Webster on the authority of the Constitution rather, both states and central government were ruled by a Constitution. That document gave, he said, certain sovereignty to the states and certain sovereignty to the Unionand that for either to cross the gulf which lay between meant revolution. Neither state nor Union, he held, had any powers other than those given to them by that supreme law of the land. If state officials declared a law null and void and national officials should attempt to enforce it the result would be nothing less than civil war. The judge in such a case was the Supreme Court and to its decisions state and government must bow. This famous debate settled nothing; but it made plain the two sides of the question; the difference of opinion was an honest one, originating, as we have seen (p. 201), with Jefferson in 1798. A regrettable quarrel now occurred between Jackson and Vice-President Calhoun. A basis for this was laid early in Jackson and Calhoun es Jackson's administra- tranged tion, when Calhoun ROBERT Y. HAYNE and his wife refused to receive, socially, the wife of one of Jackson's cabinet. About the same time Jackson learned (footnote p. 235) that, in 1818, Calhoun was author of the motion in Congress to censure him for his invasion of Florida. Jackson's pent-up anger found a startling way of venting itself. Southerners were in charge of the annual Jefferson birthday dinner, denounces April 13, 1830, and they had hoped that Jackson Jackson would, that night, declare himself favorable to nullification their "Compact" theory of the Constitution. The Tennesseean, however, killed two birds with one stone at that banquet. He severely condemned the nullification of a national law by a state as treason, and he denounced the friends of such an act as rebels. Jackson could not have hit Calhoun a harder blow; and he followed it up a little later by telling Calhoun that their friendship was at an end. While South Carolina was bitter over Jackson's attitude, no "solid South" was arrayed against him. William H. Crawford, Georgia the brilliant Georgia politician, was also an open enemy of Calhoun's. Georgians had secured Jackson's promise to remove the local Indians (Cherokees) from the Alabama and Mississippi region west of Georgia as soon as it could be done cheaply and without undue friction. By his attitude in this matter Jackson defied the Supreme Court, which had returned a verdict favorable to the Cherokees; but it was "good politics," for he retained the support of the lower South which might otherwise have sided with South Carolina in her nullification campaign. JOHN C. CALHOUN The progress of the nullification theory in South Carolina, however, was steady. On July 26, 1831, Calhoun became its open champion through the publication of his "Address to the People of South Carolina"; here he outlined at length the doctrine advanced in the "Exposition" of 1828. As the election came on the year following, Calhoun, in reply to a demand from his followers for a plainer statement of his position, addressed his famous "Fort Hill Letter" to the governor of the state, August 28th. In this document we find a clear statement of South Carolina's position, just at the moment when the people of the nation were about to decide at the polls whether Jackson's administration should be approved or be condemned. Calhoun's "Address to the people of South Carolina" Even this brief review of the chief events of Jackson's first term shows plainly his hearty manner of making both friends and enemies. He had not intended to stand for reëlection in 1832 for he had greatly profited at every turn from the advice of his Secretary of State, Martin Van Buren, a polished New York politician, and he desired Van Buren to be his The party successor in office. But the hour was too critical crisis in 1832 a one now to risk a change. A Van Buren defeat would disrupt the new party; but a Democratic victory over the many enemies Jackson had made by (a) introducing the Spoils System, or (b) on account of the Maysville veto, or (c) for vetoing the Bank Charter bill, or (d) for his blow at South Carolina's nullification doctrine, or (e) for his defiant attitude to the Supreme Court on the Georgia Indian question, would greatly unify the party. Jackson's "Whig" opponents were easily rallied under the banner of "National Republicans" led by Henry Clay of Kentucky, champion of the United States Bank and internal improvements. Some who could not ally themselves with Clay and the National Clay and yet who op- Republicans posed Jackson's "king ly rule" found refuge under the banner of a quasi-political organization, very popular in New York State, called the "Anti-Masonic Party.' This party was formed to combat what were called the "evils" of Masonry, after the mysterious death of a citizen of New York, who was accused of disclosing Masonic secrets. HENRY CLAY No more distinct political victory was ever won than that of Jackson's when the votes were counted in November; he had 219 electoral votes to Clay's 49. His candidate for the second office, "Little Van" (Van Buren) re- Jackson's ceived as many votes as his chief, with the exception of Pennsylvania's which went to a favorite son. Jackson, naturally, took his victory to mean the people's approval of "his policies." This was only partly true. Jack triumph and its meaning son's huge majority was the answer of American democracy in favor of Jackson's instinctive fear of a financial aristocracy as represented by the United States Bank, and his hearty hatred of nullification. In order to strike a blow at those "evils" the masses were content to overlook Jackson's defiance of the Supreme Court, his ignoring tariff questions, his rebuke to internal improvements and all his "kingly" use of power. The victory unified the Democratic party as a strict construction party, giving it a bent which has lasted well-nigh a century. READING LIST 1. ANDREW JACKSON: F. A. Ogg, The Reign of Andrew Jackson (Chronicles of America, XX), Chap. 1; J. S. Bassett, Life of Andrew Jackson; W. G. Brown, Andrew Jackson; Quincy, 352-376. 2. SPOILS SYSTEM: C. R. Fish, The Civil Service and the Patronage; W. MacDonald, Jacksonian Democracy (American Nation, XV), Chap. 4; J. B. McMaster, V. Chap. 52; Ogg, Chap. 4; Bassett, II, Chap. 21. 3. NULLIFICATION: Ogg, Chaps. 7 and 8; Bassett, II, Chap. 26; MacDonald, Chaps. 5 and 9; McMaster, VI, Chap. 59; Webster's "Reply to Hayne," S. B. Harding (ed.), Select Orations, 212-241. 4. THE UNITED STATES BANK: Ogg, Chap. 9; MacDonald, Chaps. 7 and 13; Bassett, chaps. 27 and 28; McMaster, VI, Chap. 59; R. H. Catterall, The Second Bank of the United States. 5. THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY: S. P. Orth, The Boss and the Machine (Chronicles of America, XLIII), Chap. 1; MacDonald, Chaps. 12, 14, and 17; J. A. Woodburn, Political Parties and Party Problems in the United States, Chap. 4; McMaster, VI, Chap. 69; Ogg, Chap. 11. QUERY AND DISCUSSION How can a man be an "expression of his period"? Name an illustration. In what ways was Andrew Jackson such? Can a period of awakening bring forth both good and evil inventions side by side-spoil systems and prison reforms? Was distrust of the expert typical of Jackson's day? Are instances of this of frequent occurrence (pp. 440, 502)? Is such distrust usually founded on political bias? Is it more common to the party that is "in" or the party that is "out"? Was Jackson as sound in his feeling toward internal improvement as toward the United States Bank? Would he favor present methods of national aid to roadbuilding? To the Federal Reserve system? Why does the Democratic party celebrate Jackson's birthday with such ardor? List the reasons which make it proper to call him "father" of that party? |