But the topic which became the leading feature of the whole debate; and gave it an interest which cannot die, was that of nullification-the assumed right of a state to annul an act of Con

clusion of northern men from confidence and of the Missouri question, I made no answer im from lead in the affairs of the republic, then, and pugning its correctness; and must add that I not till then, the cry was raised, and the feeling industriously excited, that the influence of north-never saw any thing in Mr. Webster inconsistent ern men in the public councils would endanger with what he then said; and believe that the the relation of master and slave. For myself I same resolves could have been passed in the same claim no other merit than that this gross and way at any time during the thirty years that enormous injustice towards the whole North, has I was in Congress. not wrought upon me to change my opinions, or my political conduct. I hope I am above violating my principles, even under the smart of injury and false imputations. Unjust suspicions and undeserved reproach, whatever pain I may experience from them, will not induce me, I trust, nevertheless, to overstep the limits of constitution-gress-then first broached in our national legis al duty, or to encroach on the rights of others. lature-and in the discussion of which Mr. WebThe domestic slavery of the South I leave where ster and Mr. Hayne were the champion speakers I find it-in the hands of their own governments. It is their affair, not mine. Nor do I complain on opposite sides-the latter understood to be of the peculiar effect which the magnitude of that speaking the sentiments of the Vice-President, population has had in the distribution of power Mr. Calhoun. This new turn in the debate was under this federal government. We know, sir, thus brought about: Mr. Hayne, in the sectional that the representation of the states in the other house is not equal. We know that great ad- nature of the discussion which had grown up, vantage, in that respect, is enjoyed by the slave- made allusions to the conduct of New England holding States; and we know, too, that the in- during the war of 1812; and especially to the tended equivalent for that advantage, that is to assemblage known as the Hartford Convention, say, the imposition of direct taxes in the same and to which designs unfriendly to the Union ratio, has become merely nominal; the habit of the government being almost invariably to col- had been attributed. This gave Mr. Webster lect its revenues from other sources, and in other the rights both of defence and of retaliation; and modes. Nevertheless, I do not complain: nor he found material for the first in the character would I countenance any movement to alter this of the assemblage, and for the second in the arrangement of representation. It is the original bargain, the compact-let it stand: let the ad- public meetings which had taken place in South vantage of it be fully enjoyed. The Union itself Carolina on the subject of the tariff-and at is too full of benefit to be hazarded in proposi- which resolves were passed, and propositions tions for changing its original basis. I go for the constitution as it is, and for the Union as it is. adopted significant of resistance to the act; and, But I am resolved not to submit, in silence, to consequently, of disloyalty to the Union. He, accusations, either against myself individually, in his turn, made allusions to these resolves and or against the North, wholly unfounded and un-propositions, until he drew out Mr. Hayne into just; accusations which impute to us a disposition to evade the constitutional compact, and to extend the power of the government over the internal laws and domestic condition of the States. All such accusations, wherever and whenever made, all insinuations of the existance of any such purposes, I know, and feel to be groundless and injurious. And we must confide in southern gentlemen themselves; we must trust to those whose integrity of heart and magnanimity of feeling will lead them to a desire to maintain and disseminate truth, and who possess the means of its diffusion with the southern public; we must leave it to them to disabuse that public of its prejudices. But, in the mean time, for my own part, I shall continue to act justly, whether those towards whom justice is exercised, receive it with candor or with contumely.'

their defence, and into an avowal of what has since obtained the current name of "Nullifica tion," although at the time (during the debate) it did not at all strike me as going the length which it afterwards avowed; nor have I ever believed that Mr. Hayne contemplated disunion, in any contingency, as one of its results. In entering upon the argument, Mr. Webster first summed up the doctrine, as he conceived it to be avowed,

thus:

"I understand the honorable gentleman from South Carolina to maintain, that it is a right of the State legislature to interfere, whenever, in their judgment, this government transcends its constitutional limits, and to arrest the operation

of its laws.

This is what Mr. Webster said on the subject "I understand him to maintain this right, as a of slavery; and although it was in reply to an in- right existing under the constitution; not as a vective of my own, excited by the recent agitation | right to overthrow it, on the ground of extreme

necessity, such as would justify violent revolu

tion.

