Page:Nullification Controversy in South Carolina.djvu/359

From Wikisource
Jump to navigation Jump to search
This page has been proofread, but needs to be validated.
340
Nullification Controversy in South Carolina

be considered as having erred in not giving vent to the indignant feelings of the party, by an immediate call of the legislature, the blame can be thrown upon him without impairing the spirit of the party, who will know that he goes out of office in December next, and even if he were so disposed could present no further obstacle in their way."[1]

During the remainder of the summer the Union papers criticized the dissenting opinion of Judge Harper and defended the opinions of Judges O'Neall and Johnson, while the Nullification papers were just as ready to denounce the latter and defend the former."[2] This led to several series of articles on theories of sovereignty, allegiance, and obedience, all of which were part of the campaign of education for the fall elections.[3]

  1. Hammond Papers: Hayne to Hammond, June 12, 1834.
  2. Mercury, June 30, July 1, 1834; Patriot, June 30.
  3. One of these Union arguments appeared in the Patriot, July 24, 1834: "The Mercury has been for some days past elaborating several essays into a tissue of abstract reasonings, to prove that practical is not ultimate sovereignty—in other words, that the government of a state is carried on by agents who merely exercise the power of the people. Why, this might be granted, and much more, without bringing the editor any nearer to his final inference, that the judges may not set aside the unconstitutional proceedings of a legislature or convention. Judge O'Neall does not deny the right of the people