Thank you for visiting SNEWPapers!

Sign up free
Page thumbnail for Herald Of The Times
Domestic News December 6, 1832

Herald Of The Times

Newport, Newport County, Rhode Island

What is this article about?

Report on an Ordinance from the South Carolina Convention signaling serious resistance to federal laws, with commentary from the New-York American advocating congressional measures to revoke South Carolina's ports of entry and enforce U.S. supremacy without violence.

Clipping

OCR Quality

98% Excellent

Full Text

It will be seen, by the Ordinance reported to the South Carolina Convention which we publish to-day, that things begin to assume a serious aspect in that quarter.

The following apposite remarks in relation to the course they are pursuing, we find in the New-York American.

'South Carolina seems resolved to draw the sword, and throw away the scabbard. She must be brought to reason and submission. That State, nor no other state, can be permitted to declare at pleasure what laws of Congress are, and what are not, constitutional—what enactments of the General Government it will obey, and what it will not. Yet this is the claim which, under pretext of the reserved rights of the states, South Carolina now undertakes to establish. The remedy is in the hands of Congress. Whenever, by any overt act, the resistance of the state to a law of the United States, is made manifest; that is whenever, in endeavoring to enforce such law, the officer of the United States finds himself either impeded or not sustained by the citizens, or laws, or tribunals of the State—the case for the peremptory vindication of the supremacy of the General Government will be presented. All ports of entry, or collection districts, in the United States, are made such by acts of Congress; and no vessel, except coasting craft, can enter or trade with any port not designated by Congress as a port of entry, under the penalty of being seized and condemned as smugglers. If the state of South Carolina will not permit the introduction of merchandize into her three collection districts upon the conditions imposed by law, upon the introduction of the like merchandize into every other collection district in the United States, can she reasonably complain, if, in the exercise of the ordinary and unquestioned revenue powers of the general government, Congress should repeal the thirteenth section of the revenue law, and leave her without any ports of entry? That is both a peaceful and a rightful remedy; and that section being once repealed, the whole body of the revenue laws goes to enforce the penalty of smuggling against any vessels attempting to trade with these ports. As, then, no vessels could enter Charleston, there would be no occasion of collision—no opportunity for the display of hot blood; and a few revenue cutters on the look out to preserve the revenue laws from violation, would maintain the just ascendancy of the United States; while South Carolina, deprived of commerce, shut up within herself, with the spectacle before her eyes of the ports of neighboring states, whitened with the shipping that should have enriched her own, would have leisure to calculate, more coolly than she has heretofore seemed to do, 'the value of the Union.''

What sub-type of article is it?

Politics Economic

What keywords are associated?

South Carolina Convention Nullification Federal Supremacy Revenue Law Ports Of Entry Charleston Trade

Where did it happen?

South Carolina

Domestic News Details

Primary Location

South Carolina

Outcome

potential revocation of ports of entry in south carolina, leading to loss of commerce and enforcement of federal revenue laws without direct collision.

Event Details

An Ordinance reported to the South Carolina Convention indicates serious resistance to federal laws. Commentary from the New-York American argues that South Carolina cannot nullify congressional laws and suggests Congress repeal the thirteenth section of the revenue law to deprive the state of ports of entry, enforcing supremacy through economic measures and revenue cutters.

Are you sure?