Newspaper Page Text
JPabUc Sentiment .
Athens. August 31, 1832.
iTo TVm. Camming, J. P. King, anJ.t. Slaughter,
Esquires.
Gjintlemen, — l have received from you,
the organ of a meeting of die citizens ol
Richmond County, a communication accom
panied by their resolutions, in which a re
quest is made to know my “sentiments in
regard to Nullification.” This shall b
promptly done. But I owe it to a sense of
Self respect, as well as of candour to you, to
state, that in the lace of your third resolu
tion, containing a threat to vote against any
candidate who advocates that doctrine, 1
should certainly have declined a compliance
with the wishes of your meeting, but for a
consideration much higher than that of ap
peasing a political denunciation, or essaying
to conciliate a doubtful favor. It carries no
terrors to me. But the crisis has arrived
when every man should speak out boldly,
c’ l whatever may be the consequences to
himself, to meet them like a man, and en
deavour to save if possible the constitution
of his country. To this end it has been my
wish to address the people of Georgia, as well
•for the purpose of arousing them to a proper
sense of their wrongs, as to disabuse their
minds of a carefully lodged prejudice intend
ed to impair that hold on their affections,
which 1 had fondly hoped had been well earn
ed on my part. Your address has furnished
that opportunity. As your meeting, doubt
less, in a spirit of what it conceived to be its
rights, has subjected me to a political cate
chism, under a menace, will it oe offended, if
1, in my turn, without such rigour, seek to
know “ what arc their sentiments in regard”
to Mr. Jefferson as a statesman? He has
merited, and justly received, the title of an
Apostle of Freedom. lie is the great oracle
ol southern politics. In his opinions every
statesman is safe who has tiie true and proper
veneration for civil liberty. Will any thing
lie has said be good authority with your meet
ing ? If so, then mark his own words, uttered
m opposition to the Sedition Law, one, not
more unconstitutional than the tariff. “When
(said this great man) powers arc assumed,
which have not been delegated, a NULLIFI
CATION of the.ACT is the RIGHTFUL
REMEDY : That EVERY STATE has a
NATURAL RIGHT, in cases not within the
compact, to NULLIFY, of their OWN
AUTHORITY, all assumptions of power by
others, WITHIN THEIR LIMITS: that
without this right, they would he under the
dominion, absolute and unlimited., of whom
soever might exercise this right of judgement
for them.”
Here, then, you have my opinion in full.—
Of Mr. Jell erson’s political creed i shall never
be afraid or ashamed. Whenever his doc-
Jxiucs ceased to he considered orthodox, by
the southern people, for they never were in
o lour in the north, 1 feel entirely confluent
I am unfit to be their representative, and the
execution of the threat of your meeting can
never conic too soon for tny own inclination.
It is true that Mr. Jefferson has not pointed
out the mode and mapner of nullifying a
law ; but this must be left to the wisdom and
discretion ol the state whose rights arc in
vaded by the assumed power, and must be as
v arious as the acts are varied that violated the
•constitution. Any plan, I care not what t
is, that rids the state of the oppressive
pleasure, is a nullification of that measure.—
To nullify is simply nothing more or less
than to render null and void. All unconsti
tutional laws are null and void. Is this objected
to ! I presume not. Then your meeting,
in its’very first resolution, lias declared that
the tarifl act is “ unjust and inconsistent with
the spirit of the constitution.” Is it too much
I I say that an unjust law, one inconsistent
v ith the spirit oi tlic constitution, ought to
be null and void f As much as this doctrine
is now derided, I affirm, without the fear of
contradiction, that it is the very doctrine
upon which Georgia has acted' from the
foundation of her government. And I will
now prove it. 1 lay down these positions:
•L t. That an unconstitutional law is NO
1. VvV, and no man or community is bound to
obey it, nay,they are bound to resist it,forev
fc;7 man is sworn to.support the constitution.
~J. A law “ unjust and inconsistent with
Ue spit it of the constitution,” is a violation of
t ic constitution, because it is a perversion of
that instrument, a perversion is a breach of its
intention, and according to all rules cf con
struction, legal or moral, .the intention must
govern.
