The spirit of Western democracy leavened also the older States. The people of Maine, breaking away from Massachusetts and her ancient ideals, boldly declared for manhood suffrage in their new constitution. Connecticut adopted a constitution in 1818 to replace the old charter, and dissolved the old union of Church and State by declaring that no preference should be given by law to any Christian sect or mode of worship. At the same time Connecticut extended the suffrage to all who served in the militia or paid a state tax. New York in the constitution of 1821 and Massachusetts by a constitutional amendment in the same year abandoned the old property qualifications for voting.
In both Massachusetts and New York, conservative men like Chancellor Kent and Daniel Webster frankly avowed their apprehensions of universal suffrage. "The tendency of universal suffrage," said Kent in the New York convention, "is to jeopardize the rights of property, and the principles of liberty." He held society to be an association for the protection of property as well as of life, "and the individual who contributes only one cent to the common stock ought not to have the same power and influence in directing the property concerns of the partnership as he who contributes his thousands."
The democratic movement affected not only the formal organization of State Governments, but also the machinery and methods of political parties. In the Northern States there was increasing dissatisfaction with the practice of nominating candidates for office by legislative caucus. The rank and file of the parties were no longer willing to submit blindly to the dictation of leaders. In deference to party voters in districts which were not represented by men of their political faith, the leaders of the respective parties now found it expedient to summon special delegates to their party conclaves, in order to give a more truly representative character to the organization of party. The legislative caucus, in short, gave way to the mixed caucus.
[Map: States Admitted to the Union between 1812 and 1821]
But the old vice remained. The selection of candidates for office was still made by those who had no mandate to act for the party except in a legislative capacity. If the voters of the party were in truth the source of authority within the party, then a means had to be devised of ascertaining their will. The democratic principle, in short, had to be applied to party. In response to this feeling, mass meetings and irregular conventions were held; but these methods of securing an expression of party opinion were only transitional. Indeed, so long as the means of communication were defective, popular gatherings were necessarily poorly attended. The next step in the democratization of party organization could only be taken when the barriers of space were overcome by the application of the steam engine to transportation. The nominating delegate convention waited on the development of transportation.
Much the same popular hostility was directed against the congressional caucus. Candidates for the presidential nomination were not blind to this movement, and for the most part they sought other means of promoting their chances. Monroe had hardly entered upon his second term when state legislative caucuses began to nominate favorite sons. In 1821, the legislature of South Carolina put forward the name of William Lowndes, and upon his death named John C. Calhoun as its candidate for the Presidency. In 1822, the legislature of Tennessee presented the name of Andrew Jackson, "the soldier, the statesman, the honest man," to the consideration of the people of the United States. In the same year Republican members of the legislature of Kentucky recommended Henry Clay "as a suitable person to succeed James Monroe as President." A "joint meeting of the Republican members of the Massachusetts legislature and of Republican delegates from the various towns of the Commonwealth not represented in the legislature" nominated John Quincy Adams for the Presidency in January, 1823. And finally, illustrative of the varied methods in use and of the strange vicissitudes of politics at this time, a public gathering or mass meeting at Fredericksburg, Virginia, in March, 1824, nominated Adams for President and Jackson for Vice-President.
A series of resolutions passed by the legislature of Tennessee in 1823 called attention in no uncertain language to the shortcomings of the congressional caucus and called for its overthrow. A canvass of the members of Congress showed that one hundred and eighty-one out of two hundred and sixty-one believed a caucus inexpedient at this time. Nevertheless, the minority, acting in Crawford's interest, took their courage in both hands and held a caucus on February 14, 1824. Sixty-four out of sixty-eight votes were cast for William H. Crawford, who thus became by all precedents the "regular" candidate of the Republican party. This nomination and the indorsement of Jackson by the Republicans of Pennsylvania spoiled Calhoun's chances. In the spring of 1824, he allied himself with the Jackson faction by accepting the nomination for Vice-President at the hands of a state nominating convention at Harrisburg, which had put Jackson at the head of the ticket.
