MR. WEBSTER ON NULLIFICATION.

87

warın affirmative of South Carolina a plain,
downright, Pennsylvania negative. South
Carolina, to show the strength and unity of
her opinion, brings her assembly to a una-
nimity, within seven voices; Pennsylvania,
not to be outdone in this respect any more
than in others, reduces her dissentient frac-
tion to a single vote. Now, Sir, again I asking under the laws of Congress. This needs
the gentleman, What is to be done? Are
these States both right? If not, which is in
the wrong? or, rather, which has the best
right to decide? And if he, and if I, are not
to know what the Constitution means, and
what it is, till those two State Legislatures,
and the twenty-two others, shall agree in its
construction, what have we sworn to when
we have sworn to maintain it? I was forci-
bly struck, Sir, with one reflection, as the
gentleman went on in his speech. He
quoted Mr. Madison's resolutions11 to prove
that a State may interfere, in a case of
deliberate, palpable, and dangerous exercise
of a power not granted. The honorable
member supposes the tariff law to be such
an exercise of power; and that, consequent-
ly, a case has arisen in which the State may,
if it see fit, interfere by its own law. Now
it so happens, nevertheless, that Mr. Madi-
son deems this same tariff law quite consti-
tutional! Instead of a clear and palpable
violation, it is, in his judgment, no violation
at all. So that, while they use his authority
for a hypothetical case, they reject it in the
very case before them. All this, Sir, shows
the inherent futility-I had almost used a
stronger word-of conceding this power of
interference to the States, and then attempt-
ing to secure it from abuse by imposing
qualifications of which the States themselves
are to judge. One of two things is true:
either the laws of the Union are beyond the
discretion and beyond the control of the
States, or else we have no constitution of
General Government, and are thrust back
again to the days of the Confederation."

| struction.
struction. The Constitution declares that,
the laws of Congress passed in pursuance of
the Constitution shall be the supreme law of
the land. No construction is necessary
here. It declares also, with equal plainness
and precision, that the judicial power of the
United States shall extend to every case aris-

In his brief speech, which closed that debate, and finished the doctrine of Nullification, Mr. Webster said:

"Sir, if I were to concede to the gentleman his principal proposition, namely, that the Constitution is a compact between States, the question would still be, What provision is made in this compact to settle points of disputed construction, or contested. power, that shall come into controversy? And this question would still be answered, and conclusively answered, by the Constitution itself. While the gentleman is contending against construction, he himself is setting up the most dangerous and loose con

no construction. Here is a law, then, which
is declared to be supreme; and here is a
power established, which is to interpret that
law. Now, Sir, how has the gentleman met
this? Suppose the Constitution to be a
compact, yet here are its terms; and how
does the gentleman get rid of them? He
cannot argue the seal off the bond, nor the
words out of the instrument. Here they
are; what answer does he give to them?
None in the world, Sir, except, that the
effect of this would be to place the States in
a condition of inferiority; and that it results
from the very nature of things, there being
no superior, that the parties must be their
own judges! Thus closely and cogently
does the honorable gentleman reason on the
words of the Constitution! The gentleman
says, if there be such a power of final deci-
sion in the General Government, he asks
for the grant of that power. Well, Sir, I
show him the grant. I turn him to the
very words. I show him that the laws of
Congress are made supreme; and that the
made_supreme;
judicial power extends, by express words, to
the interpretation of these laws. Instead of
answering this, he retreats into the general
reflection, that it must result from the na-
ture of things, that the States, being parties,
must judge for themselves.

One

"I have admitted, that, if the Constitution were to be considered as the creature of the State governments, it might be modified, interpreted, or construed according to their pleasure. But, even in that case, it would be necessary that they should agree. alone could not interpret it conclusively; one alone could not construe it; one alone could not modify it. Yet the gentleman's doctrine is, that Carolina alone may construe and interpret that compact, which equally binds all, and gives equal rights to all.

"So, then, Sir, even supposing the Constitution to be a compact between the States, the gentleman's doctrine, nevertheless, is not maintainable; because first, the General Government is not a party to the compact, but a government established by it, and vested by it with the powers of trying and deciding doubtful questions; and, secondly, because, if the Constitution be regarded as a compact, not one State only, but all the States, are parties to that compact, and one

14 The Virginia Resolves of 1799,

1

can have no right to fix upon it her own
peculiar construction."

was born; while the father of John C. Calhoun died when his son was still in his early teens. Each was by birth a South Carolinian; for, though General Jackson's birth-place is claimed by his biographers for North Carolina, he expressly asserted South Carolina's to be his native State, in the most important and memorable document to which his name is appended, and which flowed not merely from his pen, but from his heart. Each was of the original Anti-Federal, strict-construction school in our politics-Calhoun's father having vehemently opposed the adoption of the Federal Constitution; while Jackson, entering Congress as the sole representative of the newly admitted State of Tennessee (December 5, 1796), voted in a minority of twelve against the address tendering to General Washington, on his retirement from the Presidency, a respectful ex