;<J. That the general government can pass
i:o law for which it does not find an authori
ty in the constitution, and that if it dries, it is
i.o morq. binding upon the states than if pass
ed by a foreign nation, for as to all ungranted
j o'vcrs it is to these states a completely for
eign government. .
i he two first positions need no commenta
ry, tiio last suggests these reflections. Sup
pose Great Britain should pass an act for the
benefit of her manufacturers, to operate in
Georgia, what would the state do ! I care
Jolt what, but w hate vet was tlone, precisely
mat ought to be done, in relation to the
same act passed by the federal government,
fur the right is wholly and absolutely usurped
in both cases. It drouth Carolina, our neigh
boring State, were to pass such a Lw, every
body would see its absurdity, and Georgia
would nullify it in an instant; then where is
t.,e difference between one state and twenty
three stalest Where is the difference be
tween the northern states doing this thin<r,
in their.separate state legislatures, or under
the pretence of constitute nal authority, com
bining and meeting in the halls of Congress
fur the same peruse, if both methods b<
equally out of the pale of the constitution?
V> hy should we not as readily resist an usurp- \
*4 act of the general government as that of j
any other government ? There is no reason I
lor it, and in four distinct cases has the stab !
of Georgia applied, as Mr. Jefferson calls it,!
this rightful remedy. j
May i again respectfully ask your mooting,!
“ what are its sentiments in regard” to Gov-;
ernor Troup’s political principles ? He says, i
“ whatever a state docs in its sovereign capaci- j
*y, will be right.” Acting upon this princi-j
Ijl'S ta.lSJ'r, whet; the general governw,;*
attempted to annul the oh!, by what was call
ed the new treaty, he solemnly declared n
should not be done, stated boldly that he
“ would employ all the limited means in his
power to prevent it,” and ordered the Han
cock troop of liorso to hold themselves in
readiness. What stronger “ revolutionary
tendency" could any measures exhibit ? But
this was not all, the Secretary of War Ordered
troops into tire nation to overawe the state:'
listen, while perhaps the blood will curdle
with indignation, at General Game’s despatch
to that officer: “ Col. Chambers (said lie)
with five companies of the first, and Major
Donoho, with four companies of the fourth
regiment of infantry, have taken the positions
assigned them. viz. the former at Marshall’s
Ferry, Flint river, A the latter at Princeton,
Chattahoochie, with instructions correspond
ing with yours of the 21st ot last month.”—
Did this alarm Governor Troup ? Let me
bring to your recollection that patriot’s reply
to Air. Adams . “ The legislature of Georgia,
will, at its first meeting, be advised to resist
any effort which may be made to wre*3t from
the state the territory acquired by that treaty,
and no matter by whut authority that effort
be made. If the legislature fail to vindicate
that right, the responsibility will be theirs,
not mine.”
What became of the new treaty ? Georgia
nullified it. She resisted the authority of the
general government because its act was un
constitutional, and being in the right, though
force was not only threatened, but arrayed,
she triumphed, and the old treaty was sus
tained. So, the federal troops marched to
the Flint river, and then marched
back again. 'Phis is one act of nullification.
I understand that the only objection to nul
lification is, it lias a tendency to revolution
and bloodshed, and to bring the federal gov
ernment into contempt. What could so ef
fectually produce all these events as the case
I have just mentioned ?
The second instance was the case of Tus
rels. A mandate was sent from the Supreme
Court of the United States, to suspend his ex
ecution until he could he heard before that
Court on a writ of error. What said the le
gislature?
Resolved, That the Governor and every other ot
ficer of this State disregard any and every mand.oi
and process that has been or shall be served upon
him or.them, proceeding from the Supreme Court
of the United States, for the purpose of arresting
any of the criminal laws of this State.
“ Resolved , That the Governor, with all the force
and menus placed at his command, resist and repel
any and every invasion from whatever quarter, up
on the administration of the crimi.-Jul laws of this
State.”
