In rising to make the acknowledgments which are due from me, for
the sentiment which has been just drunk, and for the honors which
have been spontaneously rendered to me on my approach, and during
my visit to this city, I feel more than ever the incompetency of all
language adequately to express the grateful feelings of my heart.
Of these distinguished honors, crowned heads themselves might well
be proud. They indeed possess a value far surpassing that of any
similar testimonies which could be offered to the chief of an absolute
government. There, they are, not unfrequently, tendered by reluctant
subjects, awed by a sense of terror, or impelled by a spirit of
servility. Here, in this land of equal laws and equal liberty, they
are presented to a private fellow-citizen, possessing neither office
nor power, nor enjoying any rights and privileges which are not common
to every member of the community. Power could not buy nor deter them.
And, what confers an estimable value on them to me――what makes them
alone worthy of you, or more acceptable to their object, is that they
are offered, not to the man, but to the public principles and public
interests, which you are pleased to associate with his name. On this
occasion, too, they emanate from one of those great productive classes
which form the main pillars of public liberty, and public prosperity.
I thank you, fellow-citizens, most cordially, for these endearing
proofs of your friendly attachment. They have made an impression of
gratitude on my heart, which can never be effaced, during the residue
of my life. I avail myself of this last opportunity of being present at
any large collection of my fellow-citizens of Ohio, during my present
visit, to express my respectful acknowledgments for the hospitality and
kindness with which I have been every where received and entertained.
Throughout my journey, undertaken solely for private purposes, there
has been a constant effort on my side, to repress, and, on that of
my fellow-citizens of Ohio, to exhibit public manifestations of their
affection and confidence. It has been marked by a succession of civil
triumphs. I have been escorted from village to village, and have every
where found myself surrounded by large concourses of my fellow-citizens,
often of both sexes, greeting and welcoming me. Nor should I do justice
to my feelings, if I confined the expression of my obligations to those
only with whom I had the happiness to agree, on a late public event.
They are equally due to the candid and liberal of those from whom
it was my misfortune to differ on that occasion, for their exercise
towards me of all the rights of hospitality and neighborly courtesy.
It is true, that in one or two of the towns through which I passed, I
was informed, that attempts were made, by a few political zealots, to
dissuade portions of my fellow-citizens from visiting and saluting me.
These zealots seemed to apprehend, that an invading army was about to
enter the town; that it was necessary to sound the bells, to beat the
drums, to point the cannon, and to make all needful preparations for
a resolute assault, and a gallant defence. They were accordingly seen
in the streets, and at public places, beating up for recruits, and
endeavoring to drill their men. But I believe there were only a few
who were awed by their threats, or seduced by their bounty, to enlist
in such a cause. The great body of those who thought differently from
me, in the instance referred to, remained firm and immovable. They
could not comprehend that it was wrong to extend to a stranger from
a neighboring state, the civilities which belong to social life.
They could not comprehend that it was right to transform political
differences into deadly animosities. Seeing that varieties in the mode
of worshipping the great Ruler of the universe did not disturb the
harmony of private intercourse, they could not comprehend the propriety
of extending to mortal man a sacrifice which is not offered to our
immortal Father, of all the friendly and social feelings of our nature,
because we could not all agree as to the particular exercise of the
elective franchise. As independent and intelligent freemen, they would
not consent to submit to an arrogant usurpation which assumed the right
to control their actions, and to regulate the feelings of their hearts,
and they scorned with indignation, to yield obedience to the mandates
of would-be dictators. To quiet the apprehensions of these zealots,
I assure them, that I do not march at the head of any military force;
that I have neither horse, foot, nor dragoon, and that I travel with
my friend Charles, (a black boy, residing in my family, for whom I feel
the same sort of attachment that I do for my own children,) without
sword, pistol, or musket! Another species of attempted embarrassment
has been practiced by an individual of this city. About an hour before
I left my lodgings for this spot, he caused a packet to be left in
my room by a little boy, who soon made his exit. Upon opening it, I
looked at the signature, and _that_ was enough for me. It contained a
long list of interrogatories, which I was required publicly to answer.
I read only one or two of them. There are some men whose contact
is pollution. I can recognize no right in the person in question to
catechize me. I can have no intercourse with one who is a disgrace to
the gallant and generous nation from which he sprang. I cannot stop to
be thus interrogated by a man whose nomination to a paltry office, was
rejected by nearly the unanimous vote of the senate; I must be excused
if, when addressing my friends, the mechanics of Cincinnati, I will not
speak from _his_ notes. On the renewal of the charter of the present
bank of the United States, which I believe formed the subject of one
or two of these interrogatories, I will say a few words for your, not
his sake. I will observe, in the first place, that I am not in favor
of such a bank as was recommended in the message of the president of
the United States, at the commencement of the last session of congress;
that, with the committee of the two houses, I concur in thinking it
would be an institution of a dangerous and alarming character; and
that, fraught as it would be with the most corrupting tendencies, it
might be made powerfully instrumental in overturning our liberties. As
to the existing bank, I think it has been generally administered, and
particularly of late years, with great ability and integrity; that it
has fulfilled all the reasonable expectations of those who constituted
it; and, with the same committees, I think it has made an approximation
towards the equalization of the currency, as great as is practicable.
Whether the charter ought to be renewed or not, near six years hence,
in my judgment, is a question of expediency to be decided by the then
existing state of the country. It will be necessary at that time, to
look carefully at the condition both of the bank and of the union.
To ascertain, if the public debt shall, in the mean time, be paid
off, what effect that will produce? What will be our then financial
condition? what that of local banks, the state of our commerce, foreign
and domestic, as well as the concerns of our currency generally? I am,
therefore, not now prepared to say, whether the charter ought, or ought
not, to be renewed on the expiration of its present term. The bank
may become insolvent, and may hereafter forfeit all pretensions to
a renewal. The question is premature. I may not be alive to form
any opinion upon it. It belongs to posterity, and if they would have
the goodness to decide for us some of the perplexing and practical
questions of the present day, we might be disposed to decide that
remote question for them. As it is, it ought to be indefinitely
postponed.
With respect to the American system, which demands your undivided
approbation, and in regard to which you are pleased to estimate much
too highly my service, its great object is to secure the independence
of our country, to augment its wealth, and to diffuse the comforts of
civilization throughout society. That object, it has been supposed,
can be best accomplished by introducing, encouraging, and protecting
the arts among us. It may be called a system of real reciprocity, under
the operation of which one citizen or one part of the country, can
exchange one description of the produce of labor, with another citizen
or another part of the country, for a different description of the
produce of labor. It is a system which develops, improves, and perfects
the capabilities of our common country, and enables us to avail
ourselves of all the resources with which Providence has blest us.