Such issues as were discoverable in the presidential contest of 1824 were formulated in the debates in Congress during the early part of the year. As the country recovered from financial depression, the question of internal improvements again forged to the front. In 1822, a bill to authorize the collection of tolls on the Cumberland Road had been vetoed by the President. In an elaborate essay Monroe set forth his views on the constitutional aspects of a policy of internal improvements. Congress might appropriate money, he admitted, but it might not undertake the actual construction of national works nor assume jurisdiction over them. For the moment the drift toward a larger participation of the National Government in internal improvements was stayed. Two years later, however, Congress authorized the President to institute surveys for such roads and canals as he believed to be needed for commerce and military defense. The vote on this bill shows that the source of opposition to internal improvements was chiefly in the Northeast, in Virginia, and in the Carolinas. The West and Southwest, with Pennsylvania, Maryland, and New Jersey, were a unit in support of the general survey.
No one pleaded more eloquently for a larger conception of the functions of the National Government than Clay. No one voiced the aspirations of his section more faithfully. He called the attention of his hearers to provisions made for coast surveys and lighthouses on the Atlantic seaboard and deplored the neglect of the great interior of the country. "A new world has come into being since the Constitution was adopted," he exclaimed. "Are the narrow, limited necessities of the old thirteen States, of, indeed, parts only of the old thirteen States as they existed at the formation of the present Constitution, forever to remain the rule of its interpretation?" Of the other presidential candidates, Jackson voted in the Senate for the general survey bill; and Adams left no doubt in the public mind that he did not reflect the narrow views of his section on this issue. Crawford felt the constitutional scruples which were everywhere being voiced in the South, and followed the old expedient of advocating a constitutional amendment to sanction national internal improvements.
The Tariff Act of 1824 also entered somewhat into the presidential campaign. The failure of the protectionists to secure a higher tariff in 1820 had been followed by other efforts to secure congressional action; but none succeeded until Clay was again elected Speaker of the House and thrust the matter into the foreground of discussion. Clay dwelt eloquently upon the loss of the foreign market for agricultural products and upon the consequent widespread distress. To his mind the remedy was the establishment of an American market by fostering manufactures. That such a policy would involve a clash of sectional interests, he did not deny; but he believed that "reconciliation by mutual concessions" could be effected and a genuine "American system" be brought into existence.
[Map: House Vote on Tariff Bill April 16, 1824]
The tariff bill presented in 1824 was avowedly a protective measure. Among lesser changes, increased duties were proposed on iron, lead, wool, hemp, cotton bagging, and cotton and woolen goods. At once the clash of sectional interests began. New England shippers protested against the duty on hemp, which they needed for cordage; and Southern planters made common cause with them on this item, because the cheap bagging which they used for baling their cotton was made of coarse hemp. For the same reason the maritime sections of New England opposed the duty on iron. For precisely opposite reasons, Kentucky clamored for the protection of her hemp-growers, and Pennsylvania, for the protection of her iron-workers. It was well understood that the cotton industry was established and needed no protection; nevertheless, the minimum duty on cotton fabrics was raised. The increased duty on woolens, however, was offset by an increased duty on raw wool, so that the woolen manufacturers profited little by the change of rate. A proposal to apply to woolens the minimum principle which had been extended to cottons in 1816 was defeated by the opposition of the South. Any increase in the cost of cheap woolen goods was bound to enhance the cost of clothing the slaves. On the other hand, the representatives of the great grain-growing and farming States of New York, New Jersey, and Pennsylvania, together with the States of the Ohio Valley, were almost unanimously in favor of the proposed bill. When the bill came to a vote in the House on April 16, 1824, only nine of the combined ninety-five votes of these sections were cast in the negative. Equally emphatic was the protest of the South and Southwest: only six out of seventy-six Representatives favored the bill. New England by its divided vote revealed the internal conflict between the commercial and manufacturing interests. The bill passed both houses of Congress by small majorities and received the signature of the President.
