Chapter CDLXXIV: Section 4: And be it further enacted, That this act shall (6)

Article IV.
Whereas it was stipulated by the second article in the treaty
of peace of one thousand seven hundred and eighty-three,
between His Britannic Majesty and the United States of
America, that the boundary of the United States should
comprehend all islands within twenty leagues of any part of
the shores of the United States, and lying between lines to be
drawn due east from the points where the aforesaid boundaries,
between Nova Scotia on the one part, and East Florida on the
other, shall respectively touch the Bay of Fundy and the
Atlantic Ocean, excepting such islands as now are, or
heretofore have been, within the limits of Nova Scotia; and
whereas the several islands in the Bay of Passamaquoddy, which
is part of the Bay of Fundy, and the Island of Grand Menan, in
the said Bay of Fundy, are claimed by the United States as
being comprehended within their aforesaid boundaries, which
said islands are claimed as belonging to His Britannic
Majesty, as having been, at the time of and previous to the
aforesaid treaty of one thousand seven hundred and
eighty-three, within the limits of the Province of Nova
Scotia: In order, therefore, finally to decide upon these
claims, it is agreed that they shall be referred to two
Commissioners to be appointed in the following manner, viz:
One Commissioner shall be appointed by His Britannic Majesty,
and one by the President of the United States, by and with the
advice and consent of the Senate thereof; and the said two
Commissioners so appointed shall be sworn impartially to
examine and decide upon the said claims according to such
evidence as shall be laid before them on the part of His
Britannic Majesty and of the United States respectively. The
said Commissioners shall meet at St. Andrews, in the Province
of New Brunswick, and shall have power to adjourn to such
other place or places as they shall think fit. The said
Commissioners shall, by a declaration or report under their
hands and seals, decide to which of the two contracting
parties the several islands aforesaid do respectively belong,
in conformity with the true intent of the said treaty of peace
of one thousand seven hundred and eighty-three. And if the
said Commissioners shall agree in their decision, both parties
shall consider such decision as final and conclusive. It is
further agreed that, in event of the two Commissioners
differing upon all or any of the matters so referred to them,
or in the event of both or either of the said Commissioners
refusing, or declining, or wilfully omitting to act as such,
they shall make, jointly or separately, a report or reports,
as well to the Government of His Britannic Majesty as to that
of the United States, stating in detail the points on which
they differ, and the grounds upon which their respective
opinions have been formed, or the grounds upon which they, or
either of them, have so refused, declined, or omitted to act.
And His Britannic Majesty and the Government of the United
States hereby agree to refer the report or reports of the said
Commissioners to some friendly sovereign or State, to be then
named for that purpose, and who shall be requested to decide
on the differences which may be stated in the said report or
reports, or upon the report of one Commissioner, together with
the grounds upon which the other Commissioner shall have
refused, declined or omitted to act, as the case may be. And
if the Commissioner so refusing, declining or omitting to act,
shall also wilfully omit to state the grounds upon which he
has so done, in such manner that the said statement may be
referred to such friendly sovereign or State, together with
the report of such other Commissioner, then such sovereign or
State shall decide ex parte upon the said report alone. And
His Britannic Majesty and the Government of the United States
engage to consider the decision of such friendly sovereign or
State to be final and conclusive on all the matters so
referred.

Article V.
Whereas neither that point of the highlands lying due north
from the source of the river St. Croix, and designated in the
former treaty of peace between the two Powers as the northwest
angle of Nova Scotia, nor the north-westernmost head of
Connecticut River, has yet been ascertained; and whereas that
part of the boundary line between the dominions of the two
Powers which extends from the source of the river St. Croix
directly north to the above mentioned northwest angle of Nova
Scotia, thence along the said highlands which divide those
rivers that empty themselves into the river St. Lawrence from
those which fall into the Atlantic Ocean to the northwestern
most head of Connecticut River, thence down along the middle
of that river to the forty-fifth degree of north latitude;
thence by a line due west on said latitude until it strikes
the river Iroquois or Cataraquy, has not yet been surveyed: it
is agreed that for these several purposes two Commissioners
shall be appointed, sworn, and authorized to act exactly in
the manner directed with respect to those mentioned in the
next preceding article, unless otherwise specified in the
present article. The said Commissioners shall meet at St.
Andrews, in the Province of New Brunswick, and shall have
power to adjourn to such other place or places as they shall
think fit. The said Commissioners shall have power to
ascertain and determine the points above mentioned, in
conformity with the provisions of the said treaty of peace of
one thousand seven hundred and eighty-three, and shall cause
the boundary aforesaid, from the source of the river St. Croix
to the river Iroquois or Cataraquy, to be surveyed and marked
according to the said provisions. The said Commissioners shall
make a map of the said boundary, and annex to it a declaration
under their hands and seals, certifying it to be the true map
of the said boundary, and particularizing the latitude and
longitude of the northwest angle of Nova Scotia, of the
northwesternmost head of Connecticut River, and of such other
points of the said boundary as they may deem proper. And both
parties agree to consider such map and declaration as finally
and conclusively fixing the said boundary. And in the event of
the said two Commissioners differing, or both or either of
them refusing, declining, or wilfully omitting to act, such
reports, declarations, or statements shall be made by them, or
either of them, and such reference to a friendly sovereign or
State shall be made in all respects as in the latter part of
the fourth article is contained, and in as full a manner as if
the same was herein repeated.