To the laboring classes it is invaluable, since it increases and
multiplies the demands for their industry, and gives them an option of
employments. It adds power and strength to our union, by new ties of
interest, blending and connecting together all its parts, and creating
an interest with each in the prosperity of the whole. It secures to
our own country, whose skill and enterprise, properly fostered and
sustained, cannot be surpassed, those vast profits which are made in
other countries by the operation of converting the raw material into
manufactured articles. It naturalizes and creates within the bosom
of our country, all the arts; and, mixing the farmer, manufacturer,
mechanic, artist, and those engaged in other vocations, together,
admits of those mutual exchanges, so conducive to the prosperity of
all and every one, free from the perils of sea and war;――all this
it effects, whilst it nourishes and leaves a fair scope to foreign
trade. Suppose we were a nation that clad ourselves, and made all the
implements necessary to civilization, but did not produce our own bread,
which we brought from foreign countries, although our own was capable
of producing it, under the influence of suitable laws of protection,
ought not such laws to be enacted? The ease supposed is not essentially
different from the real state of things which led to the adoption of
the American system.
That system has had a wonderful success. It has more than realized
all the hopes of its founders. It has completely falsified all the
predictions of its opponents. It has increased the wealth, and power,
and population of the nation. It has diminished the price of articles
of consumption, and has placed them within the reach of a far greater
number of our people than could have found means to command them, if
they had been manufactured abroad instead of at home.
But it is useless to dwell on the argument in support of this
beneficent system before this audience. It will be of more consequence
here to examine some of the objections which are still urged against
it, and the means which are proposed to subvert it. These objections
are now principally confined to its operation upon the great staple
of cotton wool, and they are urged with most vehemence in a particular
state. If the objections are well founded, the system should be
modified, as far as it can consistently with interest, in other parts
of the union. If they are not well founded, it is to be hoped they will
be finally abandoned.
In approaching the subject, I have thought it of importance to inquire,
what was the profit made upon capital employed in the culture of cotton,
at its present reduced price. The result has been information, that
it nets from seven to eighteen per cent. per annum, varying according
to the advantage of situation, and the degree of skill, judgment, and
industry, applied to the production of the article. But the lowest rate
of profit, in the scale, is more than the greatest amount which is made
on capital employed in the farming portions of the union.
If the cotton planter have any just complaint against the expediency
of the American system, it must be founded on the fact, that he either
sells _less_ of his staple, or sells at _lower_ prices, or purchases
for consumption, articles at _dearer_ rates, or of _worse_ qualities,
in consequence of that system, than he would do, if it did not exist.
If he would neither sell more of his staple, nor sell it at better
prices, nor could purchase better or cheaper articles for consumption,
provided the system did not exist, then he has no cause, on the score
of its burdensome operation, to complain of the system, but must look
to other sources for the grievances which he supposes afflict him.
As respects the sale of his staple, it would be indifferent to the
planter, whether one portion of it was sold in Europe, and the other
in America, provided the aggregate of both were equal to all that he
could sell in one market, if he had but one, and provided he could
command the same price in both cases. The double market would indeed
be something better for him, because of its greater security in time
of war as well as in peace, and because it would be attended with
less perils and less charges. If there be an equal amount of the raw
material manufactured, it must be immaterial to the cotton planter,
in the sale of the article, whether there be two theatres of the
manufacture, one in Europe and the other in America, or but one in
Europe; or if there be a difference, it will be in favor of the two
places of manufacture, instead of one, for reasons already assigned,
and others that will be hereafter stated.
It could be of no advantage to the cotton planter, if all the
cotton, now manufactured both in Europe and America, was manufactured
exclusively in Europe, and an amount of cotton fabrics should be
brought back from Europe, equal to both what is now brought from
there, and what is manufactured in the United States, together. Whilst
he would gain nothing, the United States would lose the profit and
employment resulting from the manufacture of that portion which is now
wrought up by the manufacturers of the United States.
Unless, therefore, it can be shown, that, by the reduction of import
duties, and the overthrow of the American system, and by limiting the
manufacture of cotton to Europe, a greater amount of the raw material
would be consumed than is at present, it is difficult to see what
interest, so far as respects the sale of that staple, the cotton
planter has in the subversion of that system. If a reduction of duties
would admit of larger investments in British or European fabrics
of cotton, and their subsequent importation into this country, this
additional supply would take the place, if consumed, of an equal
amount of American manufactures, and consequently would not augment
the general consumption of the raw material. Additional importation
does not necessarily imply increased consumption, especially when it
is effected by a policy which would impair the ability to purchase and
consume.
Upon the supposition just made, of a restriction to Europe of the
manufacture of cotton, would more or less of the article be consumed
than now is? More could not be, unless, in consequence of such a
monopoly of the manufacture, Europe could sell more than she now does.
But to what countries could she sell more? She gets the raw material
now unburdened by any duties except such moderate ones as her policy,
not likely to be changed, imposes. She is enabled thereby to sell as
much of the manufactured article as she can find markets for in the
states within her own limits, or in foreign countries. The destruction
of the American manufacture would not induce her to sell cheaper,
but might enable her to sell dearer, than she now does. The ability
of those foreign countries, to purchase and consume, would not be
increased by the annihilation of our manufactures, and the monopoly of
European manufacture. The probability is, that those foreign countries,
by the fact of that monopoly, and some consequent increase of price,
would be worse and dearer supplied than they now are, under the
operation of a competition between America and Europe in their supply.
At most, the United States, after the transfer from their territory to
Europe, of the entire manufacture of the article, could not consume,
of European fabrics from cotton, a greater amount than they now derive
from Europe, and from manufactures within their own limits.
But it is confidently believed, that the consumption of cotton
fabrics, on the supposition which has been made, within the United
States, would be much less than it is at present. It would be less
because the American consumer would not possess the means or ability
to purchase as much of the European fabric as he now does to buy
the American. Europe purchases but little of the produce of the
northern, middle, and western regions of the United States. The staple
productions of those regions are excluded from her consumption by her
policy, or by her native supplies of similar productions. The effect,
therefore, of obliging the inhabitants of those regions to depend upon
the cotton manufactures of Europe for necessary supplies of the article,
would be alike injurious to them, and to the cotton grower. They would
suffer from their inability to supply their wants, and there would be a
consequent diminution of the consumption of cotton. By the location of
the manufacture in the United States, the quantity of cotton consumed
is increased, and the more numerous portion of their inhabitants, who
would not be otherwise sufficiently supplied, are abundantly served.