What language can be stronger? -\nd do
not the resolutions imply the probability of a
conflict, that the state might have to battle it
; with the General Government? But when
| the constitutional rights of a state are viola
| ted, what other alternative is left? We read
’ from the lessons of the Revolution that the
motto of our forefathers was liberty or death,
and so far, 1 amproud to say, the conduct of
Georgia has evinced to the world a noble vin
dication of the maxim.
in reference to the third instance, I must
beg leave again to reiterate the enquiry to
your meeting, “what are its sentiments in
regard” lo the political course of Governor
Lumpkin? For whatever may be their objec
tions to that of Governor Troup, so far as re
lates to these doctrines, he has been fully
supported by the present Governor. At the
last session oi the legislature, Governor
Lumpkin communicated lothat body, that he
had received two citations commanding the
state of Georgia to appear in the supreme court
to show cause why the judgments rendered
in our state court against Worcester and
But'* r, should not be set aside. What said
the Governor on that occasion ? That which
ought to command admiration of every friend
of state rights. “ Any attempt (said he) to
infringe the evident right of the sta’e to
govern the entire population within its terri
torial limits, and to punish all offences com
mitted against its laws, within those limits,
(due regard being had to the cases expressly
excepted by the constitution cf the United
States,) would be the usurpation of a power
never granted hy the states.” And what
u as to be the remedy in such cases of usurpa
tion ? Hearken to the Governor: “Such uu
attempt, whenever made, will challenge the
most determined resistance, and if persevered
in, will evidently eventuate in the annihila
tion of our beloved country.” But was this
all he said ? No! The best evidence of his
principles yet remains, and is in exact accord
ance with that of Governor Troup;— “In ex
ercising (continued he) the authority of that
department of the Government which de
volves on me, l will DISREGARD ALL UN
CONSTITUTIONAL REQUISITIONS OF
WHATEVER CHARACTER OR ORIGIN
THEY MAY BE, and to the best of my
ability, will protect and defend the rights of
the State, and use the means afforded me, to
maintain its laws and constitution.” These
are principles every way worthy of a states
man, and such as every man should lx- proud,
much Jess afraid, to avow. But let us mark
the issue of this missionary case, and here
I must ask again, “whatare the sentiments
of your meeting in regard” lo the Missiona
ries ? When 1 affirmed in Congress that “be
fore the Missionaries would be taken from
the Penitentiary by virtue of the decision of
the Supreme Court, Georgia would become a
howling wilderness,” a letter from tire citv of
Augusta, the place where your meeting was
held, informed the Editor of the National In
telligencer, that 1 did not speak the senti
ments of the pupplc of Georgia. Now 1 had
every reason to suppose he formed his opinion
upon the views of his neighbors, if he spoke
the truth; and it so, the political opinions of
ihat city are at variance with the rest of the
good people of Georgia, for the information
tlins given by the Augusta letter has, in all
its parts, been wholly unconfirmed. And
this induced me to fear that there might be
in interest in that flourishing city, not alto
gether in unison with the good southern
feeling of the rest of t lie state. Be this as it
may, the decision of the supremo court has
been nullified, or the matter is now thrown
upon the general gov< rumen! to take its
course.—lf it yields, the authority of that
amrnsr asmaai&usjoaa,,
ti -—— - - - . . . ■ .—n . _ .... -
government ins been Held i.i perfect eon- j
tempt and rendered null add void. If it
proceeds, then all the consequences of revo-''
lutionary action, and the effusion of blood, so
much dreaded, in relation to the tariff, must
be the inevitable result.
This decision purpoitstobe founded upon
the intercourse law passed by Congress in
1802, to regulate trade with the Indians,and
also upon the solemn Treaties ol ttie United
States, declared by the constitution to be the
supreme law of the land. Now it is resisted by
the State of Georgia,upon the ground that tne
law and the Treaties are unconstitutional.
