legislature to interfere in their behalf; and, on the other hand, a constitutional law of Congress does bind the citizens of every State, although all their legislatures should undertake to annul it by act or resolution.  The venerable Connecticut Senator is a constitutional lawyer, of sound principles and enlarged knowledge; a statesman practised and experienced, bred in the company of Washington, and holding just views upon the nature of our governments.  He believed the embargo unconstitutional, and so did others; but what then?  Who did he suppose was to decide that question?  The State legislatures?  Certainly not.  No such sentiment ever escaped his lips.

Let us follow up, Sir, this New England opposition to the embargo laws; let us trace it, till we discern the principle which controlled and governed New England throughout the whole course of that opposition.  We shall then see what similarity there is between the New England school of constitutional opinions, and this modern Carolina school.  The gentleman, I think, read a petition from some single individual addressed to the legislature of Massachusetts, asserting the Carolina doctrine; that is, the right of State interference to arrest the laws of the Union.  The fate of that petition shows the sentiment of the legislature.  It met no favor.  The opinions of Massachusetts were very different.  They had been expressed in 1798, in answer to the resolutions of Virginia, and she did not depart from them, nor bend them to the times.  Misgoverned, wronged, oppressed, as she felt herself to be, she still held fast her integrity to the Union.  The gentleman may find in her proceedings much evidence of dissatisfaction with the measures of government, and great and deep dislike to the embargo; all this makes the case so much the stronger for her; for, notwithstanding all this dissatisfaction and dislike, she still claimed no right to sever the bonds of the Union.  There was heat, and there was anger in her political feeling.  Be it so; but neither her heat nor her anger betrayed her into infidelity to the government.  The gentleman labors to prove that she disliked the embargo as much as South Carolina dislikes the tariff, and expressed her dislike as strongly.  Be it so; but did she propose the Carolina remedy? did she threaten to interfere, by State authority, to annul the laws of the Union?  That is the question for the gentleman’s consideration.

No doubt, Sir, a great majority of the people of New England conscientiously believed the embargo law of 1807 unconstitutional; as conscientiously, certainly, as the people of South Carolina hold that opinion of the tariff.  They reasoned thus:  Congress has power to regulate commerce; but here is a law, they said, stopping all commerce, and stopping it indefinitely.  The law is perpetual; that is, it is not limited in point of time, and must of course continue until it shall be repealed by some other law.  It is as perpetual, therefore, as the law