Is it not strange, Sir, that an intelligent man in South Carolina, in 1828, should thus labor to prove that, in 1775, there was no hostility, no cause of war, between South Carolina and England?  That she had no occasion, in reference to her own interest, or from a regard to her own welfare, to take up arms in the Revolutionary contest?  Can any one account for the expression of such strange sentiments, and their circulation through the State, otherwise than by supposing the object to be what I have already intimated, to raise the question, if they had no “collision” (mark the expression) with the ministers of King George the Third, in 1775, what collision have they, in 1828, with the ministers of King George the Fourth?  What is there now, in the existing state of things, to separate Carolina from Old, more, or rather, than from New England?

Resolutions, Sir, have been recently passed by the legislature of South Carolina.  I need not refer to them; they go no farther than the honorable gentleman himself has gone, and I hope not so far.  I content myself, therefore, with debating the matter with him.

And now, Sir, what I have first to say on this subject is, that at no time, and under no circumstances, has New England, or any State in New England, or any respectable body of persons in New England, or any public man of standing in New England, put forth such a doctrine as this Carolina doctrine.

The gentleman has found no case, he can find none, to support his own opinions by New England authority.  New England has studied the Constitution in other schools, and under other teachers.  She looks upon it with other regards, and deems more highly and reverently both of its just authority and its utility and excellence.  The history of her legislative proceedings may be traced.  The ephemeral effusions of temporary bodies, called together by the excitement of the occasion, may be hunted up; they have been hunted up.  The opinions and votes of her public men, in and out of Congress, may be explored.  It will all be in vain.  The Carolina doctrine can derive from her neither countenance nor support.  She rejects it now; she always did reject it; and till she loses her senses, she always will reject it.  The honorable member has referred to expressions on the subject of the embargo law, made in this place, by an honorable and venerable gentleman,[6] now favoring us with his presence.  He quotes that distinguished Senator as saying, that, in his judgment, the embargo law was unconstitutional, and that therefore, in his opinion, the people were not bound to obey it.  That, Sir, is perfectly constitutional language.  An unconstitutional law is not binding; but then it does not rest with a resolution or a law of a State legislature to decide whether an act of Congress be or be not constitutional.  An unconstitutional act of Congress would not bind the people of this District, although they have no