/

^mm

nil, WOODBURY, OF NEW HAMPSHIRE,

MR. FOOT'S RESOLUTION.

2EILI"rERED IS TEE SENATE OJ THE UNITED STATES, FEBRUAET 23, 1830.

S rCC> EDITION.

WASHINGTON:
?SINTED BY DUFF GREEN.
1830.

SPEECH

MR. WOODBURY, OF NEW HAMPSHIRE,
On Mr. Foot's resolution, proposing tin inquiry into the expediency of
abolishing the office of Surveyor General of Public Lands, and for'
discontinuing further surveys until those^ already in market shall
have been disposed of, and which Mr. W. hUd nioved to amend, so as
to inquire into the expediency of extending more rapidly fhe surveys^' ¦
and hastening the sales of- the JPublic Lands.

Mr. Pkes!i1)i3nt: Perhaps I could best repSy the kind indulgence
efthe Senate yesterday in adjourfling so early to accommodate me, by an
entire silence to-day. But it was my lot,' possibly my misfbrtu'ne, to offer
an anlendment to the resolution, which has occasioned such a long, and in
some respects itnpleasant debate. The amendment was offered in thiit spirit
of kindness towards the West, which I had rather practice, than merely pro^
fess; and, after opinions on thp subject had become controverted, it was of
fered with a view to elicit fully thfe red'disposrtion felt in this body concern
ing the surveys and Sales of the public lands. The unexpected motion to
postpone both the resolution and the amendment, evidently tends to defeat
a distinct expression of opinion lipOn either," and has opened th^ door to a
course of argument, and a latitude of disciission, I believe somewhat unpre
cedented. It seems ta have metamorphosed the Senate, not only into a
Committee of £he Whole on the state of the Union, but on thie state of
the Union in all time past,- present, and io come. So be it — if gentlemen
please. This is not alluded to in the spirit of rebuke against either side,
as every Senator in such cases is dOifbtless at liberty to pursue the dic
tates of his own judgment, and is doubtless able to vindicate his own course
to his constituents and his country. '
But, in one view, this wide range of discussion has proved a sub|ect of
:laep f egret to me, individually, as it has led gentlemen into' reniarks on the
amendment and on matters and things in general, some of which bore per
sonally on myself and on that portion of my constituents with whom I had
the pleasure to act. in the late Presidential election. Those remarks, if
unnoticed, may lead to a misapprehension of our real opinions on questions
of public moment — which opinions, I disdain to conceal, so lar as regards
myself, --and to imputations on those constituents, utterly derogatory, and ut
terly unmerited — Imputations, al)Out which I cared little, if flung in the
scavenger slang of the day on myself alone, because Ihave long been inured
to them from certain quarters, like all other men in the East, who refuse tO"
bow the knee there to certain political Dagons; but imputations^ against
which < when gravejy made by Conscript Fathers, and extended to a Urge'
body of my constituents, I feel it my duty to defend them, here and
elsewhere — now andbehceforth, while I have power left to defend any thing.

4
But let us first advert a moment to the amendment, offered by me to this re
solution, and my opinions on it§ .subject matter. The amendment has been
treated by some in dejjate, and roundly asserted in the numerous libels that
issue from the epistolary mints in this city — those manufactories so exorbi
tantly protected — ^to be in substance a proposition to give away the whole
public domain of the Union. Whereas, in truth, it contemplates nothing,
beyond an inquiry for that light and information so earnestly-urged by oth
ers — a mere inquiry in a less exceptionable, less questionable shape, into the
expediency of making a more rapid survey and sgile of the public lands.
The reasons for that inquiry have before been stated and need not be re
peated, except to observe that they pest on the facts of increasing competi
tion in the sales of land by other governments on our Northern and South
western frontiers— ^the vast quantities yet to be surveyed a*d sold by
ourselves, and our duties to the hew States equally, in respect to the sur
vey, sale and settlement of our untaxed domain, within their respective
boundaries. To discharge such duties,, to give a wider sphere. far choice to
the enterprising yeomanry from the East, and the middle States, as well as
the West; to obtain sooner the mieans for extinguishing the public debt, that
great mill-stone on the neck of every popular government; all will admit to
be legitimate objects; and an amendmeht seeking these objects could not but
tend to fulfilwith promptitude, the condition on which most of these lands
were originally and generously ceded to the Union. This is the whole
length, . breadth, and depth, of the amendment. But, when we travel beyond
tbe amendment and the resolution, to speculate on what has been done and
"what shallbe done with these lands, in fnture time, after paying thepublic
debt — then these lands beco;ne the apple of discord; theh we open a Pando
ra's box of fears, jei;lousies, and fierce coUisiotis. On this point, I have
heretofore said nothing, in this discussion; and, should say nothing now, had
not my views on. the di.sposilion' of these lands been misrepresented, and
some of my votes at fornier sessions perhaps misunderstood.
By the terms of the grants, I had always supposed that, as all lands North
of the Ohio were expressly obtained " for the con^mon benefit arid support
of the Union" — as Congress had resolved they "shall bedisposed of for the
common benefit of the United States" — ahd as the residue of our.lands was
purchased hy our common funds, no doubt could exist that they must be
used and granted only in a way to be beneficial to the whole. All sales of
them, even at reduced prictes, and whether to States or individuals, would al
ways, in my opinion, be thus beneficial, if competition was open to all; be
cause all would participate hi the purchase money obtained, and all could
embark iu the purchase itself, The hardy and enterprising yeomanry of the
Eaat and the middle States, vvho>. seem almost entirely to have been forgot
ten in this debate, would then find constantly opened to the ainbition of them
selves and their sons, the benefit of landg at prices within their frugal means,
and under democratic institutions of their own choice; and every valley and
river of the West would . in part become, as many of them are now, vocal
V(rith New England tongues, and would in part he improved and gladdened
by New England industry. So, a division of the lands among all the States,
who. are as joint proprietors, whether divided for specified or general objects,
would see,m to me a disposition of them for the " common benefit;" — but
whether it would ever in other respects be a judicious disposition of them,
Considering the new relations and dependency it might create between the
General Gover-nnient and the States, is a grave question, not now material

to me to discuss. 0n our claim and title to these lands, the State I partly
represent has expressed a similar and decisive opinion, arid one from which,
I have yet seen no sufficient reason to dissent.'
[Niks' Keg. page 391; Kes. of N. H. Leg. Jan. 29, 1821.]
"Forasmuch, therefore, as the property and jurisdiction of the soil were acquired by
the common means of all, it is contended that the public lands, whether acquired by pur
chase, by force, or by acts or deeds of cession from individOal States, are the common pro
perty of the Union, and ought to enure to the common use and benefit of all the States in just
proportions, and not to the use and benefit of any particular State or States, to the exclu
sion of the others; and that any partial appropriation of them, for State purposes, " is a vio
lation of the spirit of our national compact, as "ivell as the principles of justice and sound
policy." And further:
" That each of the United States has an equal rigiitto participate in the benefit of thepub
lic lands, as the common property of the Uiiloli." -
Those who passed that resolution sought no injustice or inequality towards
the new States. , The democjacy of New Hampshire,- netth'fer then nor now,
any more than in the last war, would refuse any aid or relief to the West,
within the permission of. tiie Constitution; they could neither, in peace or
hostility, taant her when distressed, nor mock when her calamity cometh^
Grateful for the sympathies and, kindnesses shown them in this debate^ from
some of the West, as well as the South, I presume they stand ready now, as
ever, to make any medification in the system of the public lands, or in the
prices, the surveys, or the sales, which can prove useful to the new States^
and, at the same time, not proye unequal or unjust to, the.pld States, nor con
flict witli the condition of the original cessions or the specific powers of the
General Government over the common property oftjie Union. They stand
ready to do this also, because it is right; and not to form new, or perfect
old alliances, since they seek no alliances with the South, the VVest, or the
centre,, but those of mutual respect, mutual courtesy, and mutual benefits ac
cording to the provisions of the Constitution. ,
Such a division of the lands as the New Hampshire resolution approves,
without reference to other notions concerning what has. before been granted
for education, and to the other consideration before named, would, to every
unjaundiced eye, seem to keep up the symmetry of our political system as a
confederation,, and not a consolidation of States; and hence would keep up an
adherence to their mutual rights as States in' the whole public property.
Any such disposition of them, if effected speedily, would likewise relieve
Congress from a subject of legislation most burthensome, invidious-, and vex
atious. Whether our bills be 400 or 4000 on that subject, th^y certainly m-
, gross" much time, and subject us to vast expenditures. Either a sale or di
vision would bring relief. ThcWest would be double gainers by either, as
they would get an equal share in the division, and a speedy power of taxation
over the whole. ,
But the contrary course, af a yearly scramble forscraps of these lands, some
times for roads, sometimes for canals, sometimes for asylums, and sometimes
for colleges, seems to nle any- thing, but a disposition for the " common be
nefit'," and seems likely to pi:ove an endless source of favoritism, jealousies,
and corrupt combinations. If the larjds do not all,, in time, become thus

Wasted and frittered away for little of good to any quarter, they Surely will
be disposed of very unequally-^they \yill excite dissatisfaction in the States
not made donees, rather than tend to the " support of the Union," and they-
will be appropriated to objects, not, in tny. opinion, specified in the Consti
tution, as within the cognizance of the Government of the Union.
The test adopted by some gentlemeij,'in voting fof a grant to a road, ca
nal, ot college, that, if it be a good to the place whei-e located, it is a good
to a part of the whole, and thus a good to the "whole, seeras to me. a very
convenient argument to support a donation in any place, to any object,- how
ever limited,, if the object be only benefieial in any degree; and tbe Whole
domain certainly might thus be taken off our hands in a single week. To
contend, also, that the lands may be given to such objects in small quanti
ties, and may not at once be giveft to one, or a few, or all the States them
selves, in large quantities, seems to me a suididial position, and to make a dis
tinction without a difference.
Not examining the particular kind oi ^ales the Governirient can make
for the common benefit, such as grants tothe new States for schools, re
ceiving virtual compensation therefor, by having the rest of the land freed
from taxation, I merely lay down what I suppose to be the general principle.
On that principle, no reasoning has been offered which convinces me that;
lands can b^ legally appropriated to any object for which we riiight nOt legally
appropriate money. The lands are as rnuch the property of the Union as its
money in the Treasui-y. The cessions and purchases of them were as much for
the benefit of all, as the collection of the money. The Constitution, as well as
common sense, seems to me to recognise no difference;'and if the money can
Only be appropriated to specified objects, it follows that the land can Only be
so appropriated. Withirt those specified object^ I have ever been, and ever
shall be, as ready to give lands or mpney to the West, as the East; but
beyond ,thenn(, I neyer ha"ve been ready to give either to either. To
wards certain enumerated objects, Congress; have authority to devote the
eommOn funds — the land orUhe money; becaijse those objects were suppos
ed to be better managed utider their control than under that of the States;-
but the care of the other objects is reserved to the States themselves, and
can only be promoted by the conim'qn fiinds, in a return of division of those
funds to the proprietors, to be expended as they may deem judicious.
The whole debate on these points goes to satisfy m'y iwind of the correct
ness of that construction of the Constitution,' which holds no grants of mo
ney or lands valid, unless to advance some of -the enumerated objects entrust
ed to Congress. When we once depart from that great land mark on the
appropriation of lands or money, and vvander into indefinite notions of
*' common good" or of the " general welfare," we are', in my opinion, at sea
without compass or rudder: find in a Government of acknowledged limita
tions, we put every thifig at the'ctiprice of afluttuating majority here; pro
nouncing that to be for the general welfare to-day, which to-morrow may be
denounced as a general curse.. Were the ' Government not limited, this
broad discretion would, of course, be necessary and right. But here every
grant of power is defined. Many powers are not ceded to the General Go
vernment, but are expressly withheld to the States and people; and no right
is, in my opinion, given to promote the " general welfare" by granting mo
ney or lands, but in the exercise of th^ specific powers granted, and in the--
modes prescribed by the Constitution.,

