartford Convention,"
and preparing the way for an open resistance to the Governraent, and a
separation ofthe States. Sir, if I am asked for the proof of those things,
I fearlessly appeal to cotemporary history, to the public documents ofthe
country, to the recorded opinion, and acts of public assemblies, to the
Olive Branch, pagea 134, 2'Jl.

g3
declBration and acknowledgments, since made, of the Executive and Le
gislature of Massachusetts herself*
Sir, the time has not been allowed me to trace this subject through,
even if I had been disposed to do so. But I cannot refi'ain from referring
to one or two documents, which have fallen in my way since this debate
began. I read. Sir, from the Olive Branch of Matthew Carey, in which
are collected " the actings and doings" ofthe Peace party of New Eng
land, tiuring the continuance ofthe embargo, and the war, I know the
Senator from Massachusetts will respect the high authority of his politi
cal friend and fellow laborer in the great cause of "domestic industry,"
In page 301, et seq. 9 of this work, is a detailed account ofthe meas
ures adopted in Massachusetts, during the war, for the express purpose of
embarrassing the financial operations of the Government, by preventing
loans and thereby driving our rulers from their seats, and forcing the
country into a dishonorable peace. It appears that the Boston Banks
commenced an operation, by which a run was to be made upon all the
banks to the South ; at the same time stopping their own discounts ; the
effect of whioh was to produce a sudden and most alarming diminution
ofthe circulating medium, and universal distress over the whole country,
a distress which they failed not to attribute to the "unholy war."
To such an extent was this system carried, that it appears from a
statement ofthe condition ofthe Boston Banks, made up in Jan., 1814,
that with nearly $5,000,000 of specie in their vaults, they had but
^2,000,000 of bills in circulation. It is added by Carey, that at this
very time an extensive trade was carried on in British Government Bills,
for which specie was sent to Canada, for the payment of the British
troops, then laying waste our Northern frontier, and this too at the very
moment when New England ships, sailing under British licences, (a
trade declared to be lawful by the Courts both of Great Britain and Mas
sachusetts,"}" were supylying with provisions those very armies destined
for the invasion ofour own shores. Sir, the author of the Olive Branch,
with a holy indignation, denounces these acts as "treasonable !" " giv
ing aid and comfort to the eneray." I shall not follow his exaraple.
But I will ask, with what justice or propriety can the South be accused
of disloyalty from that quarter ? If we had any evidence that the Sena
tor from Massachusetts had admonished his brethren then, he might, with
a better grace, assume the office of admonishing us now.
When I look at the measures adopted in Boston at that day, to deprive
* In answer to an addfcsa of Governor Eustis, denouncing the conduct of the Peace Party, during
the war, the House of Representatives of Massachusetts, in June, 1823, say — '-The change of the
political sentiments evinced in the late elections, forms indeed a new ei-a in the history of our Com-
monweaith. It is the triumph of reason, over passion ; of patriotism, over party spirit. Massachu
setts has returned to her first love, and is no longer a stranger in the Union. We rejoic? that, though
during the last war. such measures were adopted in this State, as occasioned double sacrifice of treas
ure and of life ; covered the friends of the nation with humiliation and mourning, and fixed a stain
on the page of our history : a redeeming spirit has at length arisen, to take away our reproach, and
restore to us our good name, our rank among our sister Stales, and our just influence in the Union.
" Though we wiiuld not renew contentions, or irritate wantonly, we believe that there are cases,
when it is necessary we should ' wound to heal.' And we consider it among the first duties of the
friends ofour National Government, on this return of power, to disavow the unwarrantable course
pursued by this State, during the late war ; and to hold up the measures of that period, as beacons ;
that tbe present and succeeding generations, may shun that career which must inevitably terminate
in the destruction of the individual, or party who pursues it : and may learn the important lesson,
that, in all tiines, the path of duty is the path of safety ; and that it is never dangerous to rally around
the standard of our country."
1 2d Dodson's Admiralty Reports, 48. 13th Mass. Reports, 26.

24
the Government of the necessary means for carrying on the war, and
think ofthe success, and the consequences ofthese measures, I feel my
pride as an American, humbled in the dust. Hear, Sir, the language of
that day— I read from pages 301 and 302 ofthe Olive Branch: "Let no
man who wishes to continue the w^r, by active means, by vote, or lending
money, dare to prostrate himself at the altar on the fast day." " Will
Federalists subscribe to the loan ? Will they lend money to our National
rulers ? It is impossible. First, because of principle, and secondly, be
cause of principal and interest." "Do not prevent the abusers oftheir
trust from becoming bankrupt. Do not prevent them from becoraing
odious to the public, and being replaced by better men." " Any Fed
eralist who lends money to Government, must go and shake hands with
James Madison, and claira fellowship with Felix Grundy." (I beg par
don of my honorable friend from Tennessee— but he is in good company.
I had thought it was "James Madison, Felix Grundy and the Devil.")
Let him no more " call himself a Federalist, and a friend to his country,
he will be called by others infaraous," &c.
Sir, the spirit of the people sunk under these appeals. Such was the
effect produced by them on the public mind, that the very agents ofthe
Government, (as appears from their public advertisements, now before
me,) could not obtain loans, without a pledge, that " the names of the
subscribers should pot be known." Here are the advertisements — " The
names of all subscribers, (say Gilbert and Dean, the brokers employed by
Government,) " shall be known only to the undersigned." As if those
who came forward to aid their country, in the hour of her utmost need,
were engaged in some dark and foul conspiracy, they were assured " that
their names should not be known." Can anything show more conclusive
ly the unhappy state of public feeling which prevailed at that day, than
this single fact ? Of the same character with these measures, was the
conduct of Massachusetts, in withholding her Militia from the service of
the United States, and devising measures for withdrawing her quota of the
taxes, thereby atterripting, not merely to cripple the resources ofthe coun
try, but actually depriving the Government, (as far as depended upon
her,) of all the means of carrying on the war — ofthe bone, and muscle,
and sinews of war — " of man and steel — the soldier and his sword."
But it seems Massachusetts was to reserve her resources for herself — she
was to defend and protect her own shores. And how was that duty per
formed ? In some places on the coast neutrality was declared, and the
enemy was suffered to invade the soil of Massachusetts, and allowed to
occupy her territory, until the peace, without one effort to rescue it from
his graspj Nay, more — while our own Government, and our rulers
were considered as enemies, the troops of the enemy were treated like
friends — the most intimate comrnercial relations were established with
them, and maintained up to the peace. At this dark period of our na
tional affairs, where was the Senator from Massachusetts ? How were
his political associates employed ? " Calculating the value ofthe Union ?"
Yes, Sir, that was the propitious moment, when our country stood alone,
the last hope ofthe world, struggling for her existence against the colos
sal power of Great Britain, " concentrated in one mighty effort to crush
us at a blow" — that was the chosen hour to revive the grand scheme of
building up " a great Northern Confederacy" — a scheme, which, it is
stated in the work before me, had its origin as far back as the year 1796,
and which appears never to have been entirely abandoned.

25
In the language of the writers of that day, (1796) "rather than have
a Constitution such as the Anti-Federalists were contending for, (such as
weare now contending for,) the Union ought to be dissolved;" andto
prepare the way for that measure, the same methods were resorted to then,
that have always heen relied on for that purpose, isxcitingprejudice against
the South. Yes, sir, our Northern brethren were then fold, "that ifthe
negroes were good for food, their Southern masters would claim the right
to destroy them at pleasure."* Sir, in 1814, all these topics were revived.
Again we hear of "a Northern confederacy." " The Slave States by
themselves ;" " the mountains are the natural boundary;" we want neither
" the counsels nor the power of the West," &c. &.c- The papers teemed
with accusations against the South and the West, and the calls for a disso
lution of all connection with themjwere loud and strong. I cannot con
sent to go through the disgusting details. But to show the height to which
the spirit ol disaffection was carried, I will take^you to the temple ofthe
living God, and show you that sacred place (which should be devoted to
the extension of " peace on earth and good will towards men," where
" one day's truce ought surely to be allowed to the dissensions and ani
mosities of raankind," converted into a fierce arena oj political strife,
where, from the lips of the Priest, standing between the horns of the
altar, there went forth the most terrible denunciations against all who
should be true to their country, in the hour of her utmost need.
" If you do not wish," said a reverend clergyman, in a sermon preach
ed in Boston, on the 23d July, 1812, "to become the slavesof those who
own slaves, and who are themselves the slaves of French slaves, you must
either, inthe languageof the day, cut the connectiojvj, or so far alter the
national compact, as to ensure to yourselves a due share in the Govern
ment." (Olive Branch, page 319.) "The Union," says the same writer,
(page 320,) "has been long since virtually dissolved- and it is full time,
that this part of the disunited States, should take care of itself"
Another reverend Gentleman, Pastor of a Church at Medford, (page
321,) issues his anathema — " let him stand accursed" — against all, all
who by their " personal services," or " loans of money," " conversation,"
or " writing," or "influence," gives countenance, or support to the un
righteous war, in the following terms — "that man is an accomplice in
the wickedness — he loads his conscience with the blackest crimes — he
brings the guilt of blood upon his soul, and in the sight of God, and his
law, ht is a murderer I"'
One or two raore quotations, Sir, and I shall have done. A reverend
Doctor of Divinity, the Pastor of a Church at Byfield, Massachusetts, on
the 7th of April, 1814, thus addresses his flock, (321)—-" The Israelites
became weary of yielding the fruit of their labor to pamper their splendid
Tyrants. They left their political woes. Thev separated ; where is
our Moses? Where the rod of his miracles? Where is our Aaron?
Alas ! no voice from the burning bush has directed them here."
" We must trample on the mandates of despotism, or remain slaves for
ever." (P. 322.) "You must drag the chains of Virginian despotism
unless you discover some other mode of escape." " Those Western States
which have been violent for this abominable war — those States which have
thirsted for blood — God has given them blood to drink." (323.) Mr. Pres
ident, I can go no further. The records ofthe day are full of such senti
ments, issued from the press, spoken in public assemblies, poured out from
Olive Branch, p. 267.

26
the sacred desk I God forbid, sir, that I should charge the people of Mas
sachusetts with participating in these sentiments. The South, and the
West, had there, their friends, — men who stood by their country, though
encompassed all around by their enemies. The senator from Massachu
setts, (Mr. Silsbee,) was one of them ; the senator from Connecticut,
(Mr. Foot,) was another, and there are others now on this floor. The
sentiraents I have read, were the sentiments of a party, embracing the
political associates of the gentleman from Massachusetts. If they could
only be found in the columns of a newspaper, in a few occasional pam
phlets, issued by raen of intemperate feeling, I should not consider them
as affording any evidence ofthe opinions, even of the peace party of New
England. But, sir, they were the common language of that day ; they
pervaded the whole land ; they were issued from the Legislative Hall —
from the pulpit, and the press. Our books are full of thera ; and there
is no man who now hears me, but knows, that they were the sentiraents
of a party, by whose members they vvere promulgated. Indeed, no evi
dence of this world seem to be required, beyond the fact ih^t such senti
ments found their way even into the pulpits of New England. What
must be the state of public opinion, where any respectable clergyman
would venture to preach, and to print sermons, containing the sentiments
1 have quoted. I doubt not the piety, or raoral worth of these gentlemen.
I am told they were respectable and pious men- But they were men, and
they " kindled in a common blaze." And now, sir, I must be suffered
to reraark, that at this awful and raelancholy period of our national his
tory, the gentleraan frora Massachusetts, who now manifests so great a
devotion to the Union, and so much anxiety lest it should be endangered
from the South was " with his brethren in Israel " He savv all these
things passing before his eyes — he heard these sentiments uttered
all around him. I do not charge that gentleraan with any participation
in these acts, or with approving of these sentiments.
Bul I will ask, why, if he was animated by the same sentiments then,
which he now professes, if he can " augur disunion at a distance, and snuff
up rebellion in every tainted breeze," whyd|dhg_j«rt7arthatd.ay., exgrt
li',lff|^talentSj3nid_Miknxiw[edged influence, with the political associates
by wBTJnrhFw^^surTounded, and who theijj as novv, looked upto him for
guidance and direction, in allaying this general excitement, in pointing
out to his deluded friends, the value of the Union, in instructing them,
that instead of looking " to some prophet to lead them out of theland of
¦^gyP'i" they should becorae reconciled to their brethren, and unite with
ihem in the support of a just and necessary war ? Sir, the gentleman
must excuse me for saying, that if the records of our country, afforded
any evidence that he had pursued such a course, then if vve could find it
recorded in the history of those tiraes, that, like the immortal Dexter, he
had breasted that mighty torrent, which was sweeping before it all that
was great and valuable in our political institutions — if like him he had
stood by his country in opposition 10 his party. Sir,- vve would, like little
children, listen to his precepts and abide by his counsels.
As soon as the public mind was sufficiently prepared for the measure,
the celebrated Hartford Convention was got up ; not as the act of a few
unauthorized individuals, bul by authority of the Legislature of Massa
chusetts ; and, as has been shown by the able historian of that Conven
tion, in accordance with the views and wishes of the party, of which it
was the organ. Now, Sir, I do not desire to call in question the motives

27
of the gentlemen who composed that assembly — I knew raany of them to
be in private life accoraplished and honorable men and I doubt not there
were sorae araong them who did not perceive the dangerous tendency of
their proceedings. I will even go further, and say, that if the authors of
the Hartford Conveniion believed, that " gross, deliberate, and palpable
violations of the Constitution" had taken place, utterly destructive of their
rights and interests, I should be the last man to deny their rights to resort
to any constitutional measures for redress. But, Sir,, in any view of the
case, the time when, and the circumstances under which that Convention
assembled, as well as the measures recommended, render their conduct,
in my opinion, wholly indefensible. Let us contemplate, for a moment,
the spectacle then exhibited to the view ofthe world. 1 will not go over
the disasters of the war, nor describe the difficulties in which the govrn -
ment vvas involved. It will be recollected that its credit was nearly gone,
Washington had fallen, the whole coast was blockaded, and an immense
force collected in the West Indies, was about to make a descent, which
it was supposed we had no raeans of resisting. In this awful state of our
public affairs, when the Government seeraed almost to be tottering on its
base, when Great Britain, relieved from all her other enemies, had pro
claimed her purpose of " reducing us to unconditional subraission" — we
beheld the peace party of New England, (in the language of the work
before us) pursuing a course calculated to do more injury to their coun
try, and to render England more effective service, than all her armies."
Those who could not find it in their hearts to rejoice at our victories,
sang Te Deum at the King's Chapel in Boston, for the restoration ofthe
Bourbons. Those who could not consent to illuminate their dwellings for
the capture ofthe Guerriere, could give no visible tokens oftheir joy at
the fall of Detroit. The " beacon fires" of their hills vvere lighted up,
not for the encouragement of their friends, but as signals to the enemy ;
and in the glooray hours of midnight, the very lights burned blue. Such
were the dark and portentous signs of the times, which ushered into be
ing the renowned Hartford Convention. That Convention met, and from
their proceedings it appears, that their chief object was to keep back the
men and money of New England from the service of the Union, and to
effect radical changes in the Government — changes that can never be
effected without a dissolution of the Union.
Let us now, Sir, look at their proceedings. I read from " A short ac
count of the Hartford Convention," (written by one of its members, ) a
very rare book, of which I was fortunate enough a few years ago, to ob
tain a copy. [Here Mr. H. read frora the proceedings.*]
It appears at p. 6 of " The Account," that by a vote of the House of Representatives of Massachu
setts, (260 lo 90) delegates to this Convention were ordered to be appointed to consult upon the sub
ject ' of their public grievances and concerns." and upon " the best means of preserving their re
sources," and for procuring a revision of the Constitution of the United States, " more efi'ectually to
secure the support and attachment of allthe people, by placing all upon the basis of fair representation."
The Convention assembled at Hartford on the 15th December, 1814. On the next day it was
Jinsidved, That the most inviolable secrecy shall be observed by each member of this Convention,
including the Secretary, as to all propositions, debate and proceedings thereof until this injunction
shall be suspended or altered.
On the 24th of Decemher, the Committee appointed to prepare and report a general project of such
measures as may be jiroper for the convention to adopt, reported, among other things,
" 1. That it was expedient to recommend to the Legislatures of the States, the adoption of the
most etfectual and decisive measures, to protect tbe militia of the States from the usurpations con
tained in these proceedings." [The proceedings of Congress and the Executive, in relation to the
militia and the war.]
"2. That it was expedient also to prepare a statement, exhibiting the necessity which the improvi
dence and inability of the General Government have imposed upon the States of providing for Iheir

28
It is unnecessary to trace the matter further, or to ask what would have
been the next chapter in this history, ifthe measures recommended had
been carried into effect ; and if, with the men and money of New Eng
land withheld from the Government of the United States, she had been
withdrawn frora the war ; if New Orieans had fallen into the hands of
the enemy, and if, without troops and almostdestituteof money, the South
ern and the Western States had been thrown upon their own resources,
for the prosecution of the war, and the recovery of New Orleans ?
Sir, whatever raay have been the issue of the contest, the Union must
have been dissolved. But a wise and just Providence, which " shapes our
ends, rough hew thera as we will," gave us the victory, and crowned our
efforts with a glorious peace. The Ambassadors of Hartford were seen
retracing their steps from Washington, "the bearers of the glad tidings
of great joy,." Courage and patriotism triumphed — the country was
saved  the Union was preserved. /^And are we, Mr. President, who stood
by our country then ; who threw open our coffers ; who bared our bos
oras ; who freely periled all in that conflict, to be reproached with want
of attachment to the Union ? If, Sir, we are to have lessons of patrio-
ism read to us, they must coTtie from a different quarter. The Senator
from Massachusetts, vvho is now so sensitive on all subjects connected
with the Union, seems to have a memory forgetful of the political events
that have passed away. I must therefore refresh his recollection a little
farther on these subjects. The History of Disunion has been written by
one, whose authority stands too high with the Araerican people to be ques
tioned, I mean Thomas Jefferson — 1 know not how the gentleraan may re
ceive this authority. When ihatgreat and good man occupied the Presiden
tial chair, 1 believe he commanded no portion of the gentleman's respect
I hold in my hand a celebrated pamphlet on the Embargo, in which
language is held in relation to Mr. Jefferson, which my respect for his
raemory will prevent me from reading, unless any gentleman should call
for it. But the Senator from Massachusetts has since joined in singing
hosannas to his narae — he has assisted at his apotheosis, and has fixed him
as " a brilliant star in the clear upper sky." I hope, therefore, he is now
prepared to receive with deference and respect the high authority of Mr.
Jefferson In the fourth volume of his Memoirs, which has just issued
from the press, vve have the following history of disunion, frora the pen
of that illustrious statesman ; " Mr. Adams called on me pending the Em
bargo, and while endeavors were raaking to obtain its repeal; he spoke
own defense, and the impossibility of their discharging this duty, and at the sarae lime fulfilling the
requisitions of the General Government, and also to recommend to the Legislatures of the several
States, to make provison for mutual defense, and to make an earnest application to the Government
of the United States, with a view to some arrangement whereby llie States may be enabled to retain
a portion ofthe taxes levied by Congress, for the purposes of self defense, and for the re-inibursement
of expenses already incurred on account of the United States."
" 3. That it is expedient to recommend to the several Slate Legislatures, certain amendments to
the Constiiution, viz
That the power to declare or make war, by the Congress of the United States, be restricted.
That it is expedient to attempt to make provision for restraining Congress in the exercise of an un
limited power to make new States, and admit them into the Union.
That an amendment be proposed respecting stave representation, and slave taxation."
On tho 29th of December, 1814, it was proposed " that the capacity of naturalized citizens to hold
offices of trust, honor or profit, ought to be restrained," &c.
The subsequent proceedings are not given at larje. But it seems that the Report of the Committee
was adopted, and also a recommendation of certain measures (of the character of which we are not
informed,) to the States for their mutual defense ; and having voted tliatlhe injunction nf secrecy, in
regard to all the debates and proceedings of the Conveniion, (except so far as relates to the Report
finally adopted,) be continued," the Convention adjourned sine die, but, as it was suppo.sed, to meet
again when circuinstances should require it.

