January 26-27, 1830
Mr. President ................
Sir, let me recur to pleasing recollections; let me indulge in refreshing rememberance of the past; let me remind you
that, in early times, no States cherished greater harmony, both of principle and feeling, than Massachusetts and
South Carolina. Would to God that harmony might again return! Shoulder to shoulder they went through the Revolution,
hand in hand they stood round the administration of Washington, and felt his own great arm lean on them for support.
Unkind feeling, if it exist, alienation, and distrust are the growth, unnatural to such soils, of false principles
since sown. They are weeds, the seeds of which that same great arm never scattered.
Mr. President ,I shall enter on no encomium upon Massachusetts; she needs none. There she is. Behold her, and judge
for yourselves. There is her history; the world knows it by heart. The past, at least, is secure. There is Boston,
and Concord, and Lexington, and Bunker Hill; and there they will remain for ever. The bones of her sons, falling in the
great struggle for Independence, now lie mingled with the soil of every State from New England to Georgia; and there
they will lie for ever. And Sir, where American Liberty raised its first voice, and where its youth was nurtured
and sustained, there it still lives, in the strength of its manhood, and full of its original spirit. If discord and
disunion shall wound it, if party strife and blind ambition shall hawk at and tear it, if folly and madness, if
uneasiness under salutary and necessary restraint, shall succeed in separating it from that Union, by which alone its
existence is made sure, it will stand, in the end, by the side of that cradle in which its infancy was rocked; over
the friends who gather round it; and it will fall at last, if fall it must, amidst the proudest monuments of its
own glory, and on the very spot of its origin.
There yet remains to be performed, Mr. President, by far the most grave and important duty, which I feel to be
devolved on me by this occasion. It is to state, and to defend, what I conceive to be the true principles of the
Constitution under which we are here assembled.
I might well have desired that so weighty a task should have fallen
into other and abler hands. I could have wished that it should have been executed by those whose character and
experience give weight and influence to their opinions, such as cannot possibly belong to mine. But, Sir, I have met
the occasion, not sought it; and I shall proceed to state my own sentiments, without challenging for them any
particular regard, with studied plainness, and as much precision as possible.
I understand the honorable gentleman from South Carolina to maintain, that it is a right of the State legislatures to interfere,
whenever, in their judgment, this government transcends its constitutional limits, and to arrest the operation
of its laws.
I understand him to maintain this right, as a right existing under the Constitution, not as a right to
overthrow it on the ground of extreme necessity, such as would justify violent revolution.
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 extend of its powers.
I understand him to maintain that the ultimate power of judging of the constitutional extent of its own authority is
not lodged exclusively 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.
This is the sum of what I understand from him to be the South Carolina doctrine, and the doctrine which he maintains.
I propose to consider it, and compare it with the Constitution. Allow me to say, as a preliminary remark, that I
call this the South Carolina doctrine only because the gentleman himself has so denominated it. I do not feel at
liberty to say that South Carolina, as a State, has ever advanced these sentiments. I hope she has not, and never
may. That a great majority of her people are opposed to the tariff laws, is doubtless true. That a majority,
somewhat less than that just mentioned, conscientiously believe that these laws are unconstitutional, may probably
also be true. But that any majority holds the right of direct State interference at State discretion, the right of
nullifying acts of Congress by acts of State legislation, is more than I know, and what I shall be slow to believe...
This leads us to inquire into the origin of this government and the source of its power. Whose agent is it? Is it the
creature of the State legislatures, or the creature of the people? If the government of the United States be the agent
of the State governments, then they may control it, provided they can agree in the manner of controlling it; if it be the
agent of the people, then the people alone can control it, restrain it, modify, or reform it. It is observable enough,
that the doctrine for which the honorable gentleman contends leads him to the necessity of maintaining, not only that
this general government is the creature of the States, but that it is the creature of each of the States severally, so
that each may assert the power for itself of determining whether it acts within the limits of its authority. It is the
servant of four-and-twenty masters, of different will and different purposes and yet bound to obey all. This absurdity
(for it seems no less) arises from a misconception as to the origin of this government and its true character. It is, Sir,
the people's Constitution, the people's government, made for the people, made by the people, and answerable to the people.
The people of the United States have declared that the Constitution shall be the supreme law. We must either admit the
proposition, or dispute their authority. The States are, unquestionably, sovereign, so far as their sovereignty is not
affected by this supreme law. But the State legislatures, as political bodies, however sovereign, are yet not sovereign
over the people. So far as the people have given the power to the general government, so far the grant is unquestionably good,
and the government holds of the people, and not of the State governments. We are all agents of the same supreme power,
the people. The general government and the State governments derive their authority from the same source. Neither can,
in relation to the other, be called primary, though one is definite and restricted, and the other general and residuary.
The national government possesses those powers which it will be shown the people have conferred upon it, and no more. All
the rest belongs to the State governments, or to the people themselves. So far as the people have restrained State
sovereignty, by the expression of their will, in the Constitution of the United States, so far, it must be admitted.
