Indictment 1: President Jackson has violated the separation of powers in his actions to destroy the Bank of the United States.Document 1: "Andrew Jackson and the Bank War" - Tony D'Urso (essay). From Revolution to Reconstruction

It has been called a war throughout history yet no blood was shed, lives lost nor weapons fired. There were, however, two strong, opposing sides that waged a

bitter struggle for what each firmly believed. Although Congress made no formal declaration, the issue of the Second Bank of the United States can easily and appropriately be considered a war. The primary players included President Andrew Jackson who fought against the bank and Nicholas Biddle, president of the bank, who fought in loyal support of it. The war on the Bank was unique, perhaps unlike any of its kind, having little to no personal interaction between these two key figures[1] nor was there any mention of the issue by Jackson in either of his inaugural addresses[2]. In attempting to gain a better understanding of this war, it is necessary to become familiar with the key figures and events and then attempt to determine and discuss the reasons each side took their respective positions.

By the time Andrew Jackson was inaugurated as the seventh president of the United States, he had already lived a tumultuous life marked by an unflattering reputation. "Old Hickory," as he was known, had a reputation as an uncivil and brutish individual. His beloved wife, Rachel, had died after suffering a heart

attack shortly before his first inauguration in March of 1829. Jackson blamed John Quincy Adams and Henry Clay for causing her death[3]. He reasoned that they were responsible because of the intense, personal mud-slinging campaign the two sides fought. Adams and Clay contended that the Jacksons had lived in sin while awaiting Mrs Jackson's divorce from her estranged husband, Lewis Robards[4]. Adams and Clay also brought accusations of Jackson's alleged corruption, having lavish expenditures and having committed "every crime, offense, and impropriety that man was ever known to be guilty.[5]"

His earlier career and life had not been any easier or more pleasant. Jackson had been involved in at least eight different duels, killing one man, Charles Dickinson, in one and being severely wounded in several others[6]. Jackson's temper had become renowned at an early time in his life. In his youth, he had a proclivity to slobber or drool while speaking, a problem which became even worse when he grew ill-tempered or irate[7]. Jackson took measures to improve his image by being elected to the Senate in 1823 but many still saw him in the same regard[8]. His strategies in the Bank war were carefully planned with his close advisers, those who were members of his "Kitchen Cabinet,' a term used to describe his circle of friends who were not necessarily members of his actual Cabinet. He reserved his views on the Bank for his annual address to Congress. Initially, he planned to mention them in his inaugural address but opted against doing so, believing such a subject was not suitable for such an occasion[9].

With a mixed reputation and an air of irritability from the death of his wife, Jackson departed for Washington to be inaugurated and would become engulfed in a battle unlike any he had ever encountered.

Nicholas Biddle was born on January 8, 1786 in Philadelphia to Charles and Hannah Shepard Biddle[10]. He described his own childhood by saying, "my boyhood was not I think happy.[11]" His reasoning in this statement came from his temperament which, as a young boy, was far more serious than one was expected to be at his age[12]. Because of this, Biddle took it upon himself to become self educated by reading and studying rather than participating in games or recreation. Due to his intense studies, Biddle entered the University of Pennsylvania in 1796 at the age of ten. When he was a senior he withdrew from the University and enrolled in the sophomore class at Princeton[13].

When he was nineteen years old, Biddle was invited to work as an unpaid secretary in Paris by General John Armstrong[14]. During his stay in France, Biddle developed an interest in international finance[15] then after spending time with James Monroe in London, he returned to Philadelphia as a young lawyer who felt obligated to assist his father's friend, Aaron Burr who, after being exonerated in killing Alexander Hamilton in a duel years earlier, was then dealing with his creditors. Other work in the legal profession soon followed Biddle. An accomplished writer, he transcribed the journals of Lewis and Clark for publication and shortly after completing them, married Jane Craig on October 3, 1811[16].

Biddle served one term in the Pennsylvania House of Representatives before James Monroe appointed him as one of the directors of the Second Bank of the United States in 1819. In 1822, when he was only 37 years of age[17], he became president of the Bank where he would lead a program to stabilize the currency[18]. What happened following this ascension in the ranks of the Bank would be what put the name Nicholas Biddle into the history books and as a

young man, untested in any sort of battle, thrust him into a war with a seasoned veteran of the military and a man who was soundly opposed to banks. The Second Bank of the United States, located in Philadelphia, held a misleading title. In actuality, it was under private control but was granted a charter by the federal government which enabled the two separate entities to share in financial ventures which would have proven to be mutually prosperous[19]. The Bank was comprised of twenty five directors, five of which were appointed by the government. Stocks were held by private investors, both foreign and domestic. Aside from the directors, the Bank also had a president[20].

Because of the unique relationship between it and the government, the Bank was awarded special privileges, among these were its being a storehouse for public funds. The Bank could then use these funds for its own purposes without paying interest. It could issue bank notes and was not required to pay state taxes. It was also understood that Congress was not to charter any comparable financial institution[21]. In return, the Bank was to pay a bonus of one and a half million dollars, public funds were transferred and payments made with no charge and the government was to appoint five of the Bank directors[22].

Jackson's opposition to the Bank was resolute. Having been granted special privileges, the Bank possessed a very powerful influence upon national affairs however it had no higher entity to answer to, neither the people nor the government. Such power would have enabled the Bank to also wield a great deal of political power. Jackson was immediately suspicious. In a letter from Colonel James A. Hamilton, son of former Treasury Secretary under George Washington, Alexander Hamilton, which was dated December 9, 1833, Hamilton informed Jackson that Biddle had submitted a bank report explaining that the Bank held a position of being required to carry out "other duties than those to the country[23]."

Furthermore, Hamilton stated that the Bank's directors had held a meeting in Washington where they announced that the Bank belonged to no political party nor would it be involved in politics[24]. Hamilton told Jackson that he believed this to be entirely false and that no such meeting ever took place[25]. Biddle, however, held firm his belief that the Bank should hold no political agenda. In a letter to William B. Lewis dated October 21, 1829, Biddle expressed such a notion when he said that it is the feeling among the directors that they not yield to partisan politics[26].

After having defeated John Quincy Adams in the election of 1828, Jackson, along with Senator Richard M. Johnson, began an investigation of the Second Bank of the United States. It was believed that both the Lexington and Louisville branches had advocated the re-election of Adams by purposely refusing loans to members of the democratic party[27]. Johnson asked the postmaster general, John McClean to approach Biddle on the issue. The message McClean gave to Biddle was a clear warning to the Bank and its directors. McClean informed him, personally, that being an advocate of the Bank himself, he would suggest the Bank appoint directors for the Kentucky branch from both parties in order to avoid a political crusade, a course of action that some, he warned, were already prepared to engage[28]. Biddle, for whatever reason, failed to take heed of this warning, an action that is often credited as his first mistake in the Bank war[29].

Later reports from New Hampshire dealt with the same accusations as Kentucky yet Biddle still responded to the charges in a negative fashion[30]. He firmly denied all allegations to the effect and, in a letter dated January 9, 1829, he told McClean that he agreed with the fact that the Bank should remain free of any political involvement but he proceeded to deny that the Bank or any of its members had done so[31]. To Jackson however, the issue of whether or not the Bank held or intended to hold political influence was secondary. The fact remained that the Bank held too much power and not even its advocates were able to deny this[32].

Biddle's refusal to actively investigate the allegations against the Bank were beginning to be self inflicted wounds. After the questioning of the Portsmouth, New Hampshire branch, Biddle conducted a personal inquiry which was little more than pure window dressing[33]. His visit to 'investigate' the president of the Portsmouth branch, Jeremiah Mason was Biddle's way of both attempting to silence opponents who questioned whether or not he wanted to get to the truth, and also belittling them by calling them "small bankrupts and [even] smaller demagogues.[34]" The 'small bankrupts,' however, countered Biddle with a bold and effective move when Secretary of War, John Eaton announced to Mason that the pension fund would no longer be handled at Portsmouth but in Concord instead[35]. With Biddle's instructions to Mason to refuse Eaton's request to transfer the funds, an intense, head to head struggle began between Biddle, who believed that the administration wanted him to please them, and Jackson who felt that the Bank war was about the common man fighting the aristocracy[36].

Jackson set his intentions on presenting the matter before Congress in December of 1829 but Biddle still had one fact on his side and that was that Jackson was in no real position to meddle with the current system of currency or credit

as he had no alternative to offer[37]. Jackson's message to Congress on December 7 was short but it implored the legislature to recognize the unconstitutionality of the present Bank and if such an institution were deemed vital, to set a reform program into motion. This presentation made Jackson's position clear and a matter of public record[38].

The subsequent ruling by Congress declared that the Bank was a constitutional institution. Jackson continued to lobby support for his efforts despite this. Biddle saw an opportunity with the ruling and had copies of the congressional reports printed and distributed throughout the country[39]. This shifted some weight back towards Biddle's side. At this point he possessed the means with which he could apply for the Bank's recharter. Jackson seemed to be falling behind in the war and a disruption was occurring in his Cabinet. The scandal over Peggy Eaton, the wife of Secretary of War, John Eaton, had divided the Cabinet members and their spouses. Jackson's own Vice President John C. Calhoun, was opposed to the Eatons as well and many of the Cabinet members' wives who had snubbed Mrs. Eaton publicly[40]. The Eaton affair had similarities to the scorn Jackson and his wife, Rachel, had endured years before. Jackson may have embraced the two because he identified so well with their situation. Before the inauguration, Jackson lobbied hard for the acceptance of Mrs. Eaton but after all of the Cabinet members were sworn in, she was immediately ostracized[41].

It was becoming clear that changes needed to be made within. Martin Van Buren resigned as Secretary of State and became Minister to Great Britain. He, along with Eaton resigned purposely, however, in order to make it easier to remove the Calhoun supporters from the Cabinet. The idea was that, by asking two of Jackson's supporters to step down in the interests of reorganization, it would be easier to ask Calhoun supporters to do the same. New Cabinet members were appointed such as Edward Livingston as Secretary of State, Lewis Cass as Secretary of War, Louis McLane as Secretary of the Treasury and Levi Woodbury as Secretary of the Navy[42]. What was surprising about the new appointees to the cabinet was that they all tended to support the Bank, especially Livingston[43]. This, however, was not all good news to Biddle as one of the new members would turn out to be one of his most determined opponents, Roger B. Taney who became Jackson's Attorney Genera

Jackson used Secretary of State Livingston to his advantage when Livingston and Biddle had a meeting and Livingston urged him to take caution. He informed him that Jackson had even more hostility towards any proposal for recharter. He warned that because Jackson would be seeking re-election, any attempt to recharter would be regarded as political interference. Afterwards, he stated, Jackson would be willing to allow the Bank to apply for recharter and allow the Congress to decide[45]. Jackson did cease his active hindrance towards recharter but only as a shrewd political maneuver. Rather than use the opportunity to go along with Jackson and work on a timetable for proposing recharter after the election Biddle went forward with his request to Congress and applied for recharter in 1832, four years early. This seemingly spiteful act on the eve of peace ensured that the war would continue and, according to one source, "forever doomed his [Biddle's] institution.[46]"

The repercussions of this move on Biddle's part were felt almost immediately. On July 10, 1832, Jackson placed a veto on the recharter proposal. In his veto message, he stated that the Bank was "subversive of the rights of the states.[47]" Jackson used this important and historic veto to inform the American public of the evils of the Bank, calling it a monopoly where most of the stock was held by foreigners[48].

The election of 1832 was a unique one by the standards of the time. It was the first time that the respected parties would hold nominating conventions. It also included, for the first time, the introduction of a third party, the Anti-Masons. The three nominees were the incumbent, Jackson on the democratic ticket, Henry Clay for the republicans and William Wirt for the Anti-Masons[49]. The presence of the Anti-Masons was a great help to Jackson's campaign as it pulled favor from the republicans[50], a trait which has been historically proven to happen with the introduction of a third party. The most interesting aspect of the election was, however, the Bank issue[51].

The election served more of a purpose than just electing the president, it also served as a referendum for the Bank issue. After listening to two of his close advisers, Amos Kendall and William B. Lewis, Jackson put off announcing whom he would endorse as the candidate for Vice President[52] (at the time the position was not as a running mate but a separate nomination). This was done to ease Vice President John C. Calhoun out of office. Calhoun had fallen out of Jackson's favor following many disagreements on such issues as the Bank and, most notably, the Peggy Eaton affair. Jackson wanted Van Buren in the position and chose him to be his successor. Van Buren’s path for nomination, however, was anything but easy. easy. Van Buren deliberately resigned as Secretary of State and became Minister to Great Britain in order to purge the president's cabinet of Calhoun's supporters and influence. While Van Buren was in England, Jackson began to favor the idea of John McLane as Vice President, feeling that Van Buren did not really want the position[53]. Van Buren received word of this and wrote to Jackson in an effort to thwart the president's change of preference, arguing that McLane was in favor of the Bank[54]. The letter worked and on January 25, 1832, the Senate

voted on Van Buren's nomination and the outcome was split right down party lines, twenty-three in favor and twenty-three opposed[55].

Although, technically a tie, no one was holding their breath because, in the event of a tie, the Vice President casts the deciding vote in the Senate and, in this case, the vote went to John C. Calhoun[56]. Van Buren's allies made sure he would be nominated by putting into effect a two-thirds rule for nomination of the Vice President[57]. None of the other candidates who were proposed would have been successful in obtaining a two-thirds vote[58] and Van Buren won.

Once the controversy of whether or not Van Buren would be nominated was over, the Bank issue took center stage once again. Biddle threatened to make Jackson "pay the penalty for making the Bank a party question[59]". He spent $100,000 on the election and sent out 30,000 copies of the veto message in the hope that Jackson's own words would be his undoing[60]. The Jacksonians did the same thing but their aim was to compare the veto message to the Declaration of Independence by calling the institution a "gambler's Bank.[61]" Biddle's involvement however, gave Jacksonians the ammunition they had needed. He was using the resources of the United States Bank to channel funds into Clay's campaign, an obvious contradiction to his earlier stance that the bank should remain apolitical[62].

Jackson and his advisers recognized that the Bank issue could bury their chances of re-election[63], so they decided to win the election by hiding the issue behind Old Hickory, himself. By allowing Clay and his supporters to campaign with brochures[64] and in the newspapers, Jackson, literally, took to the streets. The idea was that fireworks, barbecues and parades would have had more of an influence than newspapers and brochures. The idea worked and with Jackson's re-election, despite the efforts of Biddle and his supporters, he gained back an edge in the Bank war.

Shortly after the election, the war escalated. In September of 1833, Attorney General Taney wrote to Jackson and expressed his complete agreement with him to remove the government deposits from the Bank and place them in state banks[65]. Although this letter was written a year after the election, it has been suggested that Jackson had every intention to remove the deposits immediately after the election, a suggestion that this letter would seem to support[66]. The escalation of the war was underlined by several motives on Jackson's part.

First, in doing so, he changed the status of the Bank, altogether as it would no longer have a financial association with the government[67]. Second, the lack of funds crippled the chances of the Bank to reverse the decision made in the election, reducing the power of the Bank altogether which was, of course, Jackson's hopes and intentions all along[68]. Third, Jackson could reinforce his position as President and control the direction of the government[69]. Despite the opposition of his entire Cabinet, with the exception of Taney, Jackson held firm on his decision to remove the deposits. He told Francis P. Blair that his mind was made up and that Biddle would not be allowed to continue using public money to break down the public administration[70].

In March of 1833, Jackson assembled his cabinet for a meeting and announced that he had an alternative to the Bank of the United States should it be dismantled. He proposed that a central bank be placed in Washington with branches in each of the states[71]. He proposed that the government have more oversight and control of the Bank by appointing, not only the president, but also as many of the directors as it saw fit[72]. The proposed bank, however, would not have been put into place until after Jackson's notion of the government first conducting a "full and fair experiment" of the financial affairs without the use of any sort of national bank was met[73]. In the interim period, Jackson proposed that public funds be distributed into state banks.

It was clear that Jackson would receive little support from any of his cabinet members other than Taney. In a letter dated March 24, 1833 but addressed to no one in particular, Jackson questioned his own proposal[74]. He said that he truly believed that the financial concerns of the government could be carried out in state banks but remained unsure of a deposit system for government funds[75]. This letter displays the President's dilemma but it also reinforces his intentions to remove the deposits and, ultimately, destroy the Bank. He completed the letter by restating his opposition to the Bank and made clear his intentions to render the Bank harmless to the government and disabling those who prospered from it with the intentions of corrupting Congress[76].

