British Government. Not so with Mr. Memminger, the equal in many respects of the gifted Englishman from Louisiana, and, as the writer believes, his superior in those characteristics that mark the upright man who feared God and worked righteously.

The delay incident to securing the privileges of a citizen of the United States was improved by Mr. Memminger in a close application to the text-books of his profession. It was at this time that he began the preparation of "A Digest of the Decisions of the Court of Appeals, with Notes on the same, and on Leading Cases referred to in the Authorities." I find only one of the note books among his papers in which this digest is commenced. It is in his hand-writing, with marginal references to many authorities, clearly indicating the painstaking, methodical work of a careful student. Thus was he laying broad and deep the foundation upon which, in after years, he was to erect the superstructure that will remain for years to grace the judicial walks in which the great men of Carolina lived and made their immortal history.

Admitted to practice in the several courts of South Carolina, Mr. Memminger at once entered upon a successful professional career. While he did not make any single department of law a specialty, yet it becomes apparent to those who follow his long and laborious professional life, and read his many cases as of record in the State Reports, that commercial and constitutional law in all their bearings was his favorite branch, and in these he was eminently successful. The order of his mind would naturally lead him in this direction.

When Mr. Memminger came to take his place among the lawyers of the Charleston Bar, political affairs were in an excited condition, and became more so as each session of Congress brought before the people the discussions of ques

tions that were fast arraying the Northern and Southern sections of the country against each other, and that ultimately provoked the dissolution of the Union. For years the discussion of the rights of the States, under the provisions of the Constitution, had been growing more and more bitter. These discussions became more excited when the tariff measures, instituted during the administration of John Quincy Adams, were enforced during the presidential term of Andrew Jackson. Public meetings were being held all over the country to protest against the tariff as an iniquitous. system of legislation made to advance the interests of the manufacturing States of the North, at the expense of the agricultural sections of the Union. Mr. Clay's great speech in support of "An American system for the protection of American industry," delivered in the House of Representatives in March, 1824, had called forth the eloquence and logic of Robert Y. Hayne, Mr. Calhoun, Judge Harper, James Hamilton, Langdon Cheves, Henry L. Pinckney and a host of others in opposition to his doctrines; while in Virginia the ringing eloquence of William B. Giles endorsed the resolutions reported to the General Assembly of that State protesting "against the claim or exercise of any power whatever on the part of the general government to protect domestic manufactures as not being among the grants of power to that government specified in the Constitution of the United States, and also against the operations of the act of Congress passed May 22, 1824, entitled an act to amend an act imposing duties on imports generally called the tariff laws, which vary the distribution of the proceeds of the labor of the community in such a manner as to transfer property from one portion of the United States to another, and to take private property from the owner for the benefit of another person, not rendering public service, as unwise, unjust, unequal and oppressive."

In South Carolina, as in Virginia and in other States of the Union, this matter of the "unwise, unjust, unequal and oppressive" character of the tariff led to the formation of two parties, not so much because there was a denial, among any very considerable number, of the unrighteousness and oppressiveness of the measure, but because of a difference of opinion as to the proper remedy to relieve the agricultural sections of the unjust and unconstitutional burdens. Mr. Calhoun presented the right of nullification as a remedy authorised by the Constitution of the United States, and sustained his position with masterly arguments which will rank him among the great reasoners and statesmen of America as long as our institutions of government endure.

Nullification as a peaceful remedy was opposed by those who believed that it was revolutionary, unauthorized by any provision of the Constitution, and if exercised by the State that every bond of Union existing between the States would be broken and civil war would be the certain result. Both parties claimed to be advocating the doctrine of State Rights-the one being known as the "Union State Rights. Party," and the other as the party of "Free Trade and State Rights." With the masses they were distinguished as the "Union" and "Nullification" parties.