That this is the true state of things, I think cannot be doubted by
any reflecting and unprejudiced man. The establishment of manufactures
within the United States, enables the manufacturer to sell to the
farmer, the mechanic, the physician, the lawyer, and all who are
engaged in other pursuits of life; and these, in their turns, supply
the manufacturer with subsistence, and whatever else his wants require.
Under the influence of the protecting policy, many new towns have
been built, and old ones enlarged. The population of these places draw
their subsistence from the farming interest of our country, their fuel
from our forests and coal mines, and the raw materials from which they
fashion and fabricate, from the cotton planter and the mines of our
country. These mutual exchanges, so animating and invigorating to the
industry of the people of the United States, could not possibly be
effected between America and Europe, if the latter enjoyed the monopoly
of manufacturing.
It results, therefore, that, so far as the sale of the great southern
staple is concerned, a greater quantity is sold and consumed, and
consequently better prices are obtained, under the operation of the
American system, than would be without it. Does that system oblige the
cotton planters to buy dearer or worse articles of consumption than he
could purchase, if it did not exist?
The same cause of American and European competition, which enables
him to sell more of the produce of his industry, and at better prices,
also enables him to buy cheaper and better articles for consumption.
It cannot be doubted, that the tendency of the competition between
the European and American manufacturer, is to reduce the price and
improve the quality of their respective fabrics, whenever they come
into collision. This is the immutable law of all competition. If the
American manufacture were discontinued, Europe would then exclusively
furnish those supplies which are now derived from the establishments
in both continents, and the first consequence would be, an augmentation
of the demand, beyond the supply, equal to what is now manufactured
in the United States, but which, in the contingency supposed, would be
wrought in Europe. If the destruction of the American manufactures were
sudden, there would be a sudden and probably a considerable rise in the
European fabrics. Although, in the end, they might be again reduced,
it is not likely that the ultimate reduction of the prices would be
to such rates as if both the workshops of America and Europe remained
sources of supply. There would also be a sudden reduction in the price
of the raw material, in consequence of the cessation of American demand.
And this reduction would be permanent, if the supposition be correct,
that there would be a diminution in the consumption of cotton fabrics,
arising out of the inability, on the part of large portions of the
people of the United States, to purchase those of Europe.
That the effect of competition between the European and American
manufacture, has been to supply the American consumer with cheaper
and better articles, since the adoption of the American system,
notwithstanding the existence of causes which have obstructed its
fair operation, and retarded its full development, is incontestable.
Both the freeman and the slave are now better and cheaper supplied
than they were prior to the existence of that system. Cotton fabrics
have diminished in price, and been improved in their texture, to an
extent that it is difficult for the imagination to keep pace with.
Those partly of cotton and partly of wool are also better and cheaper
supplied. The same observation is applicable to those which are
exclusively wrought of wool, iron, or glass. In short, it is believed
that there is not one item of the tariff inserted for the protection
of native industry, which has not fallen in price. The American
competition has tended to keep down the European rival fabric, and the
European has tended to lower the American.
Of what then can the South Carolina planter justly complain in the
operation of this system? What is there in it which justifies the
harsh and strong epithets which some of her politicians have applied
to it? What is there in her condition, which warrants their assertion,
that she is oppressed by a government to which she stands in the mere
relation of a colony?
She is oppressed by a great reduction in the price of manufactured
articles of consumption.
She is oppressed by the advantage of two markets for the sale of her
valuable staple, and for the purchase of objects required by her wants.
She is oppressed by better prices for that staple than she could
command, if the system to which they object did not exist.
She is oppressed by the option of purchasing cheaper and better
articles, the produce of the hands of American freemen, instead of
dearer and worse articles, the produce of the hands of British subjects.
She is oppressed by the measures of a government in which she has had,
for many years, a larger proportion of power and influence, at home
and abroad, than any state in the whole union, in comparison with the
population.
A glance at the composition of the government of the union, will
demonstrate the truth of this last proposition. In the senate of the
United States, South Carolina having the presiding officer, exercises
nearly one sixteenth instead of one twenty-fourth part of both its
legislative and executive functions.
In both branches of congress, some of her citizens now occupy, as
chairmen of committees, the most important and influential stations.
In the supreme court of the United States, one of her citizens being
a member, she has one seventh part, instead of about one twentieth,
her equal proportion of the whole power vested in that tribunal. Until
within a few months, she had nearly one third of all the missions of
the first grade, from this to foreign countries. In a contingency,
which is far from impossible, a citizen of South Carolina would
instantly become charged with the administration of the whole of the
vast power and patronage of the United States.
Yet her situation has been compared to that of a colony which has _no
voice_ in the laws enacted by the parent country for its subjection!
And to be relieved from this cruel state of vassalage, and to put down
a system which has been established by the united voice of all America,
some of her politicians have broached a doctrine as new as it would
be alarming, if it were sustained by numbers in proportion to the zeal
and fervid eloquence with which it is inculcated. I call it a novel
doctrine. I am not unaware that attempts have been made to support
it on the authority of certain acts of my native and adopted states.
Although many of their citizens are much more competent than I am
to vindicate them from this imputation of purposes of disunion and
rebellion, my veneration and affection for them both, urge me to bear
my testimony of their innocence of such a charge. At the epoch of
1798–9, I had just attained my majority, and although I was too young
to share in the public councils of my country, I was acquainted with
many of the actors of that memorable period; I knew their views,
and formed and freely expressed my own opinions on passing events.
The then administration of the general government was believed to
entertain views (whether the belief was right or wrong is not material
to this argument, and is now an affair of history,) hostile to the
existence of the liberties of this country. The alien and sedition laws,
particularly, and other measures, were thought to be the consequences
and proofs of those views. If the administration had such a purpose, it
was feared that the extreme case, justifying forcible resistance, might
arise, but no one believed that, in point of fact, it had arrived. No
one contended that a _single_ state possessed the power to annul the
deliberate acts of the whole. And the best evidence of these remarks is
the fact, that the most odious of those laws, (the sedition act,) was
peaceably enforced in the capitol of that great state which took the
lead in opposition to the existing administration.
The doctrines of that day, and they are as true at this, were, that the
federal government is a limited government; that it has no powers but
the granted powers. Virginia contended, that in case ‘of a _palpable_,
deliberate, and dangerous exercise of other powers not granted by
said compact, the _states_, who are parties thereto, have the right to
interpose for arresting the progress of the evil, and for maintaining,
within their respective limits, the authorities, rights, and liberties,
appertaining to them.’ Kentucky declared, that the ‘several states,
that framed that instrument, the federal constitution, being sovereign
and independent, have the unquestionable right to _judge_ of its
instructions, and a nullification _by those sovereignties_, of all
unauthorized acts, done under color of that instrument, is the rightful
remedy.’