The time had come for action. Treasury Secretary William J. Duane was instructed by Jackson to remove the deposits after the President had made a formal announcement[77]. Months earlier, Duane had agreed to resign if he did not follow the President's directions and, because of this, Duane replied to Jackson's instructions by asking for more time to think about removing the deposits[78]. Jackson refused to be patient since his mind was already made up on the decision and, recognizing that Duane was stalling, went forth with his announcement on September 20, 1833[79]. Duane then refused to resign for two reasons, the first was because he knew Jackson would have a more difficult time dealing with a second shakeup of his cabinet and the second reason was, most likely, due to the deference Jackson had shown

him[80]. Jackson never considered Duane's appointment to be important and ended up neglecting to give Duane a chance by not allowing him to decide whether or not he would remove the deposits[81].

Jackson was left without options and was forced to inform Duane that his services were no longer required. Roger B. Taney was then appointed as Treasury Secretary and instructed to oversee the removal of deposits. The end had come for the Bank of the United States. Taney enlisted the aid of Amos Kendall and Levi Woodbury. Together, they issued the order of September 25, 1833 which announced that on October 1, 1833, the government would shift from national banking to deposit banking via state banks[82].

Jackson's "experiment" was underway. Deposits were beginning to be placed in state banks known as "pet banks.[83]" The federal government began to see an annual surplus of about $10 million and, for the first time in the history of the United States, no federal debt existed[84]. The Bank, however, still held control over state banks with the ability to ease or tighten credit[85] and Biddle himself, still had an ace in his deck and, most likely knowing it was his last card, he played it. He had the Bank contract its loans which caused a national panic[86]. Taney saw this as evidence that it was right to remove the deposits from the Bank, calling the institution a "monster.[87]" Biddle merely saw the action as the Bank fighting for its survival. On October 7, he held a meeting with the board of directors where he gained their approval to cease loans throughout the entire banking system[88].

It is, however, important to note that not all of the directors approved of this course of action[89]. The resulting financial panic was Biddle's way of trying to twist Jackson's arm and get him to restore the deposits to the Bank[90]. This turned out to be fruitless as Jackson realized that in creating the panic, Biddle had alienated most of his supporters[91]. The financial stranglehold that Biddle set came at a bad time because business was beginning to expand which meant that credit was needed[92]. The Bank had insisted that state banks make payments in specie, or gold and silver bank notes, and the state banks soon began to overextend their credit by issuing specie which exceeded its worth in gold and silver that the banks had in their vaults[93].

This resulted in massive inflation and the treasury was filled with worthless bank notes which made it clear that Jackson was not in control of his "pet banks.[94]" The flood of paper money was growing out of control and land speculation in particular was a major concern as fraud was increasing in land sales[95]. Jackson quickly responded by issuing his "Specie Circular" in July of 1836. The "Specie Circular" was a decree that only gold and silver could be accepted in purchasing public lands[96]. Many in Jackson's Cabinet objected because they saw a danger in it. The danger was that Congress may have seen it as a further abuse of executive power by Jackson and may have tried to supersede it[97]. Jackson went forth with the "Specie Circular" and on July 11, 1836, Taney issued the decree[98]. Objections by opponents such as Henry Clay were silenced because many believed that such criticisms were merely an attempt to create another panic[99]. Soon, the minting of a new dollar was announced and the democrats cried out that it was Andrew Jackson who had restored "real money" to the nation[100].

The Bank was dead. Its power was gone and not much could be done. Biddle had spoken of a possible recharter but branches of the Bank had already been sold and Biddle was forced into accepting defeat[101]. Biddle sought to have the main branch in Philadelphia chartered by Pennsylvania and in 1836, the state legislature issued such a charter but it wound up costing the Bank much more than anticipated[102]. Biddle, continued to believe that the Bank was a reputable and respectable institution which was needlessly killed by Jackson, a matter that has since been left for history to decide. In the second of two letters addressed to John Quincy Adams dated November 10, 1836, Biddle said that until the government disturbed the banking system, it was just as good as any other commercial country[103]. Furthermore, according to Biddle, for every American bank that failed fifteen years prior to the Bank of the United States, at least ten English banks had met their demise[104].

Jackson's failing health precluded him from seeking a third term. After his term expired in 1837, his chosen successor, Martin Van Buren became President. Jackson retired to his home in Tennessee, the Hermitage. He left office just as he had entered it, a veteran of war. The soldier within him never died, it simply took on a different form. Shortly after Van Buren took office, Jackson recalled his only two missed opportunities as not being able to "shoot Henry Clay or hang John C. Calhoun.[105]"

Doc 2: Biddle TO Samuel Smith

Phil. Jan 2nd. 1830 My dear Sir ,

. . . The expressions in the message were the President's own not dictated nor suggested by any body else & inserted in opposition to the wishes, if not the advice of all his habitual counsellors. It is not therefore a cabinet measure, nor a party measure, but a personal measure. As such it is far less dangerous because if the people know that this is not an opinion which they must necessarily adopt as a portion of their party creed but an opinion of the President alone a very honest opinion though a very erroneous one then the question will be decided on its own merits. ...

Doc 3: Henry Clay to Biddle

Washington 15th December 1831. read 20th Decr & Referred Comm" on the Offices. My dear Sir. . . Have you come to any decision about an application to Congress at this Session for the renewal of your Charter? The friends of the Bank here, with whom I have conversed, seem to expect the application to be made. The course of the President, in the event of the passage of a bill, seems to be a matter of doubt and speculation. My own belief is that, if now called upon he would not negative the bill, but that if he should be re-elected the event might and probably would be different.

Doc 4: Henry Clay’s Speech on Jackson’s Bank Veto

IN SENATE, JULY 10, 1832. I HAVE some observations to submit on this question, which I would not trespass on the Senate in offering, but that it has some command of leisure, in consequence of the conference which has been agreed upon, in respect to the tariff.

A bill to re-charter the bank, has recently passed Congress, after much deliberation, In this body, we know that there are members enough who entertain no constitutional scruples, to make, with the vote by which the bill was passed, a majority of two thirds. In the House of Representatives, also, it is believed, there is a like majority in favor of the bill. Notwithstanding this state of things, the president has rejected the bill, and transmitted to the Senate an elaborate message, communicating at large his objections. The Constitution requires that we should reconsider the bill, and that the question of its passage, the president's objections notwithstanding, shall be taken by ayes and noes. Respect to him, as well as the injunctions of the Constitution, require that we should deliberately examine his reasons, and reconsider the question.

The veto is an extraordinary power, which, though tolerated by the Constitution, was not expected, by the convention, to be used in ordinary cases. It was designed for instances of precipitate legislation, in unguarded moments. Thus restricted, and it has been thus restricted by all former presidents, it might not be mischievous. During Mr. Madison's administration of eight years, there occurred but two or three cases of its exercise. During the last administration, I do not now recollect that it was once. In a period little upward of three years, the present chief magistrate has employed the veto four times. We now hear quite frequently, in the progress of measures through Congress, the statement that the president will veto them, urged as an objection to their passage.

The veto is hardly reconcilable with the genius of representative government. It is totally irreconcilable with it, if it is to be frequently employed in respect to the expediency of measures, as well as their constitutionality. It is a feature of our government, borrowed from a prerogative of the British king. And it is remarkable, that in England it has grown obsolete, not having been used for upward of a century. At the commencement of the French Revolution, in discussing the principles of their Constitution, in national convention, the veto held a conspicuous figure. The gay, laughing population of Paris, bestowed on the king the appellation of Monsieur Veto, and on the queen, that of Madame Veto. The convention finally decreed, that if a measure rejected by the king, should obtain the sanction of two concurring legislatures, it should be a law, notwithstanding the veto. In the Constitution of Kentucky, and perhaps in some other of the State Constitutions, it is provided that if, after the rejection of a bill by the governor, it shall be passed by a majority of all the members elected to both Houses, it shall become a law, notwithstanding the governor's objections. As a co- ordinate branch of the government, the chief magistrate has great weight. If, after a respectful consideration of his objections urged against a bill, a majority of all the members elected to the Legislature, shall still pass it, notwithstanding his official influence, and the force of his reasons, ought it not to become a law! Ought the opinion of one man to overrule that of a legislative body, twice deliberately expressed!

It can not be imagined that the Convention contemplated the application of the veto, to a question which has been so long, so often, and so thoroughly scrutinized, as that of the bank of the United States, by every departments of the government, in almost every stage of its existence, and by the people, and by the State legislatures. Of all the controverted questions which have sprung up under our government, not one has been so fully investigated as that of its power to establish a bank of the United States. More than seventeen years ago, in January, 1815, Mr. Madison then said, in a message to the Senate of the United States:

"Waiving the question of the constitutional authority of the Legislature to establish an incorporated bank, as being precluded, in my judgment, by repeated recognitions, under varied circumstances, of the validity of such an institution, in acts of the legislative, executive, and judicial branches of the government, accompanied by indications, in different modes, of a concurrence of the general will of the nation."

Mr. Madison, himself opposed to the first bank of the United States, yielded his own convictions to those of the nation, and all the department of the government thus often expressed. Subsequently to this true but strong statement of the case, the present bank of the United States was established, and numerous other acts, of all the departments of government manifesting their settled sense of the power, have been added to those which existed prior to the date of Mr. Madison's message.

No question has been more generally discussed, within the last two years, by the people at large, and in State Legislatures, than that of the bank. And this consideration of it has been prompted by the president himself. In the first message to Congress (in December, 1829) he brought the subject to the view of that body and the nation, and expressly declared, that it could not, for the interest of all concerned, be "too soon" settled. In each of his subsequent annual messages, in 1830, and 1831, he again invited the attention of Congress to the subject. Thus, after an interval of two years, and after the intervention of the election of a new Congress, the president deliberately renews the chartering of the bank of the United States. And yet his friends now declare the agitation of the question to be premature! It was not premature, in 1829, to present the question, but it is premature in 1832 to consider and decide it!

After the president had directed public attention to this question, it became not only a topic of popular conversation, but was discussed in the press, and employed as a theme in popular elections. I was myself interrogated, on more occasions than one, to make a public expression of my sentiments; and a friend of mine in Kentucky, a candidate for the State Legislature, told me nearly two years ago, that he was surprised, in a obscure part of his country (the hills of Benson), where there was but little occasion for banks, to find himself questioned on the stump, as to the recharter of the bank of the United States. It seemed as if a sort of general order had gone out from head- quarters, to the partisans of the administration, everywhere to agitate and make the most of the question -- They have done so, and their condition now reminds me of the fable invented by Dr. Franklin, of the eagle and the cat, to demonstrate that Aesop had not exhausted invention, in the construction of his memorable fables. The eagle, you know, Mr. President, pounced from his lofty flight in the air, upon a cat, taking it to be a pig. Having borne off his prize, he quickly felt most painfully the paws of the cat, thrust deeply into his sides and body. While flying, he held a parley with the supposed pig, and proposed to let go his hold, if the other would let him alone. No, says puss, you brought me from yonder earth below, and I will hold fast to you until you carry me back -- a condition to which the eagle readily assented.

The friends of the president, who have been for nearly three years agitating this question, now turn round upon their opponents, who have supposed the president quite serious and in earnest, in presenting it for public consideration, and charge them with prematurely agitating it. And that for electioneering purposes! The other side understands perfectly, the policy of preferring an unjust charge, in order to avoid a well-founded accusation.

If there be an electioneering motive in the matter, who have been actuated by it! those who have taken the president at his word, and deliberated on a measure which he has repeatedly recommended to their consideration! or those who have resorted to all sorts of means to elude the question -- by alternately coaxing and threatening the bank; by an extraordinary investigation into the administration of the bank; and by every species of postponement and procrastination, during the progress of the bill. Notwithstanding all the dilatory expedients, a majority of Congress, prompted by the will and the best interests of the nation, passed the bill. And I shall now proceed, with great respect

and deference, to examine some of the objections to its becoming a law, contained in the president's message, avoiding, as much as I can, a repetition of what gentlemen have said who preceded me.

The president thinks that the precedents, drawn from the proceedings of Congress, as to the constitutional power to establish a bank, are neutralized, by their being two for and two against the authority. He supposes that one Congress, in 1811, and another in 1815, decided against the power. Let us examine both of these cases. The House of Representatives in 1811, passed the bill to recharter the bank, and, consequently, affirmed the power. The Senate, during the same year, were divided, saventeen and seventeen, and the vice-president gave the casting vote. Of the seventeen who voted against the bank, we know from the declaration of the senator from Maryland (General Smith), now present, that he entertained no doubt whatever of the constitutional power of Congress to establish a bank, and that he voted on totally distinct ground. Taking away his vote and adding it to the seventeen who voted for the bank, the number would have stood eighteen for, and sixteen against the power. But we know further, that Mr. Gaillard, Mr. Anderson, and Mr. Robinson, made part of that sixteen; and that in 1815, all three of them voted for the bank. Take those three votes from the sixteen, and add them to the eighteen, and the vote of 1811, as to the question of constitutional power, would have been twenty-one and thirteen. And of these thirteen, there might have been others, who were not governed in their votes by any doubts of the power.

In regard to the Congress of 1815, so far from their having entertained any scruples in respect to the power to establish a bank, they actually passed a bank bill, and thereby affirmed the power. It is true that, by the casting vote of the speaker of the House of Representatives (Mr. Cheves), they rejected another bank bill, not on grounds of want of power, but upon considerations of expediency in the particular structure of that bank.

Both the adverse precedents, therefore, relied upon in the message, operate directly against the argument which they were brought forward to maintain. Congress, by various other acts, in relation to the bank of the United States, has again and again sanctioned the power. And I believe it may be truly affirmed, that from the commencement of the government to this day, there has not been a Congress opposed to the bank of the United States, upon the distinct ground of a want of power to establish it.

And here, Mr. President, I must request the indulgence to the Senate, while I express a few words in relation to myself.

I voted, 1811, against the old bank of the United States, and I delivered, on that occasion, a speech, in which, among other reasons, I assigned that of its being unconstitutional. My speech has been read to Senate, during the progress of this bill, but the reading of it excited no other regret than that it was read in such a wretched, bungling, mangling manner. During a long public life ( I mention the fact not as claiming any merit for it), the only great question on which I have ever changed my opinion, is that of the bank of the United States. If the researches of the senator had carried him a little further, he would, by turning over a few more leaves of the same book from which he read my speech, have found that which I made in 1816, in support of the present bank. By the reasons assigned in it for the change of my opinion, I am ready to abide in the judgment of the present generation and of posterity. In 1816, being Speaker of the House of Representatives, it was perfectly in my power to have said nothing and done nothing, and thus have concealed the change of opinion my mind had undergone. But I did not choose to remain silent and escape responsibility. I choose publicly to avow my actual conversion. The war and the fatal experience of its disastrous events had changed me. Mr. Madison, Governor Pleasants, and almost all the public men around me, my political friends, had changed their opinions from the same causes.

The power to establish a bank is deduced from that clause of the Constitution which confers on Congress all powers necessary and proper to carry into effect the enumerated powers. In 1811, I believed a bank of the United States not necessary, and that a safe reliance might be placed on the local banks, in the administration of the fiscal affairs of the government. The war taught us many lessons, and among others demonstrated the necessity of the bank of the United States, to the successful operations of the government. I will not trouble the Senate with a perusal of my speech in 1816, but ask its permission to read a few extracts:

"But how stood the case in 1816, when he was called upon to examine the powers of the general government to incorporate a national bank? A total change of circumstances was presented -- events of the utmost magnitude had intervened.

" A general suspension of specie payments had taken place, and this had led to a train of circumstances of the most alarming nature. He beheld, dispersed over the immense extent of the United States, about three hundred banking institutions, enjoying, in different degrees, the confidence of the public, shaken as to them all, under no direct control of the general government, and subject to no actual responsibility to the State authorities. These institutions were emitting the actual currency of the United States -- a currency consisting of paper, on which they neither paid interest or principal, while it was exchanged for the paper of the community, on which both were paid. We saw these institutions, in fact, exercising what had been considered, at all times, and in all countries, one of the highest attributes of sovereignty -- the regulation of the current medium of the country. They were no longer competent to assist the treasury in either of the great operations of collection, deposit, or distribution of the public revenues. In fact, the paper which they emitted, and which the treasury, from the force of events, found itself constrained to receive, was constantly obstructing the operations of that department; for it would accumulate where it was not wanted, and could not be used where it was wanted, for the purposes of government, without a ruinous and arbitrary brokerage. Every man who paid to or received from the government, paid or received as much less than he ought to have done, as was the difference between the medium in which the payment was effected and specie. Taxes were no longer uniform. In New England, where specie payments had not been suspended, the people were called upon to pay larger contributions than where they were suspended. In Kentucky as much more was paid by the people, in their taxes, than was paid, for example, in the State of Ohio, as Kentucky paper was worth more than Ohio paper.