Such limitations on power are admitted by all to be the great glory of a Writ
ten Constitution, and since the Magna Chai'ta at Runny mead, can never be
long violated with impunity among any of Saxon descerit.
The General Government is well known to have been created chiefly for
limited objects connected with cb-nmerce and, foreign intercourse; and so
far from being unlimited inits jiirisdiction, extent,^ or means, was based on
express and jealpus specifications; and designed not for the prostration, but
the preservation of' State rights and State Governments, formost Of the great
purposes of political society. Without going, further at this time and on
this occasion, into the argument, legal or constitutional, upon the broad and
the strict constructions, I shall content myself with some references to the
political bearing of these constructions on the public lands g.nd on the' great
topics of controversy introduced into this debate, and to some signal authori
ties in favor of my views, found in the records of the General Goveriiment,
and of the! State which I have the honor in part to represent, A State whose
instructions t shall not, like the Senator from Maine, refuse to obey,, nor de
ny to tj.e my only earthjy " Zoj!"(5^ and master," ra.ther thdn the individiial
" idol or image" qi which he spoke so reverentlyt ^
Ws all know that, early as 1794, the division coipriienced in Congress
between the advocates of extended constructive powers in the General Go-
¦yernment, especially in its Executive departu](ent, and the advocates of
, State rights and of restricted views on conslitutional powers. .
In relation to Jay's treaty, and the questions connected with it, the lines
began to be distinetiy n^arked, and. the head of' the present administration
was found, as the atithor oftjhe Declaration of pur Independence was found,
among the firm opposers of indefinite constructive powers; and the vote of
"the former, on the retirement of the first President, so often appealed to and
misrepresented in the late canvass by his opposers; appears to have been pre
dicated entirely upon part of the policy and measures then pursued, bearing
on these views of the Constitution. He has repeated his forriier opinions in
his Message at the opening of this Congress, by warning us not " to undCr-
imine the whole syst^wi by a resort to (werstrained constructions," and by
warning us- against " all encrqaehments upon the legitimtite sphere of
State sovereignty." The same course of division among our leading
Statesmen was evinced in the debate on the foreign intercourse bill, in 1798;
and the distinguished a,gent on the Northeastern boundary now in this
Country, then, as since, bent the whole'force of his acute and profound mind
to show the et^il tendency of such ap administration of the General Govern
ment. The alien and sedition laws soon after, bfought the hostile parties to
a crisis; and then the strong reasoning pf Mr. Madison, in the Virginia reso
lutions pf 1799, and the acute mind of Mr. Jefierson, in those of Kentucky,
' arid the whole influence of their democratic coadjutors throughout the Union,
were concentrated against thoge alarming doctrines and their fatal — practi-
c;d. consequences. One of the Virginia resolutions was in these words:
[¦yirg. Res. p. 4.]
" That this Assembly doth expilicitly and peremptorily decUr^, that it views the jpowers
of the Federal Governnjent, as resultingiroin the compact, to wiiich the States are pai-ties,
as Umited by the' jrlain sense and intention of the instrument constituting that compact, as iio
farther valid than they are authorized by thp grants enumerated ii) thatcpmpactj and tliat, in
case of a deliberate, palpable, and dangerous exercise of other powers, not granted by the
said compapt, the States who are parties thereto, have th& right, and are in duty boufid, t«

interpose, .for aircisling the prop-ess of the evU, arid for maintaining, wil.hin their respective
Umits, the authoii ties, riglits,, and liberties, appertaining t<> them-."
Another Resplution is in these words:
. " .[Virg.Res. p-9-] ^ ,.',
'¦' That the General Assembly doth also express its deep regret, that a spirit has,, in sundry
instances, been manifested by the Ffederal Government, to enlar^ its power by the forced
constructions of thfe constitutional charter which defines them; and that indications have ap
peared of a design to expound certain geiieral' phrases i( which, havrngf been copied from -t'he
"very limited grant of powers in the- former articles of confederation, were the less liable to be
misconstrued,) so as to destroy the meaning and" effect of the particular enumeration, whicb
necessalrily explains and limits the general phrases; and so as to consolidate the States by
degrees, into one sovereignty, the obvious tendency apd, inevitable result of which would be,
to transform the -present tlepublican system of the Uuited. Stat:es -into an absolute, or at best
a mixed monarchy." ' . ^
'Mr. Jefferso)i,'in his letters, has followed up the sa.me ideas, ,and never
parted, till he parted' with Hfe itself^ from this depiOcratic view of the Con
stitutional compact. , ' ' ,
¦ ,,¦ ,. [4'jieff. Wracks, 306.] " .,,
" You yill ha.ve learned that an act, for internal improvement, aftet passing both Houses,
was negatived by the" President. The act was founded, avowedlyj on the principle that the
phrase in the"Constitutipn which a\ithorizes Congress 'tolay taxes, to pay'debts, and provide
for the general welfare," was an extension bf the powers specifiially ^ijumerated to tohateva-
would pi-omote the general welfare; and this, j'Ou know, was the federal doctrine. Whereas,
our tenet everAVas, artd, indeed, it is almost the only landinarfE which now clivides the fed,-
erallsts from the republicans,, that Congress had noi-unlimited powers toprbvide forthe gen
eral, welfare, but were restrained to those specifically enumerated; ^.nd'ttiat, as it was never
meant they, should provide for that welfare but by the exercise of the enumerated powers,
so it could not have been meant they should raise tnohey for purpbses Which -the enumer
ation dl4 not place imder their action ; consequently, that the specification of powers is a
liijiitatioh of the pTJrposes for which'they may raise rponey."
Other remarks of his, in like terms, .have heeij before cited, and need not
be repeated. , i
They were opinions which then erideated' him to, a -majority of the Union,
and in ISOOeffected the first great pplitical'revolution in the "administratioh
of our Geheral Government. They were the, views of his talented succes
sor, in after times as "well as in 1798^ as evinted in numberless of his public
acts; and,they|in substance remained the views -of his .second siiccessor, at
least during'his first term of. office] They long constituted, every "where,
the watch word of democracy. With many tiey always have remained the
strongest test of political, orthodoxy. Such was Mr. Jeififersoh's own re
mark late as 1819. (4 Jeff. 306.) And though in after, and more recent
days, some departures may have been witnessed in our ranks from .these
doctrines; yet tjiey have in general been appkrent arid local, rather than
real and general departures from thje doctrines themselves, and have existed
rather in a difference of Opinion in particular applications of those doctrines,
and in a difference abbut details', than about fundamental vieWs on the trtie
mode of construing the Constitution. Sb^rie have been misrepresented
on this head, and nphe,. J believe, sir, more than yourself 4 These differences

have been rather " the clouds that bang on freedom's jealous brow," thai*
any palpable darkness, or any desertion of the great principles contended for
by the democracy of the Union, in the great revolution of 1800. Some dif
ferences, and honest differences, may, and doubtless do exist on this point,
in all parties; but lam now speaking of this as one basis 6f the change in
administration at that era, and as one of the doctrines of the party at large,
as a party, which affected the change. That the opinions of New Hamp
shire have coincided with the views, whenever her politics have been demo
cratic, and that I, on them, as on the subject of the public lands, am repre
senting truly these sentiments of her democracy, and not as a Judas, so
courteously insinuated more than once, is easily demonstrable by a reference,
not to pamphlets or newspapers, forgotten or fresh, but to her legislative re
cords. While that State continued under the control of men opposed to Mr.
Jefferson, and of principles so fatal to his predecessor; while her representa
tives here were voting for Aaron Burr, she, as would naturally be expected,
voted against the doctrines of the Virginia Resolutions.
But when politically she became regenerate and moved in harmony with
the majority of her sister planets, in the democratic system — when the ten
dencies and progress of the opposite doctrines, doctrines urged so often and
so strenuously by that gentleman's (Mr. Holmes's) "matchless spirit of the
West," and under his lead-^when those tendencies began to alarm the watch
ful and call forth deliberate and decisive expressions of State opinions on
questions so dear to the purity of the Constitution, New Hamsphire came
out, in both her executive and legislative departments, against the favoritei
views of that "matchless spirit." She came out with directness and inde
pendence, as sovereign States ought to come out, on all great emergencies.
She showed her disregard, as a State, of men, whether Southern or Eastern,
whether politicians or judges, in high places or low, who, in her opinion, had
attempted to seduce the people of the Urtion by gradual and stealthy attacks,
into the same enlarged and constructive views of the Constitution, which
the revolution of l.SOO bad openly exposed and defeated.
Her Executive, in June 1822, declared (see ^1 Niles' Register) that:
" The measures of the National Government are justly regarded as subjects of great in
terest to the people, bnt they become more peculiarly of this ch-iracter, wlien believed to
be founded on doubtfal or erroneous constructions of the Constitution, tending to an exten
sion of theip own powers. When a ca-ie of this kind occurs, .or even if it appears probable
that it is about to happen, it becomes tlie dulji of the Legislatures of the individual States to
xdopt such constitutional measures as may tend to correct the error or avert the evil."
" The Constitution gives to Congress the power "to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts,
and excises, to pay the debts, and provide for the common defence and general welfare of
the United States," and immediately proceeds to define, and ve-.t the specific powers which
were deemed necessary to effect these objects. Amongst these it is thought none can be
found, which, o'l any known principles of construction, can authorize Congress to expend
the publib" resources in mere objects of internal improvement. The power to impose taxes,
to pay the debts, and provide for the common defence and general welfare, seems to have
been construed as a specific grant of power to Congress, to do any act, or adopt and carry
into effect any, and every measure, without restriction, which it might suppose, would con
duce to the general welfare. This construction is believed to be wholly unwarranted."
"When we advert to the great caution with which the powers vested by the Constitution
were defined and guarded by that distinguished body of men bv whom it was framed, we
2

10
find it impossible to believe that, by the indefinite phrase 'f to provide f-^r the common de-
fence .ind general we'fai-e," in the connexion in which it is, to be susceptible of that broad
and sweeplrtg construction, which must of necessity merge in it, and render utterly super
fluous every special grant of power in that instrument. A power to provide for the general
welfire, without restriction or limitation, is, in fact, a power to do whatever those, whe are
invested with It, choose to consider promotive of those objects. This is io truth tlie power
of a despniism, and can liave no place in a free government, the first principle of Which is,
that the powers delegated to rulers shall be distinctly and clearly defined and limited."
" At times this is so obvious that they are seen to possess the effrontery to endeavor to
influence public opinion, by boldly affecting to hold up to scorn every measure, having for
its object the correction of a wasteful misuse of the public i-esources, as unbecoming national
dignity, as if it were possible that real national dignity and respectability could acknowledge
any connection with profusion and extravagance."
For expressing such opinions, that Executive was then rebuked by the
worshipers of -enlarged powers, as the same class of persons now taunt any
principles or measures leading to refprm, or any men who may advocate re
form. Here, in the Capital of the Union, it "vvas sneeringly said: '^The
Hercules approaches who is to cleanse the Augean stable." [National In
telligencer,. June, 1832.] The advocates of reform were then, as now, a
theme of daily ridicule, and held up -for the " slow unmoving finger of
scorn to point at. " But the Legislature of New Hampshire responded to
the Executive in an able repoft, and concluded with the following memorable
resolutions, with scarcely a dissenting vote:
"1. Resolved, That, in tlie opinion of tliis House, the Constitution of the "United States
has not vested In Congress tlie right to adopt and execute, at the national, expense, a sys
tem of internal improvements.
" 2. Resolved, That , in the opijiion of this House, It is not essential so to amend the Consti
tution of the U. States, as lo give the power to Congress to make roads, bridges; and canals."
She thus evinced, on this poitit, her democracy and her jealous attach
ment to State rights; and this, not only by a decision against the enlarged
powers being already reposed. in the General Government, but declaring it
" not essential"" they should be placed there. She believed it danger
ous to the welfare and independence of the States either to give these pow
ers to the General Government by construction or express grant: and the
former mode was only the more alarming, as it united usurpation and, en
croachment on State rights, with the exercise of a power that she believed
tended directly' to a consolidation of the Government.
Gentlemen may describe the exercise of such powers as beneficent and
splendid — and picture a government with them as having all the "pomp,
pride, and circumstance" of Russian or Assyrian greatness- The gentle
man from lyiaine (Mr. Holmes) may again, as in the Panama debate,
paint his present martyr, then his " ttiatcliless spirit of the West,'' sighing
for such a " gorgeous kingdom" — " all ihe natives of this vast continent to
be arrayed" together for " the great occasion" — and the whole, " the mag
nificent scheme of the favorite — the genius-^the masterspirit of the West."
(2d Reg. Deb. 270.) Others may reverse the picture, and describe a go
vernment without these powers as too much trammelled in its tnovements,
as "palsied by the will of its constituents," as too "rigid in its expendi
tures," and certainly as too plain and republican in its institutions, for those

u
who talk of their political " lord and master" in the person of their presi
dents. But nothing geems clearer to me, than that one is the only true
government to preserve and perpetuate a mere confederacy of indqpendeiit
and democratic soA^ereignties; and the other, by whatever name baptised, is
a government tending to consolidation— to consolidation, not of the Union,
but of all political joot«era in the Union; The difference does not consist so
much in words as in things; not in professions, but in effects: the one tend
ing to a republican confederation; the other, in the language of the Virginia
Resolutions, to a practical "monarchy."
The Virginia Resolutions, p. 13 say, further:
" "Vyhether the exposition of ihe general phrases here combated, would not, by degrees,
consolidate the States mto one sovereignty, is a question concerning which the cotnmlttee
can pe.celve little room for difference of opinion. To consolidate tlie States into "one sove
reignty, nothing more can be w-inted than to supersede their respective sovereignties is the
cases reserved to them, by extending the sovereignty of the United States to all cases of the
" general welfare," that is to say, to alltases whalevir."
Grant that a different opiniptt on this construction has now, and ever has
had, from Hamilton, Ames, 'and the elder Adauis, honest and able advocates;
yet the tendencies pf it, whether to consolidation and monarchy or not, have
been, and are still, matter oi fair argument and just criticism. Jn that view,
and in the importance of this construction to the preserit mode of making do
nations of the public lands, and. to a just judgment on the imputations cast on
myself and my constituents, as having little claims to real democracy, I
have attempted to vindicate my own notions, and those of my own State,
without a detailed collection of the reasoning on the abstract question, and
without any strictures on the motives of those who differ from me. A word
more, and I dismiss this consideration.
Who is so blind as not to see, in the approaching condition of our Govern
ment, on the extinguishment of the national debt, and with our present
enormous dutiesretained, creatinga vastsurplusrevenueof 10 or Sl5,000,000, /
who does not see a cause of new and most feafful apprehension to the States,
if all that surplus, as well as all the ptiblic lands, can, and shall be employed,
under the General Government, in objects that Government njay think con
ducive to " the coipmon good," or "general welfare?" Whodoes not see a
door openeid to favoritism and corruption, which may let in irretrievable
ruin to sound political justice and equality, and overwhelm every vestige pf
State independence? Who does not see^-I care not in whose hands ad
ministered — I say the same in, a majbrity as when in a minority — I say the
same under this as under the last administration — who does not see a power
never contemplated at the formation of the Constitution, and which can
never be exercised under our present political system, without tainting to
the core, both those who exercise and those who feel ^t? Do I say this be
cause hostile to internal improvements? No! But because .hostile to the
degeneracy, if not the ruin of our Confederacy, and because I would ad
vance internal improvements, at the expense of the States and inrlividuals, and
not at the expense of the Union. I would do it the only way they can ever
be advanced, with safety and usefulness, according to the resolution of New
Hampshire, before read, and in those cases only in which individuals and
States can see their private and local interest lobe so much proraoted by
these improvements, as to warrant the undertakings by themselves.
Has it then come to this, undei" such a government, that one of the par
ties cannot, in any way, interpose aud correct its ruinous tendencies, and its

