Newspaper Page Text
jSFf&trai Wlnwn*
J
POLITICAL.
fFnnvt the Augusta constitutionalist, j
THE DOCTRINE OF NULLIFICATION
EXAMINED.
The maintenance of constitutional freedom, is the
first rate-rest of civil society, and a jealous vigilance
over those wh* are entrusted with umhority, one
of the highest duties of the citizen. In such a cause,
oven some excesses of zeal arc not without apology.
Rut it occasionally happens, that those who are
engaged in repelling the encroachments of power,
themselves advance exhorbitant pretensions, which
endangsr social order, and bring discredit on the
very cause of liberty itself. To analyse and expose
such pretensions, therefore, becomes also a duty,
of no inconsiderable importance.
The Federal Constitution is n compact, by which
the thirteen Sovereign stales that adopted it, re
nounced a certain portion of their powers; and al-
ao delegated a certain portion, to be jointly held
bv all the parties, under the form of a general gov
ernment. The additional members of the confede
racy, which now embraces twenty four states, are
alt on the same political fooling with the original
thirteen. According to this constitution, the legis
lative power iscxercised by majorities of both hous
es of Congress, with the concurrence of the Presi
dent, or by two thirds of both houses, without his
concurrence. The Supreme Court of the United
States is the ultimate depositary of the judicial
power of the general government: and when the
question is duly bro’t before that tribunal, it hn3 a
right to decide, whether an act of congress is
constitutions! or not. Such is a brief summary of
our legislative system, in its regular course. But
»r is cm,tended, that an extraordinary case has oc
curred—that the majority, abusing the advantage
of numbers, has enacted an unconstitutional law,
oppressive to Lie* minority—that the judicial depart
ment promises no adequate redress—and that some
corrective, more efficacious, must consequently be
employed. The remedy which has been hitherto
most zealously recommended, is that denominated
Nullification, the merits of which, it is our present
purpose fo examine The following, we believe,
are substantially the doctrines comprehcn led under
that term. “In all cases of compact among parties
having no common judge, each party has an equal
right to judge lor itself, as well of infractions, as of
the inode and measure of redress. The Federal
Constitution is a case ol such a compact. When a
state considers an act of Congrcs unconstitutional,
it lias a right to nullity that act. within its own lim
its. The other states have no right to enforce the
nullified act within those limits. A general con
vention of states must he called for the purpose of
proposing amendments to the constitution, and
thereby testing the question of constitutionality, j
The states in favor of the nullified act, must pro-!
pise an amendment, conferring on Congrcs the
power to pass such a law. That power is to be
regarded as having never been delegated, unless
three-fourths of the states, in separate conventions,
or in their respective legislatures, ratify tiic amend
ment so proposed.'"
If we designed to exhibit our own precise theory, in
relation to the subject in dispute, it would be neces
sary to urge several very important qualifications,
even of the two first of these propositions; but as
our object is sitrply what lias been united—to ex
amine the merits of nullification, wc shall admit for
the sake of argument, that “in ail cases of compact,
mong parties having no common judge, each party
has an equal right to judge for itsscifj as well of in
fractions, as of the mode and measure of redress,”
and that “the Federal Constitution is a case of
*uich a compact.” We shall also in the same nian-
n t, admit the third proposition, concerning the
right to nullity, with such explanations however of
tire term right, as, will presently appear. All the
remaining propositions wc totally deny.
Let us endeavour in the first place to ascertain,
what will be ihe state of things produced, by the
exercise of this equal right of interpretation,
which has been admitted. Parties enjoying equal
rights to interpret a contract, may have the perfect
right to a speculative interpretation—that is, to an
opinion concerning its import; because two or more
persons may entertninjlifferent opinions without any
necessary interference. But the right referred to in
this discussion, is obviously the right efpractical in
terpretation, the right of the parties, to give an el
ect to the contract, conformable to their respectve
opinions of its meaning. The right of none there
fore can be perfect, since the rigid of each is quali-
fiad by the right of every other. For, if any one
had a perfect right, of practical interpretation—
that of giving effect to his own opinion; the rights
of all the others must yield to it; &. all those others,
so far from enjoying equal tights, would practically
possess no right at all. For example—two per
sons placed in a situation where they can have no
common judge, agree to build a house jointly, on a
specified plan. During the progress of the work,
they differ in their explanation of the original de
sign. Each has a perfect right to consider his own
explanation the true one; but neither can have the
perfect right to execute the work, according to his
own judgement; since, if such were the case, the
other who in theory Las an equal right, would in
practice have none at all. As a house cannot be
built in two ways at the same time, their practical
rights unavoidably conflict; and each in maintain
ing iris own, must necessarily oppose that of the
other. Unless, therefore, one voluntarily yields, or
tiiere is a compromise, force alone can decide be
tween them. In similar circumstances, the result
would be the same, if the contract consisted of re
ciprocal promises. Each party would have ti right
to interpret the whole contract—not only the prom
ise made by himself, but the promise made by the
other.—If in a wilderness, where no civil law ex-
sts, it is stipulated between A and B that at a cer
tain time, A shall deliver to B a number of furs,
and on a subsequent day. receive in exchange a
number of bushels of grain, should a dispute ulti
mately rise, concerning the quantity of grain which
was to be delivered, not only B would have a right
to judge h.w much had been promised by him; but
A likewise would have an equal right to judge how
much had been promised to him. B would have a
right to withhold any excess, which he thought
was unjustly demanded, and A to seize what he
thought was unjustly withheld. If there were
no compromise, the srongest must necessarily pre
vail.
