Chapter III: Part 3

The States severally have not retained their entire sovereignty. It has been shown, that, in becoming parts of a nation, not members of a league, they surrendered many of their essential parts of sovereignty. The right to make treaties, declare war, levy taxes, exercise exclusive judicial and legislative powers, were all of them functions of sovereign power. The States, then, for all these purposes, were no longer sovereign. The allegiance of their citizens was transferred, in the first instance, to the government of the United States; they became American citizens, and owed obedience to the constitution of the United States, and to laws made in conformity with the powers it vested in congress. This last position has not been, and cannot be denied. How, then, can that State be said to be sovereign and independent whose citizens owe obedience to laws not made by it, and whose magistrates are sworn to disregard those laws when they come in conflict with those passed by another? What shows conclusively that the States cannot be said to have reserved an undivided sovereignty, is, that they expressly ceded the right to punish treason, not treason against their separate power, but treason against the United States. Treason is an offence against _sovereignty_, and sovereignty must reside with the power to punish it. But the reserved rights of the States are not less sacred because they have, for their common interest, made the general government the depository of these powers.

The unity of our political character (as has been shown for another purpose) commenced with its very existence. Under the royal government we had no separate character: our opposition to its oppressions began as _united colonies_. We were the _United States_ under the confederation, and the name was perpetuated, and the Union rendered more perfect by the federal constitution. In none of these stages did we consider ourselves in any other light than as forming one nation. Treaties and alliances were made in the name of all. Troops were raised for the joint defence. How, then, with all these proofs, that under all changes of our position we had, for designated purposes and with defined powers, created national governments; how is it, that the most perfect of those several modes of union should now be considered as a mere league, that may be dissolved at pleasure? It is from an abuse of terms. "Compact" is used as synonymous with "league," although the true term is not employed, because it would at once show the fallacy of the reasoning. It would not do to say, that our constitution was only a league; but it is labored to prove it a compact, (which in one sense it is,) and then to argue, that, as a league is a compact, every compact between nations must of course be a league, and that from such an engagement every sovereign power has a right to recede. But it has been shown, that in this sense the States are not sovereign, and that even if they were, and the national constitution had been formed by compact, there would be no right in any one State to exonerate itself from its obligations.

So obvious are the reasons, which forbid this secession, that it is necessary only to allude to them. The Union was formed for the benefit of all. It was produced by mutual sacrifices of interests and opinions. Can those sacrifices be recalled? Can the States, who magnanimously surrendered their title to the territories of the west, recall the grant? Will the inhabitants of the inland States agree to pay the duties, that may be imposed without their assent, by those on the Atlantic or the Gulf, for their own benefit? Shall there be a free port in one State, and onerous duties in another? No one believes, that any right exists, in a single State, to involve the others in these and countless other evils, contrary to the engagements solemnly made. Every one must see, that the other States, in self-defence, must oppose it at all hazards.

These are the alternatives, that are presented by the convention: A repeal of all the acts for raising revenue, leaving the government without the means of support; or an acquiescence in the dissolution of our Union by the secession of one of its members. When the first was proposed, it was known, that it could not be listened to for a moment. It was known, if force was applied to oppose the execution of the laws, that it must be repelled by force; that congress could not, without involving itself in disgrace, and the country in ruin, accede to the proposition; and yet, if this is not done on a given day, or if any attempt is made to execute the laws, the State is, by the ordinance, declared to be out of the Union. The majority of a convention assembled for the purpose have dictated these terms, or rather this rejection of all terms, in the name of the people of South Carolina. It is true, that the governor of the State speaks of the submission of their grievances to a convention of all the States, which, he says, they "sincerely and anxiously seek and desire." Yet this obvious and constitutional mode of obtaining the sense of the other States, on the construction of the federal compact, and amending it if necessary, has never been attempted by those, who have urged the State on to this destructive measure. The State might have proposed the call for a general convention to the other States; and congress, if a sufficient number of them concurred, must have called it. But the first magistrate of South Carolina, when he expressed a hope, that, "on a review by congress and the functionaries of the general government of the merits of the controversy," such a convention will be accorded to them, must have known, that neither congress, nor any functionary of the general government, has authority to call such a convention, unless it be demanded by two-thirds of the States. This suggestion, then, is another instance of the reckless inattention to the provisions of the constitution, with which this crisis has been madly hurried on; or of the attempt to persuade the people, that a constitutional remedy had been sought and refused. If the legislature of South Carolina "anxiously desire" a general convention to consider their complaints, why have they not made application for it, in the way the constitution points out? The assertion, that they "earnestly seek" it, is completely negatived by the omission.

