n her citizens, by compelling them to
pay outside of her ports the duties on imports, which the State had
declared unconstitutional, and had forbidden to be collected in her
ports.

There remained at that day enough of the spirit in which the Union had
been founded--enough of respect for the sovereignty of States and of
regard for the limitations of the Constitution--to prevent a conflict of
arms. The compromise of 1833 was adopted, which South Carolina agreed to
accept, the principle for which she contended being virtually conceded.

Meantime there had been no lack, as we have already seen, of assertions
of the sovereign rights of the States from other quarters. The
declaration of these rights by the New England States and their
representatives, on the acquisition of Louisiana in 1803, on the
admission of the State of that name in 1811-'12, and on the question of
the annexation of Texas in 1843-'45, have been referred to in another
place. Among the resolutions of the Massachusetts Legislature, in
relation to the proposed annexation of Texas, adopted in February, 1845,
were the following:

"2. _Resolved_, That there has hitherto been no precedent of the
admission of a foreign state or foreign territory into the Union
by legislation. And as the powers of legislation, granted in the
Constitution of the United States to Congress, do not embrace a
case of the admission of a foreign state or foreign territory,
by legislation, into the Union, such an act of admission _would
have no binding force whatever on the people of Massachusetts_.

"3. _Resolved_, That the power, _never having been granted by
the people of Massachusetts_, to admit into the Union States and
Territories not within the same when the Constitution was
adopted, _remains with the people, and can only be exercised in
such way and manner as the people shall hereafter designate and
appoint_."[107]

To these stanch declarations of principles--with regard to which
(leaving out of consideration the particular occasion that called them
forth) my only doubt would be whether they do not express too decided a
doctrine of nullification--may be added the avowal of one of the most
distinguished sons of Massachusetts, John Quincy Adams, in his discourse
before the New York Historical Society, in 1839:

"Nations" (says Mr. Adams) "acknowledge no judge between them
upon earth; and their governments, from neces