Grimke, Thomas:

ARGUMENT OF THOMAS S. GRIMKE, DELIVERED IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF SOUTH-CAROLINA. BEFORE THE HON. DAVID JOHNSON & WILLIAM HARPER; ON THE 2D AND 3D APRIL, 1834: IN THE CASE OF THE STATE, EX RELATIONE EDWARD M'CRADY, AGAINST COL. B.F. HUNT; ON THE CONSTITUTIONALITY OF THE OATH IN THE ACT FOR THE MILITARY ORGANIZATION OF THIS STATE. PASSED 19TH DECEMBER, 1833. WITH TABLE OF CONTENTS & STATEMENT OF THE CASE.

Charleston: Published by J.S. Burges, 1834. [1], 28pp. Printed in double columns. Disbound, trimmed closely at outer margin but not affecting text. Good+.

This unusual and significant case-- a challenge to the National Government's Supremacy-- was an outgrowth of the Nullification Controversy. South Carolina's 1833 Convention had resolved that "the allegiance of the citizens of this State, is due to the said State...abjuring all other allegiance." The Legislature then codified this resolution, requiring militia officers to take the Oath. The Oath thus posed a direct challenge to the United States Constitution's Supremacy Clause, which asserted that the laws of the United States were the supreme laws of the land, taking precedence over those of any State.
In early 1834 Edward M'Crady, newly elected Lieutenant in the Washington Light Infantry, refused to take the Oath of Allegiance on the ground that it conflicted with the Supremacy Clause of the U.S. Constitution. Thomas Grimke represented M'Crady. Here he presents his learned, elaborate analysis of the Nullification Convention, his argument on the nature of Sovereignty and the relation between the States and the National Government, and his conclusion that the Oath is unconstitutional.
The Court would hold the Oath unconstitutional, Judge Harper dissenting.
Cohen 11479. II Turnbull 323. AI 24740 [5]. Item #30823

Price: $750.00