"In republics it is a fundamental principle, that the majority
govern, and that the minority comply with the general voice. How
contrary, then, to republican principles, how humiliating, is our
present situation! A single State can rise up, and put a _veto_
upon the most important public measures. We have seen this actually
take place; a single State has controlled the general voice of the
Union; a minority, a very small minority, has governed us. So far
is this from being consistent with republican principles, that it
is, in effect, the worst species of monarchy.
"Hence we see how necessary for the Union is a coercive principle.
No man pretends the contrary. We all see and feel this necessity.
The only question is, Shall it be a coercion of law, or a coercion
of arms? There is no other possible alternative. Where will those
who oppose a coercion of law come out? Where will they end? A
necessary consequence of their principles is a war of the States
one against another. I am for coercion by law; that coercion which
acts only upon delinquent individuals. This Constitution does not
attempt to coerce sovereign bodies, States, in their political
capacity. No coercion is applicable to such bodies, but that of an
armed force. If we should attempt to execute the laws of the Union
by sending an armed force against a delinquent State, it would
involve the good and bad, the innocent and guilty, in the same
calamity. But this legal coercion singles out the guilty
individual, and punishes him for breaking the laws of the Union."
Indeed, Sir, if we look to all contemporary history, to the numbers of
the Federalist, to the debates in the conventions, to the publications
of friends and foes, they all agree, that a change had been made from a
confederacy of States to a different system; they all agree, that the
Convention had formed a Constitution for a national government. With
this result some were satisfied, and some were dissatisfied; but all
admitted that the thing had been done. In none of these various
productions and publications did any one intimate that the new
Constitution was but another compact between States in their sovereign
capacities. I do not find such an opinion advanced in a single instance.
Everywhere, the people were told that the old Confederation was to be
abandoned, and a new system to be tried; that a proper government was
proposed, to be founded in the name of the people, and to have a regular
organization of its own. Everywhere, the people were told that it was to
be a government with direct powers to make laws over individuals, and to
lay taxes and imposts without the consent of the States. Everywhere, it
was understood to be a popular Constitution. It came to the people for
their adoption, and was to rest on the same deep foundation as the State
constitutions themselves. Its most distinguished advocates, who had been
themselves members of the Convention, declared that the very object of
submitting the Constitution to the people was, to preclude the
possibility of its being regarded as a mere compact. "However gross a
heresy," say the writers of the Federalist, "it may be to maintain that
a party to a _compact_ has a right to revoke that _compact_, the
doctrine itself has had respectable advocates. The possibility of a
question of this nature proves the necessity of laying the foundations
of our national government deeper than in the mere sanction of delegated
authority. The fabric of American empire ought to rest on the solid
basis of THE CONSENT OF THE PEOPLE."
Such is the language, Sir, addressed to the people, while they yet had
the Constitution under consideration. The powers conferred on the new
government were perfectly well understood to be conferred, not by any
State, or the people of any State, but by the people of the United
States. Virginia is more explicit, perhaps, in this particular, than any
other State. Her convention, assembled to ratify the Constitution, "in
the name and behalf of the people of Virginia, declare and make known,
that the powers granted under the Constitution, _being derived from the
people of the United States_, may be resumed by them whenever the same
shall be perverted to their injury or oppression."
Is this language which describes the formation of a compact between
States? or language describing the grant of powers to a new government,
by the whole people of the United States?
Among all the other ratifications, there is not one which speaks of the
Constitution as a compact between States. Those of Massachusetts and New
Hampshire express the transaction, in my opinion, with sufficient
accuracy. They recognize the Divine goodness "in affording THE PEOPLE OF
THE UNITED STATES an opportunity of entering into an explicit and solemn
compact with each other, _by assenting to and ratifying a new
Constitution_." You will observe, Sir, that it is the PEOPLE, and not
the States, who have entered into this compact; and it is the PEOPLE of
all the United States. These conventions, by this form of expression,
meant merely to say, that the people of the United States had, by the
blessing of Providence, enjoyed the opportunity of establishing a new
Constitution, _founded in the consent of the people_. This consent of
the people has been called, by European writers, the _social compact_;
and, in conformity to this common mode of expression, these conventions
speak of that assent, on which the new Constitution was to rest, as an
explicit and solemn compact, not which the States had entered into with
each other, but which the _people_ of the United States had entered
into.
Finally, Sir, how can any man get over the words of the Constitution
itself?--"WE, THE PEOPLE OF THE UNITED STATES, DO ORDAIN AND ESTABLISH
THIS CONSTITUTION." These words must cease to be a part of the
Constitution, they must be obliterated from the parchment on which they
are written, before any human ingenuity or human argument can remove the
popular basis on which that Constitution rests, and turn the instrument
into a mere compact between sovereign States.
The second proposition, Sir, which I propose to maintain, is, that no
State authority can dissolve the relations subsisting between the
government of the United States and individuals; that nothing can
dissolve these relations but revolution; and that, therefore, there can
be no such thing as _secession_ without revolution. All this follows, as
it seems to me, as a just consequence, if it be first proved that the
Constitution of the United States is a government proper, owing
protection to individuals, and entitled to their obedience.
The people, Sir, in every State, live under two governments. They owe
obedience to both. These governments, though distinct, are not adverse.
Each has its separate sphere, and its peculiar powers and duties. It is
not a contest between two sovereigns for the same power, like the wars
of the rival houses in England; nor is it a dispute between a government
_de facto_ and a government _de jure_. It is the case of a division of
powers between two governments, made by the people, to whom both are
responsible. Neither can dispense with the duty which individuals owe to
the other; neither can call itself master of the other: the people are
masters of both. This division of power, it is true, is in a great
measure unknown in Europe. It is the peculiar system of America; and,
though new and singular, it is not incomprehensible. The State
constitutions are established by the people of the States. This
Constitution is established by the people of all the States. How, then,
can a State secede? How can a State undo what the whole people have
done? How can she absolve her citizens from their obedience to the laws
of the United States? How can she annul their obligations and oaths? How
can the members of her legislature renounce their own oaths? Sir,
secession, as a revolutionary right, is intelligible; as a right to be
proclaimed in the midst of civil commotions, and asserted at the head of
armies, I can understand it. But as a practical right, existing under
the Constitution, and in conformity with its provisions, it seems to me
to be nothing but a plain absurdity; for it supposes resistance to
government, under the authority of government itself; it supposes
dismemberment, without violating the principles of union; it supposes
opposition to law, without crime; it supposes the violation of oaths,
without responsibility; it supposes the total overthrow of government,
without revolution.
The Constitution, Sir, regards itself as perpetual and immortal. It
seeks to establish a union among the people of the States, which shall
last through all time. Or, if the common fate of things human must be
expected at some period to happen to it, yet that catastrophe is not
anticipated.
The instrument contains ample provisions for its amendment, at all
times; none for its abandonment, at any time. It declares that new
States may come into the Union, but it does not declare that old States
may go out. The Union is not a temporaly partnership of States. It is
the association of the people, under a constitution of government,
uniting their power, joining together their highest interests, cementing
their present enjoyments, and blending, in one indivisible mass, all
their hopes for the future. Whatsoever is steadfast in just political
principles; whatsoever is permanent in the structure of human society;
whatsoever there is which can derive an enduring character from being
founded on deep-laid principles of constitutional liberty and on the
broad foundations of the public will,--all these unite to entitle this
instrument to be regarded as a permanent constitution of government.