ANDREW JACKSON and JOHN C. CALHOUN two of the most remarkable men ever produced in this or any other country—were destined to lead the rival forces by which the Nullification issue was finally brought to a practical conclusion. Though they became and died fierce antagonists, and even bitter personal enemies, their respective characters and careers exhibited many points of resemblance. Each was of that "Scotch-Irish" Presbyterian stock with which Cromwell repeopled the north of Ireland from Scotland, after having all but exterminated its original Celtic and Catholic inhabitants, who resisted and defied his authority. That Scotch-Irish blood to this day evinces something of the Cromwellian energy, courage, and sturdiness. Each was of Revolutionary Whig antece-pression of the profound admiration dents-Jackson, though but thirteen years of age, having been in arms for the patriotic cause in 1780; his brother Hugh having died in the service the preceding year. Andrew (then but fourteen), with his brother Robert, was taken prisoner by the British in 1781, and wounded in the head and arm while a captive, for refusing to clean his captor's boots. His brother was, for a like offense, knocked down and disabled. John C. Calhoun was only born in the last year of the Revolutionary War; but his father, Patrick Calhoun, was an ardent and active Whig throughout the struggle. Each was early left fatherless-Andrew Jackson's father having died before his illustrious son

15" Fellow-citizens of my native State !". appealing to South Carolinians in his Proclama

and gratitude wherewith his whole
public career was regarded by Con-
gress and the country. General
Jackson was not merely an extreme
Republican of the Jeffersonian State-
Rights School; he was understood to
side with Colonel Hayne at the time
of his great debate on Nullification
with Mr. Webster. Each entered
Congress before attaining his thirti-
eth year, having already taken a con-
spicuous part in public affairs. Each
was first chosen to the House, but
served later and longer in the Senate.
Each was a slaveholder through most
of his career, always found on the
side of Slavery in any controversy
affecting its claims or interests during
his public life; and neither emanci-

tion against the Nullifiers, Dec. 11, 1832.
can hardly have been mistaken on this head.

He

PROTECTION-MR. JEFFERSON'S VIEW.

89

pated his slaves by his will. Each | earliest conspicuous champion in our became, for the first time, a candidate national councils was was Alexander for the Presidency in 1824, when Hamilton, General Washington's each counted with confidence on the Secretary of the Treasury, came, at powerful support of Pennsylvania. a later day, to be mainly championed When that State, through her leading by Republicans. The great merpoliticians, decided to support Jack-chants were leading Federalists; the son, Calhoun fell out of the race, but was made Vice-President without serious opposition; General Jackson receiving a plurality of the electoral votes for President, but failing of success in the House. In 1828, their names were placed on the same ticket, and they were triumphantly elected President and Vice-President respectively, receiving more than two-thirds of the electoral votes, including those of every State south of the Potomac. This is the only instance wherein the President and Vice-President were both chosen from those distinctively known as Slave States; though New York was nominally and legally a Slave State when her Aaron Burr, George Clinton, and Daniel D. Tompkins were each chosen Vice-President with the last three Virginian Presidents respectively. Alike tall in stature, spare in frame, erect in carriage, austere in morals, imperious in temper, of dauntless courage, and inflexible will, Jackson and Calhoun were each fitted by nature to direct, to govern, and to mould feebler men to his ends; but they were not fitted to coalesce and work harmoniously together. They had hardly become the accepted chiefs of the same great, predominant party, before they quarreled; and their feud, never healed, exerted a signal and baneful influence on the future of their country.

great sea-ports were mainly Federal strongholds; the seaboard was in good part Federal: it yearned for extensive and ever-expanding commerce, and mistakenly, but naturally, regarded the fostering of Home Manufactures as hostile to the consummation it desired. Mr. Jefferson's Embargo had borne with great severity upon the mercantile class, inciting a dislike to all manner of commercial restrictions. The interior, on the other hand, was preponderantly Republican, and early comprehended the advantage of a more symmetrical development, a wider diversification, of our National Industry, through the legislative encouragement of Home Manufactures. The Messages of all the Republican Presidents, down to and including General Jackson, recognize and affirm the wisdom, beneficence, and constitutionality of Protective legislation. The preamble to the first tariff act passed by Congress under the Federal Constitution explicitly affirms the propriety of levying imposts, among other ends, "for the protection of Domestic Manufactures." Mr. Jefferson, in his Annual Message of December 14, 1806, after announcing that there is a prospect of an early surplus of Federal revenue over expenditure, proceeds :

"The question, therefore, now comes forward to what other objects shall these surpluses be appropriated, and the whole The Protective Policy, though its surplus of impost, after the entire discharge

not to those already provided for. Had these required such enlargement, the duties should have been repealed or reduced at once, to be rëimposed whenever Congress should be clothed with the requisite constitutional power.

of the public debt, and during those inter- | by him with reference to new objects, vals when the purposes of war shall not call for them? Shall we suppress the impost and give that advantage to foreign over domestic manufactures? On a few articles of more general and necessary use, the suppression, in due season, will doubtless be right; but the great mass of the articles on which impost is paid is foreign luxuries, purchased by those only who are rich enough to afford themselves the use of them. Their patriotism would certainly prefer its continuance and application to the great purposes of the public education, roads, rivers, canals, and such other objects of public improvement as it may be thought proper to add to the constitutional enumeration of federal powers. By these operations, new channels of communication will be opened between the States; the lines of separation will disap;

pear; their interests will be identified, and their Union cemented by new and indissolu

ble ties."