{3357}

Article VI.
Whereas by the former treaty of peace that portion of the
boundary of the United States from the point where the
forty-fifth degree of north latitude strikes the river
Iroquois or Cataraquy to the Lake Superior, was declared to be
"along the middle of said river into Lake Ontario, through the
middle of said lake, until it strikes the communication by
water between that lake and Lake Erie, thence along the middle
of said communication into Lake Erie, through the middle of said
lake until it arrives at the water communication into the Lake
Huron, thence through the middle of said lake to the water
communication between that lake and Lake Superior;" and
whereas doubts have arisen what was the middle of the said
river, lakes, and water communications, and whether certain
islands lying in the same were within the dominions of His
Britannic Majesty or of the United States: In order,
therefore, finally to decide these doubts, they shall be
referred to two Commissioners, to be appointed, sworn, and
authorized to act exactly in the manner directed with respect
to those mentioned in the next preceding article, unless
otherwise specified in this present article. The said
Commissioners shall meet, in the first instance, at Albany, in
the State of New York, and shall have power to adjourn to such
other place or places as they shall think fit. The said
Commissioners shall, by a report or declaration, under their
hands and seals, designate the boundary through the said
river, lakes and water communications, and decide to which of
the two contracting parties the several islands lying within
the said rivers, lakes, and water communications, do
respectively belong, in conformity with the true intent of the
said treaty of one thousand seven hundred and eighty-three.
And both parties agree to consider such designation and
decision as final and conclusive. And in the event of the said
two Commissioners differing, or both or either of them
refusing, declining, or wilfully omitting to act, such
reports, declarations, or statements shall be made by them, or
either of them, and such reference to a friendly sovereign or
State shall be made in all respects as in the latter part of
the fourth article is contained, and in as full a manner as if
the same was herein repeated.

Article VII.
It is further agreed that the said two last-mentioned
Commissioners, after they shall have executed the duties
assigned to them in the preceding article, shall be, and they
are hereby, authorized upon their oaths impartially to fix and
determine, according to the true intent of the said treaty of
peace of one thousand seven hundred and eighty-three, that
part of the boundary between the dominions of the two Powers
which extends from the water communication between Lake Huron
and Lake Superior, to the most northwestern point of the Lake
of the Woods, to decide to which of the two parties the
several islands lying in the lakes, water communications, and
rivers, forming the said boundary, do respectively belong, in
conformity with the true intent of the said treaty of peace of
one thousand seven hundred and eighty-three; and to cause such
parts of the said boundary as require it to be surveyed and
marked. The said Commissioners shall, by a report or
declaration under their hands and seals, designate the
boundary aforesaid, state their decision on the points thus
referred to them, and particularize the latitude and longitude
of the most northwestern point of the Lake of the Woods, and
of such other parts of the said boundary as they may deem
proper. And both parties agree to consider such designation
and decision as final and conclusive. And in the event of the
said two Commissioners differing, or both or either of them
refusing, declining, or wilfully omitting to act, such
reports, declarations, or statements shall be made by them, or
either of them, and such reference to a friendly sovereign or
State shall be made in all respects as in the latter part of
the fourth article is contained, and in as full a manner as if
the same was herein repeated.

Article VIII.
The several boards of two Commissioners mentioned in the four
preceding articles shall respectively have power to appoint a
Secretary, and to employ such surveyors or other persons as
they shall judge necessary. Duplicates of all their respective
reports, declarations, statements and decisions and of their
accounts, and of the journal of their proceedings, shall be
delivered by them to the agents of His Britannic Majesty and
to the agents of the United States, who may be respectively
appointed and authorized to manage the business on behalf of
their respective Governments. The said Commissioners shall be
respectively paid in such manner as shall be agreed between
the two contracting parties, such agreement being to be
settled at the time of the exchange of the ratifications of
this treaty. And all other expenses attending the said
Commissions shall be defrayed equally by the two parties. And
in the case of death, sickness, resignation or necessary
absence, the place of every such Commissioner, respectively,
shall be supplied in the same manner as such Commissioner was
first appointed, and the new Commissioner shall take the same
oath or affirmation, and do the same duties. It is further
agreed between the two contracting parties, that in case any
of the islands mentioned in any of the preceding articles,
which were in the possession of one of the parties prior to
the commencement of the present war between the two countries,
should, by the decision of any of the Boards of Commissioners
aforesaid, or of the sovereign or State so referred to, as in
the four next preceding articles contained, fall within the
dominions of the other party, all grants of land made previous
to the commencement of the war, by the party having had such
possession, shall be as valid as if such island or islands
had, by such decision or decisions, been adjudged to be within
the dominions of the party having had such possession.

Article IX.
The United States of America engage to put an end, immediately
after the ratification of the present treaty, to hostilities
with all the tribes or nations of Indians with whom they may
be at war at the time of such ratification; and forthwith to
restore to such tribes or nations, respectively, all the
possessions, rights and privileges which they may have enjoyed
or been entitled to in one thousand eight hundred and eleven,
previous to such hostilities: Provided always that such tribes
or nations shall agree to desist from all hostilities against
the United States of America, their citizens and subjects,
upon the ratification of the present treaty being notified to
such tribes or nations, and shall so desist accordingly. And
His Britannic Majesty engages, on his part, to put an end
immediately after the ratification of the present treaty, to
hostilities with all the tribes or nations of Indians with
whom he may be at war at the time of such ratification, and
forthwith to restore to such tribes or nations respectively
all the possessions, rights and privileges which they may have
enjoyed or been entitled to in one thousand eight hundred and
eleven, previous to such hostilities: Provided always that
such tribes or nations shall agree to desist from all
hostilities against His Britannic Majesty, and his subjects,
upon the ratification of the present treaty being notified to
such tribes or nations, and shall so desist accordingly.