What is the plain and fair inference to
be drawn from this case ? If a state cun
rightfully resist a law which has not only gone
through the usual forms of legislation, sanc
tioned by the Executive and Legislative
branches of government, but has been pro
nounced constitutional by the highest Judi
■ial power, that is, passed all the guards that
j cun give the stamp and authority oi luw,sure
)ly there can be but little cause to dread a
similar oppossition to the tariff act founded
upon an equally flagrant usurpation. But we
are told they are not similar cases. Let us
examine this point. The intercourse law is
founded upon that power ill the constitution,
winch gives to Congress the right to regulate
commerce with the Indian Tribes. The tariff'
act is said to rest upon the right to regulate
commerce with foreign nations. Now mark,
both of those poweisare found side by side,
in tljc OLh section of the Ist article of the
federal constitution. Suppose both laws, fur
the first time, had been passed at the last
Congress. The first, containing a provision
that the Cherokee nation of Indians within
the limits of Georgia, was an independent
nation, anu not subject to the laws of Geor
gia 'The second, containing a provision that
the people of Georgia should pay a tax to the
northern capitalists to protect their manufac
tures* What would Georgia do with the first
law ? Need I answer that she has already
nullified precisely sucha.law, in the present
intercourse law, and tlic decision founded
thereon- If then she would nullify the first
law, can there be a sensible difference, in
point of effect or principle, between that and
1 1 ho iast? It is said their difference is in
| their consequences, the first applies to a sin-
gle state, the other to all the states • and pray
what has one sovereign state to do w ith the
rights of other sovereign states in their sepa
rate capacities ? It is not recollected that
"one state has nothing to do With another, only
m the stipulated amcles tout have confedera
ted them together, and so soon as the con
federated government passes a law out of
these articles, each state throws itself upon
its original separate rights, and may employ
whatever means it pleases to prevent tlic ope
ration of that lalv, or if it chooses it may sub
mit to its authority. The other states may
desire the protective system, indeed more
than two thirds clamor lor it. Can this be any
good reason why Georgia shall submit to it?"
Suppose all th other states, like Louisiana
and Kentucky, should be brought up and be
come reconciled to the late act, can it be con
tended that Georgia must become so too?
Does it not occur to every mi.id that there cun
be no possible dillereuce between robbing
the states, by pi .mo meal, of ttieir constitu-j
tional rig .ts, or doing it in one general at- j
tack upon the whole sisterhood ! 'The reason-,
mg that would attempt to make a difference
will establish this position. If a rulliin attacks
a single individual, he must repel turn mime
diulelv, but il he attacks him in company
vvith twenty-three others, sixteen of whom
are willing to be robbed, and the other seven
doubt ng whether they will fight or submit,
lie must wait until they make up their minds!
Fiorn such logic 1 beg leave most heartily to
dissent. All infractions of the constitution
are alike, whether they be great or small, so
say all divines in reference to the moral law:
tlic progress ( the mischief may lie differ
out, hut tiie final result will he the same.
The beautiful green field may he as effect
ually destroyed by the admission of its des
poilers at a single gap, as if they had rushed
upon its luxuriance lroui a prostrated broad
side.
Tae fourth case, strange as it may appear,
is actually going on, almost unnoticed, at the
present time, and though silently, yet as ccr
taiuly as the. other three. I aliude to the
survey and occupation of the Cherokee nation.
Thousands who are now decrying the term
nullification,arc perfectly willing that it should
not be arrested in the case referred to, and
perhaps like the threat in your third resolu
tion, would vote against any man who should
oe opposed to its success. The last legisla
ture authorised a survey and disposition of
this whole country, and I understand the
survey is made, the commissioners are conven
ed, preparation is making for the lottery, the
drawing is to commence in October next, and
in all probability the possession of the lands
will pass from the Indians before the dost
of tin year. Now what becomes of the trea
ties that have guarantied this very territory
to its present inhabitants? The constitu
tion of the United States declares all treaties
to he the supreme law of the land, any thing
in the constitution and laws of the states to
the contrary notwithstanding. The violation
of a treaty often involves a nation in war,
and hut for the weakness of this nalon, such
might have been the consequences of this
proceeding on the part of Georgia.
Can it be possible that this will not be call
ed a plain, and palpable, case of nullification!
The matter is too clear ; concerning it then
can be no manner of doubt. And althoi gn
as an individual, I can not agree that it.
right, yet under my doctrine, based upon th
opinions of Mr. Jefferson, that a state has tli.
right to “judge for itself, as well of infractions
(of the compact) as of the mode and measur
of redress” and the state having pronounce*
these treaties unconstitutional, and therefor
ncli and void, if she is invaded bv the g< i
eral government, I go to support hot and cisn .