29
of the dissatisfaction of the Eastern portion of our Confederacy with the
restraints of the Embargo then existing, and their restlessness under it.
That there was nothing which might not be atterapted, to rid themselves
of it. That he had information of the most unquestionable authority,
that certain citizens of the Eastern States, (I think he naraed Massachu
setts particularly,) were in negotiation with agents of the British Gov
ernraent, the object of which was an agreement that the New England
States should take no further part in the war, (the comraercial war, the
" war of restrictions," as it was called,) then going on, and that with
out formally declaring their separation from the Union, they should with
draw from all aid and obedience to them, &c. From that moraent, says
Mr. J., I savv the necessity of abandoning it, [the erabargo,] and, instead
of effecting our purpose by this peaceful measure, we must fight it out,
or break the Union." In another letter, Mr. Jefferson adds: "I doubt
whether a single fact known to the world, will carry as clear conviction to
it of the correctness of our knowledge of the treasonable views ofthe
Federal party of that day, as that disclosed by this, the most nefarious
and daring attempt to dissever the Union, of which the Hartford Conven
tion was a subsequent chapter; and both of these having failed. Consoli
dation becomes the fourth chapter of the next book of their history.
But this opens with a vast accession of strength, from their younger re
cruits, who having nothing in them of the feelings and principles of '76,
uow look to a single and splendid Government, &c., riding and ruling
over the plundered ploughman, and beggared yeomanry." (4 vol. 419, 422.)
The last chapter, says Mr. Jefferson, of that history, is to be found in
the conduct of those who are endeavoring to bring about consolidation ;
aye, Sir, that very consolidation, for which the gentleman from Massa
chusetts is contending — the_exercise by the Federal Government, of j)ow-
ers not delegated in relation to " internal improvements" and " the pro-
te,ciipn of "manufactures." And why, Sir, "does Mr. Jefferson coiisicrer
consolidatT6n~as4eading directly to disunion ? Because he knew that the
exercise by the Federal Government, ofthe powers contended for, would
raake this "a Government without limitation of powers," the submission
to which, he considered as a greater evil than disunion itself There is
one chapter in this history, however, which Mr. Jefferson has not filled
up ; and I must, therefore supply the deficiency. It is to be found in the
protests made by New England against the acquisition of Louisiana. In
relation to that subject, the New England doctrine is thus laid down by
one of her learned Doctors of that day, now a Doctor of Laws, at the
head of the great literary institution ofthe East; I mean Josiah Cluincy,
President of Harvard College. I quote from the speech delivered by
that gentleman on the floor of Congress, on the occasion of the admis
sion of Louisiana into the Union.
" Mr, Q,uincy repeated and justified a remark he had made, which, to
save ali misapprehension, he had committed to writing, in the following
words : If this bill passes, it is ray deliberate opinion, that it is virtually
a dissolution of the Union; that it will free the States frora their moral
obligation; and as it will be the right of all, so it will be, the duty of
some, to prepare for' a separation, amicably if they can, violently if they
must." Mr. President, I wish it to be distinctly understood, that all the remarks
I have raade on this subject, are intended to be exclusively applied to a
party, which I have described as the "Peace party of New England" —

30
embracing the political associates of the Senator frora Massachusetts — a
party which controlled the operations of that State during the Erabargo,
and the War, and who are justly chargeable with all the measures I have
reprobated. Sir, nothing has been further from my thoughts, than to
irapeach the character, or conduct, ofthe people of New England. F^r
their steady habits, and hardy virtues, I trust I entertain a becoming
respect. I fully subscribe to the truth of the description given before the
Revolution, by one whose praise is the highest eulogy, "that the perse-
,verance of Holland, the activity of France, and the dexterous and firm sa
gacity of English enterprise, have been raore than equalled by this " re
cent people." Hardy, enterprising, sagacious, industrious and moral, —
the people of New England of the present day, are worthy oftheir ances
tors. Still less, Mr. President, has it been my intention to say any thing
that could be construed into a want of respect for that party, who,
trampling on all narrow, sectional feeling, have been true to their princi
ples in the worst of times — I mean the Democracy of New England.
Sir, I will declare that, highly as I appreciate the Democracy of the
South, I consider even higher praise to be due to the democracy of New
England — who have raaintained their principles "through good and
through evil report," who, at every period of our national history, have
stood up raanfully for "their country, their whole country, and nothing
but their country." In the great political revolution of '98, they were
found united with the democracy of the South, marching under the ban
ner of the Constitution, led on by the patriarch of liberty, in search ofthe
land of political promise, vvhich they lived not only to behold, but to pos
sess, and to enjoy. Again, Sir, in the darkest and most glooray period
of the war, when our country stood sihgle handed, against " the conque
ror ofthe conquerorsof the world," when all abont and around them was
dark and dreary, disastrous and discouraging, they stood a Spartan band
in that narrow pass, where the honor of their country was to be defend
ed, or to find its grave. And in the last great struggle, involving, as we
believe, the very existence ofthe principle of popular sovereignty, where
were the democracy of New England? Where they always have been
found, Sir, struggling side by side, with their brethren ofthe South and the
West, for popular rights, and assisting in that glorious triumph, by which
the man of the people was elevated to the highest office in their gift.
Who then, Mr. President, are the true friends of the Union? Those
who would confine the Federal Government strictly within the limits pre
scribed by the Constitution ; who would preserve to the States and the
People, all powers not expressly delegated ; who would raake this a Fed
eral and not a National Union, and who, administering the governraent
in a spirit of equal justice, would raake it a blessing and not a curse.
And who are its enemies? Those who are in favor of consolidation  who
are constantly stealing power from the States, and adding strength to the
Federal Government. Who, assuming an unwarrantable jurisdiction
over the States and the People, undertake to regulate the whole industry
and capital of the country. But, sir, of all descriptions of men, I con
sider those as- the worst eneraies of the Union, who sacrifice the equal
rights which belong to every member of the Confederacy, to combina
tions of interested raajorities, for personal or political objects. But the
gentleman iipprehends no evil frora the dependence of the States on the
Federal Government ; he can see no danger of corruption from the influ
ence of money or of patronage- Sir, I know that it is supposed to be a

31
wise saying " that patronage is a source of weakness," and in support of
that maxim, it has been said, that " every ten appointments makes a hun
dred enemies." But I am rather inclined to think, with the eloquent and
sagacious orator now reposing on his laurels, on the banks of the Roan
oke, that, " the power of conferring favors, creates a crowd of depend
ents;" he gave a forcible illustration of the truth of the remark, when
he told us of the effect of holding up the savory morsel to the eager eyes
of the hungry hounds gathered around his door. It mattered not whether
the gift was bestowed on Towseror Sweetlips, " Tray, Blanch, or Sweet
heart," while held in suspense, they were all 'governed by a nod, and
when the morsel was bestowed, the expectation of the favors of to-mor
row, kept up the subjection of to-day.
The senator from Massachusetts, in denouncing what he is pleased to
call the Carolina doctrine, has attempted to throw ridicule iipon. the idea,-
that a State has^ any.Gongtitutional remedy , by the exercise of its sovereign
aiithdi'ity, against "a gross, palpable and deliberate violation ofthe Con
stitution." He calls it " an idle" or a " ridiculous notion," or something
to that effect, and added, that it would make the Union " a mere rope of
sand." Novv, sir, as the gentleman has not condescended to enter into
any exaraination of the question, and has been satisfied with throwing
the weight of his authority into the scale, I do not deem it necessary to
do more than to throw into the opposite scale, the authority on which South
Carolina relies; and there, for the present, I am perfectly willing to leave
the controversy. The South Carolina doctrine, that is to say, the doctrine
contained in an exposition reported by a Committee ofthe Legislature in
December, 1828, and published by their authority, is the good old Repub
lican doctrine of '98 — the doctrine of the celebrated " Virginia Resolu
tions" of that year, and of " Madison's Report" of '99. It will be recol
lected that the Legislature of Virginia, in December '98, took into con
sideration the Alien and Sedition laws, then considered by all Republi
cans as a gross violation of the Constitution of the United States, and on
that day passed, among others, the following resolutions-
" The General Asserably doth explicitly and peremptorily declare, that
it views the Powers of the Federal Government, as resulting frora the
compact to which the States are parties, as limited by the plain sense and
intention of the instrument constituting that compact, as no further valid
than they are authorized by the grants enuraerated in that compact; and
that in case of a deliberate, palpable, and dangerous exercise of other
powers not granted by the said compact, the States who are parties there
to, have the right, and are in duty bound, to interpose for arresting the
progress of the evil, arid for maintaining, within their respective limits^
the authorities, rights, and liberties, appertaining to them"
In addition to the above i-esolution, the General Assembly of Virginia
" appealed to the other State, in the confidence that they would concur
with that Commonwealth, that the acts aforesaid, [the alien and sedition
laws,] are unconstitutional, and that the necessary and proper measures
would be taken by e^ich, for co-operating with Virginia in raaintaining
unimpaired, the authorities, rights, and liberties, reserved to the States
respectively, or to the People.'
The Legislatures of several ofthe New England Stales, having, con
trary to the expectation of the Legislature of Virginia, expressed their
dissent from these doctrines; the subject came up again for considera
tion during the session of 1799, 1800, when it was referred to a select

32
committee, by whom was made that celebrated report which is familiarly
known as " Madison's Report," and which deserves to last as long as the
Constitution itself In that report, which was subsequently adopted by
the Legislature, the whole subject was deliberately reexamined, and the
objections urged against the Virginia doctrines carefully considered. Tbe
result was, that the Legislature of Virginia reaffirmed all the principles
laid down in the resolutions of 1798, and issued to the world that admi
rable report which has stamped the character of Mr. Madison as the pre
server of that Constitution which he had contributed so largely to create
aud establish. I will here, quote frora Mr. Madison's report one or two
passages which- bear raore iraraediately on the point in controversy.
" The resolution having taken this view of the federal compact, proceeds
to infer ' that in case of a deliberate, palpable, and dangerous exercise of
other powers, not granted by the said corapact, the States who are
parties thereto, have the right, and are in duty bound, to interpose
for arresting the progress of the evil, and for maintaining within their
respective liraits, the authorities, rights and liberties, appertaining to
them. ' "
" It appears to youf coraraittee to be a plain principle, founded in com
mon sense, illustrated by coraraon practice, and essential to the nature of
compacts, that, where resort can be had lo no tribunal, superior to the
authorityof the parties, the parties themselves raust be the rightful judges
in the last resort, whether the bargain raade has been pursued or violat
ed. The Constitution of the United- States was -forraed by the sanction
of the StaJ^s^_.giK£jOiy.^each_i,n its__sovereign capacity.^ — It-adds to the
stejiiityanddignity, as well as to the authorify^ofThe Constitution, that
it rests upon this legitiraate and solid foundation. The States, then,
being the parties to the Constitutional compact, and in their sovereign
capacity, it follows of necessity, that there can be no tribunal above their
authority, to decide, in the last resort, whether the compact made by them
be violated, and consequently, that as the parties to it, they must them
selves decide, in the last resort, such questions as may be of sufficient
magnitude to require their interposition.
" The resolution has guarded against any misapprehension of its ob
ject, by expressly requiring for such an interposition ' the case of a de
liberate, palpable and dangerous breach of the Constitution, bythe exer
cise of powers not granted by it.' It must be a case, not of a light and
transient nature, but of a nature dangerous to the great purposes for
which the Constitution was established."
" But the resolution has done more than guard against misconstruction,
by expressly referring to cases of a deliberate, palpable and dangerous
natnre. It specifies the object ofthe interposition, which it contemplates,
to be solely that of arresting the progress of the evil of usurpation, and of
raaintaining the authorities, rights and liberties, appertaining to the States,
as parties to the Constitution."
" Frora this view of the resolution, it would seem inconceivable that it
can incur any just disapprobation from those who, laying aside all mo
mentary impressions, and recollecting the genuine source and object of
the federal Constitution, shall candidly and accurately interpret the mean
ing of the general assembly. Ifthe deliberate exercise of dangerous
powers, palpably withheld by the Constitution, could nor justify the par
ties to it, in interposing even so far as to arrest the progress of the evil,
and thereby to preserve the Constitution itself, as well as to provide for

33
the safety of the parties to it, there would be an end to all relief from
usurped power, and a direct subversion of the rights specified or recog
nized under all the State constitutions, as well as a plain denial of the
fundaraental principles on which our independence itself was declared."
But, Sir, our authorities do not stop here. The State of Kentucky re
sponded to Virginia, and on the lOth of November, 1798, adopted those
celebrated resolutions, well known to have been penned by the author
of the Declaration of American Independence. In those resolutions, the
Legislature of Kentucky declare "That the government created by this
compact, was not made the exclusive or final judge of the extent of the
powers delegated to itself, since that would have made its discretion, and
not the Constitution, the raeasure of its powers; but that, as in all other
cases of corapact among parties having no coraraon judge, each party
has an equal right to judge, for itself, as well of infractions as of the
mode and measure of, redress."
At the ensuing session ofthe Legislature, the subject was reexamined,
and on the I4th of November, 1799, the resolutions of the preceding
year, were deliberately reaffirmed, and it was, among olher things, sol
emnly declared :
" That if, those who administer the General Government be permitted
to transgress the liraits fixed by that corapact, by a total disregard to the
special delegations of power therein contained, an annihilation of the
State Governraents, and the erection upon their ruins of a general consol-
dated government will be the inevitable consequence. That the princi
ples of construction contended for by sundry of the State Legislatures,
that the General Governraent is the exclusive judge of the extent of the
powers delegated to it, stop nothing short of despotism ; since the dis
cretion of those who adrainister the government, and not the Constitution,
would be the measure of their powers. That the several States who
formed that instruinent, being sovereign and independent, have the un
questionable right to judge of its infraction, and that a nullification by
those sovereignties, of all unauthorized acts done under color of that in
struraent, is the rightful reraedy."
Tirae and experience confirraed Mr. Jefferson's opinion on this all im
portant point. In the year 182 1 -, he expressed himself in this emphatic
manner. " It is a fatal heresy to suppose that either our State govern
ments are superior to the Federal, or the Federal to the State; neither
is authorized literally to decide which belongs to itself or its copartner
in government; in differences of opiuion, betvveen their different sets of
public servants, the appeal is to neither, but to their employers peacea
bly asserabled by their representatives in Convention." The opinion of
Mr. Jefferson on this subjefct, has been so repeatedly and so solemnly ex-
xpressed, that they may be said to have been among the most fixed and
settled convictions of his mind.
In the protest prepared by him for the Legislature of Virginia, in De
cember, 1825, in respect to the powers exercised by the Federal Govern
raent in relation to the Tariff and Internal Iraproveraents, which he de
clares to be "usurpations of the powers retained by the States, raere in
terpolations into the compact, and direct infractions of it," he solemnly
reasserts all the principles of the Virginia resolutions of '98 — protests
against " these acts of the federal branch of the government, as null and
void, and declares that although Virginia would consider a dissolution
ofthe Union as among the greatest calamities that could befall them, yet
3

34
it is not the greatest. There is one yet greater — snbmission to a govern
raent of unlimited powers. It is only when the hope of this shall become
absolutely desperate, fhat further forbearance could not be indulged."
In his letter lo Mr. Giles, written about the same time, he says ;
" I see as you do, and with the deepest affliction, the rapid strides with
which the federal branch of our Government is advancing towards the
usurpation of all the rights reserved to the States, and the consolidation
in itself of all powers, foreign and domestic, and that too by constructions
which leave no limits to their powers, &c. Under the power to regulate
commerce, they assume, indefinitely, that also over agriculture and
manufactures, &c. Under the authority to establish Post Roads, they
claim that of cutting down rnoniitains for the construction of roads, and
digging canals, &.c. And what is our resource for tbe preservation of
the Constitution ? Reason and Arguraent ? You might as well reason
and argue with the marble colurans encircling them, &c. Are we then
lo stand to our arms with the hot-headed Georgian ? No : [and I say
no, and South Carolina has said no,] that must be the last resource. We
must have patience and long endurance with our brethren, &c., and sep
arate from our companions only when the sole alternatives left are a dis
solution of owr Union with them, or submission to a government without
limitation of powers. Between these two evils, when we must make a
choice, there can be no hesitation."
Such, Sir, are the high and imposing authorities in support of " tbe
Carolina doctrine," which is, in fact, the doctrine ofthe Virginia Reso-
Jutions of 1798.
Sir, at that day the whole country was divided on this very question,
^t formed the line of demarcation between the federal and republican
parties; and the great political revolution which then took place, turned
upon the very questions involved in these resolutions. That question
was decided by the people, and by that decision tbe Constitutiori- waa,iD
the-em.phatlFJJTlguage'^orlilr- Jeffersbn,;^^^aved ^i its last gasp^" I
should suppose, Sir, it vvould require more self-respect than, any gentle
man here would be willing to assume, to treat lightly doctrines derived
from such high resources. Resting on authority like this, I will ask
gentlemen whether South Carolina has not manifested a high regard for
the Union, when, under a tyranny ten times more grievous than the alien
and sedition laws, she has hitherto gone no further than to petition, re
monstrate, and to solemnly protest against a series of measures which
she believes to be wholly unconstitutional and utterly destructive of her
interests. Sir, South Carolina has not gone one step further than Mr.
Jefferson himself was disposed to go, in relation to the present subject of
our present complaint,'?-— not a step further tban the statesmen from New
England were disposed to go, under sirailar circumstances ; no further
than the Senator frora Massachusetts himself once considered as within
" the limits of a constitutional opposition." The doctrine that it is the
right of a State to judge ofthe violations ofthe Constitution on the part of
the Federal Government, and to protect her citizens frora the operations
of unconstitutional laws, was held by the enlightened citizens of Boston,
who asserabled in Faneuil Hall, on the 25th of January, 1809. They
state, in that celebrated memorial, that " they looked only to the State
Legislature, who were competent to devise relief against the unconstitu
tional acts of the General Government. That your power, (say they,) is
adequate to that object, is evident from the organization of the confede
racy."

35
iis^nguisliecl_Senat£rJmrn_ojig^^ (Mr*.---
^HilJJiaugg,) in a speech delivered here, on a bill for~Mlorcing the erfibar-
go, declared — " I feel myself bound in conscience to declare, (lest the
blood of those who shall fall in the execution of this measure, shall be on
my head,) that I consider this to be an act which'directs a mortal blow
at the liberties of my country— an act containing unconstitutional provi
sions, to which the people are not bound to submit, and to which, in my
opinion, they will not submit."
And the Senator from Massaohusetts himself, in a speech delivered on
the same subject in the other House, said, " This opposition is constitu
tional and legal ; it is also conscientious. It rests on settled and sober
conviction, that such policy is destructive to the interests of the people,
and dangerous to the being of Government. .The experience of every
day confirms these sentiments. Men who act from such motives are not
to be discouraged by trifling obstacles, nof awed by any dangers. They
know the limit of constitutional opposition; up to that limit, at their own
discretion, they will walk, and walk fearlessly." How, " the being of
the Government" was to be endangered by " constitutional opposition"
to the embargo, I leave to the gentleman to explain.
Thus, it vvill be seen, Mr. President, that the South Carolina doctrine
is the Republican doctrine of '98; that it was proraulgated by the fathers
of the faith — that it was maintained by Virginia and Kentucky in the
worst of times — that it constituted the very pivot on which the political
revolution of that day turned — that it embraces the very principles, the
triuraph of vvhich, at that time, saved the Constitution at its last gasp, and
which New England statesmen vvere not unwilling to adopt, vvhen they
believed themselves to be the victims of unconstitutional legislation.
Sir, as to the doctrine that the Federal Government is the exclusive judge
of the extent as well as the limitations of its powers, it seems to me to be
utterly subversive ofthe sovereignty and independence of the States. It
makes but littie difference, in my estimation, whether Congress or the
Supreme Court are invested with this power. If the Federal Govern
raent, in all, or any, of its departraents, is to prescribe the limits of its
own authority, and the Stales are bound to submit to the decision, and
are not to be allowed to examine and decide for themselves, when the
barriers of the Constitution shall be overleaped, this is practically " a
Government without limitation of powers." The States are at once
reduced to raere petty corporations, and the people are entirely at your
raercy. I have but one word more to add. In all the efforts that have
been made by South Carolina, to resist the unconstitutional laws which
Congress has extended over thera, she has kept steadily in view the pre
servation of the Union, by the only means by which she beHeves it can
be long preserved— a firm, manly and steady resistance against usurpa
tion. The measures of the Federal Government have, it is true,, pros
trated her interests, and will soon involve the whole South 'in irretrieva
ble ruin. But even this evil, great as it is, is not the chief ground of
our complaints. It is the principle involved in the contest — a principle
which, substituting the discretion of Congress for the limitations of the
Constitution, brings the States and the people to the feet of the Federal
Government, and leaves them nothing they can call their own. Sir, if
the measures of the Federal Governraent were less oppressive, we
should still strive against this usurpation. The South is acting on a
principle she has always held sacred — resistance to unauthoriied tax-

36
ation. These, Sir, are the principles which induced the immortal
Hampden to resist the payment of a tax of twenty shillings. Would
twenty shillings have ruined his fortune? No! but the payment of half
twenty shillings, on the principle on which it was demanded, would have
made hirn a slave. Sir, if acting on these high motives — if animated
by that ardent love of liberty which has always been the most promi
nent trait in the Southern character — vve should be hurried beyond the
bounds of a cold and calculating prudence, who is there with one noble
and generous sentiment in his bosom, that would not be disposed, in the
language of Burke, to exclaim, " You must pardon something to the
spirit of liberty!"

ME. WEBSTER'S SPEECH.
In Senate, January 26, 1830.

Following Mr. HAYNE in the debate, Mr. WEBSTER addressed the
Senate as follows:
Mr. President ; When the mariner has been tossed, for many days, .
in thick weather, and on an unknown sea, he naturally avails himself of
the first pause in the storm, the earliest glance ofthe sun, to take his lati
tude, and ascertain how far the elements have driven him from his true
course. Let us imitate this prudence, and before we float farther, refer
to the point from which we departed, that we may at least be able to
conjecture where we now are. I ask for the reading of the resolution.
[The Secretary read the resolution, as follows :
" Resolved, That the Committee on Public Lands be instructed to in
quire and report the quantity of the public lands remaining unsold within
each State and Territory, and whether it be expedient to limit, for a
certain period, the sales of the public lands to such lands only as have
heretofore been offered for sale, and are now subject to entry at the min
imum price. And, also, whether the office of Surveyor General, and
some ofthe Land Offices, may not be abolished without detriraent to the
public interest; or whether it be expedient to adopt measures to hasten
the sales, and extend more rapidly the surveys ofthe public lands."]
We have thus heard, Sir, what the resolution is, which is actually be
fore us for consideration; and it will readily occur to- every one that it is
almost the only subject about which soraething has not been said in the
speech, running through two days, by which the Senate has been now
entertained by the gentleman from South Carolina. Every topic in the
wide range of our public affairs, whether past or present — every thing,
general or local, whether belonging to national politics or party politics,
seems to have attracted more or less ofthe honorable member's attention,
save only the resolution before us. He has spoken of every thing but the
public lands. They have escaped his notice. To that subject, in all his
excursions, he has not paid even the cold respect of a passing glance.
When this debate, Sir, was to be resumed, on Thursday morning, it so
happened that it would have been convenient for me to be elsewhere.
The honorable raeraber, however, did not incline to put off the discussion
to another day. He had a shot, he said, to return, and he wished to dis
charge it. That shot. Sir, which it was kind thus to inform us was com
ing, that we might stand out of the way, or prepare ourselves to fall be
fore it, and die with decency, has now been received. Under all advan
tages, and with expectation awakened by the tone which preceded it, it
has been discharged, and has spent its force. It may becorae me to say
no more of its effect, than that, if nobody is found, after all, either killed
or wounded by it, it is not the first time in the history of human affairs,
that the vigor and success ofthe war have not quite come up to the lofty
and sounding phrase ofthe manifesto.