"Considering, then, that the state of this currency was such that no thinking man could contemplate it without the most serious alarm; that it threatened general distress, if it did not ultimately lead to convulsion and subversion of the government; it appeared to him to be the duty of Congress to apply a remedy, if a remedy could be devised. A national bank, with other auxiliary measures, was proposed as that remedy. Mr. Clay said he determined to examine the question with as little prejudice as possible, arising from his former opinion; he knew that the safest course to him, if he pursued a cold, calculating prudence, was to adhere to that opinion, right or wrong. He was perfectly aware that if he changed, or seemed to change it, he should expose himself to some censure; but, looking at the subject with the light shed upon it, by events happening since the commencement of the war, he could no longer doubt. * * * He preferred to the suggestions of the pride of consistency, the evident interests of the community, and determined to throw himself upon their justice and candor."

The interest which foreigners hold in the existing bank of the United States, is dwelt upon in the message as a serious objection to the recharter. But this interest is the result of the assignable nature of the stock; and if the objection be well founded, it applies to government stock, to the stock in local banks, in canal and other companies, created for internal improvements, and every species of money or movables in which foreigners may acquire an interest. The assignable character of the stock is a quality conferred not for the benefit of foreigners, but for that of our own citizens. And the fact of its being transferred to them is the effect of the balance of trade being against us -- an evil, if it be one, which the American system will correct. All governments wanting capital resort to foreign nations possessing it in superabundance, to obtain it. Sometimes the resort is even made by one to another belligerent nation. During our revolutionary war we obtained foreign capital (Dutch and French) to aid us. During the late war American stock was sent to Europe to sell; and if I am not misinformed, to Liverpool. The question does not depend upon the place whence the capital is obtained, but the advantageous use of it. The confidence of foreigners in our stocks is a proof of the solidity of our credit. Foreigners have no voice in the administration of this bank; and if they buy its stock, they are obliged to submit to citizens of the United States to manage it. The senator from Tennessee (Mr. White), asks what would have been the condition of this country if, during the late war, this bank had existed, with such an interest in it as foreigners now hold? I will tell him. We should have avoided many of the disasters of that war, perhaps those of Detroit and at this place. The government would have possessed ample means for its vigorous prosecution; and the interest of foreigners, British subjects especially, would have operated upon them, not upon us. Will it not be a serious evil to be obliged to remit in specie to foreigners the eight millions which they now have in this bank, instead of retaining that capital within the country to stimulate its industry and enterprise?

The president assigns in his message a conspicuous place to the alleged injurious operation of the bank on the interests of the western people. They ought to be much indebted to him for his kindness manifested toward them; although I think they have much reason to deprecate it. The people of all the West owe to this bank about thirty millions, which have been borrowed from it; and the president thinks that the payments for the interest, and other facilities which they derive from the operation of the bank, are so onerous as to produce "a drain of their currency, which no country can bear without inconvenience and occasional distress." His remedy is to compel them to pay the whole of the debt which they have contracted in a period short of four years. Now, Mr. President, if they can not pay the interest without distress, how are they to pay the principal? If they can not pay a part, how are they to pay the whole? Whether the payment of interest be or be not a burden to them, is a question for themselves to decide, respecting which they might be disposed to dispense with the kindness of the president. If, instead of borrowing thirty millions from the bank, they had borrowed a like sum from a Girard, John Jacob Astor, or any other banker, what would they think of one who would come to them and say, "Gentlemen of the West, it will ruin you to pay the interest on that debt, and therefore I will oblige you to pay the whole of the principal in less than four years." Would they not reply, "We know what we are about; mind your own business; we are satisfied that in ours we can make not only the interest on what we loan, but a fair profit besides."

A great mistake exists about the western operation of the bank. It is not the bank, but the business, the commerce of the West, and the operations of government, that occasion the transfer, annually, of money from the West to the Atlantic States. What is the actual course of things? The business and commerce of the West are carried on with New Orleans, and the southern, and south-western States, and with the Atlantic cities. We transport our dead or inanimate produce to New Orleans, with receive in return checks or drafts of the bank of the United States at a premium of a half per centum. We send by our drovers our live stock to the South and South-west, and receive similar checks in return. With these drafts or checks our merchants proceed to the Atlantic cities, and purchase domestic or foreign goods for western consumption. The lead and fur trade of Missouri and Illinois is also carried on principally through the bank of the United States. The government also transfers to places where it is wanted, through that bank, the sums accumulated at the different land-offices, for purchases of the public lands.

Now all these varied operations must go on; all these remittances must be made, bank of the United States or no bank. The bank does not create, but facilitate them. The bank is a mere vehicle; just as much so as the steamboat is the vehicle which transports our produce to the great mart of New Orleans, and not the grower of that produce. It is to confound cause and effect, to attribute to the bank the transfer of money from the West to the East. Annihilate the bank to-morrow, and similar transfers of capital, the same description of pecuniary operations, must be continued; not so well, it is true, but performed they must be, ill or well, under any state of circumstances.

The true questions are, how are they now performed, how were they conducted prior to the existence of the bank? how would they be after it ceased? I can tell you what was our condition before the bank was established; and, as I reason from the past to future experience, under analogous circumstances, I can venture to predict what it will probably be without the bank.

Before the establishment of the bank of the United States, the exchange business of the West was carried on by a premium, which was generally paid on all remittances to the East of two and a half per centum. The aggregate amount of all remittances, throughout the whole circle of the year, was very great, and instead of the sum then paid, we now pay half per centum, or nothing, if notes of the bank of the United States be used. Prior to the bank, we were without the capital of the thirty millions which that institution now supplies, stimulating our industry and invigorating our enterprise. In Kentucky, we have no specie-paying bank, scarcely any currency other than that of paper of the bank of the United States and its branches.

How is the West to pay this enormous debt of thirty millions of dollars? It is impossible. It can not be done. General distress, certain, widespread, inevitable ruin, must be the consequences of an attempt to enforce the payment. Depression in the value of all property, sheriff's sales and sacrifices, bankruptcy, must necessarily ensue, and, with them, relief laws, paper money, a prostration of the courts of justice, evils from which we have just emerged, must again, with all their train of afflictions, revisit our country. But it is argued by the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. White), that similar predictions were made, without being realized, from the downfall of the old bank of the United States. It is,

however, to be recollected that the old bank did not possess one third of the capital of the present; that it had but one office west of the mountains, while the present has nine; and that it had little or no debt due to it in that quarter, while the present bank has thirty millions. The war, too, which shortly followed the downfall of the old bank, and the suspension of specie payments, which soon followed the war, prevented the injury apprehended from the discontinuance of the old bank.

The same gentleman further argues that the day of payment must come; and he asks when, better than now? Is it to be indefinitely postponed? is the charter of the present bank to be perpetual? Why, Mr. President, all things -- governments, republics, empires, laws, human life -- doubtless are to have an end; but shall we therefore accelerate their termination? The West is now young, wants capital, and its vast resources, needing nourishment, are daily developing, By-and-by, it will accumulate wealth from its industry and enterprise, and possess its surplus capital. The charter is not made perpetual, because it is wrong to bind posterity perpetually. At the end of the term limited for its renewal, posterity will have the power of determining for itself, whether the bank shall then be wound up, or prolonged another term. And that question may be decided, as it now ought to be, by a consideration of the interests of all parts of the Union, the West among the rest. Sufficient for the day is the evil thereof.

The president tells us, that if the executive had been called upon to furnish the project of a bank, the duty would have been cheerfully performed; and he states that a bank, competent to all the duties which may be required by the government, might be so organized as not to infringe on our own delegated powers, or the reserved rights of the States. The president is a co-ordinate branch of the legislative department. As such, bills which have passed both Houses of Congress are presented to him for his approval or rejection. The idea of going to the president for the project of a law, is totally new in the practice, and utterly contrary to the theory of the government. What should we think of the Senate calling upon the House, or the House upon the Senate, for the project of a law?

In France, the king possessed the initiative of all laws, and none could pass without its having been previously presented to one of the chambers by the crown through the ministers. Does the president wish to introduce the initiative here? Are the powers of recommendation, and that of veto, not sufficient? Must all legislation, in its commencement and in its termination concentrate in the president? When we shall have reached that state of things, the election and annual session of Congress will be a useless charge upon the people, and the whole business of government may be economically conducted by ukases and decrees.

Congress does sometimes receive the suggestions, and opinions of the heads of departments, as to new laws. And, at the commencement of this session, in his annual report, the Secretary of the Treasury stated his reasons at large, not merely in favor of a bank, but in support of the renewal of the charter of the existing bank. Who could have believed that the responsible officer was communicating to Congress opinions directly adverse to those entertained by the president himself? When before has it happened, that the head of a department recommended the passage of a law which, being accordingly passed and presented to the president, is subjected to his veto? What sort of a bank it is, with a project of which the president would have deigned to furnish Congress, if they had applied to him, he has not stated. In the absence of such statement, we can only conjecture that it is his famous treasury bank, formerly recommended by him, from which the people have recoiled with the instinctive horror excited by the approach of the cholera.

The message states, that "an investigation unwillingly conceded, and so restricted in time as necessarily to make it incomplete and unsatisfactory, discloses enough to excite suspicion and alarm." As there is no prospect of the passage of this bill, the president's objections notwithstanding, by a constitutional majority of two thirds, it can never reach the House of Representatives. The members of that House, and especially its distinguished chairman of the committee of ways and means, who reported the bill, are, therefore, cut off from all opportunity of defending themselves. Under these circumstances, allow me to ask how the president has ascertained that the investigation was unwillingly conceded? I have understood directly the contrary; and that the chairman, already referred to, as well as other members in favor of the renewal of the charter, promptly consented to and voted for the investigation. And we all know that those in support of the renewal could have prevented the investigation, and that they did not. But suspicion and alarm have been excited! SUSPICION AND ALARM! Against whom is this suspicion? The House, or the bank, or both?

Mr. President, I protest against the right of any chief magistrate to come into either House of Congress, and scrutinize the motives of its members; to examine whether a measure has been passed with promptitude or repugnance; and to pronounce upon the willingness or unwillingness with which it has been adopted or rejected. It is an interference in concerns which partake of a domestic nature. The official and constitutional relations between the president and the two Houses of Congress subsist with them as organized bodies. His action is confined to their consummated proceedings, and does not extend to measures in their incipient stages, during their progress through the Houses, nor to the motives by which they are actuated. There are some parts of this message that ought to excite deep alarm; and that especially in which the president announces, that each public officer may interpret the Constitution as he pleases. His language is, "Each public officer, who takes an oath to support the Constitution, swears that he will support it as he understands it, and not as it is understood by others." * * * "The opinion of the judges has no more authority over Congress than the opinion of Congress has over the judges; and on that point the president is independent of both." Now, Mr. President, I conceive, with great deference, that the president has mistaken the purport of the oath to support the Constitution of the United States. No one swears to support it as he understands it, but to support it simply as it is in truth. All men are bound to obey the laws, of which the Constitution is the supreme; but must they obey them as they are, or as they understand them? If the obligation of obedience is limited and controlled by the measure of information; in other words, if the party is bound to obey the Constitution only as he understands it; what would be the consequence? The judge of an inferior court would disobey the mandate of a superior tribunal, because it was not in conformity to the Constitution, as he understands it; a custom-house officer would disobey a circular from the Treasury department, because contrary to the Constitution, as he understands it; an American minister would disregard an instruction from the president, communicated from the Department of State, because not agreeable to the Constitution, as he understands it; and a subordinate officer in the army or navy, would violate the orders of his superior, because they were not in accordance with the Constitution, as he understands it. We should have nothing settled, nothing stable, nothing fixed. There would be general disorder and confusion throughout every branch of administration, from the highest to the lowest officers -- universal nullification. For what is the doctrine of the president but that of South Carolina applied throughout the Union? The president independent both of Congress and the Supreme Court! only bound to execute the laws of the one and the decisions of the other, as far as they conform to the Constitution of the United States, as far as he understands it! Then it should be the duty of every president, on his installation into office, to carefully examine all the acts in the statute book, approved by his predecessors, and mark out those which he was resolved not to execute, and to which he meant to apply this new species of veto, because they were repugnant to the Constitution as he understands it. And, after the expiration of every term of the Supreme Court, he should send for the record of its decisions, and discriminate between those which he would, and those which he would not, execute, because they were or were not agreeable to the Constitution, as he understands it.

There is another constitutional doctrine contained in the message, which is entirely new to me. It asserts that "the government of the United States have no constitutional power to purchase lands within the States," except "for the erection of forts, magazines, arsenals, dockyards, and other needful buildings;" and even for these objects, only "by the consent of the Legislature of the State in which the same shall be." Now sir, I had supposed that the right of Congress to purchase lands in any State was incontestable; and in point of fact, it probably at this moment owns land in every State of the Union, purchased for taxes, or as a judgment or mortgage creditor. And there are various acts of Congress which regulate the purchase and transfer of such lands. The advisers of the president have confounded the faculty of purchasing lands with the exercise of exclusive jurisdiction, which is restricted by the Constitution to the forts and other buildings described.

The message presents some striking instances of discrepancy. First, it contests the right to establish one bank, and objects to the bill that it limits and restrains the power of Congress to establish several. Second, it urges that the bill does not recognize the power of State taxation generally; and complains that facilities are afforded to the exercise of that power in respect to the stock held by individuals. Third, it objects that any bonus is taken, and insists that not enough is demanded. And fourth, it complains that foreigners have too much influence, and that stock transferred loses the privilege of representation in the elections of the bank, which, if it were retained, would give them more.

Mr. President, we are about to close one of the longest and most arduous sessions of Congress under the present Constitution; and when we return among our constituents, what account of the operations of their government shall we be bound to communicate? We shall be compelled to say, that the Supreme Court is paralyzed, and the missionaries

retained in prison in contempt of its authority, and in defiance of numerous treaties and laws of the United States; that the executive, through the Secretary of Treasury, sent to Congress a tariff bill which would have destroyed numerous branches of our domestic industry, and to the final destruction of all; that the veto has been applied to the bank of the United States, our only reliance for a sound and uniform currency; that the Senate has been violently attacked for the exercise of a clear constitutional power; that the House of Representatives have been unnecessarily assailed; and that the president has promulgated a rule of action for those who have taken the oath to support the Constitution of the United States, that must, if there be practical conformity to it, introduce general nullification, and end in the absolute subversion of the government.

Doc 5:Andrew Jackson Bank Veto Message, July 10, 1832

The present corporate body, denominated the president, directors, and company of the Bank of the United States, will have existed at the time this act is intended to take effect twenty years. It enjoys an exclusive privilege of banking under the authority of the General Government, a monopoly of its favor and support, and, as a necessary consequence, almost a monopoly of the foreign and domestic exchange. The powers, privileges, and favors bestowed upon it in the original charter, by increasing the value of the stock far above its par value, operated as a gratuity of many millions to the stockholders....

The act before me proposes another gratuity to the holders of the same stock, and in many cases to the same men, of at least seven millions more....It is not our own citizens only who are to receive the bounty of our Government. More than eight millions of the stock of this bank are held by foreigners. By this act the American Republic proposes virtually to make them a present of some millions of dollars.

Every monopoly and all exclusive privileges are granted at the expense of the public, which ought to receive a fair equivalent. The many millions which this act proposes to bestow on the stockholders of the existing bank must come directly or indirectly out of the earnings of the American people....

It appears that more than a fourth part of the stock is held by foreigners and the residue is held by a few hundred of our own citizens, chiefly of the richest class.

Is there no danger to our liberty and independence in a bank that in its nature has so little to bind it to our country? The president of the bank has told us that most of the State banks exist by its forbearance. Should its influence become concentered, as it may under the operation of such an act as this, in the hands of a self-elected directory whose interests are identified with those of the foreign stockholders, will there not be cause to tremble for the purity of our elections in peace and for the independence of our country in war? Their power would be great whenever they might choose to exert it; but if this monopoly were regularly renewed every fifteen or twenty years on terms proposed by themselves, they might seldom in peace put forth their strength to influence elections or control the affairs of the nation. But if any private citizen or public functionary should interpose to curtail its powers or prevent a renewal of its privileges, it can not be doubted that he would be made to feel its influence.

