Chapter CDLXXV: Section 4: And be it further enacted, That this act shall (7)

"In 1823, as the Presidential election approached, the
influences to control and secure the interests predominating
in the different sections of the country became more active.
Crawford of Georgia, Calhoun of South Carolina, Adams of
Massachusetts, and Clay of Kentucky, were the most prominent
candidates. In December, Barbour of Virginia was superseded,
as Speaker of the House of Representatives, by Clay of
Kentucky; an event ominous to the hopes of Crawford, and to
that resistance to the tariff and to internal improvements
which was regarded as dependent on his success. The question
whether a Congressional caucus, by the instrumentality of
which Jefferson, Madison, and Monroe had obtained the
Presidency, should be again held to nominate a candidate for
that office, was the next cause of political excitement. The
Southern party, whose hopes rested on the success of Crawford,
were clamorous for a caucus. The friends of the other
candidates were either lukewarm or hostile to that expedient.
Pennsylvania, whose general policy favored a protective tariff
and public improvements, hesitated. … But the Democracy of
that state … held meetings at Philadelphia, and elsewhere,
recommending a Congressional caucus. This motion would have
been probably adopted, had not the Legislature of Alabama,
about this time, nominated Andrew Jackson for the Presidency,
and accompanied their resolutions in his favor with a
recommendation to their representatives to use their best
exertions to prevent a Congressional nomination of a
President. The popularity of Jackson, and the obvious
importance to his success of the policy recommended by
Alabama, fixed the wavering counsels of Pennsylvania, so that
only three representatives from that state attended the
Congressional caucus, which was soon after called, and which
consisted of only 60 members, out of 261, the whole number of
the House of Representatives; of which Virginia and New York,
under the lead of Mr. Van Buren, constituted nearly one half.
{3364}
Notwithstanding this meagre assemblage, Mr. Crawford was
nominated for the Presidency. … But the days of Congressional
caucuses were now numbered. The people took the nomination of
President into their own hands [and John Quincy Adams and
Henry Clay were brought into the field]. … The result of this
electioneering conflict was that, by the returns of the
electoral colleges of the several states, it appeared that
none of the candidates had the requisite constitutional
majority; the whole number of votes being 261—of which Andrew
Jackson had 99, John Quincy Adams 84, William H. Crawford 41,
and Henry Clay 37. [The popular vote cast as nearly as can be
determined, was: Jackson, 153,544; Adams, 108,740; Crawford,
46,618; Clay, 47,136.] For the office of Vice-President, John
C. Calhoun had 180 votes, and was elected. … Of the 84 votes
cast for Mr. Adams, not one was given by either of the three
great Southern slaveholding states. Seventy-seven were given
to him by New England and New York. The other seven were cast
by the Middle or recently admitted states. The selection of
President from the candidates now devolved on the House of
Representatives, under the provisions of the constitution.
But, again, Mr. Adams had the support of none of those
slaveholding states, with the exception of Kentucky, and her
delegates were equally divided between him and General
Jackson. The decisive vote was, in effect, in the hands of Mr.
Clay, then Speaker of the House, who cast it for Mr. Adams; a
responsibility he did not hesitate to assume, notwithstanding
the equal division of the Kentucky delegation, and in defiance
of a resolution passed by the Legislature of that state,
declaring their preference for General Jackson. On the final
vote Andrew Jackson had 7 votes, William H. Crawford 4, and
John Quincy Adams 13; who was, therefore, forthwith declared
President of the United States for four years ensuing the 4th
of March, 1825. … Immediately after his inauguration, Mr.
Adams appointed Henry Clay, of Kentucky, Secretary of State. …
General Jackson was deeply mortified and irritated by Mr.
Clay's preference of Mr. Adams. … He immediately put into
circulation among his friends and partisans an unqualified
statement to the effect that Mr. Adams had obtained the
Presidency by means of a corrupt bargain with Henry Clay, on
the condition that he should be elevated to the office of
Secretary of State. To this calumny Jackson gave his name and
authority, asserting that he possessed evidence of its truth;
and, although Mr. Clay and his friends publicly denied the
charge, and challenged proof of it, two years elapsed before
they could compel him to produce his evidence. This, when
adduced, proved utterly groundless, and the charge false; the
whole being but the creation of an irritated and disappointed
mind. Though detected and exposed, the calumny had the effect
for which it was calculated. Jackson's numerous partisans and
friends made it the source of an uninterrupted stream of abuse
upon Mr. Adams, through his whole administration."

_J. Quincy,
Memoir of the Life of John Quincy Adams,
chapters 6-7._

The new administration "stood upon the same political basis as
that of Mr. Monroe. It was but a continuance of the same party
ascendency. It looked to no change of measures, and to no
other change of men than became inevitably necessary to supply
the vacancies which the accidents of political life had
created. Mr. Clay was called to the State Department [and was
maliciously accused of having bargained for it when he threw
his influence at last in Mr. Adams' favor]. … The country …
indulged the hope of a prosperous career in the track which
had been opened by Mr. Madison, and so successfully pursued by
Mr. Monroe. Less confidently, however, it indulged the hope of
a continuance of that immunity from party contention and
exasperation which had characterized the last eight years. The
rising of an opposition was seen, at the very commencement of
this administration, like a dark cloud upon the horizon, which
gradually spread towards the zenith, not without much rumbling
of distant thunder and angry flashes of fire. It was quite
obvious to shrewd observers that the late election had
disappointed many eager spirits, whose discontent was likely
to make head against the predominant party, and, by uniting
the scattered fragments of an opposition which had heretofore
only slept, whilst the country had supposed it extinct, would
present a very formidable antagonist to the new
administration. The extraordinary popularity of General
Jackson, the defeat of his friends by the vote of the House of
Representatives, the neutrality of his political position, his
avowed toleration towards political opponents, and what was
thought to be his liberal views in regard to prominent
political measures—for as yet nothing was developed in his
opinions to set him in direct opposition to the policy or
principles which governed the administration either of Madison
or Monroe—all these considerations gave great strength to the
position which he now occupied, and, in the same degree,
emboldened the hopes of those who looked to him as the proper
person to dispute the next election against the present
incumbent. Many of those who had hoped to see the reign of
good feeling and of abstinence from party strife prolonged,
will remember with what surprise they saw this gathering of
hostile elements, and heard it proclaimed by an authoritative
political leader [Colonel Richard M. Johnson], in the first
days of the new administration, that it should be and ought to
be opposed, 'even if it were as pure as the angels at the
right hand of the throne of God.' Such a declaration was not
less ominous of what was to come than it was startling for its
boldness and its novelty in the history of the government. …
The opposition … took an organized form—became compact,
eager, intolerant and even vindictive."

