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
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
If this doctrine had been
established at an earlier day, the
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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.
ANDREW JACKSON.
By the President
EDW. LIVINGSTON, Secretary
of State.