ng
against the consolidation of the Government as the worst of
evils. . . . . .

The Senator from Massachusetts, in denouncing what he is pleased to
call the Carolina doctrine, has attempted to throw ridicule upon the
idea that a State has any constitutional remedy, by the exercise of
its sovereign authority, against "a gross, palpable, and deliberate
violation of the Constitution." He calls it "an idle" or "a ridiculous
notion," or something to that effect, and added, that it would make
the Union a "mere rope of sand." Now, sir, as the gentleman has not
condescended to enter into any examination of the question, and has
been satisfied with throwing the weight of his authority into the
scale, I do not deem it necessary to do more than to throw into the
opposite scale the authority on which South Carolina relies; and
there, for the present, I am perfectly willing to leave the
controversy. . . . . . . .

. . . The doctrine that it is the right of a State to judge of the
violations of the Constitution on the part of the Federal Government,
and to protect her citizens from the operations of unconstitutional
laws, was held by the enlightened citizens of Boston, who assembled
in Faneuil Hall, on the 25th of January, 1809. They state, in that
celebrated memorial, that "they looked only to the State Legislature,
which was competent to devise relief against the unconstitutional acts
of the General Government. That your power (say they) is adequate to
that object, is evident from the organization of the confederacy."
. . . .

[Illustration: ~University of North Carolina.~]

Thus it will be seen, Mr. President, that the South Carolina doctrine
is the Republican doctrine of '98,--that it was promulgated by the
fathers of the faith,--that it was maintained by Virginia and Kentucky
in the worst of times,--that it constituted the very pivot on which
the political revolution of that day turned,--that it embraces the
very principles, the triumph of which, at that time, saved the
Constitution "at its last gasp," and which New England statesmen were
not unwilling to adopt when they believed themselves to be the victims
of unconstitutional legislation. Sir, as to the doctrine that the
Federal Government is the exclusive judge of the extent as well as the
limitations of its power, it seems to me to be utterly perversive of
the sovereignty and independence of the States. It makes but little
difference, in my estimation, whether Congres