substituting the supremacy of military force in lieu of the
supremacy of the laws. In fact, the advocates of this bill
refute their own argument. They tell us that the ordinance is
unconstitutional; that it infracts the Constitution of South
Carolina, although, to me, the objection appears absurd, as it
was adopted by the very authority which adopted the Constitution
itself. They also tell us that the Supreme Court is the
appointed arbiter of all controversies between a State and the
general government. Why, then, do they not leave this
controversy to that tribunal? Why do they not confide to them
the abrogation of the ordinance, and the laws made in pursuance
of it, and the assertion of that supremacy which they claim for
the laws of Congress? The State stands pledged to resist no
process of the court. Why, then, confer on the President the
extensive and unlimited powers provided in this bill? Why
authorize him to use military force to arrest the civil process
of the State? But one answer can be given: That, in a contest
between the State and the general government, if the resistance
be limited on both sides to the civil process, the State, by its
inherent sovereignty, standing upon its reserved powers, will
prove too powerful in such a controversy, and must triumph over
the Federal government, sustained by its delegated and limited
authority; and in this answer we have an acknowledgment of the
truth of those great principles for which the State has so firmly
and nobly contended....

Notwithstanding all that has been said, I may say that neither
the Senator from Delaware (Mr. Clayton), nor any other who has
spoken on the same side, has directly and fairly met the great
question at issue: Is this a Federal Union? a union of States, as