State sovereignty is effectually controlled. I do not contend that it is, or ought to be, controlled farther. The
sentiment to which I have referred propounds that State sovereignty is only to be controlled by its own "feeling of justice":
that is to say, it is not to be controlled at all, for one who is to follow his own feelings is under no legal control.
Now, however men may think this ought to be, the fact is, that the people of the United States have chosen to impose control
on State sovereignties. There are those, doubtless, who wish they had been left without restraining; but the Constitution
has ordered the matter differently. To make war, for instance, is an exercise of sovereignty; but the Constitution
declareds that no State shall make war. To coin money is another exercise of sovereign power, but no State is at
liberty to coin money. Again, the Constitution says that no sovereign State shall be so sovereign as to make a treaty.
These prohibitions, it must be confessed, are a control on the State sovereignty of South Carolina, as well as of the other
States, which does not arise "from her own feelings of honorable justice." The opinion referred to, therefore, is in
defiance of the plainest provisions of the Constitution...
I must now beg to ask, Sir, Whence is this supposed right of the States
derived? Where do they find the power to interfere
with the laws of the Union? Sir the opinion which the honorable
gentleman maintains is a notion founded in a total
misapprehension, in my judgment, of the origin of this government, and
of the foundation on which it stands. I hold it
to be a popular government, erected by the people; those who administer
it, responsible to the people; and itself
capable of being amended and modified, just as the people may choose it
should be. It is as popular, just as truly emanating
from the people, as the State governments. It is created for one purpose; the State governments for another. It has its own powers;
they have theirs. There is no more authority with them to arrest the
operation of a law of Congress, than with Congress
to arrest the operation of their laws. We are here to administer a
Constitution emanating immediately from the people, and
trusted by them to our administration. It is not the creature of the
State governments. It is of no moment to the argument,
that certain acts of the State legislatures are necessary to fill our
seats in this body. That is not one of their original
State powers, a part of the sovereignty of the State. It is a duty
which the people, by the Constitution itself, have imposed
on the State legislatures; and which they might have left toe performed
elsewhere, if they had seen fit. So they have left
the choice of President with electors; but all this does not affect the
proposition that this whole government, President,
Senate, and House of Representatives, is a popular government. It
leaves it still all its popular character. The governor
of a State (in some of the States) is chosen, not directly by the
people, but by those who are chosen by the people, for the
purpose of performing, among other duties, that of electing a governor.
Is the government of the State, on that account, not
a popular government? This government, Sir, is the independent
offspring of the popular will. It is not the creature of State
legislatures; nay, more, if the whole truth must be told, the people
brought it into existence, established it, and have
hitherto supported it, for the very purpose, amongst others, of imposing
certain salutary restraints on State sovereignties.
The States cannot now make war; they cannot contract alliances; they
cannot make, each for itself, separate regulations of
commerce; they cannot lay imposts; they cannot coin money. If this
Constitution, Sir, be the creature of State legislatures,
it must be admitted that it has obtained a strange control over the
volitions of its creators.
The people, then, Sir, erected this government. They gave it a Constitution, and in that Constitution they have enumerated
the powers 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 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 limitation so precise, as to exclude all uncertainty. Who, then, shall
construe this grant of the people? Who shall interpret their will, where it may be supposed they have left it doubtful?
With whom do they repose this ultimate right of deciding on the powers of government? Sir, they have settled all this in the
fullest manner. They have left it with the government itself, 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 Confederation. 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, ordaned, 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."
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 passed in pursuance of it. 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 cover the whole ground. They are, in truth, the
keystone of the arch! With these it is a government; without them it is a confederation. 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 self-protection; 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 further said, that,
since somebody must decide on the extent of these powers, the government shall itself decide; subject always, like other
popular governments, to its responsibility to the people...
I have not allowed myself, Sir, to look beyond the Union, to see what
might lie hidden in the dark recess behind. I have
not coolly weighed the chances of preserving liberty when the bonds that
unite us together shall be broken asunder. I have
not accustomed myself to hang over the precipice of disunion, to see
whether, with my short sight, I can fathom the depth of
the abyss below; nor could I regard him as a safe counselor in the
affairs of this government, whose thoughts should be
mainly bent on considering, not how the Union may be best preserved, but
how tolerable might be the condition of the people
when it should be broken up and destroyed. While the Union lasts, we
have high, exciting, gratifying prospects spread out
before us and our children. Beyond that I seek not to penetrate the
veil. God grant that in my day, at least, that curtain
may not rise! God grant that on my vision never may be opened to what
lies behind! When my eyes shall be turned to behold for
the last time the sun in heaven, may I not see 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 luster, not a stripe erased
or polluted, not 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 everywhere, spread all over in
characters of living light,...., as they
float over the sea 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!
No comments:
Post a Comment