[THE protective tariff laws of 1824 and 1828 were very
unsatisfactory to the politicians of South Carolina, although
under the influence of the policy of those laws, that state,
in common with the whole union, had enjoyed a high degree of
prosperity. The principles of the American system of protection
and internal improvement had been advocated by Mr. Calhoun and
other South Carolina statesmen in 1816, and the tariff then
adopted, although protective, was regarded as the settled
policy of the country. These gentlemen, however, thought
proper subsequently to change their ground, and under their
influence combined with that of others who had not changed, the
state of South Carolina became agitated and in hostile array
to protection to American industry. Among other schemes of
agitation which grew up at this period, was the doctrine of
_nullification_, or the right of any state of the union to annul
or make void and resist a law of congress, if such state by its
legal authorities decided said law to be unconstitutional. Open
rebellion to the laws was threatened, and general Jackson, as
president, issued a proclamation declaring his intention to
enforce the acts of congress. That body being soon after in
session, the friends of Jackson’s administration, finding the
compulsory measures about being carried out unpopular in the
southern states, introduced a new tariff bill, with destructive
features in its proposed operation on the great interests
of American industry. Under these circumstances, Mr. Clay
projected and brought forward in the senate the measure which
was afterwards known as the compromise tariff bill. This act
was promptly passed by large majorities in congress, and signed
by president Jackson. It had the effect of restoring peace and
harmony to the country, and of continuing protection to most
branches of domestic industry, for a period of ten years. On
this subject, Mr. Clay made the following remarks.]
I YESTERDAY, sir, gave notice that I should ask leave to introduce
a bill to modify the various acts imposing duties on imports. I at
the same time added, that I should, with the permission of the senate,
offer an explanation of the principle on which that bill is founded. I
owe, sir, an apology to the senate for this course of action, because,
although strictly parliamentary, it is, nevertheless, out of the usual
practice of this body; but it is a course which I trust that the senate
will deem to be justified by the interesting nature of the subject. I
rise, sir, on this occasion, actuated by no motives of a private nature,
by no personal feelings, and for no personal objects; but exclusively
in obedience to a sense of the duty which I owe to my country. I trust,
therefore, that no one will anticipate on my part any ambitious display
of such humble powers as I may possess. It is sincerely my purpose
to present a plain, unadorned, and naked statement of facts connected
with the measure which I shall have the honor to propose, and with
the condition of the country. When I survey, sir, the whole face of
our country, I behold all around me evidences of the most gratifying
prosperity, a prospect which would seem to be without a cloud upon it,
were it not that through all parts of the country there exist great
dissensions and unhappy distinctions, which, if they can possibly be
relieved and reconciled by any broad scheme of legislation adapted to
all interests, and regarding the feelings of all sections, ought to
be quieted; and leading to which object any measure ought to be well
received.
In presenting the modification of the tariff laws, which I am now about
to submit, I have two great objects in view. My first object looks to
the tariff. I am compelled to express the opinion, formed after the
most deliberate reflection, and on full survey of the whole country,
that, whether rightfully or wrongfully, the tariff stands in imminent
danger. If it should be preserved during this session, it must fall
at the next session. By what circumstances, and through what causes,
has arisen the necessity for this change in the policy of our country,
I will not pretend now to elucidate. Others there are, who may differ
from the impressions which my mind has received upon this point. Owing,
however, to a variety of concurrent causes, the tariff, as it now
exists, is in imminent danger, and if the system can be preserved
beyond the next session, it must be by some means not now within
the reach of human sagacity. The fall of that policy, sir, would
be productive of consequences calamitous indeed. When I look to the
variety of interests which are involved, to the number of individuals
interested, the amount of capital invested, the value of the buildings
erected, and the whole arrangement of the business for the prosecution
of the various branches of the manufacturing art, which have sprung
up under the fostering care of this government, I cannot contemplate
any evil equal to the sudden overthrow of all those interests. History
can produce no parallel to the extent of the mischief which would be
produced by such a disaster. The repeal of the edict of Nantes itself
was nothing in comparison with it. That condemned to exile and brought
to ruin a great number of persons. The most respectable portion of the
population of France was condemned to exile and ruin by that measure.
But, in my opinion, sir, the sudden repeal of the tariff policy would
bring ruin and destruction on the whole people of this country. There
is no evil, in my opinion, equal to the consequences which would result
from such a catastrophe.