This, then, is the position in which we stand. A small majority of the citizens of one State in the Union have elected delegates to a State Convention; that Convention has ordained that all the revenue laws of the United States must be repealed, or that they are no longer a member of this Union. The Governor of that State has recommended to the Legislature the raising of an army to carry the secession into effect, and that he may be empowered to give clearances to vessels in the name of the State. No act of violent opposition to the laws has yet been committed, but such a state of things is hourly apprehended; and it is the intent of this instrument to proclaim, not only that the duty imposed on me by the Constitution "to take care that the laws be faithfully executed," shall be performed to the extent of the powers already vested in me by law, or of such others as the wisdom of Congress shall devise and entrust to me for that purpose, but to warn the citizens of South Carolina who have been deluded into an opposition to the laws, of the danger they will incur by obedience to the illegal and disorganizing ordinance of the Convention; to exhort those who have refused to support it to persevere in their determination to uphold the Constitution and laws of their country; and to point out to all the perilous situation into which the good people of that State have been led, and that the course they are urged to pursue is one of ruin and disgrace to the very State whose rights they affect to support.

Fellow citizens of my native State, let me not only admonish you, as the First Magistrate of our common country, not to incur the penalty of its laws, but use the influence that a father would over his children whom he saw rushing to certain ruin. In that paternal language, with that paternal feeling, let me tell you, my countrymen, that you are deluded by men who are either deceived themselves, or wish to deceive you. Mark under what pretences you have been led on to the brink of insurrection and treason, on which you stand! First, a diminution of the value of your staple commodity, lowered by over production in other quarters, and the consequent diminution in the value of your lands, were the sole effect of the tariff laws.

The effect of those laws was confessedly injurious, but the evil was greatly exaggerated by the unfounded theory you were taught to believe, that its burthens were in proportion to your exports, not to your consumption of imported articles. Your pride was roused by the assertion that a submission to those laws was a state of vassalage, and that resistance to them was equal, in patriotic merit, to the opposition our fathers offered to the oppressive laws of Great Britain. You were told that this opposition might be peaceably--might be constitutionally made; that you might enjoy all the advantages of the Union, and bear none of its burthens. Eloquent appeals to your passions, to your State pride, to your native courage, to your sense of real injury, were used to prepare you for the period when the mask, which concealed the hideous features of disunion, should be taken off. It fell, and you were made to look with complacency on objects which, not long since, you would have regarded with horror. Look back to the arts which have brought you to this state--look forward to the consequences to which it must inevitably lead! Look back to what was first told you as an inducement to enter into this dangerous course. The great political truth was repeated to you, that you had the revolutionary right of resisting all laws that were palpably unconstitutional and intolerably oppressive; it was added that the right to nullify a law rested on the same principle, but that it was a peaceable remedy! This character which was given to it, made you receive, with too much confidence, the assertions that were made of the unconstitutionality of the law and its oppressive effects. Mark, my fellow citizens, that, by the admission of your leaders, the unconstitutionality must be _palpable_, or it will not justify either resistance or nullification! What is the meaning of the word _palpable_, in the sense in which it is here used? that which is apparent to every one; that which no man of ordinary intellect will fail to perceive. Is the unconstitutionality of these laws of that description? Let those among your leaders who once approved and advocated the principle of protective duties, answer the question; and let them choose whether they will be considered as incapable, then, of perceiving that which must have been apparent to every man of common understanding, or as imposing upon your confidence, and endeavoring to mislead you now. In either case, they are unsafe guides in the perilous path they urge you to tread. Ponder well on this circumstance, and you will know how to appreciate the exaggerated language they address to you. They are not champions of liberty emulating the fame of our revolutionary fathers; nor are you an oppressed people, contending, as they repeat to you, against worse than colonial vassalage.

You are free members of a flourishing and happy Union. There is no settled design to oppress you. You have indeed felt the unequal operation of laws which may have been unwisely, not unconstitutionally passed; but that inequality must necessily be removed. At the very moment when you were madly urged on to the unfortunate course you have begun, a change in public opinion had commenced. The nearly approaching payment of the public debt, and the consequent necessity of a diminution of duties, had already produced a considerable reduction, and that, too, on some articles of general consumption in your State. The importance of this change was underrated, and you were authoritatively told that no further alleviation of your burthens were to be expected at the very time when the condition of the country imperiously demanded such a modification of the duties as should reduce them to a just and equitable scale. But, as if apprehensive of the effect of this change in allaying your discontents, you were precipitated into the fearful state in which you now find yourselves.