Of the presidential candidates, only one spoke with uncertain sound on the tariff issue. Clay was the outspoken advocate of a far-reaching American system; Adams thought the tariff of 1824 a fair compromise; Jackson, properly coached by his intimates, put himself on record as a supporter of a protective policy to create a home market; only Crawford, representative of the peculiar interests of the South and candidate for Northern support, felt the impossibility of harmonizing the conflicting interests of his followers by a clear-cut and explicit utterance on the tariff.
With so many candidates in the field, it was difficult to forecast the outcome of the presidential campaign. Even if there had been a pronounced popular drift toward any candidate, the result would have remained in doubt until the six States which still gave the choice of electors to their legislatures had completed the complicated electoral process. There was a strong likelihood, however, that the election would go to the House of Representatives. As the choice would then be confined to the three candidates having the highest vote, there was not a little bargaining in the States where the legislatures chose the electors. The completed returns gave Jackson 99 electoral votes; Adams, 84; Crawford, 41; and Clay, 37. Calhoun was elected Vice-President by more than two thirds of the electoral vote. The House, therefore, as wiseacres had foretold, was called upon for the second time to decide a contested presidential election.
The position of Clay was one of unenviable distinction and power. He could not be elected President, but he could, it was believed, determine which of his rivals should have the coveted office. His own State favored Jackson as a second choice; but Clay wrote to a friend that he could not consider the killing of twenty-five hundred Englishmen at New Orleans proved the fitness of Jackson for the chief civil magistracy. Crawford was personally less objectionable to Clay; but he had suffered a paralytic stroke and his health was precarious. Besides, Crawford had opposed some of the policies which Clay had most at heart. For years Clay had been a bitter opponent of Adams; yet after all was said, he was bound to admit that his interests would be best served by an alliance with this stiff-necked New Englander. At an early date, therefore, he determined to throw his support to Adams.
For weeks the capital was enveloped in an atmosphere of intrigue. Clay was courted by all factions. The possibility of securing his support was a standing temptation to wire-pullers. Even Adams wrote in his diary, "Incedo super ignes" (I walk over fires). When Clay announced positively, on January 24, that he and his friends would support Adams, a storm of passionate denunciation broke upon him. An anonymous letter appeared in a Philadelphia newspaper, charging that friends of Adams had offered Clay the Secretaryship of State in return for his support, and that friends of Clay had reported the offer to friends of Jackson, with the intimation that Clay would support the general on similar terms. When the friends of Jackson spurned these overtures, Clay sold out to Adams. With quite unnecessary heat Clay branded the author of this letter as "a base and infamous calumniator, a dastard, and a liar." His first instinct was to challenge the author whoever he might be; but when Representative George Kremer, an odd character who was chiefly conspicuous by reason of the leopard-skin coat which he wore avowed himself the writer of the offensive letter, Clay wisely concluded not to make himself ridiculous by an affair of honor with this Gil Blas. He demanded a congressional investigation instead.
While this investigation of the alleged bargain between Adams and Clay was pending, the House proceeded to the election of a President. On the first ballot, Adams received the votes of thirteen States, while Jackson was the choice of seven States, and Crawford of four. New England, New York, Louisiana, Maryland, and the States of the Northwest, except Indiana, supported Adams. Combined with these were now Missouri and Kentucky, which had voted for Clay. Jackson received the votes of the Southwest, together with those of Pennsylvania, New Jersey, Indiana, and South Carolina. Crawford was supported by Georgia, North Carolina, Virginia, and Delaware. Two days later the President-elect announced that he had invited Henry Clay to be his Secretary of State. After some hesitation, Clay accepted the post.
