Whole JYb. 440.
Tarboroiigh, (Edgecombe County, N. C.) Tuesday, February 3, 1833.
Vol. rx-.jvb 24.
The "North Carolina Free Press,"
BY GEORGE' HOWARD,
Is published weekly, at Two Dollars and Fifty
( 'nits per year, it" paid in advance or Three Dol
lars, at the expiration of the subscription year. For
any period less than a year, Twenty-Jive Cents per
nicnth. Subscribers are at liberty to discontinue at
;my time, on giving notice thereof and paying arrears
those residing at a distance must invariably pay in
advance, or give a responsible reference in this vicinity.
Advertisements, not exceeding 16 lines, .will be in
serted at 50 cents the first insertion, and 25 cents each
continuance. Longer ones at that rate for every 16
lines. Advertisements must be marked the number
of insertions required, or they will be continued until
otherwise ordered, and charged accordingly.
Letters addressed to the Editor must be post paid,
or they may not be attended to.
'S.MS
SPEECH OF MR. POTTS,
On the Anli-Nullification Resolutions.
Mr. Speaker: As a member of the
committee who reported the resolution
upon your table, I ask the indulgence of
the House, while I say a few words in its
support. And in doing so, 1 eannot allow
myself to hope, that any thing that I may
or can say, will influence the opinion of
an individual present. But, sir, I am de
sirous of acquitting myself before you,
before this House and before the world,
for the vote I shall give upon this subject.
For if there ever was a period in our his
tory, when our acts were more calcula
ted than at another, to influence our mor-
no less than our political destinies, it
is the present. If we were ever called
upon to legislate for posterity, it is now.
And, if the grand experiment we have in
stituted is to fail, and man is destined
ever to show himself incapable of self
government, no part of the censure of
those who are to succeed us, shall be
mine.
Sir, when we recollect the important
considerations involved in the questions
before us and the no less important
consequences that may result from our
decision when we recollect that the cha
racter of our country, and the stability of
its government may be not remotely con
nected with that decision, gentlemen
might well be pardoned for the utmost
latitude of debate. In the few remarks
it is my purpose to submit to you, 1 shall
endeavor to circumscribe myself as much
as possible, and will content myself with
stating a few of the reasons thai have
conducted me to my conclusions.
I am opposed, air, to the principle to
which your resolution alludes. 1 am op
posed to it because I believe.it, in the
sincerity of my heart, to be dangerous
and subversive of the only good govern
ment on earth. And if I were disposed
to recognize the correctness of the ab
stract principle, I should deprecate its
application at this time, because the situ
ation of the country is not such, as to war
rant the resort to a remedy of so harsh,
so disorganizing a character.
However satisfactorily to myself, 1 may
have been able to investigate this subject,
and arrive at conclusions upon which my
own mind confidently rests, I fear I shall
not with equal facility, make myself intel
ligible to others. And here allow me to
remark, that not the least of the difficul
ties I have encountered in examining this
subject, has been the different expositions
that have becu given of the doctrine.
From one source we learn that it is so
mild in its character and so salutary in its
operation, that the harmony of the coun
try cannot possibly be disturbed. Nay,
sir, tliey go further and aver, that it af
fords the only means of giving value and
uuiuutiuy to our insiiiuiions. iM'om an-
Otlaer source, entitled to equal respect,
indeed from one of the high priests in the
great sanctuary of nullification, we learn
that it is revolutionary and that it is only
on that account that it is embraced.
Now, sir the only method by which
the truili of any proposition in politics, no
less than in philosophy,can be ascertained,
is to inquire into its nature to subject it
to a strict and rigid analysis. Let us
submit nullification to this test let us
examine into the practical effect the
"modus operandi" as we say in physic,
of this panacea, this catholicon which is
to cure all the diseases of the body
politic.
Nullification, sir, what is ill It is the
assumption, the exclusive assumption, by
one party, of a right which the very, first
principle of the doctrine ascribes to both
parties to the constitutional compact.
Suppose one State, being one party, in
the exercise of this right, arrests the ac
tion of a general law by pronouncing it
unconstitutional will the other Slates,
who constitute the. other party, and of
course, by the same principle have an
equal right to interpret the law, acqui
esce in the decision! Each party has the
equal right to judge of infractions each
the same right to insist upon its own con
struction, and to determine the means by
which that construction shall be enforced;
and if they cannot agree if each party
insists upon its rights, it resolves itseff
into a mere question of force. The
strong arm must decide it.