38
The gentleman, Sir, in declining to postpone the debate, told the Senate,
with the emphasis of his hand upon his heart, that there was soraething
rankling lierK, which he wished lo relieve. [Mr. Haync rose and dis
claimed having used the word rankling-] It would not, Mr. President, be
safe for the honorable meral)er to appeal to those around him, upon the
question, whether he did, in fact, make use of that word. Bul he raay
have been unconscious of it. At any rate, it is enough that he disclaims
it. But still, with or without the use of that particular word, he had yet
soraething here, he said, of which he wished to rid himself by an imme
diate reply. In this respect. Sir, I have a great advantage over the hon
orable gentleman. There is nothing here. Sir, which gives me the slight
est uneasiness; neither fear, nor anger, nor that, which is sometiraes more
troublesome than either, the consciousness of having been in the wrong.
There is nothing, either originating here, or now received here, by the
gentleman's shot. Nothing original, for I had not the slightest feeling of
disrespect or unkindness towards the honorable member. Some passa
ges, it is true, had occurred since our acquaintance in this body, which
I could have wished might have been otherwise; but 1 had used philoso
phy and forgotten thera. When the honorable meraber rose, in his first
speech, I paid hira the respect of attentive listening; and when he sat
down, though surprised, and I must say even astonished, at sorae of his
opinions, nothing was farther from my intention than to commence any
personal warfare, and through the whole of the few reraarks I made in
answer, I avoided, studiously and carefully, every thing which I thought
possible to be construed into disrespect. And, Sir, while there is thus
nothing originating here, which I wished at any time, or now wish, to
discharge, I must repeat, also, that nothing has been received here, which
rankles, or in any way gives me annoyance- I will not accuse the
honorable raember of violating the rules of civilized war — I will not say
that he poisoned his arrows. But whether his shafts were, or were not
dipped in that, which vvould have caused rankling if they had reached,
there was not, as it happened, quite strength enough in the bow to bring
them to their mark. If he wishes now to find those shafts, he must look
for them elsewhere ; they will not be found fixed and quivering in the
object at which they vvere aimed.
The honorable member coinplained that I had slept on his speech. I
must have slept on it, or not slept at all. The moraent the honorable
member sat down, his friend from Missouri rose and with much honeyed
commendation of the speech, suggested that the impressions vvhich it had
produced were too charming and delightful to be disturbed by other
sentiments or other sounds, and proposed that the Senate should adjourn.
Would it have been quite amiable, in me. Sir, to interrupt this excellent
good feeling? Must I not have been absolutely malicious, ifl could have
thrust myself forward, to destroy sensations thus pleasing I Was it not
much better and kinder, both to sleep upon thera myself, and to allow
others, also, the pleasure of sleeping upon them ? But if it be meant, by
sleeping upon his speech, that I took time to prepare a reply to it, it is
quite a raistake; owing to other engagements, I could not employ even
the interval, between the adjournment of the Senate, and its meeting the
next raorning, in attention to the subject of this debate. Nevertheless,
Sir, the mere matter of fact is undoubtedly true — I did sleep on the o-en-
tleman's speech; and slept soundly. And I slept equally well on" his
speech of yesterday, to which I am now replying. It is quite possible

39
that, in this respect, also, I possess sorae advantage over the honorable
meraber, attributable, doubtless, to a cooler temperament on ray part ; for
in truth, I slept upon his speeches remarkably well. But the gentleman
inquires, why he was made the object of such a reply ? Why vvas he
singled out ? If an attack had been made on the East, he, he assures us,
did not begin it — it was the gentleman frora Missouri. Sir, 1 answered
the gentleman's speech, because I happened to hear it: and because, also,
I chose to give an answer to that speech, whioh, if unanswered, 1 thought
most likely to produce injurious impressions. I did not stop to inquire
who was the*original drawer ofthe bill. I fonnd a responsible endorser
before me, and it was ray purpose to hold him liable, and to bring him to
his just responsibility, without delay. But, Sir, this interrogatory ofthe
honorable meraber was only introductory to another. He proceeded to
ask me, whether I had turned upon him, in this debate, from the con
sciousness that I should find an over-match, if I ventured ou a contest
with his friend from Missouri. If, Sir, the honorable member, ex gratia
modestcB, had chosen thus to defer to his friend, and to pay him a corapli
ment, without intentional disparagement to others, it would have been
quite according to the friendly courtesies of debate, and not at all ungrate
ful to my own feelings. I ara not one of those, Sir, who esteem any
tribute of regard, whether light and occasional, or more serious and de
liberate, which may be bestowed on others, as so much unjustly with-
holden from ihemselves. But the tone and manner of the gentleman's
¦question, forbid me thus to interpret it. I am not at liberty to consider
it as nothing raore than a civility to his friend. It had an air of taunt
and disparagement, a little ofthe loftiness of asserted superiority, which
does not allow me to pass it over without notice. It was put as a question
for me to answer, and so put, as if it were difficult for me to answer,
whether I deemed the member from Missouri au over-match for myself
sn debate here. It seeras to me. Sir, that this is extraordinary language,
and an extraordinary tone, for the discussions of this body.
Matches and over-matches ! Those terms are raore applicable else
where than here, and fitter for other asserablies than this. Sir, the gen
tleman seems to forget where and vvhat we are. This is a Senate : a
Senate of equals; of men of individual honor and personal character,
and of absolute independence. We know no masters: we acknowledge
no dictators. This is a hall for mutual consultation and discussion ; not
an arena for the exhibition of champions. I offer myself, Sir, as a raatch
for no man ; 1 throw the challenge of debate at no man's feet. But, then,
Sir, since the honorable meraber has put the question in a manner that
calls for an answer, I will give him an answer; and I tel! him, that
holding myself to be the humblest ofthe members here, I yet know noth
ing in the arm of his friend from Missouri, either alone, or when aided
by the arm ofhis friend from South Carolina, that need deter, even me,
from espousing whatever opinions I may choose to espouse, from debating
whenever I raay choose to debate, or frora speaking whatever I may see
fit to say on the floor of the Senate. Sir, when uttered as raatter of com
mendation or compliment, I should dissent frora nothing which the honor
able raember raight say of his friend. Still less do I put forth any pre
tensions of ray own. But when put to rae as matter of taunt, I throw it
back, and say to the gentleman that he could possibly say nothing less
likely than such Ef comparison, to wound ray pride of personal character.
The anger of its tone rescued the remark from intentional irony, which.

40
otherwise, probably, would have been its general acceptation. But, Sir,
if it be imagined that by this mutual quotation and commendation; if it
be supposed that, by casting the characters of the drama, assigning to each
his part : to one the attack, to another the cry of onset ; or, if it be thought
that by a loud and erapty vaunt of anticipated victory, any laurels are to
be won bere ; if it be imagined, especially, that any or all these things,
will shake any purpose of raine, I can tell the honorable member once for
all, that he is greatly mistaken, and that he is dealing with one of whose
teraper and character he bas yet much to leam. Sir, I shall not allow
myself, on this occasion, I hope on no occasion, to be betfayed into any
loss of temper, bot if provoked, as I trust I never shall allow myself to
be, into crimination and recrimination, the honorable member may, per
haps, find, that, in that contest, there will be blows to take as well as
blows to give; that others can state comparisons as significant, at least,
as his own ; and that his impunity may, perhaps, demand of hira what
ever powers of taunt and sarcasra he may possess- 1 comraend him to a
prudent husbandry ofhis resources.
But, Sir, the coalition ! The coalition ! Aye, " the murdered coalition !"
The gentleman asks ifl were led or frighted into this debate by tbe spectre
of the coalition — " was it the ghost of the murdered coalition," he ex
claims, " which haunted the member from Massachusetts ; and which,
like the ghost of Banquo, would never down ?" " The murdered coali
tion !" Sir, this charge of a coalition, in reference to the late Adminstra
tion, is not original with the honorable member. It did not spring up in
the Senate. Whether as a fact, as an arguraent, or as an embellishment,
it is all borrowed. He adopts it, indeed, from a very low origin, and a
still lower present condition. It is one of the thousand calumnies with
which the press teemed, during an excited political canvass. It was a
charge of which there was not only no proof or probability, but which
was, in itself, wholly impossible to be true. No man of coramon infor
mation ever believed a syllable of it. Yet it was of that class of false
hoods, which, by continued repetition through all the organs of detraction
and abuse, are capable of misleading those who are already far misled,
and of further fanning passion, already kindling into flame. Doubtless
it served its day, and, in a greater or less degree, the end designed by it.
Having done that, it has sunk into the general mass of stale and loathed
calumnies. It is the very cast off" slough of a polluted and shameless
press. Incapable of further mischief, it lies in the sewer, lifeless and
despised. It is not now, Sir, in the power of the honorable member to
give it dignity or decency, by attempting to elevate it, and to introduce it
into the Senate. He cannot change it from what it is, an object of general
disgust and scorn. On the contrary, the contact, if he choose to touch it,
is more likely to drag hira down, down, to the place where it lies itself
But, Sir, the honorable raeraber was not, for other reasons, entirely
happy in his allusion to the" story of Banquo's murder and Banquo's
ghost. It was not, I think, the friends, but the enemies of the raurdered
Banquo, at whose bidding his spirit wonld not down. The honorable
gentleman is fresh in his reading of the English Classics, and can put
me right if I am wrong; but according to my poor recollection, it was
at those'who had begun with caresses, and ended with foul and treacher
ous murder, that the gory locks were shaken. The ghost of Banquo,
like that of Hamlet, was an honest ghost. It disturbed no innocent man.
It knew where its appearance would strike terror, and who would crv

41
out a ghost ? It made itself visible in the right quarter, and compelled
the guilty, and the conscience smitten, and none others, to start, with
" Pr'ythee, see there ! behold ! — look ! lo !
If 1 stand here, I saw him !"
Their eyeballs were seared (was it not so, Sir?) who had thought to
shield themselves, by concealing their own hand, and laying the iraputa
tion of the crime on a low and hireling agency in wickedness, who had
vainly attempted to stifle the workings of their own coward consciences,
by ejaculating, through white lips and chattering teeth, " thou canst not
say I did it!" I have misread the great poet, if it was those who had
no "way partaken in the deed of the death, who either found that they
were, or feared that they should be, pushed from their stools by the ghost
of the slain, or who cried out, to a spectre created by their own fears,
and their own remorse, " avaunt! and quit our sight !"
There is another particular, Sir, in which the honorable member's
quick perception of reserablances, might, I should think, have seen some
thing in the story of Banquo, making it nol altogether a sul)ject of the
most pleasant conteraplation. Those who raurdered Banquo, what did
they win' by it? Substantial good? Permanent power? Or, disap
pointment, rather, and sore mortification — dust and ashes — the common
fate of vaulting ambition, overleaping itself? Did not even-handed jus
tice, ere long, coramend the poisoned chalice to their own lips? Did they
not soon find that for another they had "filed their mind?" — that their
ambition, though apparently for the moment successful, had but put a
barren .sceptre in their grasp? Aye, Sir,
" A barren sceptre in their gripe,
Thevce tu be wrenched hy an u-iilineal hand,
J'fu son of their^s succeeding.''^
Sir, I need pursue the allusion no farther. I leave the honorable gen
tleman to run it out at his leisure, and to derive from it all the gratifica
tion it is calculated to administer- If tie finds himself pleased with the
associations, and prepared to be quite satisfied, though the parallel should
be entirely completed, I had alraost said, I ara satisfied also — but that I
shall think of. Yes, Sir, I vvill think of that.
In the course of my observations the other day, Mr. President, I paid
a passing tribute of respect to a very worthy man, Mr. Dane, of Massa
chusetts. It so happened, that he drew the ordinance of 1787, for" the
government of the Northwestern Territory. A raan of so rauch ability,
and so little pretence ; of so great a capacity to do good, and so unraixed
a disposition to doit for its own sake ; a gentleman who acted an impor
tant part, forty years ago, in a measure, the influence of which is still
deeply felt in the very matter which was the, subject of debate, might, I
thought, receive from rae a commendatory recognition.
But the honorable raeraber was inclined to be facetious on the subject.
He was rather disposed to make it matter of ridicule, that I had intro
duced into the debate the natne of one Nathan Dane, of whora he assures
us he had never before heard. Sir, if the honorable member had never
before heard of Mr. Dane, I am sorry for it. It shows hira less acquainted
with the public men of the country than I had supposed. Let me tell
hira, however, that a sneer from hira, at the mention of the narae of Mr.
Dane, is in bad taste. It raay well be a high mark of arabition. Sir,
either wilh the honorable gentleraan or myself, to accomplish as rauch
to make our names known to advantage, and reraerabered with gratitude.

42
as Mr. Dane has accomplished. But the truth is. Sir, I suspect, that Mr.
Dane lives a little too far North. He is of Massachusetts, and too near
the North star to be reached by the honorable gentleraan's telescope- If
his sphere had happened to range South of Mason's and Dixon's line, he
might, probably, have come within the scope ofhis vision ! i
I spoke, Sir, ofthe ordinance pf 1787, which prohibited slavery, in all
future tiraes, northwest ofthe Ohio, as a measure of great wisdora and
foresight; and one which had been attended with highly beneficial and
permanent consequences. I supposed, that on this point, no two gentle
men in the Senate could entertain different opinions. But, the simple
expression of this sentiraent has led the gentleman, not only into a labored
defence of slavery, in the abstract, and on principle, but, also, into a
warm accusation against me, as having attacked the systera of doraestic
slavery, now existing in the Southern States. For all this, there was
not the slightest foundation, in any thing said or intimated by me. I
did not utter a single word, which any ingenuity could torture into an
attack on the slavery ofthe South. I said only that it was highly wise
and useful in legislating for the northwestern country, while it was yet a
wilderness, to prohibit the introduction of slaves : and added, that I
presumed, in the neighboring State of Kentucky, there was no reflecting
and intelligent gentleman, who would doubt, that ifthe same prohibition
had been extended, at the same early period, over that comraonwealth,
her strength and population would, at this day, have been far greater than
they are. If these opinions be thought doubtful, they are, nevertheless,!
trust, neither extraordinary nor disrespectful. They attack nobody, and
menace nobody. And yet. Sir, the gentleman's optics have discovered,
even in the mere expression of this sentiment, what he calls, the very
spirit of the Missouri question ! He represents me as making an onset
on the whole South, and manifesting a spirit which would interfere with
and disturb their domestic condition ! Sir, this injustice no otherwise
surprises me, than as it is done here, and done without the slightest pre
tense of ground for it. I say it only surprises me, as being done here ;
for I know, full well, that it is, and has been the settled policy of sorae
persons in the South for years, to represent the people of the North, as
disposed to interfere wilh them, in their own exclusive and peculiar
concerns. This is a delicate and sensitive point, in southern feeling;
and of late years, it has always been touched, and generally vvith effect,
whenever the object has been to unite the whole South against northern
men, or northern raeasures. This feeling, always carefully kept alive,
and maintained at too intense a heat to adrait discrimination or reflection,
is a lever of great power in our political raachine. It moves vast bodies,
and gives to them one and thesame direction- But the feeling is without
adequate cause, and the suspicion which exists, wholly groundless.
There is not, and never has been, a disposition in the North to interfere
with these interests of the South. Such interference has never been
supposed to be within the power of Government ; nor has it been in any
way, attempted. It has always been regarded as a matter of domestic
policy, left with the States theraselves, and vvith which ihe Federal Gov
ernment had nothing to do. Certainly, Sir, I am, and ever have been of
that opinion. The gentleman, indeed, argues that slavery in the abstract
is no evil. Most assuredly, I need not say I differ with him, cdtogether
and most widely on that point. I regard domestic slavery as one of the
greatest _of evils, both moral and political. But, though it be a malady,

43
and whether it be curable, and if so, by what means; or, on the other
hand, whether it be the vulnus immeclicabile ofthe social system, I leave
it to those whose right and duty it is to inquire and to decide. And this
I believe, Sir, is, and uniformly has been, the sentiment of the North.
Let us look a little at the history of this matter.
When the present Constitution was submitted for the ratification ofthe
People, there were those who iraagined that the powers of the Govern
ment which it proposed to establish raight, perhaps, in some possible
raode, be exerted in raeasures tending to the abolition of slavery. This
suggestion would of course, attract much attention in the Southern Con
ventions. In that of Virginia, Gov. Randolph said :
"I hope there is none here, who, considering the subject in the calra
light of philosophy, will make an objection dishonorable to Virginia —
that, at the moment they are securing the rights oftheir citizens, an ob
jection is started, that there isa spark of hope that those unfortunate men
now held in bondage may, by the operation ofthe General Governraent,
be made free."
At the very first Congress, petitions on the subject were presented, ifl
mistake not, from different States. The Pennsylvania Sooiety for pro
moting the Abolition of Slavery took a lead, and laid before Congress a
memoria], praying Congress to promote the abolition by such powers as
it possessed. This memorial was referred, in the House of R,epresenta-
tives, to a select committee consisting of Mr. Foster, of New Hampshire,
Mr. Gerry, of Massachusetts, Mr. Hum ington, of Connecticut, Mr. Law
rence, of New York, Mr. Sinnickson, of New Jersey, Mr. Hartley, of
Pennsylvania, and Mr. Parkerj of Virginia; all of them, Sir, as you will
observe. Northern men, but the last. This Committee raade a report,
vvhich was comraitted to a Coraraittee of the Whole House, and there
considered and discussed on several days ; and being amended, although
in no material respect, il was made to express three distinct propositions
on the subjects of Slavery and the Slave Trade. First, in the words of
the Constitution, that Congress could not, prior to the year 1808, prohibit
the migration or importation of such persons as any of the States, then
existing, should think proper to admit. Second, that Congress had au
thority to restrain the citizens ofthe United States from carrying on the
African Slave Trade, for the purpose of supplying foreign countries.
On this proposition, onr early laws against those who engage in that
traffic are founded. The third proposition, and that which bears on the
present question, was-expressed in the following terms:
^' Resoloed, That Congress have no authority to interfere in the eman
cipation of Slaves, or in the treatment of thera in any of the Stales ; it
remaining with the several States alone to provide rules and regulations
therein, vvhich humanity and true policy may require."
This resolution received the sanction ofthe House of Representatives
so early as March, 1790. And now, Sir, the honorable meraber will al
low me to remind him, that not only were the select coraraittee vvho re
ported the resolution, with a single exception, all Northern raen, but also
that of the members then composing the House of Representatives, alarge
majority, I believe nearly two. thirds were Northern men also.
The HouFC agreed to insert these resolutions in its journal ; and, from
that day to this, it has never been maintained or contended that Congress
had any authority to regulate, or interfere with the condition of slaves,
in the several States. No northern gentleman, to my knowledge, has
moved any such question in either House of Congress.

44
The fears of the South, whatever fears they might have entertained,
were allayed and quieted by this early decision; and so remained, till
they were excited afresh, wiihout cause, but for collateral and indirect
purposes. When it became necessary, or was thought so, by some polit
ical persons, to find an unvarying ground for the exclusion of Northern
men from confidence and from lead in the affairs of the Republic, then,
and not till then, the cry was raised, and the feeling industriously excited,
that theinfluence of Northern men in the public councils would endanger
the relation of master and slave. For myself, I claim no other merit,
than that this gross and enormous injustice towards the whole North, has
not wrought upon me to change my opinions, or my political conduct.
I hope I am above violating ray principles, even uuder thesmart of injury
and false imputations. Unjust suspicions and undeserved reproach
whatever pain I may experience from them, will not induce me, I trust,
nevertheless, to overstep the limits of constitutional duty, or to encroach
on the rights of others. The doraestic slavery ofthe South I leave
where I find it — in the hands of their own governraents. It is their
affair, not raine. Nor do I coraplain of the peculiar effect which the
raagnitude of that population has had in the distribution of power under
this Federal Governraent. We know, Sir, that the representation ofthe
States in the other House is not equal. We know that great advantage,
in that respect, is enjoyed bythe slave-holding States; and we know,
too, that the intended equivalent for that advantage, that is to say, the
imposition of direct taxes in the sarae ratio, has becorae raerely nominal ;
the habit of the Government being almost invariably to collect its reve
nues from other sources, and in other modes. Nevertheless, I do not com
plain ; nor would I countenance any movement to alter this arrangement
of representation. It is the original bargain, the compact — let it stand :
let the advantage of it be fully enjoyed. The Union itself is too full of
benefit to be hazarded in propositions for changing its original basis. I
go for the Constitution as it is, and for the Union as it is. But I am re
solved not to submit, in silence, to accusations, either against myself in
dividually, or against the North, wholly unfounded and unjust; accusa
tions which impute to us a disposition lo evade the constitutional compact
and to extend the power ofthe Government over the internal laws and
domestic condition of the States. All such acciisations, wherever and
whenever made; all insinuations ofthe existence of any such purposes,
I know, and feel to be groundless and injurious. And we must confide
in Southern gentlemen theraselves; we must trust to tbose vvhose integrity
of heart and raagnanimity of feeling will lead thera to a desire to main
tain and disseminate truth, and who possess the raeans of its diffusion
vyith the Southern public; we must leave it to them to disabuse that pub
lic of its prejudices. But, in the mean time, for my own part, I shall
continue to act justly, whelher those towards whom justice is exercised,
receive it wilh candor or wilh contumely.
Having had occasion lo recur to the ordinance of 1787, in order to
defend myself against the inferences which the honorable member has
chosen to draw from my former observations on that subject, I ara not
willing now entirely to lake leave of it wiihout another remark. It need
hardly be said, that that paper expresses just seniimenls on the great
subject of civil and religious liberty. Such sentiments were common,
and abound iij all our state papers of that day. But this ordinance did
that which was not so common, and vvhich is not, even now, universal ;

45
that is, it set forth and declared, as a high and binding duty of government
itself, to encourage schools, and advance the means of education ; on the
plain reason, that religion, morality, and knowledge, are necessary to
good governraent, and to the happiness of mankind. One observation
further. The iraportant provision incorporated into the Constitution of
the United States, and several of those ofthe States, and recently, as we
have seen, adopted into the reformed constitution of Virginia, restraining
legislative power, in questions of private right, and from impail'ing the
obligation of contracts, is first introduced and established, as far as I am
informed, as matter of express written constitutional law, in this ordi
nance of 1787. And I must add, also, in regard to the author of the
ordinance, who has not had the happiness to attract the gentleman's no
tice, heretofore, nor to avoid his sarcasm now, that he was Chairraan of
that Select Committee of the old Congress, whose report first expressed
the strong sense of that body, that the old Confederation was not adequate
to the exegencies of the country, and recommending to the Slates to send
Delegates to the Convention which formed the present Constitution.
An attempt has been made to transfer from the North to the South, the
honor of this exclusion of slavery from the Northwestern Territory.
The journal without argument or comment, refutes such attempt. The
cession of Virginia was made March, ^784. Onthe I9lh of April, fol
lowing, a Coraraittee, consisting of Messrs. Jeflferson, Chase and Howell,
reported a plan for a temporary governraent of the territory, in which
was this article : " that after the year 1800, there shallbe neither slavery
nor involuntary servitude, in any of the said States, otherwise than in
punishment of crimes, whereof the party shall have been convicted."
Mr. Speight, of North Carolina, moved lo strike out this paragraph.
The question was put, according to the forra then practiced : " shall these
words stand, as part of the plan," &c. New Hampshire, Massachusetts,
Rhodeisland, Connecticut, New York, New Jersey and Pennsylvania^
seven States voted in the affirmative. Maryland, Virginia and South
Carolina in the negative. North Carolina was divided. As the consent
of nine States was necessary, the words could notstand,^d were struck
out accordingly. — Mr. Jefferson voted for the clause, but was overruled
by his colleagues.
In March ofthe next year, (1785) Mr. King, of Massachusetts, sec
onded by Mr. Ellery, of Rhode Island, proposed the formerly rejected
article, with this addition ; " And that this regulation shallbe an article of
compact, and remain a fundamental principle of the Constitution between
the thirteen original States, and each ofthe States described in the resolve,'''
&,c. On this clause, which provided the adequate and thorough security,
the eight Northern States, at that tirae, voted affirmatively, and the four
Southern States negatively. The votes of nine Slates were not yet ob
tained, and thus, the provision was again rejected by the Southern States.
The perseverance of the North held out, and two years afterwards the ob
ject was attained. It is no derogation from the credit, whatever that may
be, of drawing the ordinance, that its principles had before been prepared
and discussed, in the form of resolutions. If one should reason in that way
what would become of the distinguished honor of the Author of the
Declaration of Independence ? There is not a sentiment in that paper
which had not been voted and resolved in the assemblies, and other pop
ular bodies in the country, over and over again.
But the honorable member has now found out that this gentleman, Mr.