_J. P. Kennedy,
Memoirs of the Life of William Wirt,
volume 2, chapter 10._

"Monroe was the last President of the Virginian line, John
Quincy Adams the last from New England. The centre of power
was passing from the east to the west. Adams was a genuine New
Englander of the Puritan stock, austerely moral, from his
boyhood laboriously self-trained, not only staid but solemn in
his teens, intensely self-conscious, ever engaged in
self-examination, the punctual keeper of a voluminous diary,
an invariably early riser, a daily reader of the Bible even in
the White House, scrupulously methodical and strictly upright
in all his ways; but testy, unconciliatory, unsympathetic,
absolutely destitute of all the arts by which popularity is
won.
{3365}
His election does the highest credit to the respect of the
electors for public virtue unadorned. The peculiar features of
his father's character were so intensified in him that he may
be deemed the typical figure rather than his father. In
opinions he was a Federalist who having broken with his party
on the question of foreign relations and the embargo had been
put out of its pale but had retained its general mould. As he
was about the last President chosen for merit not for
availability, so he was about the last whose only rule was not
party but the public service. So strictly did he observe the
principle of permanency and purity in the Civil Service, that
he refused to dismiss from office a Postmaster-General whom he
knew to be intriguing against him. The demagogic era had come
but he would not recognize its coming. He absolutely refused
to go on the stump, to conciliate the press, to do anything
for the purpose of courting popularity and making himself a
party. His obstinacy was fatal to his ambition but is not
dishonourable to his memory."

_Goldwin Smith,
The United States,
chapter 4._

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1824-1825.
The visit of Lafayette.

One of the most deeply interesting events of the year 1824 was
the arrival in the country of the honored Lafayette, companion
of Washington and friend of the American Republic in its
struggle for independence. He came on the invitation of the
national Government and was entertained as its guest. "He
arrived at Staten Island on Sunday, 15th of August, 1824,
accompanied by his son, George Washington Lafayette, and his
son-in-]aw, M. Le Vasseur. Here he remained until Monday, and
was then met and welcomed by a distinguished committee from
New York, who escorted him to that city. … The arrival of
Lafayette was an event which stirred the whole country;
everybody was anxious to see him, and every State and city in
the Union extended an invitation to him to visit such State or
city; and he did so, being everywhere received with the most
enthusiastic manifestations of love and respect. … He spent a
little over a year in the United States, traveling most of the
time. … Having visited every portion of the United States and
received the affectionate homage of the people, General
Lafayette returned to Washington, where he became in fact 'the
Nation's Guest' at the Presidential mansion. Soon after the
meeting of Congress, in December, 1824, a bill was reported by
a joint committee of the two Houses granting to him a township
of land and the sum of $200,000, which became a law."

_N. Sargent,
Public Men and Events, 1817-1853,
volume 1, page 89-91._

ALSO IN:
_A. Levasseur,
Lafayette in America, in 1824-1825._

_B. Tuckerman,
Life of General Lafayette,
volume 2, chapter 7._

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1824-1836.
Schemes of the Slave Power for acquiring Texas.

See TEXAS: A. D. 1824-1836.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1825-1828.
Opposition to the Administration.
The question of Internal Improvements.
Reconstruction of Parties.
Democrats and National Republicans.

The inaugural address of President Adams "furnished a topic"
against him, and "went to the reconstruction of parties on the
old line of strict, or latitudinous, construction of the
constitution. It was the topic of internal national
improvement by the federal government. The address extolled
the value of such works, considered the constitutional
objections as yielding to the force of argument, expressed the
hope that every speculative (constitutional) scruple would be
solved in a practical blessing; and declared the belief that,
in the execution of such works, posterity would derive a
fervent gratitude to the founders of our Union and most deeply
feel and acknowledge the beneficent action of our government.
The declaration of principles which would give so much power
to the government … alarmed the old republicans, and gave a
new ground of opposition to Mr. Adams's administration, in
addition to the strong one growing out of the election in the
House of Representatives. … This new ground of opposition was
greatly strengthened at the delivery of the first annual
message, in which the topic of internal improvement was again
largely enforced, other subjects recommended which would
require a liberal use of constructive powers, and Congress
informed that the President had accepted an invitation from
the American States of Spanish origin, to send ministers to
their proposed Congress on the Isthmus of Panama.

See COLOMBIAN STATES: A. D. 1826.

It was, therefore, clear from the beginning that the new
administration was to have a settled and strong opposition. …
There was opposition in the Senate to the confirmation of Mr.
Clay's nomination to the State department, growing out of his
support of Mr. Adams in the election of the House of
Representatives, and acceptance of office from him; but
overruled by a majority of two to one."