[Map: The Presidential Election of 1824]
The cry of corruption is a recurrent note in the history of democracies. The American democracy is no exception. With most of the charges of corruption, the historian has little concern; but the bargain and corruption cry of 1825 has a historical significance. The falsity of the charge against Clay has been proved as nearly as a negative can be. Adams may not have been above the uncongenial task of soliciting votes, but he kept safely within the moral domain which his conscience marked out. The motive which governed his appointment of Clay as Secretary of State is stated frankly in a letter to Monroe, two days after the election by the House. He considered the appointment "due to his talents and services to the western section of the Union, whence he comes, and to the confidence in me manifested by their delegations." Upon one individual these considerations made no impression: Andrew Jackson left the capital with wrath in his soul. He felt that he had been defrauded by a corrupt bargain. From this time on his hand was against Clay,—that "Judas of the West," as he afterward called him,—who had conspired to "impair the pure principles of our republican institutions" and to "prostrate that fundamental maxim which maintains the supremacy of the people's will."
Years after the events of 1824-25, the belief of Jackson that the will of the people had been defeated found classic expression in Thomas H. Benton's Thirty Years' View of Congress. What Benton termed "the Demos Krateo principle" was thoroughly in accord with the spirit of the new democracy, but it rested upon an entire misunderstanding of the Constitution. A direct popular election of the President was never contemplated by the framers of the Constitution. It is impossible to find in either the letter or the spirit of the Constitution any justification for the view that the House of Representatives is bound to elect the candidate having the highest popular vote.
What the will of the people really was in the presidential election of 1824 is by no means clear. Even in those States where presidential electors were chosen by popular vote, Jackson received less than half of the popular vote; and in many of these States the actual vote fell far below the potential. In Massachusetts, where 66,000 votes had been cast for governor the year before, only 37,000 voters took the trouble to vote for President. In Pennsylvania, which boasted of a population of over a million, less than 48,000 voted in 1824. Moreover, the six States which chose the presidential electors through their legislatures, contained one fourth of the population of the country. One fact, however, stands out with unmistakable clearness,—and it did not escape politicians like Van Buren, of New York, who had their fingers on the pulse of the people,—this martial hero from out of the West had an unprecedented vote-getting capacity. It were well to observe the Western horizon more intently.
The best description of the political characteristics of American society in this period is given by Alexis de Tocqueville, Democracy in America (2 vols., trans., 1862). F. J. Turner has pointed out the importance of the West in the development of the nation in several studies, notably: "The Significance of the Frontier in American History" (American Historical Association, Report, 1893); "The Problem of the West" (Atlantic Monthly, vol. 78); "Contributions of the West to American Democracy" (Atlantic Monthly, vol. 91). The political development of the South is set forth with great thoroughness by U. B. Phillips, Georgia and State Rights (American Historical Association, Report, 1901); W. A. Schaper, Sectionalism and Representation in South Carolina (ibid., 1900); and C. H. Ambler, Sectionalism in Virginia from 1776 to 1861 (1910). Important aspects of the tariff are discussed in Edward Stanwood's American Tariff Controversies in the Nineteenth Century (2 vols., 1903), and in C. W. Wright's Wool-Growing and the Tariff (1910).
POLITICS AND STATE RIGHTS
The circumstances of his election made the position of President Adams one of very great difficulty. He alluded to his embarrassment in his first message to Congress. "Less possessed of your confidence in advance than any of my predecessors," said he, "I am deeply conscious of the prospect that I shall stand more and oftener in need of your indulgence." It is doubtful, however, if even he appreciated the momentum of the forces which were already combining to discredit his administration. In October, the legislature of Tennessee had again nominated Jackson for the Presidency, and he had accepted the nomination as a summons to wage war upon the forces of evil in high places. The campaign of 1828, indeed, had already begun: and it was to be a campaign of personal vindication as well as of popular rights.