To state the case perhaps more clearlv
a State believing any law of Congress
to be violative of the federal compact, to
which she is a party, declares the law to
be null and void. The Tariff, as it has
originated the doctrine, will best serve
for purposes of illustration. By the act
of nullification, the ports of the nullify
ing State are of course thrown open, and
her citizens released from the duties that
have been imposed by the national Le
gislature. 1 he consequences of this
state of things must be obvious. The
advantages held out by the ports thus
made free must, of necessity, invite im
portations. Hence a sensible diminu
tion, perhaps an entire suspension of the
general revenue might result. In other
sections of the Union, a depression too of
business of every kind will ensue a de
pression corresponding to, and commen
surate with the activity and energy that
had been temporarily imparted to the
nullifying State. And, sir, while the
same principle that grants to one party
ihe right to nullify, would give to the oth
er party the right of protecting itself a-
gainst the evil consequences of such act
of nullification, of determining whether
the exercise of such right did not involve
a violation of the terms of
would not the sullering party exercise
the right, and even sustain that right by
force! I do not say, sir, that they would
or that they ought. But I repeat, that
the same principle that gives one Stale,
being one party, the right to determine
and act for herself gives to the other
States, constituting the other party, the
equal right to determine and act for
themselves. If this is not so, the princi
ple is worth nothing. It is in fact no
principle at all.
But, sir, there is another objection to
nullification. It involves the palpable
absurdity of giving to a small minority of
JMates, the power to prescribe the Con
stitution to the larger majority. It gives
to any number of States more than one
fourth, the power of saying to the remain
der what shall be the legitimate construe
lion of that; instrument. It reverses the
wholesome and established rule, that the
majority is most likely to be right, and
proceeds upon the assumption, that the
minority must be so. Sir, the frarners of
the Constitution wisely adapted it to the
times in which they lived, and the people
for whose benefit it was intended; and
being aware that experience might deve
lop defects in their system, they made
provision for such amendments, as lime
and circumstances might render necessa
ry. To my apprehension, this provision
was as much intended for the purpose of
curtailing a granted power, or correcting
its abuse, as of delegating such new, un
granted power as subsequent experience
might show to be necessary. Nullifica
tion, sir, subverts t,)e basis upon which
this constitutional provision rests, and
gives to a single State, instead of three-
fourths as, the Constitution provides, the
power in fact of amendment in effect of
stopping the entire machinery of the go
vernment.,, As a general proposition it
may be confidently affirmed and safely
maintained, that it is better, . and more
consonant wilh all our ideas of republi
can governments, that the power, which
the Constitution ascribes to three-fourths.
should be exercised by a majority than
uy.i iiiinoriiy or cMaies mucn less than
by a single member of the confederacy.
True, they would both be violations of
the principles of our confederation but
the first would not be so likely to result in
practical evil as the last, for the simple
reason, thai under it, ihe interest of all
would be more regarded than where a
single State or a minority of States could
control the legislation, and consequently
the interests of the whole country. But,
sir, it is the part of patriotism nay, it is
the duty of every lover of constitutional
liberty to resist encroachment and usur
pation of every kind no matter whether
it involves an invasion of the rights of the
States, or a resumption, a breaking down
of that authority, which, for purposes of
mutual defence and protection, has been
granted to the general government. By
this means only can ihe proper balance
the equipoise of our system be pre
served. By this means only can we avoid
anarchy and confusion on the one hand,
and consolidation and oppression on the
other.