In the next place, Mr. President, I contend that there is a supreme law
of the land, consisting of the Constitution, acts of Congress passed in
pursuance of it, and the public treaties. This will not be denied,
because such are the very words of the Constitution. But I contend,
further, that it rightfully belongs to Congress, and to the courts of
the United States, to settle the construction of this supreme law, in
doubtful cases. This is denied; and here arises the great practical
question, _Who is to construe finally the Constitution of the United
States_? We all agree that the Constitution is the supreme law; but who
shall interpret that law? In our system of the division of powers
between different governments, controversies will necessarily sometimes
arise, respecting the extent of the powers of each. Who shall decide
these controversies? Does it rest with the general government, in all or
any of its departments, to exercise the office of final interpreter? Or
may each of the States, as well as the general government, claim this
right of ultimate decision? The practical result of this whole debate
turns on this point. The gentleman contends that each State may judge
for itself of any alleged violation of the Constitution, and may finally
decide for itself, and may execute its own decisions by its own power.
All the recent proceedings in South Carolina are founded on this claim
of right. Her convention has pronounced the revenue laws of the United
States unconstitutional; and this decision she does not allow any
authority of the United States to overrule or reverse. Of course she
rejects the authority of Congress, because the very object of the
ordinance is to reverse the decision of Congress; and she rejects, too,
the authority of the courts of the United States, because she expressly
prohibits all appeal to those courts. It is in order to sustain this
asserted right of being her own judge, that she pronounces the
Constitution of the United States to be but a compact, to which she is a
party, and a sovereign party. If this be established, then the inference
is supposed to follow, that, being sovereign, there is no power to
control her decision; and her own judgment on her own compact is, and
must be, conclusive.
I have already endeavored, Sir, to point out the practical consequences
of this doctrine, and to show how utterly inconsistent it is with all
ideas of regular government, and how soon its adoption would involve the
whole country in revolution and absolute anarchy. I hope it is easy now
to show, Sir, that a doctrine bringing such consequences with it is not
well founded; that it has nothing to stand on but theory and assumption;
and that it is refuted by plain and express constitutional provisions. I
think the government of the United States does possess, in its
appropriate departments, the authority of final decision on questions of
disputed power. I think it possesses this authority, both by necessary
implication and by express grant.
It will not be denied, Sir, that this authority naturally belongs to all
governments. They all exercise it from necessity, and as a consequence
of the exercise of other powers. The State governments themselves
possess it, except in that class of questions which may arise between
them and the general government, and in regard to which they have
surrendered it, as well by the nature of the case as by clear
constitutional provisions. In other and ordinary cases, whether a
particular law be in conformity to the constitution of the State is a
question which the State legislature or the State judiciary must
determine. We all know that these questions arise daily in the State
governments, and are decided by those governments; and I know no
government which does not exercise a similar power.
Upon general principles, then, the government of the United States
possesses this authority; and this would hardly be denied were it not
that there are other governments. But since there are State governments,
and since these, like other governments, ordinarily construe their own
powers, if the government of the United States construes its own powers
also, which construction is to prevail in the case of opposite
constructions? And again, as in the case now actually before us, the
State governments may undertake, not only to construe their own powers,
but to decide directly on the extent of the powers of Congress. Congress
has passed a law as being within its just powers; South Carolina denies
that this law is within its just powers, and insists that she has the
right so to decide this point, and that her decision is final. How are
these questions to be settled?
In my opinion, Sir, even if the Constitution of the United States had
made no express provision for such cases, it would yet be difficult to
maintain, that, in a Constitution existing over four-and-twenty States,
with equal authority over all, _one_ could claim a right of construing
it for the whole. This would seem a manifest impropriety; indeed, an
absurdity. If the Constitution is a government existing over all the
States, though with limited powers, it necessarily follows, that, to the
extent of those powers, it must be supreme. If it be not superior to the
authority of a particular State, it is not a national government. But as
it is a government, as it has a legislative power of its own, and a
judicial power coextensive with the legislative, the inference is
irresistible that this government, thus created _by_ the whole and _for_
the whole, must have an authority superior to that of the particular
government of any one part. Congress is the legislature of all the
people of the United States; the judiciary of the general government is
the judiciary of all the people of the United States. To hold,
therefore, that this legislature and this judiciary are subordinate in
authority to the legislature and judiciary of a single State, is doing
violence to all common sense, and overturning all established
principles. Congress must judge of the extent of its own powers so often
as it is called on to exercise them, or it cannot act at all; and it
must also act independent of State control, or it cannot act at all.
The right of State interposition strikes at the very foundation of the
legislative power of Congress. It possesses no effective legislative
power, if such right of State interposition exists; because it can pass
no law not subject to abrogation. It cannot make laws for the Union, if
any part of the Union may pronounce its enactments void and of no
effect. Its forms of legislation would be an idle ceremony, if, after
all, any one of four-and-twenty States might bid defiance to its
authority. Without express provision in the Constitution, therefore,
Sir, this whole question is necessarily decided by those provisions
which create a legislative power and a judicial power. If these exist in
a government intended for the whole, the inevitable consequence is, that
the laws of this legislative power and the decisions of this judicial
power must be binding on and over the whole. No man can form the
conception of a government existing over four-and-twenty States, with a
regular legislative and judicial power, and of the existence at the same
time of an authority, residing elsewhere, to resist, at pleasure or
discretion, the enactments and the decisions of such a government. I
maintain, therefore, Sir, that, from the nature of the case, and as an
inference wholly unavoidable, the acts of Congress and the decisions of
the national courts must be of higher authority than State laws and
State decisions. If this be not so, there is, there can be, no general
government.
But, Mr. President, the Constitution has not left this cardinal point
without full and explicit provisions. First, as to the authority of
Congress. Having enumerated the specific powers conferred on Congress,
the Constitution adds, as a distinct and substantive clause, the
following, viz.: "To make all laws which shall be necessary and proper
for carrying into execution the foregoing powers, and all other powers
vested by this Constitution in the government of the United States, or
in any department or officer thereof." If this means any thing, it means
that Congress may judge of the true extent and just interpretation of
the specific powers granted to it, and may judge also of what is
necessary and proper for executing those powers. If Congress is to judge
of what is necessary for the execution of its powers, it must, of
necessity, judge of the extent and interpretation of those powers.
And in regard, Sir, to the judiciary, the Constitution is still more
express and emphatic. It declares that the judicial power shall extend
to all _cases_ in law or equity arising under the Constitution, laws of
the United States, and treaties; that there shall be _one_ Supreme
Court, and that this Supreme Court shall have appellate jurisdiction of
all these cases, subject to such exceptions as Congress may make. It is
impossible to escape from the generality of these words. If a case
arises under the Constitution, that is, if a case arises depending on
the construction of the Constitution, the judicial power of the United
States extends to it. It reaches _the case, the question_; it attaches
the power of the national judicature to the _case_ itself, in whatever
court it may arise or exist; and in this _case_ the Supreme Court has
appellate jurisdiction over all courts whatever. No language could
provide with more effect and precision than is here done, for subjecting
constitutional questions to the ultimate decision of the Supreme Court.