46
Dane, was a member ofthe Hartford Convention. However uninformed
the honorable member may be of characters and occurrences at the
North, it would seem that he has at his elbows oo this occasion, some
high-minded and lofty spirit, some magnanimous and true hearted monitor,
possessing the means of local knowledge, and ready to supply the hon
orable member with every thing, down even to forgotten and motheaten
two-penny pamphlets, which may be used to the disadvantage ofhis own
country. * But, as to the Hartford Convention, Sir, allow me to say, that
the proceedings of that body seem now to be less read and studied in
New England, than farther South. — They appear to be looked to, not in
New England, but elsewhere, for the purpose of seeing how far th.ey
may serve as a precedent. But they will not answer the purpose — they
are quite too tarae. The latitude in which they originated was too cold.
Other Conventions, of more recent existence, have gone a whole bar's
length beyond it. The learned doctors of Colleton and Abbeville, have
pushed their commentaries on the Hartford collect so far that the original
text-writers are thrown entirely into the shade. I have nothing to do,
Sir, with the Hartford Convention. Its Journal, which the gentleman, has
quoted, I never read. So far as the honorable raeraber may discover in
its proceedings, a s;)irit in any degree resembling that which was avowed
and justified in those other Conv^tions, to which I have alluded, or so
far as those proceeding can be shown to be disloyal to the Constitution.
or tending to disunion, so far I shall be as ready as any one to bestow on
thera reprehension and censure.
Having dwelt long on this Convention, and other occurrences of that
day, in the hopei probably, (which will not be gratified,) that I should
leave the course of this debate to follow him at length, in those excursions,
the honorable member returned, and attempted another object. He re
ferred to a speech of mine in the other House, the sarae which I had oc
casion to allude to rayself the other day; and has quoted a passage or
two from it, with a bold though uneasy and laboring air of confidence.
as if he had. deleted in rae an inconsistency. Judging from the gentle
raan-^ qM-HHE^wRf ranger to the course of the debate, and to the point in
discussion; '-(iwiwhave imagined, frora so triumphant a tone, that the hon
orable member was about to overwhelm me with a manifest contradiction.
Any one who heai'd him, and who had not heard what I had, in fact, pre
viously said, must have thought me routed and discomfitted, as the gentle
man hadpromised. Sir, a breath blows all this triumph away. There
is not the slightest difference in the sentiments of my remarks on the two
occasions. What I said here on Wednesday, is in exact accordance with
the opinions expressed by me in the other House in 1825. Though the
gentleman had the metaphysics of Hudibras  though he were able
" To sever and divide
A hair 'twixt North and Northwest side,"
he could not yet insert his metaphysical scissors between the fair reading
of my reraarks in 1825, and what I said here last week. There is not
only no contradiction, no difference, but, in truth, too exact a similarity,
both in thought and language, to be entirely in just taste. I had myself
quoted the same speech ; had recurred to it, and spoke with it open before
me; and much of what I said was little more than a repetition from it.
In order to make finishing work with this alleged contradiction, permit
me to recur to the origin of this debate, and review its course. This
seems expedient and may be done as well now as at any time.

47 b
Well, then its history is this : The honorable member from Connecti
cut raoved a resolution, which constituted the first branch of that which
is now before us ; that is to say, a resolution, instructing the Coraraittee
on Public Lands to enquire into the expediency of limiting, for a certain
period, the sales of public lands, to such as have heretofore been offered
for sale ; and whether sundry offices, connected with the sales of the
lands, raight not be abolished without detriment to the public service.
In the progress of the discussion which arose on this resolution, an
honorable member frora New Hampshire moved to amend the resolution,
so as entirely to reverse its object ; that is, to strike it all out, and insert
a direction to the Committee to inquire into the expediency of adopting
raeasures to hasten the sales, and extend raore rapidly the surveys of
the lands.
The honorable member from Maine, (Mr. Sprague,) suggested that
both these propositions might well enough go, for consideration, to the
coinmittee; and, in this state of the question, the member frora South
Carolina addressed the Senate in his first speech. He rose, he said, to
give u,s his own free, thoughts on the public lands. I saw him rise, with
pleasure, and listened with expectation, though before he concluded I was
filled with surprise. Certainly, I was never more surprised, than to find
him following up, to the extent he did, the sentiments and opinions which
the gentleraan from Missouri had put forth, and which it is known he has
long entertained.
1 need not repeat, at large, the general topics of the honorable gentle
man's speech. When he said, yesterday, that he did not attack the East
ern States, he certainly raust have forgotten not only particular remarks,
but the whole drift and tenor of his speech ; unless, he raeans, by not at
tacking, that he did not commence hostilities — but that another had pre
ceded him in the attack. He, in the first place, disapproved of the whole
course ofthe Government for forty years, in regard to its dispositions of
the public land ; and then, turning Northward and Eastward, and fancy
ing he had found a cause for alleged narrowness and niggardliness in the
" accursed policy" of the l*ariff, to which he represented the people of
New England as wedded, he went on, for a full hour, with remarks, the
whole scope of wiiich was. to exhibit the results of this po. icy, in feelings ¦
and in measures unfavorable lo the West. I thought his opinions un
founded and erroneous, as to the general course of the Governraent, and
ventured to reply, to them.
The gentleraan had remarked on the analogy of other cases, and quoted
the conduct of European Govejrnments, towards their own subjects, set
tling on this continent, as in point, to show, that we had been harsh and
rigid in selling, vvhen we should have given the public lands to settlers.
I thought the honorable meraber had suffered his judgment to be betrayed
by a false analogy ; that he was struck with an appearance of resem
blance, where there was no real similitude. I think so still. The first
settlers of North America were enterprising spirits, engaged in private
adventure, or fleeing from tyranny at home. When arrived here, they
were forgotten by the mother country, or reraerabered only to be oppress
ed. Carried away again by the appearance of analogy, or struck with
the eloquence of the passage, the honorable meraber yesterday observed
that the conduct of government towards the Western emigrants or my
representation of it, brought to his raind a celebrated speech in the Brit
ish Parliament. It was, Sir, the speech of Colonel Barrie. On the ques-

48
tion ofthe stamp act, or tea tax, 1 forget which, Col. Barrie had heard a
member on the Treasury Bench argue, that the people of the United States
being British colonists, planted by the maternal care, nourished by the
indulgence, and protected by the arras of England, would not grudge
their raile to relieve the raother country from the heavy burden under
which she groaned. The language of Col. Barrie, in reply to this vvas —
They planted by your care ? Your oppression planted them in America.
They fled from your tyranny, and grew by your neglect of them. So
soon as you began to care for thera, you showed your care by sending
persons to spy out their liberties, misrepresent their character, prey upon
them, and eat out their substance.
And now does the honorable gentleman mean to maintain that language
like this is applicable to the conduct of the Government of the United
States towards the Western emigrants, or to any representation given by
me of that conduct ? Were the settlers inthe West driven thither by
our oppression ? Have they flourished only by our neglect of them ?
Has the Government done nothing but to prey upon them, and eat out
their substance ? Sir, this fervid eloquence ofthe Brilish speaker, just
when and where it vvas uttered, and fit to reraain an exercise for the schools
is not a little out of place, vvhen it is brought thence to be applied here, to
the conduct of our own country towards her own citizens. Frora Amer
ica to England it raay be true ; frora Americans to their own government
it would be strange language. Let us leave it to be recited and declaimed
by our boys, against a foreign nation ; not introduce it here, to recite
and declaim ourselves against our own.
But I come to the point ofthe alleged contradiction. In my remarks
on Wednesday, I contended that vve could not give away gratuitously all
the public lands; that we held them in trust ; that the Government had
solemnly pledged itself to dispose of them as a common fund for the com
mon benefit', and to sell and settle thera as its discretion should dictate.
Now, Sir, what contradiction does the gentleman find to this sentiment,
in the speech of 1825 ? Hequotesmeas having then said, that we ought
not to hug these lands as a very great treasure. Very well. Sir, suppos
ing rae to be accurately reported, in that expression, what is the contra-
<diction ? I have not now said, that we should hug these lands as a favor
ite .source of pecuniary income. No such thing. It is not ray view.
What 1 have said, and what I do say, is, that they are a coraraon fund —
to be disposed of for the common benefit — to be sold at low prices, for the
accommodation of settlers, keeping the objects of settling the lands as
much in view, as that of raising money frora thera. Thisl say novv, and
this I have always said. Is this hugging them as a favorite treasure ? Is
there no difference between hugging and hoarding this fund, on the one
hand, as a great treasure, and on the other, of disposing of it allow prices,
placing the proceeds in the general treasury of the Union ? My opinion
is, that as much is to be made ofthe land, as fairly and reasonably may
be, selling it all the while at such rates as to give the fullest effect to
settlement. This is not giving it all away to the States, as the gentle
man would propose; nor is it hugging the fund closely and tenaciously,
as a favorite treasure, but it is, in ray judgment, a just and wise policy,
perfectly according with all the various duties which rest on Govern
raent. So much for my contradiction. And what is it ? Where is the
ground of the gentleman's triumph ? What inconsistency in word or
doctrine, has he been able to detect ? Sir, if this be a sample of that

49
Sir, if this be a sample of that discomfiture, with which the honorable
gentleman threatened me, commend me to the word discomfiture for the
rest of my life.
But after all, this is not the point of the debate ; and I must bring the
gentleman hack to that which is the point.
The real question between me and him is, where has the doctrine
been advanced, at the South or the East, that the population of the West
should be retarded, or at least, need not be hastened, on account of its
effect to drain off the people from the Atlantic States ? Is this doctrine,
as has been alleged, of Eastern origin } That is the question. Has the
gentleraan found any-thing by which he can make good his accusation .'
I subrait to the Senate, that he has entirely failed ; and as far as this de
bate has shown, the only person who has advanced such sentiments, is a
gentleman from South Carolina, and a friend to the honorable member
himself. The honorable gentleraan has given no ans-wer to this ; there
is none which can be given. This simple fact, while it requires no com
ment to enforce it, defies all argument to refute it. 1 could refer to the
speeches of another Southern gentleman, in years before, of the same
general character, and to the sarae effect, as that which has been quoted,
but I will not consume the time of the Senate by the reading of them.
So then. Sir, New England is guiltless of the policy 91 retarding
Western population, and of all envy and jealousy of the growth of the
New States. Whatever there be of that policy in the country, no part
of it is hers. If it has a local habitation, the honorable member has
probably seen, by this time, where he is to look for it : and if it now has
received a name, he himself has christened it.
We approach, at length, Sir, to a more important part of the honora
ble gentleraen's observations. Since it does not accord with my views
of justice and policy, to vote away the public lands altogether, as mere
matter of gratuity, I am asked by the" honorable gentleman, on what
ground it is, that I consent to give them away in particular instances ?
How, he inquires, do I reconcile, with these professed sentiraents, my
support of measures, appropriating portions of the lands to particular
roads, pariicular canals, particular rivers, and particular institutions of
education in the West ? This leads, Sir, to the real and wide difference
in political opinions between the honorable gentleman and myself. On
my part, I look upon all these objects as connected with the common
good, fairly embraced in its objects and its terms ; he, on the contrary,
deems them all, if good at all, only local good. This is our difference.
The interrogatory which he proceeded to put, at once explains this dif
ference. " What interest," asks he, " has South Carolina in a Canal in
Ohio ?" Sir, this very question is full of significance. It developes
the gentleman's whole political system ; and its answer expounds mine.
Here we differ, toto codo. I look upon a road Over the Alleghany, a ca
nal round the falls of the Ohio, or a canal or railway from the Atlan
tic to the Western waters, as being objects, large and extensive enough
to be fairly said to be for the common benefit. The gentleman thinks
otherwise, and this is the key to open his construction of the powers of
the Government. He may well ask, upon his system, what interest has
South Carolina in a canal in Ohio.? On that system, it is true, she has
no interest. On that system, Ohio and Carolina are different Govern
ments and different countries, connected here, it is true, by some slight
and ill-defined bond of union, but in all main respects, separate and di-
4

50
verse. On that system, Carolina has no more interest in a canal in Ohio,
than in Mexico. The gentleraan, therefore, only follows out his own
principles ; he does no more than arriv'e at the natural conclusions ot
his own doctrines ; he only announces the true results of that creed
which he has adopted himself, and would persuade others to adopt, when
he thus declares that South Carolina has no interest in a public work in
Ohio. Sir, we narrow-minded people of New England do not reason
thus. Our notion of things is entirely different. We look upon the
States, not as separated, but as united. We love to dwell on that Union,
and on the mutual happiness which it has so much promoted, and the.
common renown which it has so greatly contributed to acquire. In our
contemplation, Carolina and Ohio are parts of the same country ; States,
united under the same General Government, having interests, common,
associated, intermingled. In whatever is within the proper sphere of
the constitutional power of this Government, we look upon the Slates as
one. We do not impose geographical limits to our patriotic feeling or
regard ; we do not follow rivers, and mountains, and lines of latitude,
to find boundaries, beyond wbich public improvements do not benefit us.
We who come here as agents and representatives of those narrow-minded
and selfish men of New England, consider ourselves as bound to regard,
with equal eye, the good of tbe whole, in whatever is within our power of
legislation. Sir, if a railroad or a canal, beginning in South Carolina,
and ending in South Carolina, appeared to me to be of national impor
tance and national magnitude, believing as I do, that the power of Gov
ernment extends to the encouragement of works of that description, if I
were to stand up here, and ask, what interest has Massachusetts in s
railroad in South Carolina, I should not be willing to face iny constitu
ents. These same narrow-minded men would tell me, that they had
sent me to act for the whole country, and that one who possessed too lit-
'le comprehension, either of intellect, or feeling — one who was not large
enough, in mind and heart, to embrace the whole, was not fit to be en
trusted with the interest of any part. Sir, I do not desire to enlarge the
powers of the Government, by unjustifiable construction ; nor to exer
cise any, not within a fair interpretation. But when it is believed that
a power does exist, then it is, in my judgment, to be exercised for the
general benefit of the whole : so far as respects the exercise of such a
power, the States are one. It was the very object of the Constitution to
create unity of interests to the extent of the powers ofthe General Gov
ernment. In war and peace we are one ; in commerce one ; because
the authority of the General Government reaches to war and peace, and
to the regulation of comraerce. I have never seen any more difficulty
in erecting light-houses on the Lakes, than on the Ocean ; in iraproving
the harbors of inland seas, than if they were witin the ebb and flow of
the tide ; or of removing obstructions' in the vast streams of the West,
more than in any v/ork to facilitate commerce on the Atlantic coast. If
there be power for one, there is power also for the other ; and they are
all and equally for the country.
There are other objects apparently more local, or the benefit of which
is less general, towards which, nevertheless, I have concurred with
others to give aid, by donations of land. It is proposed to construct a
road in or through one of the new States in which this government pos
sesses large quantities of land. Have the United States no right, as a
great and untaxed proprietor ; are they under no obligation to contribute

51
to an object thus calculated to promote the common good of all the pro
prietors, themselves included.'' And even with respect to education,
which is the extreme case, let the question be considered. In the first
place, as we have seen, it was made matter of compact with these
States, that they should do their part to promote education. In the next
place, our whole system of land laws proceeds on the idea that education
is for the common good ; because, in every division, a certain portion is
uniformly reserved and appropriated for the usse of schools. And, finally,
have not these new States singularly strong claims, founded on the ground
already stated, that the Government is a great untaxed proprietor in the
ownership of the soil. It is a consideration of great importance, that
probably there is in no part of the country or of the world, so great a call
for the means of education as in those new States; owing to the vast
number of persons within those ages in which education and instruction
are usually received, if received at all. This is the natural consequence
of recency of settlement and rapid increase. The censu.s of these States
shows how great a proportion of the whole population occupies the classes
between infancy and manhood. These are the wide fields, and here is the
deep and quick soil for the seeds of knowledge and virtue ; and this is the
favored season, the spring time for sowing them. Let them be dissemi
nated without stint. Let them be scattered with a bountiful broadcast.
Whatever the Government can fairly do towards these objects, in my
opinion ought to be done.
These, Sir, are the grounds, succinctly stated, on which my votes for
grants of lands for particular objects rest; while I maintain, at the same
time, that it is all a common fund, for the common benefit. And reasons
like these, I presume, have influenced the votes of other gentlemen from
New England. Those who have a different view of the powers of the
Government, of course, corae to different conclusions, on these as on other
questions. I observed, when speaking on this subject before, that if we
looked to any measure, whether for a road, a canal, or any thing else,
intended for the improvement of the West, it would be found, that if the
New England ayes were struck out of the list of votes, the Southern noes
would always have rejected the measure. The truth of this has not
been denied and cannot be denied. In stating this, I thought it just to
ascribe it to the constitutional scruples of the South, rather than to any
other less favorable or less charitable cause. But no sooner had 1 done
this, than the honorable gentleman asks, if I reproach him and his friends
with their constitutional scruples. Sir, I reproach nobody. I stated a
fact, and gave the most respectful reason for it that occurred to me. The
gentleman cannot deny the fact, he may, if he choose, disclaim the rea
son. It is not long since I had occasion, in presenting a petition, from
his own State, to account for its being entrusted to my hands, by saying,
that the constitutional opinions of the gentleman and his worthy colleague,
prevented them from supporting it. Sir, did I state this as a matter of
reproach.? Far from it. Did I attempt to find any other cause than an
honest one for these scruples .? Sir, I did not. It did not become me to
doubt, nor to insinuate that the gentleman had either changed his senti
ments, or that he had made up a set of constitutional opinions, accommo
dated to any particular combination of political occurrences. Had I
dpne so, I should have felt, that while I was entitled to little respect in
thus questioning other people's motives, I justified the whole world in
suspecting my own. •

52
But how has the gentleman returned this respect for others opinions .-'
His own candor and justice, how have they been exhibited towards the
motives of others, while he; has been at so much pains to maintain, what
nobody has disputed, the purity of his own } Why, Sir, he has asked
when, and how, and why, New England votes were found going for
measures favorable to the West; he has demanded to be informed whether
all this did not begin in 1825, and while the election of President was
still pending ? Sir, to these questions retort would be justified ; and it
is both cogent and at hand. Nevertheless, I will answer the inquiry
not by retort, but by facts. I will tell the gentleraan when, and how, and
why, New England has supported measures favorable to the West. I
have already referred to the early history of the Government — to the
first acquisition of the lands — to the original laws for disposing of them
and for governing the territories where they lie; and have shown the in
fiuence of New England men and New England principles in all these
leading measures. I should not be pardoned were I to go over that
ground again. Coming to more recent times, and to measures of a less
general character, I have endeavored to prove that every thing of this
kind, designed for Western improvement, has depended on the votes of
New England ; all this is true beyond the power of contradiction.
And now. Sir, there are two measures to which I will refer, not so
ancient as to belong to the early history of the public lands, and not so
recent as to be on this side of the period when the gentleman charitably
imagines a new direction may have been given to New England feeling,
and New England votes. These measures, and the Nevsr England votes
in support of them, may be taken as samples and specimens of all the
rest. In 1820, (observe Mr. President.) in 1820, the people of the
West besought Congress for a reduction in the price of lands. In favor
of that reduction. New England, with a delegation of forty members in
the other House, gave thirty-three votes, and one only against it. The
four Southern States, with fifty members, gave thirty-two votes for it,
and seven against it. Again, in 1821, (observe again, Sir, the time,)
the law. passed for the relief of the purchasers of the public lands.
This was a measure of vital importance to the West, and more especially
to the South West. It authorized the relinquishment of contracts for
lands, which bad been entered into at high prices, and a reduction in other
cases, of not less than 37-|- per cent, on the purchase money. Many
millions of dollars, six or seven, L believe, at least, probably much
more, were relinquished by this law. On this bill New England, with
her forty raerabers gave more affirmative votes than the four Southern
States, witb their fifty-two or three members. These two are far the
most important measures, respecting the public lands, which have been
adopted within the last twenty years. They took place in 1820 and 1821.
That is the time when. And as to the manner how, the gentleman al
ready sees that it was by voting, in solid coluran, for the required relief;
and lastly, as to the cause why, I tell the gentleman, it was because
the members from New England thought the measures just and salutary ;
because they entertained towards the West neither envy, hatred or malice ;
because they deemed it becoming them, as just and enlightened public
men, to meet the exigency which had arisen in the West, with the appro
priate measure of relief; because they felt it due to their own characters,
and the characters of their New England predecessors in this Govern
ment, to act towards the new States in the spirit of a liberal, patronizing,

53
magnanimous policy. So much. Sir, for the cause lohy ; and I hope that
by this time, Sir, the honorable gentleman is satisfied ; if not, I do not
know when, or how, or why, he ever will be.
Having recurred to these two important measures, in answer to the
gentleman's inquiries, I must now beg permission to go back to a period
still something earlier, for the purpose still further of showing how much,
or rather, how little reason there is for the gentleman's insinuation that
political hopes, or fears, or party associations, were the grounds of these
New England votes. And after what has heen said, I hope it may be
forgiven me, if I allude to some political opinions and votes of my own,
of very little public importance, certainly, but which, from the time at
which they were given and expressed, may pass for good witnesses on
this occasion.
,-This Government, Mr. President, from its origin to the peace of 1815,
had been too much engrossed "with various other important concerns, to
be able to turn its thoughts inward, and look to the development of its
vast internal resources. In the early part of President Washington's ad
ministration, it was fully occupied with organizing the Government, pro
viding for the public debt, defending the frontiers, and maintaining
domestic peace. Before the termination of that administration, the fires
of the French Revolution blazed forth, as from a new opened volcano,
and the whole breadth of the ocean did not entirely secure us from its
effects. The smoke and the cinders reached us, though not the burning
lava. Difficult and agitating questions, embarrassing to Government,
and dividing public opinion, sprung out of the new state of our foreign
relations, and were succeeded by others, and yet again by others, equally
embarrassing, and equally exciting division and discord, through the long
series of twenty years, till they finally issued into the war with England.
Down to the close of that war, no distinct, marked, and deliberate atten
tion had been given, or could have been given, to the internal condition
ofthe country, its capacities of improveraent, or the constitutional power
of the Government, in regard to objects, connected with such improve
ment. The peace, Mr. President, brought about an entirely new and a most
interesting state of things ; it opened to us other prospects, and suggested
other duties ; we ourselves were changed, and the whole world was
changed. The pacification of Europe, after June 1815, assumed a firm
and permanent aspect. The nations evidently manifested that theywere
disposed for peace ; some agitation ofthe waves might be expected, even
after the storm had subsided, but the tendency was, strongly and rapidly,
towards settled repose.
It so happened, Sir, that I was at that time a member of Congress, and,
like others, naturally turned my attention to the contemplation of the
newly altered condition of the country, and of the world. It appeared
plainly enough, to me, as well as to wiser and more experienced men, that
the policy of the Government would necessarily take a start, in a new
direction ; because new directions would necessarily be given to the pur
suits and occupations of the people. We had pushed our commerce far
and fast, under the advantage of a neutral flag. But there were now no
longer flags, either neutral or belligerent. The harvest of neutrality had
been great, but we had gathered it all. With the peace of Europe, it
was obvious there would spring up iri her circle of nations, a revived and
invigorated spirit of trade, and a new activity in all the business and ob-