IS
insidious ponstructvons, when tjie great exigencies of the country demand
it? I think there has been more apparent -than real difference on this point,
in the present debate. Most must admit that they can interfere in some
wa -. So said the fathers of democracy in '98, so, said the Virginia and
Ke tucky resolutions,, and so do those say whom I represent. They can
interjiOse in various ways. My theory on this subject may vary more
in form than substance from other gentlemen's, but as each speaks for
himself on this tioor, I may be permitted to state briefly it is this: That the
parties to the Constitution are the agents of the people and the States, plaeecj
in the General Government on the one hand, and the agents of the people,
placed in their State Governments, on the other hand; and that the people,
separated from all their agents, are only the great primary power and foun
dation of the whole, never £icting'as one whole upon or about the Constitu
tion, either legislatively, executively, or judicially; btjt acting on it in those
forms, or any others, only by their agents in the States and in the General
Government. Yet the people theixiselves are still a pov^er behind the throne
greater than the throne itself; and entrench yourselves as you may, to the
teeth, in parchments and-constructions, they ^^ by their agents, in Convention
in the States, can abolish eyery institution, poHtitial or civil, ofthe Union,
or of their respective States. ; ' '
The parties then in collision as to the extent ofthe powers given by the
Constitution ofthe Union, are seldom the people with their agents of either
class, and never so any length of time without a sufficient redress; but the
opposing parties are generally, on the one hand, the agents of the people
and the States, under that Constitution, and on the other hand their agents
under the State Constitutions. I say the agents of the people and States in
the General Government, as the Stales are technically represented here in
the isenate, and may always technically and solely choose all the electors of
the Executive branch. The former ageilts, acting in the administration of
the General Government, caused it, properly enough, in common parlance,
to be called the General Government; and the latter agents, acting in the
States-, are called a State Government. The State Government is the Go-
verfiment which is primary and indispensable; The people, as such, un
less in a revolutionary condition, cannot cast a single yote, hold a single
tpwn\meeting, or lay out a rod of ordinaf-y highway, except through State
power and State agency. I ^hall not repeat what reasoning and illustration
the gentlemen from Kentucky (Mr. Rowan) and S. Carohna, (Mr. Hayne)
have adduced, in proof of these views, but meijely cite a clause, in the Vir
ginia resolutions of '99,. to show, that 'these views, vyjietber right or wrong,
were the views of the fathers pf the democratic party ; and if I err, I err
with the Iplatos and Socrates' of my political faith! (Virg. Res. p. 8.)
" Tlie otiier position involved in this branch of the resolution, namely, "that the States
are ntt parties to the Constitution or compact,' is, in the- judglnent of the committee,
equally free frtm objection. It is indeed true that the term ' States' is sometimes used in
a-vague sense, ajid sometimes in different senses, according to the subject to which it is ap
plied. Thus It S,ometimes means the separate sections occupiud by the political societies
within each ; somttimes the particular governments, established by those societies ; some
times those societies as organized into thoSe particular governments; and lastly, it means the
people composing those political societies, in tljeur highest political sovereign capacity. Al
though it might be wished that the perfection of language admitted l^s diversity in the sig
nification of the same words, yet little inconveniency is producsii by it, where the tme sense

13
mn he coUected with certainty from the different applications. In tlie present tostance,
whatever different constructions of the term ' States,' in the resolution, may have Ijeen en*
tertained, all will at least concur in that last mentioned; because in that sense the Constitu
tion was submitted to the ' States;' in that sense the ' States' ratified it; and in that sense of
the term ' States,' they are consequently parties tq the Compact from whicli the powers of
the Federal Government result."
The States then being one party, is it to be, contended th^t still the
other party, the General Government, may adopt any extended con
struction ofthe powers granted under the Constitution, without any efficient
right on the part of the States, to murmur, remonstrate, alter, or resist?
Certainly not, I should think, on either side of the debate. But how far
can they go, and " where shall their proud waves be stayed?" The opin
ion ofthe Supreme Court ofthe United States, a tribunal appointed, organi
zed and accountable, only to one party to the Government and one party
to the decision, is urged on us to be the great final balance wheel of the
whole machinery. But, if the States be another party to the compact, it is
manifest, that, on ordinary principles of compact, they have the same right
as the opposite party, or its 8gents,to decide -on. the extent of the compact.
This is conceded between two parties, in the case of treaties, and in the case
of ordinary bargains and cpnventions, and it cannot be denied here, admit
ting we have shown the States to be one party, unless both 'the parties have
expressly agreed upon some -tribunal intermediate, as an umpire or judge, to
decide irrevocably this kind of differetices between the parties to the Con
stitution. On the Other Ifthd, I understand it to be argued, that the Supreme
Court lias been agreed on as such a tribunal. But, the Supreme Court of
the United States wbuld not be likely to be so agreed on, reasoning a priori;
because, its members are all appointed hy, and answerable to, only one of
the {)arties; and, indeed, go to form a portion of one of the parties, being
mere agents of the General Government; - The amendments Of the Consti
tution, reserving rights and powers to the States or people, would be nuga
tory ^-a mere mockery, if the suicidal grant was made to the Supreme Court,
to the mere agents of one party, to decide finally and forever on the exterit
of all their own powers. The reasoning for this grant, therefore, appears to
me. arguntentum ad absurdum, as-el^aras any axiom in. Euclid. But
on this head, I am anxious not to be. misapprehended, and am willing to
resort to the words of the charter itself, to see what the legitiriiate powers
of that court purport to be in deciding such conti'oversies.
Fi;om the very fact of there ' being ttvo parties in the Federal Govern
ment, it would seem a necessary inference that the agents of each party, on
proper occasions, must be allowed, and are required, by au official oath, to
conform to the Constitution, and to decide on the extent of its provisions,
so far as is necessary for the expression of their own views, and for the per
formance of their own duties. This being, to my mind, the rationale of the
case, I look on the express words of the Constitution as conforming to it,
by limiting the grant of judicial jurisdiction to the Supreme Court, both by
the Constitution, and by the, acts of Congress, to specific enumerated ob
jects. In the same way, there are limitpd grants of judicial jurisdiction to
State Courts, under most of the State Constitutions. When cases present
themselves within these grants, the Judges, whether of the State or United
States, must decide, and, enforce their deicislon with such 'means as are con
fided to them by the laws and' the Constitutions. But, when questions

14
arise not confided to the judiciary ofthe States or United States, the officers
concerned in those questions mnst themselves decide them; and, in the end,
must pursue such course as their views of the Constitution dictate. In such
instances, they have the same authority to made this'decision^ as the.Supreme
Court itself -h.-js in other instances.
Thus the Virginia Resolutions, page 1.3, say:
" However true, therefore, it may be, that the Judicial Department is, in all questions sub
mitted to it by the forms of the Constitution, to decide in the last resort, this resort .must
necessarily be deemed fhe last in relation to the. authorities ofthe other departments ofthe
Govei'hment^ not in relation to the rights of the parties to the Consfitutlonal compact, from
wliich the judicial as well as the other departments hold their delegated trusts. On any
other hypothesis, the delegation of judicial power wouW annul the -authority dielegating it;
and the toncurreuce of this department with the others, in usurped powers, might subvert
forever, and beyond the possible reach of any rightful remedy, the very Constitution, which
all were instituted to preserve, "i I . ,
Thus Mr. Jefferson says:
" They contain the true prinmples of the revolution of 1800: for that was as real a revolu
tion in the principles of bur government as that of lTif6 was in its form ; not effected indeed
by the sword, as that, butby thii rational and peaceable instrament of reform, the suffrage
ofthe people. The nation declared'itsvvlll,' by dismissing functibnaries of one prin-oiple,
anil electing those of another, in the two branches, the Executive and Legislative, submitted
tp theu: election. Over the Judiciary department, the Constitution had deprived them of
theu- control. T[',hjif, therefore, has continued the reprobated system:, and although new
matter has been occasionally incorporated into the old, yet the leaven of the old mass seems
to assimilate to itself the new; and ^fter twenty years' confirmation of the federal system by
the voice ofthe nation, decUred through the medium of elections, we find the Judiciary, on
every occasion, still driving us into consolidation.
"In denying the right they usurp, qf exclusively explaining the ConstitUjtion, I go furtjier
than you do, if I understand rightly your quotation from the Federalist, of an opinion,, that
'the Judiciary is the last resort, iil relation.' <o the other department's of the GWernment, but
i)'ot in relation tb the rights of theparties to the compact, under which the Judiciary is deriv
ed.' If this opinibrj be sounil, then, indeed, is our Constitution ;a complete ,/e& <;?£ se. for,
intending to establish tiiree departments, co-ordinate and independent.rthat they might check
and balance one another, it has given, according tO this, opinion, to one of them alone, the
right to prescribe rules tor thj! government of the ethers, and to that one, too. Which ls.an-
elected by, and independent of, the nation, Fpr experience has alieady shewhthat the
impeachment it bus provided, is not even a soare-crbw; that such opinions as the one you
combat, sent cautiously out, as you observe also, by detachment, not belonging to the case
often, but sought for out of it, as if to rally the public opinion beforehand to their views, and
to indicate the line they are to w.ilk in, have been so quietly passed over as never to have
excited animadversion, even in a speech of any one ofthe body entrusted with impeachment.
The Constitution, on this hypothesis, is a mere thing of wax in the hands of the Judiciary,
which they may twist and shape into any form they please- It should J>e remembered, as
-an axiom of eternal truth, Va politics, that whatever power in any government Is independent,
IS absolute also; in theory only, at first, while the spirit of the people is up, but in practice,
as fast as that relaxes. Independence can be trusted no where but with the people in mass.
They are inherently independent of all but moral law. My construction ofthe Constitution,

15
IS very different from that you quote. ^ It is, that egch departmeut is truly independent of the,
others, and has an equal right to decide for itself what is the meaning of the Constitution
in the cases submitted to itsactiori; and especially, where It is to act ultiiliately and without
appeal." In confifHiation,of this, almost every Eastern Constitution authorizes the
departments of the Gpvernment, not judicial, to call on the Judges for aid
and advice merely, hi questions of difficulty; still lettving those departments
to act finally on their own matured information and their own responsi
bility. But all the difficulty does not arise herCi , Suppose the State agents,
judicial or, otherwise, decide wrong, in the opinion of the people, or the
agents ofthe General Government decide wrong in the opinion of the. peo
ple, oil' subjects admitted to be within their jurisdiction — is there, first, no
remedy for the people? Are not they supreme?
As I before reniarked, the people, in their omnipotence, if the case ex
cite them enoilgh, can, and willy in such event, always apply a most sove
reign remedy; sometimes reach the disease by changing the agerits who
have misbehaved ;jit other times, when unable, by the tenure of office, as in
case of the Judges, generally, to reach that class of agents by new elections,
they can, by conventions, alter or abolish their whole system of Govern
ment, and the whole course of decisions under thetn, and improve or create
anew whatever may havfe been objectionable. This is a doctrine neither
revolutionaj-y nor leading to anarchy, but rational and democratic, and lies
at the-foundation of all popular governments. But granting this, ihe argu
ment still holds, that, though the people can effect a change, yet the Sta;tes,
one of the parties to. tlie compact, cannot reach Or correct what they may
deem an erroneous decision, by the agents ofthe other party,. On the powers
given by the compact, and especially,- that they cannot reach or correct an
erroneous decision made by the Supreme Co'Urt of the Union. Again, it
may be answered, reasoning a priori, that, if this be true, it is deeply to be
lamented, as the people seldom act unitedly or efficiently, except through
their State agents-r-thpse agents who come so freqiiently arid so directly' from
among -tha people themselves. ,lf this be true, it is, quite certain that the
Supreme Court might, if so disposed,, proceed, case by. case, frorii year to
yeai-, on one subject and ajnother, in tWs and that .sectiori, of the Union, to
o-ive constructions to the Constitution, tending slowly, but inevitably, to fi
consolidation of the Government, and to the Utter prostration of State rights ;
and yet the people, as a people, would not ^idely and at once become enough
excited to interpose in their primary authbrity, and stay or correct such
encroachments- > -If this be true, any Supreme Court entertaining political
views, hostile to those of a majority of the people, would be able in time,
by cautious approaches, not exciting general and deep alarm, to defeat the
majority; to render the reservations to the States and people, a mere brutiim
falmen; turn the doctrine of State rights into a jest, and ride triumphantly
over all probable and feasible opposition!
' There is wanting -jp me no respect to the members of our Supreme Court,
which their great personal worth deserves; but, Iwpuld inquire, if from the
case of MarbCTry and Madison, in 1801, down to tliat of the Bank and Mc
CuUoch in 1821, there hks not been evinced on that bench a manifest and
sleepless opposition,- in all cases of a political bearing, to the strict qonstrucr
tion pf-the COnstitutiOfl, i^dopted by the democracy of the Union, in the
great revolution of 1800? I say nOthitig now against the honesty or legal

