“It was the best of times, it was the worst of times” once wrote distinguished British author Charles Dickens in his book Tale of Two Cities. Although the quote is part of a description of the times in France and Britain shortly before and after the French Revolution, this quote could also apply the period of American history between the War of 1812 and the Civil War. Shortly following the War of 1812, due to the victory of the Democratic Party in extinguishing the Federalist Party, some began to feel this time period was “the ‘era of good feeling.’” “To the new generation the Union was no longer an experiment, but an accomplished fact, whose thirty years’ endurance had satisfied them that the practical sovereignty of the States was the surest basis of national unity and growth, their solid union the necessary condition and guarantee of their individual sovereignty.” Even though the nation enjoyed political solidarity and unity for once, it was to be short lived. Though the Democratic Party was now dominant party in Congress, party divisions began to occur over various issues, the greatest being slavery. Of course with the stage cleared of its Revolutionary War heroes and talk, a new breed of actors took the stage, heirs and worthy stewards of the heritage left by the previous generation. One of these illustrious gentlemen was John C. Calhoun of South Carolina. During his long career as a politician from 1811 to 1850, he fulfilled the distinguished roles of U.S. Representative for South Carolina, two-term Senator from South Carolina, U.S. Secretary of State and War, and the 7th Vice President of the United States. Calhoun’s long career was marked by a devotion to his native state and country during a period of immense political drama where the Union, which he sought to protect, slowly disintegrated along sectional lines, North and South. Within the great political drama of sectional division, there is one key event; an event which Calhoun is greatly tied to, that really deals with the heart of sectional division and that is the issue of Nullification. Nullification was essentially Calhoun’s brain child though he learned this idea from Yale University as a law student. Calhoun’s view, plainly speaking, was that the states “had a right to judge of the extent of those powers [of the General Government], and whether they had been exceeded.” Calhoun did not use the term nullification, he used the term “state interposition” since he desired a “suspensive veto to compel the installing, the highest tribunal, provided by the Constitution, to decide on the point in dispute.” What was the issue in dispute? Initially it was the tariff crisis of the 1830’s wherein South Carolina argued they had the power to negate an unjust tariff in their own state. In the end, the Federal Government won out but the idea of nullification or state interposition or state rights was never laid to rest. In fact, the nullification crisis led to a perception that there was a Southern anti-union conspiracy which contributed to Northern hostility towards pro-slavery legislature. There is quite a bit of evidence of this which is manifested in Northern letters, debates, and newspapers as well Southern documents. The latter demonstrates Southern distrust of nullification, even up to the beginning of the Civil War. But to arrive at such a conclusion of fear of Southern disunity would also require a working knowledge of Calhoun’s philosophy of nullification so that one can understand the context of the times and Calhoun’s own personal understanding of it in contrast to others’ misconceptions of nullification.
John C. Calhoun was born on March 18, 1782 to Patrick and Martha Calhoun in western South Carolina. His father was also a leading man in the community holding the offices of judge, surveyor, and a member of the state legislature. Even before his years of formal education, John C. inherited some of the same political ideas of his father. Both men were strong individualists and believed “in a maximum of individual freedom consistent with social order.” Both men also had qualms about the powers of the Federal government especially the Constitution and his father even opposed the ratification of the Constitution on the basis that the powers delegated to the federal government by the Constitution would be destructive to liberty. John’s further instilling of such sentiments came in a much larger dose once he attended Yale in 1802 and later studied law at The Litchfield Law School under the tutelage of Timothy Dwight and Judges Reeve and Gould. While there, Calhoun learned the “right” of secession as the only haven for minorities. Such thoughts milled around in the mind of Calhoun until they were finally exhumed during the Tariff crisis of 1828 and 1832. As C. Gordon Post states in his Introduction to Calhoun’s Disquisition on Government, “Nullification was not born of this controversy. Nullification developed as a concomitant of the doctrine of states’ rights, which, in turn, had its genesis in the nature of the union. Was the union intended to be a consolidated republic or a confederation of sovereign and independent states bound together by a formal compact, namely, the Constitution?” Though it didn’t originate at this time, nullification was certainly a major issue during the Tariff crisis and in the years preceding the Civil War. Briefly, the Tariff situation was a sectional controversy instigated by the raising of tariffs for revenue, a power that Congress is granted but Calhoun and his other Southern compatriots claimed that these particular tariffs were executed for the purpose of “rearing up the industry of one section of the country on the ruins of another.” Calhoun states further that:
So further are the effects of the system, that its burdens are exclusively on one side and its benefits on the other. It imposes on the agricultural interest of the South, including the South-west, and that portion of the country particularly engaged in commerce and navigation, the burden not only of sustaining the system itself, but also that of the government.
