of that section of the country whose dearest constitutional rights this bill prostrates! Thus exhibiting the extraordinary spectacle, that the very section of the country which is urging this measure, and carrying the sword of devastation against us, is, at the same time, incurring a new debt, to be paid by those whose rights are violated; while those who viate them are to receive the benefits in the shape of bounties and expenditures.

And for what purpose is the unlimited control of the purse and of the sword thus placed at the disposition of the executive? To make war against one of the free and sovereign members of this confederation, which the bill proposes to deal with, not as a State, but as a col

the impious spectacle of this government, the creature of the States, making war against the power to which it owes its existence.

reported, to overrule, by military force, the | lions, to be paid out of the proceeds of the labor civil tribunals and civil process of the State Sir, I consider this bill, and the arguments which have been urged on this floor in its support, as the most triumphant acknowledgment that nullification is peaceful and efficient, and so deeply intrenched in the principles of our system, that it cannot be assailed but by prostrating the constitution, and substituting the supremacy of military force in lieu of the supremacy of the laws. In fact, the advocates of this bill refute their own argument. They tell us that the ordinance is unconstitutional; that it infracts the constitution of South Carolina, although to me, the objection appears absurd, as it was adopted by the very authority which adopted the constitution itself. They also tell us that the Supreme Court is the ap-lection of banditti or outlaws. Thus exhibiting pointed arbiter of all controversies between a State and the General Government. Why, then, do they not leave this controversy to that tribunal? Why do they not confide to them the The bill violates the constitution, plainly and abrogation of the ordinance, and the laws made palpably, in many of its provisions, by authorin pursuance of it, and the assertion of that izing the President at his pleasure, to place the supremacy which they claim for the laws of different ports of this Union on an unequal footCongress? The State stands pledged to resisting, contrary to that provision of the constituno process of the court. Why, then, confer on tion which declares that no preference shall be the President the extensive and unlimited pow- given to one port over another. It also violates ers provided in this bill? Why authorize him the constitution by authorizing him, at his disto use military force to arrest the civil process cretion, to impose cash duties in one port, while of the State? But one answer can be given: credit is allowed in others; by enabling the That, in a contest between the State and the President to regulate commerce, a power vested General Government, if the resistance be limit- in Congress alone; and by drawing within the ed on both sides to the civil process, the State, jurisdiction of the United States courts, powers by its inherent sovereignty, standing upon its never intended to be conferred on them. As reserved powers, will prove too powerful in great as these objections are, they become insigsuch a controversy, and must triumph over the nificant in the provisions of a bill which, by a Federal Government, sustained by its delegated single blow-by treating the States as a mere and unlimited authority; and in this answer lawless mass of individuals-prostrates all the we have an acknowledgment of the truth of barriers of the constitution. I will pass over those great principles for which the State has the minor considerations, and proceed directly so firmly and nobly contended. to the great point. This bill proceeds on the ground that the entire sovereignty of this country belongs to the American people, as forming one great community, and regards the States as mere fractions or counties, and not as integral parts of the Union; having no more right to resist the encroachments of the government than a county has to resist the authority of a State; and treating such resistance as the lawless acts of so many individuals, without possessing sovereignty or political rights. It has been said that the bill declares war against South Carolina. No. It decrees a massacre of her citizens! War has something ennobling about it, and, with all its horrors, brings into action the highest qualities, intellectual and moral. It was, perhaps, in the order of Providence that it should be permitted for that very purpose. But this bill declares no war, except, indeed, it be that which savages wage-a war, not against the community, but the citizens of whom that community is composed. But I regard it as worse than savage warfare-as an attempt to take away life under the color of law, without the trial by jury, or any other safeguard which

Having made these remarks, the great question is now presented, Has Congress the right to pass this bill? which I will next proceed to consider. The decision of this question involves an inquiry into the provisions of the bill. What are they? It puts at the disposal of the Presiident the army and navy, and the entire militia of the country; it enables him, at his pleasure, to subject every man in the United States, not exempt from militia duty, to martial law; to call him from his ordinary occupation to the field, and under the penalty of fine and imprisonment, inflicted by a court-martial, to imbrue his hand in his brother's blood. There is no limitation on the power of the sword;-and that over the purse is equally without restraint; for among the extraordinary features of the bill, it contains no appropriation, which, under existing circumstances, is tantamount to an unlimited appropriation. The President may, under its authority, incur any expenditure, and pledge the national faith to meet it. He may create a new national debt, at the very moment of the termination of the former-a debt of mil