_T. H. Benton,
Thirty Years' View,
volume 1, chapter 21._

"From the very beginning of this Administration both factions
of the Strict Constructionists united in an opposition to the
President which became stronger through his whole term of
office, until it overcame him. His ill-advised nomination of
Clay to a post in his Cabinet gave color to the charge of a
corrupt bargain between him and Clay, by which Adams was to
receive the Clay vote in the House, and Clay was to be
rewarded by the position of Secretary of State, which was then
usually considered a stepping stone to the Presidency. Clay
angrily denied any such bargain, and the renewal of charges
and denials, each with its appropriate arguments, gave
abundant material for debate. The Clay and Adams factions soon
united and took the distinctive party name of National
Republicans. Some years afterward this name was changed to
that of Whigs. They maintained the loose constructionist
principles of the Federalists, and, in addition, desired a
Protective Tariff and a system of public improvements at
national expense. … In October, 1825, the Tennessee
Legislature nominated Jackson for the Presidency in 1828, and
Jackson accepted the nomination. Crawford's continued
ill-health compelled his adherents to look elsewhere for a
candidate, and they gradually united upon Jackson. At first
the resulting coalition was known as 'Jackson Men,' but, as
they began to take the character of a national party, they
assumed the name of Democrats, by which they have since been
known. They maintained the strict constructionist principles
of the Republican party, though the Crawford faction in the
South went further, and held the extreme ground of the
Kentucky Resolutions of 1799."

_A. Johnston,
History of American Politics, 2d edition,
chapter 11._

ALSO IN:
_C. Schurz,
Life of Henry Clay,
volume 1, chapters 10-12._

{3366}

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1828.
The Tariff "Bill of Abominations."
Change of front in New England.

See TARIFF LEGISLATION (UNITED STATES: A. D. 1828).

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1828.
Eleventh Presidential Election.
Triumph of Jackson and the new Democracy.

Andrew Jackson was again put in nomination for the Presidency,
while President Adams was supported for re-election by the
National Republicans. "The campaign was conducted, on both
sides, on very ruthless methods. Niles said it was worse than
the campaign of 1798. Campaign extras of the 'Telegraph' were
issued weekly, containing partisan material, refutations of
charges against Jackson, and slanders on Adams and Clay. The
Adams party also published a monthly of a similar character.
The country was deluged with pamphlets on both sides. These
pamphlets were very poor stuff, and contain nothing important
on any of the issues. They all appeal to low tastes and
motives, prejudices and jealousies. … In September, 1827, the
Tammany General Committee and the Albany 'Argus' came out for
Jackson, as it had been determined, in the programme, that
they should do. A law was passed for casting the vote of New
York in 1828 by districts. The days of voting throughout the
country ranged from October 31st to November 19th. The votes
were cast by the Legislature in Delaware and South Carolina;
by districts in Maine, New York, Maryland, Tennessee;
elsewhere, by general ticket. Jackson got 178 votes to 83 for
Adams. The popular vote was 648,273 for Jackson; 508,064 for
Adams. Jackson got only one vote in New England. … For
Vice-President, Richard Rush got all the Adams votes; Calhoun
[who was elected] got all the Jackson votes except 7 of
Georgia, which were given to William Smith, of South Carolina.
General Jackson was therefore triumphantly elected President
of the United States, in the name of reform, and as the
standard-bearer of the people, rising in their might to
overthrow an extravagant, corrupt, aristocratic, federalist
administration, which had encroached on the liberties of the
people, and had aimed to corrupt elections by an abuse of
federal patronage. Many people believed this picture of
Adams's administration to be true. Andrew Jackson no doubt
believed it. Many people believe it yet. Perhaps no
administration, except that of the elder Adams, is under such
odium. There is not, however, in our history any
administration which, upon a severe and impartial scrutiny,
appears more worthy of respectful and honorable memory. Its
chief fault was that it was too good for the wicked world in
which it found itself. In 1836 Adams said, in the House, that
he had never removed one person from office for political
causes, and that he thought that was one of the principal
reasons why he was not reëlected."

_W. G. Sumner,
Andrew Jackson as a Public Man,
chapter 5._

"In this election there was a circumstance to be known and
remembered. Mr. Adams and Mr. Rush were both from the
non-slaveholding, General Jackson and Mr. Calhoun from the
slaveholding States, and both large slave owners themselves,
and both received a large vote (73 each) in the free
States—and of which at least 40 were indispensable to their
election. There was no jealousy, or hostile or aggressive
spirit in the North at that time against the South!"

_T. H. Benton,
Thirty Years' View,
volume 1, chapter 38._

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1828-1833.
The Nullification doctrine and ordinance of South Carolina.
The Hayne and Webster debate.
President Jackson's proclamation.
The Compromise Tariff.