It is to be regretted that the rich and powerful too often bend the acts of government to their selfish purposes. Distinctions in society will always exist under every just government. Equality of talents, of education, or of wealth can not be produced by human institutions. In the full enjoyment of the gifts of Heaven and the fruits of superior industry, economy, and virtue, every man is equally entitled to protection by law; but when the laws undertake to add to these natural and just advantages artificial distinctions, to grant titles, gratuities, and exclusive privileges, to make the rich richer and the potent more powerful, the humble members of society the farmers, mechanics, and laborers who have neither the time nor the means of securing like favors to themselves, have a right to complain of the injustice of their Government. There are no necessary evils in government. Its evils exist only in its abuses. If it would confine itself to equal protection, and, as Heaven does its rains, shower its favors alike on the high and the low, the rich and the poor, it would be an unqualified blessing. In the act before me there seems to be a wide and unnecessary departure from these just principles.

Nor is our Government to be maintained or our Union preserved by invasions of the rights and powers of the several States. In thus attempting to make our General Government strong we make it weak. Its true strength consists in leaving individuals and States as much as possible to themselves in making itself felt, not in its power, but in its beneficence; not in its control, but in its protection; not in binding the States more closely to the center, but leaving each to move unobstructed in its proper orbit.

Experience should teach us wisdom. Most of the difficulties our Government now encounters and most of the dangers which impend over our Union have sprung from an abandonment of the legitimate objects of Government by our national legislation, and the adoption of such principles as are embodied in this act. Many of our rich men have not been content with equal protection and equal benefits, but have besought us to make them richer by act of Congress. By attempting to gratify their desires we have in the results of our legislation arrayed section against section, interest against interest, and man against man, in a fearful commotion which threatens to shake the foundations of our Union. It is time to pause in our career to review our principles, and if possible revive that devoted patriotism and spirit of compromise which distinguished the sages of the Revolution and the fathers of our Union. If we can not at once, in justice to interests vested under improvident legislation, make our Government what it ought to be, we can at least take a stand against all new grants of monopolies and exclusive privileges, against any prostitution of our Government to the advancement of the few at the expense of the many, and in favor of compromise and gradual reform in our code of laws and system of political economy....

Indictment 2: President Jackson violated states rights in his dealings with South Carolina in the nullification crisis.Document 1: Andrew Jackson, "Veto of Maysville Road Bill" (1830)

Although Jackson vetoed a bill in 1830 providing for a federal government subscription of stock, in the amount of $150,000, in a company that proposed to build a sixty-mile road near Maysville, Kentucky. Jacksonís veto message offered some thoughtful commentary on the question of the relationship between the federal government and the states and on the role of government in society more generally. As you read, consider how Jackson defends his veto of the Maysville Road Bill. And, think about how Jacksonís veto reflected the ideology of the Democratic Party at the time. To the House of Representatives: Gentlemen, I have maturely considered the bill proposing to authorize a "subscription of stock in the Maysville...Road Company," and now return the same to the House of Representatives, in which it originated, with my objections to its passage...

Such grants [of money by the federal government] have always been [passed] under the control of the general principle that the works which might be thus aided should be "of a general, not local, national, not State," character. A disregard of this distinction would of necessity lead to the subversion of the federal system.... I am not able to view [the Maysville Road Bill] in any other light than as a measure of purely local character.... It has no connection with any established system of improvements; [and] is exclusively within the limits of a State [Kentucky].... ...As great as this object [goal of internal improvements] undoubtedly is, it is not the only one which demands the fostering care of the government. The preservation and success of the republican principle rest with us. To elevate its character and its influence rank among our most important duties, and the best means to accomplish this desirable end are those which will rivet the attachment of our citizens to the Government of their choice by the comparative lightness of their public burthens [burdens] and by the attraction which the superior success of its operations will present to the admiration and respect of the world. Through the favor of an overruling and indulgent Providence our country is blessed with a general prosperity and our citizens exempted from the pressure of taxation, which other less favored portions of the human family are obliged to bear; yet it is true that many of the taxes collected from our citizens through the medium of imposts have for a considerable period been onerous. In many particulars these taxes have borne severely upon the laboring and less prosperous classes of the community, being imposed on the necessaries of life, and this, too, in cases where the burden was not relieved by the consciousness that it would ultimately contribute to make us independent of foreign nation articles of prime necessity by the encouragement of growth and manufacture at home. They have been cheerfully borne because they were thought to be necessary to the support of government and the payments of debts unavoidably incurred in the acquisition and maintenance of our national rights and liberties. But have we a right to calculate on the same cheerful acquiescence when it is known that the necessity for their continuance would cease were it not for irregular, improvident, and unequal appropriations of public funds?... ...How gratifying the effect of presenting to the world the sublime spectacle of a Republic of more than 12,000,000 happy people, in the fifty-fourth year of her existence, after having passed through two protracted wars one for the acquisition and the other for the aintenance of liberty free from debt and all her immense resources unfettered! What a salutary influence would not such an exhibition exercise upon the cause of liberal principles and free government throughout the world! Would we not find ourselves in its effect an additional guarantee that our political institutions will be transmitted to the most remote posterity without decay? A course of policy destined to witness events like these cannot be benefited by a legislation which tolerates a scramble for appropriations that have no relation to any general system of improvement, and whose good effects must of necessity be very limited... ...If different impressions are entertained in any quarter; if it is expected that the people of this country, reckless of their constitutional obligations, will prefer their local interest to the principles of the Union...indeed has the world but little to hope from the example of free government. When an honest observance of constitutional compacts cannot be obtained from communities like ours, it need not be anticipated elsewhere... and the degrading truth that man is unfit for self -government [will be] admitted. And this will be the case if expediency be made a rule of construction in interpreting the Constitution. Power in no government could desire a better shield for the insidious advances which it is ever ready to

make upon the checks that are designed to restrain its action...

Document 2: Webster-Hayne Debate - 1830

IntroductionThe Hayne-Webster Debate was an unplanned series of speeches in the Senate, during which Robert Hayne of South Carolina interpreted the Constitution as little more than a treaty between sovereign states, and Daniel Webster expressed the concept of the United States as one nation.

The debate cemented the image of Daniel Webster, as a legendary defender of Constitution and Union. It was the subject of great popular paintings, showing Webster in the golden glow of the Senate dome, his glowering eyes fixed on John C. Calhoun, who besides being a more prominent advocate of Hayne's doctrine, was the president of the Senate at the time.

Many of the 4-page weekly newspapers of the day for weeks printed little but excerpts from the debate. Niles Weekly Register, typically around twenty pages, printed it in its entirity, crowding out most other items for a month. Some papers apologized for not having printed it sooner than they did.

What did this debate mean to 19th century Americans? The modern ear cannot easily hear what it was that made Webster's oratory "godlike", yet histories of the U.S. in the early 1830s speak of it as a great event. Must we take their words for it? Or can we get some feel for it ourselves?

This work is partly an attempt to demonstrate the impact that online media - particularly the "Web", can have on the physical and conceptual accessibility of rare old texts.

A New Connection Between Original and Secondary Texts

It is easy to see what a few hours or days of scanning can do for the availability of particularly rare documents.

But I also claim, and hope to demonstrate, that when authors learn the art of using online media, it will change the way history is experienced by the reader. When reading secondary sources, those who wish will immediately glance at the source material which the author has cited, thus benefit from a specialist's reflections on the material, without spending hours trapped in the author's head. One can go out; walk around in the original text, and breath, and think, freely. One can say "I see what he/she means, but I would read it a little differently." Reading can become an active, creative, thought process.

The item by item paraphrase of the debate (see below), is an attempt to present a sample of that experience. It aims to provide a basic grasp, in something like an hour, of what was said in the course of several days. You can then develop a "birds eye view" of, the hundred pages or so of the actual text, while remaining as closely in touch with the original as you wish to be. At any time, you have only to "click on" a paragraph marker to enter into the actual text, developing your own sense of what was said.

This is a special case, in which the interpretive work is a very direct reflection of the original text. More typical interpretive works perform a synthesis from dozens or hundreds of sources. It would be truly exciting, I believe, if such work were done after the fashion of this work. But that can happen only when a large portion of the texts to be referenced are already online.

What Was The Debate About?

A debate had been going on for several days, concerning the public lands, or lands owned by the Federal government. The debate specifically concerned the resolution of Samuel Foote (of Connecticut), calling for:

"an inquiry into the expediency of abolishing the office of surveyor general of public lands, and for suspending further surveys until those already in market shall have been disposed of."

During the debate, Thomas Hart Benton, of Missouri, treated the resolution as a scheme by the northeast to restrain westward emigration, so as to retain a poor population who would work for low factory wages.

A portion of this public lands debate, consisting of two speeches each by Robert Hayne and Daniel Webster, became known as the Hayne-Webster Debate.

The coalition that supported Andrew Jackson for president had a large faction of advocates of state sovereignty; i.e. the interpretation of the Constitution as a pact between soverign states; such states having the sovereign right each to interpret the Constitution, or even to withdraw from the Union. This implied, for example, that the Supreme Court was not the arbiter of the meaning of the Constitution.

It is clear whose view eventually prevailed. Daniel Webster might have approved of the "Pledge of Allegiance", which says we are "one nation under God, indivisible". Hayne would have been appalled by it (it was written in the 1890s).

The American System and the TariffThe unionist philosophy had become associated with the American System, advocated by Henry Clay and the last president, John Quincy Adams. It combined a strong sense of America as a "nation", with a policy of national internal improvements - of striving as a nation to improve the roads, canals, harbors, navigability of rivers, and, visible on the horizon, railroads. It also favored a fully diversified economy; the equal of any industrialized nation; whereas the U.S. currently lagged far behind England and the rest of Europe.

The protective tariff played a key role in the American System. It was supposed to protect developing industries from overseas factories, which were well-established, and drew on a poorly paid work force.

The tariff was also a major source of Federal revenue (the only other one being land sales) for subsidizing transportation works. Water had always been the only inexpensive means of moving goods. But during the War of 1812, ships could not move up and down the coast safely; forcing even coastal areas to use the terrible roads of the time to obtain necessities.

A transportation network would allow the foodstuffs of the new western farmlands to be exchanged with the manufactured goods of the east, giving both a stake in a vigorous national economy. The west would then become an integral part of a great unified nation, rather than an scattering of lonely outposts. The American System thus had a strong following in the west among men who favored any kind of progress.

The economies and interests of eastern port cities were changing rapidly; with the exception, that is, of southern port cities like Charleston, South Carolina. In pre-industrial times, port cities were dominated by mercantile interests; i.e. shipping and trading, as opposed to manufacturing. The trade had mostly been of American raw materials: cotton and sugar in the south especially, for manufactured and luxury goods from overseas.

As American factory interests grew, particularly in the northeast, there were more voices in favor of protective tariffs, to help American manufactures sell by making the foreign goods more expensive.

The mercantile interests of upper New England were somewhat slow to give way to the manufacturing interests, leaving Daniel Webster vulnerable to the charge of having recently opposed the tariff, which he now defended.

Charleston, SC, and the Nullification MovementCharleston was the great port city of South Carolina, and dominated the state to an unusual degree. Though it had some manufacturing; it was still largely a mercantile port city. It was not surrounded by factory towns, as were the port cities of Massachusetts, New York, and Pennsylvania.

The life of South Carolina, and of Charleston itself was heavily dominated by the planters; owners of large slave-based enterprises who wished to sell cotton and sugar to the large markets of Europe, in exchange for goods that Europe had to offer. The fact that many such European goods fell under the tariff was depressing the trade of Charleston, and made life more expensive for the planters.

The anti-tariff sentiment had reached a very high pitch in South Carolina. At one time, U.S. cotton growth was mostly for domestic use, and cotton growers called for protection against cheaper cotton from India, but Indian cotton was no longer the planters' great concern. With American cotton flooding the market, largely from the newer southwestern states, and the fertility of southeastern soil declining, South Carolinians was in an economic vise, and wanted some kind of relief.

Senator Robert Y. Hayne, who represented South Carolina in the Senate, was intimately involved with a particular offshoot of the state sovereignty philosophy -- the nullification movement. The state had recently held a special convention whose resolution made a radical reinterpretation of the Constitution. It outlined a set of procedures by means of which a state could declare a federal law, such as the tariff law, "null, and no law", and procede to disregard it.

The legal scholar who wrote the rationalle for nullification was John C. Calhoun. As Vice President, of the U.S., he played an ever-present role as President of the Senate. Indeed the habit in those days was to speak as if directly to him, as "Mr. President". Calhoun's authorship of the nullification manifesto, known as the Exposition and Protest, was supposedly a secret, and it was at odds with his strong nationalistic views of a few years ago. Webster says at one point:

"From nothing ever said to me, Sir, have I had reason to know of any change in the opinions of the person filling the chair of the Senate," [click here to see the quote in context]

thus making a clear jibe at the poorly kept secret of Calhoun's role as constitutional theorist of the nullification movement.

A useful introduction to the topic is William W. Freeling's 1965,6 study Prelude to Civil War.

Robert Y. Hayne and Daniel WebsterHayne:

Robert Hayne had been in the Senate since 1823, having entered at the age of 32. His record there shows him constantly on guard against threats and perceived threats to the institution of slavery; including denunciation of the American Colonization Society. He said that it depressed the slave market by casting doubt on its future [Road to Disunion, p160]. He and other Jacksonians also opposed U.S. participation in a conference of the Americas, largely because it would mean dealing with black Haitian representatives as peers.

Previously, he studied law under the celebrated Langdon Cheves, had achieved captains rank in the War of 1812, and become state quartermaster general; served in the state legislature, becoming speaker, and served as Attorney General of SC from 1818-1822 .

In 1822, when he was a general (colonel?) of state militia, he directly encountered, and squelched, a well organized plan for a slave revolt in Charleston, organized by a free black artisan named Denmark Vesey. The depths of hatred of their owners by Vesey's co-conspirators shocked Carolinians. Many southerners viewed free criticism of slavery in Congress, as a dangerous incitement to slave revolts. The Vesey plot seemed to confirm that idea, since it occurred soon after very heated congressional debates, widely reported in the newspapers, over the admission of Missouri to the union as a slave state.

As a Senator, Hayne was long on record as opposing the constitutionality of a protective tariff. He would remain a Senator until 1832, when he resigned to serve as Governor of South Carolina during the winter of '32-'33, when the nullification crisis reached its peak.

Webster:

Daniel Webster, though a relative newcomer to the Senate, was nationally known as a great orator. Called, at times "Godlike Dan Webster", and at other times "Black Dan" for his swarthiness and his flaws as a human being. His flaws included a strong vanity, as well as a willingness to be helped out of financial difficulties by parties, like the Bank of the United States, who needed a certain legislative outcome.

He pled hundreds of cases before the Supreme Court, helping establish some of the greatest legal precedents of the era. His reputed invincibility was still well remembered in 1939 when Stephen Vincent Benet, in the story The Devil and Dan Webster, had him convincing Beelzebub and a score of lesser devils to release a man who had bargained his soul away.

Webster was carrying some unfortunate baggage. He had belonged to the Federalist Party up to its bitter end, and this party had fallen into contempt for opposing and sometimes obstructing the War of 1812. The Hartford Convention, in late 1814, had gathered representatives from all over New England, mostly Federalists, to discuss extreme measures for relieving New England from the burden of the war. Webster had no part in this, but he had been a very vocal critic of the war.

In 1825, when the four way presidential election produced no majority (but a very strong plurality for Jackson), the House of Representatives had to choose between Andrew Jackson, William H. Crawford, and John Quincy Adams. Webster and Henry Clay were both in the House at that time, Clay being both the Speaker of the House and the fourth-place candidate for president (only one of the top 3 could be selected by the house). Both men threw their weight heavily behind Adams, and were probably critical in securing his election,

This produced widespread indignation. When Clay was made Secretary of State (then considered the main stepping stone to presidency) Jackson called him the "Judas of the West". A united anti-Adams movement coalesced, putting its weight behind Andrew Jackson, and obstructing most of Adams' legislative program.

Clay, after four years in the administration was exhausted and without office, but in less than two years he would enter the Senate and run an unsuccessful campaign against Andrew Jackson in 1832.

From Clay's entry to the Senate, til around 1850, Webster, Clay, and John C. Calhoun made up what Merrill D. Peterson called The Great Triumvirate. They lead an anti-Jackson coalition in the last years of his presidency (except that Webster supported his unionism), and often greatly overshadowed the presidents of the period.

Matthew Carey's Olive Branch

Robert Hayne's second speech looks as though he stayed up all night picking out passages from Matthew Carey's Olive Branch, a very curious book.