And, Sir, this is exactly what the Convention found it necessary to
provide for, and intended to provide for. It is, too, exactly what the
people were universally told was done when they adopted the
Constitution. One of the first resolutions adopted by the Convention was
in these words, viz.: "That the jurisdiction of the national judiciary
shall extend to cases which respect _the collection of the national
revenue_, and questions which involve the national peace and harmony."
Now, Sir, this either had no sensible meaning at all, or else it meant
that the jurisdiction of the national judiciary should extend to these
questions, _with a paramount authority_. It is not to be supposed that
the Convention intended that the power of the national judiciary should
extend to these questions, and that the power of the judicatures of the
States should also extend to them, _with equal power of final decision_.
This would be to defeat the whole object of the provision. There were
thirteen judicatures already in existence. The evil complained of, or
the danger to be guarded against, was contradiction and repugnance in
the decisions of these judicatures. If the framers of the Constitution
meant to create a fourteenth, and yet not to give it power to revise and
control the decisions of the existing thirteen, then they only intended
to augment the existing evil and the apprehended danger by increasing
still further the chances of discordant judgments. Why, Sir, has it
become a settled axiom in politics that every government must have a
judicial power coextensive with its legislative power? Certainly, there
is only this reason, namely, that the laws may receive a uniform
interpretation and a uniform execution. This object cannot be otherwise
attained. A statute is what it is judicially interpreted to be; and if
it be construed one way in New Hampshire, and another way in Georgia,
there is no uniform law. One supreme court, with appellate and final
jurisdiction, is the natural and only adequate means, in any government,
to secure this uniformity. The Convention saw all this clearly; and the
resolution which I have quoted, never afterwards rescinded, passed
through various modifications, till it finally received the form which
the article now bears in the Constitution.
It is undeniably true, then, that the framers of the Constitution
intended to create a national judicial power, which should be paramount
on national subjects. And after the Constitution was framed, and while
the whole country was engaged in discussing its merits, one of its most
distinguished advocates, Mr. Madison, told the people that it _was true,
that, in controversies relating to the boundary between the two
jurisdictions, the tribunal which is ultimately to decide is to be
established under the general government_. Mr. Martin, who had been a
member of the Convention, asserted the same thing to the legislature of
Maryland, and urged it as a reason for rejecting the Constitution. Mr.
Pinckney, himself also a leading member of the Convention, declared it
to the people of South Carolina. Everywhere it was admitted, by friends
and foes, that this power was in the Constitution. By some it was
thought dangerous, by most it was thought necessary; but by all it was
agreed to be a power actually contained in the instrument. The
Convention saw the absolute necessity of some control in the national
government over State laws. Different modes of establishing this control
were suggested and considered. At one time, it was proposed that the
laws of the States should, from time to time, be laid before Congress,
and that Congress should possess a negative over them. But this was
thought inexpedient and inadmissible; and in its place, and expressly as
a substitute for it, the existing provision was introduced; that is to
say, a provision by which the federal courts should have authority to
overrule such State laws as might be in manifest contravention of the
Constitution. The writers of the Federalist, in explaining the
Constitution, while it was yet pending before the people, and still
unadopted, give this account of the matter in terms, and assign this
reason for the article as it now stands. By this provision Congress
escaped the necessity of any revision of State laws, left the whole
sphere of State legislation quite untouched, and yet obtained a security
against any infringement of the constitutional power of the general
government. Indeed, Sir, allow me to ask again, if the national
judiciary was not to exercise a power of revision on constitutional
questions over the judicatures of the States, why was any national
judicature erected at all? Can any man give a sensible reason for having
a judicial power in this government, unless it be for the sake of
maintaining a uniformity of decision on questions arising under the
Constitution and laws of Congress, and insuring its execution? And does
not this very idea of uniformity necessarily imply that the construction
given by the national courts is to be the prevailing construction? How
else, Sir, is it possible that uniformity can be preserved?
Gentlemen appear to me, Sir, to look at but one side of the question.
They regard only the supposed danger of trusting a government with the
interpretation of its own powers. But will they view the question in its
other aspect? Will they show us how it is possible for a government to
get along with four-and-twenty interpreters of its laws and powers?
Gentlemen argue, too, as if, in these cases, the State would be always
right, and the general government always wrong. But suppose the
reverse,--suppose the State wrong (and, since they differ, some of them
must be wrong),--are the most important and essential operations of the
government to be embarrassed and arrested, because one State holds the
contrary opinion? Mr. President, every argument which refers the
constitutionality of acts of Congress to State decision appeals from the
majority to the minority; it appeals from the common interest to a
particular interest; from the counsels of all to the counsel of one; and
endeavors to supersede the judgment of the whole by the judgment of a
part.
I think it is clear. Sir, that the Constitution, by express provision,
by definite and unequivocal words, as well as by necessary implication,
has constituted the Supreme Court of the United States the appellate
tribunal in all cases of a constitutional nature which assume the shape
of a suit, in law or equity. And I think I cannot do better than to
leave this part of the subject by reading the remarks made upon it in
the convention of Connecticut, by Mr. Ellsworth; a gentleman, Sir, who
has left behind him, on the records of the government of his country,
proofs of the clearest intelligence and of the deepest sagacity, as well
as of the utmost purity and integrity of character. "This Constitution,"
says he, "defines the extent of the powers of the general government. If
the general legislature should, at any time, overleap their limits, the
judicial department is a constitutional check. If the United States go
beyond their powers, if they make a law which the Constitution does not
authorize, it is void; and the judiciary power, the national judges,
who, to secure their impartiality, are to be made independent, will
declare it to be void. On the other hand, if the States go beyond their
limits, if they make a law which is a usurpation upon the general
government, the law is void; and upright, independent judges will
declare it to be so." Nor did this remain merely matter of private
opinion. In the very first session of the first Congress, with all these
well-known objects, both of the Convention and the people, full and
fresh in his mind, Mr. Ellsworth, as is generally understood, reported
the bill for the organization of the judicial department, and in that
bill made provision for the exercise of this appellate power of the
Supreme Court, in all the proper cases, in whatsoever court arising; and
this appellate power has now been exercised for more than forty years,
without interruption, and without doubt.
As to the cases, Sir, which do not come before the courts, those
political questions which terminate with the enactments of Congress, it
is of necessity that these should be ultimately decided by Congress
itself. Like other legislatures, it must be trusted with this power. The
members of Congress are chosen by the people, and they are answerable to
the people; like other public agents, they are bound by oath to support
the Constitution. These are the securities that they will not violate
their duty, nor transcend their powers. They are the same securities
that prevail in other popular governments; nor is it easy to see how
grants of power can be more safely guarded, without rendering them
nugatory. If the case cannot come before the courts, and if Congress be
not trusted with its decision, who shall decide it? The gentleman says,
each State is to decide it for herself. If so, then, as I have already
urged, what is law in one State is not law in another. Or, if the
resistance of one State compels an entire repeal of the law, then a
minority, and that a small one, governs the whole country.