{3358}

Article X.
Whereas the traffic in slaves is irreconcilable with the
principles of humanity and justice, and whereas both His
Majesty and the United States are desirous of continuing their
efforts to promote its entire abolition, it is hereby agreed
that both the contracting parties shall use their best
endeavors to accomplish so desirable an object.

Article XI.
This treaty, when the same shall have been ratified on both
sides, without alteration by either of the contracting
parties, and the ratifications mutually exchanged, shall be
binding on both parties and the ratifications shall be
exchanged at Washington, in the space of four months from this
day, or sooner if practicable. In faith whereof we, the
respective Plenipotentiaries, have signed this treaty, and
have thereunto affixed our seals. Done, in triplicate, at
Ghent, the twenty-fourth day of December, one thousand eight
hundred and fourteen.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1814.
The last fighting at Sea.
The exploits of "Old Ironsides."

"During the latter part of the war, as might have been
foreseen, there was little opportunity for American frigates
to show that they could keep up the fame they had so
gloriously won. The British were determined that none of them
that ventured out to sea should escape; and by stationing a
squadron, which their great resources enabled them to do,
before each port where a frigate lay, they succeeded in
keeping it cooped up and inactive. … The 'Adams,' which had
been a 28-gun frigate, but which was now a corvette, managed
to slip out from Washington in January, 1814, under the
command of Charles Morris. … Six months were passed in
cruising, part of the time off the Irish coast, but with no
great success." Returning home, the "Adams" went ashore at the
mouth of the Penobscot, but was got off, much injured, and was
taken up the river for repairs. An English expeditionary force
pursued the crippled vessel, and her commander was forced to
set her on fire. "At this time the 'Constitution' [Old
Ironsides, as she was popularly called] was … lying at Boston,
watched by a squadron of the enemy. She had proved a lucky
ship, … and her present captain, Charles Stewart, who had been
one of Preble's lieutenants at Tripoli, was certainly a man
well fitted to make the most of any chance he had. The frigate
had been in port since April, at first repairing, and later
unable to get out owing to the presence of the enemy's
squadron." In December, however, the " Constitution" contrived
to give the blockaders the slip and made her way across the
Atlantic to the neighborhood of Madeira, where she fought and
captured, at one time, two British war vessels—the corvette
"Cyana" of 22 guns, and the sloop "Levant," of 20 guns. A few
days afterwards, as the "Constitution," with her two prizes,
was lying at anchor in Port Praya, Cape de Verde Islands,
Captain Stewart sighted, outside, no less than three ships of
the very blockading squadron which he had slipped away from at
Boston, and which had pursued him across the ocean. He made
his escape from the port, with both his prizes, in time to
avoid being hemmed in, and speedily outsailed his pursuers.
The latter, giving up hope of the "Constitution," turned their
attention to one of the prizes and succeeded in recovering
her. "The only other frigate that left port in the last year
of the war was less fortunate than the 'Constitution.' This
was the 'President,' now under Commodore Decatur. She was at
New York, and for some time had lain at anchor off Staten
Island watching for an opportunity to pass the blockading
squadron." On a stormy night in January, 1815 (after the
treaty of peace had been actually signed at Ghent, but before
news of it had reached America), he made the attempt, but was
discovered and chased by four of the blockading ships. After a
race which lasted from dawn until nearly midnight, and a
running fight of two hours, Decatur found escape to be
impossible and surrendered his ship.

_J. R. Soley,
The Boys of 1812,
chapter 17._

ALSO IN:
_T. Roosevelt,
The Naval War of 1812,
chapters 7-9._

_B. J. Lossing,
Field Book of the War of 1812,
chapter 41._

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1815 (January).
Jackson's victory at New Orleans.