What, sir, are the complaints which unhappily divide the people of this
great country? On the one hand it is said, by those who are opposed
to the tariff, that it unjustly taxes a portion of the people, and
paralyses their industry; that it is to be a perpetual operation; that
there is to be no end to the system; which, right or wrong, is to be
urged to their inevitable ruin. And what is the just complaint, on the
other hand, of those who support the tariff? It is, that the policy
of the government is vascillating and uncertain, and that there is no
stability in our legislation. Before one set of books is fairly opened,
it becomes necessary to close them, and to open a new set. Before a law
can be tested by experiment, another is passed. Before the present law
has gone into operation; before it is yet nine months old; passed, as
it was, under circumstances of extraordinary deliberation, the fruit of
nine months labor; before we know any thing of its experimental effects,
and even before it commences its operations; we are required to repeal
it. On one side we are urged to repeal a system which is fraught with
ruin; on the other side, the check now imposed on enterprise, and the
state of alarm in which the public mind has been thrown, renders all
prudent men desirous, looking ahead a little way, to adopt a state of
things, on the stability of which they may have reason to count. Such
is the state of feeling on the one side and on the other. I am anxious
to find out some principle of mutual accommodation, to satisfy, as
far as practicable, both parties――to increase the stability of our
legislation; and at some distant day――but not too distant, when we
take into view the magnitude of the interests which are involved――to
bring down the rate of duties to that revenue standard, for which our
opponents have so long contended. The basis on which I wish to found
this modification, is one of time; and the several parts of the bill
to which I am about to call the attention of the senate, are founded on
this basis. I propose to give protection to our manufactured articles,
adequate protection for a length of time, which, compared with the
length of human life, is very long, but which is short, in proportion
to the legitimate discretion of every wise and parental system of
government; securing the stability of legislation, and allowing time
for a gradual reduction, on one side; and, on the other, proposing to
reduce the duties to that revenue standard, for which the opponents
of the system have so long contended. I will now proceed to lay the
provisions of the bill before the senate, with a view to draw their
attention to the true character of the bill.
[Mr. Clay then proceeded to read the first section of the bill.]
According to this section, it will be perceived that it is proposed to
come down to the revenue standard at the end of little more than nine
years and a half, giving a protection to our own manufactures which I
hope will be adequate, during the intermediate time.
[Mr. Clay here recapitulated the provisions of the sections,
and showed by various illustrations how they would operate; and
then proceeded to read and comment upon the second section of
the bill.]
It will be recollected, that at the last session of congress, with
a view to make a concession to the southern section of the country,
low-priced woollens, those supposed to enter into the consumption of
slaves and the poorer classes of persons, were taken out of the general
class of duties on woollens, and the duty on them reduced to five per
centum. It will be also recollected, that at that time the gentlemen
from the south said that this concession was of no consequence, and
that they did not care for it, and I believe that they do not now
consider it of any greater importance. As, therefore, it has failed
of the purpose for which it was taken out of the common class, I think
it ought to be brought back again, and placed by the side of the other
description of woollens, and made subject to the same reduction of duty
as proposed by this section.
[Having next read through the third section of the bill, Mr. Clay
said:]
After the expiration of a term of years, this section lays down a
rule by which the duties are to be reduced to the revenue standard,
which has been so long and so earnestly contended for. Until otherwise
directed, and in default of provision being made for the wants of the
government in 1842, a rule is thus provided for the rate of duties
thereafter, congress being, in the meantime, authorized to adopt
any other rule which the exigences of the country, or its financial
condition, may require. That is to say, if, instead of the duty of
twenty per centum proposed, fifteen or seventeen per centum of duty
is sufficient, or twenty-five per centum should be found necessary,
to produce a revenue to defray the expenses of an economical
administration of the government, there is nothing to prevent either
of those rates, or any other, from being fixed upon; whilst the rate
of twenty per centum is introduced to guard against any failure on the
part of congress to make the requisite provision in due season.
This section of the bill contains also another clause, suggested by
that spirit of harmony and conciliation which I pray may preside over
the councils of the union at this trying moment. It provides (what
those persons who are engaged in manufactures have so long anxiously
required for their security) that duties shall be paid in ready money;
and we shall thus get rid of the whole of that credit system, into
which an inroad was made, in regard to woollens, by the act of the
last session. This section further contains a proviso that nothing in
any part of this act shall be construed to interfere with the freest
exercise of the power of congress to lay any amount of duties, in the
event of war breaking out between this country and any foreign power.
