FOOTNOTES:

Previous
Caleb William Loring
[1] Bryce’s American Commonwealth, vol. i., pages 409 and seq. Yet Mr. Bryce’s whole work is in accordance with the theory he asserts at the beginning of chapter iv., vol. i., page 29: “The acceptance of the Constitution of 1789 made the American people a nation. It turned what had been a league of States into a Federal State by giving it a National Government with a direct authority over all citizens.”
[2] General Long’s Memoirs of Lee, page 88.
[3] Lodge’s Webster, p. 187.
[4] Chief-Justice Marshall, in his opinion in the case of Cohens vs. Virginia, says that its requisitions were habitually disregarded by the States. Mr. John Fiske, in his admirable work, called The Critical Period of American History, fully shows the inefficiency and inadequacy of the government of the Confederacy.
[5] See Webster’s speech in answer to Calhoun, Webster’s Speeches, vol. ii., page 180. Ed. of 1850.
[6] Webster’s definition of constitution apparently is not a full one. A constitution is the fundamental statement of the powers granted to the government established by it; and it may, as Webster says, also contain the regulation under which its authority is to be executed.
[7] As the whole question of nullification depends upon whether a State is bound by a decision of the United States Court we give Mr. Martin’s succinct and comprehensive statement of the power that the third article of the Constitution conferred on the United States. “Whether, therefore, any laws or regulations of the Congress, any acts of its President or other officers, are contrary to, or not warranted by the Constitution, rests only with the judges, who are appointed by Congress, to determine; by whose determination every State must be bound.” Luther Martin’s letter, Elliot’s Debates (second ed.), 1863, vol. i., p. 380.
[8] Jackson’s proclamation, Elliot’s Debates, 582. Elliot’s Debates were published by authority of Congress, Calhoun highly praising them. See his letter in the beginning of vol. i.
[9] Great Senators, by Oliver Dyer, p. 153.
[10] See 4 Elliot’s Debates, pp. 345 and 349, showing at the inception and in the early period of our government protective duties were apparently universally approved by Congress and the Presidents.
[11] See also, to same effect, North American Review, Oct., 1830, p. 537. Madison’s letter to Edward Everett.
[12] Webster’s Speeches, vol. ii., ed. 1850, p. 177.
[13] The condition of affairs then is well stated in Fiske’s Critical Period of American History.
[14] 7 Wallace Reports, p. 700.
[15] In case of White vs. Hart, 13 Wallace, 646.
[16] Keith vs. Clark, 97 United States Reports, 476.
[17] See Constitution of United States, Article I., Sections 8, 9, and 10, for statement of granted powers and restrictions on States.
[18] Martin’s Letter, Elliot’s Debates, vol. I., pp. 382, 383.
[19] 5 Elliot, p. 530. The clause was altered so that the ratification of three fourths of the Legislatures of the States was required, though two thirds of the States can call a new convention, and two thirds of Congress propose amendments to the Constitution.
[20] 5 Elliot, 132-34.
[21] 1 Elliot, 391 and 392. Yates’ minutes.
[22] 5 Elliot, 189-90 states the resolutions.
[23] 5 Elliot, 192, sixth resolve.
[24] 5 Elliot, 199.
[25] See his plan, 5 Elliot, 205.
[68] Kentucky resolutions, 4 Elliot, 540.
[69] See vol. i., Bryce’s American Commonwealth, p. 328.
[70] Bledsoe, Is Jefferson Davis a Traitor, p. 173.
[71] There are several works on the Constitution by Story, Bancroft, G. T. Curtis, and others, but none of them that we have seen, except the recent work of Professor Hare, that ably treats the matter, has taken up the question of nullification and secession. Apparently the authors did not think such a claim could be made. Some editions recently published have notes on this matter.
[72] Virginia’s resolutions and explanations, 4 Elliot, 528, 529, 546 to 580.
[73] Hildreth’s History of U. S., vol. v., p. 296.
[74] 4 Elliot, pp. 532-9.
[75] Hildreth’s History, vol. v., 296.
[76] 4 Elliot, 545.
[77] 4 Elliot, 578.
[78] Madison’s letter to Everett, before referred to. Oct. No. N. Amer. Review, 1830.
[79] Washington’s letter to Henry, Sparks’ Washington, vol. xi., p. 387. The letter also contains his opinion of those in opposition to the government.
[80] Wirt’s Life of Patrick Henry, pp. 393, 394. Moses Coit Tyler’s Life of Patrick Henry, p. 373.
[81] H. Adams, vol. i., p. 200.
[82] H. Adams, vol. i., p. 203.
[83] A full account of this case, though well known and reported, is not to be found in the histories. The case was referred to as the Gideon Olmstead case in the debates in Congress at the time of South Carolina’s threatened nullification in 1833. The account of the trial of General Bright is taken from Carson’s History of the Supreme Court of the United States, p. 213 and seq.
[84] Webster’s Speeches, 8th ed., 1850, vol. i., pp. 427, 428. See part of report and resolutions of Virginia in Mr. Pinckney’s argument in Cohens vs. Virginia, 6 Wheaton, Rep., 264.
[85] 5 Elliot, 526.
[86] H. Adams’ History, vol. v., p. 326.
[87] See No. LXXX. of the Federalist for Hamilton’s clear and able statement of the powers of the judicial department. He says it is a political axiom, that the judicial power of a government should be co-extensive with its legislative, and that the government should and did have the power over States and their judiciary in all cases arising under the Constitution and United States laws.
[88] Lodge’s Life of George Cabot, p. 518.
[89] History of Hartford Convention, by Theo. Dwight.
[90] Madison’s letter, 4 Elliot’s Debates, 615.
[91] H. Adams, vol. vi., p. 143.
[92] H. Adams, vol. ix., p. 115. Annals of Congress, 1815-1816, p. 1272.
[93] H. Adams, vol. ix., p. 116.
[94] H. Adams, vol. ix., p. 148.
[95] See H. Adams, vol. ix., pp. 149 to 153, for debate and Calhoun’s views.
[96] Oliver Dyer’s Great Senators, pp. 183, 184.
[97] 4 Elliot, 584.
[98] Niles’ Register, p. 335, July 20, 1833. Cooper was President of the University of South Carolina. The University of Virginia would not have him as professor on account of his Unitarian belief, though Jefferson wished it. Is it possible that he was the original author of the Kentucky Resolutions, and furnished them to Jefferson? Jefferson’s correspondence, as far as we have examined, shows no belief in that doctrine.
[99] Parton’s Life of Jackson, vol. iii., p. 466.
[100] Alex. Johnston, in Winsor’s History of America, vol. vii., p. 286, says that Jackson collected the duties at Charleston by naval and military force, and that the day before February 1st a meeting of “leading nullifiers” agreed to avoid all collision with the Federal Government.
[101] Article by R. J. Walker on “Nullification and Secession,” February, 1863, p. 179, Continental Monthly Magazine.
[102] State papers on nullification, collected and published in 1834 by order of the General Court of Massachusetts. The volume contains the remonstrances of many State Legislatures besides those quoted. It has also the ordinance of the South Carolina convention at the adjournment, held March 19, 1833, in which the convention declared the State’s nullification of the force bill of Congress of March 2d then enforced: this declaration was mere brutum fulmen.
[103] United States vs. Peters, 5 Cranch, 115.
[104] McKim vs. Voorhies, 7 Cranch, 279.
[105] Green vs. Biddle, 8 Wheaton, 1.
[106] McCulloch vs. Maryland, 4 Wheaton, 316.
[107] Cohens vs. Virginia, 6 Wheaton, 264.
[108] Bank of U. S. vs. Osborn, 9 Wheaton, 738.
[109] Weston vs. Charleston, 2 Peters, 449.
[110] Cohens vs. Virginia.
[111] See 22 Howard, 227; Sinnott vs. Davenport, 21 Howard, 506; Ableman vs. Booth, 5 Howard, 134; Rowan vs. Runnells. In these two last cases Taney and the Court put aside the decrees of the Supreme Courts of Wisconsin and Mississippi, because they were in conflict with the powers given to the United States; in the latter case, overruling and even reversing the decision of the Supreme Court of Mississippi as to when its constitution took effect.
[112] General Jackson’s sympathy was with Georgia in this matter, and he is reported as saying: “John Marshall has made the decision, now let him execute it.” The missionary that Georgia had imprisoned was, however, released by the State.
[113] Ex parte Milligan, 4, Wallace, 2.
[114] Atlantic Monthly, January, 1892.
[115] Reuben Davis’ Recollections, p. 395.
[116] See article by John S. Wise in the Century Magazine, Jan., 1890. The Virginia Military Academy was established by the State in 1839. Col. Smith, a graduate of West Point, was at the head. It was continued during the civil war under the charge of disabled officers. In 1860 a professor in this school informed the writer that there were similar academies in all the Southern States. Apparently they have been discontinued in most of them, South Carolina, however, yet maintaining hers.
[117] This was written four years ago: Charleston now shows few signs of the earthquake, and Calhoun’s statue has mellowed into a pleasing bronze color.