In October of the last year "dispatches from the American
envoys abroad announced that 12,000 to 15,000 British troops
would leave Ireland early in September for New Orleans and
Mobile. Intelligence reached Washington, December 9th, by way
of Cuba, that the British Chesapeake force, under Admiral
Cochrane, had united at Jamaica with these other troops, and
all were ready to sail for the mouths of the Mississippi.
'Hasten your militia to New Orleans,' now urged Monroe upon
the Executives of Tennessee, Kentucky, and Georgia; 'do not
wait for this government to arm them; put all the arms you can
find into their hands; let every man bring his rifle or musket
with him; we shall see you paid.' … Great results had been
expected by Great Britain from the secret expedition fitted
out against Louisiana. … Fifty British vessels, large and
small, bore 7,000 British land troops—comprising the invading
force from the Chesapeake and a veteran reinforcement from
England—across the Gulf of Mexico from Jamaica to the ship
channel near the entrance of Lake Borgne, thus approaching New
Orleans midway between the Mississippi River and Mobile Bay.
Here the fleet anchored; and, after dispersing a meagre
flotilla of American gunboats, which opposed their progress in
vain, the invaders took full possession of Lake Borgne, and,
by means of lighter transports, landed troops upon a lonely
island at the mouth of the Pearl River, which served as the
military rendezvous. Crossing thence to the northwestern end
of Lake Borgne, a sparsely-settled region, with plantations
and sugar-works, half of this invading army, by the 23d
[December], struck the Mississippi at a point within nine
miles of New Orleans. Not a gun had been fired since the
trifling engagement with the American flotilla. The British
believed their near approach unknown, and even unsuspected, in
the city; they meant to capture it by an assault both
brilliant and sudden. … But Jackson had received his
instructions in good season, and from the 2d of December New
Orleans had been, under his vigilant direction, a camp in
lively motion." Martial law was proclaimed; "free men of color
were enrolled; convicts were released to become soldiers; the
civic force was increased to its utmost.
{3359}
Jackson inspected and strengthened the defences in the
vicinity, erect·ing new batteries. … With his newly arrived
volunteers from neighboring States, quite expert, many of
them, in the use of the rifle and eager for fight, Jackson
found himself presently at the head of 5,000 effective men,
less than 1,000 of whom were regulars." With a portion of
these, supported by one of the two armed vessels on the river,
he boldly attacked the enemy, on the evening of the 23d, but
accomplished little more than to demonstrate the energy of the
defence he was prepared to make. On the 28th the English
(having previously destroyed one of the troublesome vessels in
the river, the Carolina, with hot shot) returned the attack,
but did not break the American lines. Then General Pakenham,
the English commander, brought up heavy guns from the fleet,
and soon convinced General Jackson that cotton bales, which
the latter had piled up before his men, were too light and too
combustible for breastworks against artillery; but the lesson
proved more useful than otherwise, and the British batteries
were answered with fully equal effect by an American
cannonade. "Pakenham's last and boldest experiment was to
carry Jackson's lines by storm on both sides of the river; and
this enterprise, fatal, indeed, to those who conceived it,
gives immortal date to the 8th of January,—the day on which
the battle of New Orleans was fought. Four days before this
momentous battle, over 2,000 Kentucky militia, under General
Adair, arrived at New Orleans, ready soldiers, but miserably
equipped. Of their number 700 were marched to the front.
Pakenham's army, swelled by a body of reinforcements,
commanded by General Lambert, another of Wellington's
officers, now consisted in all of 10,000 troops, the flower of
Brit·ish veterans. On the day of the battle Jackson had only
half as many soldiers on the New Orleans side of the river,
and of these the greater part were new recruits under
inexperienced officers. On the opposite bank General Morgan,
with about 1,500 men, among them detachments of Kentuckians
and Louisiana militia, had intrenched himself in expectation
of an assault. Jackson had penetrated the enemy's design,
which was to make the main attack upon his lines, while a
lesser force crossed the Mississippi to drive Morgan up the
bank. Jackson's grand defences, extending for a mile and a
half from the Mississippi, along his ditch or canal, to an
impassable cypress swamp, consisted of earthworks, a redoubt
next the river to enfilade the ditch, and eight batteries, all
well mounted. The schooner Louisiana and Commander Patterson's
marine battery across the river protected this line. Another
intrenchment had been thrown up a mile and a half in the rear,
as a rallying-point in case of need. There was a third line
just below the city. … The morn·ing fog rolled away on the 8th
of January. Pakenham, under the fire of a battery he had
erected during the night, advanced with the main body of
British troops to storm Jackson's position." The Americans,
behind their breastworks, withheld their fire until the
storming columns were 200 yards away, and then poured volley
on volley into the approaching mass of men. "This, with the
steady fire from the American batteries all along the line, as
the foe advanced over a large bare plain, made hideous gaps in
the British ranks, throwing them into utter confusion. It was
a fearful slaughter. Dead bodies choked the ditch and strewed
the plain. Gallant Highlanders flung themselves forward to
scale the ramparts only to fall back lifeless. Soldiers who
had served under Wellington in Spain broke, scattered, and
ran. Of the four British generals commanding, Pakenham was
killed, Gibbs mortally wounded, Keane disabled by a shot in
the neck; only Lambert remained. Thornton, across the river,
had driven Morgan from his lines meantime, and silenced
Patterson's battery; but this enterprise might have cost him
dearly, had he not in season received orders from Lambert to
return instantly. In this battle the British lost not less
than 2,600, all but 500 of whom were killed or wounded; while
only 8 were killed and 13 wounded on the American side. Having
buried his dead presently under a flag of truce, Lambert, whom
this calamity had placed in command, retreated hastily under
cover of the night, abandoning the expedition. Re-embarking at
Lake Borgne, and rejoining the fleet, he next proceeded to
invest Fort Bowyer, at the entrance of Mobile Bay, only to
learn, after its little garrison had surrendered, that a
treaty of peace [signed December 24, 1814, two weeks before
the battle of New Orleans was fought] annulled the conquest. …
Rude and illiterate as he was, Jackson showed at New Orleans
the five prime attributes of military genius: decision,
energy, forethought, dispatch, skill in employing resources."

_J. Schouler,
History of the United States of America,
chapter 9, section 1 (volume 2)._

ALSO IN:
_A. Walker,
Jackson and New Orleans._

_J. Parton,
Life of Andrew Jackson,
volume 2, chapters 1-23._

_G. R. Gleig,
Campaigns of the British Army at Washington and New Orleans,
chapters 18-23._

_M. Thompson,
The Story of Louisiana,
chapter 9._

_G. W. Cable,
The Creoles of Louisiana,
chapters 26-27._

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1815.
Final war with the Algerines and suppression of their piracies.

See BARBARY STATES: A. D. 1815.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1816.
Incorporation of the second Bank of the United States.

See MONEY AND BANKING: A. D. 1791-1816; and 1817-1833.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1816.
Admission of Indiana into the Union.

See INDIANA: A. D. 1800-1818.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1816.
The increased Tariff.

