{#} {¶}
[1]Why do we oppose a 'mere inquiry'?
{#} {¶}
[2]The broader issue of how to treat the public lands.
{#} {¶}
[3]Federal Land Policy: Too generous or too harsh?
{#} {¶}
[4]An Unprecedentedly Harsh Policy
{#} {¶}
[5]The Current System At Work in the New State of Missouri
{#} {¶}
[6]The Devoted South - Brothers in Affliction to the West
{#} {¶}
[7]Beneficial Results if We Treat the West As We Ought To
{#} {¶}
[8]Evils of an Easy Federal Revenue -- Land Sales
{#} {¶}
[9]Evils of Easy Federal Revenue -- The Tariff
{#} {¶}
[10]Independence of the States - the Lifeblood of our Liberty
{#} {¶}
[11]Restraint of Western Emmigration == A Manufactury of Cheap Factory
Labor
{#} {¶}
[12]America - An agricultural people - Why Encourage Manufacturing?
{#} {¶}
[13]Let's Not Even Talk About Distribution (of the Public Lands).
{#} {¶}
[14]Granted -- The U.S. Can't Quite Give Up the Public Lands Immediately
{#} {¶}
[15]States are too often pacified by little bribes from the federal gov't.
{#} {¶}
[16]We should turn the lands over to the states once the debt is paid.
{#} {¶}
[17]Final Summary
{#} {¶}
[1a] Land Policy Good as it is
{#} {¶}
[1b] Land is selling as fast as it can
{#} {¶}
[2] I must dispute some of H's opinions.
{#} {¶}
[2a] He calls U.S. Policy harsh
{#} {¶}
[2b] U.S. Policy had not been harsh
{#} {¶}
[2c] We paid in blood and dollars for these lands, unlike the Europeans.
{#} {¶}
[3] Results of U.S. Land Policy: Ohio
{#} {¶}
[4] We can't give the lands away
{#} {¶}
[4a] The Crown Lands and the Revolution
{#} {¶}
[4b] The gov't promised to use them for the common benefit
{#} {¶}
[4c] The gov't promised to keep them as a common fund
{#} {¶}
[5] W: H admits no give-away till Nat. Debt paid - not good enough
{#} {¶}
[6] Revenue == Consolidation == Evil?
{#} {¶}
[7] Calculating the value of the Union?
{#} {¶}
[8] Webster == unionist == national republican
{#} {¶}
[9] Too much fervor to pay the debt -- because it furnishes (Horror!) a
common interest among states?
{#} {¶}
[10] To say the public land policy corrupts is ridiculous
{#} {¶}
[11] States can't tax themselves
{#} {¶}
[12] Generosity but no givaway
{#} {¶}
[13] Defending the east
{#} {¶}
[14] New England didn't start the tariff
{#} {¶}
[15] New England, friend and wise counselor of the West
{#} {¶}
[16] Nathan Dane and the Ohio River
{#} {¶}
[17] New England, not the south, has always voted for Western Measures
{#} {¶}
[18] South Carolina may in fact want to restrict immigration to the west
-- not New England.
{#} {¶}
[19] I'm just defending my state
{#} {¶}
[1] Surprised to have to defend his previous remarks
{#} {¶}
[2] Is W. afraid of Benton (Banquo's ghost)?
{#} {¶}
[3] The states have grown strong in spite of your "protection".
{#} {¶}
[4] Nathan Dane no friend of the west
{#} {¶}
[5] W says treat the public lands as a treasure
{#} {¶}
[6] W says don't treat the public lands as a treasure
{#} {¶}
[7] He says one thing then the opposite. WHat does he mean?
{#} {¶}
[8] The south doesn't judge by the money standard
{#} {¶}
[9] How can a public fund be used for so many local purposes?
{#} {¶}
[10] If the West accepts federal Internal Improvements, they lose their
birthright for a mess of pottage.
{#} {¶}
[11] W. thinks the debt forms a bond between the states. If so, it is a
base kind of bond; a pecuniary interest is a base interest
{#} {¶}
[12] Ohio, slavery, weakness, and strength
{#} {¶}
[12a] Slavery - Not our fault.
{#} {¶}
[12b] Africans inferior; we have done better by them than the 'philanthropic'
north
{#} {¶}
[13] The south not weak on account of slavery.
{#} {¶}
[13a] We have the economic power
{#} {¶}
[13b] Matthew Carey says knock off this knocking of the south
{#} {¶}
[14] One white man can control 10 slaves
{#} {¶}
[15] FALSE PHILANTHROPY
{#} {¶}
[16] Slavery doesn't sap character - Burke quote
{#} {¶}
[17] The Framers' Consolidation isn't Webster's version
{#} {¶}
[18] Whigs and Tories
{#} {¶}
[19] Webster: A fallen angel of free trade
{#} {¶}
[20] If it's not your tariff, why defend and hold onto it?
{#} {¶}
[21] The South saved the Union and now you attack her
{#} {¶}
[22] 1812: South Carolina stood for New England's honor
{#} {¶}
[23] N.E. Federalists: The War Party in Peace - the Peace Party in War
{#} {¶}
[24] They took back their complaints against England, and abused those
who fought
{#} {¶}
[25] At the darkest moment, they abused patriots trying to do their duty
{#} {¶}
[26] The Hartford Convention
{#} {¶}
[27] In Secrecy they voted
{#} {¶}
[28] Battle of New Orleans broke all this up and saved the union
{#} {¶}
[29] Thos. Jefferson said rebel rather than accept N.Eng consolidation
{#} {¶}
[30] Josiah Quincy: Secede amicably if they can, violently if they
must
{#} {¶}
[31] True friends of the Union are not consolidators
{#} {¶}
[32] Corruption by favors - Randolph's dogs: Towser and Sweetlips.
