on we could scarcely be called a nation. We had neither
prosperity at home nor consideration abroad. This state of things could
not be endured, and our present happy Constitution was formed, but
formed in vain if this fatal doctrine prevails. It was formed for
important objects that are announced in the preamble, made in the name
and by the authority of the people of the United States, whose delegates
framed and whose conventions approved it. The most important among these
objects--that which is placed first in rank, on which all the others
rest--is "_to form a more perfect union_." Now, is it possible that even
if there were no express provision giving supremacy to the Constitution
and laws of the United States over those of the States, can it be
conceived that an instrument made for the purpose of "_forming a more
perfect union_" than that of the Confederation could be so constructed
by the assembled wisdom of our country as to substitute for that
Confederation a form of government dependent for its existence on the
local interest, the party spirit, of a State, or of a prevailing faction
in a State? Every man of plain, unsophisticated understanding who hears
the question will give such an answer as will preserve the Union.
Metaphysical subtlety, in pursuit of an impracticable theory, could
alone have devised one that is calculated to destroy it.

I consider, then, the power to annul a law of the United States, assumed
by one State, _incompatible with the existence of the Union,
contradicted expressly by the letter of the Constitution, unauthorised
by its spirit, inconsistent with every principle on which it was
founded, and destructive of the great object for which it was formed_.

After this general view of the leading principle, we must examine the
particular application of it which is made in the ordinance.

The preamble rests its justification on these grounds: It assumes as a
fact that the obnoxious laws, although they purport to be laws for
raising revenue, were in reality intended for the protection of
manufactures, which purpose it asserts to be unconstitutional; that the
operation of these laws is unequal; that the amount raised by them is
greater than is required by the wants of the Government; and, finally,
that the proceeds are to be applied to objects unauthorized by the
Constitution. These are the only causes alleged to justify an open
opposition to the laws of the country and a threat of seceding from