16
correctness of their views,^ in adopting such a cohstruction. .1 speak only
ofthe matter of fapt and of its political tendency; and I ask, if, while the
people, , through their democratic agents in the Legislatures ofthe State and
General Governments, have been in the main, adhering to one construction
— a strict and rigid construction — if their judicial agents in the General Gov
ernment have not beeh, with a Constancy and Silence, hke the approaches of
death, adhering tP a different construction ; thus sliding onwards to consoli
dation; thus giving a diseased enlargement to ' the powers of the General
Government, and throwing chains over State Rights^-chains never dreamed
of at the formation ofthe General Gbvernmeritr What says Mr. Jefferstin
on this head? 4 Jefferson's works, page 337. '
"But it is not frorti this brandh of govei^nment we have mpst to fea*. Taxes and shprt
ejections will keep them rjght. The Judiciary of the United States is, the subtle corps of
sappers and miners constantly working under ground, tq -undermine the foundations of pur
confederated fabric. They are construing our Constitution fro^ma co-ordmatlbniof'a gen
eral and special government, to agene'-alsnd.supremfe One alone, T ris willlay allthingi
at tiieir feet, and they are too well verspd in finglish liw to forget the maxim, • Ixmijudi'
CIS est ampliare jurlsdiclionem. " -
No institutioi\, in this free country, is above just criticism and fair discus-'
sion, in regard to its political views andthe political consequences of its .pro
ceedings. Hence,, in the States and every whefe, the field of inquiry and
comment is and should be, open to all; and a sacredness from this would
render anv institution a despotism. What;- then, let me asl?, what have
been the iflustrations ofthe bearingof the decisions of that Court upon State
rights, in particular cases? 'At one time has not Geprgia been prostrated by a
decision, in a case feigned or real, hetweeri Fletcher and 'Peck? At another,
Pennsylvania humbled, in the case of Olmstead's executors? At another,
Ohio and Maryland subdiied, in the case 'of'JVIcCulloch and and the Bank?
At another. New York lierself set at defiance, jn the steam-boat controversy?
And last, if not leE^st, New Hampshire vantjuished, in the case of Dartmouth
College? These decisions may, or may not, have. been legally right; thatis
not my prespntjiiquiry; but who is not struck with the difference between
the progress and effect of these decision.s, arid vi^hat was witnessed in the'
earUer days of the republic? Whep Massachusetts, in the height of her glory,
was threatetied to be brought to the bar of that Court for' trial, she, in the
person of Hancock, set on foot a remonstrance, and aprpposed amendment
pf the Constitution, which her gfeat influence carried throughput the Union
— an amendment exempting a sovereign State there, in certain cases, from
the humiliation of a trial and sentence. Even this amendment, so plausible
on its face, has, since 1801, been almost wholly evaded in practice, by suing
¦the agents of a State, instead of the State itself. So, again, before 1801,
when Virginia, in her might and chivalry, took the field against the "Alien
and Sedition laws," and against the decision of the Supreme Court on theu-
constitutionality, an alteration. of the Constitution, to be siire, did not follow,
but an alteration in the administration and the laws dia follow: find she af
fected the political revolution which suffered those, laws' to expire without a
renewal, and will probably prevent their re-enactment until democracy itself
shall have become a forgotten tale. I shall enumerate no other cases, nor
detain the Senate by a moment's inquiry into the correctness of any of
these decisions : though it may be observied, that my own State,, on an attempt

17
to obtain her political approbation of the decisions in the cages of Ohio and.
Maryland, and on the principles therein involved, postponed indefinitely the
resolution on that subject, by the following vote in one branch of her Legis
lature: June 24th, 1821, the Senate voted, 7 to 5, to postpone indefinitely, this
among others:
" Resdved, That, in the opinion of this Legislature, the proceedings in the Circuit Court
ofthe United States for the District of Ohio, in the before mentioned report stated, do not
violate either the letter or the spirit of the Itth article ofthe Amendment of the Constitution
df the United States, nor constitute any just cause of complsiint." •
The only time she ever expressed any opinion as a State, hostile to my
views concerning the powers of the General Government and its Judiciary,
was in rejecting the Virginia Resolutions, at an era in" her politics, when,
having just cast her votes for the elder A^ams, she might naturally be ex-
jpected to be hostile to the democratic principles of those resolutions.
It will thus be seen how the poyvrers of the General Government have
been gradually brought through, one of its departments to bear on the States;
and how the decisions of that department have gradually tended to the dan
gerous enlargement of those powers. This subject has been adverted to,
not for the purpose of questioning the Constitutional competency of thaft
Court so to decide, when it thinks best, but to ask whether no way exists,
for the States, when opposed to the political bearing of those constructions —
when opposed to such a political operation of the Constitution, to check or
control the influence of such a course of decisions: and if any way does not
exist, whether the Government is not likely soon to end in consolidfition,
and whether our future Presidents and Vice Presidents, without reference to
any signs df the times about a new alliance, are not, as more than once inti
mated i n th is discussion, from the West and East, (Barton and H olmes) to be lifted
hereafter from that bench to preside over the new destinies of a consolidated
government? My own answer to some of these inquiries is, firstly, that, by
the States, as States, the erroneous decision of the Legislative and Executive
Departments of the General Government can generally be corrected by
changing, in the State Legislatures, and at the ballot-boxes, the agents here
who made those decisions. This has been the ordinary remedy in ordinary
cases. Another class of decisions, and especially those b^ the Judiciary,
when the Judges are not removeable by the people, or the States, or Con
gress, as those of the Supreme Court are not, can be corrected, sometinaes, by
the States, as States, through public expressions of opinion in their .Legisla
tures, acting by their intrinsic reasoning and force on the agents who made
those decisions, and inducing them to revise and alter their doctrines in fu
ture. It would not be derogatory to any court, to listen to any expressions
.of opinion and any arguments such as those contained in the Virginia resolu
tions of 1799 — in the , resolutions of South Carolina on the tariff, or in the
Executive Message, resolutions, and report, ofthe Legislature of New Hamp
shire, in 1822, on the constructive powers claimed for the General Govern
ment. When all these modes fail, another and decisive resort on the part of
the States, is to amendments of the Constitution, by the safe and large ma
jority of three-/ourths. The acknowledged power of the States by their re
solutions and concert in this way, to effect any changes, limitations, or cor
rections, shows clearly that inthem the real sovereignty between the two
governments is placed by the Constitution, and in them the final, paramount,
supremacy resides. They can alter this Constitution, but we here cannet
3

18
alter their Constitutions. We then are the servants and they the master^
On the contrary, whatever others may hold, I do not hold that any certain
redress beyond this, on the part of any State, can be interposed against such
decisioris of the Supreme Court as are followed by legal, proteess, unless that
State resorts, successfully, to force against force, in conflict with the federal
agents. It is admitted by me, however, that, a State may resolve, may. ex--
press her convictions on the nullity or unconstitutionality of a law or decision
of the General Government These doings may work a chaiige through
public opinion, or lead- to a co-operation of three-fourths Of the sister States,
to c^prrect thfe errors by amendments of the Constitution. But' whenever
the enforcement of the law or decision comes within the scope of the acknow
ledged jurisdiction ofthe Supreme Cot^rt, and can be accoinplished by legal
process, I see no way in which that court can be controlled, except^by moral
and intellectual appeals to the hearts and heads of her. Judges, or by ariiend-
ments to the Constitution; Or by the deploraTjle and deprecated remedy of
physical force. Xliis latter resort I do not understand any gentleman here to
approve, until all othef resorts fail; and, even then, only in a case where the
evil suffered is extreme and psflpable, and, indeed, more intolerable and dan
gerous than the dissolution of the Government itself.
Such was the doctrine of Jeffersoii and Madisop. (Virginia Resolutions;
18 page.)
" The resolution has accordingly guarded agidnst any misapprehension of its object, by
expressly requiring for such an interposition •' the case of a delijierdte, palpahlei and datiger-
ou* breach ofthe Constitution, by the exercise of pouters not granted hy it. Itinustbe a case,
not of a light and transient nature, but of a nature dangerous to the great purposes for which
the Constitutioii was established. It most be a case moreover not obscure or doubtful in its
construction, but plain and palpable. Lastly, it must be a case not resulting from a partial
consideration. Or hasty determination ; but a case stampt with a final <;onsideratioa and delib
erate adherence. >> i
Beyond their views I trust no member of this Confederacy wiU ever feel
either the necessity or inclination to advance, and thus put in jeopardy that
Union which we all profess so highly to prize. Most of the States, as States,
in most ofthe exigencies thathave arisen under the Constitution, though all
other efforts failed, have thought it better still to suffer —
 '•  " to bear the ills we have.

" Than fly to others that we know not of."
How far the official authorized State acts under Pennsylvania, in the case
of Olmstead, and the same authorized State acts' in Massachusetts, in with
holding the militia from the General Government-^and of Massachusetts,
Connecticut and Rhode Island, as States, assembling by their delegates in<
the Hartford Convention in a time' of war, and with suph objects as the late
Chief Magistrate imputed to them in 1828, and the present Chief Magistrate
recognized in his letter to Mr. Monroe in 1816; how far these were excep
tions from their history to the obedience of the States, as States, to the Ikws
and Constitution; I see not now, any pleasure or profit, or necessity, in in-
quiriiig. Every sovereign State who has, or who may decjde on forcible
collisioii, decides for herself, though she manifestly does it under a high re
sponsibility to her people and the Union; and of course must consent to be
judged upon, however harshly,, by public opinion; and be willing to abide
on her course the decision made by the scrutiny of argument and time.

19
Having stated some of my deliberate views on the interest of the States in
the public lands, and on the power of Congress in the disposal of them, and
having attempted to fortify those views by my opinions on the just construc
tion of the Constitution, as regards the power of Congress to appropriate
either laiid or money, I have ' next hastily adverted to the rights, of the
States and the people to control Congress and the Federal Judiciary, ^hen
disposed to place a construction on, those powers, npt in accordance with the
opinion of the States and the people.
• Under these limitations of the Constitution, as expounded ,by the State I
represent, and by myself, I here profess, on this unpleasant contfover.sy -be
tween part^ of the West and the East, that I am willing to go on all subjects,
connected with the Public Lands, into equal and useful reform in our pre
sent system pf either surveys or sales. But, I am frank to confess, I have
uniformly voted against appropriations for general surveys for roads and ca
nals, and against donations of land or money towards roads and canals, un
less so far as our express contract requires in relation to the Cumberland
Road and the extension of it;, or,, unless the roads were military, or situated
in territories owned by the United States. Other gentlfemen have 'doubtless
done the same, for the same reasons, whether from the South or East; and
it is a mistake evinced by our own records, to suppose that all, or even a
majority of the East have unifornily gone in favor of these objects. On
other subjects, the case may be very different, in respect to the vote of the
East or the South, 'arising from local prejudices, or political' opinions; but on
that question enough has been said by other gentlemen, and enough shewn
by documents and rectyds, to render further comment useless, and to throw
some additional light and interest upon the political and party historyjiCthis
country the last fifty years. A further reason for refraining upon tMse sub
jects is, that the strictures made here, unfavorable to the East, concerning
these subjects, have expressly, repeatedly, and frOm all , quarters excepted
the democraoy of the East, and hence I see no occasion, for myself, as one
of that democracy, to enter into that part of the" discussion for either inquiry
t)r vindication. If any other political party than the democracy in the East
has been attacked, and has felt aggrieved-;— if the peace party in the late war
has met with undue severity, they, if not their associates, will speak for
tliemselves. "But, this much I will add, oh the gradu*ation bill of my friend
from Missouri, (Mr. Benton,) and on his good name, I cannot agree with
the gentleman from Mame, (Mr. Holmes) that they have never come to the
knowledge of my constituents; but, on the contrary, however they may
doubt the expediency of parts of that bill, they stand ready at all times, and
on all occasions, so. far as that democracy is represented by me, to pay due
homage to the Vigorous intellect of its author, and to his indefatigable and
faithful services on this floor, not only to 'the West, but to the country at
large upon almost every great question, agitated here since my personal ac
quaintance with this body. , Whatever others in the East may profess, I do
not contend that every Wester;n measure, whether for internal improvement
or different objects, has been indebted for its success to Eastern vptes; and I
appeal to no alliances, new or old, in confirmation or in consequeni:!e of it— -
nor do I ask, like one of the gentlemen' from Maine, (Mr. Spkague) one
vote against the West to be judged by the motive and notits effects—another
by its effects and not the njotive-^rOne by the aid received of a minority
from the East of the Hudson; and another by a minority- Northeast of the
Patomac. I, for one, put forth no such claims or arguments^ but frankly

20
avow, though generally supporting the Western measiyes before named, I
have in other cases voted against the West, as I have against the South, the
middle States, and the East itself. But I have done it on priticiples of equal
right, of general justice and devotion to my .official oath, and on no princi
ples of peculiar favoritism to' either, except as I might know better and love
dearer the interests and welfare of my immediate constituents. However
scoffed for hearing New England, blood called in question, and holding
.nleneci I claim no exemption from that frailty of predilection towards my
native soil, which, if frailty it be, may be thought to lean on virtue's side — *
" Breathes there a man with soul so dead.
Who never to himself hath sadd.
This is my own, my native land."'
The exainination which has acoompanied.this debate, will not show, I be-
iieye, that the West has, in truth, been more benefited by different consti
tutional opinions, than she- would be by thOseof a strict arid democratic char
acter,— »All the political, kindnesses which can bfe accorded to the West on
these last principles of .cp-nstructio'n, by Such ofthe democracy -tjf the East, as
entertain them, always has been, and lam confident always will be, granted
with cheerfulness. Thus, for one, I have voted for improvement of her lakg
harbors, and of her navigable rivers, because the power of imposing tonnage
duties and imposts, by which such iinprovements can alone be generally ac
complished, is expressly granted to' Congress, coupled with the power 'to
regulate Cominerce: — for the relief of he'i-'.ictual settlers on the public lands,
many of whom are' hardy and honest emigrants from the East, who fly
ing from the blasts of misfortune there, have sought an asylum for all they
hold dear, in the bosom of the mighty West: for the extinguishment of In
dian titles, because we tpo have once had such savage neighbors, and often
seen our dwellings in a blaze, and our wives and infants perish iinder their
bloody and barbarous lyarfare:, for remunerations against Indiati deprbdations,
because those also, our early settlers in the East, endured frequently, and fre
quently beheld in a siiigle night the total wreck — the smoking ruins of years
of honestand patient ind-ustry. Lastly, I have voted for milita!ry and territo
rial roads, and stand r^ady to vote for lowering the prices of the public lands.
But, on some other questions, I have not, and cannot go with the West, any
more than they can always go with us. ' In fine, whenever, under constitu
tional limitations, 1 could confer a benefit on the new States, I have hereto
fore, and will, in futurs, attempt it as heartily, as to confer one on Penn
sylvania, or South Carolina ; but beyPnd those limititations, I trust that no hon
orable Statesman from beyond the mountains, and I know that none of the chi
valry there, who fought with the democracy of the East in the fate war forfree
trade Md sailors rights, can, for a moment, wish me to go, or for a moment
can question the sincerity of this avowal in their behalf, or the genuine de-r
votion to the durable welfare of the West, cherished by the democracy I
represent. It has not been questioned in this debate, by my friend on the
right or the left, (Mr. Bejjton and Mr. Hatne) but both have eloquently
bestowed on that democracy the praises it richly deserved, and which prais
es tend to bless both the giver and receiver. That democracy has> the ties,
the sympathies, and the affections ofthe heart, arising from common suffer
ings and sacrifices, besides the pohtical brotherhood of a common -tongue, faith,
and institutions, to bind them to the West with strongerties than anytemporary
alliances, for purposes whether party or personal. Whether the same tie?