Foreign nations having no common judge, are
on the same footing with individuals in a state of
nature; and a dispute between them concerning the
interpretation of a contract or treaty, would-be gov
erned by the same principles, and attended by the
same consequences. Suppose at the end of a war
between the L T . States and Great Britain, that the
American post of Niagara should be in possession
of the British, and the Canadian post of Malden, in
pqsess of the Americans. Suppose that the Amer
icans, understanding by the treaty of peace, that
Ihe posts were to be mutually restored, should de
liver Malden to its former masters. If the British
asserted, that, according to their interpretation of
the treaty, they were not bound to restore Niagara,
and should finally refuse to evacuate that post;
would the Americans acquiesce ? Assuredly not.
They would claim the right of interpreting both
sides of the treaty—of judging how much they
ought to regain, as well as how much they ought
to restore; and if Niagara were not surrendered,
they would, either by a direct attack or some other
means, very speedily recommence hostilities.
Thus far it is apparent, that a full exercise of the
right of each party to judge for itself, results in nei
ther more nor less, than a decision by force. Let
us see, whether the exercise of an equal right ot in
terpretation, among all the parties to the federal
compact would not tend to a similar issue. Every
state on entering the union, delegated a portion of
its original sovereign power, and, thereby, subject
ed itself to the legislation of the general govern
ment, to the extent of the power ceded. But this
delegation was not made without an equivalent.—
The state, at the same time, acquired a share of
the legislative power of the general government
i n . eh-; a^iurred the rfjjM ft r-'.njifnoYion with
confederates, to enact laws operating on all the oth
er states, to the very same extent, that she bad
conceded the right to enact laws operating on her
self. This was the consideration, the quid pro quo,
the very essence of the bargain. To exercise over
a state any power which she did not delegate, is a
violation of the compact-to resist a delegated pow
er of the general government, which she has exer
cised conjointly with others, by act of Congress, is
equally a violation of the compact. .She is as
much wronged, when her just power of legislating
over others is obstructed, as when ihe unjust pow-
er of legislating over herself is usurped. She pos
sesses an equal right to judge, whether she lias
suffered the one wrong or the other—or, in differ
ent words, if a state in the minority liar, a right in
judge, that an act of Congress is not constitution
al ; a slate in the majority has an equal right to
judge that it is constitutional. Since both parties,
according to the fundamental principle assumed,
would possess also an equal right to judge of “the
mode and measure ot redress;” the one might se
lect its own means of resisting, the other its own
means of enforcing a law whose constitutionality
was disputed. Parties in this position, are evident
ly arrayed against each other, with the unqualified
licence of mutual hostility. If both parties have
free choice of “the mode and measure of redress”
states in the minority, without doubt, may nullify
the law whose constitutionality they deny; and as
dearly states in the majority, may endeavor to en
force it, by what ever means are considered most
expedient. If neither party recedes, and gentle
measures are ineffectual, the next resort will be to
those which arc violent, and civil war is the inev
itable result.
The nullifiers indeed contend, that if a law
were nullified, a presumption would be created a-
gainst its constitutionality; and that the majority
would be bound, if it did not yield by repealing it,
to call a convention of states, and solicit a formal
grant of the power to pass such a law, in order
that the question might be tested. The notion is
utterly unfounded. In the first place, iftlie majori
ty of states believes a law to be constitutional, and
persists in maintaining it to be so; the contrary
opinion of the minority cannot create a presump
tion of its unconstitutionality; unless we adopt the
very extraordinary supposition, that a smaller
number is more likely to be right than a greater.—
In the second place, the act of nullification itselfis
justified only on the ground that, all the parties
have an equal right to interpret the Federal Com
pact, and to select their own mode and measure of
redress, when they believe that a violation of it has
occurred. The right of the parties must be the
same, whether the violation is supposed to consist,
in exercising a power which has not been confer
red, or in resisting one which lias actually been dcle-
gated. An attempt therefore by the minority of
states, to prescribe any particular mode of procee
ding to the majority, would be wholly absurd—it
would be dictating the mode and measure of red
ress to their opponents, who possess by their own
acknowledgment, the lull privilege ot choosing lor
themselves. The very first principles of nullihic i-
tion would justify the ' ma jority, in the immediate
employment of such means, as were deemed most
conducive, to the accomp lishment ot their pur
pose.
