confederacy; to issue the decree of a dictator, which time would prove whether he dared or could enforce; to attempt to intimidate the Whigs[1] of South Carolina by threats; and to encourage and foment insurrection and violence on the part of the internal enemies of the state. The State Rights men believed that the proclamation went the whole length of the doctrine of consolidation, not only assuming for the federal government the right to judge of its own powers, but arrogating this right to its full extent on behalf of the executive department. Accordingly, they greeted the document with indignation and defiance.
The Union men believed that their opponents were pouring their bitterness upon the chief magistrate because the proclamation had come like a thunderbolt to the leaders of their party. They had had no expectation that their manifesto
- ↑ The Nullifiers seem to have assumed the name of Whigs and applied that of Tories to the Union men. Duff Green, the editor of the Washington Telegraph, referred to James Blair, congressman from South Carolina, and his party as Tories, whereupon Blair made an assault upon Green and quite seriously disabled him (Niles' Register, December 29, 1832). The editor of the Mercury denounced Blair for his attack and tried to show that the use of the term "Tory" was justifiable, not merely in its qualified English sense, but in its worst American sense, when applied to any who would side with the general government against South Carolina (Mercury, January 1, 1833).