21
of -th^ heart can exist between the .West -and the opponents of that demo'cra-
<xy in thp East, the peq,ce party in war, who refused, relief and^ succour to
the bleeding West, it is, for any representatives of those opponents to show..
In; fine, sir, if the Government, on those principles of strict construction of
the Constitution, cannot be jirosperously administeved, it requires, ho spirit pf
porphecyjto foresee, that, in afew brief years, in' a new crisis approaching, and
before indicated, it must, as a Confederation, pfobably cease to be-administered
at all. It will, in my judgement,. become a gojrernment of usurped, alarriiing,
undefined powers; and the sacred rights of the States will become oyersha-
dowedin total eclipse. ..When that catastrophe more nearly approaches, un
less the great parties to"the Government shall' arouse and in sOme way intet--
fere and rescue it from' consolidation, it Will follow, as darkness does the
day, that tbe government ends like all republics of olden times, 'either in an
archy qr despotism. ,
, On some account^, Sir, it tyoulcCgive me most unfeigned pleasure^ could
I close my remarks here. But for an adherence to what I consider . demor
cratic doctrines, on. these and other points of controversy, and for an adher-'
ance to such men wherever resident, as practise those doctrines through evil
and through good* report, it has been the-lot of a class of people in the East-„
for the last third of a century, to bfi stigmatized by all'thp.,ppprobrious epi
thets and insintiations, which in different stjiges of this debate; have been ac
cumulated on such of them as supp6rt the present administration, '
On one hand here, these last lia,ve^beeri alluded to, a"s if mer.e worshippers
ofa rising, sun, and- for that manufactured Into democrats •dyed in the wool,
from- the very doors of the Hartford Conpention. 0» autither hand, jeered
as if democratic only for the adherence I.0 Southern men, -and 'taunted, as being
small in number, and diminutive iri im'portance. ' Oh another -harid,' stigma
tized as Judases amd appstates from the true New England faith;- and, in fine>
loudly denounced, in common with" all the. suppqrters of - tlie present ad-,
ministration, as a heterogeaeous mass of renegacToes from- all parties, -wfth no
common boiid of principle or feeling, and doomed soon to become an ea^y
conquest to this coprteous and the modtesj; opponents of what is called this
cruel _adm,ini.strationi Thp' one of the supporters of this, administration,
still,' Mr '. President, nothing" short of,a strong sense of peculiar duty ori this •
occasion could have compelled me to take any part in answering, such angry
criminations. They seem only'tl^e ©scape of the ste'am fi-pm a high pressure
engine, fitted for an eight yeafs' voyage; but the vessel having "uiiexpectedly
been compelled te stop its wheels at the end of four years, thus lets off ite
heated vapor in the mid.^t'of it? career. 1 consider the debatfe, however;- in
this, respect, if no other, as somewhat fortunate/ since it may prevent any in
jury by the buf sting of the boilers. But, Sir, averse as I am, tp 'party bitter-,
ness, and the whole Senate can bear me witness, that, unless in self-defence, I
nevei; make either sectional, party, or personal imputations; aild little regard
ful as I am of abusej when heaped only on myself, fpr I have long since
learned to letmy life, rather than my language^ answer perspiial slander;
yet I stand in sucharelation to thpse friends of this administration, in my own
State, as to render it ynmalnly and dishonorfible to permit siny imputations
on them, from however high sources; to pass unnoticed . Much less will I per
mit them so tp pass, when showered upeJn us chiefly, not by the Sputh or the
West, or tljie middle Stites,,but by persons, some of whom claim to be the oa-
ly lineal sons of the East itself, arid the real Simon Pures of all that is
dewberaitic, and all that is ¦'New -England; persons, -also,' who vauntingly

22
march to the attack here, with eleven thence against the administration to
one in its favor, willing to repel the aggression, and- sustain the cause of its
Eastern supporters.. But this, I suppose, is another specimen of. that magna
nimity and true greatness, which, wheri in a minority, always talks of lifting
its quadrant to the Sun, and of ^rgetting and hrgiving by-gone strifes, by
gone parties, by-gone oppositions;'but which, in a majority, directs its vision
and its wrath to the smallest light that twinkles. Let me ask then, more in
sorrow than in anger, -why are these aggressions made on us,'Mr.President?
Have any provocations been given, for an attack by Eastern men on that
part of the democracy of the East which supports the present administration?
Had a syllable been uttered here, by any of that democracy,* against any of
their former brethren, whether or not intimating they were now in other
ranks, or in bther alliances? Had aught been said from the East, reproaching
any of them" as Svtsiss troops, coming from, or going to, the peace party in
war? On the contrary, not-Only* the Eastern friends of this administration j<
but the whole democratic party in the East, whether opposers or supporters
of this administration, had been studiously, in the ' whole charge, excepted
from any censtire flting by any gentleman on the East >itself, or on the ex
cesses of its federalism, during the late war. Thus my friend dn4;he left, (Mr.
Benton) explicitly said, he flung no reproach or complaint on the Eastern
democracy, and we have' the printed, as well as spoken declarations of
my friend on the right, (Mr. Hatne) to the same effect, anti in a strain of
the highest, if not most merited eulogy.* H^ said:
' 'God forbid, Sir, that he should charge the people of MasSachussetts with participating in
these sentiments. The South and the West had then their friends — men who stood by their
country though encompassed all around by their enemies: the Senator from ' Massachusetts,
(Mr. Siisbee) was one of them; the Senator from Connecticut^ (Mr. Foor) was another;
and there were others now on this floor. The sentiments I have read, were the sentiments
oiaplbrty, embracing the politjcal associates ofthe gentjpman from Massachtisetts, (Mf.
Webstbh.)" Again, to exempt, with specific certainty, the democratic party at large,
as well as the people of Massachusetts, not in concert with the peace party,
he (Mr. Hayne) said: •
"Mr. President: I wish it to be distinctly understood, that all theremarli;s I have made oft
this subject, are intended to be exclusively appUed to ajbarty.which 1 have described as the
"Peace party of Ne\y England, "embj-acing the political associates ofthe Senator from Mas
sachusetts — a party which controlled the operations of that State during the embargo and war,
and who are justly chai-geable with all the measures I have justly reprobated. Sir, nothing
has been further from my thoughts, than to impeach the character or conduct of the people
of New England. For 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) "tha.tt\\e.perseverafice of Holland, the activity of France,
and the dexterous and^rm sagacity of English enterprise," have been more th^n equalled
by this 'recent people.'- Hardy, enterprising, sagacious, industrious, and moral, the people
of New Ei%land, of the present day, are worthy of their ancestors. 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 nan-ow sectional feelings, have been true to their principles
in the worst of times— I mean the democracy of New England. Sir,, I will declare,' that,

23
highly as I apptreciate th« democracy of the Sou^, I consider even higher jpraise to be due to
the democracy of New England, who have miuntiuned the'u- principles "througli good and
through evil report" — who, at every period of our national history, have stood up manfully 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 ofthe South, marching under the
banner of the Constitution, led on by the patriarch of liberty, in search of the land of political
promise, which they lived not only to behold, but to possess and to enjoy. Again, Sir, in the
darkest aqd gloomiest p'efiod of the war, when our country stood singU , handed against
" the conqueror of the i^onquerors of the world," — wlien all about and aroupd 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 defended, or to find its grave. And .in the last great
struggle, involving,' as we believe, the very existence of the principle of popular sovereignty,
where were the democracy of New "England? Where they always have been found. Sir;
struggliflg side by side with their brethren ofthe Southandthe West, for popular rights-, and
assisting in that glorious triumph' by which the man ofthe people was elevated to the highest
ofBie in their gift." ' ' •- -
Thus has he so ably and eloquently poured upon our democracy every ,-
commendation they deserve, and foi* which he is entitled to most grateful
thanks,, both from myself and them, and thus ttie 'naked truth puts to rest
the attempts since made to pervert his remarks into a sectional attack On the
whole East, and to excite improper and unfounded ptrejudice' against the
South and West, as if they had put "Me whole East to the if an of the em
pire." . ' '
But, in truth, the sectional attempts to inflame public sentiment will ap
pear to have come from the East itself, if riot from some of that party there
which alone was censured ; and the injunctions of Washington against such.
sectional appeals, which have been read us, might well furnish admonitions
against the course pursued by those on my right, who have read them:
(Mr. Noble and Mr. Holmes.)
".One of the expedients of party to acquire influence within partitjular districts,, is to mis
represent the opinions and -aims of dther districts. You cannot shield yourselves too much
agmnst the jealousies and heart burnings which spring from' thoSe misrepresentations: they
tend to render alien to each other, those who pught to be bound together by fraternal aft'ec-
tion," [5 Marshall's Waah.2X)QL.'[ ' , .
With a charge then against only the leaders of the peace party in war 
what have we seen in reply ? Not an avowed defence of that party, which
alone was assailed, and which, by its representation here, commenced the as
sault on my friend upon the right, by tauftts against the South; but we have
invocations to forgetfulnessjwehaveprotestandoes and disclaimers. Notthelions
of Democracy rousing when not attacked ; but the real game pursued, rousing
as it feels the huntsman in the chase, arid, seeking to irifuse alarm into all
within its inflhehce, and all starting asidcj from anger or morfification, that
the democracy was not also attacked, to fasten upon our throats with all the
bitterness of our most virulent defamers for the last third of a century.
I cherish. Sir, quite too much self respect and too great personal regard
for that portion of the Federalism of this ' Union, which has been honest,
consistent and faithful to the country, however much we may differ in'oiir
political views, ever to cast on any of its nupiber personal or party stric
tures, beypnd.wh'at is necessarily involved in' settling historical facts, and in

24
defence of myself and my constituents. But I shall en^avour, with all the
decorum "so excltit)g a subject permits, to show,, if God spares me strength,
that the imputations before enumerated, come whence they may, are the
(Worsl kind of revilings, from a very ancient school of politics in the Easty
atid that they are just as unfounded now, ag the atrocious slanders were,
which have been uttered by heated partisans against this same- democracy
in every great' political struggle for the last thirty years. It matters not who
utters th^m — whether some of the authors have always claimed to ¦ support
Republicanism, as opposed to Federalism, or some have never so claimed —
or whether some of them, during the whole administratioa'of the writer ofthe
Declaration of Independence, marched together, shoulder to .shoulder, in oppo
sition to that Administration, aS they no'w march in opposition to t{iis, or not.
But "the scoffs themselves have internal evidence (if their chsfracter, which no
professions can rebut — they smell of a lamp, they spring from a school not
to be mistaken. Whpever unites in these- scoffs cannot complain, if .judged
by the maxim-^ — noscitur a sociis. They are the old lessons of an old school.
The stain and brmd can no more be to^n off than Hercules'eould tear, off
the poisoned robe of Nessus. ,, ,
" Under the' lead, then, which dll have witnessed, that part ofthe Democra
cy of the East, friendly to ^he present' Administration, have first been kind
ly reminded, that they £tre a new, manufacture ; and next, that their Demo
cracy chiefly corisis'ts in their adherence to Southern men and Southern mea
sures. How novel and. how trite ate these taunts, will be seen in a moment,
by "setting history right," '
Had gentlemen fot-gotten that the seeds of division were^ sown in the East
early as 1791, and that whoever then rose abo-ve sectional views "and pursu
ed an independent and democratic course on public measures, was jeered at
by some, in the language once applied to Hancock — he " is with the York
ers and Southern Bashaws ?" • Repeated from the same quarter in 1798,
against the inlrepid Langdon — ^that he was " a slava — an apostate to the
South ;" because he was averse to -the principles and policy ofthe then Ad
ministration,, and rose against it and above sectional clamour and Massachu
setts dictation, supposing tfiat New-Hampshire "was, and of right ought Jo
be," as independent of her, as of Georgia or Ketitucky, and that any other
course by-her delegates here would indeed be apOstacy-— degrading apostacy
from democratic principles, and all those holy and inspiring sentiments of
pride and patriotism which ought to govern a free and sovereign State,-and
any delegates worthy of a free and sovereign State. Echoeid again in 1808,
against the last President, when professing democracy, and moulded into ev
ery variety of bitterness, and, peradventure, from some of the same lips now
repeating the sarcasms against us ; that he was seduced by the South, and
was a Judas and traitor to New-England — because he denounced what he
called " narrow" and "^sectional" schemes in the East, tending to disunion
and treason. Re-echoed in 1812, against one of your distinguished' prede
cessors in that chair, the revolutionary veteran Gerry, and rtany others in
favor of that war, by stigmatizing them as " white slaves of the South;" be
cause, in a crisis of great perplexity and peril, they stood by their brethren
of the South, the middle States, and the West, in attempts to vindicate our
country's rights, and "pluck up drowning honor by the locks," rather than
standing by the mere leaders of a party in the East, who cried out, then, as,
BOW, that the whole of New England was put to the ban' of the empire.

