in solid column for the required relief; and, lastly, as to the cause
_why_, I tell the gentleman it was because the members from New England
thought the measures just and salutary; because they entertained towards
the West neither envy, hatred, nor malice; because they deemed it
becoming them, as just and enlightened public men, to meet the exigency
which had arisen in the West with the appropriate measure of relief;
because they felt it due to their own characters, and the characters of
their New England predecessors in this government, to act towards the
new States in the spirit of a liberal, patronizing, magnanimous policy.
So much, Sir, for the cause _why_; and I hope that by this time, Sir,
the honorable gentleman is satisfied; if not, I do not know _when_, or
_how_, or _why_ he ever will be.
[Sidenote: Hayne's attack on New England.]
Professing to be provoked by what he chose to consider a charge made by
me against South Carolina, the honorable member, Mr. President, has
taken up a new crusade against New England. Leaving altogether the
subject of the public lands, in which his success, perhaps, had been
neither distinguished nor satisfactory, and letting go, also, of the
topic of the tariff, he sallied forth in a general assault on the
opinions, politics, and parties of New England, as they have been
exhibited in the last thirty years. This is natural. The "narrow
policy" of the public lands had proved a legal settlement in South
Carolina, and was not to be removed. The "accursed policy" of the
tariff, also, had established the fact of its birth and parentage in the
same State. No wonder, therefore, the gentleman wished to carry the war,
as he expressed it, into the enemy's country. Prudently willing to quit
these subjects, he was, doubtless, desirous of fastening on others,
which could not be transferred south of Mason and Dixon's line.[30] The
politics of New England became his theme; and it was in this part of his
speech, I think, that he menaced me with such sore discomfiture.
Discomfiture! Why, Sir, when he attacks anything which I maintain, and
overthrows it, when he turns the right or left of any position which I
take up, when he drives me from any ground I choose to occupy, he may
then talk of discomfiture, but not till that distant day. What has he
done? Has he maintained his own charges? Has he proved what he alleged?
Has he sustained himself in his attack on the government, and on the
history of the North, in the matter of the public lands? Has he
disproved a fact, refuted a proposition, weakened an argument,
maintained by me? Has he come within beat of drum of any position of
mine? Oh, no; but he has "carried the war into the enemy's country"!
Carried the war into the enemy's country! Yes, Sir, and what sort of a
war has he made of it? Why, Sir, he has stretched a drag-net over the
whole surface of perished pamphlets, indiscreet sermons, frothy
paragraphs, and fuming popular addresses,--over whatever the pulpit in
its moments of alarm, the press in its heats, and parties in their
extravagance, have severally thrown off in times of general excitement
and violence. He has thus swept together a mass of such things as, but
that they are now old and cold, the public health would have required
him rather to leave in their state of dispersion. For a good long hour
or two we had the unbroken pleasure of listening to the honorable member
while he recited with his usual grace and spirit, and with evident high
gusto, speeches, pamphlets, addresses, and all the _et cæteras_ of the
political press, such as warm heads produce in warm times; and such as
it would be "discomfiture" indeed for any one, whose taste did not
delight in that sort of reading, to be obliged to peruse. This is his
war. This it is to carry war into the enemy's country. It is in an
invasion of this sort that he flatters himself with the expectation of
gaining laurels fit to adorn a Senator's brow!
[Sidenote: Party contests under the Constitution.]
[Sidenote: Political attacks upon Washington.]
Mr. President, I shall not--it will not, I trust, be expected that I
should--either now or at any time, separate this farrago into parts, and
answer and examine its components. I shall barely bestow upon it all a
general remark or two. In the run of forty years, Sir, under this
Constitution, we have experienced sundry successive violent party
contests. Party arose, indeed, with the Constitution itself, and, in
some form or other, has attended it through the greater part of its
history. Whether any other constitution than the old Articles of
Confederation was desirable, was itself a question on which parties
divided; if a new constitution were framed, what powers should be given
to it was another question; and when it had been formed, what was, in
fact, the just extent of the powers actually conferred was a third.