I have urged you to look back to the means that were used to hurry you on to the position you have now assumed, and forward to the consequences it will produce. Something more is necessary. Contemplate the condition of that country of which you still form an important part. Consider its government uniting in one bond of common interest and general protection so many different States--giving to all their inhabitants the proud title of American citizens, protecting their commerce, securing their literature and their arts; facilitating their intercommunication; defending their frontiers; and making their name respected in the remotest parts of the earth. Consider the extent of its territory; its increasing and happy population; its advance in arts, which render life agreeable; and the sciences, which elevate the mind! See education spreading the lights of religion, morality, and general information into every cottage in this wide extent of our Territories and States? Behold it as the asylum where the wretched and the oppressed find a refuge and support! Look on this picture of happiness and honor, and say--_we, too, are citizens of America!_ Carolina is one of these proud States--her arms have defended--her best blood has cemented this happy Union! And then add, if you can, without horror and remorse, this happy Union we will dissolve; this picture of peace and prosperity we will deface; this free intercourse we will interrupt; these fertile fields we will deluge with blood; the protection of that glorious flag we renounce; the very name of Americans we discard. And for what, mistaken men--for what do you throw away these inestimable blessings? for what would you exchange your share in the advantages and honor of the Union? For the dream of separate independence--a dream interrupted by bloody conflicts with your neighbors, and a vile dependence on a foreign power. If your leaders could succeed in establishing a separation, what would be your situation? Are you united at home--are you free from the apprehension of civil discord, with all its fearful consequences? Do our neighboring republics, every day suffering some new revolution, or contending with some new insurrection--do they excite your envy? But the dictates of a high duty obliges me solemnly to announce that you cannot succeed. The laws of the United States must be executed. I have no discretionary power on the subject--my duty is emphatically pronounced in the Constitution. Those who told you that you might peaceably prevent their execution, deceived you--they could not have been deceived themselves. They know that a forcible opposition could alone prevent the execution of the laws, and they know that such opposition must be repelled. Their object is disunion; but be not deceived by names; disunion, by armed force, is _treason_. Are you really ready to incur its guilt? If you are, on the heads of the instigators of the act be the dreadful consequences--on their heads be the dishonor, but on yours may fall the punishment; on your unhappy State will inevitably fall all the evils of the conflict you force upon the government of your country. It cannot accede to the mad project of disunion, of which you would be the first victims--its First Magistrate cannot, if he would, avoid the performance of his duty; the consequences must be fearful for you, distressing to your fellow citizens here, and to the friends of good government throughout the world. Its enemies have beheld our prosperity with a vexation they could not conceal--it was a standing refutation of their slavish doctrines, and they will point to our discord with the triumph of malignant joy. It is yet in your power to disappoint them. There is yet time to show that the descendants of the Pinckneys, the Sumters, the Rutledges, and of the thousand other names which adorn the pages of your revolutionary history, will not abandon that Union, to support which so many of them fought, and bled, and died.

I adjure you, as you honor their memory--as you love the cause of freedom, to which they dedicated their lives--as you prize the peace of your country, the lives of its best citizens, and your own fair fame, to retrace your steps. Snatch from the archives of your State the disorganizing edict of its Convention--bid its members to re-assemble, and promulgate the decided expressions of your will to remain in the path which alone can conduct you to safety, prosperity, and honor. Tell them that, compared to disunion, all other evils are light, because that brings with it an accumulation of all. Declare that you will never take the field unless the star spangled banner of your country shall float over you; that you will not be stigmatized when dead, and dishonored and scorned while you live, as the authors of the first attack on the Constitution of your country. Its destroyers you cannot be. You may disturb its peace--you may interrupt the course of its prosperity--you may cloud its reputation for stability, but its tranquility will be restored, its prosperity will return, and the stain upon its national character will be transferred, and remain an eternal blot on the memory of those who caused the disorder.

Fellow citizens of the United States! The threat of unhallowed disunion--the names of those once respected, by whom it is uttered--the array of military force to support it--denote the approach of a crisis in our affairs, on which the continuance of our unexampled prosperity, our political existence, and perhaps that of all free governments, may depend. The conjuncture demanded a free, a full, and explicit enunciation, not only of my intentions, but of my principles of action; and the claim was asserted of a right by a State to annul the laws of the Union, and even to secede from it at pleasure, a frank exposition of my opinions in relation to the origin and form of our government, and the construction I give to the instrument by which it was created, seemed to be proper. Having the fullest confidence in the justness of the legal and constitutional opinion of my duties, which has been expressed, I rely, with equal confidence, on your undivided support in my determination to execute the laws--to preserve the Union by all constitutional means--to arrest, if possible, by moderate but firm measures, the necessity of a recourse to force; and, if it be the will of Heaven, that the recurrence of its primeval curse on man for the shedding of a brother's blood should fall upon our land, that it be not called down by any offensive act on the part of the United States.

Fellow-citizens! the momentous case is before you. On your undivided support of your government depends the decision of the great question it involves, whether your sacred Union will be preserved, and the blessings it secures to us as one people, shall be perpetuated. No one can doubt that the unanimity with which that decision will be expressed, will be such as to inspire new confidence in republican institutions, and that the prudence, the wisdom, and the courage which it will bring to their defence, will transmit them unimpaired and invigorated to our children.