25
Jffevv can be ignorant how often, withtn the last four years, the same kind
of taunts has been reiterated agaiiist all those who, in the late Presidential
canvass at the East, supported the present Executive. Coming this very
mornmg, and now in my hand, iri a paper now under the banner of Nation
al I<.epublicanism, but during (hat war, under the five striped flag, k the
very repetition for the ten thousandth time of one of these same groundless
scoffs: . °
" If New nampshire chooses to send Representatives who can thus desert the best! intei^
est,s of their constituents, and become the wliite slaves of the South, she iriust blame herself."
The ear mark of this attack on a part of my Constituents is, therefore, too
large and long not to show at once its ti;ue origin and character, and to prove
anew how much easier it is to alter names than things. ^
The inconsistency of these sneers, from such quarters, will also heap-
parent, when we set our history right, by finding that these same authors of
them have voted for Southern candidates neariy, if not quite, as often
as the democrats, and always when their party success could be promoted
by It ; because, omitting 17S9 and 1793, when all tinited for a Sopthern man,
they appear to have voted for one as President in 1804, 18081 181 G, and
1820. ^55
The smallness of the number, arid the -diminutive Importance of the sup
porters of this ad ministration in theEast, constitute another magnanimous taunt
from the same source against the genuineness of their democracy ; as if, when
history is set right, the present Executive did not obtain more votes in Nev/
England than did Mr. Jefferson in 1800, and, with the exception of one State,
more than Mr. Madison did in 1812. ^Ve are accustomed in the East, Sir,
to new trials for correcting mistakes. New Hampshire, as a State, since the
late election, has already changed, her delegation iti the other House, so as to
be entire in favor of this administration. And hd's not Maine herself, besicle
an electoral vote for it, sent an equal numbe;- there in its support? On this
I think her democrats have some little claim to respect, in point oJf numbers,.
however charged with apostacy; and I may be pardoned in the guess, that,
from the signs of the times ¦th(sre,ihey will at least try to show a majority
in favor of this administration sooner than the present delegation from Maine
here shall succeed in obtaining a// the Maine and Massachusetts claims for the
misconduct of their peace party in the late war.
The resemblance between the political character of the opposition and ad
ministration partiesin 1798, 1812, andl828, would seemto give ussomefurthef
title to old fashioned democracy. The same deniocratic States, with one or two
exceptions only, are found at each era, side by side, in favor of Jefferson, Madi
son, and the hero of Orleans. On one side, Virginia and Pennsylvania — Caro
lina and Georgia — Tennessee and Kentucky. On ihe other, Delaware and
Massachusetts, Conneoticut, and divided Maryland. ¦* The same distinguish
ed statesmen of the first era, who survive, and who were honored by'every
species of abuse, from the mpst malignant of th^ir enemies — those republi
can statesmen of 1798, the Livingstons, the Macon's, the Sijniths, ,the Ran
dolphs, and the Gileses-, are again found acting and stigmatized with the hum
ble democrats of the East who support the present administration. Yes, sir
w^en that gentleman, (Mr. Livingston) little more than a year since, not
in old ¦" by-gone days" of virulence, was defeated in an election to the other
House, one of the first papers at the " head quarters of good principles"
that hoisted the new banner of Actional RepubKcqrtisrti, exulted that he

36
" was consigned to the tomb, of all tlie Capulefs," and further added, " whet*
we reccollect that Mr. L. is an old sinner, and that we are inflicting puhishr
ment for the back-sliding of thirty years, we may safely say he falls unwept
T— unhonored."
Little did they then expect his Anteari vigour in rising from that fall
would so soon restore him to the councils of his country," as the representa
tive of a sovereign Sate, rather than of a single district. And little did
they heed, as in "by-gone-days," the base, injustice they were perpetrating
towards one, of whom it is no flattery to say, he is as a civilian, no less than
a politician — an ornament both to that State and his country, if not to our
race. Accessions lyive, of course, been made from other ranks to swell the
increased majority of 1828, over those of 1800 and 1812; but they ha:ve
been, I trust, accessions of pnriciple, and not of bargain ; and if such acces
sions, then they will endure, flourish and bear ' good fruit, long as the original
stock upon which they have been engrafted. But if they have not been
from principle, who regrets how soon they may be severed from the stock?
Whether the same doctrines, in the mairi, are also not now advocated by
us and- by the oposition,,as -were advocated by the administration of 1801
and by its opposition, is of too common notoriety, and has been too fully
shown in the progress of this debate, to need much further illustration.
On the part of the administration, abused as it has been, or at least on the part
of its supporters iri the East, whose claims to democracy have been so modest
ly challenged, I venture with frankness to assert, that there is in general'
the same adherence to a strict construction ofthe Constitution arid to the re^
served rights and sovereignties of the States as under Jefferson — the same
acquiescence in instructions by State Legislatures— ^the same desire for reform
andecoriomy— the same abhorrence of implied and doubtful powers, whether
over the press, the deliberations of this body, or the industry and free trade
of the country. On the contraryj on the part of the opposition, there are, and
have been, the same scoffs at reform and economy — the same denial of tlie right
bf instruction in the States to their Senators — the same struggle for enlarged
constructions of the Constitution — a i-efusal "to be palsiedby thewill of our
constituents" — implied powers carried tothe greatest extent in assuming to
accept, in the recess, invitations to Panama, and in claiming the right, in that
recess, without the consent ofthe Senate, to appoint Ministers on such ai)
expensive arid hazardous mission; and, finally, certain movements of a
"specific" character, bearing on the press, not quite in coincidence with a
bill introduced here the same day, by my frieijd from i^ew Jersey, (Mr.
Dickerson) to refund a fine collet^ted under the sedition law of 1798.
This attitude of a party now in a niEtjority, disclaiming implied) and en
larged powers in the Leo;islative aS well as the Executi-ve branches, is a most
cheering sign of ihe times for the safety of our liberties, and is an attitude
worthjf imitation in all governments, especially by all republican magis
trates, in all future times. I say nothing against the past administration a§
men, for some of them possess my entire i espect ; but I am speaking of some
of the political rpeasures they, or thfeir friends, have proposed and approved.
If any part of the deiriocracy of the East, friendly to this administration,
were once in favor of the late Chief Magistrate, and sipcerely intended to supr
port his adriiinistratiori, because, as they believed, he had become united with
that democracy and inclined to enforce its principles — and many of them
honestly did so intend and believe: if any of them in "by-gone years" vin
dicated him against attacks from the same political school whence we our-

27
selves are now assailed, and, like the present President, in the letters here
cited against him to Mr. Monroe, did think well of the talents and patriotism
of that Chief Magistrate, the wPrld will see, ivhen ihe history of the East is
set right, where and on what side has bpen any change of principle.
They will see whether the treachery and apostacy so often insinuated
here and elsewhere, and formerly applied by the same ' political school, in
the same^vay, to that very Chief Magistrate, do not now, if applicable at all,
if courteous and just to any body, more properly apply to the cpurse of that
magistrate and of his administratibn, than to thdse democrats in'the East,
who continued faithfully to cling to the platform of democratic principles?
What verdict, on this .point, have all the democratic States in the Union,
standing together in 1798, 1812, and in 1828, almost unanimously returned?
Is it not that the past administration, in many respects, departed from the
principles of democracy? And what verdict has. New Hampshire herself,
within the last year, returned, that those who were sent hither by democratic
votes, and to defend democratic principles, and who abided by those prin
ciples to the hazard of both popularity and office — that they were faithful
among the faithless, and their course to be approved? or that the desertion,
if it existed at all, was on the oide of that, part of her delegation in. the«ot,her
House, who, for adhering to all men and measures indiscriminately of that
administration, have been permitted to retire to private life?
One only of that delegation, a man whose stern democracy never quailed,
or bent to any fellow man, has, for that, been borne back here triumphantly
by the suffrages of the people, proving again, what is'Snd always should be
a proud excellence in a free government ; that however the waves of faction
or sectional prejudice may, for a time, dash against a consistent and faithful
Representative, " An honest man is' still an unmoved rock,
" Wished whiter, but not shaken by the shock."
Gentlemen know but little of that democracy, if they suppose their object
is to go themselves, or to have their Representatives go for mere men father
than measures: that they are slaves enough, or ever have been, or ever will
be, lo bend the servile knee to any " lord or master," hut Ihe supreme
Lord of all ; or to acknowledge any such in office, as intimated, except their
constituents and their State. You do them foul injustice and reproach, if
j'ou believe that democracy has not the justice arid patribtism to uphold
those who uphold their country ; and if ever misled, for a time, by local
prejudice, or personal regard, that they will ever long go for men, unless
Uiose men go for their caiise; ever long go for any slavish and monarchical
doctrine of unlimited devotion to particular individiials or particular dynas
ties? These principles, lam pf-oud and thankful for tlie opportunity to say, in
behalf of my faithful constituents, whose attachment, when I forget, may my
God forget me — these principles belong to that part ofthe New Hampshire
democracy tvhich supports this calumniated Administration.. But whether
they are the principles of that kind of naiiortal republicanism in 'Maine
and Massachusetts, which opposes this Administration,- the world has enjoy
ed an opportunity of judging in the course of this debate.
The country will thus be able to set right the history ofthe East, ih the
late Presidetitial canvass ; and I repeiat, that it is only in self defence, and
in vindication ofa large portion of my constituents and myself, thus attacked
On this' floor, Tor' their want of real deniocracy,. iti suppaa-ting the present ad-

28
ministration, that I could have overcome my repugnance, in this assembly,
to make any allusions to thpse fierce ))arty struggles, that have so often raged
among the modern Spartans and Athenians of the rocky East.
My mind is recalled to one other direction given in this debate-to the his
tory, merits, and glorie? of the East, entirely at war with the real worth of
that democracy. '
Yielding, as I cheerfully do, and always shall, due praise to political oppo
nents-; j»et, I can never consent, that all the excelleijcies and applause be-
¦stowed on the East, by -gentlemeri friim that or other regions, shall at once
he assumed and' appropriated, as if exclusively belonging to the opponents of
that vilified democracy, to the peace parly in war. Thus we see, that
when nobody has been attacked from any oljier quarter, except those oppo-
lients, every change of eulogy has been rung in reply, as if the eulogy was
all deserved, all won, and all to be monopolized by only those who were- at
tacked — by only those opponents. Little did my friend from South Caro
lina (Mr. Hayke) think, his prophecy would so soon be apparently verified,
when he spoke of what might be done by somd future biographer of ore of
the ipcmbers of the Hartford C-Jrivention. ." I doubt not," said he, "it will
be found quite easy to prove, that the peace party in Massachusetts %vere
the only defenders of their country dui-ing the war, and actually achieved
our victories, hy land and sea." Have gentlemen not been pursuing here a
constant course of argument, tending, in fact, whatever may have been the
intent, to something very like a confirmation, of this prediction?
Thus, Vv'hen members of tiie Hartford -Convention are assailed, there is in
reply, a flourish of trumpet after trumpet, in defence pf ' those who stood by
the country, and who, in fact, resisted that Convention, and denounced as
loudly, as has been denounced here, its leaders and its doctrines ; thus creat
ing an impression that that Convention stood by their country, or that those
who resisted that Convention had been assailed. - Is this course of reply
one of the means referred to by Washingtonj for converting any party
charge or excitement into a seclionsl shape? Thus', again, if schemes for dis
union &\\dfor a Northern confederacy are charged home upon the leaders of
a party in theEast, before the Hartford Convention, end before the embargo,
ori the authority of assertionsby the late President, cited .by the gentlemen
on my right and left, then w.e have, in reply, eulogies on Eastern bravery
and fidelity, as if belonging exclusively to those itnplicated in the above
schemes. Some doubts, to be sui-e, on the constitutionality of purchasing
Louisiana, and some charges of corruption in purchasing it, are re-intimated,
perhaps from the sarne quarter that repeated those charges twenty years since,
and which have been so fully pioved to be groundless, from the recent ac
count of that purchase by the Abbe Marbois : and in conclusion, we have
again the sectional attempt, to make the whole East believe, when the peace
party in the East was alone assailed, that the whole East has now, in this
W^,heenputtothehdnofiheetipire.
As a further specimen, the Senate, in answer to charges against the patrio
tism of the peace party in thfi late Vk-ai-, haye again and again beeri invited to
look at the glories of Bunker Hill, and Bcnhington, and Saratoga, and Mon
mouth, as if these glories liad been denied or attacked ; and provided {hey
had, as if the democracy of the East, which supported the late war, and those
of them which support the present adminis-tration, had no part or lot in those
sanguinary conflicts. As if the gallant Pieic;, who nOw presides over my
native State, and th'& brave Stark ofthe same neighborhood^vv-ho fmio-Vit b^r

23
the side of his immortal father, so singularly eulogized in this very debate; as
if the intrepid Hall, who trod in blood on the deck of the Ranger, as Lieuten
ant to Paul Jones — all vvere not now, living monuments in New I-Jampshirc
ot the part which some ofthe distinguished survivors of the Revolution take
among the democracy of the East, in rallying round the present Executive of
the Union. If you turn there to the whole muster roll of the survivors in
that contest, you will find the proportion of them as large, entertaining the
sanie political views with their heroic officers. The peace party in the Revo
lution, for there was also a peace party in that ivar, might with just as
much propriety claim all the honor of the victories ofthe Revolution, .lust
as well as the peace party of the last war, might tJiey seek to engross all the
credit of those victories from that part of the democracy of the East, who
survived to mingle in tlie political contest in favor of either Mr. Jefferson's,
Mr. Madison's, or the present administration. So, again, from the same
quarter, in answer to censures bestowed only on the peace party in the
East, we are invited to gaze on the brilliant achievements of the bloody Oth,
the 21st, and llth regiments, in 18l4, and in exultation against those attack
ing only, v^-hat the gentleman from Maine, (Mr. Holmes) then pronounced
^^treasonable" opposition to that war, we are informed of the prowess,
chivalry, and descent from New England loins, of those, who in fact put all
in jeopardy to support that war.
Did it never occur to gentlemen, that history would be set right, and
that those regiments and their brave officers, their Ripleys, their Millers,
their McNeils, and their Weekses, all these last natives of the scoffed New
Hampshire, would be known to have sprung chiefiy from the democracy of
the East, and that all of these before named officers, with perhaps a single
exception, are decided supporters of this abused administration?
On the contrary, lofty as were the principles and deeds of all the Whigs of
the Revolution in the East, yet, on all hands it mustbe confessed that,'during
the late war, the patriotism ofthe leaders ofa party there took a most un
fortunate direction. While those taunted heroes of those brave re"-imerits
taunted then, as most of them now are, with being slaves to the South
and apostates frorfi Neio England principles; while they, I say, were fjyl
ing to the then derided flag of our Union, and were pouring out their blood
at Bridgewater and Chippewa, in defence of their country's rights, the lead
ers of the " peace party in war" were seen flying to far different scenes at
Hartford, and pouring out from their pulpits, presses, and legislative assem
blies, anathemasagainsi. the administration, the war, and all their supporters.
Sorry I am to s:^y it, Sir, except to "put history right" in pur defence, not
the mere maniacs of the party, as intimated by the gentleman on my left
(Mr. SrKAGUE) were engaged in this unfortunate display of this new species
of patriotism. But with the leaders intheir pulpit services and opinions,
were found some at least of their confiding'congregations. With the dele
gates of three sovereign States and parts of two others at Hartford, were found
in principle, some constituents to elect them. With eloquent Representa
tives and Senators here, were found to support them at home, at least a par
ly, a whole party, and nothing but a party. On this occasion what I say is
not to be misunderstood, however much it may be misrepresented. 'When
in self defence, I allude to a certain party and its acts in the East, ^bout the
period of that war; far be it from me to include all of them or of those in
other quajters of the Union, who had borne the same party name.