54
jects of civilized life. Hereafter, our commercial gains were to be earned
ouly by success in a close and intense competition. Other nations would
produce for themselves, and carry for themselves, and manufacture for
themselves, to the full extent of their abilities. The crops of our plains
would no longer sustain European armies, nor our ships longer supply
those, whom war has rendered unable to supply themselves. It wag
obvious, that, under these circumstances, the country would begin to
survey itself, and to estimate its own capacity of improvement. And
this improvement, how was it to be accomplished, and who was to ac
complish it ?
We were ten or twelve millions of people, spread over almost half a
wor-ld. We were twenty-four States, some stretching along the same
seaboard, some along the same line of inland frontier, and others on oppo
site banks ofthe same vast rivers. Two considerations at once presented
themselves, in looking at this state of things, with great force. One was,
that thatgreat branch of improvement, which consisted in furnishing new
facilities of intercourse, necessarily ran into different States, in every
leading instance, and would benefit the citizens of all such States. No
one State, therefore, in such cages, would assume the whole expense, nor
was the co-operation of several States to be expected. Take the instance
of the Delaware Breakwater. It will cost several millions of money.
Would Pennsylvania alone have ever constructed it.? Certainly never,
while this Union lasts, because it is not for her sole benefit. Would
Pennsylvania, New Jersey and Delaware, have united to accomplish it,
at their joint expense .? Certainly not, for thesame reason. It could not
be done, therefore, but by the General Government. The same may be
said ofthe large inland undertakings, except that, in them, Govemment,
intead of bearing the whole expense, co-operates with others who bear a
part. The other consideration is, that the United States have the means.
They enjoy the revenues derived from Commerce, and the States have no
abundant and easy sources of public incorae. The custom houses fill the
general treasury, while the States have scanty resources, except by resort
to heavy direct taxes.
Under this view of things, I thought it necessary to settle, at least for
myself, some definite notions, with respect to the powers of Government,
in regard to internal affairs. It may not savor too mudi of self-commen
dation to remark, that with this object, I considered the Constitution, its
judicial construction, its cotemporaneous exposition, and the whole hisr
tory of the legislation of Congress under it ; and 1 arrived at the conclu
sion, that Government has power to accomplish sundry objects, or aid in
their accomplishment, which are now commonly spoken of as Internal
Improvements. That conclusion. Sir, may have been right, or it may
have been wrong. 1 am not about to argue the grounds of it at large. I
say only, that it was adopted, and acted on, even so early as in 1816.
Yes, Mr. President, I made up my opinion, and deterrained on my intended
course of political conduct on these subjects, in the 14th Congress, in
1816. And now, Mr. President, I have further to say, that I made up
these opinions, and entered on this course of political conduct, Tcucro
Duce. Yes, Sir, I pursued, in all this, a South Carolina track. On the
doctrines of Internal Improvement, South Carolina, as she was then rep
resented in the other House, set forth, in 1816, under a fresh and leading
breeze; and I was among the followers. But if my leader sees new
lights, and turns a sharp corner, unless I see new lights also, I keep straight

55
on in the same path. I repeat, that leading gentlemen frora South Caro
lina were first and foremost in behalf of the doctrines of Internal Improve
ments, when those doctrines first came to be considered and acted upon
in Congress. The debate on the Bank question, on the Tariff of 1816,
and on the direct Tax, will show who was who, and what was what, at
that time. The Tariff of 1816, one of the plain cases of oppression and
usurpation, from which, if the Government does not recede, individual
States may justly secede from the Government, is Sir, in truth, a South
Carolina Tariff', supported by South Carolina votes. But for those votes
it could not have passed in the forni in which it did pass ; whereas if it
had depended on Massachusetts votes, it would have been lost. Does
not the honorable gentleman well know all this ? There are certainly
those who do full well know it all. I do not say this to reproach South
Carolina ; I only state the fact, and I think it will appear to be true, that
among the earliest and boldest advocates of the Tariff, as a measure of
protection, and on the express ground of protection, were leading gentle
men of South Carolina in Congress. I did not then, and cannot now,
understand their language in any other sense. While this Tariff' of 1816
was under discussion in the House of Representatives, an honorable gen
tleman from Georgia, now of this House, (Mr. Forsyth,) moved to reduce
the proposed duty on cotton. He failed by four votes, South , Carolina
giving three votes, (enough to have turned the scale,) againgt his motion.
The act. Sir, then passed, and received on its passage the support of a
majority of the Representatives of South Carolina present and voting.
This act is the first, in the order of those now denounced as plain usurpa
tions. We see it daily in the list by the side of those of 1824, and 1828,
as a case of manifest oppression, justifying disunion. I put it home to the
honorable member from South Carolina, that his own State was not only
" art and part" in this measure, but the causa causans. Without her
aid, this seminal principle of mischief, this root of Upas, could not have
been planted. I have already said, audit is true, that this act proceeded
on the ground of protection. It interfered directly with existing interests
of great value and amount. It cut up the Calcutta cotton trade by the
roots. But it passed, nevertheless, and it passed on the principle of pro
tecting manufactures, on the principle against free trade, on the principle
opposed io that which lets us alone.
Such, Mr. President, were the opinions of iraportant and leading gen
tlemen of South Carolina, on the subject of Internal Improveraent, in 1816.
I went out of Congress the next year, and returning again in 1823, thought
1 found South Carolina where I had left her. I really supposed that all
things remained as they were, and that the South Carolina doctrrae of In
ternal Improvements would be defended by the same eloquent voices, and
the same strong arms, as formerly. In the lapse of these six years, it is
true, politicaljassociations had assumed a new aspect and new divisions.
A party had arisen in the South, hostile to the doctrine of Internal Im
provements, and had vigorously attacked that doctrine. Anti-consolida
tion was the flag, under which this party fought, and its supporters in
veighed against Internal Improvements, much after the same manner in
which the honorable genlleman has now inveighed against them, as part
and parcel ofthe system of consolidation.
Whether this party arose in South Carolina herself, or in her neighbor
hood, is more than I know. I think the latter. However that may have
been, there were those found in South Carolina ready to make war upon
it, and who did make intrepid war upon it. Names being regarded as

56
thino-s, in such controversies, they bestowed on the anti-improvement gen-
tlem°en the appellation of Radicals. Yes, Sir, the name of Radicals, as a
term of distinction, applicable and applied to thosewho denied the liberal
doctrines of Internal Improvements, originated, according to the best of my
recollection, somewhere between North Carolina and Georgia. Well,
Sir, those mischievous Radicals were to be put down, and the strong arm
of South Carolina was stretched out to put them down. About this time,
Sir, I returned to Congress. The battle with the radicals had been fought,
and our South Carolina champions of the doctrines of Internal Improve
ment had nobly maintained their ground, and were understood to have
achieved a victory. They had driven back the enemy with discomfiture ;
a thing, by the way, Sir, which is not always performed when it is prom
ised. A gentleman, to whom I have already referred, in this debate, had
come into Congress during my absence from it, from South Carolina, and
had brought with him a high reputation for ability. He came from a
school with which we had been acquainted, ct noscitur a sociis. I hold
in my hand, Sir, a printed speech of this distinguished gentleman, (Mr.
McDuEFiE,) " ON INTERNAL IMPROVEMENTS," delivered about the period
to which I now refer, and printed with a few introductory remarks upon
consolidation ; in which, Sir, I think he quite consolidated the arguments
ofhis opponents, the Radicals, if to crush be to consolidate. I give you
ashort but substantive quotation from these remarks. He is speaking of
a pamphlet, then recently published, entitled " Consolidation ;" and hav
ino' alluded to the question of rechartering the former Bank of the United
States, he says : " Moreover, in the early history of parties, and when
Mr. Crawford advocated the renewal of the old charter, it was considered
a federal measure ; which Internal Improvement never was, as this au
thor erroneouslystates. This latter measure originated in the administra
tion of Mr. Jefferson, with the appropriation for the Cumberland Road ;
and was first proposed, as a system, by Mr. Calhoun, and carried through
the House of Representatives by a large majority of the Republicans,
including almost every one of the leading men who carried us through
the late war."
So then, Internal Improvement is not one of the Federal heresies.
One paragraph more. Sir —
"The author in question, not content with denouncing as Federalist,
General Jackson, Mr. Adams, Mr. Calhoun, and the majority of the South
Carolina delegation in Congress, modestly extends the denunciation to
Mr. Monroe and the whole Republican party.." Here are his words,
'During the adrainistration of Mr. Monroe, much has passed which the
republican party would be glad to approve, if they could ! ! But the prin
cipal feature, and that which has chiefly elicited these observations, is the
renewal of the system of internal improvements.' Now, this raeas
ure was adopted by a vote of 115 to 86, of a republican Congress, and
sanctioned by a republican President. Who, then, is this author, who
assumes the high prerogative of denouncing, in the name of the republican
party, the republican administration of the country ; a denunciation inclu
ding within its sweep, Calhoun, Lowndes and Cheves ; men who will be
regarded as the brightest ornaments of South Carolina, and the strongest
pillars of the republican party, as long as the late war shall be remem
bered, and talents and patriotism shall be regarded as the proper objects
ofthe admiration and gratitude ofa free people ! I"
Such are the opinions, Sir, which were maintained by South Carolina

57
gentlemen in the House of Representatives, on the subject of Internal
Improvement, when I took my seat there as a member from Massachu
setts, in 1823. But this is not all; we had a bill before us, and passed it
in that House, entitled " An act to procure the necessary surveys, plans,
and estimates, upon the subject of Roads and Canals " It authorized the
President to cause surveys and estimates to be made of the routes of such
Roads and Canals as, he might deem of National importance, in a commer
cial or military point of view, or for the transportation ofthe mail; and
appropriated thirty thousand dollars, out of the Treasury, to defray the
expense. This act, though preliminary in its nature, covered the whole
ground. It took for granted the complete power of Internal Improve
ment, as far as any of its advocates had ever contended for it. Having
passed the other house, the bill came up to the Senate, and was here con
sidered and debated in April, 1824. The honorable member from South
Carolina was a member of the Senate at that time. While the bill
was under consideration here, a motion was made to add the following
proviso :
" Provided, That nothing herein contained shall be construed tO affirm
or admit a power in Congress on their own authority, to make Roads or
Canals, within any ofthe States ofthe Union."
The yeas and nays were taken on this proviso, and the honorable mem
ber voted in the negative. The proviso failed,
A motion was then made to add this provision, viz :
'•Provided, That the faith ofthe United States is hereby pledged, that
no money shall ever be expended for Roads or Canals, except it shall be
among the several States, and in the same proportion as direct taxes are
laid and assessed by the provisions ofthe Constitution."
The honorable member voted against this proviso also, and it failed.
The bill was then put on its passage, and the honorable member voted
for it, and it passed, and became a law.
Now it strikes me, Sir, that there is no maintaining these votes, but
upon the power of internal improvement, in its broadest sense. In truth,
these bills for surveys and estimates have always been considered as test
questions. They show who is for, and who against internal improve
ment. This law itself went the whole length, and assumed the full and
complete power. The gentleman's votes sustained that power, in every
form, in which the various propositions to amend presented it. He went
for the entire and unrestrained authority, without consulting the States,
and without agreeing to any proportionate distribution. And now, suffer
me to remind you, Mr: President, that it is this very same power, thus
sanctioned, in every form, by the gentleman's own opinion, that is so plain
and manifest a usurpation, that the State of South Carolina is supposed to
be justified in refusing submission to any laws- carrying the power into
eff"ect. Truly, Sir, is not this a little too hard ? May we not crave some
mercy, under favor and protection of the gentleman's own authority .?
Admitting that a road or a canal must be written down flat usurpation as
ever was comraitted, may we find no mitigation in our respect for his
place, and his vote, as one that knows the law ?
The Tariff, which South Carolina had an efficient hand in establishing,
in 1816, and this asserted power of internal improveraent, advanced by her
in the same year, and as we have now seen approved and sanctioned hy
her Representatives in 1824, these two measures are the great grounds on
which she is now thought to be justified in breaking up the Union, if she
sees fit to break it up !

58
I may now safely say, I think, that we have had the authority of lead
ing and distinguished gentleraen frora South Carolina in support of the doc
trine of Internal Improvement. I repeat, that, up to 1824, I,~for one,
followed South Carolina; but vvhen that star in its ascension, veered off
in an unexpected direction, I relied on its light no longer. [Here the
Vice President said — does the Chair understand the gentleman from Mas
sachusetts, to say, that the person now occupying the Chair of the Senate,
has changed his opinions on the subject of Internal Improvements .?] —
From nothing ever said to me, Sir, have I had reason to know of any
change in the opinions of the person filling the Chair of the Senate.. If
such change has taken- place, I regret it ; I speak generally of the State
of South Carolina. Individuals we know there are, who hold opinions
favorable to the power. An application for its exercise, in behalf of a
public work in South Carolina itself, is now pending, I believe, in the
other House, presented by raembers from that State.
I have thus. Sir, peihaps not withoutsome tediousness of detail, shown,
that if I am in error, on the subject of internal improvements, how, and
in what company I fell into that error. If I am wrong, it is apparent who
misled me.
I go to other remarks of the honorable member — and I have to com
plain of an entire misapprehension of what I said on the subject of the na
tional debt — though I can hardly perceive how any One could misunder
stand me. What I said was, not that I wished to put off the payment of
the debt, but on the contrary, that 1 had always voted for every measure
for its reduction, as uniformly as the gentleman himself. He seems to
claim the exclusive merit of a disposition to reduce the public charge : I
do not allow it to him. As a debt, I was, I am, for paying it ; because it
is a charge on our finances, and on the industry of the country. But, I
observed, that 1 thought I perceived a morbid fervor on that subject ; an
excessive anxiety to pay off the debt ; not so much because it is a debt
simply, as because, while it lasts, it furnishes one objection to disunion. It
is a tie of common interest while it lasts. I did not impute such motive
to the honorable member himself ; but that there is such a feeling in ex
istence, I have not a particle of doubt. The most I said was, that if one
effect of the debt was to strengthen our Union, that effect, itself, was not
regretted by me, however much others might rLgret it. The gentleman
has not seen how to reply to this, otherwise than by supposing me to have
advanced the doctrine, that a national debt is a national blessing. Others,
I must hope, will find less difficulty in understanding me. I distinctly and
pointedly cautioned the honorable member not to understand me as ex
pressing an opinion favorable to the continuance of the debt. I repeated
this caution, and repeated it more than once — but it was thrown away.
On yet anotl^gr point, I was still more unaccountably n-iisunderstood.
The gentleman had harangued against " consolidation." 1 told him, in
reply, that there was one kind of consohdation to which I was attached,
and that was, the consolidatioini of our union ; and that this was pre
cisely that consolidation to which I feared others were not attached. That
such consolidation was the very end of the constitution — the leading ob
ject, as they had informed us themselves, which its framers had kept in
view. I turned to their communication, and read their very words  " the
consolidation of the Union" — and expressed my devotion to this sort of
consolidation. I said in terms that I wished not, in the slightest degree,
to augment the powers of this Government ; that my object waslo pre-

59
serve not to enlarge ; and that by consolidating the Union, 1 understood
no more than the strengthening of the Union and perpetuating it. Hav
ing been thus explicit; having thus read from the printed book, the pre
cise words which I adopted, as expressing in my own sentiments, it passes
comprehension, how any man could understand me as contending for an
extension uf the powers of the Govetnment, or for consolidation in that
odious sense, in which it raeans an accumulation, in the Federal Gov
ernment, of the powers properly belonging to the States.
I repeat, Sir, that, in adopting the sentiments of the framers of the Con
stitution, I read their language audibly, and word for word : and 1 pointed
out the distinction, just as fully as I have now done, between the consol
idation of the Union and that other obnoxious consolidation, -which 1 dis
clairaed and yet the honorable gentleman misunderstood rne. The gentle
man had said that he wished for ho fixed revenue_^not a shilling. If, by
a word, he could convert the Capitol into gold, he would not do it. Why
all this fear of revenue .? Why, Sir, because, as the gentleman told us, it
tends to consolidation. Now this can mean neither more nor less than
that a common revenue is a common interest, and that all common inter
ests tend to hold the union of the States together. .1 confess I like that
tendency ; if the gentleman dislikes it he is right in deprecating a shill
ing's fixed revenue. So much Sir, for consolidation.
As well as I recollect the course of his remarks, the honorable gentle
man next recurred to the subject of the Tariff. He did not doubt the
word must be of unpleasant sound to me, and proceeded, with an effort
neither new nor attended with new success, to involve me andmy votes
in inconsistency and contradiction. I am happy the honorable gentleman
has furnished rae an Opportunity of a timely remark ortvyo on that subject.
I was glad he approached it, for it is a question I enter upon without fear
from any body. The strenuous toil ofthe gentleman has been to raise an
inconsistency between my dissent to the Tariff in 1824 and my vote in
1828. Il is labor lost. He pays undeserved compliment to my speech
in 1824 ; but this is to raise me high, that my fall, as he would have it, in
1828, may be the more signal. Sir, there was no fall at all. Between
the ground I stood on in 1824, and that I took in 1828, there was not only
no precipice; but no declivity. It was a change of position, to meet
new circumstances, but on the same level. A plain tale explains the
whole raatter. In 1816, 1 had not acquiesced in the Tariff, then supported
by South Carolina. To some parts of it especially, I felt and expressed
great repugnance. I held the same opinions in 1821, at the meeting in
Faneuil Hall, to which the gentlemen has alluded. 1 said then, and say
now, that as an original question, the authority of Congress to exercise
the revenue power, with direct reference to the protection of manufac
tures, is a questionable authority, far more questionable, in myjudgment,
than the power of Internal Improvements. I must confess, Sir, that, in
one respect, some impression has been made on my opinions lately. Mr.
Madison's publication has put the power in a very strong light. He has
placed it, 1 must acknowledge, upon grounds of construction and argu
ment, which seem impregnable. But, even if the power were doubtful,
on the face of the Constitution itself, it had been assumed and asserted in
the first revenue law ever passed under that same Constitution ; and, on
thi.s ground, as a matter settled by cotemporaneous practice, I had refrain
ed frora expressing the opinion that the Tariff laws transcended constitu
tional limits, as the gentleman supposes. What did I say at Faneuil

60
Hall, as far as I now remember, was, that this was originally matter of
doubtful construction. The gentleman himself, I suppose, thinks there is
no doubt about it, and that the laws are plainly against the Constitution.
Mr. Madison's letters, already referred to, contain, in my judgment, by
far the raost able exposition extant of this part of the Constitution. _ He
has satisfied me, so far as the practice of the Government had left it an
open question.
With a great majority ofthe Representatives of Massachusetts, I voted
against the Tariff of 1824. My reasons were then given, and I will not
now repeat them. But notwithstanding our dissent, the great States of
New York, Pennsylvania, Ohio, and Kentucky, went for the bill, in al
most unbroken column, and it passed. Congress and the President sanc
tioned it, and it became the law ofthe land. What, then, were we to do.'
Our only option was either to fall in with this settled course of public
policy, and to accommodate ourselves to it as well as we could, or to em
brace the South Carolina doctrine, and talk of nullifying the statute by
State interference.
This last alternative did not suit our principles, and, of cpurse, we adopt
ed the former. In 1827, the subject came again before Congress, on a
proposition favorable to wool and woolens. We looked upon the systera
of protection as being fixed and settled. The law of 1824 remained. It
had gone into full operation, and in regard to some objects intended by it,
perhaps most of them had produced all its expected effects. No man pro
posed to repeal it — no_man attei-npted to renew the general contest on its
principle. But, owing to subsequent and unforeseen occurrences, the bene
fit intended by it to wool and woolen fabrics, had not been realized.
Events, not known here when the law passed, had taken place, which de
feated its object in that particular respect. A measure was accordingly
brought forward to meet this precise deficiency, to remedy this particular
defect. It was limited to wool and woolens. Was ever any thing more
reasonable.? If the policy of the Tariff laws had become established in
principle, as the permanent policy ofthe Government, should they not be
revised and amended, and made equal, like other laws, as exigencies should
arise, or justice require .? Because we had doubted about adopting the sj'S-
tem, werewe to refuse to cure its manifest defects, after it became adopted,
and when no one attempted its repeal .? And this. Sir, is the inconsistency
so much bruited. I had voted against the Tariff of 1824 — but it passed ;
and in 1827 and 1828, 1 voted to amend it in a point essential to the inter
est of my constituents. Where is the inconsistency.? Could I do otherwise.?
Sir, does political consistency consist iii always giving negative votes .?
Does it require of a public man to refuse to concur in amending la'ws, be
cause they passed against his consent .? Having voted against the Tariff'
originally, does consistency demand that 1 should do all in my power to
maintain an unequal Tariff, burdensome to my own constituents, in many
respects, favorable .in none .? To consistency of that sort, I lay no claim ;
and there is another sort to which I lay as little — and that is, a kind of
consistency, by which persons feel themselves as much bound to oppose
a proposition after it has become the law ofthe land, as before.
The bill of 1827, limited, as I have said, to the single object in which
the Tariff of 1824, had manifestly failed in its effect, passed the House of
Representatives, but was lost here. We had then the act of 1828. I
need not recur to the history of a raeasure so recent. Its enemies spiced
it with whatsoever they thought would render it distasteful ; its friends