"In May, 1828, a meeting of the South Carolina delegation in
Congress was held in Washington, at the rooms of General
Hayne, one of the Senators of that State, to concert measures
against the tariff and the protective policy which it
embodied. From the history of the times, and the disclosures
subsequently made, it is apparent that some violent things
were said at this meeting, but it broke up without any
definite plan. In the course of the following summer, there
were many popular meetings in South Carolina, largely
attended, at which the tariff of 1824 was treated as an act of
despotism and usurpation, which ought to be openly resisted. …
They occasioned anxiety and regret among the friends of the
Union throughout the country, though nothing more. But, in the
autumn, the Legislature of South Carolina adopted an
'Exposition and Protest,' which gave form and substance to the
doctrines which thenceforward became known as 'Nullification.'
In order to understand them, however, as a theory of the
Federal Constitution, it is necessary to state the theory to
which they are opposed, and to overthrow which they were
brought forward. The Government of the United States, under
the Constitution, had hitherto been administered upon the
principle that the extent of its powers is to be finally
determined by its supreme judicial tribunal, not only when
there is any conflict of authority between its several
departments, but also when the authority of the whole
Government is denied by one or more of the States. … Aside
from the authority of [the Virginia and Kentucky resolutions
of 1798]—an authority that was doubtful, because their
interpretation was not clear—there had been no important
assertion of the principle that a State can determine for its
citizens whether they are to obey an act of Congress, by
asserting its unconstitutional character, and that the right
to do this is implied as a right inherent in a State, under
the Constitution, and results from the nature of the
Government. This, however, was what the advocates of
nullification now undertook to establish. The remedy which
they sought, against acts which they regarded as usurpations,
was not revolution, and not the breaking up the Union, as they
claimed; but it was a remedy which they held to exist within
the Union, and to have been contemplated by the people of the
States when they established the Constitution. How far they
considered such a theory compatible with the continued
existence of the Union, I am not aware that they undertook to
explain. … Although the Legislature of South Carolina had thus
propounded a theory of resistance, and held that there was
then a case in the tariff which would justify a resort to it,
no steps were yet taken toward the immediate exercise of the
asserted power." In the great debate between General Hayne of
South Carolina and Daniel Webster, which occurred in the
Senate, in January, 1830, the doctrine of nullification
received for the first time a discussion which sank deep into
the mind of the nation.
{3367}
The original subject-matter of the debate was a resolution
relating to Western land sales; but Hayne in his first speech
made an attack on New England which drew out Webster in
vindication, and then, when the South Carolinian replied, he
boldly and broadly set forth the nullifying theory which his
State had accepted from the sophistical brain of John C.
Calhoun. It received its refutation then and there, in
Webster's final speech. "The effect of this speech upon the
country, that immediately followed its delivery, it is not
easy for us at the present day to measure. … Vast numbers of
Mr. Webster's speech were … published and circulated in
pamphlet editions, after all the principal newspapers of the
country had given it entire to their readers. The popular
verdict, throughout the Northern and Western and many of the
Southern States was decisive. A great majority of the people
of the United States, of all parties, understood, appreciated,
and accepted the view maintained by Mr. Webster of the nature
of the Constitution, and the character of the government which
it establishes."

_G. T. Curtis,
Life of Daniel Webster,
chapter 16 (volume 1)._

If Webster's speech had solidified the majority opinion of the
country in resistance to nullification, it had not paralyzed
the nullifying movement. In the summer of 1831, and again in
August, 1832, Calhoun published addresses to the people of
South Carolina, elaborating his doctrine, and "urging an
immediate issue on account of the oppressive tariff
legislation under which the South was then suffering. The
Legislature of South Carolina was convened by the governor to
meet on October 22, for the purpose of calling a convention
'to consider the character and extent of the usurpations of
the general government.' The convention met on November 19,
and adopted without delay an 'ordinance' declaring that the
tariff act of 1828, and the amendments thereto passed in 1832,
were null and void; that it should be held unlawful to enforce
the payment of duties thereunder within the State of South
Carolina; that it should be the duty of the legislature to
make laws giving effect to the ordinance; … and that, if the
general government should attempt to use force to maintain the
authority of the federal law, the State of South Carolina
would secede from the Union,—the ordinance to go into full
effect on February 1, 1833. The legislature, which met again
on November 19, passed the 'appropriate' laws. But these
enactments were not very fierce; as Webster said, they 'limped
far behind the ordinance.' Some preparation, although little,
was made for a conflict of arms;" nor was there any certain
show of readiness in other Southern States to stand by South
Carolina in the position she had taken. "President Jackson's
annual message, which went to Congress on December 4, 1832,
was remarkably quiet in tone," and neither alarmed the
nullifiers nor gave confidence to the friends of the Union;
but "six days later, on December 10, came out Jackson's famous
proclamation against the nullifiers, which spoke thus: 'The
Constitution of the United States forms a government, not a
league. … Our Constitution does not contain the absurdity of
giving power to make laws, and another power to resist them.
To say that any state may at pleasure secede from the Union is
to say that the United States are not a nation.' He appealed
to the people of South Carolina, in the tone of a father, to
desist from their ruinous enterprise; but he gave them also
clearly to understand that, if they resisted by force, the
whole power of the Union would be exerted to maintain its
authority. All over the North, even where Jackson had been
least popular, the proclamation was hailed with unbounded
enthusiasm. … The nullifiers in South Carolina received the
presidential manifesto apparently with defiance. The governor
of the state issued a counter-proclamation. Calhoun resigned
the vice-presidency, and was immediately sent to the Senate to
fight the battle for nullification there." The president, now
thoroughly roused, called on Congress for extraordinary powers
to meet the emergency, and a bill embodying his wishes—called
the "Force Bill"—was introduced. But, at the same time, while
they showed this bold front to the nullifiers, Congress and
the executive began to prepare a retreat from the ground they
had held on the tariff. Henry Clay took the field again, in
the exercise of his peculiar talents for compromise, and the
result was the nearly simultaneous passage (February 26 and
27, 1833) through Congress of the "Force bill" and of a
compromise tariff bill, which latter provided for a graduated
reduction of the duties year by year, until 1842, when they
should stand at 20 per cent., as a horizontal rate, with a
large free-list. "The first object of the measure was
attained: South Carolina repealed her nullification ordinance.
… But before long it became clear that beyond the repeal of
the nullification ordinance, the compromise had settled
nothing. The nullifiers strenuously denied that they had in
any sense given up their peculiar doctrine."

