page_0155

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 con-
ceded 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 settle-
ment. 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 co-
ercion 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 Fede-
ral 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 demo-
crats until hostilities had actually commenced. In justice to Mr Cal-
houn however, it can be said that he never contemplated secession as a possi-
bility. His writings lead to that conclusion, and he believed in the neces-
sity 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 show-
ing 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 at-
tempt 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 Eng-
land 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 eman-
cipation 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-