It was first printed in early 1815, and went into 10 printings in 3-1/2 years. Quotes extolling its merits said it was as great as Thomas Paine's Common Sense, or should be purchased by anyone who can afford one more book than the Bible.

The full title was The Olive Branch, or, Faults on Both Sides, Federal and Democratic. A Serious Appeal on the Necessity of Mutual Forgiveness and Harmony. [N.B. I am using the 10th edition; an academic reprint from the Books for Libraries Press, Freeport, NY 1969.]

As an appeal to a strong unionism, it contradicted Hayne's philosophy. But it was full of harsh words for New England Federalists, and especially for the Hartford Convention, which Hayne would use against Webster and New England.

Besides the blasts at Federalism, Hayne uses Carey's attacks on the antislavery forces of New England - for their supposedly unfair attacks on the south.

A Brief Summary of the Debate: Hayne's First Speech:

He makes an overture to westerners who resent federal lands within their boundaries. His main point: They should cast the land problem in terms of state sovereignty, and ally themselves with southerners, whose opposition to the tariff was intertwined with the state sovereignty principal.

Webster's First Speech:o The public lands are being sold as fast as they can be settled. To sell them cheaper would simply put

them in the hands of speculators, and very likely retard their settlement.o The current policy is necesary due to the terms under which the lands were acquired.o New England is the west's true friend, having given the northwest, at least, a rational system of land

sales, and having kept slavery out of the Northwest territory. New England has voted for all western measures, while the south has voted against them.

o It is from the south - indeed from Mr. McDuffie, an associate of Hayne and Calhoun, that we have heard a distinct call to restrict westward immigration, while W. himself opposed restriction.

[Speculations on the subtext of Webster's first speech]o In citing what the Northeast has done for the West, he blandly includes the keeping of slavery out of the

Northwest, as if everyone would see this as a great thing. Was this designed to draw Hayne into a "labored defense of slavery"?

o Hayne describes the effects of the tariff on the south, but does not use the word "tariff" -- so directly connected to nullification. But Webster uses "tariff" as if it were synonymous with the American System, and uses it over and over. Why would a unionist represent unionism by its least popular aspect? Perhaps because it draws Hayne into explicit discussion of the tariff, and a defense of nullification, which Webster wants an opportunity to attack.

o It could even be that Webster heaped extravagent praise on Nathan Dane, an attendee of the Hartford Convention (see below) to tempt Hayne into the confusing position of denouncing the reviled Hartford Convention, while defending a policy not unlike that of the Hartford Convention.

Hayne responds with a flashy speech with Shakespearean allusions, and quotations from famous English orators.o He taunts Webster with the "coalition", a milder codeword for the "corrupt bargain" which was

supposed to have been struck between the east (Adams) and the west (Clay), and which threw its weight behind the American System.

o He accuses Webster of not having supported the American System, and of only coming to support it as part of the "bargain".

o He accuses Webster of inconsistency about whether the public lands should be used to generate revenue or not.

o He attacks Nathan Dane and other New Englanders who sought to weaken the union in order to escape the special burdens they suffered in the War of 1812.

o He defends slavery and attacks its enemies. He quotes a curious passage of Edmund Burke warning the English Parliament that for slaveholders "Freedom is ... not only an enjoyment, but a kind of rank and privilege", and, that being the case they will be that much more intransigent in defense of liberty.

o He finally defends "the Carolina [nullification - a word he avoids] Doctrine". He tried to stand on high ground behind (his interpretation at least) of Jefferson and Madison, but he defending it nonetheless.

Webster's Second Speecho He makes a witty insinuation that Hayne's speech had literally caused him to "lose his bearings", and he

must start by regaining them.o He warms up by parrying several petty accusations by Hayne.o He defended his consistency on the public lands issue.o He counters the claim that N.Eng.'s support for the West was bought by the "corrupt bargain".o He describes the origins of the American System and how South Carolina was at first strongly behind it.o He defends his consistency on the tariff and accuses the south of inconsistency.o He accuses Hayne of both excoriating the Hartford Convention and using it as a precedent.o He makes a direct argument against nullification theory.o He contrasts New England's response to the embargo, which he describes as thoroughly constititional,

against that advocated in the nullification doctrine.o He returns to the direct attack on nullification.o He describes a scenario of Hayne and the SC militia trying to stop the customs, and argues how it would

lead to civil war.o He paints a frightful and dramatic picture of what will happen if the Union falls apart, and praises

"Liberty and Union, now and forever, one and inseparable!".o In response to a rejoinder by Hayne, he logically refutes the derivation of nullification doctrine from the

premise that the constitution is a compact between the states.

Document 3: "Jackson and the Nullifiers" - song lyrics - 1832

Why Yankee land is at a stand, And all in consternation; For in the South they make a rout, And all about Nullification. Sing Yankee doodle doodle doo, Yankee doodle dandy, Our foes are few our hearts are true, And Jackson is quite handy.

These Southern knaves are blustering blades, Their cash they think is handy, But we of the North are the right sort, And the Union is the dandy. Sing Yankee doodle doodle doo, Yankee doodle dandy; Stand to your arms nor fear alarms, Just play Yankee doodle dandy.

It was the pill at Bunker hill, For which old Warren fought there, From Southern boys, though they make a noise,

We can have nought to dread here. Sing Yankee doodle doodle doo, Yankee doodle dandy, They know their slaves the silly knaves, Will soon find freedom handy.

Nat Turner's plan, the daring man, May soon reach South Carolina, Then would the black, their bodies hack, Cæsar, Cato, Pomp, and Dinah, Sing Yankee doodle doodle doo, Yankee doodle dandy. These Southern folks, may crack their jokes, If notherners are so handy.

When dire oppressed by British laws, They sent for our protection, We sent them aid in Freedom's cause, Nor thought of their nullification. Sing Yankee doodle doodle doo, Yankee doodle dandy, Our hands are strong, the way not long, And submission is the dandy.

Their cotton bags, may turn to rags, If Eastern men don't buy them, For all their gold, they may be sold, Or their slaves may yet destroy them. Sing Yankee doodle doodle doo, Yankee doodle dandy, If their cotton bags don't find a sale, Their cash wont be so handy.

When we our glorious Constitution form'd, These Southern men declined it, But soon they found they were unarmed, And petitioned to sign it. Sing Yankee doodle doodle doo, Yankee doodle dandy, Now like the snake torpid in a brake, They think Nullification it is handy.

Without their trade we are not afraid, But we can live in peace and plenty, But if to arms they sound alarms, They may find it not so handy. Sing Yankee doodle doodle doo, Sing Yankee doodle dandy, For Jackson he is wide awake, He says the Union is so handy.

Our country's cause, our country's laws, We ever will defend, Sir, And if they do not gain applause, My song was never penned, Sir. So sound the trumpet, beat the drum, Play Yankee doodle dandy, We Jackson boys will quickly come, And be with our rifles handy.

The Wellington invincibles At New-Orleans were beat, Sir, And do the Southerns think their pills, Will frighten us to a retreat, Sir. Sing Yankee doodle doodle doo, Sing Yankee doodle dandy, We love our friends, but secret foes May find our courage is {Omitted text, 1w} .

Document 4: President Jackson's Proclamation Regarding Nullification, December 10, 1832 (1)

Whereas a convention, assembled in the State of South Carolina, have passed an ordinance, by which they declare that the several acts and parts of acts of the Congress of the United States, purporting to be laws for the imposing of duties and imposts on the importation of foreign commodities, and now having actual operation and effect within the United States, and more especially "two acts for the same purposes, passed on the 29th of May, 1828, and on the 14th of July, 1832, are unauthorized by the Constitution of the United States, and violate the true meaning and intent thereof, and are null and void, and no law," nor binding on the citizens of that State or its officers, and by the said ordinance it is further declared to he unlawful for any of the constituted authorities of the State, or of the United States, to enforce the payment of the duties imposed by the said acts within the same State, and that it is the duty of the legislature to pass such laws as may be necessary to give full effect to the said ordinances:

And whereas, by the said ordinance it is further ordained, that, in no case of law or equity, decided in the courts of said State, wherein shall be drawn in question the validity of the said ordinance, or of the acts of the legislature that may be passed to give it effect, or of the said laws of the United States, no appeal shall be allowed to the Supreme Court of the United States, nor shall any copy of the record be permitted or allowed for that purpose; and that any person attempting to take such appeal, shall be punished as for a contempt of court:

And, finally, the said ordinance declares that the people of South Carolina will maintain the said ordinance at every hazard, and that they will consider the passage of any act by Congress abolishing or closing the ports of the said State, or otherwise obstructing the free ingress or egress of vessels to and from the said ports, or any other act of the Federal Government to coerce the State, shut up her ports, destroy or harass her commerce, or to enforce the said acts otherwise than through the civil tribunals of the country, as inconsistent with the longer continuance of South Carolina in the Union; and that the people of the said State will thenceforth hold themselves absolved from all further obligation to maintain or preserve their political connection with the people of the other States, and will forthwith proceed to organize a separate government, and do all other acts and things which sovereign and independent States may of right do.

And whereas the said ordinance prescribes to the people of South Carolina a course of conduct in direct violation of their duty as citizens of the United States, contrary to the laws of their country, subversive of its Constitution, and having for its object the instruction of the Union-that Union, which, coeval with our political existence, led our fathers, without any other ties to unite them than those of patriotism and common cause, through the sanguinary struggle to a glorious independence-that sacred Union, hitherto inviolate, which, perfected by our happy Constitution, has brought us, by the favor of Heaven, to a state of prosperity at home, and high consideration abroad, rarely, if ever, equaled in the history of

nations; to preserve this bond of our political existence from destruction, to maintain inviolate this state of national honor and prosperity, and to justify the confidence my fellow-citizens have reposed in me, I, Andrew Jackson, President of the United States, have thought proper to issue this my PROCLAMATION, stating my views of the Constitution and laws applicable to the measures adopted by the Convention of South Carolina, and to the reasons they have put forth to sustain them, declaring the course which duty will require me to pursue, and, appealing to the understanding and patriotism of the people, warn them of the consequences that must inevitably result from an observance of the dictates of the Convention.

Strict duty would require of me nothing more than the exercise of those powers with which I am now, or may hereafter be, invested, for preserving the Union, and for the execution of the laws. But the imposing aspect which opposition has assumed in this case, by clothing itself with State authority, and the deep interest which the people of the United States must all feel in preventing a resort to stronger measures, while there is a hope that anything will be yielded to reasoning and remonstrances, perhaps demand, and will certainly justify, a full exposition to South Carolina and the nation of the views I entertain of this important question, as well as a distinct enunciation of the course which my sense of duty will require me to pursue.

The ordinance is founded, not on the indefeasible right of resisting acts which are plainly unconstitutional, and too oppressive to be endured, but on the strange position that any one State may not only declare an act of Congress void, but prohibit its execution- that they may do this consistently with the Constitution-that the true construction of that instrument permits a State to retain its place in the Union, and yet be bound by no other of its laws than those it may choose to consider as constitutional. It is true they add, that to justify this abrogation of a law, it must be palpably contrary to the Constitution, but it is evident, that to give the right of resisting laws of that description, coupled with the uncontrolled right to decide what laws deserve that character, is to give the power of resisting all laws. For, as by the theory, there is no appeal, the reasons alleged by the State, good or bad, must prevail. If it should be said that public opinion is a sufficient check against the abuse of this power, it may be asked why it is not deemed a sufficient guard against the passage of an unconstitutional act by Congress. There is, however, a restraint in this last case, which makes the assumed power of a State more indefensible, and which does not exist in the other. There are two appeals from an unconstitutional act passed by Congress-one to the judiciary, the other to the people and the States. There is no appeal from the State decision in theory; and the practical illustration shows that the courts are closed against an application to review it, both judges and jurors being sworn to decide in its favor. But reasoning on this subject is superfluous, when our social compact in express terms declares, that the laws of the United States, its Constitution, and treaties made under it, are the supreme law of the land; and for greater caution adds, "that the judges in every State shall be bound thereby, anything in the Constitution or laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding." And it may be asserted, without fear of refutation, that no federative government could exist without a similar provision. Look, for a moment, to the consequence. If South Carolina considers the revenue laws unconstitutional, and has a right to prevent their execution in the port of Charleston, there would be a clear constitutional objection to their collection in every other port, and no revenue could be collected anywhere; for all imposts must be equal. It is no answer to repeat that an unconstitutional law is no law, so long as the question of its legality is to be decided by the State itself, for every law operating injuriously upon any local interest will be perhaps thought, and certainly represented, as unconstitutional, and, as has been shown, there is no appeal.

If this doctrine had been established at an earlier day, the Union would have been dissolved in its infancy. The excise law in Pennsylvania, the embargo and non-intercourse law in the Eastern States, the carriage tax in Virginia, were all deemed unconstitutional, and were more unequal in their operation than any of the laws now complained of; but, fortunately, none of those States discovered that they had the right now claimed by South Carolina. The war into which we were forced, to support the dignity of the nation and the rights of our citizens, might have ended in defeat and disgrace instead of victory and honor, if the States, who supposed it a ruinous and unconstitutional measure, had thought they possessed the right of nullifying the act by which it was declared, and denying supplies for its prosecution. Hardly and unequally as those measures bore upon several members of the Union, to the legislatures of none did this efficient and peaceable remedy, as it is called, suggest itself. The discovery of this important feature in our Constitution was reserved to the present day. To the statesmen of South Carolina belongs the invention, and upon the citizens of that State will, unfortunately, fall the evils of reducing it to practice.

If the doctrine of a State veto upon the laws of the Union carries with it internal evidence of its impracticable absurdity, our constitutional history will also afford abundant proof that it would have been repudiated with indignation had it been proposed to form a feature in our Government.

In our colonial state, although dependent on another power, we very early considered ourselves as connected by common interest with each other. Leagues were formed for common defense, and before the Declaration of Independence, we were known in our aggregate character as the United Colonies of America. That decisive and important step was taken jointly. We declared ourselves a nation by a joint, not by several acts; and when the terms of our confederation were reduced to form, it was in that of a solemn league of several States, by which they agreed that they would, collectively, form one nation, for the purpose of conducting some certain domestic concerns, and all foreign relations. In the instrument forming that Union, is found an article which declares that "every State shall abide by the determinations of Congress on all questions which by that Confederation should be submitted to them."

Under the Confederation, then, no State could legally annul a decision of the Congress, or refuse to submit to its execution, but no provision was made to enforce these decisions. Congress made requisitions, but they were not complied with. The Government could not operate on individuals. They had no judiciary, no means of collecting revenue.

But the defects of the Confederation need not be detailed. Under its operation we could scarcely be called a nation. We had neither prosperity at home nor consideration abroad. This state of things could not be endured, and our present happy Constitution was formed, but formed in vain, if this fatal doctrine prevails. It was formed for important objects that are announced in the preamble made in the name and by the authority of the people of the United States, whose delegates framed, and whose conventions approved it.

The most important among these objects, that which is placed first in rank, on which all the others rest, is "to form a more perfect Union." Now, is it possible that, even if there were no express provision giving supremacy to the Constitution and laws of the United States over those of the States, it can be conceived that an Instrument made for the purpose of "forming; a more perfect Union" than that of the confederation, could be so constructed by the assembled wisdom of our country as to substitute for that confederation a form of government, dependent for its existence on the local interest, the party spirit of a State, or of a prevailing faction in a State? Every man, of plain, unsophisticated understanding, who hears the question, will give such an answer as will preserve the Union. Metaphysical subtlety, in pursuit of an impracticable theory, could alone have devised one that is calculated to destroy it.

I consider, then, the power to annul a law of the United States, assumed by one State, incompatible with the existence of the Union, contradicted expressly by the letter of the Constitution, unauthorized by its spirit, inconsistent with every principle on which It was founded, and destructive of the great object for which it was formed.

After this general view of the leading principle, we must examine the particular application of it which is made in the ordinance.

The preamble rests its justification on these grounds: It assumes as a fact, that the obnoxious laws, although they purport to be laws for raising revenue, were in reality intended for the protection of manufactures, which purpose it asserts to be unconstitutional; that the operation of these laws is unequal, that the amount raised by them is greater than is required by the wants of the Government; and, finally, that the proceeds are to be applied to objects unauthorized by the Constitution. These are the only causes alleged to justify an open opposition to the laws of the country, and a threat of seceding from the Union, if any attempt should be made to enforce them. The first virtually acknowledges that the law in question was passed under a power expressly given by the Constitution, to lay and collect imposts, but its constitutionality is drawn in question from the motives of those who passed it. However apparent this purpose may be in the present case, nothing can be more dangerous than to admit the position that an unconstitutional purpose, entertained by the members who assent to a law enacted under a constitutional power, shall make that law void; for how is that purpose to be ascertained? Who is to make the scrutiny? How often may bad purposes be falsely imputed ? In how many cases are they concealed by false professions? In how many is no declaration of motive made? Admit this doctrine and you give to the States an uncontrolled right to decide, and every law may be annulled under this

pretext. If, therefore, the absurd and dangerous doctrine should be admitted, that a State may annul an unconstitutional law, or one that it deems such, it will not apply to the present case.