Sir, those who espouse the doctrines of nullification reject, as it
seems to me, the first great principle of all republican liberty; that
is, that the majority _must_ govern. In matters of common concern, the
judgment of a majority _must_ stand as the judgment of the whole. This
is a law imposed on us by the absolute necessity of the case; and if we
do not act upon it, there is no possibility of maintaining any
government but despotism. We hear loud and repeated denunciations
against what is called _majority government_. It is declared, with much
warmth, that a majority government cannot be maintained in the United
States. What, then, do gentlemen wish? Do they wish to establish a
_minority_ government? Do they wish to subject the will of the many to
the will of the few? The honorable gentleman from South Carolina has
spoken of absolute majorities and majorities concurrent; language wholly
unknown to our Constitution, and to which it is not easy to affix
definite ideas. As far as I understand it, it would teach us that the
absolute majority may be found in Congress, but the majority concurrent
must be looked for in the States; that is to say, Sir, stripping the
matter of this novelty of phrase, that the dissent of one or more
States, as States, renders void the decision of a majority of Congress,
so far as that State is concerned. And so this doctrine, running but a
short career, like other dogmas of the day, terminates in nullification.
If this vehement invective against _majorities_ meant no more than that,
in the construction of government, it is wise to provide checks and
balances, so that there should be various limitations on the power of
the mere majority, it would only mean what the Constitution of the
United States has already abundantly provided. It is full of such checks
and balances. In its very organization, it adopts a broad and most
effective principle in restraint of the power of mere majorities. A
majority of the people elects the House of Representatives, but it does
not elect the Senate. The Senate is elected by the States, each State
having, in this respect, an equal power. No law, therefore, can pass,
without the assent of the representatives of the people, and a majority
of the representatives of the States also. A majority of the
representatives of the people must concur, and a majority of the States
must concur, in every act of Congress; and the President is elected on a
plan compounded of both these principles. But having composed one house
of representatives chosen by the people in each State, according to
their numbers, and the other of an equal number of members from every
State, whether larger or smaller, the Constitution gives to majorities
in these houses thus constituted the full and entire power of passing
laws, subject always to the constitutional restrictions and to the
approval of the President. To subject them to any other power is clear
usurpation. The majority of one house may be controlled by the majority
of the other; and both may be restrained by the President's negative.
These are checks and balances provided by the Constitution, existing in
the government itself, and wisely intended to secure deliberation and
caution in legislative proceedings. But to resist the will of the
majority in both houses, thus constitutionally exercised, to insist on
the lawfulness of interposition by an extraneous power; to claim the
right of defeating the will of Congress, by setting up against it the
will of a single State,--is neither more nor less, as it strikes me,
than a plain attempt to overthrow the government. The constituted
authorities of the United States are no longer a government, if they be
not masters of their own will; they are no longer a government, if an
external power may arrest their proceedings; they are no longer a
government, if acts passed by both houses, and approved by the
President, may be nullified by State vetoes or State ordinances. Does
any one suppose it could make any difference, as to the binding
authority of an act of Congress, and of the duty of a State to respect
it, whether it passed by a mere majority of both houses, or by three
fourths of each, or the unanimous vote of each? Within the limits and
restrictions of the Constitution, the government of the United States,
like all other populpr governments, acts by majorities. It can act no
otherwise. Whoever, therefore, denounces the government of majorities,
denounces the government of his own country, and denounces all free
governments. And whoever would restrain these majorities, while acting
within their constitutional limits, by an external power, whatever he
may intend, asserts principles which, if adopted, can lead to nothing
else than the destruction of the government itself.
Does not the gentleman perceive, Sir, how his argument against
majorities might here be retorted upon him? Does he not see how cogently
he might be asked, whether it be the character of nullification to
practise what it preaches? Look to South Carolina, at the present
moment. How far are the rights of minorities there respected? I confess,
Sir, I have not known, in peaceable times, the power of the majority
carried with a higher hand, or upheld with more relentless disregard of
the rights, feelings and principles of the minority;--a minority
embracing, as the gentleman himself will admit, a large portion of the
worth and respectability of the State;--a minority comprehending in its
numbers men who have been associated with him, and with us, in these
halls of legislation; men who have served their country at home and
honored it abroad; men who would cheerfully lay down their lives for
their native State, in any cause which they could regard as the cause of
honor and duty; men above fear, and above reproach, whose deepest grief
and distress spring from the conviction, that the present proceedings of
the State must ultimately reflect discredit upon her. How is this
minority, how are these men, regarded? They are enthralled and
disfranchised by ordinances and acts of legislation; subjected to tests
and oaths, incompatible, as they conscientiously think, with oaths
already taken, and obligations already assumed; they are proscribed and
denounced as recreants to duty and patriotism, and slaves to a foreign
power. Both the spirit which pursues them, and the positive measures
which emanate from that spirit, are harsh and proscriptive beyond all
precedent within my knowledge, except in periods of professed
revolution.
It is not, Sir, one would think, for those who approve these proceedings
to complain of the power of majorities.
Mr. President, all popular governments rest on two principles, or two
assumptions:--
First, That there is so far a common interest among those over whom the
government extends, as that it may provide for the defence, protection,
and good government of the whole, without injustice or oppression to
parts; and
Secondly, That the representatives of the people, and especially the
people themselves, are secure against general corruption, and may be
trusted, therefore, with the exercise of power.
Whoever argues against these principles argues against the
practicability of all free governments. And whoever admits these, must
admit, or cannot deny, that power is as safe in the hands of Congress as
in those of other representative bodies. Congress is not irresponsible.
Its members are agents of the people, elected by them, answerable to
them, and liable to be displaced or superseded, at their pleasure; and
they possess as fair a claim to the confidence of the people, while they
continue to deserve it, as any other public political agents.
If, then, Sir, the manifest intention of the Convention, and the
contemporary admission of both friends and foes, prove any thing; if the
plain text of the instrument itself, as well as the necessary
implication from other provisions, prove any thing; if the early
legislation of Congress, the course of judicial decisions, acquiesced in
by all the States for forty years, prove any thing,--then it is proved
that there is a supreme law, and a final interpreter.
My fourth and last proposition, Mr. President, was, that any attempt by
a State to abrogate or nullify acts of Congress is a usurpation on the
powers of the general government and on the equal rights of other
States, a violation of the Constitution, and a proceeding essentially
revolutionary. This is undoubtedly true, if the preceding propositions
be regarded as proved. If the government of the United States be trusted
with the duty, in any department, of declaring the extent of its own
powers, then a State ordinance, or act of legislation, authorizing
resistance to an act of Congress, on the alleged ground of its
unconstitutionally, is manifestly a usurpation upon its powers. If the
States have equal rights in matters concerning the whole, then for one
State to set up her judgment against the judgment of the rest, and to
insist on executing that judgment by force, is also a manifest
usurpation on the rights of other States. If the Constitution of the
United States be a government proper, with authority to pass laws, and
to give them a uniform interpretation and execution, then the
interposition of a State, to enforce her own construction, and to
resist, as to herself, that law which binds the other States, is a
violation of the Constitution.