But let us suppose that the majority, suspen
ding all the measures ot coercion, should gratuitous
ly consent to call a convention, tor proposingamend-
mentslo the constitution; and that the parties were
accordingly assembled.—The nullifiers would say
to the majority We deny that Congress poss
esses the power which it has assumed, m passing
the nullified act—Propose to the states an amend
ment granting that power, and we shall see, wheth
er Congress is to acquire it or not.’’ To this the
majority would of course reply: “ We assert that
Congress does possess the power which it lias ex
ercised, in passing the nullified act. rwposr w vnr
states and amendment taking awnv that power,
and we shall see, whether Congress is to lose it or
not.” What then would have been gained? The
rotes of a majority of the convention, must neces
sarily constitute tiic acts of that body; and no
amendment which it rejected, could be submitted
to the states for adoption. The parties would end
where they began.—But it may be argued, that
although the majority would possess a formal right,
to reject the proposition of the nullifiers ,• the latter
would have equitable considerations to urge,
which ought to ensure its adoption. Let us hear
them.—They would say—The meaning of the par
ties is the spirit of a compact. When we ratified
the Constitution, vve believed that it did net conler
on Congress the power in qustion. It the nullified
law can be enforced, we live under a government
exercising a power which we did riot delegate, or
suppose others to delegate : it is not the govern
ment which wc design. Ifyou propose the amend-
ment suggested by us, and it is ratified by three-
fourths of the states, Congress icouid undeniably
possess the penecr. But ifyou reject our proposi
tion, the result must be, that a mere majority may
assume for Congress, a power which constitution
ally can be conferred only by three fourths of the
States.” These arguments, plausible perhaps at a
first view, labour under this material objection ;
that they are not only quite as good, but even con
siderably better, on the opposite side. For the
majority without hesitation could reply—“ Yes,
we agree with you, that the meaning of the par
ties is the spirit of a compact. But when ice rat
ified the Constitution, wc believed that it did con
fer on Congress, the power in question. If the
nullified law can no! be enforced, we li\e under
a government deprived of a power, which ice did
delegate, and understood all others to delegate;it
is not the Government which wc designed. Ifyou
propose the amendment suggested by us, &. it is
ratified hv three fourths of the States, Congress
vriil be undeniably diveettd of ihe poicer. But if
we accede to your proposition, the result must be
that a minority, barely exceeding one fourth, may
deprive Congress of a power, which can constitu
tionally be taken away, only by three fourths of the
States.” A satisfactory reply to this answer,
would, we apprehend, be somewhat difficult. In
truth, the theory of nullification pressed to its ulti
mate consequences, would amount to this—that
three fourths of the states are necessary to confer
a power on Congrcs, while any number beyond
one fourth, may take it away. Whether such a
system would be expedient, we shall not at pre
sent enquire—most certainly it is not that of the
Federal Constitution. In the article relative to
amendments, the wordpower does not occur—it
declares that “ amendments” “ shall be valid,”
“ when ratified by the legislatures of three fourths
of the several states, or t.-v conventions in three
fourths thereof.” Retrenching a power ofCon-
gress, is as much an amendment, as conferring a
power; and therefore to be valid, must require
the same number of votes. When a convention
is called, to propose amendments relative to a
power claimed bv the majority, and denied by the
minority, it is evident that the final decision must
depend altogether on the form in which the
amendment is submitted to the states. If the
amendment proposes to give the power, the power
will be lost, because a smali minority is sufficient
to reject it; and for the same reason, the power will
be sanctioned, if the amendment proposes to lake
it away. The lorm of the amendment then being
absolutely decisive, and each party having an equal
right to support its own construction; it is the
height of extravagance to expect, that a majority
maintaining the constitutionality of the power,
would agree to incur certain defeat, by soliciting a
grant, which they knew that a minority exceeding
one fourth was predetermined to refuse.
It is already we think sufficiently proved, that a
minority exceeding one fourth, has not the constitu
tional right to impose its own construction on a
majority. But there is a farther evidence which
appears to us so striking, that it would he improper
to pass it entirely, without notice. If the framers
of the constitution designed, that such a minority
should have the right oflaving an interdict, on the
exercise of any power which it considered uncon-
stnuixmaf) why did not 1hose framers plainly snv
so? Why did they not indicate the manner, in
which that right was to be enforced? There was
no motive, uo apology fora mysterious silence.—
They might have simply provided, that the dec
laration of this minority, through their respective
state legislatures, o* conventions, should be suffi
cient lor the purpose. Instead ot making tliis obvi
ous provision or any other equivalent to it, they
did not even grant to such a minority, the right of
calling a convention—a privilege which belongs
only to Congress, actis^ on the applications of two
thirds of the Stales. Here then, if wc admit the
pretensions of the nullifiers, is the most astonish
ing anomaly ever witnessed in government. The
constitution intends that a momentous power shall
be possessed by a certain proportion of the States;
and though an obvious mode might have been pro
vided, for its sale and easy exercise, no mode what
ever was designated, and hitherto none better lias
been devised, than the open resistance o‘a whole
State, to a general law of the land! It will be diifi-
cult indeed to believe, that the satre authors of the
constitution, were guilty of such a blunder—one
which would disgrace the barbarous leg station of
a Tartar horde, or a Hottentot kraal. The neces
sity anu the facility of prescribing regular means,
for the exercise of such a power, supposing it to
exist, are botli so manifest, that the absence of all
provision oftiie kind, is alone conclusive proof, that
the existence of the power itself, never was con
templated.