The next objection is, that the laws in question operate unequally. This objection may be made with truth to every law that has been or can be passed. The wisdom of man never yet contrived a system of taxation that would operate with perfect equality. If the unequal operation of a law makes it unconstitutional and if all laws of that description may be abrogated by any State for that cause, then, indeed, is the federal Constitution unworthy of the slightest effort for its preservation. We have hitherto relied on it as the perpetual bond of our Union. We have received it as the work of the assembled wisdom of the nation We have trusted to it as to the sheet-anchor of our safety, in the stormy times of conflict with a foreign or domestic foe. We have looked to it with sacred awe as the palladium of our liberties, and with all the solemnities of religion have pledged to each other our lives and fortunes here, and our hopes of happiness hereafter, in its defense and support. Were we mistaken, my countrymen, in attaching this importance to the Constitution of our country? Was our devotion paid to the wretched, inefficient, clumsy contrivance, which this new doctrine would make it? Did we pledge ourselves to the support of an airy nothing-a bubble that must be blown away by the first breath of disaffection? Was this self-destroying, visionary theory the work of the profound statesmen, the exalted patriots, to whom the task of constitutional reform was intrusted? Did the name of Washington sanction, did the States deliberately ratify, such an anomaly in the history of fundamental legislation? No. We were not mistaken. The letter of this great instrument is free from this radical fault; its language directly contradicts the imputation, its spirit, its evident intent, contradicts it. No, we did not err. Our Constitution does not contain the absurdity of giving power to make laws, and another power to resist them. The sages, whose memory will always be reverenced, have given us a practical, and, as they hoped, a permanent constitutional compact. The Father of his Country did not affix his revered name to so palpable an absurdity. Nor did the States, when they severally ratified it, do so under the impression that a veto on the laws of the United States was reserved to them, or that they could exercise it by application. Search the debates in all their conventions-examine the speeches of the most zealous opposers of federal authority-look at the amendments that were proposed. They are all silent--not a syllable uttered, not a vote given, not a motion made, to correct the explicit supremacy given to the laws of the Union over those of the States, or to show that implication, as is now contended, could defeat it. No, we have not erred! The Constitution is still the object of our reverence, the bond of our Union, our defense in danger, the source of our prosperity in peace. It shall descend, as we have received it, uncorrupted by sophistical construction to our posterity; and the sacrifices of local interest, of State prejudices, of personal animosities, that were made to bring it into existence, will again be patriotically offered for its support.

The two remaining objections made by the ordinance to these laws are, that the sums intended to be raised by them are greater than are required, and that the proceeds will be unconstitutionally employed. The Constitution has given expressly to Congress the right of raising revenue, and of determining the sum the public exigencies will require. The States have no control over the exercise of this right other than that which results from the power of changing the representatives who abuse it, and thus procure redress. Congress may undoubtedly abuse this discretionary power, but the same may be said of others with which they are vested. Yet the discretion must exist somewhere. The Constitution has given it to the representatives of all the people, checked by the representatives of the States, and by the executive power. The South Carolina construction gives it to the legislature, or the convention of a single State, where neither the people of the different States, nor the States in their separate capacity, nor the chief magistrate elected by the people, have any representation. Which is the most discreet disposition of the power? I do not ask you, fellow-citizens, which is the constitutional disposition-that instrument speaks a language not to be misunderstood. But if you were assembled in general convention, which would you think the safest depository of this discretionary power in the last resort? Would you add a clause giving it to each of the States, or would you sanction the wise provisions already made by your Constitution? If this should be the result of your deliberations when providing for the future, are you-can you-be ready to risk all that we hold dear, to establish, for a temporary and a local purpose, that which you must acknowledge to be destructive, and even absurd, as a general provision? Carry out the consequences of this right vested in the different States, and you must perceive that the crisis your conduct presents at this day would recur whenever any law of the United States displeased any of the States, and that we should soon cease to be a nation.

The ordinance with the same knowledge of the future that characterizes a former objection, tells you that the proceeds of the tax will be unconstitutionally applied. If this could be ascertained with certainty, the objection would, with more

propriety, be reserved for the law so applying the proceeds, but surely cannot be urged against the laws levying the duty.

These are the allegations contained in the ordinance. Examine them seriously, my fellow-citizens-judge for yourselves. I appeal to you to determine whether they are so clear, so convincing, as to leave no doubt of their correctness, and even if you should come to this conclusion, how far they justify the reckless, destructive course which you are directed to pursue. Review these objections and the conclusions drawn from them once more. What are they! Every law, then, for raising revenue, according to the South Carolina ordinance, may be rightfully annulled, unless it be so framed as no law ever will or can be framed. Congress have a right to pass laws for raising revenue, and each State has a right to oppose their execution-two rights directly opposed to each other; and yet is this absurdity supposed to be contained in an instrument drawn for the express purpose of avoiding collisions between the States and the general government, by an assembly of the most enlightened statesmen and purest patriots ever embodied for a similar purpose.

In vain have these sages declared that Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts, and excises-in vain have they provided that they shall have power to pass laws which shall be necessary and proper to carry those powers into execution, that those laws and that Constitution shall be the "supreme law of the land; that the judges in every State shall be bound thereby, anything in the constitution or laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding." In vain have the people of the several States solemnly sanctioned these provisions, made them their paramount law, and individually sworn to support them whenever they were called on to execute any office..

Vain provisions! Ineffectual restrictions! Vile profanation of oaths! Miserable mockery of legislation ! If a bare majority of the voters in any one State may, on a real or supposed knowledge of the intent with which a law has been passed, declare themselves free from its operation-say here it gives too little, there too much, and operates unequally-here it suffers articles to be free that ought to be taxed, there it taxes those that ought to be free-in this case the proceeds are intended to be applied to purposes which we do not approve, in that the amount raised is more than is wanted. Congress, it is true, are invested by the Constitution with the right of deciding these questions according to their sound discretion. Congress is composed of the representatives of all the States, and of all the people of all the states; but WE, part of the people of one State, to whom the Constitution has given no power on the subject from whom it has expressly taken it away-we, who have solemnly agreed that this Constitution shall be our law-we, most of whom have sworn to support it-we now abrogate this law, and swear, and force others to swear, that it shall not be obeyed-and we do this, not because Congress have no right to pass such laws; this we do not allege; but because they have passed them with improper views. They are unconstitutional from the motives of those who passed them, which we can never with certainty know, from their unequal operation; although it is impossible from the nature of things that they should be equal-and from the disposition which we presume may be made of their proceeds, although that disposition has not been declared. This is the plain meaning of the ordinance in relation to laws which it abrogates for alleged unconstitutionality. But it does not stop here. It repeals, in express terms, an important part of the Constitution itself, and of laws passed to give it effect, which have never been alleged to be unconstitutional. The Constitution declares that the judicial powers of the United States extend to cases arising under the laws of the United States, and that such laws, the Constitution and treaties, shall be paramount to the State constitutions and laws. The judiciary act prescribes the mode by which the case may be brought before a court of the United States, by appeal, when a State tribunal shall decide against this provision of the Constitution. The ordinance declares there shall be no appeal; makes the State law paramount to the Constitution and laws of the United States; forces judges and jurors to swear that they will disregard their provisions; and even makes it penal in a suitor to attempt relief by appeal. It further declares that it shall not be lawful for the authorities of the United States, or of that State, to enforce the payment of duties imposed by the revenue laws within its limits.

Here is a law of the United States, not even pretended to be unconstitutional, repealed by the authority of a small majority of the voters of a single State. Here is a provision of the Constitution which is solemnly abrogated by the same authority.

On such expositions and reasonings, the ordinance grounds not only an assertion of the right to annul the laws of which it complains, but to enforce it by a threat of seceding from the Union if any attempt is made to execute them.

This right to secede is deduced from the nature of the Constitution, which they say is a compact between sovereign States who have preserved their whole sovereignty, and therefore are subject to no superior; that because they made the compact, they can break it when in their opinion it has been departed from by the other States. Fallacious as this course of reasoning is, it enlists State pride, and finds advocates in the honest prejudices of those who have not studied the nature of our government sufficiently to see the radical error on which it rests.

The people of the United States formed the Constitution, acting through the State legislatures, in making the compact, to meet and discuss its provisions, and acting in separate conventions when they ratified those provisions; but the terms used in its construction show it to be a government in which the people of all the States collectively are represented. We are ONE PEOPLE in the choice of the President and Vice President. Here the States have no other agency than to direct the mode in which the vote shall be given. The candidates having the majority of all the votes are chosen. The electors of a majority of States may have given their votes for one candidate, and yet another may be chosen. The people, then, and not the States, are represented in the executive branch.

In the House of Representatives there is this difference, that the people of one State do not, as in the case of President and Vice President, all vote for all the members, each State electing only its own representatives. But this creates no material distinction. When chosen, they are all representatives of the United States, not representatives of the particular State from which they come. They are paid by the United States, not by the State; nor are they accountable to it for any act done in performance of their legislative functions; and however they may in practice, as it is their duty to do, consult and prefer the interests of their particular constituents when they come in conflict with any other partial or local interest, yet it is their first and highest duty, as representatives of the United States, to promote the general good.

The Constitution of the United States, then, forms a government, not a league, and whether it be formed by compact between the States, or in any other manner, its character is the same. It is a government in which ale the people are represented, which operates directly on the people individually, not upon the States; they retained all the power they did not grant. But each State having expressly parted with so many powers as to constitute jointly with the other States a single nation, cannot from that period possess any right to secede, because such secession does not break a league, but destroys the unity of a nation, and any injury to that unity is not only a breach which would result from the contravention of a compact, but it is an offense against the whole Union. To say that any State may at pleasure secede from the Union, is to say that the United States are not a nation

because it would be a solecism to contend that any part of a nation might dissolve its connection with the other parts, to their injury or ruin, without committing any offense. Secession, like any other revolutionary act, may be morally justified by the extremity of oppression; but to call it a constitutional right, is confounding the meaning of terms, and can only be done through gross error, or to deceive those who are willing to assert a right, but would pause before they made a revolution, or incur the penalties consequent upon a failure.

Because the Union was formed by compact, it is said the parties to that compact may, when they feel themselves aggrieved, depart from it; but it is precisely because it is a compact that they cannot. A compact is an agreement or binding obligation. It may by its terms have a sanction or penalty for its breach, or it may not. If it contains no sanction, it may be broken with no other consequence than moral guilt; if it have a sanction, then the breach incurs the designated or implied penalty. A league between independent nations, generally, has no sanction other than a moral one; or if it should contain a penalty, as there is no common superior, it cannot be enforced. A government, on the contrary, always has a sanction, express or implied; and, in our case, it is both necessarily implied and expressly given. An attempt by force of arms to destroy a government is an offense, by whatever means the constitutional compact may have been formed; and such government has the right, by the law of self-defense, to pass acts for punishing the offender, unless that right is modified, restrained, or resumed by the constitutional act. In our system, although it is modified in the case of treason, yet authority is expressly given to pass all laws necessary to carry its powers into effect, and under this grant provision has been made for punishing acts which obstruct the due administration of the laws.

It would seem superfluous to add anything to show the nature of that union which connects us; but as erroneous opinions on this subject are the foundation of doctrines the most destructive to our peace, I must give some further development to my views on this subject. No one, fellow-citizens, has a higher reverence for the reserved rights of the

States than the magistrate who now addresses you. No one would make greater personal sacrifices, or official exertions, to defend them from violation; but equal care must be taken to prevent, on their part, an improper interference with, or resumption of, the rights they have vested in the nation.

The line has not been so distinctly drawn as to avoid doubts in some cases of the exercise of power. Men of the best intentions and soundest views may differ in their construction of some parts of the Constitution, but there are others on which dispassionate reflection can leave no doubt. Of this nature appears to be the assumed right of secession. It rests, as we have seen, on the alleged undivided sovereignty of the States, and on their having formed in this sovereign capacity a compact which is called the Constitution, from which, because they made it, they have the right to secede. Both of these positions are erroneous, and some of the arguments to prove them so have been anticipated.

The States severally have not retained their entire sovereignty. It has been shown that in becoming parts of a nation, not members of a league, they surrendered many of their essential parts of sovereignty. The right to make treaties, declare war, levy taxes, exercise exclusive judicial and legislative powers, were all functions of sovereign power. The States, then, for all these important purposes, were no longer sovereign. The allegiance of their citizens was transferred in the first instance to the government of the United States; they became American citizens, and owed obedience to the Constitution of the United States, and to laws made in conformity with the powers vested in Congress. This last position has not been, and cannot be, denied. How then, can that State be said to be sovereign and independent whose citizens owe obedience to laws not made by it, and whose magistrates are sworn to disregard those laws, when they come in conflict with those passed by another? What shows conclusively that the States cannot be said to have reserved an undivided sovereignty, is that they expressly ceded the right to punish treason-not treason against their separate power, but treason against the United States. Treason is an offense against sovereignty, and sovereignty must reside with the power to punish it. But the reserved rights of the States are not less sacred because they have for their common interest made the general government the depository of these powers. The unity of our political character (as has been shown for another purpose) commenced with its very existence. Under the royal government we had no separate character; our opposition to its oppression began as UNITED COLONIES. We were the UNITED STATES under the Confederation, and the name was perpetuated and the Union rendered more perfect by the federal Constitution. In none of these stages did we consider ourselves in any other light than as forming one nation. Treaties and alliances were made in the name of all. Troops were raised for the joint defense. How, then, with all these proofs, that under all changes of our position we had, for designated purposes and with defined powers, created national governments-how is it that the most perfect of these several modes of union should now be considered as a mere league that may be dissolved at pleasure ? It is from an abuse of terms. Compact is used as synonymous with league, although the true term is not employed, because it would at once show the fallacy of the reasoning. It would not do to say that our Constitution was only a league, but it is labored to prove it a compact (which, in one sense, it is), and then to argue that as a league is a compact, every compact between nations must, of course, be a league, and that from such an engagement every sovereign power has a right to recede. But it has been shown that in this sense the States are not sovereign, and that even if they were, and the national Constitution had been formed by compact, there would be no right in any one State to exonerate itself from the obligation.

So obvious are the reasons which forbid this secession, that it is necessary only to allude to them. The Union was formed for the benefit of all. It was produced by mutual sacrifice of interest and opinions. Can those sacrifices be recalled? Can the States, who magnanimously surrendered their title to the territories of the West, recall the grant? Will the inhabitants of the inland States agree to pay the duties that may be imposed without their assent by those on the Atlantic or the Gulf, for their own benefit? Shall there be a free port in one State, and enormous duties in another? No one believes that any right exists in a single State to involve all the others in these and countless other evils, contrary to engagements solemnly made. Everyone must see that the other States, in self-defense, must oppose it at all hazards.

These are the alternatives that are presented by the convention: A repeal of all the acts for raising revenue, leaving the government without the means of support; or an acquiescence in the dissolution of our Union by the secession of one of its members. When the first was proposed, it was known that it could not be listened to for a moment. It was known if force was applied to oppose the execution of the laws, that it must be repelled by force-that Congress could not, without involving itself in disgrace and the country in ruin, accede to the proposition; and yet if this is not done in a given day, or if any attempt is made to execute the laws, the State is, by the ordinance, declared to be out of the Union.

The majority of a convention assembled for the purpose have dictated these terms, or rather this rejection of all terms, in the name of the people of South Carolina. It is true that the governor of the State speaks of the submission of their grievances to a convention of all the States; which, he says, they ''sincerely and anxiously seek and desire." Yet this obvious and constitutional mode of obtaining the sense of the other States on the construction of the federal compact, and amending it, if necessary, has never been attempted by those who have urged the State on to this destructive measure. The State might have proposed a call for a general convention to the other States, and Congress, if a sufficient number of them concurred, must have called it. But the first magistrate of South Carolina, when he expressed a hope that "on a review by Congress and the functionaries of the general government of the merits of the controversy,' such a convention will be accorded to them, must have known that neither Congress, nor any functionary in the general government, has authority to call such a convention, unless it be demanded by two-thirds of the States. This suggestion, then, is another instance of the reckless inattention to the provisions of the Constitution with which this crisis has been madly hurried on; or of the attempt to persuade the people that a constitutional remedy has been sought and refused. If the legislature of South Carolina "anxiously desire" a general convention to consider their complaints, why have they not made application for it in the way the Constitution points out? The assertion that they "earnestly seek" is completely negatived by the omission.