Prominent among those who opposed nullification, and among the leaders of the Union party were James L. Petigru, William Drayton, Joel R. Poinsett, Daniel E. Huger, John S. Richardson, Hugh S. Legare, Richard Yeadon, Jr., B. F. Hunt, Richard I. Manning, Henry W. Dessassure, John Belton O'Neal, and many others I might mention among the best citizens and truest patriots of the State of South Carolina.

With the "Union State Rights" party Mr. Memminger early identified himself, and though but a young man, he brought to its service the sincere convictions of his good

judgment and the earnest zeal of an unselfish patriotism. The great debate in the Senate of the United States between Mr. Webster and General Hayne in 1830 had gone far beyond the previous discussions which had been confined to the right of nullification. Although this debate was provoked by a resolution inquiring into the expediency of selling the public lands, it ended in a heated discussion of the sovereignty of a State, and the right of the State to resume that sovereignty under the provisions of a "contract" or a "compact." Never before in the history of the country was there so much excitement in political affairs. From Washington city this excitement was transferred to the several States, and more of it possibly reached South Carolina than was brought to any other of the Southern members of the sisterhood. Party lines were drawn with distinctness, and partisan feeling rose to a degree never before known in the history of the State. To use the language. of Mr. Calhoun in his address to the people of South Carolina, made through the Pendleton Messenger, July, 1837: "The country is now more divided than in 1824, and then more than in 1816. The majority may have increased, but the opposite sides are beyond dispute more determined and excited than at any other period." Meetings were held in every district, parish and beat in the State, at which the doctrine of nullification was advocated and opposed with all the vehemence incident to such occasions among an excitable people who were appealed to by eloquent and earnest

orators.

The Legislature of 1831 authorized the Governor to call a convention of the people to take into consideration their relations to the Federal Union. It was to meet at Columbia in the month of November of the following year, and to it delegates were to be selected by the people of the several districts and parishes of the State. The Union party put

forth its strongest men and best endeavors to secure their election as the delegates to this convention, and were opposed by the representative men of the nullifiers. I can best portray the state of the public mind, and will, at the same time, preserve a valuable historical paper, for the use of which, I am indebted to the Hon. E. M. Seabrook, of Charleston, by inserting here a copy of the proceedings at a "Celebration of the Fifty-fifth Anniversary of American Independence by the Union State Rights party" at Charleston, July 4, 1831.

Celebration of the Fifty-fifth Anniversary of American Independence.

At a meeting of the "Union and State Rights Party," convened at Seyle's Hall, agreeably to notice, the Hon. Daniel E. Huger was called to the chair, and Robert B. Gilchrist, Esq., appointed secretary.

The objects of the meeting having been stated, the chairman, on motion, appointed Messrs. J. L. Petigru, S. H. Dickson, C. J. Steedman, A. S. Willington and Joseph Johnson a committee, who reported the following preamble and resolutions, which were unanimously adopted:

"The Union and State Rights Party, zealously attached to the principles of the Revolution, would celebrate the approaching anniversary of American Independence in the very spirit which animated the illustrious men who fought and bled for American liberty: therefore,

"Resolved, That a committee of arrangements, consisting of thirteen, be appointed by the chair, to adopt such measures as may be necessary to effect the purposes contemplated by this meeting.

"Resolved, That a committee of five, of which the chairman of this meeting shall be one, be appointed by the chair, to request the Hon. William Drayton to deliver an oration on the Fourth of July next.

"Resolved, That twenty-four stewards be appointed by the chair, to aid the committee of arrangements in ordering and conducting such entertainments as may be thought appropriate for the occasion.

"Resolved, That the committee of arrangements be specially instructed to invite the surviving patriots of the Revolution.

"Resolved, That the Hon. James R. Pringle be requested by the committee of arrangements to preside at the dinner."

The following gentlemen were appointed a committee under the second resolution: Hon. D. E. Huger, B. F. Hunt, Thomas Bennett, Simon Magwood and J. H. Read.

It was then unanimously resolved, that the thanks of this meeting be returned to the chairman for his services on this occasion.

1 In the adoption of these resolutions, the party considered that they were only imitating the example which had been set them by their political opponents.