This page has been validated.
50
Nullification Controversy in South Carolina
There were some, however, who viewed the action of Congress as a promise of a better program for the future.[1] The Courier was even accused of trying to show the tariff to be not an evil to the South, but a positive good.[2] There were also some few in the state who were said, with some degree of truth, to be ready to sacrifice the principle for which the state stood as regarded internal improvements.[3] The tariff defenders
- ↑ Pendleton Messenger, March 24, August 25, 1830; Greenville Mountaineer, June 11.
- ↑ Mercury, May 15, 1830. The Mercury pronounced this an insult to the people; true, some prices were lower than they had been before the tariff was fixed, but this was in spite of the tariff, and they would have been still lower without it. The fall in prices had been general, affecting articles unprotected and protected alike, and was due to the substitution of a sound for a depreciated currency, to machinery improvements, etc.; prices would have been still lower but for the tariff.
- ↑ The directors of the South Carolina Canal and Railroad Company petitioned Congress to purchase some of its stock. This was at once regarded with alarm by many who believed that it would imperil the honor, rights, and dignity of the state, and who were even then protesting against the power of the general government in relation to internal improvements (Courier, March 5, 1829) . Accordingly, on December 2, 1829, the House of the state legislature voted resolutions requesting the South Carolina congressmen to oppose any such appropriations for internal improvements (Courier, December 7, 1829). On January 1, 1830, a railroad meeting was held in Charleston which passed resolutions inviting Congress to take stock in the South Carolina Canal and Railroad Company and a committee was appointed to memorialize Congress and ask the South Carolina