"Education is here placed among the articles of public care, not that it would be proposed to take its ordinary branches out of the hands of private enterprise, which manages so much better all the concerns to which it is equal; but a public institution can alone supply those sciences which, though rarely called for, are yet necessary to complete the circle, all the parts of which contribute to the improvement of the country, and some of them to its preservation. The subject is now proposed for the consideration of Congress, because, if approved, by the time the State Legislatures shall have deliberated on this extension of the federal

trusts, and the laws shall be passed, and other arrangements made for their execution, the necessary funds will be on hand and without employment. I suppose an amendment to the Constitution, by consent of the States, necessary, because the objects now recommended are not among those enu

merated in the Constitution, and to which it permits the public moneys to be applied." Mr. Jefferson, it will be seen, suggests an amendment to the Constitution, to give Congress power to raise and appropriate money to the "great purposes of education, roads, rivers, canals," etc.; but he betrays no suspicion that the incidental Protection then confessedly enjoyed by our Home Manufactures was given in defiance of "the Constitution as it is." On the contrary, an enlargement of federal power was suggested

Mr.

HENRY CLAY entered Congress under Jefferson, in 1806, and was an earnest, thorough, enlightened Protectionist from the start. Calhoun first took his seat in 1811, when the question of war with Great Britain dwarfed all others; and his zealous efforts, together with those of Clay, Felix Grundy, and other ardent young Republicans, finally overbore the reluctance of Madison and his more sedate councilors, and secured a Declaration of War on the 18th of June, 1812. At the close of that war, a revision of the existing Tariff was imperatively required; and no man did more than John C. Calhoun-then, for his last term, a leading member of the House-to secure the efficient Protection of Home Manufactures, but especially of the Cotton Manufacture, by the Tariff of 1816; which Massachusetts, and most of New England, opposed, precisely because it was Protective, and therefore, in the short-sighted view, hostile to the interests of Commerce and Navigation. Internal Improvements, and all other features of what was termed the National in contradistinction to the Radical or strict-construction theory of the nature and functions of our Federal Government, found in Mr. Calhoun and his personal adherents their most thorough-going champions: and South Carolina was, about 1820, the

ton States, and by a majority of those from New England-some provisions having been engrafted upon it with the alleged purpose and the certain effect of making it obnoxious to Massachusetts and the States which, on either side, adjoined her. On the other hand, the members from the Middle and Western Free States, without distinction of party, supported it almost unanimously. This Tariff imposed high duties on Iron, Lead, Hemp, Wool, and other bulky staples, and was very generally popular. Under it, the industry of the Free States, regarded as a whole, was more productive, more prosperous, better rewarded, than ever before, and the country exhibited a rapid growth in wealth, intelligence, and general comfort.

arena of a stirring conflict between | by most of the members from the Cother “National” school of politicians, headed by Calhoun and McDuffie, and the “Radicals," whose chief was William H. Crawford, of Georgia. Repeated duels between Mr. McDuffie and Colonel William Cuming, of Georgia, in one of which McDuffie was severely wounded, were among the incidents of this controversy. Yet but few years elapsed before Mr. Calhoun and his trusty henchman, McDuffie, appeared in the novel character of champions of "State Rights," and relentless antagonists of Protection, and all the “National" projects they had hitherto supported! Mr. Calhoun attempted, some years afterward, to reconcile this flagrant inconsistency; but it was like "arguing the seal off the bond"—a feat to which the subtlest powers of casuistry are utterly inadequate. He did prove, however, that his change did not follow, but preceded, his quarrel with General Jackson-his original, though then unacknowledged, demonstration against Protection as unconstitutional, and in favor of Nullification as a reserved right of each State, having been embodied in an elaborate document known as "The South Carolina Exposition," adopted and put forth by the Legislature of his State near the close of 1828. The doctrines therein affirmed were those propounded by Hayne and refuted by Webster in the great debate already noticed.

The Tariff of 1828-the highest and most protective ever adopted in this country-was passed by a Jackson Congress, of which Van Buren, Silas Wright, and the Jacksonian leaders in Pennsylvania and Ohio, were master-spirits. It was opposed

The South-that is, the cottongrowing region-for Louisiana, through her sugar-planting interest, sustained the Protective policy, and shared in the prosperity thence resulting-now vehemently opposed the Tariff, declaring herself thereby plundered and impoverished. There is no evidence that her condition was less favorable, her people less comfortable, than they had been; but the contrast between the thrift, progress, and activity of the Free States, and the stagnation, the inertia, the poverty, of the cotton region, was very striking. And, as the South was gradually unlearning her Revolutionary principles, and adopting instead the dogma that Slavery is essentially right and beneficent, she could not now be induced to apprehend, nor even to consider, the real cause of her comparative wretchedness; though she was more than once