abandonment of feeble measures, and the adoption of a bold and radical policy.1 He would have no temporiz"Resistance" ing. Let the issue be squarely joined. Let the tariff "The Crisis." be got rid of by Resistance, he cried. The conse in Nullification in quences would not be awful. Let coercion be employed, Much has been written on the origin of the nullifi "The Crisis." cation doctrine. "The Crisis" has been overlooked. In it we find all the doctrine stated in strong, vigorous language. Only the name is wanting. Robert J. Turnbull, and not John C. Calhoun, gave the world the first formulation of the nullification doctrine. "The 1 The Crisis, 1827. 2 Ibid., No. 33. 8 Ibid., Nos. 8, 22. 1827-28.] "THE CRISIS" ON NULLIFICATION. 73 Crisis" had great influence; it created much excitement in the State; Calhoun must have seen it, and, as he Calhoun and "The Crisis." uses many of its precise phrases, we are almost forced to conclude that when, after the passage of the "bill of abominations," he entered upon an examination of the Constitution to find an ultimate remedy, he kept his eyes fixed upon "The Crisis." Calhoun refined the doctrine, put it into shape, and elaborated it, but it would seem that Robert J. Turnbull was the originator of the South Carolina doctrine. the South Turnbull was moving too fast; the time for taking the ultimate step had not yet arrived; the crisis as yet existed only on paper. The leaders preferred to await the action of Congress, which would meet in December. Congress met; the tariff struggle began promptly, and ended in the defeat of the free-traders. On May 24, 1828, the "tariff of abominations" was Conference of agreed to. This was the signal for action on the Carolina part of the South Carolina leaders. Shortly after the delegation. passage of the act, all the members of the South Carolina delegation, except Senator Smith, met at Senator Hayne's to consult as to the course they should pursue. Hamilton was for acting promptly: the proper thing, he thought, was for the delegation to vacate their seats, and not to return unless specially instructed by their constituents so to do. As the State was laboring under taxation without representation, the form of representation might as well be dispensed with. He had resolved to take the step himself the moment the question was settled, to address a letter to the Speaker, and vacate his seat, but had been prevented from doing so by Hayne, McDuffie, Martin, and Drayton. It was distinctly asserted at this meeting that a continuation of the prohibitory system would lead to a dissolution of the Union. A long and ardent conversation followed on the question of the ability of Confidence. the State to sustain herself in such a contingency. Hamilton thought the idea that the general government could enforce an unconstitutional law at the point of the bayonet too absurd for contradiction. The adjoining States would not permit the recruits from the power-looms to march through their territories. He had faith in the spirit of his people, and believed that, if South Carolina were invaded, the victories of the 10th of June, Eutaw and Cowpens, would be re-enacted on a larger scale. Hamilton added, however, that these remarks were not intended to set forth the propriety of separation. McDuffie applauded these sentiments, and said that his constituents would have to get another Representative, if they failed to resist the tendencies that would make them paupers. The delegation agreed to correspond with one another, after they returned home, to acquaint one another with the views of their constituents, to meet in Columbia so as to give any advice the Legislature might desire, to allay excitement till after the election, and then to let opinion take its course.1 The Walterborough address. But the excitement was not easy to allay. The passage of the act of 1828 produced an outburst of feeling in the masses like that caused by the passage of the acts of 1824 and 1832. At Walterborough, Colleton County, a meeting was held on June 12, 1828, at which Robert Barnwell Smith (Rhett) submitted for adoption an address to the people of South Carolina. The document declared that resistance to the tariff was advised, "not from a desire of disunion," but to bring back the Constitution to its original principles. Appeal to the courts, it declared, would be in vain : the decision of every court in the land upholding the constitutionality of the tariff could not convince the 1 Niles Register, XXXV. 199–209. 1828.] "SIDNEY" ON NULLIFICATION. 75 understandings of the people of Colleton County. This address was adopted unanimously,1 and the Governor was enjoined to convene the Legislature in order that some definite action might be taken.2 Meetings held at other places made the same demand, but Governor Taylor was firm: the Legislature was allowed to stand adjourned till the regular day of meeting. men. formulation of In the mean time, a second attempt to formulate a Second constitutional doctrine of resistance was made On nullification. July 3, 1828, appeared in the Mercury the first of a series of three communications from "Sidney." This writer did not come to the point in his first communication; he was laboring under excitement. South Carolina was paying one hundred thousand dollars tribute that a “miserable, plundering band of grovelling, sordid wretches" might fatten at her expense. Well might her people inquire as to the value of Union with such They should take their stand under the sovereignty of the State, "and, if necessary, die in the ditch." On the 4th, the second communication appeared; and on the 8th, the third. The Legislature, it was suggested, should meet, enumerate the different tariff acts, declare them null and void, open the ports, and face the question like freemen. Merchants could then refuse to pay duties; suits would come before the courts, which would declare the law unconstitutional; and thus a plain issue would be made up between two sovereign parties. One sovereign in its delegated A plain issue. powers declares something to be law; another in its reserved powers declares it to be no law: who is to decide? Not the Supreme Court: it is the creature of one of the sovereigns. Only the power that made the Constitution can construe it. South Carolina, standing upon her sovereignty, could declare the tariff 1 Charleston Mercury, June 18, 1828. 2 Ibid. Three fourths laws null and void, remain passive, and compel the doctrine. general government to move. This brings the subject This communication appeared about one week before Calhoun put the finishing touches on the "Exposition." Sidney" may have been one of those who visited Calhoun at his summer home, and discussed with him the ultimate measures that the State should adopt. When the Legislature met in regular session, in the latter part of November, expectation was on tiptoe. Everybody thought something would be done; Governor only a few knew what course would be taken. Governor Taylor Taylor, in his message, after denouncing the "tariff of advises "Interposition." abominations," proceeded to consider how redress might be obtained. He advised the Legislature to declare the act unconstitutional and in its judgment not binding on the citizens of South Carolina, to publish the declaration far and wide, to appropriate money to test the question before every tribunal known to the Constitution and to the law, and to invite other States to do the same. The jury-box and the ballot-box, what could they not do! He would not even fear to approach the Supreme Court of the United States. Question of a tribunal. "The Constitution created this third power as a check upon the Executive and Legislative branches of the government, with the high office of umpirage between the Sovereign States of which the Union is composed." It would be humiliating to suppose that it could only register the behests of the co-ordinate branches of the government. He would oppose any 1 Charleston Mercury, July 3, 4, 8, 1828. |