[Mr. Clay then read the fourth section of the bill.]
One of the considerations strongly urging for a reduction of the
tariff at this time is, that the government is likely to be placed in
a dilemma by having an overflowing revenue; and this apprehension is
the ground of an attempt totally to change the protective policy of the
country. The section which I have read is an effort to guard against
this evil, by relieving altogether from duty a portion of the articles
of import now subject to it. Some of these would, under the present
rate of duty upon them, produce a considerable revenue; the article
of silks alone would yield half a million of dollars per annum. If it
were possible to pacify present dissensions, and let things take their
course, I believe that no difficulty need ♦be apprehended. If the
bill which this body passed at the last session of congress, and has
again passed at this session, shall pass the other house, and become
a law, and the gradual reduction of duties should take place which is
contemplated by the first section of this bill, we shall have settled
two (if not three) of the great questions which have agitated this
country, that of the tariff, of the public lands, and, I will add,
of internal improvement also. For, if there should still be a surplus
revenue, that surplus might be applied, until the year 1842, to the
completion of the works of internal improvement already commenced;
and, after 1842, a reliance for all funds for purposes of internal
improvement should be placed upon the operation of the land bill, to
which I have already referred.
It is not my object in referring to that measure in connection with
that which I am about to propose, to consider them as united in their
fate, being desirous, partial as I may be to both, that each shall
stand or fall upon its own intrinsic merits. If this section of the
bill, adding to the number of free articles, should become law, along
with the reduction of duties proposed by the first section of the bill,
it is by no means sure that we shall have any surplus revenue at all.
I have been astonished indeed at the process of reasoning by which the
secretary of the treasury has arrived at the conclusion, that we shall
have a surplus revenue at all, though I admit that such a conclusion
can be arrived at in no other way. But what is this process? Duties of
a certain rate now exist. The amount which they produce is known; the
secretary, proposing a reduction of the rate of duty, supposes that
the duties will be reduced in proportion to the amount of the reduction
of duty. Now no calculation can be more uncertain than that. Though
perhaps the best that the secretary could have made, it is still all
uncertainty; dependent upon the winds and waves, on the mutations of
trade, and on the course of commercial operations. If there is any
truth in political economy, it cannot be that result will agree with
the prediction; for we are instructed by all experience that the
consumption of any article is in proportion to the reduction of its
price, and that in general it may be taken as a rule, that the duty
upon an article forms a portion of its price. I do not mean to impute
any improper design to any one; but, if it had been so intended, no
scheme for getting rid of the tariff could have been more artfully
devised to effect its purposes, than that which thus calculated
the revenue, and, in addition, assumed that the expenditure of the
government every year would be so much, and so forth. Can any one
here say what the future expenditure of the government will be? In
this young, great, and growing community, can we say what will be the
expenditure of the government even a year hence, much less what it will
be three, or four, or five years hence? Yet it has been estimated, on
assumed amounts, founded on such uncertain data, both of income and
expenditure, that the revenue might be reduced so many millions a year!
I ask pardon for this digression, and return to the examination of
articles in the fourth section, which are proposed to be left free
of duty. The duties on these articles now vary from five to ten per
centum ad valorem; but low as they are, the aggregate amount of revenue
which they produce is considerable. By the bill of the last session,
the duties on French silks was fixed at five per centum, and that on
Chinese silks at ten per centum ad valorem. By the bill now proposed,
the duty on French silks is proposed to be repealed, leaving the other
untouched. I will frankly state why I made this distinction. It has
been a subject of anxious desire with me to see our commerce with
France increased. France, though not so large a customer in the great
staples of our country as Great Britain, is a great growing customer.
I have been much struck with a fact going to prove this, which
accidentally came to my knowledge the other day; which is, that within
the short period of fourteen years, the amount of consumption in France
of the great southern staple of cotton has been _tripled_. Again, it is
understood that the French silks of the lower grades of quality cannot
sustain a competition with the Chinese without some discrimination of
this sort. I have understood, also, that the duty imposed upon this
article at the last session has been very much complained of on the
part of France; and, considering all the circumstances connected with
the relations between the two governments, it appears to me to be
desirable to make this discrimination in favor of the French product.