"I understand him to maintain an authority, on the part of the States, thus to interfere, for the purpose of correcting the exercise of power by the general government, of checking it, and of compelling it to conform to their opinion of the extent of its powers.

New England, in the times of the embargo and non-intercourse, we should probably not now have been here. The government would, very likely, have gone to pieces, and crumbled inte dust. No stronger case can ever arise than existed under those laws; no States can ever entertain a clearer conviction than the New England States then entertained; and if they had "I understand him to maintain that the ulti- been under the influence of that heresy of opinmate power of judging of the constitutional ex-ion, as I must call it, which the honorable memtent of its own authority is not lodged exclusive-ber espouses, this Union would, in all probabilly in the general government, or any branch of it; but that, on the contrary, the States may lawfully decide for themselves, and each State for itself, whether, in a given case, the act of the general government transcends its power.

I understand him to insist that, if the exigency of the case, in the opinion of any State government, require it, such State government may, by its own sovereign authority, annul an act of the general government, which it deems plainly and palpably unconstitutional."

Mr. Hayne, evidently unprepared to admit, or fully deny, the propositions as broadly laid down, had recourse to a statement of his own; and, adopted for that purpose, the third resolve of the Virginia resolutions of the year 1798-reaffirmed in 1799. He rose immediately and said that, for the purpose of being clearly understood, he would state that his proposition was in the words of the Virginia resolution; and read it

ity, have been scattered to the four winds. I ask the gentleman, therefore, to apply his principles to that case; I ask him to come forth and declare, whether, in his opinion, the New England States would have been justified in interfering to break up the embargo system, under the conscientious opinions which they held upon it? Had they a right to annul that law? Does he admit or deny? If that which is thought palpably unconstitutional in South Carolina, justifies that State in arresting the progress of the law, tell me, whether that which was thought palpably unconstitutional also in Massachusetts, would have justified her in doing the same thing? Sir, I deny the whole doctrine. It has not a No public man of reputation ever advanced it in foot of ground in the constitution to stand on. Massachusetts, in the warmest times, or could maintain himself upon it there at any time."

He argued that the doctrine had no foundation either in the constitution, or in the Virginia resolutions that the constitution makes the federal government act upon citizens within the States, and not upon the States themselves, as in the old confederation: that within their constitutional limits the laws of Congress were suthem with force: and that the question of their preme and that it was treasonable to resist constitutionality was to be decided by the Supreme Court. On this point, he said:

"That this Assembly doth explicitly and peremptorily declare, that it views the powers of the federal government as resulting from the compact, to which the States are parties, as limited by the plain sense and intention of the instrument constituting that compact, as no farther valid than they are authorized by the grants enumerated in that compact; and that, in case of a deliberate, palpable, and dangerous exercise of other powers, not granted by the said compact, the States who are parties thereto have the right, and are in duty bound, to interpose, for "The people, then, sir, erected this governarresting the progress of the evil, and for main- ment. They gave it a constitution; and in that taining, within their respective limits, the author-constitution they have enumerated the powers ities, rights, and liberties, appertaining to them." which they bestow on it. They have made it a limited government. They have defined its authority. They have restrained it to the exercise of such powers as are granted; and all others, they declare, are reserved to the States or to the people. But, sir, they have not stopped here. If they had, they would have accomplished but half their work. No definition can be so clear as to avoid possibility of doubt; no Who then shall construe this grant of the peolimitation so precise as to exclude all uncertainty. ple? Who shall interpret their will, where it inay be supposed they have left it doubtful? With whom do they repose this ultimate right of deciding on the powers of the government? Sir, they have settled all this in the fullest manner. They have left it with the government it

Thus were the propositions stated, and argued -each speaker taking his own proposition for his text; which in the end, (and as the Virginia resolutions turned out to be understood in the South Carolina sense) came to be identical. Mr. Webster, at one point, giving to his argument a practical form, and showing what the South Carolina doctrine would have accomplished in New England if it had been acted upon by the Hartford Convention, said:

"Let me here say, sir, that, if the gentleman's doctrine had been received and acted upon in

self, in its appropriate branches. Sir, the very chief end, the main design, for which the whole constitution was framed and adopted was, to establish a government that should not be obliged to act through State agency, or depend on State opinion and State discretion. The people had had quite enough of that kind of government under the confederacy. Under that system, the legal action, the application of law to individuals, belonged exclusively to the States. Congress could only recommend; their acts were not of binding force, till the States had adopted and sanctioned them. Are we in that condition still? Are we yet at the mercy of State discretion, and State construction? Sir, if we are, then vain will be our attempt to maintain the constitution under which we sit. But, sir, the people have wisely provided, in the constitution itself, a proper, suitable mode and tribunal for settling questions of constitutional law. There are, in the constitution, grants of powers to Congress, and restrictions on these powers. There are, also, prohibitions on the States. Some authority must, therefore, necessarily exist, having the ultimate jurisdiction to fix and ascertain the interpretation of these grants, restrictions, and prohibitions. The constitution has, itself, pointed out, ordained, and established, that authority. How has it accomplished this great and essential end? By declaring, sir, that the constitution, and the laws of the United States made in pursuance thereof, shall be the supreme law of the land, any thing in the constitution or laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding.'

Who or what gives them the right to say to the people, we, who are your agents and servants for one purpose, will undertake to decide that your other agents and servants, appointed by you for another purpose, have transcended the authority you gave them?' The reply would be, I think, not impertinent: who made you judge over another's servants? To their own masters they stand or fall."

With respect to the Virginia resolutions, on which Mr. Hayne relied, Mr. Webster disputed the interpretation put upon them-claimed for them an innocent and justifiable meaning-and exempted Mr. Madison from the suspicion of having penned a resolution asserting the right of a State legislature to annul an act of Congress, and thereby putting it in the power of one State to destroy a form of government which he had jusɩ labored so hard to establish. To this effect he said:

"I wish now, sir, to make a remark upon the Virginia resolutions of 1798. I cannot undertake to say how these resolutions were understood by those who passed them. Their language is not a little indefinite. In the case of the exercise, by Congress, of a dangerous power, not granted to them, the resolutions assert the right on the part of the State, to interfere, and arrest the progress of the evil. This is susceptible of more than one interpretation. It may mean no more than that the States may interfere by complaint and remonstrance; or by proposing to the people an alteration of the federal constitution. This would all be quite unobjectionable; or, it may be, that no more is meant than to assert the general right of revolution, as against all gov ernments, in cases of intolerable oppression. This no one doubts; and this, in my opinion, is all that he who framed the resolutions could have meant by it: for I shall not readily believe that he (Mr. Madison) was ever of opinion that a State, under the constitution, and in conformity with it, could, upon the ground of her own opinion of its unconstitutionality, however clear and palpable she might think the case, annul a law of Congress, so far as it should operate on herself, by her own legislative power."

"This, sir, was the first great step. By this, the supremacy of the constitution and laws of the United States is declared. The people so will it. No State law is to be valid which comes in conflict with the constitution or any law of the United States. But who shall decide this question of interference? To whom lies the last appeal? This, sir, the constitution itself decides also, by declaring that the judicial power shall extend to all cases arising under the constitution and laws of the United States.' These two provisions, sir, cover the whole ground. They are, in truth, the key-stone of the arch. With these, it is a constitution; without them it is a confederacy. In pursuance of these clear and express provisions, Congress established, at its very first session, in the Judicial Act, a mode for carrying them into full effect, and for bringing all questions of constitutional power to the final decision of the Supreme Court. It then, sir, became a government. It then had the means of selfprotection; and, but for this, it would, in all probability, have been now among things which are past. Having constituted the government, and declared its powers, the people have farther said, "Sir, unkind as my allusion to the Hartford that, since somebody must decide on the extent Convention has been considered by its supporters, of these powers, the government shall itself I apprehend that this disclaimer of the gentle decide; subject, always, like other popular go- man will be regarded as 'the unkindest cut of vernments, to its responsibility to the people. all.' When the gentleman spoke of the CaroAnd now, sir, I repeat, how is it that a State lina conventions of Colleton and Abbeville, let legislature acquires any power to interfere? me tell him that he spoke of that which never