May the great Ruler of Nations grant that the signal blessings with which he has favored ours, may not, by the madness of party or personal ambition, be disregarded and lost; and may His wise providence bring those who have produced this crisis to see their folly, before they feel the misery of civil strife, and inspire a returning veneration for that Union, which, if we may dare to penetrate his designs, he has chosen as the only means of attaining the high destinies to which we may reasonably aspire.

In testimony whereof, I have caused the seal of the United States to be hereunto affixed, having signed the same with my hand.

Done at the city of Washington, this 10th day of December, in the year of our Lord one thousand eight hundred and thirty-two, and of the independence of the United States the fifty-seventh.

ANDREW JACKSON.

By the President:
EDW. LIVINGSTON, _Secretary of State_.

Comment upon the imperishable document just quoted is entirely unnecessary. It speaks for itself in thundering tones that strikes terror to the traitor's heart. Mark the clear and lucid reasoning,[3] the kind, paternal advice, the bold and manly warning that pervades this production, of the true, noble, honored patriot of the Hermitage.

For the purpose of contrasting the administration of Andrew Jackson, during the convulsion of 1832-'33, with that of James Buchanan, during our present similar condition, we will give a brief summary of the course pursued by the former:

On the 24th day of November, previous to the issuing of President Jackson's proclamation, South Carolina had, through her convention, effectually declared herself out of the Union, by an ordinance that was to take effect on the first day of February, 1833. The President, being apprehensive of trouble in collecting the duties imposed by congress in the various ports of South Carolina, and more especially at Charleston, dispatched, through his secretary of the treasury, Louis McLean, confidential orders of the most strict and positive character, to the collectors at the several ports of entry.

He writes to James K. Prinkle, Esq., collector at Charleston, ordering him to use the utmost firmness and vigilence in seeing the laws promptly executed in every particular. He ordered the revenue cutter Alert to proceed to Charleston, and, in writing to Mr. Prinkle, he says, you will, moreover, cause the officers of the cutter (showing that there were others at hand), under your direction, to board all vessels departing from the port of Charleston, and in case any shall be found without having been regularly entered and cleared in the manner required by law, to seize and detain the same, to be prosecuted according to law. The number of assistants and employees were greatly increased, and every precaution taken to prevent a surprise. But as time rolled around South Carolina, not having penetrated the purposes of President Jackson sufficiently to understand his position, felt confident in her final success, and was defiant in her attitude. She began to collect her army that was to defeat the government of the United States. She had appealed to her sister States to aid her in sustaining her position. Dissatisfaction had already began to show itself in various other sections of the country. The President beheld the dangers and felt the responsibility resting upon him, and on the 10th day of December he issued his Proclamation, declaring his unalterable purpose to enforce the laws and collect the duties, and above all to stand by the Constitution and the Union to the last, and warning those who were precipitating their country into a civil war to beware of the consequences and fearful responsibility they would incur by a continuance in their reckless course.

But South Carolina had gone too far to be silenced by any ordinary means. She continued her preparations, still hoping that she could spread disaffection into other portions of the country sufficient to frighten the government into granting her demands, and many of the true friends of the Union trembled for its safety, so wide-spread was the sympathy South Carolina had enlisted. Many members of Congress were ready with their measures of pacification, each anxious to become the instrument of settling the difficulty, and perhaps immortalize his name. The horrors of civil war were as freely discussed as at the present day. Numerous were those who were ready and willing to sacrifice everything, even the dignity of the nation, to avert the dreadful calamity. But where was the brave Jackson? He was at the helm of the great ship of State, and although the storm was raging, and the billows threatening to engulf her or dash her to fragments on the inhospitable shore of anarchy, yet the brave old hero, with the Constitution for his guide and the God of liberty for his counselor, bid defiance to the mutineers who were threateningly assembled around him.

On the 16th day of December he sent a special message to Congress asking for additional legislation for the purpose of meeting the exigency, he reminding them of their sworn duty to protect the Constitution from every encroachment, and appealed to their patriotism, and urged them, as true Americans, to stand firmly by their country. Congress promptly responded to the call, and the President thus prepared continued the collection of customs uninterruptedly, and preserved the honor and dignity of the nation.

South Carolina, after much blustering and threatening, quieted down, and it is to be hoped that many of the leaders of the rebellion lived to see the folly of their acts and the wisdom of the President.