Thus wc have shewn, that even if the ma jority
should assent to the calling of a convention, the
nullifying minority must, nevertheless, fail in the
accomplishment of their purpose, since they could
never cause their construction to be recognized.—
Each party, according to the principle originally
assumed, would remain on the ground of its equal
light, to “ judge for itself, as well of infractions as
of the mode and measure of redress.” In such a
position, there would be no impediment to hostili
ties, and unless one side or the other receded, they
must necessarily ensue. If this is evident in the
abstract, it is even more manifest, in the case of
the existing tarifflaw, on which it is proposed that
the experiment of nullification shall he tried.—Sup
pose, that by the operation of such a measure, the
ports of South Carolina are made free. If they re
main so, and the state is still to he considered a
member of the union, the principal importations of
the whole country, must be concentrated in those
ports. Congiess could not impose duties on the
coasting irade—New York, Pennsylvania, and
oilier slates, could not afford to import directly from
abroad, articles subject to a duty in their own ports,
but exempt from it in those of S. Carolina; and,
consequently, all parties of the union would proba
bly obtain foreign supplies through Charleston.—
As almost the whole fiscal resources of the govern
ment are derived from the custom house, it is evi
dent, ihat there would be nearly a total liiilure o.
the revenue. Other evils equally great would en
sue. Every holder of dutiable articles purchased
under the tarff, would find them reduced in value,
to the amount nC
on thorn. Ship-owners, landholders, merchants,
artisans, all the inhabitants of our large cities, who
owe their prosperity or subsistence to foreign com
merce, would be exposed to ruin and beggary.—
All the dependent agricultural districts would par
ticipate in the shock. In (he money market, which
is so sensitive to every political and commercial
vicissitude, confidence would be destroyed, private
credit would be suspended, public credit would be
menaced—embarrassment, and bankruptcy would
prevade the land. Is it reasonable to expect, that
the other members of the confederacy will permit
such a state of things to continue, or even to com
mence? If every party to the compact “ has an
equal right to judge for itself, as well ofinfiaction,
as of the mode and measure of redress;” surely
thi&Jsa i’-'m. — a.ivii me majority nuum mn nni
ro exercise their privilege. Even states ir. the mi
nority, deprecating such a wild career of political
innovation, would at least not disapprove the
measures by which it was arrested. According to
the latitude of choice conceded, by the fundanien
tal principle of the nullifiers, the majority might,
in these circumstances, adept any mode of procee
ding, which seemed most expedient. The reason
able presumption however is, that the most obvi
ous, gentle, and effectual plan would he selected—
that of immediately blockading all the ports which
had been made free. If the nullifying state did
not then submit, it must resist by force, and the
very first blow would be the commencement ofcivil
war. It is superfluous to enquire, by what spe
cies of political agency, the majority of states would,
in the present instance, perfoim this indispensable
duty of self defence. They would doubtless,
without any reference to new fangled theories, act
through the instrumentality of the general govern
ment whose direction is in their hands. An ob
jection from any quarter, to this mode of opera
tion. would be unreasonable; but coming from the
nullifiers—those who claim lor all parties, an equal
right to judge of “ the mode and measure of re
dress,” it would be supremely ridiculous.
From the premises, wc think ourselves authori
zed to conclude, that the believers in the doctrine
of nullification, labour under an extreme delusion
—that the pretension of any minority, exceeding
one fourth, to impose its construction of the consti
tution on a majority, is in the highest degree chi
merical—that those who resort to nullification as
a peaceful remedy, are rushing blindfold into hos
tility.—The nullifiers have spoken of the natural
right of parties, each to interpret a compact for
itself, as if it were a constitutional right, whose ex
ercise is compatible with the maintenence of a com
mon government ; when it is palpably in effect,
the mere privilege of mutual warfare. In specula
ting on the interpretation of the constitution, they
entirely forget that the states which ratified this
instrument, adopted it as airhole, and as much for
the sake of the powers, which they supposed it to
confer on the general government, as for the sake
of those, which they supposed it to reserve to the
states individually. They lorgrt, that the opinion
of any state, believing a power to have been dele
gated, is entitled to as much consideration as the
opinion ofanother state, believing it to have been
reserved—Finally, they forget, that in every dispu
ted case, where there was a variance in the origin
al understanding of the parties, the intentions of
one side or the other must necessarily be frustrated',
and that this unavoidable inconvenience may as
properly he endured by seven, as by seventeen—
by any minority, as bv any majority.
When there is a material, and irreconcilable
difference of opinion, between the parties to the
Federal Compact, it is manifest, that secession is the
only effectual remedy for the weaker. It has in
deed been maintained, that the right of secession
itself, is only the right of nullifying the whole* con
stitution and laws. Those who arc misled hysuch
an assertion, can have paid hut little attention to
the import of the words. Nullification is represen
ted as an act performed under the constitution,
and compatible with the continuance of the gener
al government. Secession on the contrary, as is
implied by the very term, dissolves the govern
ment, releasing those who secede, from the obliga
tions of the compact. To call secession, therefore,
a species of nullification, is a mere solecism. But
it is farther urged, that admitting the two meas
ures to he essentially different; the scheme of nulli
fication can at worst only eventuate in the other,
and in the mean time is more gentle in its operation.
