Phenix gazette. [volume] (Alexandria [D.C.]) 1825-1833, 1833-09-11
ALEXANDRIA GAZETTE.
PrBLISuED AND EDITED I
PUBLISHED EDITED BIT
EDGAR SNOWDEN,
FAIRFAX ST., OPPOSITE THE POST OFFICE.

FAIRFAX ST., OPPOSITE THE POST OFFICE.
MASSACHUSETTS IN 1909, AND SOUTH CARO-
LIMA IN Isss-EMBAReo LAW AND Force
BILL-NuLLIFIcATloN-
To the Editors of the Lynchbwg Tirginian.
The Editor of the Richmond Wing. in his pa
ne r of the Esd ut., in reply to "Germanicus,
in the Virsinian of the 18TH OF the same month";
insists that there is no parallel between the cases
of south Carolina and New England, and as
serts " that the man who contends that the case
of South Carolina is parallel to that OF New Eng
land during the embargo, has no d'see'"me"" e'-
Their TO be pited or admired"
Its nv purpose to maintain, in a few remarks,
the position which | took.-that so tar as the
principles and objects of the action OF Congress
unon both cases we're concerned, the cases are
identjca,-wi,hout regard to any harsh renec:
tions which the Editor of the Wing may have
cast upon me, and without discussing with him
INV claims to discernment or sincerity. Any
remark Of his cannot supply the want OF either,
if do not possess them, nor can II take either
from me II do.
In every movement made BY New England IN
opposition TO the embargo, she was initiated by
South Carolina in opposition TO the tariff laws
In New England, the embargo was denounced
as unconstitutional and oppressive; hrst, IN town
meetings, then m county meetings, and next oy
her State Legislatures in ConSress-South Caro-
lima pursued the same course IN opposition to the
tariff. In town and county meetings the tar'ff
was denounced as unconstitutional aud Cypress
ive, her State Legislature also denounced II,
and SO did her representatives, IN Congress -
This denuRciaton, through so many channels IN
tha
GREAT majority of its citiZens-a majority equal
10. if not greater than that of South Carolina,
which denounced the tariff and threatened to re.
sist il. No man, who recoects, or will read,
the history of the embargo times, can doubt that
opoosi,iop to the nnnintercouIse system was al.
most unanimous in New England. Were not
her representatives in her State Legislatures and
in Congress, almost unanimous in their "ppos'
tionp Were not her State Governors elected
also by the people, determined, and even me-
naciny. in their opposition? How could 1t be
otherwise than that the great body OF the people
sustained tins opposition on the part oil their pub
lie servants, when thew signfed their approba.
ton of their course in their repeated elections!
But as those who were actors IN those scenes
were better informed upon this subject than ell
Their the Editor Of the Wing or myself, and can
afford more certain information as to the extent
New England. will here quote passage from
the speech of James 4. Bavard. in the Senate OF
the United States. on the 18th February, 1909,
on the resolution to repeal the embargo
Speaking of the discontents in New Eng
land, he says" We all know that the op-
position to the embargo is not that OF poli
tica! pariy, or Of fev discontinued men. bnt
the resistance of THE PEOPLE to a measure
which they feel as oppressive and regard as r."
inous" This is not the declaration o! New
England man. but of disnterested statesman
one who, although a federalist, stood hish IN the
confidence of his country. Add to this test'mo
nv that of the repeated declarations OF the New
England representation in Congress; aud the
most incredulous cannot doubt that the discon.
tents in New England were almost CO extensive
with ITS population. Indeed. it could not well
have been otherwise; for the decterious Intlu
ence of the embargo upon the commerce and
prosperity of New England was we'll calculated
to produce general discomfort and opposition, be-
cause its bshtny effects were general. Thus
far New England acted. But in addition to
these acts, she, through the same channels,
threatened resistance, and, If all other means
proved Intellectual. secession from the Union.-
Thus, also, did South Carolina act: and to this
point the cases are parallel. South Carolina,
however, did not stop here. She organized re-
sistance to the tariff laws, by the acts OF her
convention; she declared that the tariff laws
should not be executed within her borders; she
resisted the authority Of the federal judiciary,
by her replevn law; and she took up arms to
maintain her position. In this aspect, and in
this only, is her case different from that of New
England; and the question is, does this differ
epce make the action of the last Congress, in
relation to her, unjust and unconstitutional,
while the action of Congress in 1909. IN relation
to New England, was just proper and constitu-
tlonal! That is, was it most right and proper.
and within the pale Of the constitution. to pro
vide the means of suppressing unorganized
threatened resistance, or organized actual re-
sisiance?
The Editor of the Wing maintains that the op'
position to the embargo. in New England, was
factious, insurrectionary. and mo6ocrafic. and
not the ae, Of the majority OF the people, so TAR
as ,ras knorn. have shewn, think sat>facto
riy that this is not true in point OF fact; but that
as far as ascertained. these acts of opposition