If that be revolutionary which arrests the legislative, executive, and
judicial power of government, dispenses with existing oaths and
obligations of obedience, and elevates another power to supreme
dominion, then nullification is revolutionary. Or if that be
revolutionary the natural tendency and practical effect of which are to
break the Union into fragments, to sever all connection among the people
of the respective States, and to prostrate this general government in
the dust, then nullification is revolutionary.
Nullification, Sir, is as distinctly revolutionary as secession; but I
cannot say that the revolution which it seeks is one of so respectable a
character. Secession would, it is true, abandon the Constitution
altogether; but then it would profess to abandon it. Whatever other
inconsistencies it might run into, one, at least, it would avoid. It
would not belong to a government, while it rejected its authority. It
would not repel the burden, and continue to enjoy the benefits. It would
not aid in passing laws which others are to obey, and yet reject their
authority as to itself. It would not undertake to reconcile obedience to
public authority with an asserted right of command over that same
authority. It would not be in the government, and above the government,
at the same time. But though secession may be a more respectable mode of
attaining the object than nullification, it is not more truly
revolutionary. Each, and both, resist the constitutional authorities;
each, and both, would sever the Union and subvert the government.
Mr. President, having detained the Senate so long already, I will not
now examine at length the ordinance and laws of South Carolina. These
papers are well drawn for their purpose. Their authors understood their
own objects. They are called a peaceable remedy, and we have been told
that South Carolina, after all, intends nothing but a lawsuit. A very
few words, Sir, will show the nature of this peaceable remedy, and of
the lawsuit which South Carolina contemplates.
In the first place, the ordinance declares the law of last July, and all
other laws of the United States laying duties, to be absolutely null and
void, and makes it unlawful for the constituted authorities of the
United States to enforce the payment of such duties. It is therefore,
Sir, an indictable offence, at this moment, in South Carolina, for any
person to be concerned in collecting revenue under the laws of the
United States. It being declared, by what is considered a fundamental
law of the State, unlawful to collect these duties, an indictment lies,
of course, against any one concerned in such collection; and he is, on
general principles, liable to be punished by fine and imprisonment. The
terms, it is true, are, that it is unlawful "to enforce the payment of
duties"; but every custom-house officer enforces payment while he
detains the goods in order to obtain such payment. The ordinance,
therefore, reaches everybody concerned in the collection of the duties.
This is the first step in the prosecution of the peaceable remedy. The
second is more decisive. By the act commonly called the _replevin_ law,
any person whose goods are seized or detained by the collector for the
payment of duties may sue out a writ of replevin, and, by virtue of that
writ, the goods are to be restored to him. A writ of replevin is a writ
which the sheriff is bound to execute, and for the execution of which he
is bound to employ force, if necessary. He may call out the _posse_, and
must do so, if resistance be made. This _posse_ may be armed or unarmed.
It may come forth with military array, and under the lead of military
men. Whatever number of troops may be assembled in Charleston, they may
be summoned, with the governor, or commander-in-chief, at their head, to
come in aid of the sheriff. It is evident, then, Sir, that the whole
military power of the State is to be employed, if necessary, in
dispossessing the custom-house officers, and in seizing and holding the
goods, without paying the duties. This is the second step in the
peaceable remedy.
Sir, whatever pretences may be set up to the contrary, this is the
direct application of force, and of military force. It is unlawful, in
itself, to replevy goods in the custody of the collectors. But this
unlawful act is to be done, and it is to be done by power. Here is a
plain interposition, by physical force, to resist the laws of the Union.
The legal mode of collecting duties is to detain the goods till such
duties are paid or secured. But force comes, and overpowers the
collector and his assistants, and takes away the goods, leaving the
duties unpaid. There cannot be a clearer case of forcible resistance to
law. And it is provided that the goods thus seized shall be held against
any attempt to retake them, by the same force which seized them.
Having thus dispossessed the officers of the government of the goods,
without payment of duties, and seized and secured them by the strong arm
of the State, only one thing more remains to be done, and that is, to
cut off all possibility of legal redress; and that, too, is
accomplished, or thought to be accomplished. The ordinance declares,
_that all judicial proceedings, founded on the revenue laws_ (including,
of course, proceedings in the courts of the United States), _shall be
null and void_. This nullifies the judicial power of the United States.
Then comes the test-oath act. This requires all State judges and jurors
in the State courts to swear that they will execute the ordinance, and
all acts of the legislature passed in pursuance thereof. The ordinance
declares, that no appeal shall be allowed from the decision of the State
courts to the Supreme Court of the United States; and the replevin act
makes it an indictable offence for any clerk to furnish a copy of the
record, for the purpose of such appeal.
The two principal provisions on which South Carolina relies, to resist
the laws of the United States, and nullify the authority of this
government, are, therefore, these:--
1. A forcible seizure of goods, before duties are paid or secured, by
the power of the State, civil and military.
2. The taking away, by the most effectual means in her power, of all
legal redress in the courts of the United States; the confining of
judicial proceedings to her own State tribunals; and the compelling of
her judges and jurors of these her own courts to take an oath,
beforehand, that they will decide all cases according to the ordinance,
and the acts passed under it; that is, that they will decide the cause
one way. They do not swear to _try_ it, on its own merits; they only
swear to _decide_ it as nullification requires.
The character, Sir, of these provisions defies comment. Their object is
as plain as their means are extraordinary. They propose direct
resistance, by the whole power of the State, to laws of Congress, and
cut off, by methods deemed adequate, any redress by legal and judicial
authority. They arrest legislation, defy the executive, and banish the
judicial power of this government. They authorize and command acts to be
done, and done by force, both of numbers and of arms, which, if done,
and done by force, are clearly acts of rebellion and treason.
Such, Sir, are the laws of South Carolina; such, Sir, is the peaceable
remedy of nullification. Has not nullification reached, Sir, even thus
early, that point of direct and forcible resistance to law to which I
intimated, three years ago, it plainly tended?
And now, Mr. President, what is the reason for passing laws like these?
What are the oppressions experienced under the Union, calling for
measures which thus threaten to sever and destroy it? What invasions of
public liberty, what ruin to private happiness, what long list of rights
violated, or wrongs unredressed, is to justify to the country, to
posterity, and to the world, this assault upon the free Constitution of
the United States, this great and glorious work of our fathers? At this
very moment, Sir, the whole land smiles in peace, and rejoices in
plenty. A general and a high prosperity pervades the country; and,
judging by the common standard, by increase of population and wealth,
or judging by the opinions of that portion of her people not embarked in
these dangerous and desperate measures, this prosperity overspreads
South Carolina herself.
Thus happy at home, our country, at the same time, holds high the
character of her institutions, her power, her rapid growth, and her
future destiny, in the eyes of all foreign states. One danger only
creates hesitation; one doubt only exists, to darken the otherwise
unclouded brightness of that aspect which she exhibits to the view and
to the admiration of the world. Need I say, that that doubt respects the
permanency of our Union? and need I say, that that doubt is now caused,
more than any thing else, by these very proceedings of South Carolina?