Calhoun’s response to such injustice was the doctrine of Nullification which he expostulated in the Exposition and Protest, a document written for the South Carolina legislature that asserted “the legal right of a state of the Union to refuse obedience to a national act when the state deemed the act to be contrary to the Constitution”. Calhoun states it thus:
If it be conceded, as it must be by everyone who is the least conversant with our institutions, that the sovereign powers delegated are divided between the General and State Governments, and that the latter hold their portion by the same tenure as the former, it would seem impossible to deny to the States the right of deciding on the infractions of their powers, and the proper remedy to be applied for their correction. The right of judging, in such cases, is the essential attribute of sovereignty—of which the States cannot be divested without losing their sovereignty itself—and being reduced to a subordinate corporate condition.
This is the point at which the true battle begins. Unable to reduce the tariff rate, South Carolina passed the Ordinance of Nullification. President Jackson responded by asking Congress to pass a Force bill which gave him the power to use military force to execute the Tariffs in South Carolina. His words were not abusive in this document, but strongly stressed his views of the Constitution and maintaining the Union. His understanding of Calhoun’s argument was that it was not about an
indefeasible right of resisting acts which are plainly unconstitutional, and too oppressive to be endured, but on the strange position that any one state may not only declare an act of Congress void, but prohibit its execution; that they may do this consistently with the Constitution; that the true construction of that instrument permits a state to retain its place in the Constitution; and yet be bound by no other of its laws than those it may choose to consider as constitutional.
The force bill passed and Federal military force was used to execute the requirements of the Tariffs, much to the displeasure of Calhoun and South Carolina. Calhoun watched as his fears of federal sovereignty were realized before his eyes. He saw the fulfillment of his fear that the numerical majority would, unchecked and unchallenged, would execute its wishes to the demise of the minority interest.
Calhoun’s talk of state interposition was no easy pill for politicians and citizenry alike to swallow, outside of South Carolina that is. The passing of the Nullification Ordinance brought a lot of nasty criticism, both in public newspapers and political speeches and debates, in the South and the North. However, the North, believing that that nullification was an anti-unionist conspiracy, disseminated treatises, letters, newspaper articles and the like among likeminded individuals which created a fear, very much like adding fuel to a fire, that inevitably brought about Northern hostility upon any Southern legislature or movement for political success.
This fear manifested itself very early on in the North, especially in political documents and newspapers. Within the political realm, the fear of disunion caused by nullification is prevalent in the speeches, letters, and other documents of many politicians; especially notable men like Daniel Webster, Andrew Jackson, and other distinguished Congressmen. There is also much fear of disunion even in the Congressional records which shall be addressed herein. On October 12, 1831, Daniel Webster gave a speech on the subject of nullification which was transcribed in The Banner of the Constitution some days later. His sentiments display a perception and a fear of disunion caused by nullification. As he mentions the doctrine of nullification he states that it is “pretence incompatible with the authority of the Constitution. If direct separation be not its only mode of operation, separation is, nonetheless, its direct consequence.” He argues that it is quite illogical for a state to have senators and representatives in Congress making laws but not binding themselves and their states to them. Nullification he says is “dissolution—it is dismemberment—it is the breaking up of the Union. If it shall practically succeed, in any one State, from that moment there are twenty-four States in the Union no longer.” From this one can plainly see that Webster understood nullification to be equated with disunion. He also mentions a possible force of hostility toward those who advocate nullification, namely those who wish to enforce the tariffs via military force i.e. the Jackson presidency. Webster, although not in favor of Nullification, is not in favor of the president’s decision to enforce the tariff through military force; his reasoning is that it can only be done with the provision of Congress. However, he does say that if the nullifiers continue to persist, and Congress accepts the President’s desire for military force, it will be done. He suggests that nullification be quelled via the power of reason, “the progress of enlightened opinion, by the natural genuine patriotism of the country, and by the steady and well sustained operations of law”. Webster’s ideas were much more peaceable than Jackson’s; however, they still were a form of hostility and reaction to nullification. Webster’s arguments here sustain the fact that there was a fear of disunion and a hostile movement towards the nullifiers.