This is a most pernicious fallacy. Whenever se
cession is unequivocally proposed to the people, the
data will lie fairly before them—they will choose,
with a full knowledge of the alternatives—they will
decide their destiny in open day. But when* nulli
fication is recommended to them, as being, in fact,
one of the best means of preserving the union, (not
withstanding we have seen that it is decidedly the
reverse;) if they credit such a representation, they
have not tire true data before them—they are deci
ding upon premises absolutely false, and may pre
cipitate themselves into a revolution, w ? hen their
purposes are diametrically opposite. The claims
of nullification to a greater gentleness of process,
arc equally futile. If the southern states, impelled
by their wrongs, should thro’ a convention, or any
other manner, propose to the majority, that the
Union be dissolved by common consent; either
those wrongs will be redressed, or their proposition
will be accepted; for no rational man will cherish
the desperate project, of retaining them in the u-
nion by force. The parties would arrange the terms
of a peaceful separation. The laws of the general
government would be respected by both sides, un
til the moment ofidissolution; and then the ports ol
each becoming foreign to the other, their respec
tive systems of impost could be enforced, without
collision or inconvenience. We have already seen,
how different would be the consequences of Nulli
fication. We have seen that the nullifying state
beingstill considered a member of the confederacy,
no duties could be imposed on her coasting trade—
that her ports being free, she would absorb nearly
the whole importation of the country and distribute
supplies in every district of the union—that this
state ofaffairs, if acquiesced in, would cause a fail
ure of the public revenue, and a convulsion in com
merce, which must scatter dismay and ruin, along
the whole extent of our coast. The government
could not submit to such evils. It. would immedi
ately interpose, to secure its own peculiar interests,
and those of the community at large, committed
to its protection. For the nullifying state there
would remain only two alternatives, of humiliation
and civil war.
But while we demonstrate that open secession
i?g:eat ! y preferable to the chimeras ofnullifica-
‘ioii, and that it is in fact the only proper remedy,
when the policy of the general government is no
longer endurable ; let it not be supposed that we
contemplate such an event with indifference, much
less with satisfaction. No! even if finally con
strained to such a course by obstinate injustice
every good citizen will adopt it with the most sin
cere reluctance, and profound regret. Long! long!
may the patriotism and intelligence of the Ameri
can people, defer that unhappy day, when sordid
cupidity, or flagitious ambition shall be permitted
to destroy the magnificent system of Republican
Union, which fias descended to us, consecrated by
the blood of heroes, and the wisdom of sages—by
the hopes and the admiration of all civilized men.
Our task is ended, if not completed. In this plain
cassav, the writer has endeavored to avoid all affec
tation of learned technicality, or rhetorical orna
ment, which could only have tended to obscure the
subject. His highest aspiration has been, through
the medium of a simple and perspicuous style, to
transmit the rays of truth uncolored and unrcfrac
ted.
FROM THE RICHMOND F.NQCIRF.R.
NULLIFICATION.
Every eye is now anxiously bent upon South
Carolina. Are the Free Trade and State Rights’
Party steeped in so far, that retreating were as bad
as going on? Or will the distinguished men, who
lead the Party, pause in their career—and, sacri-
ficingail personal considerations to the good'of their
COU ntp .Y, ttllfplhp prnvnnl fomlf Far wlldt U
is worth, reducing the revenue from 8 to i l mill
ions, and lessening the burthens of the South upon
several of the articles oi its consumption—and wait
the developements of the next session of Congress?
Or, if they do try to rush on to Nullification, will
the great mass of the People go with them?-These
questions are frequently asked. Time only can
give a satisfactory solution.
In the mean time, tbatJbctioiis and unprincipled
organ, the’“U. S.’ Telegraph,” is attempting to
strip Nullification of some of its deformities—and
after all its glosses, what is the visage in which it
it is compelled to present it to the Public?—Hear
him !
“The nulli fiers wish for no concealment. They
§gy, ***“*■ fry ilv tltTT
rut a southern Convention. They are opposed to
a separation of the Union, &. are resolved to throw
the State on her reserved rights as the surest
means of preserving the Union, and of arresting
the grievances of which they complain. If the
manufacturers were wise, they would see that their
present policy will make-Charleston virtually a free
port in less than six months! \Ye look forward to
this as inevitable, and with a firm reliance on nul
lification as the only means of curing the errors
which have grown up in the Government.”
fX9~ “Nullification is not disunion.”
Nullification is not Disunion! But will it not come
to it? No one can read the Toasts and Speeches
of the Nullifiers on the last 4th of July', without be
ing struck with the excesses to which this spirit is
likely to conduct South Carolina. We will give a
very few specimens.—What says, for instance, Mr.
R. Barnwell at the Walterboro Meeting? The
Charleston Evening Post commends his speech as
manly,spirit-stirring; “breathing the very inspira
tion of patriotism.” The C. Patriot pronounces it
to have ‘completely removed the flimsy covering by
which Nullification has been hitherto veiled. It is
no longer ‘war in disguise.’”—Mr. Smith breaks
out thus:
“Revolution! Sir, I feel no chilling fears, no ap
palling terrors come over me at the sound : On the
contrary, I feel my mind elate, and my spirit rise,
as at the rushing gale, which bears me over the
waves of a stormy ocean. What, Sir, has the peo
ple ever gained hut by Revolution? What have
tyrants ever conceded but to Revolution? From
the beginning of time, liberty ha« been acquired
but at the price of blood, ami that blood shed in
Revolution.