Neither of these two commonwealths asserted the right of a single state
to interpose and annul an act of the whole. This is an inference drawn
from the doctrines then laid down, and it is not a principle expressly
asserted or fairly deducible from the language of either. Both refer
to _the states_ collectively, (and not individually,) when they assert
their right, in case of federal usurpation, to interpose ‘for arresting
the progress of evil.’ Neither state ever did, no state ever yet has,
by its separate legislation, undertaken to set aside an act of congress.
That the states _collectively_, may interpose their authority to check
the evils of federal usurpation, is manifest. They may dissolve the
union. They may alter, at pleasure, the character of the constitution,
by amendment; they may annul any acts purporting to have been passed
in conformity to it, or they may, by their elections, change the
functionaries to whom the administration of its powers is confided. But
no one state, by itself, is competent to accomplish these objects. The
power of a single state to annul an act of the whole, has been reserved
for the discovery of some politicians in South Carolina.
It is not my purpose, upon an occasion so unfit, to discuss this
pretension. Upon another and a more suitable theatre, it has been
examined and refuted, with an ability and eloquence, which have never
been surpassed on the floor of congress. But, as it is announced to
be one of the means which is intended to be employed to break down the
American system, I trust that I shall be excused for a few additional
passing observations. On a late festive occasion, in the state where
it appears to find most favor, it is said, by a gentleman whom I
once proudly called my friend and towards whom I have done nothing to
change that relation,――a gentleman who has been high in the councils
and confidence of the nation, that the tariff must be resisted _at
all hazards_. Another gentleman, who is a candidate for the chief
magistracy of that state, declares that the _time_ and the _case_ for
resistance had arrived. And a third, a senator of the United States,
who enjoys unbounded confidence with the American executive, laid
down principles and urged arguments tending directly and inevitably to
violent resistance, although he did not indicate that as his specific
remedy.
The doctrine of some of the South Carolina politicians is, that it
is competent to that state to annul, within its limits, the authority
of an act deliberately passed by the congress of the United States.
They do not appear to have looked much, beyond the simple act of
nullification, into the consequences which would ensue, and have not
distinctly announced, whether one of them might not necessarily be,
to light up a civil war. They seem, however, to suppose, that the
state might, after the act was performed, remain a member of the union.
Now if one state can, by an act of its separate power, absolve itself
from the obligations of a law of congress, and continue a part of the
union, it could hardly be expected, that any other state would render
obedience to the same law. Either every other state would follow the
nullifying example, or congress would feel itself constrained, by a
sense of equal duty to all parts of the union, to repeal altogether
the nullified law. Thus, the doctrine of South Carolina, although
it nominally assumes to act for one state only, in effect, would be
legislating for the whole union.
Congress embodies the collective will of the whole union, and that of
South Carolina among its other members. The legislation of congress is,
therefore, founded upon the basis of the representation of all. In the
legislature, or a convention of South Carolina, the will of the people
of that state is alone collected. They alone are represented, and the
people of no other state have any voice in their proceedings. To set
up for that state a claim, by a separate exercise of its power, to
legislate, in effect, for the whole union, is to assert a pretension
at war with the fundamental principles of all representative and free
governments. It would practically subject the unrepresented people of
all other parts of the union to the arbitrary and despotic power of one
state. It would substantially convert them into colonies, bound by the
parental authority of that state.
Nor can this enormous pretension derive any support from the
consideration, that the power to annul, is different from the power
to originate laws. Both powers are, in their nature, legislative, and
the mischiefs which might, accrue to the republic from the annulment of
its wholesome laws, may be just as great as those which would flow from
the origination of bad laws. There are three things to which, more than
all others, mankind in all ages, have shown themselves to be attached;
their religion, _their laws_, and their language.
But it has been argued, in the most solemn manner, ‘that the
acknowledgments of the exclusive right of the federal government to
determine the limits of its own powers, amounts to a recognition of
its absolute supremacy over the states and the people, and involves
the sacrifice not only of our dearest rights and interests, but the
very existence of the southern states.’
In cases where there are two systems of government, operating at the
same time and place, over the same people, the one general, the other
local or particular, one system or the other must possess the right
to decide upon the extent of the powers, in cases of collision, which
are claimed by the general government. No third party, of sufficient
impartiality, weight, and responsibility, other than such a tribunal
as a supreme court, has yet been devised, or perhaps can be created.
The doctrine of one side is, that the general government, though
limited in its nature, must necessarily possess the power to ascertain
what authority it has, and, by consequence, the extent of that
authority. And that, if its legislative or executive functionaries, by
act, transcend that authority, the question may be brought before the
supreme court, and, being affirmatively decided by that tribunal, their
act must be obeyed until repealed or altered by competent power.
Against the tendency of this doctrine to absorb all power, those
who maintain it, think there are reasonable, and, they hope,
sufficient securities. In the first place, all are represented in
every legislative or executive act, and of course, each state can
exert its proper influence, to prevent the adoption of any that may be
deemed prejudicial or unconstitutional. Then, there are sacred oaths,
elections, public virtue and intelligence, the power of impeachment, a
common subjection to both systems of those functionaries who act under
either, the right of the states to interpose and amend the constitution,
or to dissolve the union; and, finally, the right, in extreme cases,
when all other remedies fail, to resist insupportable oppression.
The necessity being felt, by the framers of the constitution, to
declare which system should be supreme, and believing that the
securities now enumerated, or some of them, were adequate, they have
accordingly provided, that the constitution of the United States,
and the laws made in pursuance of it, and all treaties made under the
authority of the United States, shall be the _supreme law_ of the land;
and that the judicial power shall extend to _all_ cases arising under
the constitution, laws, or treaties, of the United States.
The South Carolina doctrine, on the other side, is, that that state
has the right to determine the limits of the powers granted to the
general government; and that whenever any of its acts transcend those
limits, in the opinion of the state of South Carolina, she is competent
to annul them. If the power, with which the federal government is
invested by the constitution, to determine the limits of its authority,
be liable to the possible danger of ultimate consolidation, and all
the safeguards which have been mentioned might prove inadequate, is
not this power, claimed for South Carolina, fraught with infinitely
more certain, immediate, and fatal danger? It would reverse the rule of
supremacy prescribed in the constitution. It would render the authority
of a single state paramount to that of the whole union. For undoubtedly,
that government, to some extent, must be supreme, which can annul and
set aside the acts of another.
The securities which the people of other parts of the United States
possess against the abuse of this tremendous power claimed for South
Carolina, will be found, on comparison, to be greatly inferior to those
which she has against the possible abuses of the general government.