Andrew Jackson, although a southerner and a “sometimes opponent of too much national government”, was ostensibly an American egalitarian republican who believed all whites are superior.This immediately set him at odds with his vice-President who invariably was an elitist. Calhoun’s elitism and desire to maintain minority interest were key fundamentals for his nullification ideas and was therefore persecuted by Old Hickory. Throughout his declaration against nullification Jackson speaks of nullification as a force of disunion. He states that if this had happened earlier in our history, we would now be in a state of disunion. He gives examples of other states that tried to nullify constitutional laws such as the excise law in Pennsylvania, the embargo and non-intercourse law in the Eastern states, and carriage tax in Virginia; his argument is that had they done the same thing South Carolina has done, they would not have had victory over the British. Such logic not only suggests that nullification is disunion but Jackson very successfully uses an appeal to emotion to stir his audience into supporting his vehemence against nullification. Jackson certainly possessed a good bit of hostility towards nullification in order to perpetuate the Union; he did this through using military force. Jackson, although a Southerner, feared disunion as much as the senator Webster did and accomplished some form of hostility toward nullification.
In the records of Congress, there are scattered sentiments from varying politicians concerning nullification and the fear of disunion. In the journal of the Senate, dated January 28th 1833, representatives from Missouri state their convictions about the nullification crisis:
1. Resolved by the General Assembly of the State of Missouri, That, whilst we acknowledge the duty incumbent upon each State to guard its individual rights with watchful care, we must also admit an obligation, of nearly equal force, to guard the rights of all the other States of the Federal Union.
2. Resolved, That we view the acts of any of the States, having even a remote tendency to destroy the Union of the several States, with extreme disapprobation and regret, because we hold the dissolution of the Union to be the certain harbinger of the destruction of the whole frame of our republican institutions.
3. Resolved, That we most heartily concur in the sentiment of the President of the United States, as expressed in his late proclamation, that “the power to annul a law of the United States, assumed by one State, is incompatible with the existence of the Union, contradicted expressly by the letter of the constitution, unauthorized by its spirit, inconsistent with every principle on which it was formed, and destructive of the great objects for which it was formed.” And we proclaim it to all concerned, as the unalterable purpose of the people of Missouri, that “our Federal Union must be preserved” at all hazards.
4. Resolved, That a copy of these resolutions shall be sent to the President of the United States, to each of our Senators and our Representative in Congress, and to the Governor of each State in the Union.
Here representatives from Missouri admit their fears that nullification was inherently a move toward disunion. They fear that such actions will bring about the destruction of the nation and therefore feel the need to send their “resolutions” to the president so that he may act upon them and quell the fear of disunion. So it seems that the fear of disunion is present and the form of hostility toward nullification is taking different forms; some wish for military action and other wish to suppress it through laws that the Union would be preserved, as the Missourians and Webster suggest. In the Journal of the U.S. House of Representatives, dated January 25, 1833, a Mr. Boon of Indiana states that his state finds South Carolina’s doctrines to be treasonous and “having for its object the destruction of the Union”. Therefore their response was to concur with Jackson’s methods of quelling nullification, making him “defender of his country” and to uphold the duty of protecting the Union
to express, through their representatives, a firm and unwavering determination to protect “the ark of our political safety” from the hand of violence, and to pledge their support in furtherance of the laudable resolution of the National Executive, “to take care that the republic receive no detriment.” Resolved, That the governor of this State be requested to transmit a copy of the foregoing preamble and joint resolutions to the President of the United States, and, also, a copy to each of our Senators and Representatives in Congress, to be laid before that body, and one to the Governor of each State in the Union.