30
It is well known in the history of this country, that, having lived under a
limited monarchy till the Revolution, not only then, but in the formation of
our Stat^ and general Constitutions, some honest diversity of opinion exist
ed, as to the extent and Umits of power, safely to be entrusted in the hands
ofthe people's agents. Without dweUing on the titles which should be
given to the one side, for asking large power and much confidence in office
holders; and to the other for granting only smaU power and liniited confi-
deijce; it is sufficient to notice that this division, coupled with other matter,
from time to time connected and incide'ntal, separated the whole country in
to opposing parties, parties too, which not then being chiefly sectional,
were useful rather than injurious in rousing vigilance, and in preserving un
impaired the reserved powers of the people and the States. But as some
more exciting and more local topics of difference occurred — :an Eastern Chief
Magistrate being removed from office, under coniplaints and remonstrances
as doleful and violerit as any heard here on account of more recent removals,
and his place being supplied by a Sputhern successor, and avast addition
being soon made, under that successor, to our Southern territory, and expect
ed also to be made thereby to any peculiar Southern influence, which might
prevail in the administration of our government, these general parties, so far
as respected one of them, gradually assumed almost an entire sectional char
acter; and, contrary to the injunctions of Washington, so often urged on our
considerafipn in this debate, its leaders began to drag into the controversy
every sectional interest and prejudice, that nestle closest round the heart rf
erring man.
The attempts, which two of the distinguished members of that party have
recently averred were sopn after made for separating the Union, had a poor
apology, in any bejief, that the purchase of Louisiana was un-constitutional,
as one of their then number, now on this floor, seems still to hold; and must
have been, from the account of those members, ofa mere rash and sectional
character; and, Ihave no doubt, met with no approbation among many of
the honest disciples of that party, even in the East; or among few, if any of
them, ^outh of the Hudson. These last had no motives to cherish ^uch lo
cal and pernicious views. The embargo, non-intercourse, and war, which
soon and successively followed, pressed ,^with extreme , severity on the East
ern States, and gave the leaders of the party, haying thus becpme separated,
by sectional views, from their brethren elsewhere, an opportunity to ap
peal still more strongly to sectional pre|udices,.and to renew or begin for the
first time, as the truth may be, a course of opposition to the General Govern
ment, violent in language, disorganizing in measures, and, whether aiming
or not at a Northern confederacy, certainly ending in the Hartford Conven
tion, A course of opposition, which, to say the least^ was any thing but
practising the lessons of Washington — ^^a.ny thing but real national repub
licanism — any thing hw.i. respect for the constituted authorities — anything
but eulogy qn the great minds and patriotic hearts, then sent to cheer and
to bless us in the prosecution of that glorious war — any thing but devotion
to our country, our whole country, and nothing but our country. Who
ever took the lead, then, in that course of opposition in Congress, or but —
whoever is attacked by the South or the West, for taking such lead, I for
one, protest, that the whole East, as a section, is not to be involved in the de
fence; arid that its democracy, so far as represented by me, bai neither been
implicated in the attack, nor seen any occasion for angry retort.. The whole
controversy, so far as regards my friend to. the right, (Mr. Havne) has

31
been shown, by a reference to his remarks, to have arisen from strictures by
him solely on the peace party in the late war, and the violent movements of
its leaders in that course of opposition. Leaders and movements thpn offi
cially, and as strongly as here now, denounced by a 'large minority in the
East itself, as having been " exclusively British," and by which leaders and
movements the late Executive has piiblicly repeated that a separation of the
Union was openly stimulated- Thus will it be seen how different a char
acter this course of opposition,, both before and during the war, had given to
that party in the East, in respect to its attachment to the Unioii and its
patriotism at large, from what justly belonged to the same nominal party
elsewhere. It is by setting-history right, in this way, that proper discrimi*
nations can be matie between nominal Federalists, in and out of the East, and
even between those in the East itself, who led, and those who were misled or
betrayed, by sectional violence.
If gentlemen pleaso, I for one have so little party bitterness, on mereiy
old party grounds, as to be wiUing to go, in meeting their invitations to for-
getfulness of by-gone acrimony and party feuds, more than halfway, and to
take the epoch of the late war as the period of amnesty, beyond which, like
the era of Richard I. for other purposes, the memory of man runneth not
about parties, except as connected with historical facts and constitutional
princijAes, bearing on the present administration ofthe State and the Gene
ral Governments. But I never can go for any abandonment or«compromise
of those principles.
Still another concession will I make, in justice to the yeomanry of the
East, many of whom, in the late war, were deluded into opposition, by
what Mr. Jefferson called "the Marats, the Dantons, and Robespierres, of
Massachusetts." (4 Jefferson's Notes, 210.)
The same sectional attempts were, by that class of leaders, then brought
to bear on their honest hearts and warm heads, which were made to bear on
them in the late canvass, and are nOw continued, with a view to prejudice
theffl against the South and to seduce them into a belief that the whole of
New England is proscribed, and that the real interests of the two regions
are hostile, rather than united, as closely as the interests and inclinations of
married life. Is it strange, then, that the large mass, even of the peace par
ty, should thus have been misled for a time, by those leaders, clerical or po
litical, in whom they had been accustomed to place implicit confidence?
And that they should fallaciously appear, as if with deliberation, giving sanc
tion to those violent party acts, instigated b)' the mere leaders; such as ofii-
cial refusals, when our hearths and altars were invaded, to place the militia
under the officers, ofthe Union for defence; such as legislative exhortations
against loans and enlistments; public votes and speeches in Congress, against
raising additional troops for protection — motions here at one time to impeach
Mr. Jefferson, and threats at another, that Mr. Madison deserved a halter:
Yet with a similar lead, to what then led, we are told, again and again, in de-*^
fence to attacks on this violent course of opposition, about New England
patriotism and New England respect for order and regular government, as
if these virtues belonged to those alone who required a defence ; arid as if
that class of politicians possessed all, effected all,, and were all in all. As if,
for a moments' illustration, the soldier's bones that moulder on our Niagara
frontier were those of patriotic volunteers from the Massachusetts remon
strants, whom the gentleman on my right then fearlessly charged with taking
the enemy's ground, supporting his claims, and justifying his aggres-

32
sions; as if the saving loans in aid of that glorious struggle came from-thosff
who pronounced the struggle unjust and murderous; and as if our sailors,.
who " puUed down the fiag of the Gucrriere and Peacock," were those who
deenied it immoral and irreligious to rejoice at our naval victories. Not
such as the last; not such aid, nor such defenders, did that crisis need.
Non tali auxilio nee d'efensoribus istis
Tempus eget.
Far be it from me to utter or feel a single sentiment of unkindness to one
individual who did-not participate in those measures of opposition, and much
less to any one who did participate from honest convictions tbey were right,
and who still has the frankness and magnanimity to avow it; and to award
full justice to the abused democracy of the East. Such thought and acted
for theniselveS like freemen, and disdain to shrink from their responsibiUty
for it. But that those of the democracy of the East, friendly to the pre
sent administration, and who bore a fuU share in all the perUs, sufferings,
and glories, of that war, should now be sneered at, as witnessed here, is
what none who sincerely sympathised with them in that conflict, and have
partaken with them in fideUty to principle since, could be guilty of, without
blushing blood; or could in others Usten to without indignation and abhor
rence. It is, then, I trust, distinctly understood, that I have cast no stric
tures on federalists', even in the East, except those who, after war was de
clared, still opposed their own government and its measures; and^ according^
to Governor Eustis, thus occasioned double sacrifice of life and treasure,
while the citizens of other States were exercising their utmost energies
againt the common enemy. Even many of those I would censure only as
misguided and unfortunate politicians; men who, from sectional clamor,
were made to believe, that the lohole East was put to fhe ban of fhe em
pire; who trusted too far to the groundless assertions, by those who have
been here called [by Mr.. Sprague] the bedlamites of the party. Thus it
happened, undoubtedly, that so many grave legislators, holy priests at the
altar, and other seigniors of the land, both in public and in private life,
were deluded to join in that violent opposition.
This alone can account for the Hartford Convention, as a solemn, delibe
rate, and official act, by the Legislatures of, three sovereign States, and by
primary meetings in the federal portions of two others, at a moment when
the foreign enemy had his foot planted on our sacred soil; and when, with
a different commander in the Eastern Department, some of its members
might, we are told, have had a different trial from what has yet been held on
them. For withholding the militia from the General Government, as
another official act, in which the Judiciary and Executive ceremoniously
.united, and which has since been justly denounced by one of their own Exe
cutives, as withholding from the Government ihe constitutional means
of defence. For the exhortations against enlistments, against joining the
stars and stripes of their country, over which we have had such eloquent
eulogies, as anotherof those cold-blooded official acts, instigated by Hotspur
leaders. The Massachusetts Legislature, in June, 1812, say, "If your sons
must be torn from you by conscription, consign them to the care of God; but
let there be no volunteers. " The loans, on which gentlemen- dwell with such
complacency, as evidence of Eastern patriotism, wore also as violently de
nounced by the leaders, and came mostly from that abused democracy, one

33
of -whom, a principal lender, my near and dear relative, still survives in fUal
Cumberland District, so justly denominated the star iti the East, to see flut.-g
upon him, as a supporter of this administration, the sarcasm of being a new
made democrat, fronh near the doors of the Hartford Convention. The pat
riotism of such supporters of this adminisfration, among the democracy of
the East, and, I thank heaven, there are many of them, took rather a differ
ent direction from the unfortunate one ptirsued by the violent opposers, Of
that war. Their patriotism was not, early as 1806, to ridicule Mr. Jefferson
for his pacific war by proclamations, though losing thousands by Frerich
and British decrees: was not to denounce and violently resist the embargo as
unconstitutional, and charge the President with French influence and false
hood in recommending it, though their remaining vessels were rotting at
their wharves; was not to vote, speak, and write, in constant hostility to the
war and the measures for its success, though their funds and their industry
were forced out of customary employment. But it was, if -not
" Above all Greek, ab^ive all Roman fame;" , ,
it was Qie patriotism, of the noblest days; — of the noblest of our race.
Though scoffedas slaves to the Sokith, by persons now professing to deprecate
sectional jealousies, it was — to devote fill to their country — ^to enter the alarm
list themselves for the defence of the sea iboard — to ' advocate enlistments —
to lend their remaining andimpaired fortunes to the cause; and. in fine, for
the salvation of all those great principles of civil liberi.y, their fathers had
bled to secure, intrepidly to meet the domestic enemy at the polls, and send
their sons on the ocean, the lakes, and the land, to meet the foreign enemy,
at the cannon's mouth. From the history of all republics they knew that
God had preserved liberty only to vigilance and valor. They, therefore,
braved the lion in his den — they rose as their country rose; and fell, only as
her prospects fell. The victories ofthe common enemy were a true barom
eter, in every year, of the victories and hopes of the conflicting parties at
home. I was then of an age. Sir, to feel such things somewhat deeply,
and hence,, I may speak of them too earnestly^ But this much can with safety
be asserted, that the political war at home was but little less arduous and excit
ing than the foreign one abroad. That democracy, though a minority, then as
now, in every State in the East, save one — though abtised then as now, and
buffetted both in private and public life by their oppos-^rs, had, and still have,
thank God, some knowledge pf their- rights, and "knowing;, dare main-
¦tain theni. " In the darkest hour of that war, when civil butchery was in
some places thr^itened^ — when schemes of disunion were suppposed to be
maturing; and, according to 'my friend here, (Mr. GrunDy),'* moral ti^ea-
S0M".stalked abroad— when the ardent yeomah sometimes slept with his fire
arms at his pillowf when his sons were absent as volunteers at Chippewa and
PlattSburg, on the lakes and the Ocean — then the members of , that demo
cracy,- who were at home, fought and endured the moral and politicial war
fare, hardly/paralleled— the proscription and persecution of private life — the
shameless attacks pf the press — the insults of heated partisans — the anathe
mas of the pulpit — and, minority as they were, they fearlessly faced the
apologist ofthe common enemy and the libeller of their own government,
whether in the courts of justice,, the halls of legislation, or in those primary
meetings ofthe thoiisand town democracies which cover our granite hills.
Grant that individuals of the party opposed to Mr. Jefferson and Madison,
did* not unite ih what the former call? in Massachusetts, '<the parricide
5