But let us look for a moment at the course James Buchanan has pursued. It is now over a year since men occupying high places in the government began to publicly avow their determination to destroy this government and involve all in one common ruin. Public speeches and the press of the country have all proclaimed the determination of certain partain parties to break up this Union. Conventions have been held and resolutions passed declaring certain States out of the Union. Arsenals have been seized, forts have been taken by bodies of armed men, public property confiscated, and an unarmed steamer, bearing the flag of the nation, has been fired into for attempting to comply with government orders--collectors of customs are arrested and tried for treason for performing their duty. The free navigation of the Mississippi is prevented; American citizens are driven out of several of the States while peaceably attending to their legitimate business, and some of the more unfortunate have suffered tarring and feathering, whipping, scourging and even death at the hands of those acting under authority, or at least within the knowledge of the authorities of the several States; and yet, after all the enumerated outrages, sufficient to disgrace even the half-civilized nation of Morocco, not one word of unqualified rebuke has James Buchanan uttered against those committing these outrages, not only against our government but the very name of humanity. Surrounded by treason in his own cabinet,[4] he has looked quietly on while his Secretary of War supplied the insurgents with government arms. Open and defiant traitors have been his daily counselors, while his imbecile, undecided course gives no one confidence in his future policy. Treason is now openly and boldly perpetrated throughout at least one-third of the entire country without the least restraint from any source whatever.

If there is to be found within the pages of history where the government of a great, powerful and prosperous nation suffered treason to spread over one-third of the entire country, coupled with the open and revolting acts of violence that have characterized this rebellion, without the first attempt to check its destructive progress, it is not within the range of my knowledge.

Although the grounds for argument to show that this government was established by the people collectively of the whole country, (and not by the several States, as claimed by some,) and that it can only be rightfully altered or abolished by a constitutional majority of the same power that established it, would seem to have been entirely gone over, nevertheless we propose to introduce the additional evidence of that noble, honored statesman, and able constitutional expounder, Daniel Webster.

On the 21st day of January, 1830, Mr. Hayne delivered in the Senate of the United States a very able speech advocating the right of the various States to nullify the laws of Congress in certain contingencies, or what might be more properly called the South Carolina doctrine, embracing the right to nullify the laws of Congress, or declare herself out of the Union at pleasure. His speech was considered a complete succces by the advocates of his sentiments, and was thought by them an unanswerable vindication of those principles, and when Mr. Webster undertook the task of replying to Mr. Hayne, he was met with jeers by the friends of nullication; but as the volume of his reasoning began to unfold itself, all eyes were attentively turned toward the speaker. After proceeding to state the grounds upon which was founded the pretended right to nullify the acts of Congress, Mr. Webster said:

"This leads us to inquire into the origin of this government and the
source of its power. Whose agent is it? Is it the creature of the
State legislatures, or the creature of the people? If the government
of the United States be the agent of the State governments, then they
may control it, provided they can agree in the manner of controlling
it; if it is the agent of the people, then the people alone can
control it, restrain it, modify or reform it. It is observable enough,
that the doctrine for which the honorable gentleman contends leads him
to the necessity of maintaining, not only that this general government
is the creature of the States, but that it is the creature of each of
the States severally; so that each may assert the power, for itself,
of determining whether it acts within the limits of its authority. It
is the servant of four and twenty masters, of different wills and
purposes; and yet bound to obey all. This absurdity (for it seems no
less) arises from a misconception as to the origin of this government,
and its true character. It is, sir, the people's constitution, the
people's government; made for the people; made by the people; and
answerable to the people. The people of the United States have
declared that this constitution shall be the supreme law. We must
either admit the proposition, or dispute their authority. The States
are unquestionably sovereign, so far as their sovereignty is not
affected by this supreme law. The State legislatures, as political
bodies, however sovereign, are yet not sovereign over the people. So
far as the people have given power to the general government, so far
the grant is unquestionably good, and the government holds of the
people, and not of the State governments. We are all agents of the
same supreme power, the people. The general government and the State
governments derive their authority from the same source. Neither can,
in relation to the other, be called primary; though one is definite
and restricted, and the other general and residuary.

"The national government possesses those powers which it can be shown
the people have conferred on it, and no more. All the rest belongs to
the State governments, or to the people themselves. So far as the
people have restrained State sovereignty by the expression of their
will, in the constitution of the United States, so far, it must be
admitted, State sovereignty is effectually controlled. I do not
contend that it is, or ought to be, controlled further. The sentiment
to which I have referred propounds that State sovereignty is only to
be controlled by its own 'feelings of justice;' that is to say, it is
not to be controlled at all; for one who is to follow his feelings, is
under no legal control. Now, however men may think this ought to be,
the fact is, that the people of the United States have chosen to
impose control on State sovereignties. The constitution has ordered
the matter differently from what this opinion announces. To make war,
for instance, is an exercise of sovereignty; but the constitution
declares that no State shall make war. To coin money is another
exercise of sovereign power; but no State is at liberty to coin money.
Again, the constitution says, that no sovereign State shall be so
sovereign as to make a treaty. These prohibitions, it must be
confessed, are a control on the State sovereignty of South Carolina,
as well as of the other States, which does not arise 'from feelings of
honorable justice.' Such an opinion, therefore, is in defiance of the
plainest provisions of the constitution."