These resolutions also convey a sense of fear of disunion via nullification. In fact they went a little bit further than Missouri and called it “treasonous”.Their fears are present in the document but what about the hostility? They support Jackson’s methods of quieting nullification and wish to drop all other issues to pursue the furtherance of the Union.” Advocating military force against another sister state is most definitely hostile toward South Carolina. These are but a few of the many resolutions submitted by other States concerning nullification as being a force of disunion. However, there were much more hostile sentiments that were written during and after the Tariff Crisis of the 1830’s which are manifested in the various newspapers of the North.
Of those newspapers, The National Era, The American Whig Review, The New World; a Weekly Family Journal of Popular Literature, Science, Art and News; The Continental Monthly, Devoted to Literature and National Policy; Niles’ Weekly Register, Littell’s Living Age, and The Liberator are prominent in portraying nullification as an act of disunion and therewith stimulated Northern hostility much more fiercely than those politicians aforementioned. The interesting thing about these newspapers is that these articles which speak of disunion, as a result of nullification, are, for the majority, published much later than the nullification crisis of the 1830’s. In December of 1850, an article was published in American Whig Review which spoke of disunion and nullification. The article was entitled “The True Issue between parties in the South: Union or Disunion” and their sentiments are stated thus:
A crisis has been reached in our national affairs when it becomes us all, fellow-citizens, to reflect. The crisis is not illusory and unreal, or confined merely within the narrow limits of party contrivances… That issue is, Union or Disunion. No subtlety of argument or speech, no special array of words, no ingenious or metaphysical terms can no longer cover the design of those who are promulgating the pernicious doctrine of resistance to the constitutional acts of Congress, or, what is worse, abetting schemes and movements, which look, in their consequences, to nothing less than actual secession and dissolution of the Union.
Within this Northern newspaper article, the discussion, in 1850, is still on nullification and fear of disunion. Though nullification is not explicitly mentioned in the text of the article, it is hiding there in very ambiguous language. In this article they call it the “doctrine of resistance to the constitutional acts of Congress”; viz. nullification. The fear of disunion is replete in this article and, furthermore, this article contains evidence that towards the advent of the Civil War, hostile Northern fearers of disunion grouped the entire South along with the infamous state of South Carolina. The writer of this article uses several very important terms to describe the desires of the South; viz. “those who advocate resistance”, “list of Southern grievances”, “secession, dissolution of the Union, and the formation of a Southern Confederacy” as well as the term “slavery interest”. All these terms are used in conjunction with the term disunion. Throughout the article, the writer admits the fear of disunion but also admits to Northern and Congressional antagonism toward the South. This is first mentioned as he describes the history of California statehood debates of the mid to late 1840’s. He states that the convention which ratified the constitution of California “was gotten up with a haste and informality that argued a predetermined hostility toward the Southern institution”. Furthermore, he repeats the idea of Northern/Congressional hostility toward the South by using the terms, “the aggressive or anti-Southern measures of Congress”. This is mentioned with regard to the bill “erecting Territorial Governments for the Territories of New Mexico and Utah” Henceforth this writer alleges that there was fear of disunion milling around the country and furthermore that there was Anti-Southern hostility on the part of Congress that began with the Nullification crisis and continued to manifest itself against every Southern political movement.