If the senate should think differently, I shall be content. If, indeed,
they should think proper to strike out this section altogether, I shall
cheerfully submit to their decision.
[After reading the fifth and sixth sections. Mr. Clay said:]
I will now take a few of some of the objections which will be made
to the bill. It may be said that the act is prospective, that it binds
our successors, and that we have no power thus to bind them. It is true
that the act is prospective, and so is almost every act which we ever
passed, but we can repeal it the next day. It is the established usage
to give all acts a prospective operation. In every tariff there are
some provisions which go into operation immediately, and others at
a future time. Each congress legislate according to their own views
of propriety; their act does not bind their successors, but creates a
species of public faith, which will not rashly be broken. But if this
bill shall go into operation, as I hope, even against hope, that it
may, I doubt not that it will be adhered to by all parties. There is
but one contingency which will render a change necessary, and that is
the intervention of a war, which is provided for in the bill. The hands
of congress are left untied in this event, and they will be at liberty
to resort to any mode of taxation, which they may propose. But if we
suppose peace to continue, there will be no motive for disturbing the
arrangement, but on the contrary, every motive to carry it into effect.
In the next place, it will be objected to the bill, by the friends of
the protective policy, of whom I hold myself to be one, for my mind is
immutably fixed in favor of that policy, that it abandons the power of
protection. But I contend, in the first place, that a suspension of the
exercise of the power is not an abandonment of it; for the power is in
the constitution according to our theory, was put there by its framers,
and can only be dislodged by the people. After the year 1842, the bill
provides that the power shall be exercised in a certain mode. There are
four modes by which the industry of the country can be protected.
First, the absolute prohibition of rival foreign articles that are
totally unattempted by the bill; but it is competent to the wisdom
of the government to exert the power whenever they wish. Second, the
imposition of duties in such a manner as to have no reference to any
object but revenue. When we had a large public debt in 1816, the duties
yielded thirty-seven millions, and paid so much more of the debt, and
subsequently they yielded but eight or ten millions, and paid so much
less of the debt. Sometimes we have to trench on the sinking fund. Now
we have no public debt to absorb the surplus revenue, and no motive for
continuing the duties. No man can look at the condition of the country,
and say that we can carry on this system with accumulating revenue,
and no practical way of expending it. The third mode was attempted last
session, in a resolution which I had the honor to submit last year,
and which in fact ultimately formed the basis of the act which finally
passed both houses. This was to raise as much revenue as was wanted
for the use of the government, and no more, but to raise it from the
protected and not from the unprotected articles. I will say, that I
regret most deeply that the greater part of the country will not suffer
this principle to prevail. It ought to prevail; and the day, in my
opinion, will come, when it will be adopted as the permanent policy
of the country. Shall we legislate for our own wants or that of a
foreign country? To protect our own interests in opposition to foreign
legislation was the basis of this system. The fourth mode in which
protection can be afforded to domestic industry, is to admit free of
duty every article which aided the operations of the manufacturers.
These are the four modes for protecting our industry; and to those who
say that the bill abandons the power of protection, I reply, that it
does not touch that power; and that the fourth mode, so far from being
abandoned, is extended and upheld by the bill. The most that can be
objected to the bill by those with whom I coöperate to support the
protective system, is, that, in consideration of nine and a half years
of peace, certainty, and stability, the manufacturers relinquished
some advantages which they now enjoy. What is the principle which
has always been contended for in this and in the other house? After
the accumulation of capital and skill, the manufacturers will stand
alone, unaided by the government, in competition with the imported
articles from any quarter. Now give us time; cease all fluctuations and
agitations, for nine years, and the manufacturers in every branch will
sustain themselves against foreign competition. If we can see our way
clearly for nine years to come, we can safely leave to posterity to
provide for the rest. If the tariff be overthrown, as may be its fate
next session, the country will be plunged into extreme distress and
agitation. I want harmony. I wish to see the restoration of those ties
which have carried us triumphantly through two wars. I delight not in
this perpetual turmoil. Let us have peace, and become once more united
as a band of brothers.
