exalted virtue, and a pure and holy devotion to liberty, the people of the Southern States have ever been surpassed by any in the world. In the ceurse of my former remarks, Mr President, I took occasion to deprecate, as one of the greatest evils, the consolidation of this Government. The gentleman takes alarm at the sound. Consolidation, like the tariff grates upon his ear. He tells us we have heard much of late about consolidation; that it is the rallying word for all who are endeavoring to weaken the Union, by adding to the power of the States.' But consolidation (says the gentleman) was the very objeet for which the Union was formed; and, in support of that opinion, he read a passage from the address of the President of the Convention to Congress, which he assumes to be authority on his side of the question. The gentleman is mistaken. The object of the framers of the Constitution, as disclosed in that address, was not the consolidation of the Government, but the consolidation of the Union.' It was not to draw power from the States in order to transfer it to a great National Government, but, in the language of the Constitution itself, 'to form a more perfect Union,' -and by what means? By 'establishing justice, promoting domestic tranquillity, and securing the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity?' But, according to the gentleman's reading, the object of the Constitution was to consolidate the Government, and the means would seem to be, the promotion of injustice, causing domestic discord, and depriving the States and the people of the blessings of liberty' forever. The gentleman boasts of belonging to the party of NATIONAL REPUBLICANS. National Republicans! a new name, for a very old thing. The national republicans of the present day were the federalists of '98, who became federal republicans during the war of 1812, and were manufactured into national republicans somewhere about the year 1825. As a party, (by whatever name distinguished,) they have always been animated by the same principles, and have kept steadily in view a common object, the consolidation of the Government. The party to which I am proud of having belonged, from the very commencement of my political life to the present day, were the Democrats of '98, (Anarchists, AntiFederalists, Revolutionists, I think they were so:netimes called.) They assumed the name of Democratic Republicans in 1822, and have retained their name and principles up to the present hour. True to their political faith, they have always, as a party, been in favor of limitations of power; they have insisted that all powers not delegated to the Federal Government are reserved; and have been constantly struggling, as they now are, to preserve the rights of the States, and to prevent them from being swallowed up by one great consolidated government, The true distinction between these parties is laid down in a celebrated manifesto issued by the Convention of the Federalists of Massachusetts, assembled in Boston, in February, 1824, on the occasion of organizing a party opposition to the reelection of Governor Eustis. The gentleman will recognise this as the canonical book of political scripture; and it instructs us that, when the American Colonies redeemed themselves from British bondage, and became so many independent nations, they proposed to form a NATIONAL UNION-(not a federal Union, sir, but a National Union.) Those who were in favor of a union of the States in this form, became known by the name of federalists; those who wanted no union of the States, or disliked the proposed form of union, became known by the name of anti-federalists. The honorable gentleman from Massachusetts, while he exonerates me personally, from the charge, intimates that there is a party in the country who are looking to disunion. If he had stopped there, the accusation would have passed by me as the idle wind which I regard not.' But when he goes on to give to his accusation a local habitation and a name, by quoting the expression of a distinguished citizen of South Carolina, (Dr Cooper) 'that it was time for the South to calculate the value of the Union,' and in the language of the bitterest sarcasm, adds, surely then the Union cannot last longer than July, 1831,' it is impossible to mistake either the allusion, or the object of the gentleman. The Senate will do me the justice to remember, that at the time this unprovoked and uncalled for at tack was made upon the South, not one word had been uttered by me, in disparagement of New England, nor had I made the most distant allusion either to the Senator from Massachusetts, or the State he represents. But, that gentleman has thought proper, for purposes best known to himself, to strike the South, through me, the most unworthy of her servants. He has crossed the border, he has invaded the State of South Carolina, is making war upon her citizens, and endeavoring to overthrow her principles and her institutions. When he provokes me to such a conflict, I meet him at the threshold. It is with unfeigned reluctance, Mr President, that I enter upon the performance of this part of my duty- I shrink almost instinctively from a course, however necessary, which may have a tendency to excite sectional feelings, and sectional jealousies. But the task has been forced upon me; and I proceed right onward to the performance of my duty. Be the consequences what they may, the responsibility is with those who have imposed upon me this necessity. The Senator from Massachusetts has thought proper to cast the first stone; and if he shall find, according to a homely adage, that he lives in a glass house' on his head be the consequences. If there be one State in the Union, Mr President, (and I say it not in a boastful spirit) that may challenge comparisons with any other for a uniform, zealous, ardent and uncalculating devotion to the Union, that State is South Carolina. From the very com mencement of the Revolution up to this hour, there is no sacrifice, however great, she has not cheerfully made; no service she has ever hesitated to perform. She has adhered to you in your prosperity; but in your adversity she has clung to you with more than filial affection. What, sir, was the conduct of the South during the Revolution? I honor New England for her conduct in that glorious struggle. But great as is the praise which belongs to her, I think at least equal honor is due to the South. They espoused the quarrel of their brethren, with a generous zeal, which did not suffer them to stop to calculate their interest in the dispute. Favorites of the mother country, possessed of neither ships nor seamen to create a commercial rivalship, they might have found in their situation a guarantee, that their trade would be forever fostered and protected by Great Britain. But trampling on all considerations either of interest or of safety, they rushed into the conflict, and fighting for principle, perilled all, in the sacred cause of freedom. Never was there exhibited in the history of the world higher examples of noble daring, dreadful suffering and heroic endurance, than by the whigs