They have no voice in her councils; they could not, by the exercise
of the elective franchise, change her rulers; they could not impeach
her judges, they could not alter her constitution, nor abolish her
government.
Under the South Carolina doctrine, if established, the consequence
would be a dissolution of the union, immediate, inevitable,
irresistible. There would be twenty-four chances to one against its
continued existence. The apprehended dangers of the opposite doctrine,
remote, contingent, and hardly possible, are greatly exaggerated; and,
against their realization, all the precautions have been provided,
which human wisdom and patriotic foresight could conceive and devise.
Those who are opposed to the supremacy of the constitution, laws,
and treaties of the United States, are adverse to all union, whatever
contrary professions they may make. For it may be truly affirmed, that
no confederacy of states can exist without a power, somewhere residing
in the government of that confederacy, to determine the extent of the
authority granted to it by the confederating states.
It is admitted, that the South Carolina doctrine is liable to abuse;
but it is contended, that the _patriotism_ of each state is an adequate
security, and that the nullifying power would only be exercised ‘in
an extraordinary case, where the powers reserved to the states, under
the constitution, are usurped by the federal government.’ And is not
the _patriotism_ of _all_ the states, as great a safeguard against the
assumption of powers, not conferred upon the general government, as
the patriotism of one state is against the denial of powers which are
clearly granted? But the nullifying power is only to be exercised in
an _extraordinary_ case. Who is to judge of this extraordinary case?
What security is there, especially in moments of great excitement,
that a state may not pronounce the plainest and most common exercise
of federal power an _extraordinary case_? The expressions in the
constitution, ‘general welfare,’ have been often justly criticised,
and shown to convey, in themselves, no power, although they may
indicate how the delegated power should be exercised. But this doctrine
of an extraordinary case, to be judged of and applied by one of the
twenty-four sovereignties, is replete with infinitely more danger, than
the doctrine of the ‘general welfare,’ in the hands of all.
We may form some idea of future abuses under the South Carolina
doctrine, by the application which is now proposed to be made
of it. The American system is said to furnish an _extraordinary
case_, justifying that state to nullify it. The power to regulate
foreign commerce, by a tariff, so adjusted as to foster our domestic
manufactures, has been exercised from the commencement of our present
constitution down to the last session of congress. I have been a member
of the house of representatives at three different periods, when the
subject of the tariff was debated at great length, and on neither,
according to my recollection, was the want of a constitutional power
in congress, to enact it, dwelt on as forming a serious and substantial
objection to its passage. On the last occasion (I think it was) in
which I participated in the debate, it was incidentally said to be
against the spirit of the constitution. Whilst the authority of the
father of the constitution is invoked to sanction, by a perversion of
his meaning, principles of disunion and rebellion, it is rejected to
sustain the controverted power, although his testimony in support of
it has been clearly and explicitly rendered. This power, thus asserted,
exercised, and maintained, in favor of which leading politicians
in South Carolina have themselves voted, is alleged to furnish ‘an
_extraordinary case_,’ where the powers reserved to the states, under
the constitution, are usurped by the general government. If it be,
there is scarcely a statute in our code which would not present a case
equally extraordinary, justifying South Carolina or any other state to
nullify it.
The United States are not only threatened with the nullification
of numerous acts, which they have deliberately passed, but with a
withdrawal of one of the members from the confederacy. If the unhappy
case should ever occur, of a state being really desirous to separate
itself from the union, it would present two questions. The first would
be, whether it had a right to withdraw, without the common consent
of the members; and supposing, as I believe, no such right to exist,
whether it would be expedient to yield consent. Although there may be
power to prevent a secession, it might be deemed politic to allow it.
It might be considered expedient to permit the refractory state to take
the portion of goods that falleth to her, to suffer her to gather her
all together, and to go off with her living. But, if a state should be
willing, and allowed thus to depart, and to renounce her future portion
of the inheritance of this great, glorious, and prosperous republic,
she would speedily return, and, in language of repentance, say to the
other members of this union, brethren, ‘I have sinned against heaven
and before thee.’ Whether they would kill the fatted calf, and, chiding
any complaining member of the family, say, ‘this thy sister was dead,
and is alive again; and was lost, and is found,’ I sincerely pray the
historian may never have occasion to record.
But nullification and disunion are not the only, nor the most
formidable, means of assailing the tariff. Its opponents opened the
campaign at the last session of congress, and, with the most obliging
frankness, have since publicly exposed their plan of operations. It
is, to divide and conquer; to attack and subdue the system in detail.
They began by reducing the duty on salt and molasses, and, restoring
the drawback of the duty on the latter article, allowed the exportation
of spirits distilled from it. To all who are interested in the
distillation of spirits from native materials, whether fruit, molasses,
or grain, this latter measure is particularly injurious. During the
administration of Mr. Adams, the duty on foreign molasses was augmented,
and the drawback, which had been previously allowed of the duty upon
the exportation of spirits distilled from it, was repealed. The object
was to favor native produce, and to lessen the competition of foreign
spirits, or spirits distilled from foreign materials, with spirits
distilled from domestic material. It was deemed to be especially
advantageous to the western country, a great part of whose grain can
only find markets at home and abroad by being converted into distilled
spirits. Encouraged by this partial success, the foes of the tariff may
next attempt to reduce the duties on iron, woollens, and cotton fabrics,
successively. The American system of protection should be regarded,
as it is, an entire and comprehensive system, made up of various items,
and aiming at the prosperity of the whole union, by protecting the
interests of each part. Every part, therefore, has a direct interest in
the protection which it enjoys of the articles, which its agriculture
produces, or its manufactories fabricate, and also a collateral
interest in the protection which other portions of the union derive
from their peculiar interests. Thus, the aggregate of the prosperity
of all is constituted by the sums of the prosperity of each.
Take any one article of the tariff, (iron, for example,) and there is
no such _direct_ interest in its protection, pervading the major part
of the United States, as would induce congress to encourage it, if
it stood alone. The states of Pennsylvania, New Jersey, New York, and
Kentucky, which are most concerned, are encouraged in the production
or manufacture of this article, in consequence of the adoption of a
general principle, which extends protection to other interests in other
parts of the union.
The stratagem which has been adopted by the foes of the system, to
destroy it, requires the exercise of constant vigilance and firmness,
to prevent the accomplishment of the object. They have resolved
to divide and conquer――the friends of the system should assume the
revolutionary motto of our ancestors, ‘united we stand, divided we
fall.’ They should allow no alteration in any part of the system, as
it now exists, which did not aim at rendering more efficacious the
system of protection, on which the whole is founded. Every one should
reflect, that it is not equal, to have a particular interest which he
is desirous should be fostered, in his part of the country, protected
against foreign competition, without his being willing to extend the
principle to other interests, deserving protection, in other parts of
the union.