See TARIFF LEGISLATION (UNITED STATES): A. D. 1816-1824.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1816.
Organization of the American Colonization Society.

See SLAVERY, NEGRO: A. D. 1816-1849.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1816.
Eighth Presidential Election.

James Monroe, Democratic Republican, was elected over Rufus
King, Federalist, receiving 183 out of 217 votes cast in the
electoral college. Daniel D. Tompkins was chosen Vice
President. "Opposition to the War of 1812 proved fatal to the
Federal party, which ceased to exist as a national party with
the close of Mr. Madison's administration. Not only did the
odium of opposing the war tend to annihilate that party, but
the questions upon which the two parties differed were, in a
great measure, settled or disposed of by the war; others,
relating to the general interests of the country, such as a
tariff, internal improvements, the chartering of a national
bank, erecting fortifications, etc., taking their place, and
finding advocates and opponents in both the old parties.
Candidates for President and Vice-President were then selected
by the respective parties by what was termed a Congressional
caucus.
{3360}
Mr. Monroe was placed in nomination for President by a caucus
of the Republican members of Congress, Daniel D. Tompkins, of
New York, being nominated by the same caucus for
Vice-President. Mr. Crawford, of Georgia, was Mr. Monroe's
competitor, and fell but few votes behind him in the caucus.
Rufus King was the candidate of the Federal party, or what
there was left of it, against Mr. Monroe. The latter received
183 electoral votes, the former 34. No President ever
encountered less opposition during his four or eight years'
service than Mr. Monroe. Parties and the country seemed to be
tired of contention, and desirous to enjoy repose. A most able
cabinet was selected, consisting of Mr. J. Q. Adams as
Secretary of State; William H. Crawford, Secretary of the
Treasury; John C. Calhoun, Secretary of War; Smith Thompson,
Secretary of the Navy; and William Wirt, Attorney-General."

_N. Sargent,
Public Men and Events, 1817-1853,
volume 1, chapter 1._

"Remembering only the almost unopposed election and second
election of Mr. Monroe, we are apt to think of him as the
natural and easy choice of the people. As a matter of fact he
was not a great favorite with Republican politicians. He was
first nominated by a narrow majority. … Numerous meetings were
held in various parts of the country to protest against the
caucus system, the most noteworthy of which, perhaps, was held
in Baltimore, in which meeting Roger B. Taney, afterward Chief
Justice, took a most prominent part. The nomination being
made, the presidential election was practically decided. There
was no canvass, worthy of the name."

_E. Stanwood,
History of Presidential Elections,
chapter 9._

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1816-1817.
The opening of the question of "Internal Improvements."

"The passage of the bank bill in 1816 was to give the United
States a million and a half of dollars. Calhoun, therefore,
came forward, December 23, 1816, with a bill proposing that
this sum be employed as a fund 'for constructing roads and
canals and improving the navigation of watercourses.' 'We
are,' said he, 'a rapidly—I was about to say a
fearfully—growing country. … This is our pride and danger, our
weakness and our strength.' The constitutional question he
settled with a phrase: 'If we are restricted in the use of our
money to the enumerated powers, on what principle can the
purchase of Louisiana be justified?' The bill passed the House
by 86 to 84; it was strongly supported by New York members,
because it was expected that the general government would
begin the construction of a canal from Albany to the Lakes; it
had also large support in the South, especially in South
Carolina. In the last hours of his administration Madison
vetoed it. His message shows that he had selected this
occasion to leave to the people a political testament; he was
at last alarmed by the progress of his own party, and, like
Jefferson, he insisted that internal improvements were
desirable, but needed a constitutional amendment. The
immediate effect of the veto was that New York, seeing no
prospect of federal aid, at once herself began the
construction of the Erie Canal, which was opened eight years
later."

_A. B. Hart,
Formation of the Union
(Epochs of American History),
section 121._

"Mr. Monroe came out, in his first message to Congress,
coinciding, on this point, with Mr. Madison's veto. It is due
to both of them, however, to say that they were the advocates
of internal improvement, and recommended an amendment of the
constitution with that view. Nevertheless, Mr. Madison, by his
veto, had dashed the cup from the lips to the ground, as he
went out of office; and Mr. Monroe coming in, at least for
four years, probably for eight—it proved to be eight—broke the
cup in advance, so that it could not be used during his term
of office, without an amendment of the constitution. … Three
presidents successively, Mr. Jefferson, Mr. Madison, and Mr.
Monroe, had officially expressed their opinion adverse to a
power vested in Congress by the constitution for projects of
internal improvement, as contemplated by the measures
proposed. Not satisfied with these decisions, Mr. Clay and his
friends were instrumental in having a resolution brought
forward, in the fifteenth Congress, declaring that Congress
had power, under the constitution, to make appropriations for
the construction of military roads, post-roads, and canals. …
The resolution declaring the power to be vested in Congress by
the constitution, to make appropriations for the construction
of military roads, post-roads, and canals, was adopted by a
vote of 90 to 75; and the principle involved has been
practically applied by acts of Congress, from that time to the
present."

_C. Colton,
Life, Correspondence, and Speeches of Henry Clay,
volume 1, chapter 19._

ALSO IN:
_H. G. Wheeler,
History of Congress, comprising a
History of Internal Improvements,
volume 2, page 109, and after._

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1816-1818.
The First Seminole War.
Jackson's arbitrary conquest of Florida.

See FLORIDA: A. D. 1816-1818.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1817.
Admission of Mississippi into the Union.

