ePub 版

statutes, and forms of government of these States, will exist in vain. We disclaim from the bottom of our hearts, all political or party purposes of local nature or circumscribed extent. We esteem as brethren and associates all who cordially unite with us in devotion to our common country, and in the firm resolution to defend her institutions, and transmit them unimpaired to the generations that shall succeed us. Your sentiments in relation to this subject are well known, and have been repeatedly announced, and we are proud to regard you, sir, as one of our fathers and leaders.

In this spirit, and with these views, we request the honor of your presence on the approaching occasion. The citizens of Charleston have flattered themselves with the hope that you would be able, without inconvenience, to comply with their invitation, urged some time since through the municipal authorities. May we be permitted to indicate the period of your visit so far as that it shall include the anniversary of the Declaration of Independence.

With the most respectful consideration, sir, we have the honor to be, your Excellency's obedient servants,

RENE Godard,









Committee of Arrangements.

The letter from Gen. Andrew Jackson, in reply to the above, was read, from the centre right by Col. Cross, from the left by Capt. E. P. Starr, and from the great extent of the Bower and assemblage, it not having been heard at the extreme ends, it was there read severally by the Hon. Thomas Lee and the Hon. Thomas S. Grimke.

WASHINGTON CITY, June 14, 1831. Gentlemen,—It would afford me much pleasure, could I at the same time accept your invitation of the 5th instant and that with which I was before honored by the municipal authorities of Charleston. A necessary attention to the duties of my office must deprive me of the gratification I should have had in paying, under such circumstances, a visit to the State of which I feel a pride in calling myself a citizen by birth

Could I accept your invitation, it would be with the hope that all parties-all the men of talent, exalted patriotism, and private worth, who have been divided in the manner you describe, might be found united before the altar of their country on the day set apart for the solemn celebration of its independence-independence which cannot exist without Union, and with it is eternal.


Every enlightened citizen must know that a separation, could it be effected, would begin with civil discord, and end in colonial dependence on a foreign power, and obliteration from the list of nations. But he should also see that high and sacred duties which must and will, at all hazards, be performed, present an insurmountable barrier to the success of any plan of disorganization, by whatever patriotic name it may be decorated, or whatever high feelings may be arrayed for its support. The force of these evident truths, the effect they must ultimately have upon the minds of those who seem for a moment to have disregarded them, make me cherish the belief I have expressed, that could I have been present at your celebration, I should have found all parties concurring to promote the object of your association. You have distinctly expressed that object-" to revive in its full force the benign spirit of Union, and to renew the mutual confidence in each other's good will and patriotism." Such endeavors, calmly and firmly persevered in, cannot fail of success. Such sentiments are appropriate to the celebration of that high festival which commemorates the simultaneous declaration of Union and Independence-and when on the return of that day, we annually renew the pledge that our heroic fathers made of life, of fortune, and of sacred honor, let us never forget that it was given to sustain us a United, not less than an Independent people.

Knowing as I do, the private worth and public virtues of distinguished citizens to whom declarations inconsistent with an attachment to the Union have been ascribed, I cannot but hope that, if accurately reported, they were the effect of momentary excitement, not deliberate design; and that such men can never have formed the project of pursuing a course of redress through any other than constitutional means; but if I am mistaken in this charitable hope, then in the language of the father of our country, I would conjure them to estimate properly "the immense value of your national Union to your collective and individual happiness"; to cherish "a cordial, habitual, and immovable attachment to it; accustoming yourselves to think and speak of it as of the palladium of your political safety and prosperity, watching for its preservation with jealous anxiety; discountenancing whatever may suggest, even a suspicion, that it can, in any event, be abandoned; and indignantly frowning upon the first dawning of every attempt to alienate any portion of our country from the rest, or to enfeeble the sacred ties which now link together the various parts."

Your patriotic endeavors, gentlemen, to lessen the violence of party dissension cannot be forwarded more effectually than by inculcating a reliance on the justice of our National Councils, and pointing to the fast approaching extinction of the public debt, as an event which must necessarily produce modifications in the revenue system, by which all interests, under a spirit of mutual accommodation and concession, will be probably protected.

The grave subjects introduced in your letter of invitation have drawn from me the frank exposition of opinions which I have neither interest nor inclination to conceal.

Grateful for the kindness you have personally expressed, I renew my expressions of regret that it is not in my power to accept your kind invitation, and have the honor to be, with great respect, your obedient and humble servant,



TO JOHN STONEY and others, Committee of Arrangements.


Dr. William Read, the first vice-president, gave the following: "The Hon. Thomas R. Mitchell: The uniform and consistent advocate both of State Rights and of the integrity of the Union.”

To which Mr. Mitchell made the following reply, during which he was frequently interrupted by highly approving acclamation.

Mr. President and Gentlemen,-I know not how to thank you for the kind sentiment which you have just expressed. The approbation of so large a portion of my fellow-citizens of Charleston, the great capital of the South and of our beloved South Carolina, is a boon given by your kindness, not due to my merit.

When I look around me and consider those who compose this meeting and its objects, I am overwhelmed with sadness and with joy—with sadness at the occasion of the meeting, the distractions of our once united and harmonious State; with joy at beholding such an assemblage of intelligence, of virtue, of firmness, and of patriotism. We have truly met under the most interesting circumstances: not only to celebrate the most sublime and momentous event of our history, the Declaration of Independence, but to declare before God and our country, that we and ours will maintain, to the utmost of our power, the Union of the States, the Constitutions of the United States and that of our own beloved State, in their perfect integrity. These are the objects of our meeting; these form the bond of our Union. Differing, as many of us do, on important points of policy and constitutional construction, the magnitude of these objects is paramount to them all-suppresses every discordant sentiment, and unites us as a band of brothers by ties stronger than those of blood.

