Williamsburg County, South Carolina - Chapter 22: The Nullification Movement, 1832, 1923

When the Treaty of Peace between the United States and Great Britain was signed in 1783, the United States were thirteen independent republics bound together by a "rope of sand." These thirteen independent states covering a vast territory were settled by peoples of widely differing European nations, of many classes, religions, occupations, and characteristics. The means of com¬ munication among these thirteen states were practically impossible. A journey over land from Boston to Savan¬ nah by the most rapid means of travel required many weeks and could be made only by strong and daring men inured to hardships and unaccustomed to fear.

In 1789, these thirteen independent American states united into one state and adopted the Federal Consti¬ tution. This union was effected after many years of fasting and praying by the righteous, of scheming and dreaming by politicians, and laboring and compromis¬ ing by statesmen. There were two well defined schools of political thought in almost every one of these thirteen states from the time of the actualization of their inde¬ pendence. One school believed that the success of this new thing in nations depended on a strong central govern¬ ment in which the thirteen states should play but minor parts. The other faction believed just as sincerely that the central government should be largely formal and possess but nominal authority and power. The economic interests of the northern section and the southern sec¬ tion of the territory of these United States were widely different. The North was better suited for manufactur¬ ing and commerce and the South for agriculture and stock raising.

This new government of the United States required money for supporting its many agencies or functions. A tax on imported goods was adopted in the beginning to raise the required revenue. This tax on imported goods actually subsidized manufacturing and commerce, but it placed a heavy burden on agriculture and stock raising. The tariff question was from the beginning, and has con¬ tinued until this day, the direct or the indirect cause of nearly all the conflicts which have befallen the American people. The sections were first divided on this matter and still divide on it as interests conflict in the ever changing economic conditions in the various parts of the nation.

If some statesmen of 1789 could have written into the Constitution of the United States an article that would have, without favoring any section, produced revenue sufficient to maintain the Federal Government in all of its activities forever, in all probability the "States' Rights" question would have been the subject of nothing more than fanciful, theoretical, senatorial orations, and the slavery matter of little more than long winded ser¬ mons by sharp nosed Puritans, "full of sound and fury, signifying nothing."

South Carolina was the one state of all the thirteen most grievously burdened by the taxes, known as the tariff, levied and collected by the Federal Government. South Carolina was, is, and will be, a state dependent largely on agriculture and animal husbandry, and there is no portion of South Carolina more entirely devoted to agri¬ culture and stock raising than is Williamsburg.

About 1830, the tariff then in force was especially burdensome to South Carolina; and in 1832 a State Con¬ vention was held in Columbia and declared the tariffs of 1828 and 1832 null and void, and that if the United States Government attempted to enforce them, South Carolina would set up a government of its own. The great leaders of the Nullification in South Carolina were Calhoun, Hayne, McDuffie, and Hamilton; the Unionist leaders were Legare, Grimke, Pettigru, and Elliott. Practic¬ ally everybody in South Carolina opposed any tariff ex¬ cept for revenue. The division between the Nullifiers and the Unionists in South Carolina lay in the means to be used for opposing the ever increasing tariff. The Nulli¬ fiers claimed that the Constitution was a compact be¬ tween the states as equals, that this Constitution had granted certain powers to the general government and reserved all others to the states; and that when the Federal Government should exceed its granted powers, any state had the right to veto such action. The Union party held that the Constitution was for the government of the American people as a whole, and that no state had the right to nullify any act of the National Government.

In Williamsburg District, the lines between the Nulli¬ fiers and the Unionists were clearly drawn. In Kingstree, Dr. James Bradley was Unionist leader; allied with him were the Scotts, Fultons, and Witherspoons. Dr. Thomas D. Singleton was the leading Nullifier and with him were the Gourdins, Nelsons, and Salters'. On the Santee, Dr. William Buford and Major Morgan Sabb were Unionists, while the Campbells, Gourdins, Keels, and Mc¬ Donalds were Nullifiers. Anderson Township, under the leadership of Matthew L. Martin, was almost unanimously Union; on Black Mingo, the Doziers and Captain Jack Graham were Unionists, and the Nesmiths and Brockintons were Nullifiers; the Johnsonville section was com¬ posed largely of Unionists under the leadership of the Johnsons, Haseldens, and Coxs; the Lake section, in its northern and middle portions, under the leadership of A. F. Graham, Samuel E. Graham, the Cockfields, Mc- Callisters, Matthews', and Rodgers, was largely for Nulli¬ fication, while its lower and eastern portions, under the leadership of James Graham, the Singletarys, and

Browns, largely espoused the Union cause. Indiantown was almost as a unit favorable to the Union cause. Many of the old families of the district were seriously divided on this question, as were the Grahams, Mouzons, McClarys, and Hannas.

The feeling between these two factions in Williams¬ burg grew intense. The Nullifiers denounced the Union¬ ists as submissionists or cowards, and the Unionists re¬ torted that the Nullifiers were "all smoke and no fire." The Nullifiers adopted as a badge a cockade made of white and blue ribbons representing a palmetto tree and wore these badges on the side of their hats. Great public dinners were given by each party in the several sections of the district. Sometimes, both parties held their feasts on the same day and at the some place. At these dinners, fiery orators addressed the multitudes and frequently feeling ran so high that rioting was begun.

Many were the fisticuff fights occurring between parti¬ sans at this time. Tradition tells of some of these. Among them, that between W. G. Gamble, Nullifier, and Colonel William Cooper, Unionist, which occurred at Kingstree; one between Robert W. Fulton, of Kingstree, and John F. Graham, at the crossroads in the vicinity of Cades. Another between Sam Graham, Unionist, and C. W. Cades, Nullifier, at the same place. Among the orators who addressed the Union gatherings in Williamsburg, were Dr. James Bradley, Colonel David D. Wilson, and Honor¬ able Thomas R. Mitchell, while the most important Nulli¬ fier speakers were Dr. Thomas D. Singleton and Peter Gourdin.

As evidence of how nearly these two factions in Wil¬ liamsburg were equal, Dr. Thomas D. Singleton and Colo¬ nel David D. Wilson were candidates for the Senate from Williamsburg, and when the vote was tabulated it was found that each of them had received the same number. Members of the Legislature from Williamsburg elected that year were Dr. T. D. Singleton, William Cooper, and Joseph Bradley, two Unionists and one Nullifier. The Nullifiers elected all three of their delegates to the Nulli¬ fication Convention which was held in November, 1832. The delegates from Williamsburg to this Convention were Peter Gourdin, Dr. T. D. Singleton, and William Waites.