"right or wrong," for tny first allegiance
due to the state of Georgia. This is my kn
of nullification : will your meeting si this
If they will, there is no opinion between
:f they will not, 1 leave the people of Georg:
to judge which doctrine suits their notion's c
patriotism best. Now what can tend to blooi.
ami revolution stronger than nos f And yet f
1 do not believe ttiat this, or a. y other ease,!
will ever produce such a result. The thing j
is unreasonable. No oppressive anil uncoil-.
stitutional law can be enforced against a sov- j
ercign state. It is a free agent in a mere vo-!
luntarv confederation which is wholly unne
cessary to its internal municipal regulation.
Having gone into the union tor external ob
jects, the moment these are lost, and an at
tempt is made to rob her of her inherent rights,
the same free agency that made the compact
can dissolveiift f nay it would become so by
reason of the fraud of the opposite party. —
Force is out of the question. Four times has
Georgia tried this matter, & just us certain as
fate four times she would hav proved it. And
if she will try it the fifth time, she will meet
with the same success, for no man can believe
that when the alternative is presented to the
general government to give up the Union, or
to cut the throats of her citizens to pamper
the wealth of a privileged order,that the choice
will occasion even an instant’s hesitation.
In all cases of usurped or assumed powers,
Mr Jetiersons doctrine maintains three things.
Ist. That nullification is the rightful remedy.
2d. That it is a natural right.
3tf. That “every state,” of its “own autho
rity,” ha3 a right to “ nullify within its own
limits.”
Upon this last it may be necessary to say
but a word. A state entitled to “judge for
itself, as well of infractions, as the mode and
measure of redress,” cannot part with its sov
roignty (without becoming dependent) to any
other, so as to make that other the judge of
its ’-ioluted rights. A submission of this
kind implies an obligation to abide by the
award, and such a course every body must
perceive requires a state to give up its own
judgment to the decision of one who may not
have half the same interest at stake, or any
thing like a proper knowledge of the bearings
of that interest. What would have been the
consequence if Gov. Troup had waited till
he should have submitted the ease of the old
and new treaty to a convention of southern
states, or if Governor Lumpkin had’ done the
same thing in relation to the missionaries or
the survey of the Cherokee nation'* Think
you not the decision would have been against
us ? And what security lias any state against
any other result, when she trusts her sever
i ign powers to an arbitration ? I subscribe
I most unequivocally to ttie doctrine contained
in the above three points, and consequently 1
am for a convention ol the people of the state
to determine the best method of removing the
burthens imposed by this unconstitutional,
usurped and unjust law, and whatever that
i method may be, I fe 1 bound to submit*!o it.
If however you would ask me what tny plan
would be, if I were in that convention, I am
ready to give it, though I should be willing to
yield it for any ether, which the prudence ami
good sense of that convention might detail.—
1 would notify the general gevernment of this
fact, and that if the law was not repealed, or
modified, so as to lay a revenue duty only,
which should he adequate to the just wants of
the government, on or before the last, day of
the first session of the next Congress, that is
to say, in the year 1834, and if, further, it
should attempt to enforce the law after that
J time, thus unrepealed or modified, within th.
| limits of Georgia, tins state would lie no lon
ger a ine>. her of the Union. This is my inode
of resistnnee, but I am free to confess, that i
am prepared for any and all other modes that
will rid us ot the oppression. We have tried
begging till lain tired—we have tried remon
strating till 1 am disgusted—wo have tried
threatening till J am ashamed, and all this has
been going on for the last twelve years, t.ll
til- advocates of the system, hardened and
confirmed in their encroachments, declare it
is fixed and forever settled. Now 1 am tor
resistance and i ever to cease till we strangle
the monster, or get out of the reach ol its
mischief.
'These, gentlemen, are my “sentiments in
regard to nullification,” and though they may
differ from yours; yet if I know my own heart,
1 have not a solitary wish to disturb one single
vinv you may have upon this subject, and 1
rejoice that tiiisfeeling of mine fully sustains
me in the declaration, that I entertain no spi
rit of proscription againstariy one who differs
from me in opinion. As your meeting, by
your resolutions was intended to influence the
approaching elections, 1 must beg leave to
cuter an appeal from your tribunal to the
much higher court of that of the good people
of Georgia, and to them the balance of my
remarks will be addressed.
