The question again approached the acute stage in 1832, when the sovereign convention of the people of South Carolina was called which adopted what was known as the "Nullification Ordinance." The leading features of this were (1) a declaration that the tariff act of 1832, being based upon the principle of protection to manufacturers, and not with the view to raising revenue, was unconstitutional and therefore null and void; (2) a provision for testing the constitutionality of this act before the courts of the state; (3) that in case the measures thus adopted for the purpose stated should be forcibly resisted by the federal authorities, then the State of South Carolina was declared to be no longer a member of the Federal Union. The last measure was to take effect on the 12th of February, 1833, if before that time the principle of levying duties upon imports, not with a view to revenue, but for the protection of domestic manufactures, should not be abandoned by the congress of the states.3
But notwithstanding these hostile demonstrations on the part of South Carolina, there was really no very great danger to the Union at that time. Andrew Jackson, a man of great determination of character, and patriotically devoted to the Union, was president; and his political principles ran parallel with his devotion. He issued a proclamation in which he urged South Carolina not to persist in the enforcement of her ordinance as it would necessarily bring the federal and state authorities in conflict, and if the citizens of South Carolina took up arms against the United States they would be guilty of treason. "The ordinance," said he, "is founded not on the indefeasible right of resisting acts which are plainly unconstitutional, and too oppressive to be endured; but on the strange position that any one state may not only declare an act of congress void but prohibit its execution, and that they may do this consistently with the constitution; that the true construction of that instrument permits a state to retain its place in the Union, and yet be bound by no other of its laws than those it may choose to consider constitutional."4
It was in December, 1832, the same month in which the revelation and prophecy under consideration was given, that this issue between South Carolina and the Federal government about reached its climax. It is important to observe that these questions of nullification and a state's right to secede from the Union were sharply agitated in December, 1832, because it gives direct testimony of the original date of the prophecy. That is, it is clear from the facts of history that the question in 1832 was before the nation; and very naturally the prophet inquired of the Lord concerning it, with the result that he receive the revelation now under consideration.
That the prophet did make inquiry of the Lord concerning this subject is evident from a direct statement of his to that effect. Preaching at Ramus, Illinois, on the 2nd of April, 1843, the prophet in the course of his remarks said: "I prophesy, in the name of the Lord God, that the commencement of the difficulties which will cause much bloodshed previous to the coming of the Son of Man will be in South Carolina. It may probably arise through the slave question. This a voice declared to me, while I was praying earnestly on the subject, December 25th, 1832."5
No American statesman in 1832 believed that the doctrines of secession then talked of would result in a great civil war. None of them had the foresight to see that a great rebellion would occur, beginning in South Carolina; that it would terminate in the death and misery of many souls; that the Southern States would be divided against the Northern States; that the Southern States would call on Great Britain, and that war would eventually be poured out upon all nations. No one, I say, foresaw that this would be the result save only that inspired youth—then but twenty-seven years of age—Joseph Smith, and he saw it only by the spirit of prophecy and revelation. To be required to believe that the prophecy was merely the fortunate conjecture of a more than ordinarily astute mind, requires a greater amount of credulity than to concede the inspiration of the prophet; and then the question would still remain, why is it that sagacious minds in other generations have not paralleled this astuteness of Joseph Smith's? Why did not some of the brilliant minds in the Senate or House of Representatives in 1832 make such a prediction? There was no dearth of brilliant minds in either Senate or House at that time, yet none seemed equal to the task.
But was the prophecy fulfilled? Did the great Civil War begin with the rebellion of South Carolina? Let history answer.
I. South Carolina took the initiative in the great rebellion. Deeming her interests threatened, and the institution of slavery doomed if Abraham Lincoln was elected; on November 5th, 1860, her legislature met to choose presidential electors, and Governor William H. Gist in his message to that legislature recommended that in the event of Abraham Lincoln's election to the presidency, a convention of the people of the state be immediately called to consider and determine for themselves the mode and measure of redress. He expressed the opinion that the only alternative left in the event of Lincoln's election was "the secession of South Carolina from the Federal Union."6
On the 10th of November, 1860, the United States Senators from South Carolina, James N. Hammond and James Chestnut, Jr., resigned their seats, being the first of the senators to take that step.7
On the 17th of November, 1860, an ordinance of secession was unanimously adopted by the Legislature of South Carolina, the first act of the kind by any of the states.8
On the 24th of November, 1860, South Carolina's Representatives in Congress withdrew; they were the first representatives to do so.9
Members to a state convention for the purpose of considering the method and measure of redress in the event to Abraham Lincoln's election, were elected on the 3rd of December, 1860; the convention was assembled in Charleston.10
On the 20th of December, 1860, the convention passed the ordinance of secession and Governor Pickins—just elected—announced on the same date the repeal, by the good people of South Carolina, the ordinance of May 23rd, 1788, by which South Carolina had ratified the Federal Constitution, and declared "the dissolution of the union between the state of South Carolina and the other states under the name of the United States." The governor's proclamation also announced to the world "that the state of South Carolina is, as she has a right to be, a separate, sovereign, free and independent state and, as such, has a right to levy war, conclude peace, negotiate treaties, leagues, or covenants, and to do all acts whatsoever that rightly pertain to a free and independent state. Done in the eighty-fifth year of the sovereignty and independence of South Carolina."11
Following is the complete Ordinance passed by the Convention, as it appeared in the Charleston Mercury Extra for that date, the original of which the following is a copy is in the Libby Prison Museum, of Chicago:
PASSED UNANIMOUSLY AT 1:15 P. M., DECEMBER 20TH, 1860.
"An ordinance to dissolve the union between the States of South Carolina and other States united with her under the compact entitled 'The Constitution of the United States of America.'
"We, the people of the State of South Carolina, in convention assembled, do declare and ordain, and it is hereby declared and ordained, 'That the ordinance adopted by us on the 23rd of May, A. D. 1788, whereby the Constitution of the United States of America was ratified, and also all acts and parts of acts of the General Assembly of this State ratifying amendments of the said Constitution are hereby repealed, and the union now subsisting between South Carolina and other States, under the name of 'The United States