Richmond enquirer. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1815-1867, 1833-07-30
THE POLICY OF NULLIFICATIoN.

THE POLICY OF MULTIPLICATION.
The Georgia "Southern Banner calls upon the
Troup party to support Major Joel Crawford as the
next Governor In the course ofts remarks, il pre-
senis the beauties of Constitutional Modification in
the following striking point of view. The Banner
argues, that it can only be regarded as reroton-
airy remedy-and reprobates the South Carolina doc
trine of its being peaceful, constitutional neasmpi
NAL Crawford may go with you the full extent
oil the South Carolina doctrines IL may loo, upon then
Gas do thousands of others of the pary) dangerous
heresy, because, il successful they would set cosfif.
onot example the States to declare any aud every law
oil the General Government null aud void which might
conflict with their interests. He may, with Troup, say
that "thc ballot box is the only remedy
unconstitutional laws-yet, our lives upon it, he will be
ready Tronp was p 1925 utcrposc the sovereignty
ofthe State should necessity require it, in the defence OF
its legitimate rights Yes he would act under the same
circumstances, Troup did; but he would not deceive the
people by calling renedy he would place
1t OH the high ground of natural rghthe right resist
any and every hazard tyranny and oppression! Place null
LITIGATION on this elevated ground aud we are all Nuifers
high and commanding position but that will not
aud ought not to be assumed by State only i'm the last
resort Claim Tor the protecting shield of the Const-
tuon, and in this way make il n successful ceen and
what would be the result? Why, every law, whether
constitutional or UNCONSTITUTIONAL passed by the General
government, that might conflict with the interest OF
any State, could be resisted. And why, Because they
would claim the right OF judging for themselves and
resisting such laws under guaranty OF the Constitution
Claiming the right under tho Constitution, what would
restrain the States from the exercise of il at pleasure
anu Judging for themscves,) from resisting the most
legitimate and wholesome laws OF the General Govern
ment They would hazard nothing in doing so-
But the extra constitutional right claimed by Troup of
resisting at all hazards tyranny and right no
one can doubt-presen,s none of those difficulties for
state before assuming this right would be aware of the
magnitude OF the responsibilities she about TO incur
anu never would incur them unless her wrongs were in
suferabe-the very hazard of the position would ALWAYS
conhne her action TO the resistance OF laws plainly and
palpaby unconstuionalbu give the States this RIGHT
under 'he Constitution and there would be nothing to
control or check them in the exercise OF it, The Govern.
mont would be dissolved. to all n,ens and purposes
These the old doctrines of the Troup Partv-tbev
are the doctrines OF Jefferson and Madison and we might
hazard the assertion that they the doctrines of Mai
Crawford"
What, indeed, would be the situation Of this coun
try, If 1t were constuonally competent for each of
the II States to nullify its pleasure any law of
Congress? Our Union, if factious men will permit
1t to last as long, may embrace hereafter 80 States
Each OF these is entitled the same rights as the
others-the smallest well as the largest-Dela-
ware and Rhode Island as well as NJ York, Penn
syivania or ). Carolina. How long could the IT, s.
ENJOY tranquility, or the Union withstand these re-
peated shocks, from each OF thirty States?
The Southern Banner also alludes to the wrath il
had experienced from two extreme parties-the ul-
ira Nufers of Georgia on the one hand and the
ultra tederallsts OF the Clark party, on the other
Dut taxes some consolation TO itself in the example
oil the patriot OConnell: He is abused by the
high tory party on the hand, for his zeal in the
cause OF free principles, and by the ultra dsorra,,i
GERS ON the other, for his zeal in putting down rebel
lion and blood-shed."
Another word on this subject
CAsE-NoT MADE QUIT
The Charleston Evening Post asks On Which
side is Liberty most safe?"-" Which is most dan
gerous to liberty the enforcing power thus claimed
Tor the government in all cases. or the resisting pow
er claimed for the State against what it conceives to
be usurpation?"
But this issue is not fairly made up. The true is
sue is thlsEWhIchis most dangerous to Liberty and
which any State in the Union may pronounce to he
an usurpaon, even while the State processes to
remain In the Union-or, to make an appeal first
to the understanding of all the States; and in case
OF It's failure, to the interest of all the aggreved
States for the best means of proceeding-and
IN case the usurpation becomes too grinding to be
borne by freemen, and after every amicable remedy
has been exhausted, by the oppressed State, then
upon due notice, to resume the powers which were
granted to the confederacy-and to withdraw from
the Union? This is the true question at issue. And
not all the Nulliers in the world can disguise their
doctrnes by any metaphysics about the Constitution
iise or by any sophstry about the policy of Multi
fication.