In some public character or other, I have
served you for twenty-five years, and though
l may not have satisfied you, I know I have
never deceived you. I hope I have given suf
ficient proof that the love of office has not in
duced me to shape rny opinions to conciliate
popular favor. lam proud of yourconfidence
but you could not desire me to possess it at
the expense of my independence. If in my
late service 1 have advanced opinions on the
floor of Congress you do not approve,or I have
misrepresented your sentiments to your op
pressors, you ought to turn me out. Unde
ceive them. asquickas it is in your power to
do so, and I have no doubt they will greatly
rejoice t it. It will be an act alike due to
their superior discernment of your views, as
well as to your own sincerity, and will be
certainl. a just, though a severe rebuke to
my want of fidelity. But let me pray you not
to be deceived by the mere force of words.—
You cannot be made to believe that Congress
has any thing to do with nullification, or that
your liberties aic in danger from the doctrine
in hat body. Depend upon it, whenever a
vote shall be taken in Congress to nullify the
tariff system, it would well behove you to
have as many nulliliers there as possible. Y r ou
owe it to your understandings io make this
enquiry, “what possible harm can a nullifier
do us m Congress?” Perhaps, of all the pla
ces in tiie world it is the one where lie could
Jo the least harm; and if even Congress
should attempt to force the tariff upon the
South by arms, it is the one which might tie
-.hie to do the most good. At least there
.\oiild ho more dependence upon his vote to
ithhold the necessary supplies, than upon
'hut of an anti-millifirr. It is only at home* you
have to dread liirn, if there lxy need for dread:
at all. But you mav rely upon it, tliere is |
nothing in that name, hostile to vour liberty, i
which originated with the greatest friend lib
erty has ever nad on this side of the Atlantic
ocean.. 'Though a constant effort is made to
throw around the word nullification the great
est possible odium, and to render it another
name lor treason, yet did not Mr. Jell' rson so
conceive it. It was employed to rid our
selves of the unconstitutional acts of Gieat-
Britain ; it was recommended by this immor
tal sage to subvert the tyranny of the sedition
law ; it has been successfully practised in our
own state, and I affirm that many other cases
can be adduced from other states. It means,
it can mean nothing more than, disobedience
to arbitrary and oppressive laws, and in that*
sense is there a man among you longer pre
pared to obey an edict that exacts half the
Intits of your labor, and forces from your hon
est ploughman such a slavish contribution as
that every furrow which he runs, under the
scorching beams of a summer’s sun, yield’s its
| produce to a northern nabob ? Who is there
I that is riot willing to wage an interminable
I war against an extortion that subjects you,
| jour property and vour posterity, to a tri.aite
j limited only by an interest that has been deaf
i to reason, dead to sympathy, blind to jus*ice,
and bent only upon the full fruition of its un
holy desires? Would to God you could have
personally witnessed the late deliberations of
Congress. I tell you by all that is* holy in
heaven, that this protective system is dictated
by tin; manufacturers themselves, that they
attend by committees, and agents, around the
halls of Congress, as to what must be taxed,
what must be free, and what must be the quan
tity of the burthens. I tell you in the same
j sacred manner, that members ofCongress rise
j from their places, and deliberately drawing
■ lrom their desks letters received from their
manufacturing constituents, will read out
I their demands for an increase of tuxes, <s: they
j are as deliberately granted against the ardent
| and repeated remonstrances of your protesting
; representatives. I tell you solemnly, that it
j is not an uncommon thing for those members
I friendly to the manufacturers, to fix the rate
el duty on one day, and then change it to a
! higher amount on the next day, at the mere
j instigation of manufacturing agents. I tell
j you that they assert on the floor of Congress,
j that the protective system shall never he re
[ pealed, and give as a reason that it was impo
sed by tac south, that the nation is now
: pledged to continue it, that the manufacturers
■ have twe hundred millions of money invested
jin the business, that to take off the system
would bankrupt the capitalists, blast the pros
pects of the fanners, beggar the operatives in
the Factories, and, in fine, reduce the manu
facturing districts to communities of paupers,
and ratlierthen submit to such a state of things
they say they are willing to dissolve the U
riion. They present the alternative that YOU
j or 'THEY must submit, and they most solemn
ly declare they shall not. What hope have
you from a prospect so gloomy, if you can be
lieve my testimony? And if in charity you
may flatter yourselves that I am deceived, if
my delusion is honest, can you blame me for
iny earnestness in the cause ? Have I not as
much stake as you have? Have I not the same
country? Havel not a home and a family'
among you, whose all is peiilled as well as
yours? Nay, more, have 1 not an interest,
different from yours, the greatest monied in
j terest 1 possess in the world, protected, in
common with other monopolies, by this very
i system? Had I not reason to btln ve that I
had, in an enlarged degree, acquired yotir
kind indulgence and increased confidence?