See MISSISSIPPI: A. D. 1817.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1818.
Treaty with Great Britain relating to Fisheries.

See FISHERIES: A. D. 1814-1818.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1818.
Admission of Illinois into the Union.

See INDIANA: A. D. 1800-1818.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1818-1819.
The Dartmouth College Case.

See SUPPLEMENT: DARTMOUTH COLLEGE CASE.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1818-1821.
The first bitter Conflict concerning Slavery.
The Missouri Compromise,
on the admission of Missouri to the Union.

"On March 6, 1818, a petition was presented in the House of
Representatives praying that Missouri be admitted as a state.
A bill authorizing the people of Missouri to form a state
government was taken up in the House on February 13, 1819, and
Tallmadge of New York moved, as an amendment, that the further
introduction of slavery should be prohibited, and that all
children born within the said state should be free at the age
of twenty-five years. Thus began the struggle on the slavery
question in connection with the admission of Missouri, which
lasted, intermittently, until March, 1821. No sooner had the
debate on Tallmadge's proposition begun than it became clear
that the philosophical anti-slavery sentiment of the
revolutionary period had entirely ceased to have any influence
upon current thought in the South.

See SLAVERY, NEGRO: A. D. 1776-1808.

The abolition of the foreign slave-trade had not, as had been
hoped, prepared the way for the abolition of slavery or
weakened the slave interest in any sense. On the contrary,
slavery had been immensely strengthened by an economic
development making it more profitable than it ever had been
before. The invention of the cotton-gin by Eli Whitney, in
1793, had made the culture of cotton a very productive source
of wealth.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1793.

{3361}

In 1800 the exportation of cotton from the United States was
19,000,000 pounds, valued at $5,700,000. In 1820 the value of
the cotton export was nearly $20,000,000, almost all of it the
product of slave labor. The value of slaves may be said to
have at least trebled in twenty years. The breeding of slaves
became a profitable industry. Under such circumstances the
slave-holders arrived at the conclusion that slavery was by no
means so wicked and hurtful an institution as their
revolutionary fathers had thought it to be. … On the other
hand, in the Northern States there was no such change of
feeling. Slavery was still, in the nature of things, believed
to be a wrong and a sore. … The amendment to the Missouri
bill, providing for a restriction with regard to slavery, came
therefore in a perfectly natural way from that Northern
sentiment which remained still faithful to the traditions of
the revolutionary period. And it was a great surprise to most
Northern people that so natural a proposition should be so
fiercely resisted on the part of the South. It was the sudden
revelation of a change of feeling in the South which the North
had not observed in its progress. 'The discussion of this
Missouri question has betrayed the secret of their souls,'
wrote John Quincy Adams. The slave-holders watched with
apprehension the steady growth of the Free States in
population, wealth, and power. In 1790 the population of the
two sections had been nearly even. In 1820 there was a
difference of over 600,000 in favor of the North in a total of
less than ten millions. In 1790 the representation of the two
sections in Congress had been about evenly balanced. In 1820
the census promised to give the North a preponderance of more
than 30 votes in the House of Representatives. As the
slave-holders had no longer the ultimate extinction, but now
the perpetuation, of slavery in view, the question of
sectional power became one of first importance to them, and
with it the necessity of having more Slave States for the
purpose of maintaining the political equilibrium at least in
the Senate. A struggle for more Slave States was to them a
struggle for life. This was the true significance of the
Missouri question. The debate was the prototype of all the
slavery debates which followed in the forty years to the
breaking out of the civil war. … The dissolution of the Union,
civil war, and streams of blood were freely threatened by
Southern men, while some anti-slavery men declared themselves
ready to accept all these calamities rather than the spread of
slavery over the territories yet free from it. … On February
16, 1819, the House of Representatives adopted the amendment
restricting slavery, and thus passed the Missouri bill. But
the Senate, eleven days afterwards, struck out the
anti-slavery provision and sent the bill back to the House. A
bill was then passed organizing the Territory of Arkansas, an
amendment moved by Taylor of New York prohibiting the further
introduction of slavery there having been voted down. … Thus
slavery was virtually fastened on Arkansas. But the Missouri
bill failed in the fifteenth Congress. The popular excitement
steadily increased. The sixteenth Congress met in December,
1819. In the Senate the admission of Missouri with slavery was
coupled with the admission of Maine, on the balance-of-power
principle that one free state and one slave state should
always be admitted at the same time. An amendment was moved
absolutely prohibiting slavery in Missouri, but it was voted
down. Then Mr. Thomas, a Senator from Illinois, on January 18,
1820, proposed that no restriction as to slavery be imposed
upon Missouri in framing a state constitution, but that in all
the rest of the country ceded by France to the United States
north of 30° 30', this being the southern boundary line of
Missouri, there should be neither slavery nor involuntary
servitude. This was the essence of the famous Missouri
Compromise, and, after long and acrimonious debates and
several more votes in the House for restriction and in the
Senate against it, this compromise was adopted. By it the
slave power obtained the present tangible object it contended
for; free labor won a contingent advantage in the future. …
Clay has been widely credited with being the 'father' of the
Missouri Compromise. As to the main features of the measure
this credit he did not deserve. So far he had taken a
prominent but not an originating part in the transaction."
But, at the next session of Congress, when the Missouri
question was unexpectedly reopened, and as threateningly as
ever, Clay assumed a more important part in connection with
the final settlement of it. "The bill passed at the last
session had authorized the people of Missouri to make a state
constitution without any restriction as to slavery. The formal
admission of the state was now to follow. But the Constitution
with which Missouri presented herself to Congress not only
recognized slavery as existing there; it provided also that it
should be the duty of the legislature to pass such laws as
would be necessary to prevent free negroes or mulattoes from
coming into or settling in the state." This provoked a new
revolt on the part of the Northern opponents of slavery, and
it was only through Clay's exertions as a pacificator that
Missouri was conditionally admitted to the Union at length
[March 3, 1820], the condition being that "the said state
shall never pass any law preventing any description of persons
from coming to or settling in the said state who now are, or
hereafter may become, citizens of any of the states of this
Union." The legislature of Missouri gave its assent, as
required, to this "fundamental condition," and the
"compromise" became complete. "The public mind turned at once
to things of more hopeful interest, and the Union seemed safer
than ever. The American people have since become painfully
aware that this was a delusion."