Parties, as we know, existed under the first administration, as
distinctly marked as those which have manifested themselves at any
subsequent period. The contest immediately preceding the political
change in 1801, and that, again, which existed at the commencement of
the late war, are other instances of party excitement of something more
than usual strength and intensity. In all these conflicts there was, no
doubt, much of violence on both and all sides. It would be impossible,
if one had a fancy for such employment, to adjust the relative _quantum_
of violence between these contending parties. There was enough in each,
as must always be expected in popular governments. With a great deal of
popular and decorous discussion, there was mingled a great deal, also,
of declamation, virulence, crimination, and abuse. In regard to any
party, probably, at one of the leading epochs in the history of parties,
enough may be found to make out another inflamed exhibition, not unlike
that with which the honorable member has edified us. For myself, Sir, I
shall not rake among the rubbish of bygone times to see what I can find,
or whether I cannot find something by which I can fix a blot on the
escutcheon of any State, any party, or any part of the country. General
Washington's administration was steadily and zealously maintained, as we
all know, by New England. It was violently opposed elsewhere. We know in
what quarter he had the most earnest, constant, and persevering support,
in all his great and leading measures. We know where his private and
personal character was held in the highest degree of attachment and
veneration; and we know, too, where his measures were opposed, his
services slighted, and his character vilified. We know, or we might
know, if we turned to the journals, who expressed respect, gratitude,
and regret, when he retired from the chief magistracy, and who refused
to express either respect, gratitude, or regret. I shall not open those
journals. Publications more abusive or scurrilous never saw the light,
than were sent forth against Washington and all his leading measures,
from presses south of New England. But I shall not look them up. I
employ no scavengers; no one is in attendance on me, furnishing such
means of retaliation; and if there were, with an ass's load of them,
with a bulk as huge as that which the gentleman himself has produced, I
would not touch one of them. I see enough of the violence of our own
times, to be no way anxious to rescue from forgetfulness the
extravagances of times past.
Besides, what is all this to the present purpose? It has nothing to do
with the public lands, in regard to which the attack was begun; and it
has nothing to do with those sentiments and opinions which, I have
thought, tend to disunion, and all of which the honorable member seems
to have adopted himself, and undertaken to defend. New England has, at
times, so argues the gentleman, held opinions as dangerous as those
which he now holds. Suppose this were so; why should _he_ therefore
abuse New England? If he finds himself countenanced by acts of hers, how
is it that, while he relies on these acts, he covers, or seeks to cover,
their authors with reproach? But, Sir, if, in the course of forty years,
there have been undue effervescences of party in New England, has the
same thing happened nowhere else? Party animosity and party outrage, not
in New England, but elsewhere, denounced President Washington, not only
as a Federalist, but as a Tory, a British agent, a man who, in his high
office, sanctioned corruption. But does the honorable member suppose,
if I had a tender here who should put such an effusion of wickedness and
folly into my hand, that I would stand up and read it against the South?
Parties ran into great heats again in 1799 and 1800. What was said, Sir,
or rather what was not said, in those years, against John Adams, one of
the committee that drafted the Declaration of Independence, and its
admitted ablest defender on the floor of Congress? If the gentleman
wishes to increase his stores of party abuse and frothy violence, if he
has a determined proclivity to such pursuits, there are treasures of
that sort south of the Potomac, much to his taste, yet untouched. I
shall not touch them.
[Sidenote: Political parties in 1812.]
The parties which divided the country at the commencement of the late
war were violent. But then there was violence on both sides, and
violence in every State. Minorities and majorities were equally violent.
There was no more violence against the war in New England than in other
States; nor any more appearance of violence, except that, owing to a
dense population, greater facility of assembling, and more presses,
there may have been more in quantity spoken and printed there than in
some other places. In the article of sermons, too, New England is
somewhat more abundant than South Carolina; and for that reason the
chance of finding here and there an exceptionable one may be greater. I
hope, too, there are more good ones. Opposition may have been more
formidable in New England, as it embraced a larger portion of the whole
population; but it was no more unrestrained in principle, or violent in
manner. The minorities dealt quite as harshly with their own State
governments as the majorities dealt with the administration here. There
were presses on both sides, popular meetings on both sides, ay, and
pulpits on both sides also. The gentleman's purveyors have only catered
for him among the productions of one side. I certainly shall not supply
the deficiency by furnishing samples of the other. I leave to him, and
to them, the whole concern.
It is enough for me to say that if, in any part of this their grateful
occupation, if, in all their researches, they find anything in the
history of Massachusetts, or New England, or in the proceedings of any
legislative or other public body, disloyal to the Union, speaking
slightingly of its value, proposing to break it up, or recommending
non-intercourse with neighboring States, on account of difference of
political opinion, then, Sir, I give them all up to the honorable
gentleman's unrestrained rebuke; expecting, however, that he will extend
his buffetings in like manner _to all similar proceedings, wherever else
found_.
[Sidenote: Tribute to South Carolina.]
