of liberty and the blessing of God, they gloriously triumphed in the contest. There were, indeed, many and striking analogies between that and the present controversy: they both originated substantially in the same cause, with this difference, that, in the present case, the power of taxation is converted into that of regulating industry: in that the power of regulating industry, by the regulation of commerce, was attempted to be converted into the power of taxation. Were he to trace the analogy further, we would find that the perversion of the taxing power, in one case, has given precisely the same control to the northern section over the industry of the southern section of the Union, which the power to regulate commerce gave to Great Britan over the industry of the colonies; and that the very articles in which the colonies were permitted to have a free trade, and those in which the mother country had a monopoly, are almost identically the same as those of which the southern states are permitted to have a free trade by the act of 1832, and of which the northern states have, by the same act, secured a monopoly; the only difference is in the means. In the former, the colonies were permitted to have a free trade with all other countries south of Cape Finistere, a cape in the northern part of Spain; while north of that the trade of the colonies was prohibited, except through the mother country, by means of her commercial regulations. If we compare the pro ducts of the country north and south of Cape Finistere, we will find them almost identical with the list of the protected, and unprotected articles contained in the act of last year. Nor does the analogy terminate here. The very arguments resorted to at the commencement of the American revolution, and the measures adopted, and the motives assigned to bring on that contest, (to enforce the law,) are almost identically the same. to But, (said Mr. Calhoun,) to return from this digression the consideration of the bill. Whatever opinion may exist upon other points, there is one in which he would suppose there could be none; that this bill rests on principles which, if carried out, will ride over state sovereignties, and that it will be idle for any of its advocates hereafter to talk of state rights. The Senator from Virginia (Mr. Rives) says that he is the advocate of state rights; but he must permit me to tell him that, although he may differ in premises from the other gentlemen with whom he acts on this occasion, yet in supporting this bill he obliterates every vestige of distinction between him and them; saving only that professing the principles of '98, his example will be more pernicious than that of the most open and bitter opponents of the rights of the states. He would also add, what he was compelled to say, that he must consider him (Mr. Rives) as less consistent than our old opponents, whose conclu sions were fairly drawn from their premises, whilst his premises ought to have led him to opposite conclusions. The gentleman has told us that the new fangled doctrines, as he chose to call them, had brought state rights into disrepute. He must tell him, in reply, that what he called new fangled, are but the doctrines of '98; and that it is he, (Mr. Rives,) and others with him, who, professing these doctrines, had degraded them by explaining away their meaning and efficacy. He (Mr R) had disclaimed, in behalf of Virginia, the authorship of nullification. Mr. C. would not dispute that point. If Virginia chose to throw away one of her brightest ornaments, she must not hereafter complain that it had become the property of another. But while as a representative of Carolina, he had no right to complain of the disavowal of the senator from Virginia, he must believe that he (Mr. R.) had done his native state great injustice, by declaring on this floor, that when she gravely resolved, in '98, that" in cases of deliberate and dangerous infractions of the constitution, the states, as parties to the compact, have the right, and are in duty bound, to interpose to arrest the progress of the evil, and to maintain, within their respective limits, the authorities, rights, and liberties appertaining to them," meant no more than to ordain the right to protest and remonstrate. To suppose that, in putting forth so solemn a declaration, which she afterwards sustained by so able and elaborate an argument, she meant no more than to assert what no one had ever denied, would be to suppose that the state had been guilty of the most egregious trifling that ever was exhibited on so solemn an occasion. Mr. C. said that, in reviewing the ground over which he had passed, it would be apparent that the question in controversy involved that most deeply important of all political questions, whether ours was a federal or a consolidated government. A question, on the decision of which depends, as he solemnly believed, the liberty of the people, their happiness, and the place which we are destined to hold in the moral and intellectual scale of nations. Never was there a controversy in which more important consequences were involved; not excepting that between Persia and Greece, decided by the battles of Marathon, Platea, and Salamis; which gave ascendancy to the genius of Europe over that of Asia, and which, in its consequences, has continued to affect the destiny of so large a portion of the world even at this day. On the next day,'Mr. Calhoun proceeded by remarking that he had omitted, at their proper place, in the course of his observation yesterday, two or three points to which he would now advert, before he resumed the discussion where he had left off. He had stated that the ordinance and acts of South Carolina were directed, not against the revenue, but against the system of protection. But it might be asked, if such was her object, how happens it that she has declared the whole system void; revenue as well as protection, without discrimination? It is this question which he proposed to answer. Her justification will be found in the necessity of the case; and if there be any blame, it could not attach to her. The two were so blended throughout the whole, as to make the entire revenue system subordinate to the protection, so as to constitute a complete system of protection, in which it was impossible to discriminate the two elements of which it is composed. South Carolina, at least, could not make the discrimination, and she was reduced to the alternative of acquiescing in a system, which she believed to be unconstitutional, and which she felt to be oppressive and ruinous; or, to consider the whole as one, equally contaminated through all its parts, by the unconstitutionality of the protective portion; and, as such, to be resisted by the act of the state. He maintained that the state had a right to regard it in the latter character-and that if a loss of revenue followed, the fault was not hers, but of this government, which had improperly blended together, in a manner not to be separated by the state, two systems wholly dissimilar. If the sincerity of the state be doubted; if it be supposed that her action is against revenue as well as protection, let the two be separated; let so much of the