for the purpose of securing all the offices of the state to the State Rights party, for the Unionists knew that no Union man could be found who would "soil his conscience and sell his country for the paltry consideration held forth by the emoluments of office" when "offered as the wages of iniquity—as the reward of moral perjury!"
Surely this plan could not be executed, for it would arouse the dormant spirit of the people and open their eyes to the approach of despotism, reasoned the Union men.[1] But since the personnel of the legislature would be the same at its next session as at the last, that body would be likely to take such action as the nullification leaders desired, unless a formidable popular sentiment against the oath could be worked up by the Union party. Accordingly, from March until the legislature met, the last week in November, the papers were filled with arguments pro and con on the advisability of adopting an oath.
Though the oath question was still in agitation, the editors of the state welcomed the comparative calm of the next few months. For the past four years, and especially during the last two, the
- ↑ Gazette, March 19, 1833.