“No, Sir! She came into existence, like the fa
bled harvest of the Dragons’ teeth covered all over
with the panoply of war—with her breast plate and
her helmet on, and her spear glittering lor the de
struction cf tyrants. * * *
“Revolution! Sir, it is the dearest and the holiest
word, to the brave and free. Let tyrants curse it,
and the fearfui tremble at it. It may lift the storm,
on which the proud bird of freedom loves to rock
and soar; but who will not take it, with all its-trou-
bles and trials, rather than the cold, accursed, living
death of slavery. * *
If the fire & the sword of war are to be brought
to our dwelling, why then, Sir, I say, let them
come! Whilst a bush grows, which may be dab
bled with blood, or a pine tree stands to support a
rifle, let them come!”
And yet Nullification is not, nor will it be, Rev
olution, or Disunion!
Jlgain:—An Editor by the name of Johnston
(oi the “Columbia Telescope,”) addressed the mee
ting at Columbia when his paper was toasted, and
in the course of his harangue, exclaimed:
“Wh y cannot we resist tyranny as well as our
fathers? Is our blood less warm, are our arms less
strong, are our hearts less bold than theirs? We
have the same rights to maintain—the same fire
sides to defend—the same soil to stand upon—the
same sun to shine over us—and the same Provi
dence to trnstto. (Great cheering.) It is said that,
wc are weak. Courage is never weak. There is
no strength equal to the strength of a good cause.”
And he concluded by offering the following toast:
Action: Let us act, next October, at the ballot
box—next November, in the Slate House—and af
terwards, should any further action be necessary,
let it he where our ancestors acted, in the Held or
Battle.
The following are further specimens of the toasts:
At Columbia.
“ South Carolina : Her principles are proclaimed
to the world, and her sons are pledged and prepar
ed to maintain them, cost it all their Treasure and
all their blood.
“The Carolina Scylia, the depositary of “ High
and important duties, that must at all hazards, be
performed”—the penury of his savage mind could
suggest no other cure i’or the discontents of his
countrymen, than Baptism in their own blood. (This
is intended tor General Jackson.)
“By G. L. A. Davis. Andrew Jackson: On the
soil of South Carolina he received an honorable
birth place: May he not find in it a traitor’s grave!
By the reader of the Declaration of Independ
ence, W. A. Branthwaite. Nullification—“the
rightful remedy:” May South Carolina speedily
pul it in practice—and in defence of its principles,
should it become necessary to unfurl her Palmetto
Banner on the battle-field, may he who refuses to
defend it, be branded with the epithet of coward
aud traitor and forever be a slave.
“Gov. Hamilton: He has furnished us with arms
and equipments—when South Carolina needs our
services, we are ready at his call.
“M. It. Smith. John C. Calhoun: One of South
Carolina’s noblest sons: we look upon him as the
leader of our doctrine and the guardian of our lib
erties; and will support him through all sorts of dif
ficulties from the point of a needle to the mouth oi
a cannon.”
At JVaUerbqro’.
“ South Carolina: To those who dare counsel
her to submit to oppression, she answers—
‘Slave! 1 have sot my life up n the east,
And I will s'aml the hazard of the die.’ 9 cheers.”
“By Dr. Samuel Conies. Our next Legislature;
May they imitate the patriots ol '76, and nullity the
unconstitutional and oppressive Tariff, without
counting the cost or looking to consequences.”
At Charleston.
“Nullification; The right of the State to resist
fraud and oppression, ‘peaceably, if she can—forci
bly, if she must.’ Ca Ira.”
But enough.—No man can read these leasts,
without perceiving their drift. They point to force,
eventually—and who shall say, when the first drop
of blood is shed, what torrents shall flow—and that
it will not lead to disunion?
A BRIGHT SPOT.—It gives us real plea
sure to relieve the black picture of nullification
we have this day drawn in our paper. The
following letter from the Savannah Republican
is really cheering—and. coining from a “ vio
lent nullifier,” gives some hope, that the peo
ple of South Carolina may yet return to a calm
temperament, and a sincere attachment to the
Union. It would give us sincere pleasure to
believe, that Governor Hamilton is a man of
sufficient discretion, to throw* his influence into
the scale of the Union. At the, same time,
there is too much serious truth in the closing
reflection of the letter—that “ there are many
ambitious and designing men among us, and
there is no knowing to what length such charac
ters will in our days go.” May the God of
America overrule the ambitious and designing,
and make them good-patriots.
Extract of« letter from a Gentleman in Barnwell,
(S. C.) to a friend in Savannah.
“It is with no ordinary feelings of pride and ex
ultation, that I take up my pen to congratulate you
upon the events which have taken place in ilieat-
fairs of our beloved country.