Sir, all Europe is, at this moment, beholding us, and looking for the
issue of this controversy; those who hate free institutions, with
malignant hope; those who love them, with deep anxiety and shivering
fear.
The cause, then, Sir, the cause! Let the world know the cause which has
thus induced one State of the Union to bid defiance to the power of the
whole, and openly to talk of secession. Sir, the world will scarcely
believe that this whole controversy, and all the desperate measures
which its support requires, have no other foundation than a difference
of opinion upon a provision of the Constitution, between a majority of
the people of South Carolina, on one side, and a vast majority of the
whole people of the United States, on the other. It will not credit the
fact, it will not admit the possibility, that, in an enlightened age, in
a free, popular republic, under a constitution where the people govern,
as they must always govern under such systems, by majorities, at a time
of unprecedented prosperity, without practical oppression, without evils
such as may not only be pretended, but felt and experienced,--evils not
slight or temporary, but deep, permanent, and intolerable,--a single
State should rush into conflict with all the rest, attempt to put down
the power of the Union by her own laws, and to support those laws by her
military power, and thus break up and destroy the world's last hope. And
well the world may be incredulous. We, who see and hear it, can
ourselves hardly yet believe it. Even after all that had preceded it,
this ordinance struck the country with amazement. It was incredible and
inconceivable that South Carolina should plunge headlong into resistance
to the laws on a matter of opinion, and on a question in which the
preponderance of opinion, both of the present day and of all past time,
was so overwhelmingly against her. The ordinance declares that Congress
has exceeded its just power by laying duties on imports, intended for
the protection of manufactures. This is the opinion of South Carolina;
and on the strength of that opinion she nullifies the laws. Yet has the
rest of the country no right to its opinion also? Is one State to sit
sole arbitress? She maintains that those laws are plain, deliberate, and
palpable violations of the Constitution; that she has a sovereign right
to decide this matter; and that, having so decided, she is authorized to
resist their execution by her own sovereign power; and she declares that
she will resist it, though such resistance should shatter the Union into
atoms.
Mr. President, I do not intend to discuss the propriety of these laws at
large; but I will ask, How are they shown to be thus plainly and
palpably unconstitutional? Have they no countenance at all in the
Constitution itself? Are they quite new in the history of the
government? Are they a sudden and violent usurpation on the rights of
the States? Sir, what will the civilized world say, what will posterity
say, when they learn that similar laws have existed from the very
foundation of the government, that for thirty years the power was never
questioned, and that no State in the Union has more freely and
unequivocally admitted it than South Carolina herself?
To lay and collect duties and imposts is an _express power_ granted by
the Constitution to Congress. It is, also, an _exclusive power_; for the
Constitution as expressly prohibits all the States from exercising it
themselves. This express and exclusive power is unlimited in the terms
of the grant, but is attended with two specific restrictions: first,
that all duties and imposts shall be equal in all the States; second,
that no duties shall be laid on exports. The power, then, being granted,
and being attended with these two restrictions, and no more, who is to
impose a third restriction on the general words of the grant? If the
power to lay duties, as known among all other nations, and as known in
all our history, and as it was perfectly understood when the
Constitution was adopted, includes a right of discriminating while
exercising the power, and of laying some duties heavier and some
lighter, for the sake of encouraging our own domestic products, what
authority is there for giving to the words used in the Constitution a
new, narrow, and unusual meaning? All the limitations which the
Constitution intended, it has expressed; and what it has left
unrestricted is as much a part of its will as the restraints which it
has imposed.
But these laws, it is said, are unconstitutional on account of the
_motive_. How, Sir, can a law be examined on any such ground? How is the
motive to be ascertained? One house, or one member, may have one motive;
the other house, or another member, another. One motive may operate
to-day, and another to-morrow. Upon any such mode of reasoning as this,
one law might be unconstitutional now, and another law, in exactly the
same words, perfectly constitutional next year. Besides, articles may
not only be taxed for the purpose of protecting home products, but other
articles may be left free, for the same purpose and with the same
motive. A law, therefore, would become unconstitutional from what it
omitted, as well as from what it contained. Mr. President, it is a
settled principle, acknowledged in all legislative halls, recognized
before all tribunals, sanctioned by the general sense and understanding
of mankind, that there can be no inquiry into the motives of those who
pass laws, for the purpose of determining on their validity. If the law
be within the fair meaning of the words in the grant of the power, its
authority must be admitted until it is repealed. This rule, everywhere
acknowledged, everywhere admitted, is so universal and so completely
without exception, that even an allegation of fraud, in the majority of
a legislature, is not allowed as a ground to set aside a law.
But, Sir, is it true that the motive for these laws is such as is
stated? I think not. The great object of all these laws is,
unquestionably, revenue. If there were no occasion for revenue, the laws
would not have been passed; and it is notorious that almost the entire
revenue of the country is derived from them. And as yet we have
collected none too much revenue. The treasury has not been more reduced
for many years than it is at the present moment. All that South Carolina
can say is, that, in passing the laws which she now undertakes to
nullify, _particular imported articles were taxed, from a regard to the
protection of certain articles of domestic manufacture, higher than they
would have been had no such regard been entertained_. And she insists,
that, according to the Constitution, no such discrimination can be
allowed; that duties should be laid for revenue, and revenue only; and
that it is unlawful to have reference, in any case, to protection. In
other words, she denies the power of DISCRIMINATION. She does not, and
cannot, complain of excessive taxation; on the contrary, she professes
to be willing to pay any amount for revenue, merely as revenue; and up
to the present moment there is no surplus of revenue. Her grievance,
then, that plain and palpable violation of the Constitution which she
insists has taken place, is simply the exercise of the power of
DISCRIMINATION. Now, Sir, is the exercise of this power of
discrimination plainly and palpably unconstitutional?
I have already said, the power to lay duties is given by the
Constitution in broad and general terms. There is also conferred on
Congress the whole power of regulating commerce, in another distinct
provision. Is it clear and palpable, Sir, can any man say it is a case
beyond doubt, that, under these two powers, Congress may not justly
_discriminate_, in laying duties, _for the purpose of countervailing the
policy of foreign nations, or of favoring our own home productions_?
Sir, what ought to conclude this question for ever, as it would seem to
me, is, that the regulation of commerce and the imposition of duties
are, in all commercial nations, powers avowedly and constantly exercised
for this very end. That undeniable truth ought to settle the question;
because the Constitution ought to be considered, when it uses well-known
language, as using it in its well-known sense. But it is equally
undeniable, that it has been, from the very first, fully believed that
this power of discrimination was conferred on Congress; and the
Constitution was itself recommended, urged upon the people, and
enthusiastically insisted on in some of the States, for that very
reason. Not that, at that time, the country was extensively engaged in
manufactures, especially of the kinds now existing. But the trades and
crafts of the seaport towns, the business of the artisans and manual
laborers,--those employments, the work in which supplies so great a
portion of the daily wants of all classes,--all these looked to the new
Constitution as a source of relief from the severe distress which
followed the war. It would, Sir, be unpardonable, at so late an hour, to
go into details on this point; but the truth is as I have stated. The
papers of the day, the resolutions of public meetings, the debates in
the contentions, all that we open our eyes upon in the history of the
times, prove it.