It may be said that the farming interest cannot subsist under a twenty
per centum ad valorem duty. My reply is, ‘sufficient for the day is
the evil thereof.’ I will leave it to the day when the reduction takes
effect, to settle the question. When the reduction takes place, and the
farmer cannot live under it, what will he do? I will tell you what he
ought to do. He ought to try it――make a fair experiment of it――and if
he cannot live under it, let him come here and say that he is bankrupt
and ruined. If then nothing can be done to relieve him, sir, I will
not pronounce the words, for I will believe that something will be
done, and that relief will be afforded, without hazarding the peace and
integrity of the union. The confederacy is an excellent contrivance,
but it must be managed with delicacy and skill. There are an infinite
variety of prejudices and local interests to be regarded, but all
should be made to yield to the union.
If the system proposed cannot be continued, let us try some
intermediate system, before we think of any other dreadful alternative.
Sir, it will be said, on the other hand――for the objections are made
by the friends of protection, principally――that the time is too long;
that the intermediate reductions are too inconsiderable, and that there
is no guarantee that, at the end of the time stipulated, the reduction
proposed would be allowed to take effect. In the first place should be
recollected the diversified interests of the country; the measures of
the government which preceded the establishment of manufactures; the
public faith in some degree pledged for their security; and the ruin in
which rash and hasty legislation would involve them. I will not dispute
about terms. It would not, in a court of justice, be maintained that
the public faith is pledged for the protection of manufactures; but
there are other pledges which men of honor are bound by, besides those
of which the law can take cognizance.
If we excite, in our neighbor, a reasonable expectation which induces
him to take a particular course of business, we are in honor bound to
redeem the pledge thus tacitly given. Can any man doubt that a large
portion of our citizens believed that the system would be permanent?
The whole country expected it. The security against any change of the
system proposed by the bill, is in the character of the bill, as a
compromise between two conflicting parties. If the bill should be taken
by common consent, as we hope it will be, the history of the revenue
will be a guarantee of its permanence. The circumstances under which it
was passed will be known and recorded; and no one will disturb a system
which was adopted with a view to give peace and tranquillity to the
country.
The descending gradations by which I propose to arrive at the minimum
of duties, must be gradual. I never would consent to any precipitate
operation to bring distress and ruin on the community.
Now, viewing it in this light, it appears that there are eight years
and a half, and nine years and a half, taking the ultimate time,
which would be an efficient protection, the remaining duties will be
withdrawn by a biennial reduction. The protective principle must be
said to be, in some measure, relinquished at the end of eight years
and a half. This period cannot appear unreasonable, and I think that
no member of the senate, or any portion of the country, ought to make
the slightest objection. It now remains for me to consider the other
objection――the want of guarantee to there being an ulterior continuance
of the duties imposed by the bill, on the expiration of the term which
it prescribes. The best guarantee will be found in the circumstances
under which the measure would be passed. If it passes by common consent;
if it is passed with the assent of a portion――a considerable portion
of those who have directly hitherto supported this system, and by a
considerable portion of those who opposed it――if they declare their
satisfaction with the measure, I have no doubt the rate of duties
guarantied, will be continued after the expiration of the term, if
the country continues at peace. And, at the end of the term, when
the experiment will have been made of the efficiency of the mode of
protection fixed by the bill, while the constitutional question has
been suffered to lie dormant, if war should render it necessary,
protection might be carried up to prohibition; while if the country
should remain at peace, and this measure go into full operation, the
duties will be gradually lowered down to the revenue standard, which
has been so earnestly wished for.
But suppose that I am wrong in all these views, for there are no
guarantees, in one sense of the term, of human infallibility. Suppose
a different state of things in the south; that this senate, from
causes which I shall not dwell upon now, but which are obvious to every
reflecting man in this country――causes which have operated for years
past, and which continue to operate――suppose, for a moment, that there
should be a majority in the senate in favor of the southern views, and
that they should repeal the whole system at once, what guarantee would
we have that the repealing of the law would not destroy those great
interests which it is so important to preserve? What guarantee will
you have that the thunders of those powerful manufactures will not be
directed against your capitol, because of this abandonment of their
interests, and because you have given them no protection against
foreign legislation. Sir, if you carry your measure of repeal without
the consent, at least, of a portion of those who are interested in the
preservation of manufactures, you have no security, no guarantee, no
certainty, that any protection will be continued. But if the measure
should be carried by the common consent of both parties, we shall have
all security; history will faithfully record the transaction; narrate
under what circumstances the bill was passed; that it was a pacifying
measure; that it was as oil poured from the vessel of the union to
restore peace and harmony to the country. When all this was known, what
congress, what legislature, would mar the guarantee? What man who is
entitled to deserve the character of an American statesman, would stand
up in his place in either house of congress, and disturb this treaty of
peace and amity?
