Sir, I consider this bill, and the arguments which have been urged on this floor in its support, as the most triumphant acknowledgment that nullification is peaceful and efficient, and so deeply intrenched in the principles of our system, that it cannot be assailed but by prostrating the Constitution, and 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 distinct from that of individuals?  Is the sovereignty in the several States, or in the American people in the aggregate?  The very language which we are compelled to use when speaking of our political institutions, affords proof conclusive as to its real character.  The terms union, federal, united, all imply a combination of sovereignties, a confederation of States.  They never apply to an association of individuals.  Who ever heard of the United State of New York, of Massachusetts, or of Virginia?  Who ever heard the term federal or union applied to the aggregation of individuals into one community?  Nor is the other point less clear—­that the sovereignty is in the several States, and that our system is a union of twenty-four sovereign powers, under a constitutional compact, and not of a divided sovereignty between the States severally and the United States?  In spite of all that has been said, I maintain that sovereignty