“Yes, my friend, tiie Union is preserved—the
Republic of North America is safe. Two ol the
most important subjects that perhaps hav ever been
agitated in die Congress of the United States, have
bem recently disposed of, and that too, to the sat
isfaction of almost every independent American.
Our venerable and intrepid President (Jacksvn)
has like Brutus stabbed the Mammoth to the heart,
(the U. S. Bank) for which every Republican oi'
these United States will immortalize him. The
Union is preserved, and Andrew Jackson’s name
will be handed down to posterity untarnished.
“The Tariff, although modified and reduced, has
not been so much so as we had a right to expect;
however, as the South will be somewhat relieved,
we must for the present, be still. Experience will
teach us that a further reduction of the Tariff will
be necessary to satisfy us. Having myself been for
some time a violent Nullifier, I assure you my rnind
|*qg rrrer,tfy nho*»^;a, itnri my feelings softened
since Congress has settled the Tariff question, and
Gen. Jackson has vetoed the Bill of the Mammoth
Bank. Monopoly has taken its flight into those airy
regions above, where I trust it will find its repose,
for at least a century to come. South Carolina, l
am in hopes, will be governed bv prudence and
caution—she should be quiet. We have much
confidence in the candor of our esteemed Governor
(Hamilton.) If'he is suffered to exercise his owr.
discretion and conclusions, there is r.ot the shadow
of doubt but all wiil be well. He has the highest
opinion of the merits of Andrew Jackson. But
you know* that vve have a great many ambitious
and designing men amongst us, and there is no
knowing to what length such characters will, in our
days go.
“Should any thing occur in South Caro’ina wor
thy of relation, you will soon hear fiom me.”
FEDERAL UNION.
MIG LEDGE VILLE, AUG. 2, 1832.
FOR PRESIDENT,
ANDREW JACKSOiA.
CANDIDATES FOR CONGRESS.
CLARK TICKET.
JOHN COFFEE, of Cherokee,-
THOMAS W. HARRIS, of VfJtou.
THOMAS W. MURRAY, of Lincoln.
DANIEL NEWNAN, of Henry,
GEORGE W. OM ENS, of Chatham,
WILLIAM SCHLEY, of Richmond,
Muscogc
(fr JOHN MILTON, Esq. of Columbus,
we are requested to say, is a candidate for Con.
gress at the election in October next.
TROUP TICKET.
HENRY BRANHAM, of Putnam,
AUGUSTIN S. CLAYTON, of Clark,
THOMAS F. FOSTER, of Greene,
ROGER L. GAMBLE, of Jefferson,
GEORGE R. GILMER, of Oglethorpe,
CHARLES E. HAYNES, of Hancock,
SEABORN JONES, cf Muscogee,
JAMES M. WAYNE, of Chatham,
RICHARD II. WILDE, of Richmond.
OCT MIRABEAU B. LAMAR, Esq. we am
authorized to say, is a candidate for Congress at
the ensuing election.
THE TRIO.—We hope our readers will bear
with tiie great burden vve this day impose upon
them,in presenting them that horrible trio—Drunk
enness, Cholera, and Nullification. As they an*
the-three great national evils of tiie day, we fe<!,
that we cannot do them a greater service, than en
deavor to arrest their progress, so blighting io nl!
our hopes. YV e recommend the State seal again,
as a sovereign remedy against tiie whole of them—■
“ WISDOM, JUSTICE, AND MODERA
TION.
THE CHOLERA is making awful progress in
the towns of New York—It is at Albany &. Udea
lt has reached Newark (New Jersey)—an<1 Nt-v.-
Haven, Conn. &-c. &c. In tiie City of New York
the number of new cases arid of course, of death?,
increases.—There were on the 17th July, H6 cas
es, Sc 60 deaths—on the 18th 138 cases-72 deatli?-
19th—202 cases—82 deaths—on the 20th 226 ca
seses—100 deaths—21st, 311 cases,and 104 death-.
- The whole number of cases from the beginning
i<2l73, out of which 951 have died.
CORRECTION.—By a typographical error,in
a part of the impression of the Federal Union, of
the number before tiic last, speaking of the tariff
vve were n.ade to say, “ it makes no man more
poor.” T;ie word more, was inserted by mistake;
and tiie passage should read, “ it makes no man
poor.”
THE LEGISLATURE.—We are gratified at
being authorized to announce, that our energetic
and talented friend, Lewis L. Griffin, is a candi
date ii»r tiie representative branch of the legisla
ture, lbr tiie county of Monroe.
Tr^rn Poulson’s American Daily A.iv?rti?cr.
THE TREE OF DISSIPATION
The
sin of
drunkenness
expels reason,
drowns memory,
distempers the body,
dclaces lieauty, dimin
ishes strength, corrupts
the blood, inflames the liver,
weakens the brain, turns men
into walking hospitals, causes
internal, external, and incurable
wounds, is a witch to the senses, a
devil to tiie soul, a thief to the pocket,
the beggar’s companion, a wife’s woe, and
children’s sorrow—makes mas become
a beast and a self murderer, who
drinks to others’ good health,
and robs himself of his
own ! Nor is this
all; it exposes
to the
Divine
n 2
3 S§
Cfi T
* td
W
The"
root of all is
DRUNKENNESS!!!