But the measure of reducing the duty on salt and molasses, and
reviving the drawback on the importation of spirits distilled from
molasses, was an attack on the system, less alarming than another which
was made during the last session of congress, on a kindred system.
If any thing could be considered as settled, under the present
constitution of our government, I had supposed that it was its
authority to construct such internal improvements as may be deemed by
congress necessary and proper to carry into effect the power granted
to it. For nearly twenty-five years, the power has been asserted and
exercised by the government. For the last fifteen years it has been
often controverted in congress, but it has been invariably maintained,
in that body, by repeated decisions, pronounced, after full and
elaborate debate, and at intervals of time implying the greatest
deliberation. Numerous laws attest the existence of the power; and
no less than twenty-odd laws have been passed in relation to a single
work. This power, necessary to all parts of the union, is indispensable
to the west. Without it, this section can never enjoy any part of the
benefit of a regular disbursement of the vast revenues of the United
States. I recollect perfectly well, that, at the last great struggle
for the power, in 1824, Mr. P. P. Barbour, of Virginia, the principal
champion against it, observed to me, that if it were affirmed on that
occasion, (Mr. Hemphill’s survey bill,) he should consider the question
settled. And it was affirmed.
Yet we are told, that this power can no longer be exercised without
an amendment of the constitution! On the occasion in South Carolina,
to which I have already adverted, it was said, that the tariff and
internal improvements are intimately connected, and that the death-blow
which it was hoped the one had received, will finally destroy the other.
I concur in the opinion, that they are intimately, if not indissolubly,
united. Not connected together, with the fraudulent intent which has
been imputed, but by their nature, by the tendency of each to advance
the objects of the other, and of both to augment the sum of national
prosperity.
If I could believe that the executive message, which was communicated
to congress upon the application of the veto to the Maysville road,
really expressed the opinion of the president of the United States,
in consequence of the unfortunate relations which have existed between
us, I would forbear to make any observation upon it. It has his name
affixed to it; but it is not every paper which bears the name of a
distinguished personage, that is his, or expresses his opinions. We
have been lately informed, that the unhappy king of England, in perhaps
his last illness, transmitted a paper to parliament, with his royal
signature attached to it, which became an object of great curiosity.
Can any one believe, that that paper conveyed any other sentiments
than those of his majesty’s ministers? It is impossible, that the veto
message should express the opinions of the president, and I prove it
by evidence derived from himself. Not forty days before that message
was sent to congress, he approved a bill embracing appropriations to
various objects of internal improvement, and among others, to improve
the navigation of Conneaut creek. Although somewhat acquainted with the
geography of our country, I declare, I did not know of the existence
of such a stream until I read the bill. I have since made it an
object of inquiry, and have been told, that it rises in one corner
of Pennsylvania, and is discharged into lake Erie, in a corner of the
state of Ohio; and that the utmost extent, to which its navigation is
susceptible of improvement, is about seven miles. Is it possible, that
the president could conceive _that a national_ object, and that the
improvement of a great thoroughfare, on which the mail is transported
for some eight or ten states and territories, is not a national
consideration? The power to improve the navigation of watercourses,
nowhere expressly recognised in the constitution, is infinitely more
doubtful than the establishment of mail roads, which is explicitly
authorized in that instrument! Did not the president, during the
canvass which preceded his election, in his answer to a letter from
governor Ray, of Indiana, written at the instance of the senate of that
respectable state, expressly refer to his votes given in the senate
of the United States, for his opinion as to the power of the general
government, and inform him that his opinion remained unaltered? And
do we not find, upon consulting the journals of the senate, that among
other votes affirming the existence of the power, he voted for an
appropriation to the Chesapeake and Delaware canal, which is only
about fourteen miles in extent? And do we not know, that it was at
that time, like the Maysville road now, in progress of execution under
the direction of a company incorporated by a state? And that, whilst
the Maysville road had a connection with roads east of Maysville and
southwest of Lexington, the turnpiking of which was contemplated, that
canal had no connection with any other existing canal.
The veto message is perfectly irreconcilable with the previous acts,
votes, and opinions of General Jackson. It does not express _his_
opinions, but those of his advisers and counsellors, and especially
those of his cabinet. If we look at the composition of that cabinet, we
cannot doubt it. Three of the five who, I believe, compose it, (whether
the postmaster-general be one or not, I do not know,) are known to be
directly and positively opposed to the power; a fourth, to use a term
descriptive of the favorite policy of one of them, is a _non-committal_,
and as to the fifth, good Lord deliver us from such friendship as _his_
to internal improvements. Further, I have heard it from good authority,
(but I will not vouch for it, although I believe it to be true,) that
some of the gentlemen from the south waited upon the president, whilst
he held the Maysville bill under consideration, and told him if he
approved of that bill, the south would no longer approve of him, but
oppose his administration.
I cannot, therefore, consider the message as conveying the
sentiments and views of the president. It is impossible. It is the
work of his cabinet; and if, unfortunately, they were not practically
irresponsible to the people of the United States, they would deserve
severe animadversions for having prevailed upon the president, in the
precipitation of business, and perhaps without his spectacles, to put
his name to _such_ a paper, and send it forth to congress and to the
nation. Why, I have read that paper again and again; and I never can
peruse it without thinking of diplomacy, and the name of Talleyrand,
Talleyrand, Talleyrand, perpetually recurring. It seems to have been
written in the spirit of an accommodating soul, who, being determined
to have fair weather in any contingency, was equally ready to cry
out, good lord, good devil. Are you for internal improvements? you
may extract from the message texts enough to support your opinion.
Are you against them? the message supplies you with abundant authority
to countenance your views. Do you think that a long and uninterrupted
current of concurring decisions ought to settle the question of a
controverted power? so the authors of the message affect to believe.
But ought any precedents, however numerous, to be allowed to establish
a doubtful power? the message agrees with him who thinks not.
I cannot read this regular document without thinking of Talleyrand.
That remarkable person was one of the most eminent and fortunate men of
the French revolution. Prior to its commencement, he held a bishoprick
under the ill-fated Louis the sixteenth. When that great political
storm showed itself above the horizon, he saw which way the wind
was going to blow, and trimmed his sails accordingly. He was in the
majority of the convention, of the national assembly, and of the party
that sustained the bloody Robespierre and his cut-throat successor.
He belonged to the party of the consuls, the consul for life, and
finally the emperor. Whatever party was uppermost, you would see the
head of Talleyrand always high among them, never down. Like a certain
dexterous animal, throw him as you please, head or tail, back or belly
uppermost, he is always sure to light upon his feet. During a great
part of the period described, he was minister of foreign affairs, and
although totally devoid of all principle, no man ever surpassed him
in adroitness of his diplomatic notes. He is now, at an advanced age,
I believe, grand chamberlain of his majesty, Charles the tenth.
