248
Nullification Controversy in South Carolina
parts of the ordinance, they would feel bound to answer the call to resistance, issued by an "intolerable oppression," and should they be forced to draw the sword, it would be wielded in defense of the Union.[1]
The President's proclamation proved a conundrum to the State Rights men in many ways. Some believed that it would overawe many of the less ardent in the state, and they therefore made much of Governor Hayne's counter-proclamation.[2] Many doubted that Jackson had
- ↑ Courier, December 21, 1832; Mountaineer, December 22. Perry Collection. Vol. IX, "Report of the Union Convention with Their Remonstrance and Protest"; Perry Collection, Vol. IX, letter to the Union party of South Carolina, by Randell Hunt, January 2, 1833. That the Union men were greatly stirred by the test oath was abundantly testified by such utterances as the following hy Thomas Grimké: "As though in mockery of the very name of judge and trial and jury as hitherto understood, they have bound the judge and jury to disregard the constitutions, law, and evidence, and to decide according to a fixed paramount rule. I envy not the judge or juryman who is fit to be their instrument. Were I a judge or juryman, before I would pollute my soul and defile my lips with such an oath, this right hand should be struck off as a cockade for the cap of a dictator, or a sign-board to point the way to the gibbett" (Gazette, December 15, 1832).
- ↑ James O. Hanlon wrote from Columbia to Jackson, on December 20, 1832ː "I find much excitement among the Nullies both in and out of the legislature. Your able and patriotic proclamation has almost given some of the Cholera, and it would not show well for them to let it pass in silence" (Jackson Papers).