Sir, the honorable gentleman from South Carolina has referred to two
incidents connected with the proceedings of the Convention at
Philadelphia, which he thinks are evidence to show that the power of
protecting manufactures by laying duties, and by commercial regulations,
was not intended to be given to Congress. The first is, as he says, that
a power to protect manufactures was expressly proposed, but not granted.
I think, Sir, the gentleman is quite mistaken in relation to this part
of the proceedings of the Convention. The whole history of the
occurrence to which he alludes is simply this. Towards the conclusion of
the Convention, after the provisions of the Constitution had been mainly
agreed upon, after the power to lay duties and the power to regulate
commerce had both been granted, a long list of propositions was made and
referred to the committee, containing various miscellaneous powers, some
or all of which it was thought might be properly vested in Congress.
Among these was a power to establish a university; to grant charters of
incorporation; to regulate stage-coaches on the post-roads, and also the
power to which the gentleman refers, and which is expressed in these
words: "To establish public institutions, rewards, and immunities, for
the promotion of agriculture, commerce, trades, and manufactures." The
committee made no report on this or various other propositions in the
same list. But the only inference from this omission is, that neither
the committee nor the Convention thought it proper to authorize Congress
"to establish public institutions, rewards, and immunities," for the
promotion of manufactures, and other interests. The Convention supposed
it had done enough,--at any rate, it had done all it intended,--when it
had given to Congress, in general terms, the power to lay imposts and
the power to regulate trade. It is not to be argued, from its omission
to give more, that it meant to take back what it had already given. It
had given the impost power; it had given the regulation of trade; and it
did not deem it necessary to give the further and distinct power of
establishing public institutions.
The other fact, Sir, on which the gentleman relies, is the declaration
of Mr. Martin to the legislature of Maryland. The gentleman supposes Mr.
Martin to have urged against the Constitution, that it did not contain
the power of protection. But if the gentleman will look again at what
Mr. Martin said, he will find, I think, that what Mr. Martin complained
of was, that the Constitution, by its prohibitions on the States, had
taken away from the States themselves the power of protecting their own
manufactures by duties on imports. This is undoubtedly true; but I find
no expression of Mr. Martin intimating that the Constitution had not
conferred on Congress the same power which it had thus taken from the
States.
But, Sir, let us go to the first Congress; let us look in upon this and
the other house, at the first session of their organization.
We see, in both houses, men distinguished among the framers, friends,
and advocates of the Constitution. We see in both, those who had drawn,
discussed, and matured the instrument in the Convention, explained and
defended it before the people, and were now elected members of Congress,
to put the new government into motion, and to carry the powers of the
Constitution into beneficial execution. At the head of the government
was WASHINGTON himself, who had been President of the Convention; and in
his cabinet were others most thoroughly acquainted with the history of
the Constitution, and distinguished for the part taken in its
discussion. If these persons were not acquainted with the meaning of the
Constitution, if they did not understand the work of their own hands,
who can understand it, or who shall now interpret it to us?
Sir, the volume which records the proceedings and debates of the first
session of the House of Representatives lies before me. I open it, and I
find that, having provided for the administration of the necessary
oaths, the very first measure proposed for consideration is, the laying
of imposts; and in the very first committee of the whole into which the
House of Representatives ever resolved itself, on this its earliest
subject, and in this its very first debate, the duty of so laying the
imposts as to encourage manufactures was advanced and enlarged upon by
almost every speaker, and doubted or denied by none. The first gentleman
who suggests this as the clear duty of Congress, and as an object
necessary to be attended to, is Mr. Fitzsimons, of Pennsylvania; the
second, Mr. White, of VIRGINIA; the third, Mr. Tucker, of SOUTH
CAROLINA.
But the great leader, Sir, on this occasion, was Mr. Madison. Was _he_
likely to know the intentions of the Convention and the people? Was _he_
likely to understand the Constitution? At the second sitting of the
committee, Mr. Madison explained his own opinions of the duty of
Congress, fully and explicitly. I must not detain you, Sir, with more
than a few short extracts from these opinions, but they are such as are
clear, intelligible, and decisive. "The States," says he, "that are most
advanced in population, and ripe for manufactures, ought to have their
particular interest attended to, in some degree. While these States
retained the power of making regulations of trade, they had the power to
cherish such institutions. By adopting the present Constitution, they
have thrown the exercise of this power into other hands; they must have
done this with an expectation that those interests would not be
neglected here." In another report of the same speech, Mr. Madison is
represented as using still stronger language; as saying that, the
Constitution having taken this power away from the States and conferred
it on Congress, it would be a _fraud_ on the States and on the people
were Congress to refuse to exercise it.
Mr. Madison argues, Sir, on this early and interesting occasion, very
justly and liberally, in favor of the general principles of unrestricted
commerce. But he argues, also, with equal force and clearness, for
certain important exceptions to these general principles. The first,
Sir, respects those manufactures which had been brought forward under
encouragement by the State governments. "It would be cruel," says Mr.
Madison, "to neglect them, and to divert their industry into other
channels; for it is not possible for the hand of man to shift from one
employment to another without being injured by the change." Again:
"There may be some manufactures which, being once formed, can advance
towards perfection without any adventitious aid; while others, for want
of the fostering hand of government, will be unable to go on at all.
Legislative provision, therefore, will be necessary to collect the
proper objects for this purpose; and this will form another exception to
my general principle." And again: "The next exception that occurs is one
on which great stress is laid by some well-informed men, and this with
great plausibility; that each nation should have, within itself, the
means of defence, independent of foreign supplies; that, in whatever
relates to the operations of war, no State ought to depend upon a
precarious supply from any part of the world. There may be some truth in
this remark; and therefore it is proper for legislative attention."
In the same debate, Sir, Mr. Burk, from SOUTH CAROLINA, supported a duty
on hemp, for the express purpose of encouraging its growth on the strong
lands of South Carolina. "Cotton," he said, "was also in contemplation
among them, and, if good seed could be procured, he hoped might
succeed." Afterwards, Sir, the cotton was obtained, its culture was
protected, and it did succeed. Mr. Smith, a very distinguished member
from the SAME STATE, observed: "It has been said, and justly, that the
States which adopted this Constitution expected its administration would
be conducted with a favorable hand. The manufacturing States wished the
encouragement of manufactures, the maritime States the encouragement of
ship-building, and the agricultural States the encouragement of
agriculture."