Under similar circumstances most men would have made sure of the loyalty of their constitutional advisers, at least, but Adams flattered himself that he could carry on a non-partisan administration. The results were disastrous, for at least two of the Cabinet were not above using the patronage of office to further the cause of Jackson. In his laudable desire not to allow the Government to become "a perpetual and unintermitting scramble for office," Adams refused to make removals in the civil service on partisan grounds, yet he retained in office underlings who labored incessantly in the cause of the opposition.
Equally impolitic was the attitude of the President toward questions of public policy in his first message to Congress. Just when the opposition was in a fluid state and the winds of conflicting doctrines were ruffling the surface of national politics, Adams gave utterance to opinions on the functions of government which were bound to alienate many of his followers. Entertaining no doubts as to constitutional limitations upon the powers of the National Government, he advocated not only the construction of roads and canals, but the establishment of observatories and a national university. His program included governmental aid to the arts, mechanical and literary, and to the sciences, "ornamental and profound." He was prepared to give encouragement not only to manufacturing but to agriculture and to commerce. Many of these were objects which President Jefferson had recommended to the consideration of Congress in 1806; but whereas he had urged the adoption of amendments to the Constitution which would authorize Congress to provide for roads and canals and education, Adams seemed oblivious to the limitations of the Constitution. In much alarm Jefferson suggested to Madison the desirability of having Virginia adopt a new set of resolutions, bottomed on those of 1798, and directed against the acts for internal improvements. In March, 1826, the general assembly declared that all the principles of the earlier resolutions applied "with full force against the powers assumed by Congress" in passing acts to protect manufactures and to further internal improvements. That the Administration would meet with opposition in Congress, whatever its program might be, was a foregone conclusion. The only question was whether the diverse and mutually hostile factions which had followed the fortunes of Crawford, Calhoun, and Jackson could coalesce into a consistent opposition. The first test occurred when the Administration proposed the Panama mission.
The overthrow of the authority of Spain in South America had left the way clear for the long-projected union of the republics. Early in the year 1825, the ministers of Mexico, Guatemala, and Colombia waited on Clay to learn whether the United States would accept an invitation to a great council or congress which had been called by the revolutionist Bolivar, now President of Colombia. The project appealed strongly to Clay. A league of young republics in the New World to offset the Holy Alliance in Europe was, as his biographer remarks, "one of those large, generous conceptions well calculated to fascinate his ardent mind." The imagination of the President was not so easily touched: he instructed Clay to inquire more particularly into the purposes of the congress.
The condition of affairs in the countries bordering on the Caribbean Sea—the American Mediterranean—was such, indeed, as to justify extreme caution in dealing with the Latin-American republics. It was matter of common knowledge that Colombia and Mexico had designs upon Cuba, the last of the Spanish outposts in the New World. So long as Spain continued at war with her old colonies, the United States was bound to be uneasy about the fate of Cuba and Porto Rico. Even if the islands were liberated by the republican armies of Central and South America, they were likely to fall a prey to some European power. The appearance of a French fleet off the coast of Cuba during the summer of 1825 gave point to these not unwarranted apprehensions. It was rumored that Cuba was to be made the basis for an expedition against Mexico in behalf of Spain. This episode prompted Clay to make strong representations to France that the United States could not consent to the occupation of Cuba by any other European power.
When, then, a formal invitation came to participate in the Panama Congress, the Administration determined to seize the occasion to exercise a wholesome restraint by friendly advice upon the assembled delegates of the republics, and at the same time to ascertain their purposes. In asking the Senate to confirm the nomination of two delegates, however, the President voiced his own expectation of what the Congress would be and do, rather than the purposes of Bolivar and his associates. The occasion would be favorable, the President intimated, for the discussion of commercial reciprocity, of neutral rights, and of principles of religious liberty. An alliance with the Latin-American republics was not contemplated. On the contrary, the delegates from the United States would urge "an agreement between all of the parties represented at the meeting, that each will guard by its own means against the establishment of any future European colony within its borders." At this stage in its evolution the Monroe Doctrine was not understood to include any obligation on the part of the United States to police the territories of the lesser republics of the New World.