Mr. Webster proceeded to investigate the South Carolina doctrine as it was then termed; he referred to the resolutions of Pennsylvania and Kentucky declaring the tariff laws constitutional, while in South Carolina the same laws were declared to be a palpable, deliberate usurpation of power by Congress; and in speaking of the absurdity of allowing each State to decide in such cases, he said:

"If there be no power to settle such questions, independent of either
of the States, is not the whole Union a rope of sand? Are we not
thrown back again precisely upon the old confederation?

"It is too plain to be argued. Four and twenty interpreters of
constitutional law, each with a power to decide for itself, and none
with authority to bind anybody else, and this constitutional law the
only bond of their union! What is such a state of things but a mere
connection during pleasure, or, to use the praseology of the times,
_during feeling_? And that feeling, too, not the feeling of the people
who established the constitution, but the feeling of the State
governments."

In referring to remarks made by Mr. Hayne, concerning what Mr. Hillhouse should have said about not being bound to obey an unconstitutional law, Mr. Webster says:

"He quotes that distinguished senator as saying, that in his judgment
the embargo law was unconstitutional, and that, therefore, in his
opinion, the people were not bound to obey it.

"That, sir, is perfectly constitutional language. As unconstitutional
law is not binding; _but then it does not rest with a resolution or a
law of a State legislature to decide whether an act of congress be or
be not constitutional_. An unconstitutional act of congress would not
bind the people of this District although they have no legislature to
interfere in their behalf; and, on the other hand, a constitutional
law of congress does bind the citizens of every State, although all
their legislatures should undertake to annul it, by act or resolution.
The venerable Connecticut senator is a constitutional lawyer, of sound
principles and enlarged knowledge; a statesman practiced and
experienced, bred in the company of Washington, and holding just views
upon the nature of our governments. He believed the embargo
unconstitutional, and so did others; but what then? Who did he suppose
was to decide that question? The State legislature? Certainly not. No
such sentiment ever escaped his lips."

Mr. Webster went on to ask from whence this supposed right of the States came? Where did they get the power to interfere with the laws of the Union? He contended that the notion was founded in a misapprehension of the origin of this government and of the foundation on which it stands. I hold, said he, this to be a popular government, erected by the people, those who administer it responsible to the people, and itself capable of being amended and modified just as the people may choose it should be.

"It is as popular, just as truly emenating from the people, as the
State governments. It is created for one purpose; the State
governments for another. It has its own powers; they have theirs.
There is no more authority with them to arrest the operation of a law
of congress, than with congress to arrest the operation of their laws.
We are here to administer a constitution emenating immediately from
the people, and trusted by them to our administration. It is not the
creature of the State governments. It is of no moment to the argument
that certain acts of the State legislatures are necessary to fill our
seats in this body. That is not one of their original State powers, a
part of the sovereignty of the State. It is a duty which the people,
by the constitution itself, have imposed on the State legislatures,
and which they might have left to be performed elsewhere, if they had
seen fit. So they have left the choice of president with electors; but
all this does not affect the proposition that this whole
government--president, senate and house of representatives--is a
popular government. It leaves it still all its popular character. The
governor of a State (in some of the States) is chosen not directly by
the people for the purpose of performing, among other duties, that of
electing a governor. Is the government of the State on that account
not a popular government? This government, sir, is the independent
offspring of the popular will. It is not the creature of State
legislatures; nay, more, if the whole truth must be told, the people
brought it into existence, established it, and have hitherto supported
it, for the very purpose, amongst others, of imposing certain salutary
restraints on State sovereignties. The States cannot now make war;
they cannot contract alliances; they cannot make, each for itself,
separate regulations of commerce; they cannot lay imposts; they cannot
coin money. If this constitution, sir, be the creature of State
legislatures, it must be admitted that it has obtained a strange
control over the volition of its creators."

Mr. Webster then proceeded to show that when the people erected this government they gave it a Constitution, and in that Constitution they enumerated the powers which they bestowed on it. That they had made it a limited government, and defined its authority and restrained it to the exercise of such powers as were granted, and all others were reserved to the States or the people. But they did not stop there, being aware that no Constitution could be so plainly written but what there would be a difference of opinion on the construction of some points, consequently they (the people) in order to avoid a recurrence of the difficulties experienced under the old confederacy and render the laws of Congress effective and binding upon all parties without applying to State authority, thus rendering the government complete within itself, declared the Constitution and the laws of the United States, made in pursuance thereof, should be the supreme law of the land. In referring to the tribunal in which to decide questions arising under the Constitution, Mr. Webster said:

"But, sir, the people have wisely provided, in the constitution
itself, a proper, suitable mode and tribunal for settling questions of
constitutional law. There are, in the constitution, grants of powers
to congress, and restrictions on those powers. There are also
prohibitions on the States. Some authority must therefore necessarily
exist, having the ultimate jurisdiction to fix and ascertain the
interpretation of these grants, restrictions, and prohibitions. The
constitution has itself pointed out, ordained, and established that
authority. How has it accomplished this great and essential end? By
declaring, sir, that '_the constitution and the laws of the United
States, made in pursuance thereof, shall be the supreme law of the
land, anything in the constitution or laws of any State to the
contrary notwithstanding_.'