the point under consideration. But if his authority be good on one point, it must be admitted to be equally so on another. If his opinion be sufficient to prove that a citizen of a State may be punished as a traitor when acting under

the constitution has thrown around the life of | ute the opinion of Mr. Martin in reference tc the citizen? It authorizes the President, or even his deputies, when they may suppose the aw to be violated, without the intervention of a court or jury, to kill without mercy or discrimination! It has been said by the senator from Tennes-allegiance to the State, it is also sufficient to see (Mr. Grundy) to be a measure of peace! Yes, such peace as the wolf gives to a lamb the kite to the dove! Such peace as Russia gives to Poland, or death to its victim! A peace, by extinguishing the political existence of the State, by awing her into an abandonment of the exercise of every power which constitutes her a sovereign community. It is to South Carolina a question of self-preservation; and I proclaim it, that, should this bill pass, and an attempt be made to enforce it, it will be resisted, at every hazard--even that of death itself. Death is not the greatest calamity: there are others still more terrible to the free and brave, and among them may be placed the loss of liberty and honor. There are thousands of her brave sons who, if need be, are prepared cheerfully to lay down their lives in defence of the State, and the great principles of constitutional liberty for which she is contending. God forbid that this should become necessary! It never can be, unless this government is resolved to bring the question to extremity, when her gallant sons will stand prepared to perform the last duty-to die nobly.

show that no authority was intended to be given in the constitution for the protection of mannfactures by the General Government, and that the provision in the constitution permitting a State to lay an impost duty, with the consent of Congress, was intended to reserve the right of protection to the States themselves, and that each State should protect its own industry. Assuming his opinion to be of equal authority on both points, how embarrassing would be the attitude in which it would place the Senator from Delaware, and those with whom he is acting-that of using the sword and bayonet to enforce the execution of an unconstitutional act of Congress. I must express my surprise that the slightest authority in favor of power should be received as the most conclusive evidence, while that which is, at least, equally strong in favor of right and liberty, is wholly overlooked or rejected.

Notwithstanding all that has been said, I may say that neither the Senator from Delaware (Mr. Clayton), nor any other who has spoken on the same side, has directly and fairly met the great question at issue: Is this a federal union i a union of States, as distinct from that of individuals? Is the sovereignty in the several States, or in the American people in the aggre gate? The very language which we are com

a

I go on the ground that this constitution was made by the States; that it is a federal union of the States, in which the several States still retain their sovereignty. If these views be correct, I have not characterized the bill too strong-pelled to use when speaking of our political inly: and the question is, whether they be or be not. stitutions, affords proof conclusive as to its real I will not enter into the discussion of this question character. The terms union, federal, united, now. I will rest it, for the present, on what I have all imply a combination of sovereignties, a consaid on the introduction of the resolutions now on federation of States. They are never applied the table, under a hope that another opportunity to an association of individuals. Who ever will be afforded for more ample discussion. I heard of the United State of New York, of will, for the present, confine my remarks to the Massachusetts, or of Virginia? Who ever objections which have been raised to the views heard the term federal or union applied to the which I presented when I introduced them. aggregation of individuals into one community? The authority of Luther Martin has been ad- Nor is the other point less clear-that the soveduced by the senator from Delaware, to prove reignty is in the several States, and that our that the citizens of a State, acting under the au- system is a union of twenty-four sovereign thority of a State, are liable to be punished as powers, under a constitutional compact, and not traitors by this government. Eminent as Mr. of a divided sovereignty between the States Martin was as a lawyer, and high as his author- severally and the United States. In spite of all ity may be considered on a legal point, I cannot that has been said, I maintain that sovereignty accept it in determining the point at issue. The is in its nature indivisible. It is the supreme attitude which he occupied, if taken into view, power in a State, and we might just as well would lessen if not destroy, the weight of his speak of half a square, or half of a triangle, as authority. He had been violently opposed in of half a sovereignty. It is a gross error to convention to the constitution, and the very let- confound the exercise of sovereign powers with ter from which the senator has quoted was in- sovereignty itself, or the delegation of such tended to dissuade Maryland from its adoption. powers with the surrender of them. A soveWith this view, it was to be expected that every reign may delegate his powers to be exercised consideration calculated to effect that object by as many agents as he may think proper, unshould be urged; that real objections should be der such conditions and with such limitations exaggerated; and that those having no founda- as he may impose; but to surrender any portion tion, except mere plausible deductions, should of his sovereignty to another is to annihilate be presented. It is to this spirit that Í attrib-the whole. The Senator from Delaware (Mr.