THE ISLAND OF MADEIRA.
The first view of this island is one of the most
striking ever beheld ; a large white town on the
beach, with immense mountains rising close at the
back of it, sprinkled with the villas of the merchants
amidst vineyards, & orange groves, placed terrace
above terrace, like steps up the steep ascent, and
clouds constantly resting on its summit,—such is
the picture. Alter being here two or three days,
we made a visit into the interior, twelve or thirteen
miles off”, to view the greatest curiosity in the island,
and perhaps a more stupendous scene is not to be
found among the Alps; if it is a precipice from
which you look down three quarters of a mile per
pendicularly. When vve reached it, the abyss was
filled with clouds; but these gradually dispersed,
and discovered to us a new world beneath us, hills
and valleys, vineyards, houses, and a village church,
all of course in miniature, and glowing with softer
tints than I had supposed to exist in nature.—Bish
op Middleton.
tf^JEORGIA, Emanuel county. Whereas
Plmda Dougfess and John C. Sumner, apply n <
letters cf Administration on the estate of John Dougless
late of said county, deceased:
These arc therefore to cite and admonish all and sin
gular the kindred and creditors of said deceased, to be
and appear at my office, within the time prescribed hy
law, to shew cause, if any they have, why said letters
should not lie granted.
Given under my baud, this I5t.h July, 1832.
EDWARD LANE, c. c. o.
August 2 4
NULLIFICATION.—We ask the especial at
tention of our readers to the able and decisive ar
gument of “ Oglcthorp,” which appeared some
time since in the Augusta Constitutionalist. We
do not regret having delayed its rcpublicatmn a
while, as it has enabled us to put it forth at a time,
when nullification, (always noisy and blustering)
is most noisy and blustering. The able writer has
.plaeeda subject, somewhat obscured, though real
ly very plain and clear, in a very plain and clear
light.
Nullification, thoroughly sifted, results in Gov
ernor Miller’s sentiment—“the right to fight —
or the glorious right of constitutional revolution—
or, if you please—constitutional rebellion. Let the
Nullifiers put to themselves the following proposi
tions—“ Suppose that our doctrine is reduced to
practice—that wc get up our nullifying convention
—that ail the States are represented in it. We
know, that 23 eut of the 24 States have denied the
truth of the dpetrine—we know too, that ever-'
argument, every species of tracts, added fo a suf
ficient quantity of bravado, have been exhausted,
in attempting to spread our doctrine. Still ihe
people of the other States remain unconvinced.—
Now can we expect, by a Convention, to charge
their opinions, and bring them over to ours ? It
we cannot, what is to be the practical result?”—
No other answer can be given, but Governor
Troup’s—“ Having exhausted the argument, let us
stand by our arms”—unless 23 of the 24 States
should kindly yield their principles to one State.
Let us, lor a moment, grant to the nullifier his
leading proposition, which is, that every State has
the right to judge ot—“violations of ihe constitution,
as ireil as cf the mode and measure of redress."—
By way ol further illustration to “ Oglethorpe,’’ let
us pul a case, as an instance of practical nullifica
tion, that we may ascertain its result. Suppose
that South Carolina should declare Charleston a
free port. North Carolina finds that she meat
cither lose ihe trade of her whole sea coast, or,
come into an unsuccessful and ruinous competi
tion with South Carolina. North Carolina says—
wc cannot submit to this State of things. Upon
the principles of our sister State, we have th-
same right with her, to judge of the constitution
ality of her declaring Charleston a free port—we
believe she has violated the constitution, and op
pressed and injured us in our comineice and gen
eral prosperity—and we believe that it is expedient,
as “ the mode of our redress,” that we should
bring her to terms by force. Accordingly, North
Carolina marches her troops to Charleston and be
sieges the ciiy. Here, by the miraculous aad
peaceful spirit of nullification, we have a constitu
tional civil war between too States of the Union-
The other 22 States look calmly on, while the twin
sisters, are discussing a constitutional principle, by
cutting each others throats. President Jackson,
believing that he has the right, and is bound to
stop the effusion of blood, orders Virginia, Ken*
lucky, Tennessee, Georgia &c. to march their mill
tia, and quell the insurrection. The Governors oi
these States reply to the President—“ Sir, this is
no insin~reclion—these are sovereign and indepen
dent States, acting upon first principles, and pro
tecting their reserved rights against the oppres
sions of the General Government. They ha ye
each the right to judge for herself, of the “infrac
tions of the constitution and of ;he mode and
measure of redress and though upon the “con
servative principle” of nullification, we have the
right, we are not bound, to interfere. You, Mr-
President, have no right to order us out upon suck
an expedition. Remember, Sir, that this great
principle was solemnly and finally settled, during
the last war, by governor Strong, hacked by Mas
sachusetts, and is only re-asserted by the nullified-
Governor Strong refused to turn out the militia o.
Massachusetts to fight the British, because, ever}
State having the complete right to judge ot the
constitutionality of a measure, Massachusetts ad
judged that Mr. Madison had no right to order out
her militia to fight in the unhojy war. Massachu
setts therefore chose the staying at home of hut
militia, as “ the mode and .measure of her mire'--