South Carolina,
"Exposition"
[The South Carolina "Exposition",
drafted secretly by Vice-President John C. Calhoun, was presented to the
state's House of Representatives on 19 December 1828 by a special
committee charged with formulating a response to the federal protective
tariff passed earlier that year. Although not adopted by the House, 4,000
copies of the states' rights manifesto were printed and distributed at
state expense. The "Exposition" made no direct impact on
national policy (the much-maligned "Tariff of Abominations" operated
unimpaired), but the theory of nullification was strongly asserted and
given conceptual coherence by Calhoun's efforts.]
[Excerpts]
. . . [The Federal]
Government is one of specific powers, and it can rightfully exercise only
the powers expressly granted, and those that may be "necessary and proper"
to carry them into effect; all others being reserved expressly to
the States, or to the people. It results necessarily, that
those who claim to exercise a power under the Constitution, are bound to
shew [sic], that it is expressly granted, or that it is necessary and
proper, as a means to some of the granted powers. The
advocates of the Tariff have offered no such proof. It is
true, that the third [sic; eighth] section of the first article of the
Constitution of the United States authorizes Congress to lay and collect
an impost duty, but it is granted as a tax power, for the sole purpose of
revenue; a power in its nature essentially different from that of
imposing protective or prohibitory duties. . .
. The Constitution grants to Congress the power of imposing a
duty on imports for revenue; which power is abused by being
converted into an instrument for rearing up the industry of one section of
the country on the ruins of another. The violation then
consists in using a power, granted for one object, to advance another, and
that by the sacrifice of the original object. . .
.
The committee feel, on entering upon
this branch of the subject, the painful character of the duty they must
perform. They would desire never to speak of our country, as
far as the action of the General Government is concerned, but as one great
whole, having a common interest, which all its parts ought zealously to
promote. Previously to the adoption of the Tariff system, such
was the unanimous feeling of this State; but in speaking of its
operation it will be impossible to avoid the discussion of sectional
interest, and the use of sectional language. On its authors
however, and not on us, who are compelled to adopt this course in
self-defence by the injustice and oppression of their measures--be the
censure. So partial 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 our commerce and navigation
engaged in foreign trade, the burden, not only of sustaining the system
itself, but that also of sustaining government. In stating the
case thus strongly, it is not the intention of the committee to
exaggerate. If exaggeration were not unworthy of the gravity
of the subject, the reality is such as to render it unnecessary.
. . .
. . . The maxim
that the consumers pay, strictly applies to us. We are mere
consumers, and destitute of all means of transferring the burden from
ourselves to others. We may be assured, that the large amount
paid into the Treasury, under the duties on imports, is really derived
from the labor of some portion of our citizens. The government
has no mines. Some one must bear the burden of its support.
This unequal lot is ours. We are the serffs [sic]
of the system, out of whose labor is raised, not only the money that is
paid into the Treasury, but the funds out of which are drawn the rich
reward of the manufacturer and his associates in interest.
Their encouragement is our discouragement. The
duty on imports which is mainly paid out of our labour gives them the
means of selling to us at a higher price, while we cannot, to compensate
the loss, dispose of our products at the least advance. It is
then not a subject of wonder, when properly understood, that one section
of country though blessed by a kind Providence with a genial sun and
prolific soil, from which spring the richest products, should languish in
poverty and sink into decay; while the rest of the Union though less
fortunate in natural advantages is flourishing in prosperity beyond
example.
The assertion, that the encouragement
of the industry of the manufacturing States, is in fact discouragement to
ours, was not made without due deliberation. It is susceptible
of the clearest proof.
We cultivate certain great staples
for the supply of the general market of the world; and they
manufacture almost exclusively for the home market. Their
object in the Tariff is to keep down foreign competition, in order to
obtain a monopoly of the domestic market. The effect on us is
to compel us to purchase at a higher price, both what we purchase from
them and from others, without receiving a corresponding increase of price
for what we sell. The price, at which we can afford to
cultivate, must depend on the price at which we receive our supplies.
The lower the latter, the lower we may dispose of our products
with profit; and in the same degree our capacity of meeting
competition is increased; on the contrary, the higher the price of
our supplies, the less the profit at the same price, and the less
consequently the capacity for meeting competition. . .
. The case then, fairly stated between us and the
manufacturing States, is, that the Tariff gives them a prohibition against
foreign competition in our own market, in the sale of their goods, and
deprives us of the benefit of a competition of purchasers for our raw
material. They who say, that they cannot compete with
foreigners at their own doors without an advantage of nearly fifty per
cent., expect us to meet them abroad, under a disadvantage equal to their
encouragement. But the oppression, great as it is to us, will
not stop at this point. The trade between us and Europe, has
heretofore been a mutual exchange of products. Under the
existing duties, the consumption of European fabrics must in a great
measure cease in our country, and the trade must become, on their part a
cash transaction. But he must be ignorant of the principals of
commerce, and the policy of Europe, particularly England, who does not
see, that it is impossible to carry on a trade of such vast extent on any
other basis but that of mutual exchange of products; and if it were
not impossible, such a trade would not long be tolerated. We
already see indications of the commencement of a commercial warfare, the
termination of which cannot be conjectured, though our fate may easily be.