This, then, is the position in which we stand. A small majority of the citizens of one State in the Union have elected delegates to a State convention; that convention has ordained that all the revenue laws of the United States must be repealed, or that they are no longer a member of the Union. The governor of that State has recommended to the legislature the raising of an army to carry the secession into effect, and that he may be empowered to give clearances to vessels in the name of the State. No act of violent opposition to the laws has yet been committed, but such a state of things is hourly apprehended, and it is the intent of this instrument to PROCLAIM, not only that the duty imposed on me by the Constitution, '` to take care that the laws be faithfully executed," shall be performed to the extent of the powers already vested in me by law or of such others as the wisdom of Congress shall devise and Entrust to me for that purpose; but to warn the citizens of South Carolina, who have been deluded into an opposition to the laws, of the danger they will incur by obedience to the illegal and disorganizing ordinance of the convention-to exhort those who have refused to support it to persevere in their determination to uphold the Constitution and laws of their country, and to point out to all the perilous situation into which the good people of that State have been led, and that the course they are urged to pursue is one of ruin and disgrace to the very State whose rights they affect to support.

Fellow-citizens of my native State ! let me not only admonish you, as the first magistrate of our common country, not to incur the penalty of its laws, but use the influence that a father would over his children whom he saw rushing to a certain ruin. In that paternal language, with that paternal feeling, let me tell you, my countrymen, that you are deluded by men who are either deceived themselves or wish to deceive you. Mark under what pretenses you have been led on to the brink of insurrection and treason on which you stand! First a diminution of the value of our staple commodity, lowered by over-production in other quarters and the consequent diminution in the value of your lands, were the sole effect of the tariff laws. The effect of those laws was confessedly injurious, but the evil was greatly exaggerated by the unfounded theory you were taught to believe, that its burdens were in proportion to your exports, not to your consumption of imported articles. Your pride was aroused by the assertions that a submission to these laws was a state of vassalage, and that resistance to them was equal, in patriotic merit, to the opposition our fathers offered to the oppressive laws of Great Britain. You were told that this opposition might be peaceably-might be constitutionally made-that you might enjoy all the advantages of the Union and bear none of its burdens. Eloquent appeals to your passions, to your State pride, to your native courage, to your sense of real injury, were used to prepare you for the period when the mask which concealed the hideous features of DISUNION should be taken off. It fell, and you were made to look with complacency on objects which not long since you would have regarded with horror. Look back to the arts which have brought you to this state-look forward to the consequences to which it must inevitably lead! Look back to what was first told you as an inducement to enter into this dangerous course. The great political truth was repeated to you that you had the revolutionary right of resisting all laws that were palpably unconstitutional and intolerably oppressive-it was added that the right to nullify a law rested on the same principle, but that it was a peaceable remedy! This character which was given to it, made you receive with too much confidence the assertions that were made of the unconstitutionality of the law and its oppressive effects. Mark, my fellow-citizens, that by the admission of your leaders the unconstitutionality must be palpable, or it will not justify either resistance or nullification ! What is the meaning of the word palpable in the sense in which it is here used? that which is apparent to everyone, that which no man of

ordinary intellect will fail to perceive. Is the unconstitutionality of these laws of that description? Let those among your leaders who once approved and advocated the principles of protective duties, answer the question; and let them choose whether they will be considered as incapable, then, of perceiving that which must have been apparent to every man of common understanding, or as imposing upon your confidence and endeavoring to mislead you now. In either case, they are unsafe guides in the perilous path they urge you to tread. Ponder well on this circumstance, and you will know how to appreciate the exaggerated language they address to you. They are not champions of liberty emulating the fame of our Revolutionary fathers, nor are you an oppressed people, contending, as they repeat to you, against worse than colonial vassalage. You are free members of a flourishing and happy Union. There is no settled design to oppress you. You have, indeed, felt the unequal operation of laws which may have been unwisely, not unconstitutionally passed; but that inequality must necessarily be removed. At the very moment when you were madly urged on to the unfortunate course you have begun, a change in public opinion has commenced. The nearly approaching payment of the public debt, and the consequent necessity of a diminution of duties, had already caused a considerable reduction, and that, too, on some articles of general consumption in your State. The importance of this change was underrated, and you were authoritatively told that no further alleviation of your burdens was to be expected, at the very time when the condition of the country imperiously demanded such a modification of the duties as should reduce them to a just and equitable scale. But as apprehensive of the effect of this change in allaying your discontents, you were precipitated into the fearful state in which you now find yourselves.

I have urged you to look back to the means that were used to burly you on to the position you have now assumed, and forward to the consequences they will produce. Something more is necessary. Contemplate the condition of that country of which you still form an important part; consider its government uniting in one bond of common interest and general protection so many different States-giving to all their inhabitants the proud title of AMERICAN CITIZEN-protecting their commerce-securing their literature and arts-facilitating their intercommunication--defending their frontiers-and making their name respected in the remotest parts of the earth! Consider the extent of its territory its increasing and happy population, its advance in arts, which render life agreeable, and the sciences which elevate the mind! See education spreading the lights of religion, morality, and general information into every cottage in this wide extent of our Territories and States! Behold it as the asylum where the wretched and the oppressed find a refuge and support! Look on this picture of happiness and honor, and say, WE TOO, ARE CITIZENS OF AMERICA--Carolina is one of these proud States her arms have defended-her best blood has cemented this happy Union! And then add, if you can, without horror and remorse this happy Union we will dissolve-this picture of peace and prosperity we will deface-this free intercourse we will interrupt- these fertile fields we will deluge with blood-the protection of that glorious flag we renounce-the very name of Americans we discard. And for what, mistaken men! For what do you throw away these inestimable blessings-for what would you exchange your share in the advantages and honor of the Union? For the dream of a separate independence-a dream interrupted by bloody conflicts with your neighbors, and a vile dependence on a foreign power. If your leaders could succeed in establishing a separation, what would be your situation? Are you united at home-are you free from the apprehension of civil discord, with all its fearful consequences? Do our neighboring republics, every day suffering some new revolution or contending with some new insurrection- do they excite your envy? But the dictates of a high duty oblige me solemnly to announce that you cannot succeed. The laws of the United States must be executed. I have no discretionary power on the subject-my duty is emphatically pronounced in the Constitution. Those who told you that you might peaceably prevent their execution, deceived you-they could not have been deceived themselves. They know that a forcible opposition could alone prevent the execution of the laws, and they know that such opposition must be repelled. Their object is disunion, hut be not deceived by names; disunion, by armed force, is TREASON. Are you really ready to incur its guilt? If you are, on the head of the instigators of the act be the dreadful consequences-on their heads be the dishonor, but on yours may fall the punishment-on your unhappy State will inevitably fall all the evils of the conflict you force upon the government of your country. It cannot accede to the mad project of disunion, of which you would be the first victims-its first magistrate cannot, if he would, avoid the performance of his duty-the consequence must be fearful for you, distressing to your fellow-citizens here, and to the friends of good government throughout the world. Its enemies have beheld our prosperity with a vexation they could not conceal--it was a standing refutation of their slavish doctrines, and they will point to our discord with the triumph of malignant joy. It is yet in your power to disappoint them. There is yet time to show that the descendants of the Pinckneys, the Sumpters, the Rutledges, and of the thousand other names which adorn the pages of your Revolutionary history, will not abandon that Union to support which so many of them fought and bled and died. I adjure you, as you honor their memory--as you love the cause of freedom, to which they dedicated their lives--as you prize the peace of

your country, the lives of its best citizens, and your own fair fame, to retrace your steps. Snatch from the archives of your State the disorganizing edict of its convention-hid its members to re-assemble and promulgate the decided expressions of your will to remain in the path which alone can conduct you to safety, prosperity, and honor-tell them that compared to disunion, all other evils are light, because that brings with it an accumulation of all-declare that you will never take the field unless the star-spangled banner of your country shall float over you--that you will not be stigmatized when dead, and dishonored and scorned while you live, as the authors of the first attack on the Constitution of your country!-its destroyers you cannot be. You may disturb its peace-you may interrupt the course of its prosperity-you may cloud its reputation for stability- but its tranquillity will be restored, its prosperity will return, and the stain upon its national character will be transferred and remain an eternal blot on the memory of those who caused the disorder.

Fellow-citizens of the United States! the threat of unhallowed disunion-the names of those, once respected, by whom it is uttered--the array of military force to support it-denote the approach of a crisis in our affairs on which the continuance of our unexampled prosperity, our political existence, and perhaps that of all free governments, may depend. The conjuncture demanded a free, a full, and explicit enunciation, not only of my intentions, but of my principles of action, and as the claim was asserted of a right by a State to annul the laws of the Union, and even to secede from it at pleasure, a frank exposition of my opinions in relation to the origin and form of our government, and the construction I give to the instrument by which it was created, seemed to be proper. Having the fullest confidence in the justness of the legal and constitutional opinion of my duties which has been expressed, I rely with equal confidence on your undivided support in my determination to execute the laws-to preserve the Union by all constitutional means-to arrest, if possible, by moderate but firm measures, the necessity of a recourse to force; and, if it be the will of Heaven that the recurrence of its primeval curse on man for the shedding of a brother's blood should fall upon our land, that it be not called down by any offensive act on the part of the United States.

Fellow-citizens! the momentous case is before you. On your undivided support of your government depends the decision of the great question it involves, whether your sacred Union will be preserved, and the blessing it secures to us as one people shall be perpetuated. No one can doubt that the unanimity with which that decision will be expressed, will he such as to inspire new confidence in republican institutions, and that the prudence, the wisdom, and the courage which it will bring to their defense, will transmit them unimpaired and invigorated to our children.

May the Great Ruler of nations grant that the signal blessings with which he has favored ours may not, by the madness of party or personal ambition, be disregarded and lost, and may His wise providence bring those who have produced this crisis to see the folly, before they feel the misery, of civil strife, and inspire a returning veneration for that Union which, if we may dare to penetrate his designs, he has chosen, as the only means of attaining the high destinies to which we may reasonably aspire.

In testimony whereof, I have caused the seal of the United States to be hereunto affixed, having signed the same with my hand.

Done at the City of Washington, this 10th day of December, in the year of our Lord one thousand eight hundred and thirty-two, and of the independence of the United States the fifty-seventh.

Document 4: Force Bill

See: http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?collId=llsl&fileName=004/llsl004.db&recNum=679

Document 5: Letter, Andrew Jackson to Martin Van Buren discussing the nullification crisis, 13 January 1833. (Martin Van Buren Papers)

See: http://lcweb2.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/r?ammem/mcc:@field(DOCID+@lit(mcc/050))

Indictment 3: President Jackson violated laws, treaties, and court orders in his dealings with Native Americans.

Document 1: Andrew Jackson Speaks, Indian Removal

Passed into law during Jackson's second year as President, this Act set the tone for his administration's handling of all Indian affairs. In fact, Removal outlasted his tenure: the last of the Cherokee were infamously forced on the Trail of Tears death march in 1838, two years after Jackson's second--and final--term ended.

Though all Eastern tribes were eventually relocated West of the Mississippi, the government failed utterly in its pledge to enact the policy on a strictly voluntary basis (a policy notably not written into the act.) Nearly all relocation was carried out under duress, whether by military escort, or when no other option remained after tribal decimation by broken treaties, fraudulent land deals and the wars these often caused. Here is the Act's preamble:

CHAP. CXLVIII.--An Act to provide for an exchange of lands with the Indians residing in any of the states or territories, and for their removal west of the river Mississippi.

First Inaugural Address, March 4, 1829In which Jackson reassures the Indian tribes that their treatment under his administration will be liberal, just and in accordance with the beliefs of the American people:

"It will be my sincere and constant desire to observe toward the Indian tribes within our limits a just and liberal policy, and to give that humane and considerate attention to their rights and their wants which is consistent with the habits of our Government and the feelings of our people." -- Andrew Jackson

First Annual Message to Congress, December 8, 1829In which, in the closing paragraphs of the speech, Jackson lays out his policy for relocating Indians of the east to territories west of the Mississippi. This policy becomes law as the Indian Removal Act by his next annual address. An excerpt from the speech:

"Our conduct toward these people is deeply interesting to our national character. Their present condition, contrasted with what they once were, makes a most powerful appeal to our sympathies. Our ancestors found them the uncontrolled possessors of these vast regions. By persuasion and force they have been made to retire from river to river and from mountain to mountain, until some of the tribes have become extinct and others have left but remnants to preserve for awhile their once terrible names. Surrounded by the whites with their arts of civilization, which by destroying the resources of the savage doom him to weakness and decay, the fate of the Mohegan, the Narragansett, and the Delaware is fast overtaking the Choctaw, the Cherokee, and the Creek. That this fate surely awaits them if they remain within the limits of the states does not admit of a doubt. Humanity and national honor demand that every effort should be made to avert so great a calamity." -- Andrew Jackson

Second Annual Message to Congress, December 6, 1830 Jackson announces Indian Removal nearing consumation; the Chocktaw and Chickasaw peoples agree to relocation; this development will induce other tribes to follow; states his good-will toward aboriginal people;

"Toward the aborigines of the country no one can indulge a more friendly feeling than myself, or would go further in attempting to reclaim them from their wandering habits and make them a happy, prosperous people." -- Andrew Jackson

Third Annual Message to Congress, December 6, 1831Funds are appropriated for the removal of eastern tribes; treaty negotiation for actual removal of the Choctaw and Chickasaw underway; Cherokee registration in Georgia recommences with hopes of up to two-thirds participation; removal efforts concentrated in Ohio and Indiana where treaties extinguished all Ohio reservations; philanthropists and missionaries invited to help removed Indians advance "from barbarism to the habits and enjoyments of civilized life."

"It is pleasing to reflect that results so beneficial, not only to the States immediately concerned, but to the harmony of the Union, will have been accomplished by measures equally advantageous to the Indians. What the native savages become when surrounded by a dense population and by mixing with the whites may be seen in the miserable remnants of a few Eastern tribes, deprived of political and civil rights, forbidden to make contracts, and subjected to guardians, dragging out a wretched existence, without excitement, without hope, and almost without thought." -- Andrew Jackson

Fourth Annual Message to Congress, December 4, 1832Substantial deficit reduction despite Indian 'removal and preservation' costs; oblique reference to economics of converting Indian land first to public land, then selling parcels to settlers at cost; Sac and Fox uprising put down -- disaffected tribes 'dispersed or destroyed'; the 'wise and humane' Indian removal policy is steadily pursued and approaching consummation -- Secretary of War reports; Georgian Cherokees resist removal.

"After a harassing warfare, prolonged by the nature of the country and by the difficulty of procuring subsistence, the Indians were entirely defeated, and the disaffected band dispersed or destroyed. The result has been creditable to the troops engaged in the service. Severe as is the lesson to the Indians, it was rendered necessary by their unprovoked aggressions, and it is to be hoped that its impression will be permanent and salutary." -- Andrew Jackson

Fifth Annual Message to Congress, December 3, 1833Survivors of Sac and Fox War of 1832 removed west of Mississippi; 'inferior' Georgian Cherokee continue to resist 'force of circumstances' and refuse removal; Jackson reiterates removal and 'political reorganisation' form the best and only option for continued existence of eastern Indians.

"My original convictions upon this subject have been confirmed by the course of events for several years, and experience is every day adding to their strength. That those tribes can not exist surrounded by our settlements and in continual contact with our citizens is certain. They have neither the intelligence, the industry, the moral habits, nor the desire of improvement which are essential to any favorable change in their condition. Established in the midst of another and a superior race, and without appreciating the causes of their inferiority or seeking to control them, they must necessarily yield to the force of circumstances and ere long disappear." -- Andrew Jackson

Sixth Annual Message to Congress, December 1, 1834Military blocks 'inroads' of Western frontier Indians; Creek removal imminent, Seminole next, Cherokee stubbornly refuse against own best interests; Indian Trade and Intercourse Acto of 1834 made law, restricting treatied sovereignty of Western Indians.

