Adventure | Science Fiction | Ghost stories | Poetry | Children | History BookOpen Original Text e extract following gives an example of his bold, fearless
eloquence, and his power in debate.
STATE SOVEREIGNTY AND LIBERTY.
(_From the Debate with Webster in the Senate, 1830._)
Sir, there have existed, in every age and in every country, two
distinct orders of men--the _lovers of freedom_ and the devoted
_advocates of power_.
The same great leading principles, modified only by the peculiarities
of manners, habits, and institutions, divided parties in the ancient
republics, animated the Whigs and Tories of Great Britain,
distinguished in our own times the Liberals and Ultras of France, and
may be traced even in the bloody struggles of unhappy Spain. Sir, when
the gallant Riego, who devoted himself and all that he possessed to
the liberties of his country, was dragged to the scaffold, followed by
the tears and lamentations of every lover of freedom throughout the
world, he perished amid the deafening cries of "Long live the absolute
King!" The people whom I represent, Mr. President, are the descendants
of those who brought with them to this country, as the most precious
of their possessions, "an ardent love of liberty"; and while that
shall be preserved, they will always be found manfully struggling
against the consolidation of the Government as the worst of
evils. . . . . .
The Senator from Massachusetts, in denouncing what he is pleased to
call the Carolina doctrine, has attempted to throw ridicule upon the
idea that a State has any constitutional remedy, by the exercise of
its sovereign authority, against "a gross, palpable, and deliberate
violation of the Constitution." He calls it "an idle" or "a ridiculous
notion," or something to that effect, and added, that it would make
the Union a "mere rope of sand." Now, sir, as the gentleman has not
condescended to enter into any examination of the question, and has
been satisfied with throwing the weight of his authority into the
scale, I do not deem it necessary to do more than to throw into the
opposite scale the authority on which South Carolina relies; and
there, for the present, I am perfectly willing to leave the
controversy. . . . . . . .
. . . The doctrine that it is the right of a State to judge of the
violations of the Constitution on the part of the Federal Government,
and to protect her citizens from the operations of unconstitutional
laws, was held by the enlightened citizens of Boston, who assembled
in Faneuil Hall, on the 25th of January, 1809. They state, in that
celebrated memorial, that "they looked only to the State Legislature,
which was competent to devise relief against the unconstitutional acts
of the General Government. That your power (say they) is adequate to
that object, is evident from the organization of the confederacy."
. . . .
[Illustration: ~University of North Carolina.~]
Thus it will be seen, Mr. President, that the South Carolina doctrine
is the Republican doctrine of '98,--that it was promulgated by the
fathers of the faith,--that it was maintained by Virginia and Kentucky
in the worst of times,--that it constituted the very pivot on which
the political revolution of that day turned,--that it embraces the
very principles, the triumph of which, at that time, saved the
Constitution "at its last gasp," and which New England statesmen were
not unwilling to adopt when they believed themselves to be the victims
of unconstitutional legislation. Sir, as to the doctrine that the
Federal Government is the exclusive judge of the extent as well as the
limitations of its power, it seems to me to be utterly perversive of
the sovereignty and independence of the States. It makes but little
difference, in my estimation, whether Congress or the Supreme Court
are invested with this power. If the Federal Government, in all, or
any, of its departments, is to prescribe the limits of its own
authority, and the States are bound to submit to the decision, and are
not to be allowed to examine and decide when the barriers of the
Constitution shall be overleaped, this is practically, "a government
without limitation of powers." The States are at once reduced to mere
petty corporations, and the people are entirely at your mercy. I have
but one word more to add. In all the efforts that have been made by
South Carolina to resist the unconstitutional laws which Congress has
extended over her, she has kept steadily in view the preservation of
the Union, by the only means by which she believes it can be long
preserved--a firm, manly, and steady resistance against
usurpation. . . . Sir, if, acting on these high motives,--if, animated
by that ardent love of liberty, which has always been the most
prominent trait in the Southern character, we should be hurried beyond
the bounds of a cold and calculating prudence; who is there, with one
noble and generous sentiment in his bosom, who would not be disposed,
in the language of Burke, to exclaim, "You must pardon something to
the spirit of liberty"?
SAM HOUSTON.
~1793=1863.~
GENERAL SAM HOUSTON, first President of Texas, was born in Rockbridge
County, Virginia, but his widowed mother removed in his childhood to
Tennessee and settled near the Cherokee Country. Here he was much with
the Indians and was adopted by a chief named Oolooteka, who called him
Coloneh (the Rover).
In 1813 he became a soldier in the Creek war and was almost fatally
wounded at the battle of Tohopeka, or Horse-shoe Bend, Alabama. In
1818 he decided to study law and went to Nashville, where he became
quite successful as a lawyer and soon received political honors, being
elected member of Congress in 1823 and governor of Tennessee in 1827.
In 1829 he left Tennessee for the West, spent three years in Arkansas
among the Cherokees who had emigrated thither, his old friend
Oolooteka being one of them; and in 1832 went to Texas, with which
State his after life is connected. He was made Commander-in-Chief of
the Texan forces in the struggle for independence against Mexico, and
by the battle of San Jacinto, 1836, he put an end to the war, and in
the same year he was elected first President of the Republic of Texas.
He was elected again in 1841 after Lamar's administration; and when in
1845 Texas became a State in the Union, he entered the United States
Senate where he served until 1859. He was governor of Texas from 1859
to 1861 and then retired to private life. He is buried at Huntsville.
He was ever a warm friend to the Indians; he was opposed to secession,
and took little interest and no part in the Confederate war, except by
allowing his oldest son to enter its service.
His life by Rev. Wm. Carey Crane, President of Baylor University,
gives a graphic account of a most interesting and independent
character; and it contains also his literary remains, consisting of
_State Papers_, _Indian Talks_, _Letters_, and _Speeches_.
CAUSE OF THE TEXAN WAR OF INDEPENDENCE.
(_From a Letter to Santa Anna, 1842._)
The people of Texas were invited to migrate to this country for the
purpose of enjoying equal ri Previous Next |