We have been charged; and it has often been repeated, with harboring imaginary fears on these subjects. Imaginary fears! When we have been gravely told by a high dignitary of the State, on a most solemn occasion, that it is time to calculate the costs of the Union! When the Hartford Convention, the only blot in our history, and which has hitherto called forth the execration of every Carolinian, is held up to the people as an example for their imitation and emulation! When one of


our representatives, in and out of Congress, in the back country and the low country, has been endeavoring by misstatements and sophisms, to prove the utter incompatibility of the interests of the North and South; to disaffect our people towards the general government, and to present in the most deceptive colors the advantages of a separation of our State from the confederacy! When the general government has been called, in an official communication by the highest authority of the State, a foreign government! Finally, when we daily and hourly hear the raven sounds of disunion and civil war rung in our ears in changes on the word nullification. Are not these signs?-signs, not of political peril, not of the destruction of our constitutions of government, not of the conflagration of our towns and of the devastation of our fields-for, could we suppose that these misguided people had the will, they surely have not the power to effect their objects; but sure and veritable signs of the loss by our State of the sympathy and good will of the rest of the Union, more especially that of the South; of her degradation to the low estate of Massachusetts, when, under a similar influence, she refused to muster her militia at the call of the President, and convened her Hart ford Convention. And signs of the fall of our State from that high and prominent stand in the confederacy which she once held, when her sons gave proof of the utter nothingness of wealth and numbers, when opposed to virtue and talent; when, though small in representation and still smaller in physical force, she stood in the National Councils in point of influence equal to Virginia and superior to New York. Oh, had you witnessed the noble bearing of our little State in the government at Washington when her chosen son, William Lowndes, guided and gov erned her councils. William Lowndes! Name most cherished, most dear to every Carolinian. Spotless patriot! In thee we beheld the rare rivalry between goodness and greatness. These are the effects of what has been miscalled the Carolina doctrines-as the pernicious theory of Henry Clay has been called the American system-when it is well known that before its adoption freedom was the living principle of our commercial policy. Where and by whom have these doctrines been recognized and adopted? By Georgia? No; she has solemnly disclaimed them. By North Carolina? Her legislature has put them down by a vote of 5 to 1. By Alabama-a cotton State, and the youngest of the Southern sisterhood? They have shared there a like fate. By Virginia, the leading State of this great Southern equinoctial region-the land of genius and liberty-the first and most strenuous advocate of State Rights? No; her legislature has passed them by with studied neglect, while she has not a newspaper of any character which is not levelled against them. Where then and by whom, I ask, have they been recognized and adopted? Shall I say by the one-half of our people? If I were to tell you that they were recognized by the one-fourth or the one


twentieth of our population, you would charge me with exaggeration. I sincerely and honestly believe-and this belief is founded on laborious researches, extended as far as I could—that if the nature and tendency of these doctrines were fully explained and developed to all the people, that its advocates would in a very short time be reduced to a handful of factious and disorganizing politicians.

Do not mistake me when I speak thus of the Carolina doctrines. I am, and have ever been, through good report and through evil report, without change or deviation, openly and above-board, an advocate of State Rights as understood and explained by Jefferson and Madison. I was proud to be an humble disciple in that school when the majority of the delegation, with which I then served, denounced them as radical; and Calhoun and M'Duffie stigmatised them as the worst and most stupid of all heresies. But the faith of the Christian is not more different from that of the Turk than the doctrine of State Rights is different from that of the Carolina, as it is termed. The doctrine of State Rights opposes only the abuses of the Constitution; the Carolina doctrine opposes the Constitution itself. The doctrine of State Rights considers the Constitution, when administered according to its legitimate end and design, as the best of all governments. The Carolina doctrine considers the Constitution under any circumstances as the worst, and sneers at it as a mongrel-half horse, half alligator-half national, half Federal. The doctrine of State Rights considers the action of the Constitution on the people of the States as a new and beautiful idea-as one of the great inventions and improvements of the eighteenth century. The Carolina doctrine considers this action as a fungus, as an excrescence, and in all its reasonings and conclusions, places the State in the same attitude in which she stood under the articles of the old Confederation. Were I to be asked what is necessary for the preservation of State Rights, I should say a strict and literal interpretation of the Constitution. State Rights admit of no constructive powers but what are essentially necessary to the execution of the enumerated powers—and the word necessary is here understood in a strict philosophical sense-while the Carolina doctrine, to sustain its favorite theory of nullification, is compelled to resort to a latitude of construction which will make any and every thing of the Constitution. Can this new light then be true light? The doctrine of State Rights is as old as the Constitution itself. It was the foundation of the first division of parties. It has been investigated, analyzed, and discussed by patriots of transcendant minds who revered State sovereignty as the palladium of liberty and property. Yet who among them ever imagined, much less affirmed, that a State had a right to put her veto on the proceedings of the general government. This discovery was reserved for Mr. Calhoun, who, his most consistent friend, M'Duffie, has proclaimed to be the father of the great system of internal improvement;

« 上一頁繼續 »