of Carolina, during the Revolution. The whole State, from the mountains to the sea, was overrun by an overwhelming force of the enemy. The fruits of industry perished on the spot where they were produced, or were consumed by the foe. The 'plains of Carolina' drank up the most precious blood of her citizens! Black and smoking ruins marked the places which had been the habitations of her children! Driven from their homes, into the gloomy and almos impenetrable swamps, even there the spirit of liberty survived, and South Carolina (sustained by the example of her Sumpters and her Marions,) proved by her conduct, that though her soil might be overrun, the spirit of her people was invincible. But our country was soon called upon to engage in another revolutionary struggle, and that too was a struggle for principle. I mean the political revolution which dates back to '98, and which, if it had not been successfully achieved, would have left us none of the fruits of the revolution of '76. The revolution of '98 restored the Constitution, rescued the liberty of the citizen from the grasp of those who were aiming at its life, and in the emphatic language of Mr Jefferson, saved the Constitution at its last gasp.' And by whom was it achieved? By the South, aided only by the democracy of the North and West. South in that contest? If they had sat down coolly to calculate the value of their interests involved in it, they would have found that they had everything to lose, and nothing to gain. But with that generous devotion to country so characteristic of the South, they only asked, if the rights of any portion of their fellow-citizens had been invaded; and when told that Northern ships and New England seamen had been arrested on the common highway of nations, they felt that the honor of their country was assailed; and acting on that exalted sentiment which feels a stain like a wound,' they resolved to seek in open war, for a redress of those injuries, which it did not become freemen to endure. The whole South, animated as by a common impulse, cordially united in declaring and promoting that war. South Carolina sent to your councils, as the advocates and supporters of that war, the noblest of her sons. How they fulfilled that trust, let a grateful country tell. Not a measure was adopted, not a battle fought, not a victory won, which contributed in any degree, to the success of that war, to which Southern councils and Southern valor did not largely contribute. Since South Carolina is assailed, I must be suffered to speak it to her praise, that at the very moment when in one quarter, we heard it solemnly proclaimed that it did not become a religious and moral people to rejoice at the victories of our army or our navy,' her Legislature unanimously 'Resolved, That we will cordially support the Government in the vigorous prosecution of the war, until a peace can be obtained on honorable terms, and we will cheerfully submit to every privation that may be required of us, by our Government, for the accomplishment of this object.' South Carolina redeemed that pledge. She threw open her She put at the absolute disposal treasury to the Government. of the officers of the United States all that she possessed her men, her money and her arms. She appropriated half a million of dollars, on her own account, in defence of her maritime frontier, ordered a brigade of State troops to be raised, and when left to protect herself by her own means, never suffered the enemy to touch her soil, without being instantly driven off or captured. Such was the conduct of the South such the conduct of my own State in that dark hour 'which tried men's souls.' When I look back and con template the spectacle exhibited at that time, in another quarter of the Union, when I think of the conduct of certain portions of New England, and remember the memorable occasion by the powhich was acted on that part litical associates of the gentleman from Massachusetts - nay, when I follow that gentleman into the councils of the nation, and listen to his voice during the darkest period of the war, I am indeed astonished that he should venture to touch upon the topics which he has introduced into this debate. South Carolina reproached by Massachusetts! And from whoin does the accusation come? Not from the Democracy of New England; for they have been in times past, as they are now, the friends and allies of the South. No, sir, the accusation comes from that party, whose acts, during the most trying and eventful period of our national history, were of such a character that their own Legislature, but a few years ago, actually blotted them out from their records, as a stain upon the honor of the country. But how can they ever be blotted out from the recollection of any one who had a heart to feel, a mind to comprehend and a memory to retain, the events of that day? I shall not attempt, to write the history of the party in New England, to which I have alluded the war party in peace, and the peace party in war. That task I shall leave to some future biographer of Nathan Dane, and I doubt not it will be found quite easy to prove that the peace party of Massachusetts were the only defenders of their country, during the war, and actually achieved all our victories by land and sea. In the meantime, sir, and until that history shall be written, I propose, with the feeble and glimmering lights which I possess, to review the conduct of this party, in connexion with the war, and the events which immediately preceded it. It will be recollected that our great causes of quarrel with Great Britain, were her depredations on Northern commerce, and the impressment of New England seainen. From every quarter we were called upon for protection. Importunate as the West is now represented to be, on another subject, the importunity of the East on that occasion was far greater. I hold in my hands the evidence of the fact. Here are petitions, memorials and remonstrances, from all parts of New England, setting forth the injustice, the oppressions, the depredations, the insults, the outrages, Great Britain committed by against the unoffending commerce and seamen of New England, and calling upon Congress for redress. The conduct of Great Britain, we were then told, was an outrage upon our national independence.' These clamors, which commenced as early as January, 1806, were continued up to 1812. In a message from the Governor of one of the New England States, as late as the 10th of October, 1811, this language is held: 'A manly and decisive course has become indispensable: a course to satisfy foreign nations, that while we desire peace, we have the means and the spirit to repel aggression. We are false to ourselves, when our commerce or our territory is invaded with impunity.' About this time, however, a remarkable change was observable in the tone and temper of those who had been endeavoring to force the country into a war. The language of complaint was changed into that of insult, and calls for protection, converted into reproaches. The war at length came, and what did we behold? The very men who had been for six years |