The eulogium pronounced by the honorable gentleman on the character of
the State of South Carolina, for her Revolutionary and other merits,
meets my hearty concurrence. I shall not acknowledge that the honorable
member goes before me in regard for whatever of distinguished talent, or
distinguished character, South Carolina has produced. I claim part of
the honor, I partake in the pride, of her great names. I claim them for
countrymen, one and all, the Laurenses, the Rutledges, the Pinckneys,
the Sumpters, the Marions, Americans all, whose fame is no more to be
hemmed in by State lines, than their talents and patriotism were capable
of being circumscribed within the same narrow limits. In their day and
generation they served and honored the country, and the whole country;
and their renown is of the treasures of the whole country. Him whose
honored name the gentleman himself bears,--does he esteem me less
capable of gratitude for his patriotism, or sympathy for his sufferings,
than if his eyes had first opened upon the light of Massachusetts,
instead of South Carolina? Sir, does he suppose it in his power to
exhibit a Carolina name so bright as to produce envy in my bosom? No,
Sir, increased gratification and delight, rather. I thank God that, if I
am gifted with little of the spirit which is able to raise mortals to
the skies, I have yet none, as I trust, of that other spirit, which
would drag angels down. When I shall be found, Sir, in my place here in
the Senate, or elsewhere, to sneer at public merit, because it happens
to spring up beyond the little limits of my own State or neighborhood;
when I refuse, for any such cause or for any cause, the homage due to
American talent, to elevated patriotism, to sincere devotion to liberty
and the country; or, if I see an uncommon endowment of Heaven, if I see
extraordinary capacity and virtue, in any son of the South, and if,
moved by local prejudice or gangrened by State jealousy, I get up here
to abate the tithe of a hair from his just character and just fame, may
my tongue cleave to the roof of my mouth!
[Sidenote: Massachusetts and South Carolina in the Revolution.]
Sir, let me recur to pleasing recollections; let me indulge in
refreshing remembrance of the past; let me remind you that, in early
times, no States cherished greater harmony, both of principle and
feeling, than Massachusetts and South Carolina. Would to God that
harmony might again return! Shoulder to shoulder they went through the
Revolution, hand in hand they stood round the administration of
Washington, and felt his own great arm lean on them for support. Unkind
feeling, if it exist, alienation, and distrust are the growth, unnatural
to such soils, of false principles since sown. They are weeds, the seeds
of which that same great arm never scattered.
[Sidenote: Defence of Massachusetts.]
Mr. President, I shall enter on no encomium upon Massachusetts; she
needs none. There she is. Behold her, and judge for yourselves. There is
her history; the world knows it by heart. The past, at least, is secure.
There is Boston, and Concord, and Lexington, and Bunker Hill; and there
they will remain forever. The bones of her sons, falling in the great
struggle for Independence, now lie mingled with the soil of every State
from New England to Georgia; and there they will lie forever. And, Sir,
where American Liberty raised its first voice, and where its youth was
nurtured and sustained, there it still lives, in the strength of its
manhood and full of its original spirit. If discord and disunion shall
wound it, if party strife and blind ambition shall hawk at and tear it,
if folly and madness, if uneasiness under salutary and necessary
restraint, shall succeed in separating it from that Union by which alone
its existence is made sure, it will stand, in the end, by the side of
that cradle in which its infancy was rocked; it will stretch forth its
arm with whatever of vigor it may still retain over the friends who
gather round it; and it will fall at last, if fall it must, amidst the
proudest monuments of its own glory, and on the very spot of its origin.
[Illustration: THE BATTLE OF LEXINGTON
_From an engraving. By permission of Mr. O. G. Seeley_]
[Sidenote: The true principles of the Constitution.]
There yet remains to be performed, Mr. President, by far the most grave
and important duty which I feel to be devolved on me by this occasion.
It is to state, and to defend, what I conceive to be the true principles
of the Constitution under which we are here assembled. I might well
have desired that so weighty a task should have fallen into other and
abler hands. I could have wished that it should have been executed by
those whose character and experience give weight and influence to their
opinions, such as cannot possibly belong to mine. But, Sir, I have met
the occasion, not sought it; and I shall proceed to state my own
sentiments, without challenging for them any particular regard; with
studied plainness, and as much precision as possible.
[Sidenote: May State legislatures arrest national laws?]
I understand the honorable gentleman from South Carolina to maintain
that it is a right of the State legislatures to interfere, whenever, in
their judgment, this government transcends its constitutional limits,
and to arrest the operation of its laws.
I understand him to maintain this right, as a right existing _under_ the
Constitution, not as a right to overthrow it on the ground of extreme
necessity, such as would justify violent revolution.