{#} {¶}
[33] 'Carolina Doctrine' is doctrine of '98
{#} {¶}
[34] Doctrine of '98 sustained by Madison
{#} {¶}
[35] Madison: Constitution a compact between states
{#} {¶}
[36] Reaffirmations: Kentucky Resolutions
{#} {¶}
[37] Reaffirmation: Jefferson in '21 and '25.
{#} {¶}
[38] Jefferson: Dissolution over Despotism == Carolina doctrine
{#} {¶}
[39] SC goes 'not a step further' than Mass. went.
{#} {¶}
[40] We act on principal, and to preserve the union
{#} {¶}
[1] Taking our bearings - the Mariner
{#} {¶}
[2] Something rankling
{#} {¶}
[3] W. 'slept on' H's speech?
{#} {¶}
[4] Why pick on H. and not Benton?
{#} {¶}
[5] Who's Afraid of Banquo's Ghost?
{#} {¶}
[6] Mr. Dane and W's 'attack on slavery'
{#} {¶}
[7] 'Missouri Question' - a tactic to keep northerners out of office
{#} {¶}
[8] Ordinance of 87 - education - sacredness of contracts
{#} {¶}
[9] Slavery exclusion of Ordance of 87 was not a southern measure
{#} {¶}
[10] Mr. Dane; Hartford Convention wasn't my convention
{#} {¶}
[11] I deny any inconsistency - 'metaphysical scissors'
{#} {¶}
[12] I never said 'hug the lands as a great treasure'
{#} {¶}
[13] South, not north has wanted to stop western immigration
{#} {¶}
[14] H: What interest has SC in a canal in Ohio?
{#} {¶}
[15] New Eng. sees U.S. as one country
{#} {¶}
[16] Cases calling for federal help in local projects
{#} {¶}
[17] 'Constitutional Scruples' - the kindest interpretation of S.C.'s opposition
to Internal Improvements; not a reproach
{#} {¶}
[18] H's insulting suspicion of others' motives
{#} {¶}
[18a] Ordinance of '87, and more recent examples
{#} {¶}
[18b] Relief measures of '20 and '21. Here's 'how, when, and why'!
{#} {¶}
[19a] With the world a peace, we face new market competition
{#} {¶}
[19b] Taking stock of our economy in 1815 - how to improve?
{#} {¶}
[20] WhenW. decided to support internal improvements, he was following
SC leadership!
{#} {¶}
[21] S.Carolina in 1816 ESSENTIAL to system of tariffs, internal improvements
{#} {¶}
[22] S.Carolina (McDuffie) routs the anti-tariff radicals
{#} {¶}
[23] Calhoun helps defeat an anti-internal improvement test vote
{#} {¶}
[24] SC now wants to nullify - as unconstitutional - such laws as she once
strongly supported
{#} {¶}
[25] Calhoun: A guiding star gone astray
{#} {¶}
[26] From nothing ever said to me ...
{#} {¶}
[27] A common debt is a common bond - not that debt is a good thing
{#} {¶}
[28] Another misconstruction - on consolidation
{#} {¶}
[29] H. wants 'Not a shilling of fixed revenue'
{#} {¶}
[30] W. inconsistent on the tariff? NO! he says
{#} {¶}
[31] Reiterating: N.Eng. did not originate the tariff
{#} {¶}
[32] 'Carrying the war into enemy country'
{#} {¶}
[33] Having his cake and eating it too.
{#} {¶}
[34] Political Grandparents
{#} {¶}
[35] Who do I 'attack'? Not the state of SC ...
{#} {¶}
[36] The Hartford Convention -- Mr H's precedent?
{#} {¶}
[37] Let us praise SC and MA heroes together
{#} {¶}
[38] My gravest duty: To defend the constitution
{#} {¶}
[39] We agree on fundamental right of rebellion
{#} {¶}
[40] Interference with Federal laws UNDER the Constitution?
{#} {¶}
[41] No Middle Ground
{#} {¶}
[42] Inquiry into the origin of our government.
{#} {¶}
[43] SC will rebel over a tariff like the one she supported in 1816
{#} {¶}
[44] Will each state decide matters that affect us all?
{#} {¶}
[45] SC: 'No collision' with England in 1775?
{#} {¶}
[46] New England and the Embargo - No precedent for nullification
{#} {¶}
[47] 'The great Dexter' took the case
{#} {¶}
[48] N.Eng. lost the case and acquiesced
{#} {¶}
[49] What use to say a case (for implementing nullification) must
be 'clear, deliberate...'?
{#} {¶}
[50] There would be no union if N.Eng. had followed S.C's course.
{#} {¶}
[51] Do VA resolutions of '98 really support SC doctrine?
{#} {¶}
[52] The People's Constitution - established the law and the arbiter
{#} {¶}
[53] Limited powers - but with an arbitrator
{#} {¶}
[54] How would nullification work? Initial confrontation.
{#} {¶}
[55] How will these acts be characterized if we fail? Treason.
{#} {¶}
[56] This state control will subvert the Union
{#} {¶}
[57] This doctrine would enfeeble the constitution.
{#} {¶}
[58] The Union a great object.
{#} {¶}
[59] Dark recesses, fraternal blood? -- or Liberty and Union forever!
{#} {¶}
[60] 'Compact' theory does not imply what Mr. H. says it does
