Page:Nullification Controversy in South Carolina.djvu/363

From Wikisource
Jump to navigation Jump to search
This page has been proofread, but needs to be validated.
344
Nullification Controversy in South Carolina

butcher knives, and battle-axes to resist by violence the decision of the court, should it be adverse to their wishes. Surely they could not pretend that all this preparation was merely for the purpose of defense, said their accusers.[1] That was, however, distinctly the purpose alleged by the Unionsts; they wished to guard against an attempt of the Nullification party to enforce the oath in spite of an adverse decision. They justified the contemplation of such a possibility by the fact that the Nullification officers were enforcing the military oath while its constitutionality was still pending before the court of appeals.[2]

After the decision of the court was announced and the Nullifiers had decided to abide by it and await the result of the next election, they frequently praised themselves for their moderation and forbearance. Necessity, however, probably more than anything else, dictated the adoption of this policy. Many who thought that Robert Cunningham "should have been made a head shorter," asked, "Why have we not an act against treason?" and declared that it "should have been

  1. Messenger, May 21, 28, June 25, 1834.
  2. Patriot, May 19, 22, 1834; Courier, May 23, 24.