34
crimes and treasons ofthe late war;" hut went gallantly for their country.
¦VNfhen in peril. They have eartied to themselves laurels which they richly
deserve to, wear, and which, heaven forbid, I should attempt to soil. They
relinquished opposition when the common enemy approached, and stood by
their country, and their whole country, and did not lend a helping hand to
those sectional excitements that often belittle and dishonor the politics of
New England. By such excitements, groundlessly defaming the democra
cy of the East and of other parts of the Union, has the glory departed from
her Israel, more than by any change of relative population and territory.
But if the violent leaders of the Eastern opposition to the war, then, as
since,- constantly poured put on the democracy of that section the uncotirte-
ous epithets of Jacobins and Judases; and styled them, as the whole adminis
tration haS been styled in this debate, a motley collection of the fragments of
all parties, with no fcommon bond of principle, and held together by a mere
rope of sand: If these abusers then, as now, made very modest claims to all
the talents, order, and religion, I stand not here to retort in kind; but courte
ously to seek justice for myself and my political friends, from unfounded
imputations ; and to say, wil;h Sober mindedness and charity, that, leaving
our opponents to the enjoyment of all their real worth, which, in many re
spects, 1 freely admit to be enviable, yet I do coritend, that, in private or
public life, there is no ground for discrimination in their favor against that
much vilified democracy — in all the hardy and heroic virtues which have
distinguished New England, if not more highly, yet in common with the
middle States and the South — -since the Puritan and merchant adventurers
first landed atr Plymouth Ilock and Strawberry Bank — virtues deeply found
ed as her hills, arid pure as her mountain streams. No ground for discrim
ination against that .democracy, in either correct. morals, tireless industry, or
unsleeping' enterprise-^no ground for discrimination in doing their full share
to build Up the fisheries, extend commerce, and scatter plenty o'er a sterile
soil-7-to erect and preserve all, the Doric, if riot Corinthian columns, of our
whole social ediljce in the East; and in doing more than their full share, because
their political principles did not forbid them to take a share with their breth
ren of the other States, in bearing, the flag- of victory, whether over land or
ocean, in the Revolution or the late war.
They have always met the struggle with -firmness, and, in common with
other parts ofthe Union, with entire devotion, in times of peril, to the com
mon cause, pf their Uves, theit fortune, and their saCred honor. They
never halted between two opinions, when the wolf was on the walk — ;-when
the' enemy was on our, soil. They had, and stilf have, quite too much of
the Roman, not to endure embargoes and wars, and even death for their
country, whether on their own seaboard, or on a distant and savage frontier,
when that country and its honor call for the sacrifice. This they have shown
by deeds, not words; and this, I will give my pledge, they will always show,
when occasion demands. But, once for all I will repeat that that democracy
make, and have made no pledges to men, independent of their measures, arid
that, so far as represented by me, they will offer or seek no new alliances,
and consent to none. They have made no old alliances, and consent to none,
whether with the West or the South, except the general alliance of all, in
the bonds of the Union. They will neither cajole, nor flatter, nor bargain.
Those of New Hampshire would fain stand among the other States, as a
peer among peers, a sovereign among sovereigns, an equal among equals; re
cognizing the rights of no mere man frim the j^ast, to tender or pledge

35
them, either to make or unmake Presidents — to pull down or build up ad
ministrations. They mean to go where democratic principles go — palmam feral qui
me>'uit; and when these principles disappear, they mean to halt. Such
were the views that led their young men, in the late war, to succour the
bleeding West; and in their cause, as well as that of their country at large,
to, moisten with 'their blood the fields of Tippecanoe, and the forests of
Brownstown. While from the ranks of a different party in that war,however
prodigal in professions of friendship now to the West, not a drum was
heard — 'Ot a gun was fired. These views, in peace likewise, have led
them to aid to populate and protect from the savage, the smiling valleys of
the Ohio and Mississippi: and these will always lead them, whether there or
at home in the East, cheerfully to Unite in every measure they believe con-.
stitutional, for the relief or improvement of those who have suffered with
them, in the common cause.
Can it be doubted, that the same feelings would not lead them to assist, In
the same way, either the Middle States, or the South, in the embarrassments
of their industry and trade, or in their utmost need, by invasion or war?
On the exciting topic of slavery, as connected with the South, and intro
duced iuto this debate, it is true they have honestand deep rooted. opinions.
ButthisCongress knows, and the Union knows, that, averseas the democracy of
the East are to slavery, knd aiding as they have within only about the last half
century to abolish it all over New England, and anxious as they are for its
extirpation from the whole country, yet, never have they joined, and never
will join, in the sectional tirade against the South as ".black Sfates." They
are convinced, that there, as in the East, half a ceritury ago, slavery must be
left to be regulated by the domestic opinions of, each sovereign State itself,
founded on its own better knowledge of its own climate, productions, indus
try, and social policy; and that any great change in the civil institutions of a
State must, to be wise, useful, and permanent,, always be cautiously consi
dered, and gradually comrhenced.
They cherish, also, I ain' satisfied, the same kindly feeling towards the
South, on the subject ofthe tariff, that they do, and have done towards the
West, on subjects deeply affecting the interests and prosperity of the West.
Instead of laughing at the calamities ofthe South, and mocking their com
plaints, God knows we havejiad of late sufficient reasons at the East to make
us feel, in common suffering, common sympathies; and to cast about if pos
sible, forthe consideration of any measures likely to bring relief and harmo
ny. The very -Executive who signed the last tariff bill, officially declared it
" in its details npt acceptable to the great interests oj any portion of the
Union, not even to the interests which it was specially intended to sub
serve." [See President's Message, Dec. 1828.] '
Among the merchants and manufacturers the wide and desolating failures
at the East, since that declaration, have mOre than verified the evils natu--
rally to be anticipated from a bill of that character. The present Executive
also, has declared, that "some of its provisions require modification."
[See President'sMessage, 1829.]
The gentleman before me (Mr. Silsbee) can testify, that nothing like a
parallel to thpse failures has occurred in the Eastj, for a quarter of a century-
How much of this deep distress there has been caused by our present une
qual tariff, I and my constituents, I am satisfied, wish to inquire— ^not from
hostUity to the protecting principle, as an incident to raising revenue, or as

36
countervailing legislation against oppressive foreign measures, o^in some ca
ses as a means of preparation in peace for the wants of war,— on that point
rSost of ™s harmon'^^ze-but to see whether anv just and equal legislation re-
^uesiprofrid peace, and wi,h a prosperous revenue, that the peopte of
??,;w Hampshire alone should pay more *'oHn their State tax yearly as a duty
o„: salt-on a single article of the first necessity in life ; should pay -
o^er one hundred per cent, tax on molasses ,nd other S^eat necessa
ries- and should be taxed most expensively for every nail driven in a
frier's door, every bolt in a vessel, every yard of canvass spread on
he ocean, and every pound of sugar, coffee, or tea. that brings com ort to the
domes^c fireside. We wish to inquire whether this is to be persisted in af.
ter the impost wUl not be needed for either revenue or protection, but mere-
Iv to enable this or any other Administration to dole out sops or bribes to
whi States that hold the balance of political power, or who give signs of m-.,
subordination to fhe powers that be. We do not wish to attempt any thing
but equal justice between the three great branches of industry; but agree
with the Executive of New Hampshire in 1822:
[ 19th Nile's Register, 262 pag-e.]
" No policy can be more obviously Unsound, than that of creating- marmfactiires, unconnect
ed wl h national defence, or important to national inter -sts, at the public expense, to be per-
manently supported by the 'iame nneans. -Hnwever disguised such procedure miglj- be, it
-would be, in its effects, tlie imposition of a perpetual tax upon the prodoctivc br^DChes of
national industry, to be applied to the support of an unproductive one,"
We 'never can agree that eight-tenlhs of our population as farmers are
not entitled-tp full consideration in tariff legislation; and that our old fashioned
fisheries and navigation are to be sent to sea adrift without their due propor-
,tion of favor and protection. We have lords of the soil as w-eU as lords of
the spindle, and I for one, though friendly tp a moderate and equal tariff, on
the principles before named, can never consent, that the self-styled t/2??zeri-
can System shall be confined in its bounties to spinning Jennies alone: and
exclude as worthless and undeserving our agriculture and our commerce.
Much less can I consent that the Anierican System shall be converted into a
hobby-horse; on which any aspirant whatever may ride into political power.
"Hi vaulting ambition doth o'er leap itself.-" Andthe notions of a distin-
. guished member of the other House in 1824, on American industry have
ever met with my entire approbation. (Mr. Webster.)
[ 26 Niles' Register, 412. ]
"Gentlemen tell Ds, they are in favor of domestic industry; so am I. They would give
it protection; so would I. But then all domestic industry is not confined 'o manufactures.
The employments of agriculture, commerce, and navigation, are all branches ofthe same
dotnesticindustry: they all furnish employment for American capitel and Americ-dn labor.
. And when the question is, whether new duties sliall be liid, for the purpose of giving fur«-
ther encouragement to particular manu'actures, every re-asonable man must ask himself,
both, whether the proposed new encouragement be necessary, and whether it can be given
without injustice to other branches of industry."
Entertaining such notions ori these topics, I must be pardoned if as one
of the majority I decline to accept the invitation of the gentleman on my
right, from Missouri, (Mr. Bartok) to stand on his new political platform,
whether of nine or thirty-nine articles of opposition to the present adminis-

37
tration. Without elaimingfor this administration infaUibility, I stiU believe
its general course of policy, democratic and constitutional; and my friend
from Louisiana can inform him or the gentleman from Maine of as severe
Jeremiads for the loss of office in 1801, as now: can inform him that, in
the principle of rotation in office for even political, motives, this policy only
follows up the doctrines of the great revolution of 1800:, and that since, it
has in practice had the sanction of the people and the States in every quar
ter of the Union. Even in Maine, " without respect to sex, age, or condi
tion," to use its Senator's language, when parties are strongly divided, the
same policy has been pushed through, to the removal of doorkeepers.
It is the true republican doctrine. A rotation first made by the people
themselves in the highest office i n the land — the Chief Executive of the Union ;
and made for political cause, for probata as well as allegata, according to
the verdict returned. Does not the same cause affect most of the active de
puties and subordinates as well as the principal? Whatever disappointment
and suffering by removal, some individuals may- sustain, "deserving and re
ceiving in many respects my private sympathy; yet they knew the legal ten
ure of their offices, and, if violent partizans, should disdain to hold them un
der men and an administration they have wantonly caMmniated . Hence
the agents ofthe people cannotfearthe cry of cruelty.ipersecution, or Nero-
ism, when, following calmly the exatanple set by the people themselves;
when, at the worst, if the power of removal be discreetly exercised, doing
no injury to the public, but to "change one good man for anothei; good one;"
and when teaching to many the salutary lesson in a republic, that office hold
ers have no property in their offices, and that liability to removal tends to
increase industry and fidelity. Nor need those agents dread the discussion
of the constitutionality of the exercise of a power of removal, which was
legislatively recognized by the very first Congress under the Constitution,
was then advocated by the framers of that Constitution, and has been practi
sed on at pleasure, by every Executive, from Washington to the present Chief
Magistrate. The extent of the exercise has been left to the discretion and
policy of that branch of the government whose diity it is "to see the laws
faithfully executed," and if it was less under one and more under another
administration, it has always been influenced by the state of that administra
tion^ whether coming in as opposed or hostile to their predecessors, and
whether in a minority or a majority, so as to be ableto accomplish their wish
es. The other doctrine is the doctrine of minorities, and if correct, the ten
ure of all office might as well be changed to life, and our Governmeut become,
in name, as in practice, a monarchy. Then in earnest, well might we ac
cept the proposition of the gentleman, to gooVer to the minority for great
er tranquillity, and, as in other monarchies and despotisms, see how admira
bly minorites can govern. One accidental instance of such a government, by
way, of illustration, may, possibly have been given us this session in respect
to the printing of ti.e public documents; and, I must confess, it has not di
minished my aversion to such kinds of governments, and especially to their
practical doctrines on public economy. If the gentleman from Missouri,
on my right, (Mr. Barton) seeks by such measiires to pull down this ad
ministration, he may not find it so "downhill a business" as he represented
the pulling down administrations in this country usually to be. Perhaps
it would be well, before further taunts of this kind are repeated, to set histo
ry right, and to recoUect that pulling down administrations in this country
has never proved quite so easy and down hill a business as seems to be sup-

38
posed, when the adminlstrations'have been democratic. Not a very dpwnhill
cpncern when it was attempted on either Mr. Jefferson's, Madison's, or
Monroe's administration—butrather easier to be sure— rather more ofa down
hill concern in the two 'four-year' administrations in this country, suspect
ed at lieast, of no very great devotion to some of the leading principles of
democracy. I shall neither vaunt nor prophecy; butonly express a doubt
that, if the present administration may yet be as easUy pulled down, it will
not be pulled down by such measures as the printing resolution, nor exactly
by such politicians as now lead in the attack on that administration. If beat
en ever in that way for a few days, the friends of it probably have Antean
vigor enough to rise stronger from the fall. If the administration, relying
upon its real friends^ and on the true principles of democracy, is still occa
sionally beaten, whether in fact, or only on, paper and in party credulity, the
opposition may find it will not long stay beaten. And this " downhill busi
ness" may prove an up hill job to the undertakers. At least if this adninis-
tratlon is ever, by such leaders and in this way, rolled to the bpttom of the
hill, I may, as a Yankee, be allowed to guess, that those leaders, like Sisy
phus, will find it must speedily be rolled back again.
I have thus finished, Mr. President, what my sense of duty, painfully,
in some respects, has urged me to say on this occasion: and if in the cause
of my political friends, I may have flung myself on the spears of my ene
mies to perish, I shall be content to perish in a cause which my heart loves
and my judgment approves.

3 9002 08725 91!