Page:Nullification Controversy in South Carolina.djvu/68

doubt, willing to go on in this way until every cent which they contributed toward the support of the government should be taken off and the South left to pay the expenses of government and support the northern manufactories besides.^[1] When this so-called trick was exposed, others, formerly hopeful, joined the ranks of those who believed that not a shade of hope remained for the South. Whatever would be done would be "in further insult or injury to the despised Plantations" and in further violation of the "prostituted parchment" which they "called in mockery a constitution."^[2] Some of these joined the ranks of the bold and asked how long such things were to be borne. Could a sovereign state, having in herself the undoubted means of redress, "with worse than womanish weakness" forbear to use them? Had her citizens who did so the hearts of men? The doctrine of state rights must be their sole safety, and many rejoiced at the spread of this doctrine as a result of the Webster-Hayne debate.^[3]

1. Mercury, May 29, 1830; Greenville Mountaineer, May 7.
2. Columbia Southern Times, May 17, 20, 1830. (This paper will be referred to hereafter as the Times,)
3. Times, May 20, June 10, 14, 1830; Telescope, July 2. The Webster-Hayne debate is further treated below, p. 64.