In the National Era, Mason W. Tappan, a New Hampshire representative, spoke out against nullification and disunion. The purpose of his speech was to denounce the preceding of the Lecompton Constitution but more importantly, his purpose was to vindicate the North due to the charges brought by the South that the North was committing “Slavery agitation, of aggression upon the rights of the South, and of entertaining sentiments hostile to the union of these States.” He states that is rather those who advocate Nullification and Secession that seek to break up the Union and have been the “cause of all or nearly all the Slavery agitation in this country for the past twenty years.” While saying that the North has not been aggressive towards the South, Mr. Tappan invariably does so in his speech. Due to his fear of disunion via the Nullification party, Mr. Tappan calls upon the North to “make a stand” so that the Union may stay together. Furthermore, his arguments and language toward anything Southern is nothing but hostile in tone and intent; he argues that the South has almost always had disunion sentiments (which really reared their heads in the 1830’s) and that the South is becoming more backward a nation than the North due to its use of slavery. Tappan’s arguments, while confessing at first that the North has no hostility toward the South, ends up advocating hostility toward the South and condemning every value the South holds dear due his labeling them as advocating disunion. These documents not only show that the North feared disunion and were hostile to any movements by the South but they also show that the North misunderstood Calhoun’s beliefs of nullification. He did not want to dissolve the Union but rather to give rights to the minority, his own compatriots.
However, this fear of disunion didn’t just reside in the North but surprisingly in the South as well. Such distrust is quite perplexing and very important to this argument since such distrust denotes disunity in the South even up to the eve of the Civil War. Here are some Southern documents that show Southern distrust for nullification. In the Southern Banner, The Gate City Guardian, and The Columbus Enquirer there are various articles which denote Georgia’s distrust for nullification. In the Southern Banner, a newspaper of Athens Georgia, various writers state their distrust for nullification and repeat the popular sentiment that is equal with disunion and treason. “A Friend to Regular Government” writes, “we have all witnessed the insidious weapons which the Nullifiers have wielded, not only in South Carolina, but in other States at the South, for the accomplishment of the purposes of Disunion, under the imposing mantle of States Rights [emphasis his]”. Once again nullification is tagged as being a party advocating disunion, even by a Georgia newspaper! On September 14, 1832 the same newspaper published an article about a meeting in Franklin County where the nullification issues were debated. Maj. John R. Stanford is expressed as having opposed both nullification and the tariff. More importantly, further down in the article, the citizens of Franklin state their desire for republican government and their fear that dissolution of the Union is fast approaching. What is the reason of their fear? It is mentioned later in the article as the “heresies of a sister state” which some are disseminating in Georgia to “raise a party for the avowed object of opposing the laws of the Union”. Here others within Georgia are stating their sentiments against Nullification as being a disunion conspiracy. These observations are very important with regard to the understanding of nullification in the South since Georgia, being a close “sister state” with South Carolina, does not fully understand nullification as Calhoun did and nor are they willing to aid her if the Federal Government comes to enforce its laws.
So what of nullification as it applies to the advent of the Civil War? Does nullification even matter in the scheme of Southern secession as a whole or does it die in the 1830’s due to Jackson’s dictum? Well according to the American Whig Review article of 1850, it doesn’t really die. In fact, aggression from the North toward the South increases; it evolves from Jackson’s enforcement of the tariff in South Carolina to an editor’s statements in “A Voice From Georgia” where Georgia finds herself “abused by Massachusetts, and the Northern States making common cause with Massachusetts against her”. From the American Whig Review one can see that antagonism from the North to the South applied in all its political campaigns. But the nullification issue never fully rests even in 1861. Jefferson Davis’s farewell speech to the U.S. Senate is proof of this. His speech is mainly concerned with his reasons for following his state of Mississippi out of the Union but they do shed light on our subject. Davis is undeniably a state’s rights man and states so in his speech. A few paragraphs down he justifies the right for a state to secede so that it may not be confused with the ideas of nullification. He states:
I hope none who hear me will confound this expression of mine with the advocacy of the right of a State to remain in the Union, and to disregard its constitutional obligations by the nullification of the law. Such is not my theory. Nullification and secession, so often confounded, are indeed antagonistic principles. Nullification is a remedy which is sought to apply within the Union, and against the agents of the States. It is only to be justified when the agent has violated his constitutional obligations, and a State, assuming to judge for itself, denies the right of the agent thus to act, and appeals to the other States of the Union, for a decision; but when the States themselves, and when the people of the States, have so acted as to convince us that they will not regard our constitutional rights, then, and then for the first time, arises the doctrine of secession in its practical application.