Clayton) calls this metaphysical reasoning, which he says he cannot comprehend. If by metaphysics he means that scholastic refinement which makes distinctions without difference, no one can hold it in more utter contempt than I do; but if, on the contrary, he means the power of analysis and combination-that power which reduces the most complex idea into its elements, which traces causes to their first principle, and, by the power of generalization and combination, unites the whole in one harmonious system-then, so far from deserving contempt, it is the highest attribute of the human mind. It is the power which raises man above the brute-which distinguishes his faculties from mere sagacity, which he holds in common with inferior animals. It is this power which has raised the astronomer from being a mere gazer at the stars to the high intellectual eminence of a Newton or a Laplace, and astronomy itself from a mere observation of insulated facts into that noble science which displays to our admiration the system of the universe. And shall this high power of the mind, which has effected such wonders when directed to the laws which control the material world, be for ever prohibited, under a senseless cry of metaphysics, from being applied to the high purpose of political science and legislation? I hold them to be subject to laws as fixed as matter itself, and to be as fit a subject for the application of the highest intellectual power. Denunciation may, indeed, fall upon the philosophical inquirer into these first principles, as it did upon Galileo and Bacon when they first unfolded the great discoveries which have immortalized their names; but the time will come when truth will prevail in spite of prejudice and denunciation, and when politics and legislation will be considered as much a science as astronomy and chemistry.

But to return to the bill. It is said that the bill ought to pass, because the law must be enforced. The law must be enforced! The imperial edict must be executed! It is under such sophistry, couched in general terms, without looking to the limitations which must ever exist in the practical exercise of power, that the most cruel and despotic acts ever have been covered. It was such sophistry as this that cast Daniel into the lions den, and the three Innocents into the fiery furnace. Under the same sophistry the bloody edicts of Nero and Caligula were executed. The law must be enforced. Yes, the act imposing the "tea-tax must be executed." This was the very argument which impelled Lord North and his administration to that mad career which for ever separated us from the British crown, Under a similar sophistry, "that religion must be protected," how many massacres have been perpetrated? and how many martyrs have been tied to the stake? What! acting on this vague abstraction, are you prepared to enforce a law without considering whether it be just or unjust, constitutional or unconstitutional? Will you collect money when it is acknowledged that it is not wanted? He who earns the money, who digs it from the earth with the sweat of his brow, has a just title to it against the universe. No one has a right to touch it without his consent except his government, and this only to the extent of its legitimate wants; to take more is robbery, and you propose by this bill to enforce robbery by murder. Yes: to this result you must come, by this miserable sophistry, this vague abstraction of enforcing the law, without a regard to the fact whether the law be just or unjust, constitutional or unconstitutional.

In the same spirit, we are told that the Union must be preserved, without regard to the means. In connection with this part of the subject, And how is it proposed to preserve the Union? I understood the Senator from Virginia (Mr. By force? Does any man in his senses believe Rives) to say that sovereignty was divided, and that this beautiful structure-this harmonious that a portion remained with the States sever- aggregate of States, produced by the joint conally, and that the residue was vested in the sent of all-can be preserved by force? Its Union. By Union, I suppose the Senator meant very introduction will be certain destruction to the United States. If such be his meaning-if this Federal Union. No, no. You cannot keep he intended to affirm that the sovereignty was the States united in their constitutional and in the twenty-four States, in whatever light he federal bonds by force. Force may, indeed, may view them, our opinions will not disagree; hold the parts together, but such union would but according to my conception, the whole be the bond between master and slave-a union sovereignty is in the several States, while the of exaction on one side and of unqualified obeexercise of sovereign powers is divided-a part dience on the other. That obedience which, being exercised under compact, through this we are told by the senator from Pennsylvania General Government, and the residue through (Mr. Wilkins), is the Union! Yes, exaction on the separate State governments. But if the the side of the master; for this very bill is inSenator from Virginia (Mr. Rives) means to as- tended to collect what can be no longer called sert that the twenty-four States form but one taxes-the voluntary contribution of a free community, with a single sovereign power as to people-but tribute-tribute to be collected unthe objects of the Union, it will be but the re-der the mouths of the cannon! Your customvival of the old question, of whether the Union is a union between States, as distinct communities, or a mere aggregate of the American people, as a mass of individuals; and in this light his opinions would lead directly to consolidation.