Mr. Hayne, on his part, disclaimed all imitation of the Hartford Convention; and gave (as the practical part of his doctrine) the pledge of forcible resistance to any attempt to enforce unconstitutional laws. He said:

had existence, except in his own imagination. There have, indeed, been meetings of the people in those districts, composed, sir, of as highminded and patriotic men as any country can boast; but we have had no convention' as yet; and when South Carolina shall resort to such a measure for the redress of her grievances, let me tell the gentleman that, of all the assemblies that have ever been convened in this country, the Hartford Convention is the very last we shall consent to take as an example; nor will it find more favor in our eyes, from being recommended to us by the senator from Massachusetts. Sir, we would scorn to take advantage of difficulties created by a foreign war, to wring from the federal government a redress even of our grievances. We are standing up for our constitutional rights, in a time of profound peace; but if the country should, unhappily, be involved in a war to-morrow, we should be found flying to the standard of our country-first driving back the common enemy, and then insisting upon the restoration of our rights.

other gross violation of our constitutional rights, will any gentleman contend that the decision of every branch of the federal government, in favor of such laws, could prevent the States from declaring them null and void, and protecting their citizens from their operation?

"Sir, if Congress should ever attempt to enforce any such laws, they would put themselves so clearly in the wrong, that no one could doubt the right of the State to exert its protecting power.

"Sir, the gentleman has alluded to that portion of the militia of South Carolina with which I have the honor to be connected, and asked how they would act in the event of the nullification of the tariff law by the State of South Carolina? The tone of the gentleman, on this subject, did not seem to me as respectful as I could have desired. I hope, sir, no imputation was intended.

[Mr. Webster: "Not at all; just the reverse."]

'Well, sir, the gentleman asks what their leaders would be able to read to them out of Coke upon Littleton, or any other law book, to justify their enterprise? Sir, let me assure the gentleman that, whenever any attempt shall be made from any quarter, to enforce unconstitutional laws, clearly violating our essential rights, our leaders (whoever they may be) will not be found reading black letter from the musty pages of old law books. They will look to the constitution, and when called upon, by the sovereign authority of the State, to preserve and protect the rights secured to them by the charter of their liberties, they will succeed in defending them, or 'perish in the last ditch.”

"The gentleman has called upon us to carry out our scheme practically. Now, sir, if I am correct in my view of this matter, then it follows, of course, that the right of a State being established, the federal government is bound to acquiesce in a solemn decision of a State, acting in its sovereign capacity, at least so far as to make an appeal to the people for an amendment to the constitution. This solemn decision of a State (made either through its legislature, or a convention, as may be supposed to be the proper organ of its sovereign will-a point I do not propose now to discuss) binds the federal government, under the highest constitutional obligation, not to resort to any means of coercion against the citizens of the dissenting State. How, then, I do not pretend to give the arguments of the can any collision ensue between the federal and gentlemen, or even their substance, but merely State governments, unless, indeed, the former to state their propositions and their conclusions. should determine to enforce the law by uncon

stitutional means? What could the federal For myself, I did not believe in any thing serious government do, in such a case? Resort, says in the new interpretation given to the Virginia the gentleman, to the courts of justice. Now, resolutions-did not believe in any thing practican any man believe that, in the face of a solemn cal from nullification-did not believe in forcible decision of a State, that an act of Congress is

'a gross, palpable, and deliberate violation of the resistance to the tariff laws from South Carolina constitution,' and the interposition of its sove--did not believe in any scheme of disunionreign authority to protect its citizens from the believed, and still believe, in the patriotism of usurpation, that juries could be found ready Mr. Hayne: and as he came into the argument merely to register the decrees of the Congress,

wholly regardless of the unconstitutional char- on my side in the article of the public lands, so acter of their acts? Will the gentleman con- my wishes were with him, and I helped him tend that juries are to be coerced to find verdicts where I could. Of this desire to help, and disbeat the point of the bayonet? And if not, how lief in disunion, I gave proof, in ridiculing, as are the United States to enforce an act solemnly well as I could, Mr. Webster's fine peroration pronounced to be unconstitutional? But, if the attempt should be made to carry such a law into effect, by force, in what would the case differ from an attempt to carry into effect an act nullified by the courts, or to do any other unlawful and unwarrantable act? Suppose Congress should pass an agrarian law, or a law "When my eyes shall be turned to behold, emancipating our slaves, or should commit any for the last time, the sun in heaven, may I not see

to liberty and union, and really thought it out of place-a fine piece of rhetoric misplaced, for want of circumstances to justify it. He had concluded thus:

of the North! when the Hartford Convention was in session! when the language in the capitol was, "Peaceably, if we can; forcibly, if we must!" when the cry, out of doors, was, “ the Potomac the boundary; the negro States by themselves! The Alleghanies the boundary; the Western savages by themselves! The Missippi the boundary, let Missouri be governed by a prefect, or given up as a haunt for wild beasts!" That time was the fit occasion for this speech; and if it had been delivered then, either in the hall of the House of Representatives, or in the den of the Hartford Convention, or in the highway among the bearers and followers of the

him shining on the broken and dishonored fragments of a once glorious Union; on States dissevered, discordant, belligerent; on a land rent with civil feuds, or drenched, it may be, in fraternal blood! Let their last feeble and lingering glance, rather, behold the gorgeous ensign of the republic, now known and honored throughout the earth, still full high advanced, its arms and trophies streaming in their original lustre, not a stripe erased or polluted, nor a single star obscured, bearing for its motto no such miserable interrogatory as, What is all this worth? Nor those other words of delusion and folly, Liberty first, and Union afterwards: but every where, spread all over in characters of living light, blaz-five-striped banner, what effects must it not have ing on all its ample folds, as they float over the sca and over the land, and in every wind under the whole heavens, that other sentiment, dear to every true American heart--Liberty and Union, now and for ever, one and inseparable!"

produced! What terror and consternation among the plotters of disunion! But, here, in this loyal and quiet assemblage, in this season of general tranquillity and universal allegiance, the whole performance has lost its effect for want of affin

for want of any application, or reference, to any pending, or sentiment expressed, in the Senate; event impending in the country."

These were noble sentiments, oratorically ex-ity, connection, or relation, to any subject depressed, but too elaborately and too artistically composed for real grief in presence of a great calamity-of which calamity I saw no sign; and therefore deemed it a fit subject for gentle castigation and essayed it thus:

I do not quote this passage for any thing that I now see out of place in that peroration; but for a quite different purpose-for the purpose of showing that I was slow to believe in any design to subvert this Unionthat at the time of this great debate (February and March, 1830) I positively discredited it. and publicly proclaimed my incredulity. I did not want to believe it. I repulsed the belief. I pushed aside every circumstance that Mr. Webster relied on, and softened every expression that Mr. Hayne used, and considered him as limiting (practically) his threatened resistance to the tariff

"I proceed to a different theme. Among the novelties of this debate, is that part of the speech of the senator from Massachusetts which dwells with such elaboration of declamation and ornament, upon the love and blessings of unionthe hatred and horror of disunion. It was a part of the senator's speech which brought into full play the favorite Ciceronian figure of amplification. It was up to the rule in that particular. But, it seemed to me, that there was another rule, and a higher, and a precedent one. which it violated. It was the rule of propriety; that rule which requires the fitness of things to be considered; which requires the time, the place, the subject, and the audience, to be consid-act, to the kind of resistance which Virginis ered; and condemns the delivery of the argument, and all its flowers, if it fails in congruence to these particulars. I thought the essay upon union and disunion had so failed. It came

to us when we were not prepared for it; when there was nothing in the Senate, nor in the country to grace its introduction; nothing to give, or to receive, effect to, or from, the impassioned scene that we witnessed. It may be, it was the prophetic cry of the distracted daughter of Priam, breaking into the council, and alarming its tranquil members with vaticinations of the fall of Troy but to me, it all sounded like the sudden proclamation for an earthquake, when the sun, the earth, the air, announced no such prodigy; when all the elements of nature were at rest, and sweet repose pervading the world. There was a time, and you, and I, and all of us, did see it, sir, when such a speech would have found, in its delivery, every attribute of a just and rigorous propriety! It was at a time, when the five-striped banner was waving over the land

made to the alien and sedition laws-which was an appeal to the reason, judgment and feelings of the other States-and which had its effect in the speedy repeal of those laws. Mr. Calhoun had not then uncovered his position in relation to nullification. I knew that Mr. Webster was speaking at him in all that he said to Mr. Hayne: but I would believe nothing against him except upon his own showing, or undoubted evidence. Although not a favorite statesman with me, I felt admiration for his high intellectual endowments, and respect for the integrity and purity of his private life. Mr. Hayne I cordially loved; and believed, and still believe, in the loyalty of his intentions to the Union. They were both from the South-that sister Carolina, of which the other was my native State, and in both of which I have relatives and hereditary friends