Sir, I will not say that it may not be disturbed. All that I say
is, that here is all the reasonable security that can be desired by
those on the one side of the question, and much more than those on
the other would have by any unfortunate concurrence of circumstances.
Such a repeal of the whole system should be brought about as would be
cheerfully acquiesced in by all parties in this country. All parties
may find in this measure some reasons for objection. And what human
measure is there which is free from objectionable qualities? It has
been remarked, and justly remarked, by the great father of our country
himself, that if that great work which is the charter of our liberties,
and under which we have so long flourished, had been submitted, article
by article, to all the different states composing this union, that the
whole would have been rejected; and yet when the whole was presented
together, it was accepted as a whole. I will admit that my friends
do not get all they could wish for; and the gentlemen on the other
side do not obtain all they might desire; but both will gain all that
in my humble opinion is proper to be given in the present condition
of this country. It may be true that there will be loss and gain in
this measure. But how is this loss and gain distributed? Among our
countrymen. What we lose, no foreign land gains; and what we gain, will
be no loss to any foreign power. It is among ourselves the distribution
takes place. The distribution is founded on that great principle of
compromise and concession which lies at the bottom of our institutions,
which gave birth to the constitution itself, and which has continued to
regulate us in our onward march, and conducted the nation to glory and
renown.
It remains for me now to touch another topic. Objections have been
made to all legislation at this session of congress, resulting from
the attitude of one of the states of this confederacy. I confess that I
felt a very strong repugnance to any legislation at all on this subject
at the commencement of the session, principally because I misconceived
the purposes, as I have found from subsequent observation, which that
state has in view. Under the influence of more accurate information,
I must say that the aspect of things since the commencement of the
session has, in my opinion, greatly changed. When I came to take my
seat on this floor, I had supposed that a member of this union had
taken an attitude of defiance and hostility against the authority of
the general government. I had imagined that she had arrogantly required
that we should abandon at once a system which had long been the settled
policy of this country. Supposing that she had manifested this feeling,
and taken up this position, I had, in consequence, felt a disposition
to hurl defiance back again, and to impress upon her the necessity of
the performance of her duties as a member of this union. But since my
arrival here, I find that South Carolina does not contemplate force,
for it is denied and denounced by that state. She disclaims it; and
asserts that she is merely making an experiment. That experiment
is this: by a course of state legislation, and by a change in her
fundamental laws, she is endeavoring by her civil tribunals to prevent
the general government from carrying the laws of the United States into
operation within her limits. That she has professed to be her object.
Her appeal is not to arms, but to another power; not to the sword,
but to the law. I must say, and I will say it with no intention of
disparaging that state, or any other of the states, it is a feeling
unworthy of her. As the purpose of South Carolina is not that of force,
this at once disarms, divests legislation of one principal objection,
which it appears to me existed against it at the commencement of this
session. Her purposes are all of a civil nature. She thinks she can
oust the United States from her limits; and unquestionably she has
taken good care to prepare her judges beforehand by swearing them to
decide in her favor. If we submitted to her, we should thus stand but
a poor chance of obtaining justice. She disclaims any intention of
resorting to force unless we should find it indispensable to execute
the laws of the union by applying force to her. It seems to me the
aspect of the attitude of South Carolina has changed; or rather, the
new light which I have obtained, enables me to see her in a different
attitude; and I have not truly understood her until she passed her
laws, by which it was intended to carry her ordinance into effect.
Now, I venture to predict that the state to which I have referred must
ultimately fail in her attempt. I disclaim any intention of saying
anything to the disparagement of that state. Far from it. I think
that she has been rash, intemperate, and greatly in error; and, to use
the language of one of her own writers, made up an issue unworthy of
her. From one end to the other of this continent, by acclamation, as
it were, nullification has been put down, and put down in a manner
more effectually than by a thousand wars or a thousand armies――by the
irresistible force, by the mighty influence of public opinion. Not a
voice beyond the single state of South Carolina has been heard in favor
of the principle of nullification, which she has asserted by her own
ordinance; and I will say, that she must fail in her lawsuit. I will
express two opinions; the first of which is, that it is not possible
for the ingenuity of man to devise a system of state legislation to
defeat the execution of the laws of the United States, which cannot be
countervailed by federal legislation.
