Obrázky stránek
PDF
ePub

CHAPTER XXXV.

ANOTHER ALLEGED ATTEMPT TO DIVIDE THE UNION.

Almost simultaneously with the Giles and Adams controversy, and the publication of the letter of Mr. Jefferson and Mr. Adams' own statement in relation to the alleged designs of disunion, and the establishment of a northern confederacy, an “important development” was announced in the southern papers disclosing the incipient steps to have been taken by leading southerners in an abortive attempt to sever their political connection with the government.

In October succeeding the passage of the tariff of 1828, which produced such excitement at the south, a writer, under the signature of “Union," in a South Carolina paper, propounded to the members of congress from that state, the following questions, which, he stated, " if answered in the negative, might have a tendency to change the opinions of at least a portion of the people of the state as respected the nature of the opposition to the tariff, inculcated by a few of the Jacksonites of South Carolina.”

“ 1st. Was there not a meeting of the delegation of this state held in Washington city, in the house of one of our senators, a few nights after the passage of this tariff law, the object of which was (as it was said) to consult upon measures best to be adopted and pursued as it regards this law ?

“ 2d. At this meeting, were there not one or more members deputed to wait upon and consult with the respective delegations from the southern states, and to obtain, if possible, their coöperation ? Did this deputation not undertake the mission, and totally fail in the object for which it was appointed? If it did, was it not then proposed by one or more leading members of the assembly, that the whole of the members assembled should immediately abandon their seats in congress, return home, and thereby end all further political connection with the government ?

"3d. Was this proposition not abandoned by the meeting, in consequence of one or more of the prudent members objecting to take upon themselves the burden of the great responsibility, which would have been the consequence of such a step ?

“Lastly. Was the night consultation not ended by a majority of the members finally determining, that, although they would await the adjournment of congress, yet that, upon their arrival home, they would

[ocr errors]

each visit their constituents generally, and among them make every effort to inculcate such doctrines and principles as would induce the people of the states to agree to and advocate a separation of the states ?”

To the allegations implied in these interrogatories, Mr. Hayne, the senator in whose house the meeting was said to have been held, made a positive denial. He said in his reply: “It is true, that, during the last session of congress, consultations were held among the members of the South Carolina delegation on the subject of the tariff. Such consultations have, as I believe, been usual in all cases affecting, in a peculiar degree, the interests of particular states; and the members of this state would, in my opinion, have been wanting in their duty if they had not most earnestly and anxiously taken into consideration, on the passage of the tariff law, whether any thing remained to be done by them in their representative capacity in relation to that matter. Such, I aver, was the sole object of a meeting held at my house in Washington, immediately after the passage of that law-a meeting rendered indispensably necessary, by a question which had been discussed among some of the southern members, (but which I think did not originate with any member of our delegation,) viz: whether a protest against the law, to be signed by all the members from the anti-tariff states, to be entered on the journals of the two houses of congress, and transmitted to the executives of the several states, might not be an expedient measure. The subject of such a protest was fully discussed without being brought to any conclusion, further than that a free interchange of opinions in relation to it should take place among the representatives of the antitariff states; the final result of which was the abandonment of the scheme by common consent, as one not only of doubtful policy, but concerning which there existed too great a difference of opinion to justify its adoption."

On reading this denial on the part of Mr. Hayne, Thomas R. Mitchell, a representative from the same state, who had made to some of his confidential constituents, statements in respect to the meeting referred to, which were impugned by the letter of Mr. Hayne, replied to the same, substantially confirming the implied allegations of the writer above mentioned. Addressing Mr. Hayne directly he says:

“And will you deny, sir, that, after all the southern delegations except Georgia had positively refused to unite with us in such a protest as was thought effectual by you and others, that a proposition was made by one of your members, that we should formally secede from congress, return home, and say to our constituents, that our services were no longer of any use ? That when this proposition was made, it was immediately opposed by Col. Drayton, who at once declared that he would

[ocr errors]

not concur, as the act thus performed would be unconstitutional, and would not be sanctioned by his constituents ? I can not, sir, be mistaken in this statement. The proposition excited feelings too strong to be forgotten. I thought if it were adopted, that I should be placed in the most trying of all situations. To remain alone at Washington, in opposition to the views of the whole delegation, would be assuming a fearful responsibility; to shrink from that responsibility, and yield to their views in opposition to my own, would be contemptible weakness. Besides, what was to result from it? What was to be the fate of the people whom we represented ? Imagination shuddered at the prospect. These were my feelings—these were the ideas which the proposition called forth. And I have never in my life been more relieved than when it was immediately put down by Col. Drayton.