Sir, I will detain the Senate by reading no more extracts from these
debates. I have already shown a majority of the members of SOUTH
CAROLINA, in this very first session, acknowledging this power of
protection, voting for its exercise, and proposing its extension to
their own products. Similar propositions came from Virginia; and,
indeed, Sir, in the whole debate, at whatever page you open the volume,
you find the power admitted, and you find it applied to the protection
of particular articles, or not applied, according to the discretion of
Congress. No man denied the power, no man doubted it; the only questions
were, in regard to the several articles proposed to be taxed, whether
they were fit subjects for protection, and what the amount of that
protection ought to be. Will gentlemen, Sir, now answer the argument
drawn from these proceedings of the first Congress? Will they undertake
to deny that that Congress did act on the avowed principle of
protection? Or, if they admit it, will they tell us how those who framed
the Constitution fell, thus early, into this great mistake about its
meaning? Will they tell us how it should happen that they had so soon
forgotten their own sentiments and their own purposes? I confess I have
seen no answer to this argument, nor any respectable attempt to answer
it. And, Sir, how did this debate terminate? What law was passed? There
it stands, Sir, among the statutes, the second law in the book. It has a
_preamble_, and that preamble expressly recites, that the duties which
it imposes are laid "for the support of government, for the discharge of
the debts of the United States, and _the encouragement and protection of
manufactures_." Until, Sir, this early legislation, thus coeval with the
Constitution itself, thus full and explicit, can be explained away, no
man can doubt of the meaning of that instrument in this respect.
Mr. President, this power of _discrimination_, thus admitted, avowed,
and practised upon in the first revenue act, has never been denied or
doubted until within a few years past. It was not at all doubted in
1816, when it became necessary to adjust the revenue to a state of
peace. On the contrary, the power was then exercised, not without
opposition as to its expediency, but, as far as I remember or have
understood, without the slightest opposition founded on any supposed
want of constitutional authority. Certainly, SOUTH CAROLINA did not
doubt it. The tariff of 1816 was introduced, carried through, and
established, under the lead of South Carolina. Even the minimum policy
is of South Carolina origin. The honorable gentleman himself supported,
and ably supported, the tariff of 1816. He has informed us, Sir, that
his speech on that occasion was sudden and off-hand, he being called up
by the request of a friend. I am sure the gentleman so remembers it, and
that it was so; but there is, nevertheless, much method, arrangement,
and clear exposition in that extempore speech. It is very able, very,
very much to the point, and very decisive. And in another speech,
delivered two months earlier, on the proposition to repeal the internal
taxes, the honorable gentleman had touched the same subject, and had
declared "_that a certain encouragement ought to be extended at least to
our woollen and cotton manufactures_." I do not quote these speeches,
Sir, for the purpose of showing that the honorable gentleman has changed
his opinion: my object is other and higher. I do it for the sake of
saying that that cannot be so plainly and palpably unconstitutional as
to warrant resistance to law, nullification, and revolution, which the
honorable gentleman and his friends have heretofore agreed to and acted
upon without doubt and without hesitation. Sir, it is no answer to say
that the tariff of 1816 was a revenue bill. So are they all revenue
bills. The point is, and the truth is, that the tariff of 1816, like the
rest, _did discriminate_; it did distinguish one article from another;
it did lay duties for protection. Look to the case of coarse cottons
under the minimum calculation: the duty on these was from sixty to
eighty per cent. Something beside revenue, certainly, was intended in
this; and, in fact, the law cut up our whole commerce with India in that
article.
It is, Sir, only within a few years that Carolina has denied the
constitutionality of these protective laws. The gentleman himself has
narrated to us the true history of her proceedings on this point. He
says, that, after the passing of the law of 1828, despairing then of
being able to abolish the system of protection, political men went forth
among the people, and set up the doctrine that the system was
unconstitutional. "_And the people_," says the honorable gentleman,
"_received the doctrine_." This, I believe, is true, Sir. The people did
then receive the doctrine; they had never entertained it before. Down to
that period, the constitutionality of these laws had been no more
doubted in South Carolina than elsewhere. And I suspect it is true, Sir,
and I deem it a great misfortune, that, to the present moment, a great
portion of the people of the State have never yet seen more than one
side of the argument. I believe that thousands of honest men are
involved in scenes now passing, led away by one-sided views of the
question, and following their leaders by the impulses of an unlimited
confidence. Depend upon it, Sir, if we can avoid the shock of arms, a
day for reconsideration and reflection will come; truth and reason will
act with their accustomed force, and the public opinion of South
Carolina will be restored to its usual constitutional and patriotic
tone.
But, Sir, I hold South Carolina to her ancient, her cool, her
uninfluenced, her deliberate opinions. I hold her to her own admissions,
nay, to her own claims and pretensions, in 1789, in the first Congress,
and to her acknowledgments and avowed sentiments through a long series
of succeeding years. I hold her to the principles on which she led
Congress to act in 1816; or, if she have changed her own opinions, I
claim some respect for those who still retain the same opinions. I say
she is precluded from asserting that doctrines, which she has herself so
long and so ably sustained, are plain, palpable, and dangerous
violations of the Constitution.
Mr. President, if the friends of nullification should be able to
propagate their opinions, and give them practical effect, they would, in
my judgment, prove themselves the most skilful "architects of ruin," the
most effectual extinguishers of high-raised expectation, the greatest
blasters of human hopes, that any age has produced. They would stand up
to proclaim, in tones which would pierce the ears of half the human
race, that the last great experiment of representative government had
failed. They would send forth sounds, at the hearing of which the
doctrine of the divine right of kings would feel, even in its grave, a
returning sensation of vitality and resuscitation. Millions of eyes, of
those who now feed their inherent love of liberty on the success of the
American example, would turn away from beholding our dismemberment, and
find no place on earth whereon to rest their gratified sight. Amidst the
incantations and orgies of nullification, secession, disunion, and
revolution, would be celebrated the funeral rites of constitutional and
republican liberty.
But, Sir, if the government do its duty, if it act with firmness and
with moderation, these opinions cannot prevail. Be assured, Sir, be
assured, that, among the political sentiments of this people, the love
of union is still uppermost. They will stand fast by the Constitution,
and by those who defend it. I rely on no temporary expedients, on no
political combination; but I rely on the true American feeling, the
genuine patriotism of the people, and the imperative decision of the
public voice. Disorder and confusion, indeed, may arise; scenes of
commotion and contest are threatened, and perhaps may come. With my
whole heart, I pray for the continuance of the domestic peace and quiet
of the country. I desire, most ardently, the restoration of affection
and harmony to all its parts. I desire that every citizen of the whole
country may look to this government with no other sentiments than those
of grateful respect and attachment. But I cannot yield even to kind
feelings the cause of the Constitution, the true glory of the country,
and the great trust which we hold in our hands for succeeding ages. If
the Constitution cannot be maintained without meeting these scenes of
commotion and contest, however unwelcome, they must come. We cannot, we
must not, we dare not, omit to do that which, in our judgment, the
safety of the Union requires. Not regardless of consequences, we must
yet meet consequences; seeing the hazards which surround the discharge
of public duty, it must yet be discharged. For myself, Sir, I shun no
responsibility justly devolving on me, here or elsewhere, in attempting
to maintain the cause. I am bound to it by indissoluble ties of
affection and duty, and I shall cheerfully partake in its fortunes and
its fate. I am ready to perform my own appropriate part, whenever and
wherever the occasion may call on me, and to take my chance among those
upon whom blows may fall first and fall thickest. I shall exert every
faculty I possess in aiding to prevent the Constitution from being
nullified, destroyed, or impaired; and even should I see it fall, I will
still, with a voice feeble, perhaps, but earnest as ever issued from
human lips, and with fidelity and zeal which nothing shall extinguish,
call on the PEOPLE to come to its rescue.
[Footnote 1: Mr. Rives.]