The instructions given to the envoys leave no doubt as to the intentions of the Administration. Every possible endeavor was to be made to dissuade Colombia and Mexico from their designs upon Cuba and Porto Rico. The recognition of Hayti as an independent state was to be deprecated. In short, the status quo in the Caribbean Sea was to be maintained; and throughout, the congress was to be regarded as a diplomatic conference and in no wise as a convention to constitute a permanent league of republics.
Nevertheless, the opposition in Congress persisted in misrepresenting the President's purposes. It was pointed out that the republics to the south very generally believed that the United States was pledged by Monroe's message to make common cause with them when their independence was threatened. "Are we prepared," asked Hayne, of South Carolina, "to send ministers to the Congress of Panama for the purpose of making effectual this pledge of President Monroe as construed by the present administration and understood by the Spanish-American states?" With greater sincerity Southern Representatives protested against participating in a congress which proposed to discuss the suppression of the slave trade and the future of Hayti. "Slavery in all its bearings," said Hayne, "is a question of extreme delicacy, concerning which there is but one safe rule either for the States in which it exists or for the Union. It must ever be treated as a domestic question. To foreign governments the language of the United States must be that the question of slavery concerns the peace and safety of our political family, and that we cannot allow it to be discussed." Least of all, he continued, could the United States touch the question of the independence of Hayti in connection with revolutionary governments which had marched to victory under the banner of universal emancipation and which had permitted men of color to command their armies and enter their legislative halls.
In the end the Administration had its way and the nominations were confirmed; but the delay was most unfortunate. On their way to the Isthmus, one of the delegates died, and the other arrived too late to take part in the congress. From the viewpoint of domestic politics, the controversy over the mission was only an incident in the evolution of a party within the bosom of the Democratic party. The animus of the opposition is revealed in the often-quoted remark of Martin Van Buren, who was trying to drill the varied elements in the Senate into a coherent organization: "Yes, they have beaten us by a few votes, after a hard battle; but if they had only taken the other side and refused the mission, we should have had them."
Of far more serious import than this factional opposition in Congress was the resistance which the authorities of Georgia offered to the National Administration in the matter of Indian lands. On March 5, 1825, the Senate ratified the Treaty of Indian Springs with the Creek Indians, which provided for the cession of practically all the lands of the tribe between the Flint and Chattahoochee Rivers. For years the planters of Georgia had coveted these fertile tracts, awaiting with impatience the negotiations of the Federal Government with the reluctant Indians. Although the title to the lands was not to pass to Georgia until September 1, 1826, Governor Troup ordered them to be surveyed with a view to their immediate occupation. Meantime, well-founded charges were current that the treaty had been made by a faction among the Creeks, without the consent of the responsible chiefs. President Adams at once ordered the state authorities to desist from their survey; but the governor replied that Georgia was convinced of the validity of the treaty and fully determined to enter into possession of her own. The tone of the governor's letter was ominous. Nevertheless, the President instituted negotiations for a new treaty. The diplomatic shifts resorted to by the Indian agents in this instance were not above suspicion, but the President seemed to entertain no misgivings, for he assured the Senate that the new Treaty of Washington (January 24, 1826) was the will and deed of "the chiefs of the whole Creek Nation." The grant left the Indians still in possession of some lands west of the Chattahoochee.
The feelings of all loyal Georgians were outraged by the course of the Administration. The legislature protested against the Treaty of Washington as "illegal and unconstitutional," and denounced the President's action as "an instance of dictation and federal supremacy unwarranted by any grant of powers to the General Government." "Georgia owns exclusively the soil and jurisdiction of all the territory within her present chartered and conventional limits," read the resolutions of December 22, 1826. "She has never relinquished said right, either territorial or jurisdictional, to the General Government."