house is already transferred to a garrison, and that garrison with its batteries turned, not against the enemy of your country, but on subjects (I will not say citizens), on whom you propose to levy contributions. Has reason fled

|

tion, on the decision of which depend, as I sol- | emnly believe, the liberty of the people, their happiness, and the place which we are destined to hold in the moral and intellectual scale of nations. Never was there a controversy in which more important consequences were involved; not excepting that between Persia and Greece, decided by the battles of Marathon, Platea, and Salamis-which gave ascendency to the genius of Europe over that of Asia-and which, in its consequences, has continued to affect the destiny of so large a portion of the world even to this day. There are often close analogies between events apparently very remote, which are strikingly illustrated in this case. In the great contest between Greece and Persia, between European and Asiatic polity and civilization, the very question between the federal and consolidated form of government was involved. The Asiatic governments, from the remotest time, with some exceptions on the eastern shore of the Mediterranean, have been based on the principle of consolidation, which considers the whole community as but a unit, and consolidates its powers in a central point. The opposite principle has prevailed in Europe -Greece, throughout all her states, was based on a federal system. All were united in one common, but loose bond, and the governments of the several states partook, for the most part, of a complex organization, which distributed political power among different members of the community. The same principles prevailed in ancient Italy; and, if we turn to the Teutonic race, our great ancestors-the race which occupies the first place in power, civilization, and science, and which possesses the largest and the fairest part of Europe-we shall find that their governments were based on federal organization, as has been clearly illustrated by a recent and able writer on the British constitution, (Mr. Palgrave,) from whose works I take the following extract:

"In this manner the first establishment of the Teutonic States was effected. They were as semblages of septs, clans, and tribes; they were confederated hosts and armies, led on by princes, magistrates, and chieftains; each of whom was originally independent, and each of whom lost a portion of his pristine independence in proportion as he and his compeers became united under the supremacy of a sovereign, who was superinduced upon the state, first as a military commander and afterward as a king. Yet, notwithstanding this political connection, each member of the State continued to retain a considerable portion of the rights of sovereignty. Every ancient Teutonic monarchy must be considered as a federation; it is not a unit, of which the smaller bodies politic therein contained are the fractions, but they are the integers, and the state is the multiple which results from them. Dukedoms and counties, burghs and baronies, towns and townships, and shires, form the kingdom; all, in a certain degree, VOL. II.-32

strangers to each other, and separate in jurisdiction, though all obedient to the supreme executive authority. This general description, though not always strictly applicable in terms, is always so substantially and in effect; and hence it becomes necessary to discard the language which has been very generally employed in treating on the English Constitution. It has been supposed that the kingdom was reduced into a regular and gradual subordination of government, and that the various legal districts of which it is composed, arose from the divisions and subdivisions of the country. But this hypothesis, which tends greatly to perplex our history, cannot be supported by fact; and, instead of viewing the constitution as a whole, and then proceeding to its parts, we must examine it synthetically, and assume that the supreme authorities of the State were created by the concentration of the powers originally belonging to the members and corporations of which it is composed."

Here Mr. Calhoun gave way for a motion to adjourn; and, on the next day resumed :

I have omitted at the proper place, in the course of my observations yesterday, two or three points, to which I will now advert, before I resume the discussion where I left off. I have stated that the ordinance and acts of South Carolina were directed, not against the revenue, but against the system of protection. But it may be asked, if such was her object, how happens it that she has declared the whole system void-revenue as well as protection, without discrimination? It is this question which I propose to answer. Her justification will be found in the necessity of the case; and if there be any blame it cannot attach to her. The two are so blended, throughout the whole, as to make the entire revenue system subordinate to the protective, so as to constitute a complete system of protection, in which it is impossible to discriminate the two clements of which it is composed. South Carolina, at least, could not make the discrimination; and she was reduced to the alternative of acquiescing in a system which she believed to be unconstitutional, and which she felt to be oppressive and ruinous, or to consider the whole as one, equally contaminated through all its parts, by the unconstitutionality of the protective portion, and as such, to be resisted by the act of the State. I maintain that the State has a right to regard it in the latter character, and that, if a loss of revenue follow, the fault is not hers, but of this government, which has improperly blended together in a manner not to be separated by the State, two systems wholly dissimilar. If the sincerity of the State be doubted; if it be supposed that her action is against revenue as well as protection, let the two be separated-let so much of the duties as are intended for revenue be put in one bill, and the residue intended for protection be put in another, and I pledge my