So then according to Davis, secession is the second step of action should nullification fail. Furthermore, Davis defends Calhoun’s ideas of nullification as being efforts to save the Union. His words are not disparaging towards nullification as being disunion but he does clarify how each principle works to grant States their proper sovereignty. Furthermore, he discusses the antagonism the North has had upon the South which was caused by Calhoun and others. He states that since some of the Southern states have declared their independence from the Union, the federal government or at least other states have no right to declare war upon them: “You may never make war on a foreign state. If it be the purpose of gentlemen, they may make war against a State which has withdrawn from the Union; but there are no laws of the United States to be executed within the limits of a seceded State.” He continues that argument by saying that any state that finds itself in being severed from the Union is no longer under the same benefits of the Union and should therefore be treated as a foreign State. He also affirms a sort of hostility from the North towards the South in the form of repeating the same offences that George III practiced against the colonies, namely to stir up insurrection from the slaves. He also admits that there may have been hostilities between him and his fellow senators but he wishes them absolved ere his departure from the Senate. His basis for leaving the Union sounds almost the same as the basis Calhoun gave for advocating nullification: “defending and protecting the rights we inherited and which is our sacred duty to transmit unshorn to our children.” Just a few short months after giving this speech, Davis was made president of the Confederate States of America and the North and South were pitted against one another in a horrific war. Calhoun, advocate of nullification, never wished for such hostility between States but it came, nonetheless.
Since the 1830’s various Northern documents and speeches spread the fear that nullification was an act of disunion. Even southern documents indicate the South saw nullification as disunion but the difference between them was that the South never raised a finger against South Carolina, they talked about how it was bad but due to the harshness of the tariff in their own states, they didn’t do anything. The North, unaffected by the tariff or not as badly, and out of hatred for slavery made “common cause with Massachusetts against” the South . Not only did this all happen, but Calhoun’s doctrine of nullification became totally misunderstood; the North and the South (excepting South Carolina) understood it as a means of disunion where in contrast Calhoun meant it to protect the rights given the states but particularly the upper class white men of those states. But because his theories where misunderstood, the Union Calhoun sought to protect was ultimately destroyed barely more than a decade after his death.
A Friend to Regular Government. Southern Banner. Athens, GA. March 15, 1834.
A Southron. “The True Issue between Parties in the South: Union or Disunion”. American Whig Review (1850-1852); Dec 1850; 6, 6; American Periodicals.
Davis, Jefferson. Farewell Speech. Reprinted in Gate City Guardian. Atlanta, GA. February 12, 1861.
Dickens, Charles. A Tale of Two Cities. New York: Bantam Press, 1989. 1.
Freehling, William W. The Road to Disunion, Vol. 1: Secessionists at Bay (New York, 1990). 260, 262.
Greg, Percy. History of the United States. Vol. 1. Third American Edition. Richmond: Everett Waddey. 1899. 322.
“Introduction”. A Voice from the South. Baltimore: Western Continent. 1847.
Jackson, Andrew. “President Jackson’s Proclamation”. Elliot’s Debates. Vol. 4. 1833. 583.
Journal of the House of Representatives of the United States, 1832-1833, Friday, January 25, 1833. 238-239.
Journal of the Senate of the United States of America, 1789-1873. Monday, January 28, 1833. 139.
“Mr. Webster’s Sentiments on Nullification and the coercive power of the Federal Government”. The Banner of the Constitution. Devoted to General Politics, Political Economy, State Papers, For…Oct 31, 1832; 3, 48; American Periodicals. 374.
Post, C. Gordon. John C. Calhoun: A Disquisition on Government and Selections from The Discourse. The American Heritage Series. New York: Liberal Arts Press. 1953. vii-viii, xvi.