61
took it, drugged as it was. Vast amounts of property, many millions, had
been invested in manufactures, under the inducements of 1824. Events
called loudly, as I thought, for further regulations to secure the degree of
protection intended 'oy that act. I was disposed to vote for such regula
tions and desired nothing more ; but certainly was not to be bantered out
of my purpose by a threatened augmentation of duty on molasses put into
the bill for the avowed purpose of making it obnoxious. The vote may
have been right or wrong, wise or unwise ; but it is little less than absurd
to allege against it an inconsistency with opposition to the former law.
Sir, as to the general subject, of the Tariff, I have little now to say.
Another opportunity may be presented. I remarked the other day, that
this policy did not begin with us in New England ; and yet, Sir, New
England is charged with vehemence, as being favorable, or charged with
equal vehemence, as being unfavorable to the Tariff policy, just as best
suits the time, place, and occasion for making some charge against her.
The credulity of the public has been put to its extreme capacity of false
impression, relative to her conduct, in this particular. Through all the
South, during the late contest, it was New England policy, and a New
England administration, that was afflicting the country with a Tariff poli
cy beyond all endurance, while on the other side of the Alleghany, even
the act of 1828 itself, the very sublimated essence of oppression, according
to Southern opinions, was pronounced to be one of those blessings, for
which the West was indebted to the "generous South."
With large investments, in manufacturing establishments and various
interests connected with and dependent on them, it is not to he expected
that New England, any rnore than other portions ofthe country, will now
consent to any measure, destructive or highly dangerous. The duty of
the Government, at the present moment, would seem to be to preserve,
not to destroy ; to maintain the position which it has assumed; and for
one, I shall feel it an indispensable obligation to hold it steady, as far as in
my power, to that degree of protection which it has undertaken to be
stow. No more of the Tariff.
Professing to be provoked, by what he chose to consider a charge made
by me against South Carolina, the honorable member, Mr. President, has
taken up a new crusade against Ne-w England. Leaving altogether the
subject of the public lands, in which his success, perhaps, had been neither
distinguished or satisfactory, and letting go, also, of the topic of the Tariff,
he sallied fourth in a general assault, on the opinions, politics, and parties
of New England, as they have been exhibited inthe last thirty years.
This is natural. The " narrow policy" ofthe public lands had proved a
legal settlement in South Carolina, and was not to be removed. The
" accursed policy" ofthe Tariff, also, had established the fact of its birth
and parentage, in the same State. No wonder, therefore, the gentleman
wished to carry the war, as he expressed it, into the enemy's country.
Prudently willing to quit these subjects, he was doubtless desirous of fast
ening others, which could not be transferred south of Mason and Dixon's
hne. The politics of New England became his theme ; and it was in
this part of his speech, I think, that he menaced me with such sore dis
comfiture. Discomfiture ! why, Sir, when*he attacks any thing which I maintain,
and overthrows it ; when he turns the right or left of any position which
I take up ; when he drives me from any ground I choose to occupy, he
may then talk of discomfiture, but not till that distant day. 'What has he

62
done.? Has he [maintained his own charges.? Has he proved what he
alleged .? Has he sustained himself, in his attack on the Government,
and on the history of the North, in the matter of the public lands .? Has
he disproved a fact, refuted a proposition, weakened an argument, main
tained by me .? Has he come within beat of drum of any position of
mine .? Oh, no, but he has " carried the war into the enemy's country !"
Carried the war into the enemy's country ! Yes, Sir, and what sort of a
war has he made of it .? Why, Sir, he has stretched a drag net over the
whole surface of perished pamphlets, indiscreet sermons, frothy para
graphs and fuming popular addresses ; over whatever the pulpit, in its
moments of alarm, the press, in its heats, and parties, in their extrava
gance, have severally thrown off', in times of general excitement and vio
lence. He has thus swept together a mass of such things, as but that
they are now old, the public health would have required him rather to
leave in their state of dispersion.
For a good long hour or two, we had the unbroken pleasure of listening
to the honorable raember, while he recited, with his usual grace and spirit,
and with evident high gusto, speeches, pamphlets, addresses, and all the
et ceteras of the political press, such as warm heads produce in warm
times ; and such as it would be " discorafiture" indeed, for any one, whose
taste did not delight in that sort of reading, to be obliged to peruse. This
is his war. This is to carry the war -into the enemy's country. It is in
an invasion of this sort, that he flatters himself with the expectation of
gaining laurels, fit to adorn a Senator's brow.
Mr. President, I shall not, it will, I trust, not be expected that I should,
either now, or at any time, separate this farrago into parts and answer
and examine its components. I shall hardly bestow upon it all, a general
remark or two. In the run of forty years, Sir, under this Constitution,
we have experienced sundry successive violent party contests. Party
arose, indeed, with the Constitution itself, and in some form or other, has
attended through the greater part of its history.
Whether any other Constitution than the old articles of confederation,
was desirable, was, itself, a question on which parties formed ; if a new
Constitution was framed, what powers should be given to it, was another
question ; and, when it had been formed, what was, in fact, the just ex
tent of the powers actually conferred, was a third. Parties, as we know,
existed under the first Administration, as distinctly marked, as those
which manifested themselves at any subsequent period.
The contest immediately preceding the political change in 1801, and
that, again, which existed at the commencement ofthe late war, are other
instances of party excitement, of something more than usual strength and
intensity. In all these conflicts, thers was, no doubt, mudh of vTolence,
on both and all sides. It would be impossible, if one had a fancy for such
employment, to adjust the relative quantum of violence between these
two contending parties. There was enough in each, as must always be
expected in popular governments. With a great deal of proper and dec
orous discussion, there was mingled a great deal, also, of declamation,
virulence, crimination and abuse.
In regard to any party, probably, at one of the leading epochs in the
history of parties, enough may be found to make out an other equally in
flamed exhibition, as that with which the honorable member has edified
us. For myself, Sir, 1 shall not rake among the rubbish of by-gone times
to see what I can find, or whether I cannot find something, by which I

63
can fix a blot on the escutcheon of any State, any party, or any part of the
country. Gen. Washington's administration was steadily and zealously
maintained, as we all know, by New England. It was violently opposed
elsewhere. We know in wh^t quarter he had the most earnest, constant,
and persevering support, in all his great and leading measures. We know
where his private and personal character were held in the highest degree
of attachment and veneration ; and we. know, too, where his measures
were opposed, his services slighted, and his character vilified.
We know, or we might know, if we turned to the Journals, who ex
pressed respect, gratitude, and regret, when he retired from the Chief Ma
gistracy ; and who refused to express either respect, gratitude, or regret —
I shall not open those Journals. Publications more abusive or scurrilous
never saw the light, than were sent forth against Washington, and all his
leading measures, from presses south of New England,-^ but 1 shal] not
look them up. I employ no scavengers — no one is in attendance on me,
tendering such means of retaliation ; and if there were, with an ass' load
of them, with a bulk as huge as that which the gentleman himself has
produced, I would not touch one of them. I see enough of the violence
of our own times, to be no way anxious to rescue from forgetfulness the
extravagancies of times past. Besides, what is all this to the present pur
pose .? It has nothing to do with the public lands, in regard to which the
attack was begun ; and it has nothing to do with those sentirnents and
opinions, which I have thought tend to disunion, and all of which the hon
orable member seems to have adopted himself, and undertaken to defend.
New England has, at times, so argues the gentlerhan, held opinions as dan
gerous, as those which he now holds. Be it so. But why, therefore, does
he abuse New England .? If he finds himself countenanced by acts of hers,
how is it that, while he relies on these acts, he covers, or seeks to cover,
their authors with reproach .?
But, Sir, if in. the course of forty years, there haive been undue efferves
cences of party in New England, has the same thing happened no where
else .? Party animosity, and party outrage, not in New England, but else
where, denounced President Washington, not only as a Federalist, but as
a Tory, a British agent, a man who, in his high office, sanctioned corrup
tion. But does the honorable member suppose, that if I had a tender here,
who should put such an effusion of wickedness and folly in my hand, that
I would stand up and read it against the South .? Parties ran into great
heats, again, in 1799, and 1 800. What was said, Sir, or rather what was
not said, in those years, against John Adams, one of the signers of the
Declaration of Independence, and its admitted ablest defender on the floor
of Congress .? If the gentleman wants to increase his stores of party abuse
and frothy violence — if he has a determined proclivity, to such pursuits,
there are treasures of that sort south of the Potomac, much to his taste,
yet untouched — I shall not touch them.
The parties which divided the country, at the commencement of the late
war, were violent. But then, there was violence on both pides, and vio
lence in every State. Minorities and majorities were equally violent. —
There was no more violence against the war in New England, than in
other States ! nor any more appearance of violence, except that, owing to
a dense population, greater facility for assembling, and more presses, there
may have been more in quantity, spoken and printed there, than in some
other places. In the article of sermons, too, New England is somewhat
more abundant than South Carolina ; and for that reason, the chance ot

64
finding here and there an exceptionable one, may be greater. I hope, too,
there are more good ones. Opposition may have been more formidable
in New England, as it embraced a larger portion ofthe whole population;
but it was no more unrestrained in its principle, or violent in manner. —
The minorities dealt quite as harshly wilh their own State governments,
as the majorities dealt with the administration here. There were presses
on both sides, popular meetings on both sides, aye, and pulpits on both
sides also. The gentleman's purveyers have only catered for him among
the productions of one side. I certainly shall not supply the deficiency
by furnishing samples of the other. I leave to him, and to them, the
whole concern.
It is enough for me to say, that if in any part of this, their grateful oc
cupation — if, in all their researches, they find any thing in the history of
Massachusetts, or New England, or in the proceedings of any legislative,
or other public body, disloyal to the Union, speaking slightly of its value,
proposing to break it up, or recommending non-intercourse with neighbor
ing States, on account of difference of political opinion, then. Sir, I give
them all up to the honorable gentleman's unrestrained rebuke ; expecting,
however, that he will extend h's buffetings, in like manner, to all similar
proceedings, wherever else found.
The gentleman, Sir, has spoken at large of former parties, now no long
er in being by their received appellations ; and has undertaken to instruct
us, not only in the knowledge of their principles, but of their respective
pedigrees also. He has ascended to their origin, and run out their gene
alogies. With most exemplary modesty, he speaks of the party to which
he professes to have belonged himself, as the true pure, the only honest,
patriotic party, derived by regular descent, from father to son, from the
time ofthe virtuous Romans ! Spreading before us the family tree of po
litical parties, he takes especial care to show himself, snugly perched on
a popular bough ! He is wakeful to the expediency of adopting such rules
of descent, for political parties, as shall bring him in, in exclusion of oth
ers, as an heir to the inheritance of all public virtue, and all true political
principles. His doxy is always orthodoxy. Heterodoxy is confined to
his opponents. He spoke. Sir, of the F^ederalists, and I thousht I saw
some eyes begin to open and stare a little, when he ventured on that
ground. lexpected he would draw his sketches rather lightly, when he
looked on the circle round him, and especially if he should cast his thoughts
to the high places out of the Senate. Nevertheless, he went back to
Rome, ad annum urbe condita, and found the fathers of the Federalist,
in the priraeval aristocrats of that renowned empire ! He traced the flow
of Federal blood down through successive ages and centuries, till he got
into the veins of the American Tories, (of whom, by the way, there were
twenty in the Carolinas for one in Massachusetts.) From the Tories,
he followed it to the Federalists : — and as the Federal party was broken
up, and there was no possibility of transmitting it further on this side of
the Atlantic, he seems to have discovered that it has gone off, collaterally,
though againsf all the canons of descent, into the ultras of France, and
finally became extinguished, like exploded gas, among the adherents of
Don Miguel.
This, Sir, is an abstract of the gentleman's history of Federalism. I am
not about to controvert it. It is not, at present, worth the pains of refuta
tion, because, Sir, if at this day one feels the sin of Federalism lying heavily
on, his conscience, he can easily obtain remission. He may even have an

65
indulgence, if he is desirous of repeating the transgression. It is an affair
of no difficulty to get into this same right line of patriotic descent. A man,
now-a-days, is at liberty to choose his political parentage. He may elect
his own father. Federalist or not, he may, if he choose, claim to'belong
to the favored stock, and his claim will be allowed. He may carry back
his pretensions just as far as the honorable gentleman himself; nay, he
may make himself out the honorable gentleman's cousin, and prove satis
factorily, that he is descended from the same political great-grandfather.
All this is allowable. We all know a process, Sir, by which the whole
Essex Junto could, in one hour, be all washed white from their ancient
Federalism, and come out, everyone of them, an original Democrat, dyed
in the wool I Some of them have actually undergone the operation, and
they say it is quite easy. The only inconvenience it occasions, as they
tell us, is a slight tendency of the blood to the face, a soft suff'usion, which
however is very transient, since nothing is said calculated to deepen the
red on the cheek, but a prudent silence observed, in regard to all the past.
Indeed, Sir, some smiles of approbation have been bestowed, and some
crumbs of comfort have fallen, not a thousand miles from the door of the
Hartford Convention itself And ifthe author of the ordinance of 1787
possessed the other requisite qualifications, there is no knowing, not
withstanding his Federalism, to what heights of favor he might not yet
attain. Mr. President, in carrying his warfare, such as it was, into New Eng
land, the honorable gentleman all along professes to be acting on the de
fensive. He desires to consider me as having assailed South Carolina,
aud insists that he comes forth only as her champion, and in her defense.
Sir, I do not adrait that I made any attack whatever on South Carolina.
Nothing like it. The honorable member, in his first speech, expressed
opinions, in regard to revenue, and some other topics, which 1 heard both
with pain and surprise. I told the gentleman that I was aware that such
sentiments were entertained out of the government, but had not expected
to find them advanced in it ; that I knew there were persons in the South
who spfak ofour Union with indifference, or doubt, taking pains to mag
nify its evils, and to say nothing of its benefits ; that the honorable mem
ber hiraself, 1 was sure, could never be one ofthese ; and I regretted the
expression of such opinions as he had avowed, because 1 thought their
obvious tendency was to encourage feelings of disrespect to the Union,
and to weaken its connection. This, Sir, is the sum and substance of all
I said on the subject. And this constitutes the attack, which called on
the chivalry ofthe gentleman, in his opinion, to harry us with such a fo
rage among the party pamphlets and party proceedings of Massachusetts.
If he means that I spoke with dissatisfaction or disrespect of the ebulli
tions of individuals in South Carolina, it is true. But, if he means that
I had assailed the character of the State, her honor or patriotism, that I
had reflected on her history or her conduct, he had not the slightest
ground for any such assumption. I did not even refer, I think, in my ob
servations, to any collection of individuals. I said nothing ofthe recent
Conventions. I spoke in the most guarded and careful manner, and only
expressed my regret for the publication of opinions which I presumed the
honorable member disapproved as much as myself In thisi, it seems, I
was mistaken.
I do not remember that the gentleman has disclaimed any sentiraent, or
any opinion, of a supposed anti- Union tendency, which on all or any ofthe
5

66
recent occasions has been expressed. The whole drift of his speech has
been rather to prove, that, in divers times and manners, sentiments equal
ly liable to my objection have been promulgated in New England. —
And one would suppose that his object, in this reference to Massachusetts,
was to find a precedent to justify proceedings in the South, were it not
for the reproach and contumely with which he labors, all along, to load
his precedents.
By way of defending South Carolina frora what he chooses to think an
attack on her, he first quotes the example of Massachusetts, and then
denounces that example, in good set terms. This two-fold purpose, not
very consistent with itself, one would think, was exhibited more than once
in the course of his speech. He referred, for instance, to the Hartford
Convention. Did he do this for authority, or for a topic of reproach .? Ap
parently for both : for he told us that he should find no fault with the mere
fact of holding such a Convention, and considering and discussing such
questions as he supposes were then and there discussed ; but what ren
dered it obnoxious was the time it was holden, and the circurastances of
the country, then existing. We were in a war, he said, and the country
needed all our aid ; the hand of government required to be strengthened,
not weakened ; and patriotisra should have postponed such proceedings
to another day. The thing itself, theri, is a precedent ; the tirae and man
ner of it, only, subject of censure
Now, Sir, I go much farther, on this point, than the honorable member.
Supposing, as the gentleman seems to, that the Hartford Convention as
sembled for any puch purpose as breaking up the Union, because they
thought unconstitutional laws had been passed, or to concert on that sub
ject, or to calculate the value of the Union ; supposing this to be their pur
pose, or any part of it, then I say the meeting itself was disloyal, and was
obnoxious to censure, whether held in time of peace, or time of war, or
under whatever circumstances. The material matter is the object. Is
dissolution the object ? If it be, external circumstances may make it a
more or less aggravated case, but cannot aff'ect the principle. I do not
hold, therefore, that tbe Hartford Convention was pardonable, even to the
extent of the gentleman's adraission, if its objects were really such as have
been iraputed to it. Sir, there never was a tirae, under any degree of
exciteraent, in which the Hartford Convention, or any other Convention,
could maintain itself one moment in New England, if assembled for any
such purpose as the gentleman says would have been an allowable pur
pose. To hold conventions to decide questions of constitutional law ! — to
try the binding validity of statutes, by votes in a convention ! Sir, the
Hartford Convention, I presume, would not desire that the honorable gen
tleman should be their defender or advocate, if he puts their case upon
such untenable and extravagant grounds.
Then, Sir, the gentleman has no fault to find with these recently pro
mulgated South Carolina opinions. And, certainly, he need have none;
for his own sentiraents, as now advanced, and advanced on reflection, as
far as I bave been able to comprehend them, go the full length of all these
opinions. I propose, Sir, to say something on these, and to consider how
far they are just and constitutional. Before doing that, however, let me
observe, that the eulogium pronounced on the character of the State of
South Carolina, by the honorable gentleman, for her revolutionary and
other merits, meets my hearty concurrence. I shall not acknowledge, that
the honorable member goes before me in regard for whatever of distin-

67
guished talent or distinguished character, South Carolina has produced.
I claim part ofthe honor, I partake in the pride of her great names. I
claim them for countrymen, one and all. The Laurens, the Rutledges,
the Pinckneys, the Sumpters, the Marions — Americans, all — whose fame
is no more to be hemnied in by State lines, than their talents and patriot
ism were capable of being circumscribed within the same narrow limits.
In their day and generation, they served and honored the country, and the
whole country ; and their renown is of the treasures of the whole country.
Him, whose honored name the gentleman himself bears — does he suppose
me less capable of gratitude for his patriotism, or sympathy for his suffer
ings, than if his eyes had first opened upon the light in Massachusetts ih-
stead of South Carolina .? Sir, does he suppose it is in his power to ex
hibit a Carolina name so bright as to produce envy in my bosom .? No,
Sir, increased gratification and deligh*, rather.
Sir, I thank God, that if 1 am gifted with little of the spirit which is
said to be able to raise mortals to the skies, I have yet none, as I trust, of
that other spirit, which would drag angels down. When I shall be found,
Sir, in my place here, in the Senate, or elsewhere, to sneer at public merit,
because it happened to spring up beyond the little limits of my own State,
or neighborhood ; when I refuse, for any such cause, or for any cause, the
horaage due to American talent, to elevated patriotism, to sincere devo
tion to liberty and the country ; or if I see an uncomraon endowment of
heaven ; if I see extraordinary capacity and virtue in any son of the South
— and if moved by local prejudice, or gangrened by State jealousy, I get
up here to abate the tithe of a hair from his just character and just fame,
may my tongue cleave to the roof of my mouth ! Sir, let me recur to
pleasing recollections — let me indulge in refreshing remembrance of the
past — let me remind you that in early times no States cherished greater
harmony, both of principle and feeling, than Massachusetts and South
Carolina. Would to God that harmony might again return. Shoulder
to shoulder they went through the Revolution — hand in hand they stood
round the administration of Washington, and felt his own great arm lean
on them for support. Unkind feeling, if it exist, alienation and distrust,
are the growth, unnatural to such soils, of false principles since sown. —
They are weeds, the seeds of which that same great arm never scattered.
Mr. President, I shall enter on no encomium upon Massachusetts — she
needs none. There she is — behold her, and judge for yourselves. There
is her history — the world knows it by heart The past, at least is secure.
There is Boston, and Concord, and Lexington, and Bunker Hill — and there
they will remain forever. The bones of her sons, fallen in the great strug
gle for Independence, now lie mingled with the soil of every State from
New England to Georgia; and there they will lie forever. And, Sir,
where American liberty raised its first voice, and where its youth was
nurtured and sustained, there it still lives, in the strength of its manhood,
dan full of its original spirit. If discord and disunion shall wound it — if
party strife and blind ambition shall hawk at and tear it — if folly and mad
ness — if uneasiness, under salutary and necessary restraint, shall succeed
to separate it from that Union, by which alone its existence is made sure,
it will stand, in the end, by the side of that cradle in which its infancy
was. rocked ; it will stretch forth its arm with whatever vigor it raay still
retain, over the friends who gather round if; and it will fall at last, if fall
it raust, amidst the proudest monuments of its own glory, and on the very
spot of its origin.