"This, sir, was the first great step. By this, the supremacy of the
constitution and laws of the United States is declared. The people so
will it. No State law is to be valid which comes in conflict with the
constitution or any law of the United States. But who shall decide
this question of interference? To whom lies the last appeal? This,
sir, the constitution itself decides also, by declaring '_that the
judicial power shall extend to all cases arising under the
constitution and laws of the United States_.' These two provisions,
sir, cover the whole ground. They are, in truth, the keystone of the
arch. With these it is a government; without them it is a confederacy.
In pursuance of these clear and express provisions, congress
established, at its very first session, in the judicial act, a mode
for carrying them into full effect, and for bringing all questions of
constitutional power to the final decision of the supreme court. It
then, sir, became a government. It then had the means of
self-protection; and but for this, it would, in all probability, have
been now among things which are passed. Having constituted the
government, and declared its powers, the people have further said,
that since somebody must decide on the extent of these powers, the
government shall itself decide--subject always like other popular
governments, to its responsibility to the people. And now, sir, I
repeat, how is it that a State legislature acquires any right to
interfere? Who, or what, gives them the right to say to the people,
'We, who are your agents and servants for one purpose, will undertake
to decide, that your other agents and servants, appointed by you for
another purpose, have transcended the authority you gave them?' The
reply would be, I think, not impertinent, 'Who made you a judge over
another's servants. To their own masters they stand or fall.'"

He then went on to show that a State could not make treason against the United States legal, and, says he, when I maintain these sentiments, I am but asserting the rights of the people; I state what they have declared and insisted on as their right to declare it. They have chosen to repose this power in the general government, and I think it my duty to support it like other Constitutional powers.

In referring to the importance of having but one tribunal, whose decisions should be final--Sir, said he:

"If we look to the general nature of the case, could any thing have
been more preposterous than to have made a government for the whole
Union, and yet left its powers subject, not to one interpretation, but
to thirteen or twenty-four interpretations? Instead of one tribunal,
established by all, responsible to all, with power to decide for all,
shall constitutional questions be left to four and twenty popular
bodies, each at liberty to decide for itself, and none bound to
respect the decisions of others; and each at liberty, too, to give a
new construction, on every new election of its own members? Would any
thing, with such a principle in it, or rather with such a destitution
of all principle, be fit to be called a government? No, sir. It should
not be denominated a constitution. It should be called, rather, a
collection of topics for everlasting controversy; heads of debate for
a disputatious people. It would not be a government. It would not be
adequate to any practical good, nor fit for any people to live under."

Mr. Hayne, already overborne with the overwhelming and unanswerable arguments, was yet destined to receive the most cutting rebuke from his vanquisher. Mr. Webster said:

"And now, Mr. President, let me run the honorable gentleman's doctrine
a little into its practical application. Let us look at his probable
_modus operandi_. If a thing can be done, an ingenious man can tell
_how_ it is to be done. Now, I wish to be informed _how_ this State
interference is to be put in practice. We will take the existing case
of the tariff law. South Carolina is said to have made up her opinion
upon it. If we do not repeal it, (as probably we shall not,) she will
then apply to the case the remedy of her doctrine. She will, we must
suppose, pass a law of her legislature, declaring the several acts of
congress, usually called the tariff laws, null and void, so far as
they respect South Carolina, or the citizens thereof. So far, all is a
paper transaction, and easy enough. But the collector at Charleston is
collecting the duties imposed by these tariff laws--he, therefore,
must be stopped. The collector will sieze the goods if the tariff
duties are not paid. The State authorities will undertake their
rescue: the marshal, with his posse, will come to the collector's aid;
and here the contest begins. The militia of the State will be called
out to sustain the nullifying act. They will march, sir, under a very
gallant leader; for I believe the honorable member himself commands
the militia of that part of the State. He will raise the _nullifying
act_ on his standard, and spread it out as his banner. It will have a
preamble, bearing that the tariff laws are palpable, deliberate, and
dangerous violations of the constitution. He will proceed, with his
banner flying, to the custom house in Charleston--

"all the while
Sonorous metal blowing martial sounds."