_C. Schurz,
Life of Henry Clay,
chapter 14 (volume 2)._

"The theory of nullification, as set forth by Calhoun, even
now, after it has received the benefit of careful study and
able expounding by historians, is not clear. He always avowed
a loyalty to the Union, but the arguments by which he sought
to demonstrate that nullification was compatible with the
existence of the Union, and indeed a guarantee of its
perpetuity, did not occasion much solicitude to the majority
of his party. But no one at the North understood the fallacy
of his reasoning or the real end and aim of his party more
clearly than did the Union men of his state. They reasoned
simply. Said the Camden, S. C. 'Gazette': 'We know of only two
ways, under our government, to get rid of obnoxious
legislation. We must convince a majority of the nation that a
given enactment is wrong and have it repealed in the form
prescribed by the constitution, or resist it
extra-constitutionally by the sword. … But this everlasting
cant of devotion to the Union, accompanied by a recommendation
to do those acts that must necessarily destroy it, is beyond
patient endurance from a people not absolutely confined in
their own mad-houses.' … A fact … that historians have failed
to lay any stress upon, and that nevertheless deserves some
notice, is the holding of a state convention of the Union
party of South Carolina immediately after the nullification
convention had completed its work. It was the last important
action of that party in the state.
{3368}
Randell Hunt, who presented the first resolutions, epitomized
the views of the convention and the question it should
consider in three sentences: 'That the Union party
acknowledges no allegiance to any government except that of
the United States. That in referring this resolution to the
general committee they be instructed to inquire whether it is
not expedient to give a military organization to the Union
party throughout the state. Whether it will not be necessary
to call in the assistance of the general government for
maintaining the laws of the United States against the
arbitrary violence which is threatened by the late
convention.' The resolutions which were adopted declared that
the ordinance of nullification violated the constitution of
the United States and had virtually destroyed the Union, since
by preventing the general government from enforcing its laws
within the boundaries of the state, it made the state a
sovereignty paramount to the United States. They denounced the
provisions of the ordinance as tyrannical and oppressive, and
the test oath as especially incompatible with civil liberty,
in that it disfranchised nearly half the citizens of the
state. They pointed scornfully to the project of a standing
army in the state. … They concluded by declaring the continued
opposition of the signers to the tariff, and their
determination to protect themselves against intolerable
oppression. The resolutions were signed by all the members of
the convention, about 180 in number. In point of fact, the
Unionists were not disposed to favor any compromise measures,
and looked rather with disfavor upon Mr. Clay's bill, as a
measure which was being forced upon the country. Congress,
they thought, ought not to modify the tariff until the
nullification ordinance had been repealed. But the greater
force was with the nullifiers, and the number of their
opponents was dwindling. Caught by the enthusiasm and fighting
spirit of their neighbors, some of the Unionists joined the
nullification military companies that were being organized,
and others, seeing the hopelessness of the struggle against a
superior force, in sorrow and disgust shook the dust of South
Carolina from their feet, preferring to begin life over again
in other parts of the South, less charged with sentiments that
they believed to be treasonable. … The Unionist party, crushed
and helpless, was only too anxious to bury all feuds. It never
was an active force in the state again, but the bold spirit
which had actuated its members was manifested later, when the
struggle for state sovereignty was more widespread; and some
of the most intrepid Union men of the South in the civil war
were those who had fled from South Carolina years before, when
the nullification party had triumphed."

_G. Hunt,
South Carolina during the Nullification Struggle
(Political Science Quarterly, June, 1891)._

ALSO IN:
_W. G. Sumner,
Andrew Jackson as a Public Man,
chapters 10 and 13._

_H. von Holst,
Constitutional and Political History of the United States,
volume 1, chapter 12._

_J. Parton,
Life of Andrew Jackson,
volume 3, chapters 32-34._

_T. H. Benton,
Thirty Years' View,
volume 1, chapters 78-89._

_J. C. Calhoun,
Works,
volume 6
(Reports and Public Letters)._

_O. L. Elliott,
The Tariff Controversy in the United States,
chapter 5._

The following is the text of the "Ordinance to nullify certain
acts of the Congress of the United States, purporting to be
laws laying duties and imposts on the importation of foreign
commodities," adopted by the State Convention of South
Carolina on the 24th of November, 1832:

"Whereas the Congress of the United States by various acts,
purporting to be acts laying duties and imposts on foreign
imports, but in reality intended for the protection of
domestic manufactures, and the giving of bounties to classes
and individuals engaged in particular employments, at the
expense and to the injury and oppression of other classes and
individuals, and by wholly exempting from taxation certain
foreign commodities, such as are not produced or manufactured
in the United States, to afford a pretext for imposing higher
and excessive duties on articles similar to those intended to
be protected, hath exceeded its just powers under the
constitution, which confers on it no authority to afford such
protection, and hath violated the true meaning and intent of
the constitution, which provides for equality in imposing the
burdens of taxation upon the several States and portions of
the confederacy: And whereas the said Congress, exceeding its
just power to impose taxes and collect revenue for the purpose
of effecting and accomplishing the specific objects and
purposes which the constitution of the United States
authorizes it to effect and accomplish, hath raised and
collected unnecessary revenue for objects unauthorized by the
constitution. We, therefore, the people of the State of South
Carolina, in convention assembled, do declare and ordain, and
it is hereby declared and ordained, that the several acts and
parts of acts of the Congress of the United States, purporting
to be laws for the imposing of duties and imposts on the
importation of foreign commodities, and now having actual
operation and effect within the United States, and, more
especially, an act entitled 'An act in alteration of the
several acts imposing duties on imports,' approved on the
nineteenth day of May, one thousand eight hundred and
twenty-eight, and also an act entitled 'An act to alter and
amend the several acts imposing duties on imports,' approved
on the fourteenth day of July, one thousand eight hundred and
thirty-two, are unauthorized by the constitution of the United
States, and violate the true meaning and intent thereof and
are null, void, and no law, nor binding upon this State, its
officers or citizens; and all promises, contracts, and
obligations, made or entered into, or to be made or entered
into, with purpose to secure the duties imposed by said acts,
and all judicial proceedings which shall be hereafter had in
affirmance thereof, are and shall be held utterly null and
void. And it is further ordained, that it shall not be lawful
for any of the constituted authorities, whether of this State
or of the United States, to enforce the payment of duties
imposed by the said acts within the limits of this State; but
it shall be the duty of the legislature to adopt such measures
and pass such acts as may be necessary to give full effect to
this ordinance, and to prevent the enforcement and arrest the
operation of the said acts and parts of acts of the Congress
of the United States within the limits of this State, from and
after the 1st day of February next, and the duty of all other
constituted authorities, and of all persons residing or being
within the limits of this State, and they are hereby required
and enjoined to obey and give effect to this ordinance, and
such acts and measures of the legislature as may be passed or
adopted in obedience thereto.
{3369}
And it is further ordained, that in no case of law or equity,
decided in the courts of this State, wherein shall be drawn in
question the authority of this ordinance, or the validity of
such act or acts of the legislature as may be passed for the
purpose of giving effect thereto, or the validity of the
aforesaid acts of Congress, imposing duties, shall any appeal
be taken or allowed to the Supreme Court of the United States,
nor shall any copy of the record be permitted or allowed for
that purpose; and if any such appeal shall be attempted to be
taken, the courts of this State shall proceed to execute and
enforce their judgments according to the laws and usages of
the State, without reference to such attempted appeal, and the
person or persons attempting to take such appeal may be dealt
with as for a contempt of the court. And it is further
ordained, that all persons now holding any office of honor,
profit, or trust, civil or military, under this State (members
of the legislature excepted), shall, within such time, and in
such manner as the legislature shall prescribe, take an oath
well and truly to obey, execute, and enforce this ordinance,
and such act or acts of the legislature as may be passed in
pursuance thereof, according to the true intent and meaning of
the same; and on the neglect or omission of any such person or
persons so to do, his or their office or offices shall be
forthwith vacated, and shall be filled up as if such person or
persons were dead or had resigned; and no person hereafter
elected to any office of honor, profit, or trust, civil or
military (members of the legislature excepted), shall, until
the legislature shall otherwise provide and direct, enter on
the execution of his office, or be in any respect competent to
discharge the duties thereof until he shall, in like manner,
have taken a similar oath; and no juror shall be empanelled in
any of the courts of this State, in any cause in which shall
be in question this ordinance, or any act of the legislature
passed in pursuance thereof, unless he shall first, in
addition to the usual oath, have taken an oath that he will
well and truly obey, execute, and enforce this ordinance, and
such act or acts of the legislature as may be passed to carry
the same into operation and effect, according to the true
intent and meaning thereof. And we, the people of South
Carolina, to the end that it may be fully understood by the
government of the United States, and the people of the
co-States, that we are determined to maintain this our
ordinance and declaration, at every hazard, do further declare
that we will not submit to the application of force on the
part of the federal government, to reduce this State to
obedience; but that we will consider the passage, by Congress,
of any act authorizing the employment of a military or naval
force against the State of South Carolina, her constitutional
authorities or citizens; or any act abolishing or closing the
ports of this State, or any of them, or otherwise obstructing
the free ingress and egress of vessels to and from the said
ports, or any other act on the part of the federal government,
to coerce the State, shut up her ports, destroy or harass her
commerce, or to enforce the acts hereby declared to be null
and void, otherwise than through the civil tribunals of the
country, as inconsistent with the longer continuance of South
Carolina in the Union; and that the people of this State will
henceforth hold themselves absolved from all further
obligation to maintain or preserve their political connection
with the people of the other States; and will forthwith
proceed to organize a separate government, and do all other
acts and things which sovereign and independent States may of
right do. Done in convention at Columbia, the twenty-fourth
day of November, in the year of our Lord one thousand eight
hundred and thirty-two, and in the fifty-seventh year of the
declaration of the independence of the United States of
America."

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1829.
Introduction of the "Spoils System."

See CIVIL-SERVICE REFORM IN THE UNITED STATES.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1829.
The Kitchen Cabinet of President Jackson.

Major Lewis, one of the Tennessee friends of General Jackson,
who accompanied him to Washington and was persuaded to remain,
with his residence at the White House; General Duff Green,
editor of the "United States Telegraph"; Isaac Hill, editor of
the "New Hampshire Patriot," and Amos Kendall, late the editor
of a Jackson paper in Kentucky, but a native of
Massachusetts:—"these were the gentlemen … who, at the
beginning of the new administration, were supposed to have
most of the President's ear and confidence, and were
stigmatized by the opposition as the Kitchen Cabinet."

_J. Parton,
Life of Andrew Jackson,
volume 3, chapter 16._

After the breach between Jackson and Calhoun, Duff Green
adhered to the latter. The "Globe" newspaper was then founded,
to be the organ of the administration, and Francis P. Blair,
called from Kentucky to undertake the editorship, acquired at
the same time Duff Green's vacated seat in the Kitchen
Cabinet.