_C. Schurz,
Life of Henry Clay,
chapter 8 (volume 1)._

"The immediate contest was not over the question of the
prohibition of slavery in the Territories. The great struggle
lasted for nearly three years, but the final proposition which
closed the controversy and which prohibited slavery in almost
all the then Federal territory was probably not debated more
than three hours. It was accepted without discussion by the
great bulk of the advocates of Missouri's free admission. Very
few slavery extensionists questioned the right and power of
Congress to prevent the spread of slavery to the Territories.
{3362}
That question, in the minds of those who opposed restriction
in Missouri, was incidental to the question of the right of
Congress to impose conditions upon a State. Incidentally the
question of slavery in the Territories came up in the case of
Arkansas, a country south of Missouri, in which slavery was
already a fact. The restrictionists themselves recognized the
fact that the plain, simple issue 'of limiting the area of
human slavery would be strengthened by bringing it before the
country unincumbered with the question of imposing conditions
on a State, though most of them never wavered in their belief
that conditions might be imposed. On the one hand it was only
Southern zealots who denied to Congress the power to prohibit
slavery in the Territories; on the other hand many in the
North who opposed slavery believed that Congress might not
impose conditions upon a State. In the cabinet of Monroe, in
which sat Wirt, Crawford, and Calhoun, it was unanimously
agreed that Congress had power to prohibit slavery in the
Territories. But John Quincy Adams, also a member of that
cabinet, who hated slavery with all the strength of his soul,
thought it was unconstitutional to bind a State by conditions.
… The struggle indicated a notable change in the southern mind
on the slavery question, and that a slave power was forming
which would attempt to control all legislation of the federal
Union affecting slavery. … The struggle and the compromise
afford the first clear demarcation between the sections. From
this time the equilibrium of political power was a matter of
first concern to a section of States and to a powerful
political interest. Mason and Dixon's line is extended toward
the west, and now marks a political division. The slave States
were now, and for the first time, clearly separated from the
free. A geographical line dividing the sections was
established."

_J. A. Woodburn,
Historical Significance of the Missouri Compromise
(Report of American Historical Association, 1893),
pages 289-294._

ALSO IN:
_H. von Holst,
Constitutional and Political History of the United States,
volume 2, chapter 9._

_J. Quincy,
Life of John Quincy Adams,
chapter 5._

_H. Greeley,
The American Conflict,
volume 1, chapter 7._

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1819.
Admission of Alabama into the Union.

See ALABAMA: A. D. 1817-1819.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1819-1821.
Acquisition of Florida from Spain.
Definition of the boundary of the Louisiana Purchase.

See FLORIDA: A. D. 1819-1821.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1820.
Admission of Maine into the Union as a State.

See MAINE: A. D. 1820;
also, UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1818-1821.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1820.
Ninth Presidential Election.

"Monroe like Washington was re-chosen President by a vote
practically unanimous. One, however, of the 232 electoral
votes cast was wanting to consummate this exceptional honor;
for a New Hampshire elector, with a boldness of discretion
which, in our days and especially upon a close canvass, would
have condemned him to infamy, threw away upon John Quincy
Adams the vote which belonged like those of his colleagues to
Monroe, determined, so it is said, that no later mortal should
stand in Washington's shoes. Of America's Presidents elected
by virtual acclamation history furnishes but these two
examples; and as between the men honored by so unapproachable
a tribute of confidence, Monroe entered upon his second term
of office with less of real political opposition than
Washington."

_J. Schouler,
History of the United States,
chapter 10, section. 2 (volume 3)._

Daniel D. Tompkins was re-elected Vice President.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1820.
The Fourth Census.

Total population, 9,638,191 (an increase exceeding 33 per
cent. over the enumeration of 1810), classed and distributed
as follows:

North.

White. Free black. Slave. Connecticut. 267,161 7,844 97 Illinois. 53,788 457 917 Indiana. 145,758 1,230 190 Maine. 297,340 929 0 Massachusetts. 516,419 6,740 0 Michigan. 8,591 174 0 New Hampshire. 243,236 786 0 New Jersey. 257,409 12,460 7,557 New York. 1,332,744 29,279 10,088 Ohio. 576,572 4,723 0 Pennsylvania. 1,017,094 30,202 211 Rhode Island. 79,413 3,554 48 Vermont. 234,846 903 0 --- --- --- Total 5,030,371 99,281 19,108

South.