I have lately seen an amusing anecdote of this celebrated man, which
forces itself upon me whenever I look at the cabinet message. The king
of France, like our president, towards the close of the last session
of congress, found himself in a minority. A question arose, whether,
in consequence, he should dissolve the chamber of deputies, which
resembles our house of representatives. All France was agitated with
the question. No one could solve it. At length, they concluded to go
to that sagacious, cunning old fox, Talleyrand, to let them know what
should be done. I tell you what, gentlemen, said he, (looking very
gravely, and taking a pinch of snuff,) in the morning I think his
majesty will dissolve the deputies; at noon I have changed that opinion;
and at night I have no opinion at all. Now, on reading the first column
of this message, one thinks that the cabinet have a sort of an opinion
in favor of internal improvements, with some limitations. By the time
he has read to the middle of it, he concludes they have adopted the
opposite opinion; and when he gets to the end of it, he is perfectly
persuaded, they have no opinion of their own whatever!
Let us glance at a few only of the reasons, if reasons they can
be called, of this piebald message. The first is, that the exercise
of the power has produced discord, and, to restore harmony to the
national councils, it should be abandoned, or, which is tantamount,
the constitution must be amended. The president is therefore advised
to throw himself into the minority. Well――did that revive harmony? When
the question was taken in the house of the people’s representatives,
an obstinate majority still voted for the bill, the objections in the
message notwithstanding. And in the senate, the representatives of the
states, a refractory majority, stood unmoved. But does the message mean
to assert, that no great measure, about which public sentiment is much
divided, ought to be adopted in consequence of that division? Then none
can ever be adopted. Apply this new rule to the case of the American
revolution. The colonies were rent into implacable parties――the tories
every where abounded, and in some places outnumbered the whigs. This
continued to be the state of things throughout the revolutionary
contest. Suppose some timid, time-serving whig had, during its progress,
addressed the public, and, adverting to the discord which prevailed,
and to the expediency of restoring harmony in the land, had proposed to
abandon or postpone the establishment of our liberty and independence,
until all should agree in asserting them? The late war was opposed by a
powerful and talented party; what would have been thought of president
Madison, if, instead of a patriotic and energetic message, recommending
it, as the only alternative, to preserve our honor and vindicate our
right, he had come to congress with a proposal that we should continue
to submit to the wrongs and degradation inflicted upon our country
by a foreign power, because we were, unhappily, greatly divided? What
would have become of the settlement of the Missouri question, the
tariff, the Indian bill of the last session, if the existence of a
strong and almost equal division in the public councils ought to have
prevented their adoption? The principle is nothing more nor less than
a declaration, that the right of the majority to govern, must yield to
the perseverance, respectability, and numbers of the minority. It is
in keeping with the nullifying doctrines of South Carolina, and is such
a principle as might be expected to be put forth by such a cabinet.
The government of the United States, at this juncture, exhibits a most
remarkable spectacle. _It is that of a majority of the nation having
put the powers of government into the hands of the minority._ If any
one can doubt this, let him look back at the elements of the executive,
at the presiding officers of the two houses, at the composition
and the chairmen of the most important committees, who shape and
direct the public business in congress. Let him look, above all, _at
measures_, the necessary consequences of such an anomalous state of
things――internal improvements gone, or going; the whole American system
threatened, and the triumphant shouts of anticipated victory sounding
in our ears. Georgia, extorting from the fears of an affrighted
majority of congress an Indian bill, which may prostrate all the
laws, treaties, and policy which have regulated our relations with the
Indians from the commencement of our government; and politicians in
South Carolina, at the same time, brandishing the torch of civil war,
and pronouncing unbounded eulogiums upon the president, for the good
he has done, and the still greater good which they expect at his hands,
and the sacrifice of the interests of the majority.
Another reason assigned in the Maysville message is, the desire of
paying the national debt. By an act passed in the year 1817, an annual
appropriation was made of ten millions of dollars, which were vested
in the commissioners of the sinking fund, to pay the principal and
interest of the public debt. That act was prepared and carried through
congress by one of the most estimable and enlightened men that this
country ever produced, whose premature death is to be lamented on
every account, but especially because, if he were now living, he would
be able, more than any other man, to check the extravagance and calm
the violence raging in South Carolina, his native state. Under the
operation of that act, nearly one hundred and fifty millions of the
principal and interest of the public debt were paid, prior to the
commencement of the present administration. During that of Mr. Adams,
between forty and fifty were paid, whilst larger appropriations of
money and land were made, to objects of internal improvements, than
ever had been made by all preceding administrations together. There
only remained about fifty millions to be paid, when the present chief
magistrate entered on the duties of that office, and a considerable
portion of that cannot be discharged during the present official term.
The redemption of the debt is, therefore, the work of congress; the
president has nothing to do with it, the secretary of the treasury
being directed annually to pay the ten millions to the commissioners
of the sinking fund, whose duty it is to apply the amount to the
extinguishment of the debt. The secretary himself has no more to do
with the operation, than the hydrants through which the water passes
to the consumption of the population of this city. He turns the cock
on the first of January, and the first of July, in each year, and the
public treasure is poured out to the public creditor from the reservoir,
filled by the wisdom of congress. It is evident, from this just view
of the matter, that congress, to which belongs the care of providing
the ways and means, was as competent as the president to determine
what portion of their constituents’ money could be applied to the
improvement of their condition. As much of the public debt as can be
paid, will be discharged in four years by the operation of the sinking
fund. I have seen, in some late paper, a calculation of the delay which
would have resulted, in its payment, from the appropriation to the
Maysville road, and it was less than one week! How has it happened,
that, under the administration of Mr. Adams, and during every year of
it, such large and liberal appropriations could be made for internal
improvements, without touching the fund devoted to the public debt, and
that this administration should find itself baulked in its first year?