Hence, sir, I feel authorised to assume
it as demonstrated, that nullification, so
far from being a peaceable, still less a
constitutional remedy, has a direct ten
dency to bring the parlies into collision;
and if both parties insist upon their
rights, why, sir, according lo ihe very
basis of the doctrine itself, the law of the
strongest must prevail. The appeal
must be to the bloody arbitrament of the
sword. Such being the character and
tendency of nullification, I for one had ra
ther endure evils, which wise and pru
dent counsels are rapidly dissipating, than
resort to an expedient, which has nothing
to recommend it, but the ingenuity and
sophistry with which it has been main
tained. i I will now, sir, comply with the request
the compact, i made bv the gentleman from Edenton at
an earlier period of this discussion, and
endeavor to show to this House' that nul
lification is not the doctrine maintained
by Mr. Jefferson and those who co-ope
rated wuh him in effecting, what has with
propriety been called the civil revolution
of 1301. That such is not the fact that
they differ "toto coilo" is abundantly
shown by the action of Virginia and Ken
tucky upon the alien and sedition laws,
and by all. the subsequent writings and
conduct of Mr. Jefferson and Mr. Ma
dison. I presume, sir, it will not be contended
that the Tariff involves a more direct and
dangerous violation of the Constitution of
ihe United States, than did the alien and
sedition laws, which the Virginia and
Kentucky resolutions were intended to
counteract. They asserted a broad prin
ciple which, if recognized, would at once
have broken down the safe guards that
had been thrown around ihe rights of the
citizen, and have proved in effect an en
tire and total abandonment of ihose great
principles of free government, for the se
curity and maintenance of which, ours
had been established. If ever a case
should occur, when resort should have
been had to this mode of redress, it was
then: when the. very fathers of the Con
stitution saw their handiwork about be
ing sacrificed , to lawless and unlimited
construction and when attempts were
making to rend the sacred mantle that
had been: thrown around "the first born
of the revolution." But, sir, how were
these encroachments met! . No clubs
were organised to agitate and inflame the
public mind--no banners were displayed
emblazoned with emblems of resistance.
No, sir, it was reserved for this period of
unprecedented national prosperity and
happiness," that these things should be
done that disunion should become as
common as a household word and that
the "Palmetto and the single Star" should
occupy the place where the broad flag af
our country had waved its ample folds,
and floated so gallantly to the breeze.
I he mere fact, then, of no resort being
had to this mode of redress, at such a
time and in such a crisis, furnishes a
strong presumption, that nullification, as
understood m South Carolina, was not
regarded the rightful remedy.
To meet the emergency, which the en
actment and enforcement of the alien and
sedition laws presented, the celebrated
Virginia and Kentucky resolutions were)
passed. And, sir, iho object of these re
solutions was attained, in the change
which iheyeffecied in public opinion, and
in the corresponding change, in the mea
sure and policy of the government. By
reference to the debates in the Virginia
Legislature, originating from these reso
lutions, it will be seen, that the republi
cans of that day never dreamed of resort
ing to force or violence or disunion. Tho
appeal uras to the public understandings
and the appeal was successful. They
affirmed, it is true, ihe right of ultimate
State interposition. Indeed this cannot
be denied by any Who admit the fact, tho
historical fact, that our government wast
formed by a confederation of sovereign
States. But it was distinctly recognized
as a natural right a right inherent in all
political communities to throw off any
form of government, when its acts ar
oppressive aud subversive of those ends
for which such government may hava
been instituted. I say, sir, it was recog
nized as a natural right and the exer
cise of a natural right necessarily pre
supposes, that the parly exercising it has
resumed, and is acting upon those rights
that had been surrendered upon the cre
ation of the compact. ' '
I have said that the subsequent wri
tings of Mr. Jefferson go far to confirm
the correctness of my position; To
prove this, I beg leave to refer gentlemen
to a leiter to John Taylor of Caroline
He says, "If on a temporary superiority
of one party, the other is to resort to a
scission of the Union, no Federal govern
ment can-ever exist. A little patience
and we shall see the evils dispelled and
ihe people recovering their true sight, re
storing the government to its true princi
ples. It is true, that in the mean time,
we are suffering deeply in spirit, and in
curring the horrors of a war and long op
pressions of enormous public debt.' But
who can say what would be the evils of a
scission, and when and where they would
end! Better keep together as we are
haul off from Europe as soon as we can;
and from all attachments to any portion
of it; and if they show their power just
sufficiently to hoop us together, it will bo
the happiest situation in which we can
exist." ! - : ' ''"i ' :''
To Mr. Pendleton (in February, 1799)
he remarks: "any thing like force would
check the progress of public opinion, and
rally it around the government. This is
not the kind of opposition the American
people will permit But keep away all
sljow of force,' and they will bear down
the evil propensities of the government
by the constitutional means of election
and petition." !
In a leiter to Mr. Giles (in 1825) ho
holds this . language: 1 "Are we then to
stand to our arms with ihe hot- headed
Georgians? No. That must be the last
resourceand not to bethoughtW until
much longer' and greater sufferings. If
every infract ion of a compact of so many
parlies, is to be resisted at once- as a
dissolution of it, none can ever be formed
which will last one year. We must have
patience and longer endurance with our
brethren while under the delusion; give