A state might take it upon herself to throw obstructions in the way
of the execution of the laws of the federal government; but federal
legislation can follow at her heel quickly, and successfully counteract
the course of state legislation. The framers of the constitution
foresaw this, and the constitution has guarded against it. What has
it said? It is declared, in the clause enumerating the powers of this
government, that congress shall have all power to carry into effect all
the powers granted by the constitution, in any branch of the government
under the sweeping clause; for they have not specified contingencies,
because they could not see what was to happen; but whatever powers were
necessary, all, all are given to this government by the fundamental law,
necessary to carry into effect those powers which are vested by that
constitution in the federal government. That is one reason. The other
is, that it is not possible for any state, provided this government
is administered with prudence and propriety, so to shape its laws
as to throw upon the general government the responsibility of first
resorting to the employment of force; but, if force at all is employed,
it must be by state legislation, and not federal legislation; and the
responsibility of employing that force must rest with, and attach to,
the state itself.
I shall not go into the details of this bill. I merely throw out these
sentiments for the purpose of showing you, that South Carolina, having
declared her purpose to be this, to make an experiment whether, by a
course of legislation, in a conventional form, or a legislative form
of enactment, she can defeat the execution of certain laws of the
United States, I for one, will express my opinion, that I believe it is
utterly impracticable, whatever course of legislation she may choose to
adopt, for her to succeed. I am ready, for one, to give the tribunals
and the executive of the country, whether that executive has or has not
my confidence, the necessary measures of power and authority to execute
the laws of the union. But I would not go a hair’s breadth further than
what was necessary for those purposes. Up to that point I would go, and
cheerfully go; for it is my sworn duty, as I regard it, to go to that
point.
Again; taking this view of the subject, South Carolina is doing
nothing more, except that she is doing it with more rashness, than some
other states have done――that respectable state, Ohio, and, if I am not
mistaken, the state of Virginia also. An opinion prevailed some years
ago, that if you put the laws of a state into a penal form, you could
oust federal jurisdiction out of the limits of that state, because the
state tribunals had an exclusive jurisdiction over penalties and crimes,
and it was inferred that no federal court could wrest the authority
from them. According to that principle, the state of Ohio passed the
laws taxing the branch of the United States bank, and high penalties
were to be enforced against every person who should attempt to defeat
her taxation. The question was tried. It happened to be my lot to be
counsel at law to bring the suit against the state, and to maintain
the federal authority. The trial took place in the state of Ohio; and
it is one of the many circumstances which redounds to the honor of
that patriotic state, that she submitted to the federal force. I went
to the office of the public treasury myself, to which was taken the
money of the bank of the United States, it having remained there in
sequestration until it was peaceably rendered, in obedience to the
decision of the court, without any appeal to arms. In a building which
I had to pass in order to reach the treasury, I saw the most brilliant
display of arms and musketry that I ever saw in my life; but not one
was raised, or threatened to be raised, against the due execution
of the laws of the United States, when they were then enforced. In
Virginia, (but I am not sure that I am correct in the history of it,)
there was a case of this kind. Persons were liable to penalties for
selling lottery tickets. It was contended that the state tribunals had
an exclusive jurisdiction over the subject. The case was brought before
the supreme court; the parties were a Mr. Myers and somebody else,
and it decided, as it must always decide, no matter what obstruction,
no matter what the state law may be, the constitutional laws of the
United States must follow and defeat it, in its attempt to arrest the
federal arm in the exercise of its lawful authority. South Carolina has
attempted, and, I repeat it, in a much more offensive way attempted,
to defeat the execution of the laws of the United States. But it seems,
that, under all the circumstances of the case, she has, for the present,
determined to stop here, in order that, by our legislation, we may
prevent the necessity of her advancing any further. But there are other
reasons for the expediency of legislation at this time. Although I
came here impressed with a different opinion, my mind has now become
reconciled.
The memorable first of February is past. I confess I did feel an
unconquerable repugnance to legislation until that day should have
passed, because of the consequences that were to ensue. I hoped that
the day would go over well. I feel, and I think that we must all
confess, we breathe a freer air than when the restraint was upon us.
