The Continental Monthly, Vol. 3 No 2, February 1863: Devoted To Literature And National PolicyVarious
History
The Continental Monthly, Vol. 3 No 2, February 1863: Devoted To Literature And National Policy
Various
Literature, Modern -- 19th century -- Periodicals; United States -- Politics and government -- 19th century -- Periodicals
scission of the Union,' in any event; and the ordinance of South
Carolina would have received his unqualified abhorrence. But, if we are
asked to surrender the principles which alone can preserve the Union, on
the assumed authority of Mr. Jefferson and Mr. Madison, of Kentucky and
of Virginia--why do not the advocates of nullification tell us that Mr.
Jefferson, in 1821, as appears by his printed memoirs, emphatically
denied the right of a State to _veto_ an act of Congress; and Mr.
Madison, a surviving founder of the Constitution, and framer of the
Virginia resolutions, unequivocally denounces the doctrine of
nullification? And are they not safer guides than Messrs. McDuffie,
Calhoun, and Hamilton, the former of whom wrote and published in 1821,
and the latter deliberately sanctioned, in a laudatory preface, a series
of essays, denouncing this very doctrine of nullification as the
'_climax_ of political heresies'? Why do not those who would look to
Kentucky and Virginia as the only safe expositors of the Constitution
inform us also, that the great and patriotic commonwealth of Kentucky is
indignantly repelling the charge that nullification ever was sustained
by her authority? Why do they not point to the unanimous resolution of
the Virginia Legislature in 1810, declaring in the very case of a
nullification, by a law of Pennsylvania, of a power of the General
Government, that the Supreme Court of the Union is the tribunal,
'already provided by the Constitution of the United States, to decide
disputes between the State and Federal' authorities?' (See 'Sup. Rev.
Code of Virginia,' page 150.) These resolutions, directly affirming the
supremacy of the judgment of the Supreme Court of the Union over the
laws and judgment of a State, were adopted by Virginia within a few
months after the promulgation by that tribunal of its decree enforcing
the authority of the Union against the nullifying edict of a sovereign
State. Virginia did more: she not only affirmed the power of this
tribunal, and sanctioned its decree, but spoke of it in terms of the
highest eulogy, and scouted indignantly the proposition of Pennsylvania
to vest the right of deciding questions of disputed power and
sovereignty in some other tribunal than the Supreme Court of the Union.
The same proposition was treated with the open or silent contempt of
every State in the Union, South Carolina among the number; and
Pennsylvania receded, though she had passed a law commanding the
Governor of the State to prevent by an armed force the execution of the
process emanating under the authority of the Constitution of the
Union--though she placed her act upon the same ground as Carolina, that
the power exercised in that case had never been granted by the
Constitution to any department of the General Government. Thus ended
nullification in the keystone of the arch of the Union. That State,
which has ever sustained the Democracy of the South, in the election of
Public-domain text, read in full here on John Shaqi.
Reviews
Reviews
No reviews yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this work.
Elsewhere in the archive
Join the Discussion
Join the discussion
Sign in to leave a comment or review.
Sign InorCreate an account