Page:Nullification Controversy in South Carolina.djvu/314

From Wikisource
Jump to navigation Jump to search
This page has been proofread, but needs to be validated.
The Compromise Tariff and the Force Bill
295

of the Union and therefore would not be well attended, the Union central committee, composed of Joel R. Poinsett, James L. Petigru, Daniel E. Huger, Richard I. Manning, and Robert Cunningham, postponed the Union convention indefinitely, to be called in case of "new acts of tyranny by the dominant party."[1] The fact, however, that this Union convention had been contemplated for the purpose of opposing the Nullifiers in case they should determine in the state convention to push their remedy farther, had much to do with the bitter feeling evinced in the state convention against the Union party.

The repeal of the ordinance of nullification virtually settled the question of South Carolina's federal relations. There were some grumblings against the tariff during the rest of the year, but in general the main interest of politics centered in the local quarrel between the two parties over the test oath. This controversy appeared even before the convention met and was soon recognized as hinging upon a difference of interpretation as to where paramount allegiance was due.

  1. Poinsett Papers: Chapman Levy to Poinsett, February 25, 1833. Patriot, March 11, 1833.