Virginians were not alone in their criticism of the doctrines contained in the proclamation. Some men of other states, most of them in sympathy with the President, believed that the document would have been a better one without the "speculative arguments and fallacious opinions about the origin of the confederation." C. C. Cambreleng, of New York, wrote from Washington:
We have those here who are now and then Republicans from policy but not one in principle—except the chief of all. This will account to you for the broad errors in doctrine on some of the fundamental principles of the Constitution, which ornament the proclamation, and call forth the unbounded approbation of every ultra federalist....It was a glorious opportunity to reach every man in the nation but a nullifier....[and]....had the proclamation been as empty and inflated as a balloon, sentiment would have carried it through the Union with applause.
A "general and happy effect" might have been made "universal" "had the metaphysics of the Montesquieu of the cabinet been cut out of it."[1]
- ↑ Van Buren Papers: C. C. Cambreleng to Van Buren, December 18, 1832. In another letter between December 10 and 18 Cambreleng said: "Luckily the people do not see what lawyers do; they don't care how the Union was formed nor are they anxious to be instructed how a state can get out of it—they have more sense than the bar." See also Van Buren to Jackson, December 27. The "Montesquieu of the cabinet" was probably Edward Livingston, Secretary of State.