The veto message proceeds to insist, that the Maysville and Lexington
road is not a national, but a local road, of sixty miles in length, and
confined within the limits of a particular state. If, as that document
also asserts, the power can, in _no case_, be exercised until it shall
have been explained and defined by an amendment of the constitution,
the discrimination of national and local roads would seem to be
altogether unnecessary. What is or is not a national road, the message
supposes may admit of controversy, and is not susceptible of precise
definition. The difficulty which its authors imagine, grows out of
their attempt to substitute a rule founded upon the extent and locality
of the road, instead of the _use_ and _purposes_ to which it is
applicable. If the road facilitates, in a considerable degree, the
transportation of the mail to a considerable portion of the union, and
at the same time promotes internal commerce among several states, and
may tend to accelerate the movement of armies, and the distribution of
the munitions of war, it is of national consideration. Tested by this,
the true rule, the Maysville road was undoubtedly national. It connects
the largest body, perhaps, of fertile land in the union, with the
navigation of the Ohio and Mississippi rivers, and with the canals of
the states of Ohio, Pennsylvania, and New York. It begins on the line
which divides the state of Ohio and Kentucky, and, of course, quickens
trade and intercourse between them. Tested by the character of other
works, for which the president, as a senator, voted, or which were
approved by him only about a month before he rejected the Maysville
bill, the road was undoubtedly national.
But this view of the matter, however satisfactory it ought to be, is
imperfect. It will be admitted, that the Cumberland road is national.
It is completed no farther than Zanesville, in the state of Ohio. On
reaching that point, two routes present themselves for its further
extension, both national, and both deserving of execution. One leading
northwestwardly, through the states of Ohio, Indiana, and Illinois,
to Missouri, and the other southwestwardly, through the states of
Ohio, Kentucky, Tennessee, and Alabama, to the Gulf of Mexico. Both
have been long contemplated. Of the two, the southwestern is the most
wanted, in the present state of population, and will probably always
be of the greatest use. But the northwestern route is in progress of
execution beyond Zanesville, and appropriations towards part of it,
were sanctioned by the president at the last session. National highways
can only be executed in sections, at different times. So the Cumberland
road was and continues to be constructed. Of all the parts of the
southwestern route, the road from Maysville to Lexington is most needed,
whether we regard the amount of transportation and travelling upon it,
or the impediments which it presents in the winter and spring months.
It took my family four days to reach Lexington from Maysville, in
April, 1829.
The same scheme which has been devised and practiced to defeat the
tariff, has been adopted to undermine internal improvements. They are
to be attacked in detail. Hence the rejection of the Maysville road,
the Fredericktown road, and the Louisville canal. But is this fair?
Ought each proposed road to be viewed separately and detached? Ought
it not to be considered in connection with other great works which
are in progress of execution, or are projected? The policy of the foes
indicates what ought to be the policy of the friends of the power.
The blow aimed at internal improvements has fallen with unmerited
severity upon the state of Kentucky. No state in the union has ever
shown more generous devotion to its preservation and to the support of
its honor and its interest, than she has. During the late war, her sons
fought gallantly by the side of the president, on the glorious eighth
of January, when he covered himself with unfading laurels. Wherever the
war raged, they were to be found among the foremost in battle, freely
bleeding in the service of their country. They have never threatened
nor calculated the value of this happy union. Their representatives
in congress have constantly and almost unanimously supported the
power, cheerfully voting for large appropriations to works of internal
improvements in other states. Not one cent of the common treasure has
been expended on any public road in that state. They contributed to the
elevation of the president, under a firm conviction, produced by his
deliberate acts, and his solemn assertions, that he was friendly to the
power. Under such circumstances, have they not just and abundant cause
of surprise, regret, and mortification, at the late unexpected decision?
Another mode of destroying the system, about which I fear I have
detained you too long, which its foes have adopted, is to assail
the character of its friends. Can you otherwise account for the
spirit of animosity with which I am pursued? A sentiment this morning
caught my eye, in the shape of a fourth of July toast, proposed at the
celebration of that anniversary in South Carolina, by a gentleman whom
I never saw, and to whom I am a total stranger. With humanity, charity,
and christian benevolence, unexampled, he wished that I might be driven
so far beyond the frigid regions of the northern zone, that all hell
could not thaw me! Do you believe it was against _me_, this feeble and
frail form, tottering with age, this lump of perishing clay, that all
this kindness was directed? No, no, no. It was against the measures of
policy which I have espoused, against the system which I have labored
to uphold, that it was aimed. If I had been opposed to the tariff, and
internal improvements, and in favor of the South Carolina doctrine of
nullification, the same worthy gentleman would have wished that I might
be ever fanned by soft breezes, charged with aromatic odors――that my
path might be strewed with roses, and my abode be an earthly paradise.
I am now a private man, the humblest of the humble, possessed of no
office, no power, no patronage, no subsidized press, no postoffice
department to distribute its effusions, no army, no navy, no official
corps to chant my praises, and to drink, in flowing bowls, my health
and prosperity. I have nothing but the warm affections of a portion
of the people, and a fair reputation, the only inheritance derived
from my father, and almost the only inheritance which I am desirous
of transmitting to my children.
The present chief magistrate has done me much wrong, but I have freely
forgiven him. He believed, no doubt, that I had done him previous wrong.
Although I am unconscious of it, he had _that_ motive for his conduct
towards me. But others, who had joined in the hue and cry against me,
had no such pretext. Why then am I thus pursued, my words perverted
and distorted, my acts misrepresented? Why do more than a hundred
presses daily point their cannon at me, and thunder forth their peals
of abuse and detraction? It is not against me. That is impossible. A
few years more, and this body will be where all is still and silent.
It is against the principles of civil liberty, against the tariff
and internal improvements, to which the better part of my life has
been devoted, that this implacable war is waged. My enemies flatter
themselves, that those systems may be overthrown by my destruction.
Vain and impotent hope! My existence is not of the smallest consequence
to their preservation. They will survive me. Long, long after I am gone,
whilst the lofty hills encompass this fair city, the offspring of those
measures shall remain; whilst the beautiful river that sweeps by its
walls, shall continue to bear upon its proud bosom the wonders which
the immortal genius of Fulton, with the blessings of Providence, has
given; whilst truth shall hold its sway among men, those systems will
invigorate the industry, and animate the hopes, of the farmer, the
mechanic, the manufacturer, and all other classes of our countrymen.
People of Ohio here assembled――mothers――daughters――sons, and sires,
when reclining on the peaceful pillow of repose, and communing with
your own hearts, ask yourselves, if I ought to be the unremitting
object of perpetual calumny? If, when the opponents of the late
president gained the victory on the fourth of March, 1829, the
war ought not to have ceased, quarters been granted, and prisoners
released? Did not those opponents obtain all the honors, offices,
and emoluments of government; the power, which they have frequently
exercised, of rewarding whom they pleased, and punishing whom they
could? Was not all this sufficient? Does it all avail not, while
Mordecai, the Jew, stands at the king’s gate?
I thank you, fellow-citizens, again and again, for the numerous proofs
you have given me of your attachment and confidence. And may your fine
city continue to enjoy the advantages of the enterprise, industry, and
public spirit of its mechanics and other inhabitants, until it rises
in wealth, extent, and prosperity, with the largest of our Atlantic
capitals.