I understand him to maintain an authority, on the part of the States,
thus to interfere, for the purpose of correcting the exercise of power
by the general government, of checking it, and of compelling it to
conform to their opinion of the extent of its powers.
[Sidenote: Are the States the final judges of the acts of the general
government?]
I understand him to maintain, that the ultimate power of judging of the
constitutional extent of its own authority is not lodged exclusively in
the general government, or any branch of it; but that, on the contrary,
the States may lawfully decide for themselves, and each State for
itself, whether, in a given case, the act of the general government
transcends its power.
I understand him to insist that if the exigency of the case, in the
opinion of any State government, require it, such State government may,
by its own sovereign authority, annul an act of the general government
which it deems plainly and palpably unconstitutional.
[Sidenote: The South Carolina doctrine.]
This is the sum of what I understand from him to be the South Carolina
doctrine, and the doctrine which he maintains. I propose to consider it,
and compare it with the Constitution. Allow me to say, as a preliminary
remark, that I call this the South Carolina doctrine only because the
gentleman himself has so denominated it. I do not feel at liberty to say
that South Carolina, as a State, has ever advanced these sentiments. I
hope she has not, and never may. That a great majority of her people are
opposed to the tariff laws, is doubtless true. That a majority, somewhat
less than that just mentioned, conscientiously believe these laws
unconstitutional, may probably also be true. But that any majority holds
to the right of direct State interference at State discretion, the right
of nullifying acts of Congress by acts of State legislation, is more
than I know, and what I shall be slow to believe.
That there are individuals besides the honorable gentleman who do
maintain these opinions is quite certain. I recollect the recent
expression of a sentiment which circumstances attending its utterance
and publication justify us in supposing was not unpremeditated: "The
sovereignty of the State,--never to be controlled, construed, or decided
on, but by her own feelings of honorable justice."
[Mr. Hayne here rose and said that for the purpose of being clearly
understood, he would state that his proposition was in the words of the
Virginia resolution, as follows:--
"That this assembly doth explicitly and peremptorily declare, that it
views the powers of the Federal government as resulting from the compact
to which the States are parties, as limited by the plain sense and
intention of the instrument constituting that compact, as no farther
valid than they are authorized by the grants enumerated in that compact;
and that, in case of a deliberate, palpable, and dangerous exercise of
other powers not granted by the said compact, the States who are parties
thereto have the right, and are in duty bound, to interpose, for
arresting the progress of the evil, and for maintaining within their
respective limits the authorities, rights, and liberties appertaining to
them."[31]
Mr. Webster resumed:--]
[Sidenote: Webster admits the right of revolution.]
I am quite aware, Mr. President, of the existence of the resolution
which the gentleman read, and has now repeated, and that he relies on it
as his authority. I know the source, too, from which it is understood to
have proceeded. I need not say that I have much respect for the
constitutional opinions of Mr. Madison; they would weigh greatly with me
always. But before the authority of his opinion be vouched for the
gentleman's proposition, it will be proper to consider what is the fair
interpretation of that resolution, to which Mr. Madison is understood to
have given his sanction. As the gentleman construes it, it is an
authority for him. Possibly he may not have adopted the right
construction. That resolution declares that _in the case of the
dangerous exercise of powers not granted by the general government, the
States may interpose to arrest the progress of the evil_. But how
interpose, and what does this declaration purport? Does it mean no more
than that there may be extreme cases, in which the people, in any mode
of assembling, may resist usurpation, and relieve themselves from a
tyrannical government? No one will deny this. Such resistance is not
only acknowledged to be just in America, but in England also Blackstone
admits as much, in the theory, and practice, too, of the English
constitution. We, Sir, who oppose the Carolina doctrine, do not deny
that the people may, if they choose, throw off any government when it
becomes oppressive and intolerable, and erect a better in its stead. We
all know that civil institutions are established for the public benefit,
and that when they cease to answer the ends of their existence they may
be changed. But I do not understand the doctrine now contended for to be
that which, for the sake of distinction, we may call the right of
revolution. I understand the gentleman to maintain that without
revolution, without civil commotion, without rebellion, a remedy for
supposed abuse and transgression of the powers of the general government
lies in a direct appeal to the interference of the State governments.
[Mr. Hayne here rose and said that he did not contend for the mere right
of revolution, but for the right of constitutional resistance. What he
maintained was, that in case of a plain, palpable violation of the
Constitution by the general government, a State may interpose; and that
this interposition is constitutional.
Mr. Webster resumed:--]
[Sidenote: No middle course between revolution and submission to
constitutional laws.]
[Sidenote: A concise statement of Webster's whole argument.]