White. Free black. Slave. Alabama. 85,451 571 41,879 Arkansas 12,579 59 1,617 Delaware. 55,282 12,958 4,509 District of Columbia. 22,614 4,048 6,377 Georgia. 189,566 1,763 149,654 Kentucky. 434,644 2,759 126,732 Louisiana. 73,383 10,476 69,064 Maryland. 260,223 39,730 107,397 Mississippi. 42,176 458 32,814 Missouri. 55,988 347 10,222 North Carolina. 419,200 14,612 205,017 South Carolina. 237,440 6,826 258,475 Tennessee. 339,927 2,727 80,107 Virginia. 603,087 36,889 425,153 --- --- --- Total 2,831,560 134,223 1,519,017

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1821.
Beginning of emigration to Texas.

See TEXAS: A. D. 1819-1835.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1821-1824.
The Era of Good Feeling.

With the closing of the war of 1812-14, and the disappearance
of the party of the Federalists, there came a period of
remarkable quietude in the political world. "Then followed the
second administration of Monroe, to which was given, perhaps
by the President himself, a name which has secured for the
whole period a kind of peaceful eminence. It was probably
fixed and made permanent by two lines in Halleck's once famous
poem of 'Alnwick Castle,' evidently written during the poet's
residence in England in 1822-23. Speaking of the change from
the feudal to the commercial spirit, he says: "'Tis what our
President Monroe, Has called "the era of good feeling."' … It
would seem from this verse that Monroe himself was credited
with the authorship of the phrase; but I have been unable to
find it in his published speeches or messages, and it is
possible that it may be of newspaper origin, and that Halleck,
writing in England, may have fathered it on the President
himself."

_T. W. Higginson,
Larger History of the United States,
page 394._

{3363}

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1823.
The enunciation of the Monroe Doctrine.

One lasting mark of distinction was given to the
administration of President Monroe by the importance which
came to be attached to his enunciation of the principle of
policy since known as the "Monroe Doctrine." This was simply a
formal and official statement of the national demand that
foreign nations shall not interfere with the affairs of the
two American continents. "There has been a good deal of
dispute as to the real authorship of this announcement,
Charles Francis Adams claiming it for his father, and Charles
Sumner for the English statesman Canning. Mr. Gilman, however,
in his late memoir of President Monroe, has shown with
exhaustive research that this doctrine had grown up gradually
into a national tradition before Monroe's time, and that he
merely formulated it, and made it a matter of distinct record.
The whole statement is contained in a few detached passages of
his message of December 2, 1823. In this he announces that
'the American continents, by the free and independent
condition which they have assumed and maintain, are not to be
considered as subjects for colonization by European powers.'
Further on he points out that the people of the United States
have kept aloof from European dissensions, and ask only in
return that North and South America should be equally let
alone. 'We should consider any attempt on their part to extend
their system to any portion of this hemisphere as dangerous to
our peace and safety;' and while no objection is made to any
existing colony or dependency of theirs, yet any further
intrusion or interference would be regarded as 'the
manifestation of an unfriendly spirit towards the United
States.' This in brief, is the 'Monroe doctrine' as originally
stated; and it will always remain a singular fact that this
President—the least original or commanding of those who early
held that office—should yet be the only one whose name is
identified with what amounts to a wholly new axiom of
international law."

_T. W. Higginson,
Larger History of the United States,
chapter 16._

"At a cabinet meeting May 13, 1818, President Monroe
propounded several questions on the subject of foreign
affairs, of which the fifth, as recorded by J. Q. Adams, was
this: 'Whether the ministers of the United States in Europe
shall be instructed that the United States will not join in
any project of interposition between Spain and the South
Americans, which should not be to promote the complete
independence of those provinces; and whether measures shall be
taken to ascertain if this be the policy of the British
government, and if so to establish a concert with them for the
support of this policy.' He adds that all these points were
discussed, without much difference of opinion. On July 31,
1818, Rush had an important interview with Castelreagh in
respect to a proposed mediation of Great Britain between Spain
and her colonies. The coöperation of the United States was
desired. Mr. Rush informed the British minister that 'the
United States would decline taking part, if they took part at
all, in any plan of pacification, except on the basis of the
independence of the colonies.' 'This,' he added, 'was the
determination to which his government had come on much
deliberation.' … Gallatin writes to J. Q. Adams, June 24,
1823, that before leaving Paris he had said to M.
Chateaubriand on May 13, 'The United States would undoubtedly
preserve their neutrality provided it were respected, and
avoid every interference with the politics of Europe. … On the
other hand, they would not suffer others to interfere against
the emancipation of America.' … After Canning had proposed to
Rush (September 19, 1823) that the United States should
coöperate with England in preventing European interference
with the Spanish-American colonies, Monroe consulted Jefferson
as well as the cabinet, on the course which it was advisable
to take, and with their approbation prepared his message. …
Enough has been quoted to show that Mr. Sumner is not
justified in saying that the 'Monroe doctrine proceeded from
Canning,' and that he was 'its inventor, promoter, and
champion, at least so far as it bears against European
intervention in American affairs.' Nevertheless, Canning is
entitled to high praise for the part which he took in the
recognition of the Spanish republics, a part which almost
justified his proud utterance, 'I called the New World into
existence to redress the balance of the Old.'"

_D. C. Gilman,
James Monroe,
chapter 7._

ALSO IN:
_C. Sumner,
Prophetic Voices concerning America,
page 157._

_G. F. Tucker,
The Monroe Doctrine._

_F. Wharton,
Digest of the International Law of the United States,
section 57 (volume 1)._

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1824.
The Protective Tariff.

See TARIFF LEGISLATION (UNITED STATES): A. D. 1816-1824.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1824.
Tenth Presidential Election.
No choice by the People.
Election of John Quincy Adams by the House of Representatives.