Transcriber’s Note:

Punctuation has been standardised—in particular, missing periods and quotation marks have been supplied where obviously required. All other original errors and inconsistencies have been retained, except as follows (the first line is the original text, the second the passage as currently stands):

  • Page iv:
    and not “We the States,”
    and not “We, the States,”
  • Page 10:
    they had ‘filled their mind,’ that their
    they had ‘filed their mind,’ that their
  • Page 18:
    political system which it established
    political system which is established
  • Page 18:
    sovereign powers a government.
    sovereign powers a government?
  • Page 83:
    reasoned opinions. Iredell a member
    reasoned opinions. Iredell, a member
  • Page 101:
    United States laws though asserted
    United States laws, though asserted
  • Page 128:
    the pleasing collonaded buildings
    the pleasing colonnaded buildings
  • Page 163:
    right of secession, 213
    right of secession, 2-3
  • Page 166:
    proclamation his own work
    proclamation of his own work
  • Footnote 1:
    of chapter iv., vol. 1, page 29:
    of chapter iv., vol. i., page 29:
  • Footnote 25:
    See his plan, 5 Elliott, 205.
    See his plan, 5 Elliot, 205.
  • Footnote 68:
    Kentucky resolutions, 4 Elliott, 540.
    Kentucky resolutions, 4 Elliot, 540.
  • Footnote 80:
    pp. 393, 394. John Coit Tyler’s
    pp. 393, 394. Moses Coit Tyler’s
  • Footnote 84:
    Virginia in Mr. Pinkney’s argument
    Virginia in Mr. Pinckney’s argument




<
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                           

Clyx.com


Top of Page
Top of Page