It has perhaps been too much my habit to look more to the future and
less to the present than is wise; but such is the constitution of my
mind that when I see before me the indications of causes calculated to
effect important changes in our political condition, I am led
irresistibly to trace them to their sources and follow them out in their
consequences. Language has been held in this discussion which is clearly
revolutionary in its character and tendency, and which warns us of the
approach of the period when the struggle will be between the
_conservatives_ and the _destructives_. I understood the Senator from
Pennsylvania [Mr. Buchanan] as holding language countenancing the
principle that the will of a mere numerical majority is paramount to the
authority of law and constitution. He did not indeed announce distinctly
this principle, but it might fairly be inferred from what he said; for
he told us the people of a State where the constitution gives the same
weight to a smaller as to a greater number, might take the remedy into
their own hands; meaning, as I understood him, that a mere majority
might at their pleasure subvert the constitution and government of a
State,--which he seemed to think was the essence of democracy. Our
little State has a constitution that could not stand a day against such
doctrines, and yet we glory in it as the best in the Union. It is a
constitution which respects all the great interests of the State, giving
to each a separate and distinct voice in the management of its political
affairs, by means of which the feebler interests are protected against
the preponderance of the stronger. We call our State a Republic--a
Commonwealth, not a Democracy; and let me tell the Senator, it is a far
more popular government than if it had been based on the simple
principle of the numerical majority. It takes more voices to put the
machine of government in motion than in those that the Senator would
consider more popular. It represents all the interests of the
State,--and is in fact the government of the people in the true sense of
the term, and not that of the mere majority, or the dominant interests.
I am not familiar with the constitution of Maryland, to which the
Senator alluded, and cannot therefore speak of its structure with
confidence; but I believe it to be somewhat similar in its character to
our own. That it is a government not without its excellence, we need no
better proof than the fact that though within the shadow of Executive
influence, it has nobly and successfully resisted all the seductions by
which a corrupt and artful Administration, with almost boundless
patronage, has attempted to seduce her into its ranks.
Looking then to the approaching struggle, I take my stand immovably. _I
am a conservative in its broadest and fullest sense, and such I shall
ever remain, unless indeed the government shall become so corrupt and
disordered that nothing short of revolution can reform it._ I solemnly
believe that our political system is, in its purity, not only the best
that ever was formed, but the best possible that can be devised for us.
It is the only one by which free States, so populous and wealthy, and
occupying so vast an extent of territory, can preserve their liberty.
Thus thinking, I cannot hope for a better. Having no hope of a better, I
am a conservative; and _because I am a conservative, I am a State Rights
man_. I believe that in the rights of the States are to be found the
only effectual means of checking the overaction of this government; to
resist its tendency to concentrate all power here, and to prevent a
departure from the Constitution; or in case of one, to restore the
government to its original simplicity and purity. State interposition,
or to express it more fully, the right of a State to interpose her
sovereign voice, as one of the parties to our constitutional compact,
against the encroachments of this government, is the only means of
sufficient potency to effect all this; and I am therefore its advocate.
I rejoiced to hear the Senators from North Carolina [Mr. Brown], and
from Pennsylvania [Mr. Buchanan], do us the justice to distinguish
between nullification and the anarchical and revolutionary movements in
Maryland and Pennsylvania. I know they did not intend it as a
compliment; but I regard it as the highest. They are right. Day and
night are not more different--more unlike in everything. They are unlike
in their principles, their objects, and their consequences.
I shall not stop to make good this assertion, as I might easily do. The
occasion does not call for it. As a conservative and a State Rights man,
or if you will have it, a nullifier, I have resisted and shall resist
all encroachments on the Constitution--whether of this Government on the
rights of the States, or the opposite:--whether of the Executive on
Congress, or Congress on the Executive. My creed is to hold both
governments, and all the departments of each, to their proper sphere,
and to maintain the authority of the laws and the Constitution against
all revolutionary movements. I believe the means which our system
furnishes to preserve itself are ample, if fairly understood and
applied; and I shall resort to them, however corrupt and disordered the
times, so long as there is hope of reforming the government. The result
is in the hands of the Disposer of events. It is my part to do my duty.
Yet while I thus openly avow myself a conservative, God forbid I should
ever deny the glorious right of rebellion and revolution. Should
corruption and oppression become intolerable, and not otherwise be
thrown off--if liberty must perish or the government be overthrown, I
would not hesitate, at the hazard of life, to resort to revolution, and
to tear down a corrupt government that could neither be reformed nor
borne by freemen. But I trust in God things will never come to that
pass. I trust never to see such fearful times; for fearful indeed they
would be, if they should ever befall us. It is the last remedy, and not
to be thought of till common-sense and the voice of mankind would
justify the resort.
Before I resume my seat, I feel called on to make a few brief remarks on
a doctrine of fearful import which has been broached in the course of
this debate: the right to repeal laws granting bank charters, and of
course of railroads, turnpikes, and joint-stock companies. It is a
doctrine of fearful import, and calculated to do infinite mischief.
There are countless millions vested in such stocks, and it is a
description of property of the most delicate character. To touch it is
almost to destroy it. But while I enter my protest against all such
doctrines, I have been greatly alarmed with the thoughtless precipitancy
(not to use a stronger phrase) with which the most extensive and
dangerous privileges have been granted of late. It can end in no good,
and I fear may be the cause of convulsions hereafter. We already feel
the effects on the currency, which no one competent of judging can fail
to see is in an unsound condition. I must say (for truth compels me) I
have ever distrusted the banking system, at least in its present form,
both in this country and Great Britain. It will not stand the test of
time; but I trust that all shocks or sudden revolutions may be avoided,
and that it may gradually give way before some sounder and better
regulated system of credit which the growing intelligence of the age may
devise. That a better may be substituted I cannot doubt; but of what it
shall consist, and how it shall finally supersede the present uncertain
and fluctuating currency, time alone can determine. All that I can see
is, that the present must, one day or another, come to an end or be
greatly modified--if that indeed can save it from an entire overthrow.
It has within itself the seeds of its own destruction.