But this is not the only consideration. South Carolina has practically
postponed her ordinance, instead of letting it go into effect, till the
fourth of March. Nobody who has noticed the course of events, can doubt
that she will postpone it by still further legislation, if congress
should rise without any settlement of this question. I was going to
say, my life on it, she will postpone it to a period subsequent to
the fourth of March. It is in the natural course of events. South
Carolina must perceive the embarrassments of her situation. She must
be desirous――it is unnatural to suppose that she is not――to remain in
the union. What! a state whose heroes in its gallant ancestry fought
so many glorious battles along with those of the other states of
this union――a state with which this confederacy is linked by bonds of
such a powerful character! I have sometimes fancied what would be her
condition if she goes out of this union; if her five hundred thousand
people should at once be thrown upon their own resources. She is out of
the union. What is the consequence? She is an independent power. What
then does she do? She must have armies and fleets, and an expensive
government; have foreign missions; she must raise taxes; enact this
very tariff, which has driven her out of the union, in order to enable
her to raise money, and to sustain the attitude of an independent
power. If she should have no force, no navy to protect her, she would
be exposed to piratical incursions. Their neighbor, St. Domingo,
might pour down a horde of pirates on her borders, and desolate her
plantations. She must have her embassies; therefore must she have
a revenue. And, let me tell you, there is another consequence, an
inevitable one; she has a certain description of persons recognised as
property south of the Potomac, and west of the Mississippi, which would
be no longer recognised as such, except within their own limits. This
species of property would sink to one half of its present value, for it
is Louisiana and the southwestern states which are her great market.
But I will not dwell on this topic any longer. I say it is utterly
impossible that South Carolina ever desired, for a moment, to become
a separate and independent state. If the existence of the ordinance,
while an act of congress is pending, is to be considered as a motive
for not passing that law, why, this would be found to be a sufficient
reason for preventing the passing of any laws. South Carolina, by
keeping the shadow of an ordinance even before us, as she has it in her
power to postpone it from time to time, would defeat our legislation
for ever. I would repeat, that under all the circumstances of the
case, the condition of South Carolina is only one of the elements of
a combination, the whole of which, together, constitutes a motive of
action which renders it expedient to resort, during the present session
of congress, to some measure in order to quiet and tranquillize the
country.
If there be any who want civil war, who want to see the blood of any
portion of our countrymen spilt, I am not one of them. I wish to see
war of no kind; but, above all, I do not desire to see a civil war.
When war begins, whether civil or foreign, no human sight is competent
to foresee when, or how, or where it is to terminate. But when a civil
war shall be lighted up in the bosom of our own happy land, and armies
are marching, and commanders are winning their victories, and fleets
are in motion on our coast, tell me, if you can, tell me, if any human
being can tell, its duration. God alone knows where such a war would
end. In what a state will our institutions be left? In what state our
liberties? I want no war; above all, no war at home.
Sir, I repeat, that I think South Carolina has been rash, intemperate,
and greatly in the wrong; but I do not want to disgrace her, nor any
other member of this union. No: I do not desire to see the lustre of
one single star dimmed of that glorious confederacy which constitutes
our political sun; still less do I wish to see it blotted out, and its
light obliterated for ever. Has not the state of South Carolina been
one of the members of this union in ‘days that tried men’s souls?’
Have not her ancestors fought along side our ancestors? Have we not,
conjointly, won together many a glorious battle? If we had to go into
a civil war with such a state, how would it terminate? Whenever it
should have terminated, what would be her condition? If she should ever
return to the union, what would be the condition of her feelings and
affections? what the state of the heart of her people? She has been
with us before, when her ancestors mingled in the throng of battle, and
as I hope our posterity will mingle with hers, for ages and centuries
to come, in the united defence of liberty, and for the honor and glory
of the union; I do not wish to see her degraded or defaced as a member
of this confederacy.
In conclusion, allow me to entreat and implore each individual member
of this body to bring into the consideration of this measure, which I
have had the honor of proposing, the same love of country which, if I
know myself, has actuated me, and the same desire of restoring harmony
to the union, which has prompted this effort. If we can forget for
a moment――but that would be asking too much of human nature――if we
could suffer, for one moment, party feelings and party causes――and,
as I stand here before my God, I declare I have looked beyond those
considerations, and regarded only the vast interests of this united
people――I should hope, that under such feelings, and with such
dispositions, we may advantageously proceed to the consideration of
this bill, and heal, before they are yet bleeding, the wounds of our
distracted country.