_J. Schouler,
History of the United States,
volume 3, page 501._

"The establishment of the 'Globe,' the rupture with Calhoun,
and the breaking up of the first cabinet had inaugurated a
bitter war between the two rival papers, though really between
the President and Mr. Calhoun, in consequence of which there
were rich revelations made to the public."

_N. Sargent,
Public Men and Events, 1817-1853,
volume 1, page 186._

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1829-1832.
Rise of the Abolitionists.

"Between the years 1829 and 1832 took place a remarkable
series of debates in Virginia on the subject of slavery,
brought about by dissatisfaction with the State constitution
and by the Nat Turner massacre, in which a number of slaves
had risen against their masters. In these debates the evils of
slavery were exposed as clearly as they were afterwards by the
Abolitionists, and with an outspoken freedom which, when
indulged in by Northern men, was soon to be denounced as
treasonable and incendiary. These Southern speakers were
silenced by the Slave Power. But there were men in the North
who thought the same and who would not be silenced. Chief
among these was William Lloyd Garrison. He had begun his
memorable career by circulating petitions in Vermont in 1828
in favor of emancipation in the District of Columbia. Having
joined Lundy in Baltimore in editing the 'Genius of Universal
Emancipation,' he had suffered ignominy in the cause, in a
Southern jail; drawing from persecution and hardship only new
inspiration, he began the publication of the 'Liberator', at
Boston in January, 1831.
{3370}
In the following year, under his leadership, was formed the
New England Anti-Slavery Society, which placed itself on the
new ground that immediate, unconditional emancipation, without
expatriation, was the right of every slave and could not be
withheld by his master an hour without sin. In March, 1833,
the 'Weekly Emancipator' was established in New York, with the
assistance of Arthur and Lewis Tappan, and under the
editorship of William Goodell. In the same year appeared at
Haverhill, Massachusetts, a vigorous pamphlet by John G.
Whittier, entitled 'Justice and Expediency, or Slavery
considered with a View to its Rightful and Effectual Remedy,
Abolition.' Nearly simultaneously were published Mrs. Lydia
Maria Child's 'Appeal in Behalf of that Class of Americans
called Africans,' and a pamphlet by Elizur Wright, Jr., a
professor in the Western Reserve College, on 'The Sin of
Slavery and its Remedy.' These publications and the doctrines
of the 'Liberator' produced great excitement throughout the
country."

_B. Tuckerman,
William Jay and the Constitutional Movement for the
Abolition of Slavery,
chapter 3._

The "Liberator" "was a weekly journal, bearing the names of
William Lloyd Garrison and Isaac Knapp as publishers. Its
motto was, 'Our Country is the World, Our Countrymen are
Mankind,' a direct challenge to those whose motto was the
Jingo cry of those days, 'Our Country, right or wrong!' It was
a modest folio, with a page of four columns, measuring
fourteen inches by nine and a quarter. … The paper had not a
dollar of capital. It was printed at first with borrowed type.
Garrison and Knapp did all the work of every kind between
them, Garrison of course doing the editorials. That he wrote
them can hardly be said: his habit was often to set up without
manuscript. … The publishers announced in their first issue
their determination to go on as long as they had bread and
water to live on. In fact, they lived on bread and milk, with
a little fruit and a few cakes, which they bought in small
shops below. Garrison apologizes for the meagreness of the
editorials, which, he says, he has but six hours, and those at
midnight, to compose, all the rest of his time and the whole
of that of his companion being taken up by the mechanical
work. … It was against nothing less than the world, or at
least the world in which he lived, that this youth of
twenty-six, with his humble partner, took up arms. Slavery was
at the height of its power. … The salutatory of the
'Liberator' avowed that its editor meant to speak out without
restraint. 'I will be as harsh as truth and as uncompromising
as justice. On this subject I do not wish to think or speak or
write with moderation. No! No! Tell a man whose house is on
fire to give a moderate alarm; tell him to moderately rescue
his wife from the hands of the ravisher; tell the mother to
gradually extricate her babe from the fire into which it has
fallen—but urge me not to use moderation in a cause like the
present. I am in earnest—I will not equivocate—I will not
excuse—I will not retreat a single inch—and I will be heard.'
This promise was amply kept. … In private and in his family he
was all gentleness and affection. Let it be said, too, that he
set a noble example to controversial editors in his fair
treatment of his opponents. Not only did he always give
insertion to their replies, but he copied their criticisms
from other journals into his own. Fighting for freedom of
discussion, he was ever loyal to his own principle. What is
certain is that the 'Liberator,' in spite of the smallness of
its circulation, which was hardly enough to keep it alive,
soon told. The South was moved to its centre. The editorials
probably would not have caused much alarm, as the slaves could
not read. What was likely to cause more alarm was the
frontispiece, which spoke plainly enough to the slave's eye.
It represented an auction at which 'slaves, horses and other
cattle' were being offered for sale, and a whipping-post at
which a slave was being flogged. In the background was the
Capitol at Washington, with a flag inscribed 'Liberty'
floating over the dome. … On seeing the 'Liberator' the realm
of slavery bestirred itself. A Vigilance Association took the
matter in hand. First came fiery and bloodthirsty editorials;
then anonymous threats; then attempts by legal enactment to
prevent the circulation of the 'Liberator' at the South. The
Grand Jury of North Carolina found a true bill against
Garrison for the circulation of a paper of seditious tendency,
the penalty for which was whipping and imprisonment for the
first offence, and death without benefit of clergy for the
second. The General Assembly of Georgia offered a reward of
five thousand dollars to anyone who, under the laws of that
State, should arrest the editor of the 'Liberator', bring him
to trial, and prosecute him to conviction. The South
reproached Boston with allowing a battery to be planted on her
soil against the ramparts of Southern institutions. Boston
felt the reproach, and showed that she would gladly have
suppressed the incendiary print and perhaps have delivered up
its editor; but the law was against her, and the mass of the
people, though wavering in their allegiance to morality on the
question of slavery, were still loyal to freedom of opinion. …
It was just at this time that the South and its clientage at
the North were thrown into a paroxysm of excitement by the
Bloody Monday, as Nat Turner's rising at Southampton was
called. The rising was easily suppressed, and Virginia saw, as
Jamaica has since seen, how cruel is the panic of a dominant
race. Not the slightest connection of the outbreak with
Northern abolitionism was traced. That Garrison or anyone
connected with him ever incited the slaves to revolt, or said
a word intentionally which could lead to servile war, seems to
be utterly untrue. His preaching to the slaves, on the
contrary, was always patience, submission, abstinence from
violence, while in his own moral code he carried
non-resistance to an extreme. Moreover, his championship held
out hope, and what goads to insurrection is despair."

