a particular oath of allegiance, and in every respect similar to
that which is prescribed, under the Constitution of the United
States, to be administered to all the officers of the State and
Federal governments; and is no more deserving the harsh and
bitter epithets which have been heaped upon it than that or any
similar oath. It ought to be borne in mind that, according to
the opinion which prevails in Carolina, the right of resistance
to the unconstitutional acts of Congress belongs to the State,
and not to her individual citizens; and that, though the latter
may, in a mere question of *meum* and *tuum,* resist through the
courts an unconstitutional encroachment upon their rights, yet
the final stand against usurpation rests not with them, but with
the State of which they are members; and such act of resistance
by a State binds the conscience and allegiance of the citizen.
But there appears to be a general misapprehension as to the
extent to which the State has acted under this part of the
ordinance. Instead of sweeping every officer by a general
proscription of the minority, as has been represented in debate,
as far as my knowledge extends, not a single individual has been
removed. The State has, in fact, acted with the greatest
tenderness, all circumstances considered, toward citizens who
differed from the majority; and, in that spirit, has directed the
oath to be administered only in the case of some official act
directed to be performed in which obedience to the ordinance is
involved....

It is next objected that the enforcing acts have legislated the
United States out of South Carolina. I have already replied to
this objection on another occasion, and will now but repeat what
I then said: that they have been legislated out only to the