duties as are intended for reve nue, be put into one bill, and the residue intended for protection be put in another, and he pledged himself that the ordinance and the acts of the state would cease as to the former, and be directed exclusively against the latter. He had also stated, in the course of his remarks yesterday, and trusted he had conclusively shown, that the act of 1826, with the exception of a single item, to which he had alluded, was, in reality a revenue measure, and that Carolina and the other states in supporting it, had not incurred the slightest responsibility in relation to the system of protection, which had since grown up, and which now so deeply distracts the country. Sir, said Mr. C., I am willing, as one of the representatives of Carolina, and, I believe I speak the sentiment of the state, to take that act as the basis of a permanent adjustment of the tariff, simply reducing the duties, in an average proportion, on all the items, to the revenue point. I make that offer now to the advocates of the protective system; but I must, in candour, inform them, that such an adjustment would distribute the revenue between the protected and unprotected articles more favourably to the state, and to the south, and less so to the manufacturing interests, than an average uniform ad valorem, and, accordingly, more so than that now proposed by Carolina, through her convention. After such an offer, no man who valued his candour, will dare accuse the state, or those who have represented her here, with inconsistency, in reference to the point under consideration. After noticing (said Mr. C.) another omission, he would proceed with his remarks. Many relied with great emphasis on the fact that we are citizens of the United States. I do not object to the expression, nor shall I detrate from the proud and elevated feelings with which it is associated; but he trusted that he might be permitted to raise the inquiry, in what manner are we citizens of the United States, without weakening the patriotic feeling with which he trusted it would ever be uttered. If by citizen of the United States, he meant a citizen at large, one whose citizenship extended to the entire geographical limits of the country, without having a local citizenship in some state or territory, a sort of citizen of the world, all he had to say was, that such a citizen would be a perfect nondescript; that not a single individual of this description could be found in the entire mass of our population. Notwithstanding all the pomp and display of eloquence on the occasion, every citizen is a citizen of some state or territory, and as such, under an express provision of the constitution, is entitled to all privileges and immunities of citizens in the several states; and it is in this, and in no other sense, that we are citizens of the United States. The senator from Pennsylvania, (Mr. Dallas,) indeed, relies upon that provision in the constitution which gives congress the power to establish a uniform rule of naturalization, and the operation of the rule actually established under this authority, to prove that naturalized citizens are citizens at large, without being citizens of any of the states. He did not deem it necessary to examine the law of congress upon this subject, or to reply to the argument of the senator, though he could not doubt that he (Mr. D.) had taken an entirely erroneous view of the subject. It was sufficient that the power of congress extended simply to the establishment of an uniform rule, by which foreigners might be naturalized in the several states or territories, without infringing, in any respect, in reference to naturalization, the rights of the states, as they existed before the adoption of the constitution. Mr. C. now resumed the subject. The senate would remember that he stated that the great question at issue was, whether ours is a federal or a consolidated system of government; a system, in which the parts are the integers, and the whole the multiple-or in which the whole is a unit and the parts the fractions; that he had stated, that on the decision of this question, he believed, depends not only the liberty and prosperity of this country, but the place which we are destined to hold in the intellectual and moral scale of nations. He knew that it was not only the opinion of a large majority of our country, but it might be said to be the opinion of the age, that the very beau ideal of a perfect government was the government of a majority, acting through a representative body, without check or limitation in its power; yet, if we may test this theory by experience and reason, we will find, that so far from being perfect, the necessary tendency of all governments based upon the will of an absolute majority, without constitutional check or limitation of power, is to faction, corruption, anarchy, and despotism; and this, whether the will of the majority be expressed directly through an assembly of the people themselves, or by their representatives. I know, (said Mr. C.,) that in venturing this assertion, I utter that which is unpopular, both within and without these walls; but, where truth and liberty are concerned, such considerations should not be regarded. He would place the decision of this point on the fact, that no government of the kind, among the many attempts which had been made, had ever endured for a single generation; but on the contrary, had invariably experienced the fate which he had assigned to them. Let a single instance be pointed out, and he would surrender his opinion. But, if we had not the aid of experience to direct our judgment, reason itself would be a certain guide. The view which considers the community as a unit, and all its parts as having a similar interest, is radically erro neous. However small the community may be, and however homogenious its interests, the moment that government is put into operation, and as soon as it begins to collect taxes and to make appropriations, the different portions of community must of necessity, bear different and opposing relations in reference to the action of the government. There must inevitably spring up two interests; a direction and a stockholder interest; an interest profiting by the action of the government, and interested in increasing its powers and action; and another, at whose expense the political machine is kept in motion. He knew how difficult it was to communicate distinct ideas on such a subject, through the medium of general propositions, without particular illustration; and, in order that he might be distinctly under stood, though at the hazard of being tedious, he would illustrate the important principle which he had ventured to advance by example. Let us then suppose a small community of five persons, separated from the rest of the world; and, to make the example strong, let us suppose them all to be engaged in the same pursuit, and to be of equal wealth. Let us further suppose, that they determine to govern the community by the will of a majority; and, to make the case as strong as possible, let us suppose that the majority, in order to meet the expenses of the government, lay an equal tax, say of $100, on each individual of this little com |