_Goldwin Smith,
William Lloyd Garrison,
pages 60-65._

"Mr. Emerson once said, 'Eloquence is dog-cheap in
anti-slavery meetings.' … On the platform you would always see
Garrison; with him was … Sam May. Stephen S. Foster was always
there. … Parker Pilsbury, James Buffum, Arnold Buffum, Elizur
Wright, Henry C. Wright, Abigail Kelley, Lucy Stone, Theo. D.
Weld, the sisters Grimké, from South Carolina; John T.
Sargent, Mrs. Chapman, Mrs. Lydia M. Child, Fred Douglas, Wm.
W. Brown and Francis Jackson. The last was a stern Puritan,
conscientious, upright, clear-minded, universally respected.
Edmund Quincy also was there, and he never spoke without
saying something that had a touch of wit as well as of logic.
Oliver Johnson … was one of the very first members of the
Society. Theodore Parker, Samuel J. May, John Pierpont,
Charles L. Stearns, Charles L. Redwood, George Thompson
(another wonderfully eloquent man), and, above all, Wendell
Phillips."

_J. F. Clarke,
Anti-Slavery Days,
chapter 3._

See, also, SLAVERY, NEGRO: A. D. 1828-1832.

{3371}

A. D. 1830.
The Fifth Census.

Total population, 12,866,020 (being about 33½ per cent. more
than in 1820), classed and distributed as follows:

North.

White. Free black. Slave. Connecticut. 289,603 8,047 25 Illinois. 155,061 1,637 747 Indiana. 339,399 3,629 3 Maine 398,263 1,190 2 Massachusetts. 603,359 7,048 1 Michigan. 31,346 261 32 New Hampshire. 268,721 604 3 New Jersey. 300,266 18,303 2,254 New york. 1,873,663 44,870 75 Ohio. 928,329 9,568 6 Pennsylvania. 1,309,900 37,930 403 Rhode Island. 93,621 3,561 17 Vermont. 279,771 881 0

Total 6,871,302 137,529 3,568

South. White. Free black. Slave. Alabama. 190,406 1,572 117,549 Arkansas. 25,671 141 4,576 Delaware. 57,601 15,855 3,292 District of Columbia. 27,563 6,152 6,119 Florida. 18,385 844 15,501 Georgia. 296,806 2,486 217,531 Kentucky. 517,787 4,917 165,213 Louisiana. 89,441 16,710 109,588 Maryland. 291,108 52,938 102,994 Mississippi 70,443 519 65,659 Missouri. 114,795 569 25,091 North Carolina. 472,843 19,543 245,601 South Carolina. 257,863 7,921 315,401 Tennessee. 535,746 4,555 141,603 Virginia. 694,300 47,348 469,757

Total 3,660,758 182,070 2,005,475

In the decade between 1820 and 1830 the immigrant arrivals in
the United States, as officially recorded, numbered 143,439,
of which 75,803 were from the British Islands. Prior to 1821,
there is no official record of immigration.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1830-1831.
The first railroads.

See STEAM LOCOMOTION ON LAND.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1832.
The Black Hawk War.

See ILLINOIS: A. D. 1832.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1832.
The prospective surplus and necessary tariff reduction.
Clay's delusive measure.

See TARIFF LEGISLATION (UNITED STATES): A. D. 1832.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1832.
Twelfth Presidential Election.
Re-election of General Jackson.

General Jackson, renominated by his party almost without
question, was re-elected over three competitors, the popular
vote being as follows: Andrew Jackson, Democrat, 687,502;
Henry Clay, National Republican, 530,189; William Wirt,
Anti-Masonic, 33,108; John Floyd (voted for only in South
Carolina, where electors were chosen by the legislature). The
vote in the electoral college stood: Jackson 219, Clay 49,
Floyd 11, Wirt 7. Martin Van Buren was elected Vice President.

"This election is notable for several reasons. It marks the
beginning of the system of national nominating conventions; it
gave Jackson a second term of office, in which he was to
display his peculiar qualities more conspicuously than ever;
it compacted and gave distinct character to the new Democratic
party; and it practically settled directly the fate of the
Bank of the United States, and indirectly the question of
nullification. Jackson was easily re-elected, for he had
established a great popularity, and the opposition was
divided. A new party came into the field, and marked its
advent by originating the national nominating convention. This
was the Anti-Masonic party".

See NEW YORK: A. D.1826-1832.

Both the Democratic and the National Republican parties
adopted the invention of the Anti-Masons, and made their
nominations for the first time by the agency of great national
conventions.

_W. Wilson,
Division and Reunion, 1829-1889,
page 62._

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1833-1836.
President Jackson's overthrow of the United States Bank.
The removal of the Deposits.