Arrived at the custom house, he will tell the collector that he must
collect no more duties under any of the tariff laws. This he will be
somewhat puzzled to say, by the way, with a grave countenance,
considering what hand South Carolina herself had in that of 1816. But,
sir, the collector would, probably, not desist at his bidding. Here
would ensue a pause; for they say, that a certain stillness precedes
the tempest. Before this military array should fall on custom house,
collector, clerks, and all, it is very probable some of those
composing it would request of their gallant commander-in-chief to be
informed a little upon the point of law; for they have doubtless a
just respect for his opinions as a lawyer, as well as for his bravery
as a soldier. They know he has read Blackstone and the constitution,
as well as Turenne and Vauban. They would ask him, therefore,
something concerning their rights in this matter. They would inquire
whether it was not somewhat dangerous to resist a law of the United
States. What would be the nature of their offence, they would wish to
learn, if they, by military force and array, resisted the execution
in Carolina of a law of the United States, and it should turn out,
after all, that the law _was constitutional_. He would answer, of
course, treason. No lawyer could give any other reason. John Fries,[5]
he would tell them, had learned that some years ago. How, then, they
would ask, do you propose to defend us? We are not afraid of bullets,
but treason has a way of taking people off that we do not much relish.
How do you propose to defend us? 'Look at my floating banner,' he
would reply; 'see there the _nullifying law_!' Is it your opinion,
gallant commander, they would then say, that if we should be indicted
for treason, that some floating banner of yours would make a good plea
in bar? 'South Carolina is a sovereign State,' he would reply. That is
true; but would the judge admit our plea? 'These tariff laws,' he
would repeat, 'are unconstitutional, palpably, deliberately,
dangerously.' That all may be so; but if the tribunals should not
happen to be of that opinion, shall we swing for it? We are ready to
die for our country, but it is rather an awkward business, this dying
without touching the ground. After all, this is a sort of _hemp_-tax,
worse than any part of the tariff.

"Mr. President, the honorable gentleman would be in a dilemma like
that of another great general. He would have a knot before him which
he could not untie. He must cut it with his sword. He must say to his
followers, defend yourselves with your bayonets; and this is
war--civil war."

Mr. Webster continued to show that to resist by force the execution of a law of the United States was treason, and that the Courts of the United States could take no notice of a State law to authorize persons to commit that grave crime. Said he, the common saying that a State cannot commit treason herself, is nothing to the purpose. Can it authorize others to do so? If John Fries[5] had produced an act of Pennsylvania annulling the law of Congress, would it have helped his case? Talk about it as we will, these doctrines go the whole length of revolution. They are incompatible with any peaceable administration of the government. They lead directly to disunion and civil commotion, and therefore it is, that at the commencement, when they are first found to be maintained by respectable men, and in a tangible form, that I enter my protest against them all. Mr Webster proceeded to show that the people of the United States have not chosen the State authorities as their guardians against encroachments from the general government. Said he:

"Sir, the people have not trusted their safety, in regard to the
general constitution, to these hands. They have required other
security, and taken other bonds. They have chosen to trust themselves,
first to the plain words of the instrument, and to such construction
as the government, itself, in doubtful cases, should put on its own
powers, under their oaths of office, and subject to their
responsibility to them; just as the people of a State trust their own
State governments with a similar power. Secondly, they have reposed
their trust in the efficacy of frequent elections, and in their own
power to remove their own servants and agents, whenever they see
cause. Thirdly, they have reposed trust in the judicial power, which,
in order that it might be trustworthy, they have made as respectable,
as disinterested, and as independent as practicable. Fourthly, they
have seen fit to rely, in case of necessity, or high expediency, on
their known and admitted power to alter or amend the constitution,
peaceably and quietly, whenever experience shall point out defects or
imperfections. And finally, the people of the United States have at
no time, in no way, directly or indirectly, authorized any State
legislature to construe or interpret _their_ instrument of government;
much less to interfere, by their own power, to arrest its course and
operation.

"If, sir, the people in these respects had done otherwise than they
have done their constitution could neither have been preserved nor
would it have been worth preserving. And if its plain provisions shall
now be disregarded, and these new doctrines interpolated in it, it
will become as feeble and helpless a being as enemies, whether early
or more recent, could possibly desire. It will exist, in every State,
but as a poor dependent on State permission. It must borrow leave to
be, and will be no longer than State pleasure, or State discretion
sees fit to grant the indulgence and to prolong its poor existence.

"But, sir, although there are fears, there are hopes also. The people
have preserved this their own chosen Constitution for forty years, and
seen their happiness, prosperity and renown grow with its growth, and
strengthen with its strength. They are now generally strongly attached
to it. Overthrown by direct assault, it cannot be; evaded, undermined,
_nullified_ it will not be, if we and those who succeed us here, as
agents and representatives of the people shall conscientiously and
vigilantly discharge the two great branches of our public trust
faithfully to preserve and wisely to administer it."