Could 1 not have returned home, and by a si
; lent, selfish course, enjoyed my property and
| popularity tree from the danger of losing eith
-1 ej,if I had been disposed to consider these as
the only objects worth regard, or the chief re
wards ol a generous and confiding people ?
Under circumstances like these, mine indeed
must be a fatal infatuation, but only accoreto
mo, what before heaven is true, an honest in
tention, and you may take back your trust to
morrow. I will yield it without a murmur,
and the consolation shall he mine, that i can
live under any government that you can, arid
and will have closed a political life free from
the reproaches of conscience.
A. 8. CLAYTON.
Coutmbcs, 25th August, 1832.
Gentlemen —Your letter of the 20th Aug.
covering the resolutions of the Richmond
meeting with your request to know my “senti
ments in regard to nullification,” has just
been received. When celled on by a public
meeting of my fellow-citizens, 1 feel no
difficulty in expressing my opinion upon
-subjects of public interest, when that subject
is presented tome
out of my power to give a specific answer,
in regard to a matter that 1 do not distinctly
understand. So many versions and readings
have been given to the term “ Nullification ,”
that 1 do not know in what sense, it is in
tended to be used by the meeting; and would
prefer postponing a reply, till l could be ;or
rectly informed. Least, however, I may be
subjected to the imputation of attempting
unnecessary delay, by waiting till 1 could re
ceive that information, I will endeavor, so
f/ir as I am able, to comply with that request,
and proceed to give you my opinions.
I agree then, with the third Virginia Res
olution, which I have long made part of my
political text book, and which reads thus :
“ That this assembly,” (the Virginia U -
gislature,) “ doth cxplicity declare, that it
vieevs the powers of the Federal Governriu nt,
as resulting from the compact to which C, (
states arc parties,as limited by the pin sense
and intention of the instrument constitution
the compact, and as no further valid, than are
authorised bv the great powersenumerated in
in that compact; and that in case of a de
liberate, palpable, nod dangerous exercise of
other papers, not granted by the ho id compact,
the States, irho arc the parties thereto, hart
the right, and are in duty bound, to interpose,
for arresting the progress of the eril, and for j
maintaining u ithin then respective limits, the
authorities, rights and liberties appertaining |
(o therp.
I believe, with Mr. Madison, “That I
when resort can lie had to no tribunal |
superior in authority to the
ties, themselevs, must be the ri P
m ihe last resort, Whether
lias been pursued or violated." lli;
States are the parties to the constd
compact in their sovereign capaed,
necessity, that tnerc can be no tab,
their authority, and consequently lh , {
parties to it, they must Uicuiselvtsf 111 *
in the last resort, such qu sttoi.s as
of sufficient magnitude to lustilv ti, ’•
position.
1 believe, therefore,that the „
of the United State s,i snot of su/trior U ,
ity to the States; and, with Af r i ?
“ that tiie judges of the same ar • L'tl
mate arbiters of all constitutional < me *
that it would be dangerous to i>ra , U ‘
that power, and would lead to the and ’
of an Oligarchy and with hiui IT*
lie ve, “ that the ultimate arbiter is
acting by their deputies in contentsft
1 am, therefore, Drought to the conci.,
that the Legislature of the states cam,,/
that the people of each state, acting bill
deputies in convention, must, i„ uj
which are of sufficient magnitude tin!
their interposition,” determine upon th,
per mode and measure of redress f 0
violation of the constitution. Ann/*
believe, with the meeting
v.ould be “ extremely dangerous” at an t
for the people to elect delegates toil
convention, and invest them with fall m
to maintain, preserve and defend tint*
ana privileges o, the free citze.is of this si
lor fain clearly oi opinion, the peoalc
fully competent to act for themselves fc.
he safely trusted with their own rights’ no,
and interests, even in u a moment of ex#
tnent like the present and have good
enough to select persons who-wiil | 10 „' e
& laiti.fully represent their wishes&fed,
l believe every unconstitutional U
Congress to be null and void, and has no If
force or obligation; and that each state
a right to treat it as a.nullity.