"I regret that the Cherokees east of the Mississippi have not yet determined as a community to remove. How long the personal causes which have heretofore retarded that ultimately inevitable measure will continue to operate I am unable to conjecture. It is certain, however, that delay will bring with it accumulated evils which will render their condition more and more unpleasant. The experience of every year adds to the conviction that emigration, and that alone, can preserve from destruction the remnant of the tribes yet living amongst us." -- Andrew Jackson

Seventh Annual Message to Congress, December 7, 1835Inexplicably, Jackson makes no direct reference to Indian removal in this message, though it was in this year that the Seminole were ordered to leave Florida. In fact, the only reference to native issues is made obliquely in a paragraph concerning the sale of public lands, much of which were once treatied Indian territories.

"The extraordinary receipts from the sales of the public lands invite you to consider what improvements the land system, and particularly the condition of the General Land Office, may require. At the time this institution was organized,

near a quarter century ago, it would probably have been thought extravagant to anticipate for this period such an addition to its business as has been produced by the vast increase of those sales during the past and present years. It may also be observed that since the year 1812 the land offices and surveying districts have been greatly multiplied, and that numerous legislative enactments from year to year since that time have imposed a great amount of new and additional duties upon that office, while the want of a timely application of force commensurate with the care and labor required has caused the increasing embarrassment of accumulated arrears in the different branches of the establishment." -- Andrew Jackson

Eighth Annual Message to Congress, December 5, 1836Indian wars force massive mobilisation of troops, militia and volunteers; Seminoles refuse to relocate and win early upper-hand in Second Seminole War; Urgent need for further appropriations to 'suppress hostilities;' Creek defeated and relocated West of Mississippi; Cherokee country pacified and secured by ongoing military vigilance; Mexico authorises expeditions to quell Indians beyond US frontier; Commissioner of Indian Affairs suggests larger military presence in Indian country to protect Western frontier from Indians, and the Indians from each other; Jackson prematurely declares Indian Removal to be consummated--Cherokee forcibly relocated two years later in 1838.

"The national policy, founded alike in interest and in humanity, so long and so steadily pursued by this Government for the removal of the Indian tribes originally settled on this side of the Mississippi to the West of that river, may be said to have been consummated by the conclusion of the late treaty with the Cherokees." -- Andrew Jackson

Document 2: The Removal Act, 28 May 1830

An Act to provide for an exchange of lands with the Indians residing in any of the states or territories, and for their removal west of the river Mississippi.

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America, in Congress assembled, That it shall and may be lawful for the President of the United States to cause so much of any territory belonging to the United States, west of the river Mississippi, not included in any state or organized territory, and to which the Indian title has been extinguished, as he may judge necessary, to be divided into a suitable number of districts, for the reception of such tribes or nations of Indians as may choose to exchange the lands where they now reside, and remove there; and to cause each of said districts to be so described by natural or artificial marks, as to be easily distinguished from every other.

And be it further enacted, That it shall and may be lawful for the President to exchange any or all of such districts, so to be laid off and described, with any tribe or nation of Indians now residing within the limits of any of the states or territories, and with which the United States have existing treaties, for the whole or any part or portion of the territory claimed and occupied by such tribe or nation, within the bounds of any one or more of the states or territories, where the land claimed and occupied by the Indians, is owned by the United States, or the United States are bound to the state within which it lies to extinguish the Indian claim thereto.

And be it further enacted, That in the making of any such exchange or exchanges, it shall and may be lawful for the President solemnly to assure the tribe or nation with which the exchange is made, that the United States will forever secure and guaranty to them, and their heirs or successors, the country so exchanged with them; and if they prefer it, that the United States will cause a patent or grant to be made and executed to them for the same: Provided always, That such lands shall revert to the United States, if the Indians become extinct, or abandon the same.

And be it further enacted, That if, upon any of the lands now occupied by the Indians, and to be exchanged for, there should be such improvements as add value to the land claimed by any individual or individuals of such tribes or nations, it shall and may be lawful for the President to cause such value to be ascertained by appraisement or otherwise, and to cause such ascertained value to be paid to the person or persons rightfully claiming such improvements. And upon the payment of such valuation, the improvements so valued and paid for, shall pass to the United States, and possession shall not afterwards be permitted to any of the same tribe.

And be it further enacted, That upon the making of any such exchange as is contemplated by this act, it shall and may be lawful for the President to cause such aid and assistance to be furnished to the emigrants as may be necessary and proper to enable them to remove to, and settle in, the country for which they may have exchanged; and also, to give them such aid and assistance as may be necessary for their support and subsistence for the first year after their removal.

And be it further enacted, That it shall and may be lawful for the President to cause such tribe or nation to be protected, at their new residence, against all interruption or disturbance from any other tribe or nation of Indians, or from any other person or persons whatever.

And be it further enacted, That it shall and may be lawful for the President to have the same superintendence and care over any tribe or nation in the country to which they may remove, as contemplated by this act, that he is now authorized to have over them at their present places of residence: Provided, That nothing in this act contained shall be construed as authorizing or directing the violation of any existing treaty between the United States and any of the Indian tribes.

And be it further enacted, That for the purpose of giving effect to the Provisions of this act, the sum of five hundred thousand dollars is hereby appropriated, to be paid out of any money in the treasury, not otherwise appropriated.

Document 3: Majority Opinion of Chief Justice John Marshall, Cherokee Nation v. State of Georgia

Mr. Chief Justice Marshall delivered the opinion of the Court:

This bill is brought by the Cherokee Nation, praying an injunction to restrain the state of Georgia from the execution of certain laws of that state, which as is alleged, go directly to annihilate the Cherokees as a political society, and to seize, for the use of Georgia, the lands of the nation which have been assured to them by the United States in solemn treaties repeatedly made and still in force.

If courts were permitted to indulge their sympathies, a case better calculated to excite them can scarcely be imagined. A people once numerous, powerful, and truly independent, found by our ancestors in the quiet and uncontrolled possession of an ample domain, gradually sinking beneath our superior policy, our arts, and our arms, have yielded their lands by successive treaties, each of which contains a solemn guarantee of the residue, until they retain no more of their formerly extensive territory than is deemed necessary to their comfortable subsistence. To preserve this remnant the present application is made.

Before we can look into the merits of the case, a preliminary inquiry presents itself. Has this Court jurisdiction of the cause?

The 3rd Article of the Constitution describes the extent of the judicial power. The 2nd Section closes an enumeration of the cases to which it is extended, with controversies between a state or the citizens thereof, and foreign states, citizens, or subjects. A subsequent clause of the same section gives the Supreme Court original jurisdiction in all cases in which a state shall be a party. The party defendant may then unquestionably be sued in this Court. May the plaintiff sue in it? Is the Cherokee Nation a foreign state in the sense in which that term is used in the Constitution?

The counsel for the plaintiffs have maintained the affirmative of this proposition with great earnestness and ability. So much of the argument as was intended to prove the character of the Cherokees as a state, as a distinct political society separated from others, capable of managing its own affairs and governing itself, has, in the opinion of a majority of the judges, been completely successful. They have been uniformly treated as a state from the settlement of our country. The numerous treaties made with them by the United States recognize them as a people capable of maintaining the relations of peace and war, of being responsible in their political character for any violation of their engagements, or for any aggression committed on the citizens of the United States by any individual of their community. Laws have been enacted in the spirit of these treaties. The acts of our government plainly recognize the Cherokee Nation as a state, and the courts are bound by those acts.

A question of much more difficulty remains. Do the Cherokees constitute a foreign state in the sense of the Constitution?

The counsel have shown conclusively that they are not a state of the Union, and have insisted that individually they are aliens, not owing allegiance to the United States. An aggregate of aliens composing a state must, they say, be a foreign state. Each individual being foreign, the whole must be foreign.

This argument is imposing, but we must examine it more closely before we yield to it. The condition of the Indians in relation to the United States is perhaps unlike that of any other two people in existence. In the general, nations not owing a common allegiance are foreign to each other. The term foreign nation is, with strict propriety, applicable by either to the other. But the relation of the Indians to the United States is marked by peculiar and cardinal distinctions which exist nowhere else.

The Indian Territory is admitted to compose part of the United States. In all our maps, geographical treatises, histories, and laws, it is so considered. In all our intercourse with foreign nations, in our commercial regulations, in any attempt at intercourse between Indians and foreign nations, they are considered as within the jurisdictional limits of the United States, subject to many of those restraints which are imposed upon our own citizens. They acknowledge themselves in their treaties to be under the protection of the United States; they admit that the United States shall have the sole and exclusive right of regulating the trade with them and managing all their affairs as they think proper; and the Cherokees in particular were allowed by the Treaty of Hopewell, which preceded the Constitution, to send a deputy of their choice, whenever they think fit, to Congress. Treaties were made with some tribes by the state of New York under a then unsettled construction of the Confederation, by which they ceded all their lands to that state, taking back a limited grant to themselves in which they admit their dependence.

Though the Indians are acknowledged to have an unquestionable and, heretofore, unquestioned right to the lands they occupy until that right shall be extinguished by a voluntary cession to our government, yet it may well be doubted whether those tribes which reside within the acknowledged boundaries of the United States can, with strict accuracy, be denominated foreign nations. They may more correctly, perhaps, be denominated domestic dependent nations. They occupy a territory to which we assert a title independent of their will, which must take effect in point of possession when their right of possession ceases. Meanwhile, they are in a state of pupilage. Their relation to the United States resembles that of a ward to his guardian.

They look to our government for protection; rely upon its kindness and its power; appeal to it for relief to their wants; and address the President as their great father. They and their country are considered by foreign nations, as well as by ourselves, as being so completely under the sovereignty and dominion of the United States that any attempt to acquire their lands or to form a political connection with them would be considered by all as an invasion of our territory and an act of hostility.

These considerations go far to support the opinion that the framers of our Constitution had not the Indian tribes in view when they opened the courts of the Union to controversies between a state or the citizens thereof and foreign states.

In considering this subject, the habits and usages of the Indians in their intercourse with their white neighbors ought not to be entirely disregarded. At the time the Constitution was framed, the idea of appealing to an American court of justice for an assertion of right or a redress of wrong had perhaps never entered the mind of an Indian or of his tribe. Their appeal was to the tomahawk, or to the government. This was well understood by the statesmen who framed the Constitution of the United States, and might furnish some reason for omitting to enumerate them among the parties who might sue in the courts of the Union. Be this as it may, the peculiar relations between the United States and the Indians occupying our territory are such that we should feel much difficulty in considering them as designated by the term foreign state were there no other part of the Constitution which might shed light on the meaning of these words. But we think that in construing them, considerable aid is furnished by that clause in the 8th Section of the 3rd Article, which empowers Congress to regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several states, and with the Indian tribes.

In this clause they are as clearly contradistinguished by a name appropriate to themselves from foreign nations as from the several states composing the Union. They are designated by a distinct appellation; and as this appellation can be applied to neither of the others, neither can the appellation distinguishing either of the others be in fair construction applied to them. The objects to which the power of regulating commerce might be directed are divided into three distinct classes: foreign nations, the several states, and Indian tribes. When forming this article, the Convention considered them as entirely distinct. We cannot assume that the distinction was lost in framing a subsequent article, unless there be something in its language to authorize the assumption.

Foreign nations is a general term, the application of which to Indian tribes, when used in the American Constitution, is at best extremely questionable. In one article in which a power is given to be exercised in regard to foreign nations generally, and to the Indian tribes particularly, they are mentioned as separate in terms clearly contradistinguishing them from each other. We perceive plainly that the Constitution in this article does not comprehend Indian tribes in the general term foreign nations; not, we presume, because a tribe may not be a nation but because it is not foreign to the United States. When, afterward, the term foreign state is introduced, we cannot impute to the Convention the intention to desert its former meaning and to comprehend Indian tribes within it, unless the context force that construction on us. We find nothing in the context and nothing in the subject of the article which leads to it.

The Court has bestowed its best attention on this question and, after mature deliberation, the majority is of opinion that an Indian tribe or nation within the United States is not a foreign state in the sense of the Constitution, and cannot maintain an action in the courts of the United States.

A serious additional objection exists to the jurisdiction of the Court. Is the matter of the bill the proper subject for judicial inquiry and decision? It seeks to restrain a state from the forcible exercise of legislative power over a neighboring people, asserting their independence; their right to which the state denies. On several of the matters alleged in the bill, for example on the laws making it criminal to exercise the usual powers of self-government in their own country by the Cherokee Nation, this Court cannot interpose, at least in the form in which those matters are presented.

That part of the bill which respects the land occupied by the Indians, and prays the aid of the Court to protect their possession, may be more doubtful. The mere question of right might perhaps be decided by this Court in a proper case with proper parties. But the Court is asked to do more than decide on the title. The bill requires us to control the legislature of Georgia, and to restrain the exertion of its physical force. The propriety of such an interposition by the Court may be well questioned. It savors too much of the exercise of political power to be within the proper province of the Judicial Department But the opinion on the point respecting parties makes it unnecessary to decide this question.

If it be true that the Cherokee Nation have rights, this is not the tribunal in which those rights are to be asserted. If it be true that wrongs have been inflicted and that still greater are to be apprehended, this is not the tribunal which can redress the past or prevent the future.

The motion for an injunction is denied.

Document 3, Worcester v. Georgia

MARSHALL, C. J. This cause, in every point of view in which it can be placed, is of the deepest interest.

The defendant is a State, a member of the Union, which has exercised the powers of government over a people who deny its jurisdiction, and are under the protection of the United States.

The plaintiff is a citizen of the State of Vermont, condemned to hard labor for four years in the penitentiary of Georgia under color of an act which he alleges to be repugnant to the Constitution, laws, and treaties of the United States.

The legislative power of a State, the controlling power of the Constitution and laws of the United States, the rights, if they have any, the political existence of a once numerous and powerful people, the personal liberty of a citizen, all are involved in the subject now to be considered. . . .

We must inquire and decide whether the act of the Legislature of Georgia under which the plaintiff in error has been persecuted and condemned, be consisted with, or repugnant to the Constitution, laws and treaties of the United States.

It has been said at the bar that the acts of the Legislature of Georgia seize on the whole Cherokee country, parcel it out among the neighboring counties of the State, extend her code over the whole country, abolish its institutions and its laws, and annihilate its political existence.

If this be the general effect of the system, let us inquire into the effect of the particular statute and section on which the indictment is founded.

It enacts that "all white persons, residing within the limits of the Cherokee Nation on the 1st day of March next, or at any time thereafter, without a licence or permit from his excellency the governor . . . and who shall not have taken the oath hereinafter required, shall be quilty of a high misdemeanor, and upon conviction thereof, shall be punished by confinement to the penitentiary at hard labor for a term not less than four years." . . .

The extraterritorial power of every Legislature being limited in its action to its own citizens or subjects, the very passage of this act is an assertion of jurisdiction over the Cherokee Nation, and of the rights and powers consequent on jurisdiction.

The first step, then, in the inquiry which the Constitution and the laws impose on this court, is an examination of the rightfulness of this claim. . .

From the commencement of our government Congress has passed acts to regulate trade and intercourse with the Indians; which treat them as nations, respect their rights, and manifest a firm purpose to afford that protection which treaties stipulate. All these acts, and especially that of 1802, which is still in force, manifestly consider the several Indian nations as distinct political communities, having territorial boundaries, within which their authority is exclusive, and having a right to all the lands within those boundaries, which is not only acknowledged, but guaranteed by the United States. . . .

The Cherokee Nation, then, is a distinct community, occupying its own territory, with boundaries accurately described, in which the laws of Georgia can have no force, and which the citizens of Georgia have no right to enter but with the assent of the Cherokees themselves or in conformity with treaties and with the acts of Congress. The whole intercourse between the United States and this nation is, by our Constitution and laws, vested in the government of the United States.

The act of the State of Georgia under which the plaintiff in error was prosecuted is consequently void, and the judgement a nullity. . . . The Acts of Georgia are repugnant to the Constitution, laws, and treaties of the United States.

They interfere forcibly with the relations established between the United States and the Cherokee Nation, the regulation of which according to the settled principles of our Constitution, are committed exclusively to the government of the Union.

They are in direct hostility with treaties, repeated in a succession of years, which mark out the boundary that separates the Cherokee country from Georgia; guarantee to them all the land within their boundary; solemnly pledge the faith of the United States to restrain their citizens from trespassing on it; and recognize the pre-existing power of the nation to govern itself.

They are in equal hostility with the acts of Congress for regulating this intercourse, and giving effect to the treaties.

The forcible seizure and abduction of the plaintiff, who was residing in the nation with its permission, and by authority of the President of the United States, is also a violation of the acts which authorize the chief magistrate to exercise this authority. . . .

Judgement reversed.