Manigault Family Papers

314

one State, notwithstanding the boasting of President Jackson as to number of men that he could pour into the limits of the State, if she was guilty of any overt act of opposition to a law of Congress, and it was generally conceded that the victory remained with South Carolina, as what she had struggled for, viz. the reduction in the tariff, had been conceded by the Compromise.

Things looked very stormy for a while when the nullification agitation was at its height; and both parties to the controversy, the State as well as the general government, were much pleased at the peaceful settlement. The conclusion was such that South Carolina continued to believe that her sovereignty would not be violated by the Washington government, in the event of other and more serious disagreements, and the latter remained in a state of uncertainty as to her right to attempt the coercion of a sovereign State, in case her dismemberment was threatened by a resort to secession.

It should here be explained that the Statesmen of the States Rights school, at the head of whom was Mr Calhoun, in justification of the right of nullification and secession, maintained that, when the Federal compact was formed, the States did not surrender the rights with which the general government was clothed, but merely delegated them, and that they could be resumed by each State whenever the necessity for so doing should arize. All the States that seceded acted up to this conviction, and it was an accepted truth by the northern democrats until hostilities had actually commenced. In justice to Mr Calhoun however, it can be said that he never contemplated secession as a possibility. His writings lead to that conclusion, and he believed in the necessity for a weak Federal government, but in case of disagreement he thought that a convention where all the States would be represented would be able to arrange matters amicably.

Another case which was still more striking than nullification as showing the relative strength of a state and of the general government occurred a few years after 1832 - in 1838 I think. This time it was in Georgia, and the incident was as follows. There were still in the limits of that State a good many Cherokee Indians whom the Legislature desired should be removed, and, upon application, the General government undertook their transportation. They were sent to one of the Indian reservations, and when this was completed the general government sent some troops to take possession of the vacated lands. This was immediately resisted by the State authorities and Gov Troup then Executive ordered out the State militia to prevent it by force. The general government finding that a conflict would ensue, unless they gave up the attempt to occupy the lands, withdrew their military, and the incident ended there.

These instances of friction however between a single State and the general government were trifling as compared with the interests that were at stake in the slavery agitation. This commenced soon after nullification and reached its height between 1850 and 1860. It had commenced in England at the end of the last century in a movement for the cessation of the slave trade, and was followed by another successful movement for the emancipation of the slaves which was decreed by Parliament in all the British slave colonies between 1820 and 30.

All of the northern States had freed their slaves by this time, and the va-