1 have entertained a doubt that
btatc of Georgia had the right, to clam,
the Creek lands within iicr limits, under
treaty of the Indian Springs, and to tr
as a nullity, the treaty subsequently madi
which she was deprived of a part of lhatia
1 believe that tlic State ot Georgia had
right to extend her laws over the Chero
nation; to try and execute Tasscdls; to
convict and sentence, to imprisonment in
l cnitentiary, Worcester and Butler, who
lused to obey the laws of Georgia; and to!
regard the decision of the Supreme f®
and tiie intercourse law of the United Sia
as unconstitutional and void.
I hat the btnte of Georgia has the ri
al.-o to survey and grant the kinds in
Cherokee nation, to her own citizens, indes
oj the said Intercourse law, and the Chin
treaties, though the United States should
tempt to prevent her by force.
And l believe tlie protective system,(wh
has been openly avowed and fully reeogt
by a large majority in the last session oft'
gress,) to he unconstitutional; that it slit
have no more force and effect than thei
treaty, the intercourse- law or the decisio
the Supreme Court; that Georgia has the s
right to treat it as a nullity; and thatth
the proper time, for her to call a coxvexi
of the feoi’le to consider and adopt the
per measures to compel its repeal.
“ Under tiiese momentous circumstait
the precise policy, which Georgia shi
adopt, remains to be determined. Rutin
that what ever contingencies may arisip
will want neither courage to sustain herho
nor counsel to temper her courage. Sk
no passion for change. She retains the stro
est attachment to the system of her adipti
But if her ow n government wrong herwi
had faith, which would not be emluraili
a stranger; if complaints of our injury, ar
be ansivred by the infliction of a greatei
she is now to be bullied because she mil
submit to be quietly duped it needs no s|
ot divination, to pronounce, that the port
are evil. Yet Ido r.ot despair. Ac;;!
plain, appeals to the common sense of
countrymen. Georgia sues for no fat
advances no fictitious pretentions ofya
day ; she contends for rights alone— ti
coeval with the republic and emblazon!
the rights of its birth. Let the sohertvil
of the nation ponder on her claims, unbis
>y the flippancy of pasW fanaticism, orol
astute follies of scholastic jurisprudence,
dor such correction,all may yet be well,
if this last hope is to fail: if Georgia isffl
proscribed ; if insulting tyrany, marking
for a victim, presents to her option, the
alternative of danger or degradation —
tombs of the Revolution! For you can prod
her choice!”
My opinions and feelings, have beer'
expressed by “Oglethorpe,” in the |*
ding paragraph. I do not desire to
tlicr. If these opinions subject me M
charge of “nullification,” I am willing*
bide the consequences. They are bear*
trie than any office of the State or thel"
States within the gift of t e people. I
not give them up; I will not retract lb
though even Calhoun or McDuffie show
prove and adopt them.
I am, gentlemen,
very respectful!'’ rours,
„ SEABORN JONES-
Messrrs^^innmf^^{ir^(infSlntisj^
SIO Reward . .
VV; Oil, be given for the apprehension ot
N * gro man named JOE Joe is anoo
years old, roguish looking, having bad ‘ ,|s
eye injured,.. .his back is well marked a.I
evidence of his character. Joe having r" 11
for nothing, I offer the above reward l ,f
DEAD OR ALIVE.
A. R. McLAUGHU*
Macon, Sept. 11, 1832.
FROM DARIEN TO 7/JRTFOM
lIRdI’OSALS will be received by Janie? 1
ry, P. M. Perry’s Mills, Tat rial I f), j|
for carrying the Mail in a two horse staT’
Darien to Hartford, once a week. e f, h v>ii b.
in the River Road to cross at Ball * ver -• 1
posnls will be reeved mull tho Ist October,
will then '.,0 forwarded to the
moDt <, ssmji. is, is3’.