Page:Nullification Controversy in South Carolina.djvu/59

From Wikisource
Jump to navigation Jump to search
This page has been proofread, but needs to be validated.
40
Nullification Controversy in South Carolina

of disunion,[1] there was a decided lull on the issue throughout the state. Toward the end of the year, as the time approached for the assembling of the state legislature and of Congress, it was, in view of what some expected from the latter, a pertinent question what action the former should take. Early in the year, in its first issue, the Greenville Mountaineer[2] had thoroughly indorsed the course of the last session of the legislature as the only one for South Carolina to pursue, for it believed that there was no step between the one already taken—legislative protest—and open, unqualified resistance. The plan of non-consumption of all products which were either grown or manufactured in the tariff states was approved as the only proper mode of resistance, however feeble it might be.

As the time approached, other suggestions were ventured. Two writers in a Columbia paper differed as to what they considered the proper policy. "Lowndes" felt, in view of the forbearance of the state in the past, when there

  1. Courier, August 4, 1829, "A Carolinian"; October 15, "Anti-Cato"; Gazette, September 17, "Union"; August 4, "Caution."
  2. Greenville Mountaineer, January 10, 1829. This paper, soon to prove itself a strong Union paper, will be referred to hereafter as the Mountaineer.