——Quoted from Margaret L. Coit, John C. Calhoun, American Portrait. Boston 1950. 42.
——Quoted from Reports and Public Letters of John C. Calhoun, ed. by Richard K. Crallè (New York 1883), Vol. VI. 44-45.
“Slavery Agitation-Nullification-the Lecompton Constitution” National Era (1847-1860); Apr 22, 1858; Vol. XII, No. 590.; American Periodicals.
Southern Banner. Athens, GA September 14, 1832.
Wilson, Clyde N. editor. The Essential Calhoun. New Brunswick: Transaction. 2000.
——Calhoun, John C. Speech. November 26, 1842. 431.
——letter to James E. Colhoun, 1831, Clemson: Clemson University Press. 300.
——speech. Senate. 14 February 1833. 301.
Wiltse, Charles M. John C. Calhoun Nullifier 1829-1839. New York: Bobbs-Merril 1949. 195.
 Charles Dickens. A Tale of Two Cities. New York: Bantam. 1989. 1.
 Percy Greg. History of the United States. Vol. 1. Third American Edition. Richmond: Everett Waddey. 1899. 322.
 Calhoun above all sought to protect the Union. This he confessed in his speech to the South Carolina General Assembly on November 26, 1842 as he resigned as Senator. From Clyde N. Wilson ed. The Essential Calhoun. New Brunswick: Transaction 2000. 431.
 Margaret L. Coit, John C. Calhoun, American Portrait (Boston 1950), p. 42. Qtd. from C. Gordon Post, Introduction to John C. Calhoun: A Disquisition on Government and Selections from The Discourse, The American Heritage Series, New York: Liberal Arts Press, 1953. viii.
 Senate, 14 February 1833, Ibid., 301.
 John C. Calhoun in a letter to James E. Colhoun, 1831, Clemson University. Ibid., 300.
 “Introduction” Post. vii, Ibid.
 Qtd. from Coit, viii, Ibid.
 Ibid., xi.
 Qtd from Reports and Public Letters of John C. Calhoun, ed. by Richard K. Crallè (New York 1883), Vol. VI, p.44-45. Ibid xv.
 Ibid., p. 3. Ibid xv.
 Ibid., xiv.
 Qtd. from Reports p. 41, Ibid. xiv.
 Post xvi.
 Ibid., xvii.
 Andrew Jackson, “President Jackson’s Proclamation”. Elliot’s Debates. Vol. 4. 1833. 583.
 Charles M. Wiltse. John C. Calhoun Nullifier 1829-1839. New York: Bobbs-Merril 1949. 195.
 “Mr. Webster’s Sentiments on Nullification and the coercive power of the Federal Government”. The Banner of the Constitution. Devoted to General Politics, Political Economy, State Papers. Oct 31, 1832; 3, 48; American Periodicals. 374
 William W. Freehling, The Road to Disunion, Vol. 1: Secessionists at Bay (New York, 1990). 260, 262.
 Jackson, 584.
 Journal of the Senate of the United States of America, 1789-1873. Monday, January 28, 1833. 139.
 Journal of the House of Representatives of the United States, 1832-1833, Friday, January 25, 1833. 238-239.
 A Southron. “The True Issue between Parties in the South: Union or Disunion”. The American Whig Review (1850-1852); Dec 1850; 6, 6; American Periodicals. 587.
 Ibid., 588
 Ibid. 589.
 “Slavery Agitation-Nullification-the Lecompton Constitution” National Era (1847-1860); Apr 22, 1858; Vol. XII, No. 590.; American Periodicals. 61.
 A Friend to Regular Government. Southern Banner. Athens, GA. March 15, 1834. 2.
 Southern Banner. Athens, GA September 14, 1832. 3.
 Introduction “A Voice from the South”. Baltimore: Western Continent, 1847. 6.
 Jefferson Davis. Reprinted in Gate City Gaurdian, Atlanta GA. February 12, 1861. 1.
 Voice from the South. 6.