68
There yet remains to be perforraed, Mr. President, by far the most
grave and important duty, vvhich I feel to be devolved on me by this occa
sion. It is to state, and to defend, what I conceive to be thetrue princi
ples of the Constitution under which we are here assembled. I might
well have desired that so weighty a task should have fallen into other and
abler hands. I could have wrshed that it should have been executed by
those, whose character and experience give weight and influence to their
opinions, such as cannot possibly belong to mine. But, Sir, I have met
the occasion, notsought it; and I shall proceed to state my ovvn sentiments,
without challenging for them any particular regard, with studied plainness,
and as much precision as possible.
I understand the honorable gentleman from South Carolina to maintain,
that it is a right of the State Legislatures to interfere, whenever, in their
judgment, this Government transcends its Constitutional limits, and to
arrest the operation of its laws.
I understand him to maintain this right, as a right existing under the
Constitution; not as a right to overthrow it, on the ground of extreme
necessity, such as would justify violent revolution.
I understand him to maintain an authority, on the part of the States,
thus to interfere, for the purpose of correcting the exercise of power by
the General Government, of checking it, and of compelling it to conform
to their opinion of the extent of its power.
I understand him to maintain, that the ultimate power of judging of the
constitutional extent of its own authority, is not lodged exclusively in the
General Government, or any branch of it ; but that, on the contrary, the
States may lawfully decide for themselves, and each State for itself, wheth
er, in a given case, the act of the General Government transcends its power.
I understand himto insist, that if the exigency of the case inthe opin
ion of any State Government, require it, such State Government may, by
its own sovereign authority, annul an act of the General Government,
which it deems plainly and palpably unconstitutional.
This is the sum of what I understand from him to be the South Caroli
na doctrine. I propose to consider it, and to compare it with the Consti
tution. Allow me to say, as a prelirainary remark, that.I call this the South
Carolina doctrine, only because the gentleraan himself has so denominated
it. I do not feel at liberty to say that South Carolina, as a State, has
ever advanced these sentiments. I hope she has not, and never may.
That a great majority of her people are opposed to the tariff laws, is doubt-
le,ss true. That a majority, somewhat less than that just mentioned, con
scientiously believe these laws unconstitutional, may probably also be
true. But, that any majority holds to the right of direct State interfer
ence, at State discretion, the right of nullifying' acts of Congress by acts of
State legislation, is more than I know, and what I shall be slow to believe.
That there are individuals, besides the honorable gentleman, who do
maintain these opinions, is quite certain. I recollect the recent expres
sion of a sentiment, which circumstances attending its utterance and pub
lication, justify us in supposing was not unpremeditated. " The sove
reignty of the State ; never to be controlled, construed, or decided on,
but by her own feelings of honorable justice."
[Mr. Hayne here rose, and said, that for the purpose of being clearly
understood, he would state, that his proposition was in the words of the
Virginia resolution, as follows :
" That this Assembly doth explicitly and peremptorily declare, that it

69
views the powers of the Federal Government, as resulting from the com
pact, to which the States are parties, as limited by the plain sense and
intention of the instrument constituting that compact, as no farther valid
than they are authorized by the grants enuraerated in that corapact ; and
that, in case of a deliberate, palpable and dangerous exercise of other
powers not granted by the said compact, the States who are parties there
to have the right, and are in duty bound to interpose for arresting the
progress of the evil, and for maintaining, within their respective limits,
the authorities, rights and liberties pertaining to them."]
Mr. Webster resumed : ,
I am quite aware, Mr. President, of the existence of the resolution
which the gentleman read, and has now repeated, and that he -relies on it
as his authority. I know the source, too, from which it is understood to
have proceeded. I need not say, that I have much respect for the con
stitutional opinions of Mr. Madison ; they would weigh greatly with me,
always. But, before the authority of his opinion be vouched for the
gentleman's proposition, it will be proper to consider what is the fair in
terpretation of that resolution, to which Mr. Madison is understood to
have given his sanction. As the gentleman construes it, it is an authori
ty for him. Possibly, he may not have adopted the right construction.
That resolution declares, that in the case of thc dangerous exercise of
powers, not granted by the General Government, the States may inter
pose to arrest the progress ofthe evil. But how interpose, and what does
this declaration purport .? Does it mean no more, than that there may be
extreme cases, in which the people, in any mode of assembling, may resist
usurpati-on, and relieve themselves from a tyrannical government .? No one
will deny this. Such resistance is not only acknowledged to be just in
America, but in England also- Blackstone admits as much, in the theory
and practice too, of the English constitution. We, Sir, who oppose the
Carolina doctrine, do not deny, that the people may, if thejr choose,
throw off any government, when it becomes oppressive and intolerable,
and erect a better in its stead. We all know, that civil institutions are
established for the public benefit, and that when they cease to answer the
ends of their existence, they may be changed.
But I do not understand the doctrine now contended for, to be that
which, for the sake of distinctness, we may call the right of revolution,
1 understand the gentleman to maintain, that without revolution, without
civil commotion, without rebellion, a remedy for supposed abuse and
transgression of the powers of the General Government, lies in a. direct
appeal to the interference of the State Governments. — [Mr. Hayne here
rose: He did not contend, he said, for the mere right of revolution, but
for the right of constitutional resistance. What he maintained was, that
in case of a plain, palpable violation of the Constitution by the General
Government, a State may interpose ; and that this interposition is consti
tutional.] — Mr. Webster resumed :
So, Sir, I understood the gentleman, and am happy to find that I did .
not misunderstand him. What he contends for is, that it is constitutional
to interrupt the .administration of the Constitution itself, in the hands of
those who are chosen and sworn to administer it, by the direct interfer
ence, in form of law, of the States, in virtue of their sovereign capacity.
The inherent right in the people to reform their government, I do not deny ;
and they have another right, and that is, to resist unconstitutional laws,
without overturning the Government. It is no doctrine of mine, that un-

70
constitutional laws bind the people. The great question is whose prerog
ative is if to decide on fhe constitutioncdity, or unconstitutionality of the
laios ? On that the main debate hinges. The proposition, that in case of
a supposed violation of the Constitution by Congress, the States have a
constitutional right to interfere, and annul the law of Congress, is the pro
position of the gentleman ; I do not admit it. If the gentleman had in
tended no raore than to assert the right of revolution, for justifiable cause,
he would have said only what all agree to. But 1 cannot conceive that
there can be a middle course, between subraission to the laws, when regu
larly pronounced constitutional, on the one hand, and open resistance,
which is revolution, or rebellion, on the other. I say, the right of a State
to annul a law of Congress cannot be raaintained, hut on the ground of
the unalienable right of man to resist oppression ; that is to say, upon the
ground of ravolation. I admit, that there is an ultimate violent remedy,
above the Constitution, and in defiance of the Constitution, which may be
resorted to, when a revolution is to be justified. But I do not admit, that,
under the Constitution, and in conformity with it, there is any mode in
which a State Government, as a member of the IJnion, can interfere and
stop the progress of the General Government, by force of her own laws,
under any circumstances whatever.
This leads us to inquire into the origin of this Government, and the
source of its power. Whose agent is it .? Is it the creature of the State
Legislatures, or the creature of the people .? If the government of the
United States be the agent of the State Governments, then they may
control it, provided they can agree in the manner of controlling it ; if it is
the agent of the people, then the people alone can control it, restrain it,
modify or reform it. Itis observable enough, that the doctrine for which
the honorable gentleman contends, leads him to the necessity of main
taining, not only that this General Government is the creature of the
States, but that it is the creature of each of the States severally ; so that
each may assert the power, for itself, of determining whether it acts
within the limits of its authoriiy. It is the servant of four and twenty
masters, of different wills and different purposes ; and yet bound to obey
all. This absurdity, (for it seems no less,) arises from a misconception
as to the origin of this Government, and its true character. It is, sir, the
people's Constitution, the people's Government ; made for the people;
made by the people ; and answerable to the people. The people of the
United States have declared that this Constitution shall be the Supreme
Law. We must either admit the proposition, or dispute their authority.
The States are unquestionably sovereign, so far as their sovereignty is not
affected by this supreme law. The State Legislatures as political bodies,
however sovereign, are yet not sovereign over the people. So far as the
people bave given power to the General Government, so far the grant is
unquestionably good, and the Government holds of the people, and not of
the State Governments. We are all agents of the same supreme power,
the people. The General Governraent and the State Governraents derive
their authority from the same source. Neither can, in relation to the oth
er, be called primary ; though one is definite and restricted, and the other
general and residuary.
The National Government possesses those powers which it can be
shown the people have conferred on it, and no more. All the rest be
longs to the State Governments, or to the people themselves. So far as
the people have restrained State sovereignty, by the expression of their

71
will, in the Constitution of the United States, so far, it must be adraitted.
State sovereignty is effectually controlled. 1 do not contend that it is, or
ought to be, controlled farther. The sentiment to which I have referred,
propounds that State sovereignty is only to be controlled by its own " feel
ing! of justice ;" that is to say, it is not to be controlled at all ; for one who
is to follow his feelings, is under no legal control. Now, however men
may think this ought to be, the fact is, that the people of the United
States have chosen to impose control on State sovereignties. The Con
stitution has ordered the matter differently from what this opinion announ
ces. To make war, for instance, is an exercise of sovereignty ; but the
Constitution declares that no State shall make war. To coin money is
another exercise of sovereign power ; but no State is at liberty to coin
money. Again, the Constitution says, that no sovereign State shall be so
sovereign as to make a treaty. These prohibitions, it must be confessed,
are a control, on the State sovereignty of South Carolina, as well as of
the other States, which does not arise " from her own feelings of honora
ble justice." Such an opinion, therefore, is in defiance of the plainest
provisions of the Constitution.
There are other proceedings of public bodies which have already been
alluded to, and to which I refer again for the purpose of ascertaining more
fully, what is the length and breadth of that doctrine, denominated the
Carolina doctrine, which the honorable member has now stood up on this
floor to maintain.
In one of them I find it resolved, that " the Tariff of 1828, and every
other Tariff designed to promote one branch of industry, at the expense
of others, is contrary to the meaning and intention of the federal compact ;
and as such, a dangerous, palpable, and deliberate, usurpation of power,
by a determined majority, wielding the General Government beyond the
limits of its delegated powers, as calls upon the States which compose
the suffering minority, in their sovereign capacity to exercise the powers
which, as sovereigns, necessarily devolve upon them, when their com
pact is violated."
Observe, sir, that this resolution holds the Tariff of 1828, and every
other Tariff, designed to promote one branch of industry at the expense
of another, to be such a dangerous, palpable, and deliberate usurpation of
power, as calls upon the States, in their sovereign capacity, to interfere by
their own power. This denunciation, Mr. President, you "(yill please to
observe, includes our old tariff of 1816, as well as all others: because that
was established to promote the interest of the manufactures of cotton, to
the manifest and admitted injury of the Calcutta cotton trade. Observe,
again, that all the qualifications are here rehearsed, and charged upon the
Tariff, which are necessary to bring the case within the gentleman's pro
position. The Tariff' is a usurpation ; it is a dangerous usurpation ; it is
a palpable usurpation ; itis a deliberate usurpation. It is such a usurpa
tion, as calls upon the States to exercise their right of interference. Plere
is a case then, within the gentleman's principles, and all his qualifications
of his principles. It is a case for action. The Constitution is plainly,
dangerously, palpably, and deliberately violated ; and the States raust in
terpose iheir own authority to arrest the law. Let us suppose the State
of South Carolina to express this same opinion, by the voice of her Leg
islature. That would be very iraposing, but what then ? is the voice of
one State conclusive .? It so happens, that at the very moment when
South Carolina resolves that the Tariff laws are unconstitutional, Pennsyl-

72
vania and Kentucky, resolve exactly the reverse. They hold those laws
to be both highly proper, and strictly constitutional. And now, sir, how
does the honorable member propose to deal with this case .? How does he
get out of this difficulty, upon any principle ofhis.? His construction gets
us into it; how does he propose to get us out .?
In Carolina, the Tariff is a palpable, deliberate usurpation ; Carolina,
therefore, may nuUify it, and refuse to pay the duties. In Pennsylvania,
it is both clearly constitutional, and highly expedient ; and there, the
duties are to be paid. And yet, we live under a government of uniform
laws, and under a Constitution, too, which contains an express provision,
as it happens, that all duties shall be equal in all the States ! Does not
this approach absurdity .?
If there be no power to settle such questions, independent of either of
the States, is not the whole Union a rope of sand .? Are we not thrown
back again precisely upon the old Confederation .?
It is too plain to be argued. Four-and-twenty interpreters of constitu
tional lavv, each with a power to decide for itself, and none with authori
ty to bind any body else, and this constitutional law the only bond oftheir
union .? What is such a state of things, but a mere connection during
pleasure, or, to use the phraseology of the times,- during feeling ? And
that feeling, too, not the feeling of the people who established the Con
stitution, but the feeling of the State Governments.
In another of the South Carolina Addresses, having premised that the
crisis requires " all the concentrated energy of passion," an attitude ot
open resistance fo the laws of the Union is advised. Open resistance to
the laws, then, is the constitutional remedy, the conservative power of
the State, which the South Carolina doctrines teach for the redress of
political evils, real or imaginary. And its authors further say, that, ap
pealing with confidence to the Constitution itself, to justify their opinions,
they cannot consent to try their accuracy by the courts of justice. In
one sense, indeed, sir, this is assuming an attitude of open resistance in
favor of liberty. But what sort of lilDerty .? Tbe liberty of establishing
their own opinions, in defiance of the opinions of all others; the liberty
of judging and of deciding exclusively themselves, in a matter in which
others have as much right to judge and decide as they; the liberty of
placing their opinions above the judgment of all others, above the laws,
and above the Constitution. This is their liberty, and this is the fair re
sult of the proposition contended for by the honorable gentleman. Or it
may be more properly said, it is identical with it, rather than a result
from it. In the sarae publication we find the following : " Previously to
our Revolution, when the arm of oppression was stretched over New-
England, where did our Northern brethren meet with a braver sympathy,
than that which sprung from the bosom of Carolinians ! IT^' had no ex
tortion, no oppression, vo collision with the K!n:i's ministers, no /laviga-
tion interests springing up, in envious rivalry nf England ¦'"
This seems extraordinary language. South Carolina no collision with
the King's ministers, in 1775 ! no extortion ! no oppression ! But, sir, it
is also most significant language. Does any man doubt the purpose for
which it was penned .? Can any one fail to see that it was designed to
raise in the reader's mind the question, whether, at this tinir — that is to
say, in 1828 — South Carolina has any collision with the King's ministers,
any oppression, or extortion, to fear from England .? Whether, in short,
England, is not as naturally the friend of South Carolina, as New Eng-

73
land, with her navigation interests springing up in envious rivalry of Eng
land .? ...
Is it not strange, sir, that an intelligent man in South Carolina, in 1828,
should thus labor to prove, that, in 1775, there was no hostility, no cause
of war, between South Carolina and England.? That she had no occasion,
in reference to her own interest, or from a regard to her own welfare, to
take up arms in the revolutionary contest .? Can any one account for the
expression of such strange sentiments, and their circulation through the
State, otherwise than by supposing the object to be, what 1 have already
intimated, to raise the question, if they had no " coUision" (mark the ex
pression) with the ministers of King George the Third, in 1775, what
coUision have they, in 1828, with the ministers of King George the
Fourth.? What is there now, in the existing state of things, to separate
Carolina from OW, more, or rather, less, than from New England.?
Resolutions, sir, have been recently passed by the Legislature of South
Carolina. I need not refer to them; they go no farther than the honora
ble gentleman himself has gone — and 1 hope not so far. 1 content myself,
therefore, with debating the matter with him.
And now, sir, what I have first to say on this subject is, that, at no
time, and under no circumstances, has New England, or any State in
New England, or any respectable body of persons in New England, or
any public man of standing in New England, put forth such a doctrine as
this Carolina doctrine.
This gentleman has found no case — he can find none — to support his
own opinions by New England authority. New England has studied the
Constitution in other schools, and under other teachers. She looks upon
it with other regards, and deems more highly and reverently, both of its
just authority, and its utility and excellence. The history of her legisla
tive proceedings may be traced  the ephemeral effusions of temporary
bodies, called together by the excitement of the occasion, may be hunted
up — they have been hunted up. The opinions and votes of her public
men, in and out of Congress, may be explored — it will all be in vain.
The Carolina doctrine can derive from her neither countenance nor support.
She rejects it now ; she always did reject it ; and till she loses her senses,
she always will reject it. The honorable member has referred to expres
sions, on the subject of the embargo law, made in this place, by an hon
orable and venerable gentleman, (Mr. Hillhouse,) now favoring us with
his presence. He quotes that distinguished senator as saying, that in his
judgment the embargo law was unconstitutional, and that, therefore, in
his opinion, the people were not bound to obey it.
That, sir, is perfectly constitutional language. An unconstitutional
law is not binding ; but then it does not rest with a resolution or a law of
a State. Legislature fo decide whether an Act of Congress be, or he nof,
constitutional. An unconstitutional act of Congress would not bind the
people of this district, although they have no Legislature to interfere in
their behalf; and, on the other hand, a constitutional law of Congress does
•jind the citizens of every State, although all their Legislatures should
undertake to annul it, by act or resolution. The venerable Connecticut
senator is a constitutional lawyer, of sound principles and enlarged knowl
edge ; a statesman practiced and experienced, bred in the company of
Washington, and holding just views upon the nature of our Governments.
He believed the embargo unconstitutional, and so did others ; but what
then .? Who did he suppose was to decide that question .? The State Legis-

74
latures .? Certainly not. No such sentiment ever escaped his lips. Let
us follow up, sir, this New England opposition tb the embargo laws ; let
us trace it, tilj we discern the principle, which controlled and governed
New England, througbout the whole course of that opposition. We
shall then see what similarity there is between the New England school
of constitutional opinions, and this modern Carolina school. The gentle
man, I think, read a petition from some single individual, addressed to the
Legislature of Massachusetts, asserting the Carolina doctrine — that is,
the right of State interference to arrest the laws of the Union The
fate of that petition shows the sentiment of the Legislature. It met no
favor. The opinions of Massachusetts were otherwise. They had been
expressed in 1798, in answer to the resolutions of Virginia, and she did
not depart from them, nor bend them to the times. Misgoverned, wrong
ed, oppressed, as she felt herself to be, she still held fast her integrity to
the Union. The gentleman may find in her proceedings much evidence
of dissatisfaction with the measures of Government, and great and deep
disliUe to the embargo ; all this makes the case so much the stronger for
her ; for notwithstanding all this dissatisfaction and dislike, she claimed
no right, still, to sever asunder the bonds of the Union. There was heat,
and there was anger, in her political feeling — be it so — her heat or her
anger did not, nevertheless; betray her into infidelity to the Government.
The gentleman labors to prove that she disliked the embargo, as much as
South Carolina dislikes the tariff, and expressed her dislike as strongly.
Be it so ; but did she propose the Carolina remedy 7 Did she threaten to
interfere, by State authority, to annul the laws ofthe Union? That is
the question for tbe gentleman's consideration.
No doubt. Sir, a great raajority of the people of New England consci
entiously believed the embargo law of ]807 unconstitutional, as conscien
tiously, certainly, as the people of South Carolina hold that opinion of the
tariff. They reasoned thus : Congress has power to regulate commerce ;
but here is a law, they said, stopping all comraerce, and stopping it indefi
nitely. The law is perpetual ; that is, it is not limited in point of time,
and must, of course, continue, till it shall be repealed by some other law.
It is as perpetual, therefore, as the law against treason or murder. Now
is this regulating coraraerce, or destroying it .? Is it guiding, controlling,
giving the rule to coramerce, as a subsisting thing, or is it putting an end
to it altogether.? Nothing is more certain, than that a majority in New
England deemed this law a violation ofthe Constitution. Ths very case
required by the gentleman, to justify State interference, had then arisen.
Massachusetts believed this law to be " a deliberate, palpable, and dan
gerous exercise of a power, not granted by the Constitution.''' Deliberate
it was, for it was long continued ; palpable she thought it, as no words
in the Constitution gave the power, and only a construction, io her opinion
most violent, raised it; dangerous it was, since it threatened utter ruin to
her raost important interests. Here, then, was a Carolina case. How did
Massachusetts deal with it.? It was, as she thought, a plain, manifest,
palpable violation of the Constitution ; and it brought ruin to her doors.
Thousands of families, and hundreds of thousands of individuals, were
beggared by it. While she saw and felt all this, she saw and felt also,
that as a measure of national policy, it was perfectly futile ; that the coun
try was no way benefitted by that which caused so much individual dis
tress ; that it was efficient only for the production of evil, and all that evil
inflicted on ourselves. In such a case, under such circumstances, how

75
did Massachusetts demean herself .? Sir, she remonstrated, she memorial
ized, she addressed herself to the general government, not exactly " with
the concentrated energy of passion," but with her strong sense, and the
energy of sober conviction. But she did not interpose the arm of her
power to arrest the law, and break the embargo. Far from it. Her prin
ciples bound her to two things ; and she followed her principles, lead where
they might. First, to submit to every constitutional law of Congress ; and
secondly, if the constitutional validity ofthe law be doubted, to refer that
questioii to the decision of the proper tribunals. The first principle is
vain and ineffectual without the second. A majority of us in New Eng
land, believed the embargo law unconstitutional ; but the great question
was, and always will be, in such cases, who is to decide this .? Who is
to decide this .? Who is to judge between the people and the goverament .?
And, Sir, it is quite plain, that the Constitution of the United States con
fers on the Government itself, to be exercised by its appropriate depart
ment, this power of deciding ultimately and conclusively, upon the just
extent of its own authority. If this had not been done, we should not
have advanced a single step beyond the old Confederation.
Being fully of opinion that the embargo law was unconstitutional, the
people of New England were yet equally clear in the opinion — it was a
matter they did doubt upon — that the question, after all,. must be de
cided by the Judicial tribunals of the United States. Before those tribu
nals, therefore, they brought the question. Under the provisions of the
law, they had given bonds, to millions in amount, and which were alleged
to be forfeited. They suffered the bonds to be sued, and thus raised the
question. In the old fashioned way of settling disputes, they went to law.
The case came to hearing, and solemn argument ; and he who espoused
their cause, and stood up for them against'lhe validity of the act, was none
other than that great man, of whom the gentleman has made honorable
mention, Samuel Dexter. He was then, Sir, in the fulness of his know
ledge and the maturity of his strength. He had retired, from long and
distinguished public service here, to the renewed pursuit of professional
duties ; carrying with him all that enlargement and expansion, all the new
strength and force, which an acquaintance with the more general subjects
discussed in the national councils is capable of adding to professional at
tainment, in a mind of true greatness and comprehension. He was a law
yer, and he was also a statesraan. He had studied the Constitution, when
he filled public station, that he might defend it; he had examined its prin
ciples, that he might maintain thera. More than all men, or at least as
much as any man, he was attached to the General Government, and to the
union of the States. His feelings and opinions all ran in that direction.
A question of constitutional law, too, was, of all subjects, that one which
was best suited to his talents and learning. Aloof from technicality, and
unfettered by artificial rule, such a question gave opportunity for that deep
and clear analysis, that mighty grasp of principle, which so much distin
guished his higher efforts. His very statement, was argument ; his infer
ence, seemed demonstration. The earnestness of his own conviction,
wrought conviction in others. One was convinced, and believed, and as
sented, because it was gratifying, delightful, to think, and feel, and believe,
in unison with an intellect of such evident superiority.
Mr. Dexter, Sir, such as I have described him, argued the New Eng
land cause. He put into his effort his whole heart, as well as all the pow
ers of his understanding ; for he had avowed, in the most public manner,

76
his entire concurrence with his neighbors, on the point in dispute. He
argued the cause ; it was lost, and New England submitted. The estab
lished tribunals pronounced the law constitutional, and New England ac
quiesced. Now, Sir, is not this the exact opposite of the doctrine of the
gentleman from South Carolina .? According to him, instead of referring
to the judicial tribunals, we should have broken up the embargo, by laws
of our own ; we should have repealed it, quoad New England ; for we had
a strong, palpable, and oppressive case. Sir, we believed the embargo
unconstitutional ; but still, that was matter of opinion, and who vvas to
decide it .? We thought it a clear case ; but, nevertheless, we did not take
the laws into our hands, because we did not wish fo bring about a revolu
tion, nor fo break up fhe Union; for I maintain, that, between subraission
to the decision of the constituted tribunals, and revolution, or disunion,
there is no middle ground — there is no ambiguous condition, half allegi
ance and half rebellion. There is no treason, madcosy. And, Sir, how
futile, how very futile it is, to admit the right of State interference, and
then to attempt to save it from the character of unlawful resistance, by
adding terms of qualification to tbe causes and occasions, leaving all the
qualifications, like the case itself, in the discretion of the State govern
ments. It must be a clear case, it is said ; a deliberate case ; a palpable
case ; a dangerous case. But then the State i^ still left at liberty to de
cide for herself, what is clear, what is deliberate, what is palpable, what
is dangerous. Do adjectives and epithets avail any thing .? Sir, the human mind is
so constituted, that the merits of both sides ofa controversy appear very
clear, and very palpable, to those who respectively espouse them, and both
sides usually grow clearer, as the controversy advances. South Carolina sees
unconstitutionality in the tariff — she sees oppression there, also, and she
sees danger. Pennsylvania, with a vision not less sharp, looks at the same
tariff, and sees no such thing in it — she sees it all constitutional, all useful,
all safe. The faith of South Carolina is strengthened by opposition, and she
novv not only sees, but resolves,that the tariff is palpably unconstitutional,
oppressive, and dangerous : but Pennsylvania, not to be behind her neigh
bors, and equally willing to strengthen her own faith by a confident assev
eration, resolves also, and gives to every warm affirmative of South Caro
lina a plain, downright Pennsylvania negative. South Carolina, to show
the strength and unity of her opinions, brings her Assembly to a unanimi
ty, within seven votes — Pennsylvania, not to be outdone in this resp'Ct
more than others, reduces ber dissentient fraction to five votes. Now, Sir,
again I ask the gentleman, what is to be done .? Are these States both
right .? Is he bound to consider them both right .? If not, which is in the
wrong .? or rather, which has the best right to decide .?
And if he, and if I, are not to know what the Constitution means, and
what it is, till those two State Legislatures, and the twenty-two others,
shall agree in its construction, what have we sworn to, when we have
sworn to maintain it.? I was forcibly struck, Sir, with one reflection, as
the gentleman went on with his speech. He quoted Mr. Madison's reso
lutions, to prove that a State may interfere, in a case of deliberate, palpa
ble, and dangerous exerqise of a power not granted. The honorable mem
ber supposes the tariff law to be such an exercise of power ; and that, con
sequently, a case base arisen, in which the State may, if it see fit, inter
fere by its own law. Now it so happens, nevertheless, that Mr. Madison
himself deems this same tariff law quite constitutional. Instead of a clear