The last remains of our great and once flourishing agriculture
must be annihilated in the conflict. In the first instance we
will be thrown on the home market, which cannot consume a fourth of our
products; and instead of supplying the world, as we should with a
free trade, we shall be compelled to abandon the cultivation of
three-fourths of what we now raise, and receive for the residue, whatever
the manufacturers, (who will then have their policy consummated, by the
entire possession of their market, both exports and imports,) may choose
to give. Forced with an immense sacrifice of capital to
abandon our ancient and favourite pursuit, to which our soil, climate,
habits and peculiar labor are adapted, we should be compelled without
experience or skill, and with a population untried in such pursuits, to
attempt to become the rivals instead of the customers of the manufacturing
States. The result is not doubtful. If they, by
superior capital and skill, should keep down successful competition on our
part, we should be doomed to toil at our unprofitable agriculture, selling
at the prices, which a single and limited market might give.
But on the other hand, if our necessity should triumph over
their capital and skill, if, instead of raw cotton, we should ship to the
manufacturing States, cotton yarn, and cotton goods, the thoughtful must
see, that it would immediately bring about a state of things, which could
not long continue. Those who now make war on our gains would
then make it on our labour. They would not tolerate, that
those, who now cultivate our plantations and furnish them with the
material and market for the products of their arts, should, by becoming
their rivals, take bread out of the mouths of their wives and children.
The committee will not pursue this painful subject, but as
they clearly see, that the system if not arrested, must bring the country
to this hazardous extremity, neither prudence nor patriotism would permit
them to pass it by, without giving warning of an event so full of
danger. . . .
No government based on the naked
principle, that the majority ought to govern, however true the maxim in
its proper sense and under proper restrictions, ever preserved its
liberty, even for a single generation. The history of all has
been the same, injustice, violence and anarchy, succeeded by the
government of one, or a few, under which the people seek refuge, from the
more oppressive despotism of the majority. Those governments
only, which provide checks, which limit and restrain within proper bounds
the power of the majority, have had a prolonged existence, and been
distinguished for virtue, power and happiness. Constitutional
government, and the government of the majority, are utterly incompatible,
it being the sole purpose of a constitution to impose limitations and
checks upon the majority. An unchecked majority, is a
despotism--and government is free, and will be permanent in proportion to
the number, complexity and efficiency of the checks, by which it powers
are controlled. . . .
That there exists a case which would
justify the interposition of this State, and thereby compel the General
Government to abandon an unconstitutional power, or to make an appeal to
the amending power to confer it by express grant, the committee does not
in the least doubt; and they are equally clear in the existence of a
necessity to justify its exercise, if the General Government should
continue to persist in its improper assumption of powers, belonging to the
State; which brings them to the last point which they propose to
consider. When would it be proper to exercise this high power?
If they were to judge only by the magnitude of the interest
and urgency of the case, they would without hesitation recommend the
exercise of this power without delay. But they deeply feel the
obligation of respect for the other members of the confederacy, and of
great moderation and forbearance in the exercise, even of the most
unquestionable right, between parties who stand connected by the closest
and most sacred political union. With these sentiments, they
deem it advisable after presenting the views of the Legislature in this
solemn manner, to allow time for further consideration and reflection, in
the hope that a returning sense of justice on the part of the majority,
when they have come to reflect on the wrongs, which this and other staple
States have suffered, and are suffering, may repeal the obnoxious and
unconstitutional acts, and thereby prevent the necessity of interposing
the sovereign power of this State.
The committee is further induced at
this time to take this course, under the hope that the great political
revolution which will displace from power on the 4th of March next, those
who acquired authority by setting the will of the people at defiance;
and which will bring in an eminent citizen, [Andrew Jackson,]
distinguished for his services to his country and his justice and
patriotism, may be followed up under his influence with a complete
restoration of the pure principles of our government.
But in thus recommending delay, the
committee wish it to be distinctly understood, that neither doubts of the
power of the State, nor apprehension of consequences, constitute the
smallest part of their motives. . .
.
With these views the committee are
solemnly of impression if the system be persevered in, after due
forbearance on the part of the State, that it will be her sacred duty to
interpose her veto; a duty to herself, to the Union, to present, and
to future generations, and to the cause of liberty over the world, to
arrest the progress of a power, which, if not arrested, must in its
consequences, corrupt the public morals, and destroy the liberty of the
country.
To avert these calamities, to restore
the Constitution to its original purity, and to allay the differences
which have been unhappily produced between various States, and between the
States and General Government, we solemnly appeal to the justice and good
feeling of those States heretofore opposed to us; and earnestly
invoke the council and co-operation of those States, similarly situated
with our own. Not doubting their good will and support;
and sustained by a deep sense of the righteousness of its cause--the
committee trusts that under Divine Providence the exertions of the State
will be crowned with success.
SOURCE: Clyde N. Wilson and W. Edwin
Hemphill, editors, The Papers of John C. Calhoun, vol. 10,
1825-1829 (Columbia: University of South Carolina Press,
1977), pages 445, 447, 449, 457, 459, 461, 493, 529, 531,
533.
|