“ Again, sir, will you deny that a proposition was made, that we should, on our return home, communicate by letter, or otherwise, with the principal men of our respective districts, on the subject of the tariff; explain to them the fatal effects on their trade and agriculture; and its aggression on the sovereignty of the state? Further, that it was proposed, that we should, during the summer, communicate to each other, by letter, the state of feeling which we discovered in our respective districts? And finally, that the delegation should meet at Columbia in October or November, for the purpose of devising and maturing some plan of action for the state governments ? Do you not remember that one gentleman (Mr. M’Duffie,) did say, that, in his opinion, there was no other remedy for the evil than a separation of the state from the union; that temporizing measures would prove unavailing; and that he, himself, was prepared to go all lengths ? And when it was remarked that his constituents might not approve such a measure, did he not reply with an exclamation, that he would not then represent them ? that he considered his services in congress as an obligation conferred on them; and that, whenever they failed to support his great views on the affairs of the union, he would abandon them? To this, did you not reply, that others were as ready to make sacrifices as he could be ?

Further, when it was observed, that Mr. M'Duffie's plan was ill-advised, because the United States' government would force the state to submission, (she, single-handed, not having the power to resist,) did you not ask, where were the means of the general government to coerce the state ? That the standing army was no more than a handful of mennothing could be feared from it? That, with regard to the militia, no southern militia, if called out by the president, would take arms against our people; and that the northern militia would not be permitted by Virginia and North Carolina to pass through their territories for the

5

purpose of subjecting South Carolina ? Finally, after all attempts to obtain a coöperation of the southern delegations had 'failed—after one of our most influential members (Mr. Senator Smith) had peremptorily refused to attend, and unanimity was not found to exist even among those who were present, was it not then that you proposed to abandon all the foregoing plans, lest any increase of excitement in South Carolina might prove injurious to the election of Gen. Jackson ?

“ On the. adjournment of the meeting, I called on senator Smith, related what had transpired, and remarked, that the delegation had been saved by the wisdom and firmness of Col. Drayton. With regard to the views of yourself and others, I could say nothing. Having never respected either the principles or course of the Calhoun party, I was not in your confidence, and was therefore left to mere conjecture as to what your motives were, and what your ulterior projects might be. In this public development I have not volunteered; you have forced me to it."

To this Col. Hayne rejoined in an attempt to disprove the statement of Mr. Mitchell, and introduced as testimony letters of several of the members of that state. It was, however, admitted and proved, that the question was discussed of presenting to the house a protest from the delegations of the anti-tariff states: That it was proposed, that, when the delegates went home, they should by letter communicate to each other the feelings and sentiments of the people within their districts upon the subject of the tariff; and that they should endeavor to prevent the expression of public opinion on this subject until after the election : That the delegation should assemble at Columbia, at the commencement of the session of the legislature, to give to the members of that body any information respecting the tariff that might be desired: That Maj. Hamilton declared his purpose to go home, surrender his commission, and not return to congress, unless directed by his constituents; from which purpose he was dissuaded by Col. Drayton: That the effects of a dissolution of the union were discussed: That Maj. Hamilton said, if South Carolina should be driven from the union by the restrictive policy, the government could not enforce it; as the regular army was too small to create apprehensions, and Virginia and North Carolina .would never permit northern militia to pass through their territories to reduce South Carolina to subjection.

Although the testimony adduced by Col. Hayne, if correct, acquits the accused of the worst designs imputed to them ; yet, from the facts admitted, it was easy and natural for Mr. Mitchell to infer all he charged upon them; and the more so from their having been, as Maj. Hamilton confessed, " under a very high degree of excitement at this new act of

injustice." Only a few years after, the right of secession and of nullification was the current and almost universal doctrine in South Carolina, in which these gentlemen, it is presumed, all concurred, and of which they determined to give a practical exemplification by a forcible resistance to the laws of the union.

CHAPTER XXXVI.

RISE AND PROGRESS OF THE ANTI-MASONIC PARTY.

[ocr errors]

Tv September, 1826, an event occurred which gave rise to a new political party. William Morgan, of Batavia, Genesee county, New York, having written for publication a work alleged to contain a disclosure of the secrets of free-masonry, and which was about to be issued from the press of David C. Miller, was apprehended under color of a criminal process, and conveyed to Canandaigua, in the county of Ontario, where, upon examination before a magistrate, he was discharged. He was subsequently arrested, on the same day, upon a demand against him; a judgment was obtained; and he was confined in the jail of the county. On the evening of the 12th of September, persons who had been concerned in his seizure and confinement, discharged the debt, and caused his liberation. On leaving the jail, he was forcibly taken, carried in a close carriage to the Niagara frontier, where he was last seen.

Several persons concerned in the outrage upon Morgan were arrested, and indicted, pleaded guilty to the indictments, and were imprisoned in the county jail at Canandaigua. A great excitement soon prevailed throughout the western part of the state.

At the next session of the legislature, petitions relating to the abduction of Morgan were presented, and referred to a select committee of the assembly; and a reward of $1,000 was offered by Gov. Clinton for the discovery of Morgan, if alive; and if murdered, $2,000 for the discovery of the offender or offenders; and a free pardon to any accomplice or cooperator who should make the discovery.

The committee of the legislature stated in their report, that the petitions set forth, that, after an examination before the magistrate at Canandaigua, Morgan was discharged. He was again immediately arrested upon a demand against him, and a judgment obtained, on which he was imprisoned in the county jail at that place. His friends discharged the debt on which he had been committed, and he was liberated.

a

« PředchozíPokračovat »