77
and palpable violation, it is, in his judgment, no violation at all. So that,
while they use his authority for a hypothetical case, they reject it in the
very case before them. All this, Sir, shows the inherent — futility  I had
almost used a stronger word — of conceding this power of interference to
the States, and then attempting to secure it from abuse by iraposing qual
ifications, of which the States themselves are to judge. One of two thino-s
is true ; either the laws of the Union are beyond the control of the States,
or else we have no constitution of General Government, and are thrust
back again to the days of the Confederacy.
Let me here say. Sir, that if the gentleman's doctrine had been received
and acted upon in New England, in the times of the embargo and non-
intercourse, we should probably not now have been here. The govern
ment would very likely have gone to pieces and crumbled into dust. No
stronger case can ever arise than existed under those laws; no States can
ever entertain a clearer conviction than the New England States then en
tertained ; and if they had been under the influence of that heresy of opin
ion, as I must call it, which the honorable member espouses, this Union,
would, in all probability, have been scattered to the four winds. I ask the
gentleman, therefore, to apply his principles to that case ; I ask him to
corae forth and declare, whether, in his opinion, the New England States
would have been justified in interfering to break up the embargo system,
under the conscientious opinions which they held upon it.? Had they a
right to annul that law .' Does he adrait or deny .? If that which is thouaht
palpably unconstitutional in South Carolina, justifies that State in arrest
ing tha progress of the law, tell me whether that which was thought pal
pably unconstitutional also in Massachusetts, would have justified her in
doing the same thing. Sir, I deny the whole doctrine. It has not a foot
of ground in the Constitution to stand on. No public man of reputation
ever advanced it in Massachusetts, in the warmest times, or could main
tain hiraself upon it there, at any time.
I wish now. Sir, to make a remark upon the Virginia resolutions of
179S. I cannot undertake to say how these resolutions were understood
by those who passed them. Their language is not a little indefinite. In
the case of the exercise, by Congress, of a dangerous power, not granted
to them, the resolutions assert the right, on the part of the State, to inter
fere, and arrest the progress of the evil. This is susceptible of more than
one interpretation. It may mean no more tban that the States may inter
fere by complaint and remonstrance ; or by proposing to the people an al
teration of the Federal Constitution. This would all be quite unobjection
able; or it may be, that no more is meant than to assert the general right
of revolution, as against all governments, in cases of intolerable oppression.
This no one doubts ; and this, in my opinion, is all that he who framed
these resolutions could have meant by it ; for I shall not readily believe,
that he was ever of opinion that a State, under the Constitution, and in
conformity with it, could, upon the ground of her own opinion of its uncon
stitutionality, however clear and palpable she might think the case, annul
a law of Congress, so far as it should operate on herself, by her own legis
lative power.
I must now beg to ask, Sir, whence is this supposed right of the States,
derived ? Where do they get the power to interfere with the laws of the
Union ? Sir, the opinion, which the honorable gentleman maintains, is a
notion, founded in a total misapprehension, in my judgment, of the origin
of this Government, and of the foundation on which it stands. I hold it to

78
be a popular Government, erected by the people, those who administer it
responsible to the people; and itself capable of being amended and modi
fied, just as the people raay choose it should be. It is as popular, just as
truly emanating from the people as the State Governraents. It is created
for one purpose ; the State Governments for another. It has its own pow
ers ; they have theirs. There is no more authority with them to arrest
the operation of a law of Congress, than with Congress to arrest the ope-
ratio'n of their laws. We are here to administer a Constitution emanating
iraraediately from the people, and trusted by them, to our administration.
It is not the creature of the State Governments. It is of no moment to
the argument, that certain acts of the State Legislatures are necessary to
fill our seats in this body. That is not one of their original state powers,
a part of the sovereignty of the State. It is a duty wbich the people, by
the Constitution itself, have imposed on the State Legislatures ; and which
they might have left to be performed elsewhere, if they had seen fit.- So
they have left the choice of President with electors ; but all this does not
affect the proposition, that this whole Government, President, Senate,
and House of Representatives, is a popular Government. It leaves it
still all its popular character. The Governor of a State (in some of the
States) is chosen, not directly by the people, but by those who are chosen
by the people, for the purpose of performing, among other duties, that of
electing a Governor. Is the Government of the State on that account,
not a popular Government.? This Government, Sir, is the independent
offspring of the popular will. It is not the creature of State Legisla
tures ; nay more, if the whole truth must be told, the people brought it
into existence, established it, and have hitherto supported it, for the very
purpose, amongst others, of imposing certain salutary restraints on State
sovereignties. The States cannot now make war, they cannot contract
alliances, they cannot make, each for itself, separate regulations of com
merce, they cannot lay imposts, they cannot coin money. If this Consti
tution, Sir, be the creature of State Legislatures, it must be admitted
that it has obtained a strange control over the volitions of its creators.
The People then. Sir, erected this Governraent. They gave it a Con
stitution, and in that Constitution they have enuraerated the powers which
they bestow on it. They have made it a limited Government. They
have defined its authority. They have restrained it, to the exercise of
such powers as are granted ; and all others, they declare are reserved to
the States or the People. But, Sir, they have not stopped here. If they
had, they would have accomplished but half their work. No definition
can be so clear, as to avoid possibility of doubt ; no limitation so precise,
as to exclude all uncertainty. Who, then, shall construe this wrant ofthe
People ? Who shall interpret their will, where it may be supposed they
have left it doubtful .? With whom do they leave this ultimate right of
deciding on the powers of the Government .? Sir, they have settled all
this in the fullest manner. They have left it, with the Government itself
in its appropriate branches. Sir, the very chief end, the main design;
for which the whole Constitution was fraraed and adopted, was to estab
lish a Government that should not be obliged to act through State agency,
or depend on State opinion, and discretion. The People had had quite
enough of that kind of Government, under the Confederacy. Under
that systera the legal action — the application of law to individuals, be
longed exclusively to the States. Congress could only recoraraend — their
acts were not of binding force, till the States had adopted and sanctioned

79
them. Are -we in that condition still .? Are we yet at the mercy of State
discretion and State construction .? Sir, if we are, then vain will be our
attempt to maintain the Constitution under which we sit.
But, Sir, the People have wisely provided, in the Constitution itself, a
proper, suitable hiode, and tribunal, for settling questions of constitutional
law. — There are, in the Constitution, grants of powers to Congress ; and
restrictions on those powers. There are also prohibitions on the States.
Some authority must therefore necessarily exist, having the ultimate
jurisdiction to fix and ascertain the interpretation of these grants, restric
tions and prohibitions. The Constitution has itself pointed out, ordained
and established that authority. How has it accomplished this great and
essential end .? By declaring. Sir, that " fhe Constitution and the laws of
the United States, made in pursuance thereof, shall be the supreme laio of
the land, any thing- in fhe Constitution or laws of any State to the con
trary notwithstanding.'"
This, Sir, was the first great step. By this, the supremacy of the
Constitution and laws of the United States is declared. The People so
will it. No State law is to be valid, which comes in conflict with the
Constitution, or any law ofthe United States. But who shall decide this
question of interference ? To whom lies the last appeal .? This, Sir, the.
Constitution itself decides, also, by declaring, " that the Judicial power
shall extend to all cases arising under thc Constitution and laws of the
United States." These two provisions. Sir, cover the whole ground.
They are, in truth, the key-stone of the arch. With these, it is a Consti
tution, without them it is a Confederacy. In pursuance of these clear
and express provisions, Congress established at its very first session, in
the Judicial act, a mode for carrying them into full effect, and for bringing
all questions of Constitutional power to the final decision of the Supreme
Court. It then, Sir became a Governmeut. It then had the means of
self-protection ; and but for this, it would, in all probability, have been
now among things which are passed. Having constituted the Govern
ment, and declared its powers, the people have further said that since
somebody must decide on the extent of these powers, the Government
shall itself decide ; subject always like other popular Governments, toits
responsibility to the people. And now. Sir, I repeat how is it, that a
State Legislature acquires any right to interfere .? Who, or what, gives
them the^right to say tothe people, we, who are your agents and servants
for one purpose, will undertake to decide, that your other agents and ser
vants, appointed by you for another purpose, have transcended the au
thority you gave them .? The reply would be, I think, not impertinent —
" Who made you a judge over another's servants. To their own masters
they stand or fall."
Sir, I deny this power of State Legislatures altogether. It cannot
stand'the test of examination. Gentlemen may say, that in an extreme
case a State Government might protect the people from intolerable op
pression. Sir, in such a case the people might protect themselves, with
out the aid of the State Governments. Such a case warrants revolution.
It must make, when it comes, a law for itself A nullifying act of a
State Legislature cannot alter the case, nor make resistance any more
lawful. In maintaining these sentiments. Sir, I am but asserting the
rights of the people. I state what they have declared, and insist on their
right to declare it. They have chosen to repose this power in the Gen
eral Government, and I think it my duty to support it, like other Consti
tutional powers.

80
For myself, Sir, I doubt the jurisdiction of South Carolina, or any
other State, to prescribe my constitutional duty, or to settle, between
me and the people, the validity of laws of Congress for which I have vo
ted. I decline her umpirage. I have not sworn to support the Constitu
tion according to her construction of its clauses. I have not stipulated,
by my oath of office or otherwise, to come under any responsibility, ex
cept to the people, and those whom they have appointed to pass upon
the question, whether the laws, supported by my votes, conform to the
Constitution of the country. And, Sir, if we look to the general nature
of the case, could any thing have been more preposterous, than to have
made a Government for the whole Union, and yet left its powers subject,
not to one interpretation, but to thirteen, or twenty-four, interpretations .?
Instead of one tribunal, established by all, responsible to all, with power
to decide for all, shall constitutional questions be left to four and twenty
popular bodies, each at liberty to decide for itself, and none bound to re
spect the decisions of others : and each at liberty, too, to give a new con
struction, on every new election of its own members .? Would any thing,
with such a principle in it, or rather with such a destitution of all prin
ciple, be fit to be called a Governraent .? No, Sir. It should not be de
norainated a Constitution. It should be called, rather, a collection of
topics, for everlasting controversy : heads of debate, for a disputatious
people. It would not be a Government. It would not be adequate to
any practical good, nor fit for any country to live under. To avoid all
possibility of being misunderstood, allow me to repeat again, in the full
est raanner, that I claira no powers for the Government by forced or
unfair construction. I admit, that it is a Government of strictly limited
powers ; of enumerated, specified, and particularized powers ; and that
whatsoever is not granted is withheld. But notwithstanding all this, and
however the grant of powers may be expressed, its liraits and extent may
yet, in some cases, admit of doubt ; and the General Government would
be good for nothing, it would be incapable of long existence, if some mode
had not been provided, in which those doubts, as they should arise, might
be peaceably, but authoritatively solved.
And now, Mr. President, let me run the honorable gentleman's doc
trine a little into its practical application. Let us look at his probable
¦modus operandi. If a thing can be done, an ingenious man can tell how
it is to be done. Now, I wish to be informed how this State interference
is to be put in practice. We will take the existing case of the Tariff
law. South Carolina is said to have made up her opinion upon it. If
we do not repeal it, (as we probably shall not,) she will then apply to
the case the remedy of her doctrine. She will, we must suppose, pass
a law of her Legislature, declaring the several acts of Congress, usually
called the Tariff' Laws, null and void, so far as they respect South
Carolina, or the citizens thereof. So far, all is a paper transaction, and
easy enough. But the Collector at Charleston is collecting the duties
imposed by these Tariff laws — he, therefore, must be stopped. The
Collector will seize the goods, if the Tariff duties are not paid. The
State authorities will undertake their rescue ; the Marshall, with his pos
se, will come to the Collector's aid, and here the contest begins. The
militia of the State will be called out, to sustain the nullifying act. They
will march, Sir, under a very gallant leader; for I believe the honorable
member himself commands the militia of that part of the State. He
will raise the nullifying act on his standard, and spread it out as his

banner. It will have a preamble, bearing that the Tariff' laws are pal
pable, deliberate, and dangerous violations of the Constitution .? He
will proceed, with his banner flying, to the custom-house in Charleston;
" All the while.
Sonorous metal blowing martial sounds."
Arrived at the custom-house, he will tell the Collector that he must col
lect no more duties under any of the Tariff laws. This, he will be
somewhat puzzled to say, by the way, with a grave countenance, con
sidering what hand South Carolina herself had in that of 1816. But,
Sir, the Collector would, probably, not desist at his bidding  here would
ensue a pause ; for they say, that a certain stillness precedes the tem
pest. Before this military array should fall on the custom-house, Col
lector, clerks, and all, it is very probable some of those composing it,
would request of their gallant commander-in-chief, to be informed a
little upon the point of law ; for they have doubtless a just respect for
his opinions as a lawyer, as well as for his bravery as a soldier. They
know he has read Blackstone and the Constitution, as well as Turrene
and Vauban. They would ask him, therefore, something- concerning
their rights in this matter. They would inquire, whether it was not
somewhat dangerous to resist a law of the United St,ates. What would
be the nature of their offence, they would wi.sh to learn, if they, by mil
itary force and array, resisted the execution in Carolina of a law of the
United States, and it should turn out, after all, that the law was consti
tutional? He would answer, of course, treason. No lawyer could
give any other answer. John Fries, he would tell them, had learned
that some years ago. How then, they would ask, do you propose to de
fend us .? We are not afraid of bullets, but treason has a way of taking
people off that we do not much relish. How do you propose to defend
us.? "Look at my floating banner," he would reply; " see there the
nullifying law .'" Is it your opinion, gallant coraraander, they would
then say, that if we should be indicted for treason, that same floating
banner of yours would make a good plea in bar .? " South Carolina is
a sovereign State," he would reply. That is true, hut would the Judge
admit our plea .? " These Tariff laws," he would repeat, " are uncon
stitutional, palpably, deliberately, dangerously." That all may be so ;
but if the tribunals should not happen to be of that opinion, shall we
swing for it .? We are ready to die for our country, but it is rather an
awkward business, this dying without touching the ground. After all,
this is a sort of hemp-tax, worse than any part of the Tariff.
Mr. President, the honorable gentleman would be in a dilemma, like
that of another great General. He would have a knot before him, which
he could not untie. He raust cut it with his sword. He must say to
his followers, defend yourselves with your bayonets; and this is war —
civil war.
Direct collision, therefore, between force and force, is the unavoidable
result of that remedy for the revision of unconstitutional laws which the
gentleman contends for. It must happen in the very first case to which
it is applied. Is not this the plain result .? To resist, by force, the exe
cution of a law generally, is treason. Can the Courts of the United
States take notice of the indulgence of a State to commit treason .? The
common saying, that a State cannot commit treason herself is nothing to
the purpose. Can it authorize others to do it .? If John Fries had pro
duced an act of Pennsylvania, annuling the law of Congress, would it
6

82
have helped his case ? Talk about it as we will, these doctrines go the
length of revolution. They are incorapatible with any peaceable admin
istration of the Government. They lead directly to disunion and civil
commotion ; and therefore it is, that at the commencement, when they
are first found to be maintained by respectable men, and in a tangible form,
that I enter my public protest against them all.
The honorable gentlemen argues, that if this Government be the sole
judge ofthe extent of its own powers, whether that right of judging bein
Congress, or the Supreme Court, it equally subverts Slate sovereignty.
This the gentleman sees, or thinks he sees, although he cannot perceive
how the right of judging, in this matter, if left to the exercise of State
Legislatures, has any tendency to subvert the Government of the Union.
The gentleman's opinion may be that the right ought nof to have been
lodged with the General Gov¬emment ; he may like better such a Consti
tution, as we should have under the right of State interference ; but I ask
him to meet me on the plain matter of fact — I ask him to raeet me on the
Constitution itself — I ask him if the power is not found there — clearly
and visibly found there .?
But, Sir, what is this danger, and what the grounds of it .- Let it be
remembered, that the Constitution of the United States is not unalterable.
It is to continue in its present form no longer than the People who estab
lished it shall choose to continue it. If they shall becorae convinced that
they have raade an injudicious or inexpedient partition and distribution of
power, between the State Governments, and the General Governraent,
they can alter that distribution at will.
If any thing be found in the National Constitution, either by original
provision, or subsequent interpretation, which ought not to be in it, the
people know how to get rid of it. If any construction be established, un
acceptable to them, so as to becorae, practically, a part of the Constitution,
they will amend it at their own sovereign pleasure. But while the peo
ple choose to raaintain it as it is, while they are satisfied with it, and re
fuse to change it, who has given, or who can give, to the State Legisla
tures a right to alter it, either by interference, construction, or otherwise .?
Gentlemen do not seem to recollect that the people have any power to do
any thing for themselves ; they imagine there is no safety for thera any
longer than they are under the close guardianship of the State Legisla
tures. Sir, the people have not trusted their safety, in regard to the gen
eral Constitution, to these hands. They have required other security,
and taken other bonds. They have chosen to trust themselves first, to the
plain words of the instrument, and to such construction as the Govern
ment itself, in doubtful cases, should put on its own powers, under their
oaths of office, and subject to their responsibility to them ; just as the peo
ple of a Stale trust their own State Governments with a similar power.
Secondly, they have reposed their trust in the efficacy of frequent elec
tions, and in their own power to remove their own servants and agents,
whenever they see cause. Thirdly, they have reposed trust in the judi
cial power, which, in orderthatit might be trust-worthy, they have made
as respectable, as disinterested, and as independent as practicable. Fourth
ly, they have seen fit to rely, in case of necessity, or high expediency, on
their known and admitted power, to alter or amend the Constitution, peace
ably and quietly, whenever experience shall point out defects or imper
fections. And finally, the people ofthe United States have, at no time,
in no way, directly or indirectly, authorized any State Legislature to con-

83
strue or interpret their instrument of government; much less to interfere,
hy their own power, to arrest its course and operation.
If, Sir, the people in these respects, had done otherwise than they have
done, their Constitution could neither have been preserved, nor would it
have been worth preserving. And if its plain provision shall now be dis
regarded, and these new doctrines interpolated in it, it will become as fee
ble and helpless a being as enemies, whether early or more recent, could
possibly desire. It will exist in every State, but as a poor dependant on
State permission. It must borrow leave to be, and will be, no longer than
State pleasure, or State discretion, sees fit to grant the indulgence, and to
prolong its poor existence.
But, Sir, although there are fears, there are hopes also. The people
have preserved this, their own chosen Constitution, for forty years, and
have seen their happiness, prosperity, and renown, grow with its growth,
and strengthen with its strength. They are now generally, strongly at
tached to it. Overthrown by direct assault, it cannot be ; evaded, under
mined, nullified, it will not be, if we, and those who shall succeed us
here, as agents and representatives of the people, shall conscientiously and
vigilantly discharge the two great branches ofour public trust — faithfully
to preserve, and wisely to administer it.
Mr. President, I have thus stated the reasons of my dissent to the doc
trines which have been advanced and maintained. I am conscious of
having detained you, and the Senate, much too long. I was drawn into
the debate, with no previous deliberation such as is suited to the discus
sion of so grave and important a subject. But it is a subject of which my
heart is full, and I have not been willing to suppress the utterance of its
spontaneous sentiments.
I cannot, even now, persuade myself to relinquish it, without express
ing, once more, mj' deep conviction, that since it respects nothing less
than the Union of the States, it is of most vital and essential importance
to the public happiness. I profess. Sir, in my career hitherto, to have
kept steadily in view the prosperity and honor of the whole country, and
the preservation of our Federal Union. It is to that Union we owe our
safety at home, and our consideration and dignity abroad. It is to that
Union that we are chiefiy indebted for whatever makes us most proud of
our country. That Union we reached, only by the discipline ofour vir
tues, in the severe school of adversity. It had its origin in the necessities
of disordered finance, prostrate commerce, and ruined credit. Under its
benign influences, these great interests immediately awoke, as from the
dead, and sprang forth with newness of life. Every year of its duration
has teemed with fresh proofs of its utility and its blessings ; and although
our territory has stretched out, wider and wider, and our population
spread, farther and farther, they have not outran its protection, or its ben
efits. It has been to us all a copious fountain of national, social, personal
happiness, I have not allowed myself, Sir, to look beyond the Union, to
see what might lie hidden in the dark recess behind. I have not coolly
weighed the chances of preserving liberty, when the bonds that unite us
together shall be broken asunder. I have not accustomed myself to hang
over the precipice of disunion, to see whether, with my short sight, I can
fathom the depth of the abyss below ; nor could I regard him as a safe
counsellor in the affairs of this Government, whose thoughts should be
mainly bent on considering, not how the Union should be best preserved,
but how tolerable might be the condition of the people when jt shall be

84
broken up and destroyed. While the Union lasts, we have high, exciting,
gratifying prospects spread out before us, for us and our children. Be
yond that I seek not to penetrate the veil. God grant that, in my day,
at least, that curtain may not rise. God grant, that on my vision never
may be opened, what lies behind. When my eyes shall be turned to be
hold, for the last time, the Sun in Heaven, may 1 not see him shining on
the broken and dishonored fragments of a once glorious Union ; on States
dissevered, discordant, belligerent ; on a land rent with civil feuds, or
drenched, it may be, in fraternal blood ! Let their last feeble and linger
ing glance, rather, behold the gorgeous Ensign of the Republic, now
known and honored throughout the earth, still full high advanced, its arms
and trophies streaming in their original lustre, not a stripe erased or pol
luted, nor a single star obscured — bearing for its motto, no such miserable
interrogatory as — What is all this worth 1 Nor those other words of de
lusion and folly — Liberty first and Union afterwards — but every where,
spread all over in characters of living light, blazing on all its ample folds,
as they float over the sea and over the land, and in every wind under the
whole heavens, that other sentiment, dear to every true American heart —
Liberty and Union, now and forever, one and inseparable !

^

'-^.i