The ebullient governor hardly needed the indorsement of the legislature. He pushed on the surveys to the limits set by the original treaty. But the surveyors soon met with resistance from the Indians; and the Indians appealed to the President. The Secretary of War then notified Troup that the President felt himself compelled to employ all the means under his control to maintain the faith of the nation and to carry the treaty into effect. Governor Troup replied defiantly that the "military character of the menace" was well understood. "You will distinctly understand, therefore, that I feel it my duty to resist to the utmost any military attack.... From the first decisive act of hostility, you will be considered and treated as a public enemy, and with less repugnance because you, to whom we might constitutionally have appealed for our defense against invasion, are yourselves the invaders, and, what is more, the unblushing allies of the savages whose course you have adopted." He at once issued orders to the state military officers to hold the militia in readiness to repel any invasion of the soil of Georgia.
The tension which had now become acute was relieved by the intelligence that the President had ordered the Indian agent to the Creeks to resume negotiations for the cession of the rest of their lands. The governor hastened to point out jubilantly that the President had beaten a retreat. Meantime, the President had laid the whole matter before Congress in a special message. A committee of the House advised the purchase of the rest of the Indian lands, but in the mean time the maintenance of the terms of the Treaty of Washington. A committee of the Senate, however, with Benton as chairman, took an opposite view of the situation, and deprecated any action looking toward the coercion of a sister State. A treaty concluded with the Creeks in November, 1827, fortunately satisfied all parties and put an end to this exciting controversy—a controversy in which the President had played a lone and not very successful hand.
In this same year (1827), another Indian problem of even greater perplexity arose. The Cherokees of northwestern Georgia, who were ruled by a group of intelligent half-breeds, declared themselves one of the sovereign and independent nations of the earth, and drafted a constitution which completely excluded the authority of the State of Georgia. Again, in no uncertain language, Georgia asserted her title to all the lands within her limits, regarding the Indians simply as "tenants at her will"; but before the controversy reached an acute stage Adams had surrendered the Presidency to General Andrew Jackson, who had only contempt for Indian rights when they fell athwart the purposes of honest white settlers.
In the midst of these protestations against federal intervention, the legislature of Georgia sounded a note of defiance also in the matter of the tariff. It was "their decided opinion an increase of Tariff duties will and ought to be RESISTED by all legal and constitutional means." Just what should be "the mode of opposition" they would not pretend to say, but for the present they would content themselves with "the peaceable course of remonstrating with Congress." This rather ominous protest was inspired by the demands of certain manufacturers and politicians who had assembled in convention at Harrisburg, Pennsylvania, in the summer of 1827.
The woolen industry had profited least of all those which had been protected by the Tariff of 1824. Not only had the slight advance in rates been offset by the increase of the duty on raw wool, but the effect of English competition in 1825 had been most depressing to the woolen trade. A tariff bill to meet the wishes of the wool-growers and woolen manufacturers had passed the House early in 1827, but had been defeated in the Senate by the casting vote of the Vice-President. The convention at Harrisburg was designed to create a public sentiment in favor of the protected interests and to bring pressure from various sources to bear upon Congress. The failure of the tariff bill in the spring session had impressed upon woolen manufacturers the necessity of securing allies.
The recommendations of the convention at Harrisburg were comprehensive. Higher duties all along the line, from wool to glass, were urged. But that which the promoters of the convention had most at heart was the extension to woolens of the minimum principle already applied to cotton fabrics. According to their demands, the ad valorem duty on woolens should range from forty to fifty per cent, assessed on minimum valuations of fifty cents, two dollars and a half, four dollars, and six dollars a yard. That is to say, goods valued at less than fifty cents a yard were to be treated as though they had a value of fifty cents; and all between fifty cents and two dollars and a half, as though they were worth two dollars and a half; and so on—a system which offered a high degree of protection to the cheaper fabrics in each group.
[Map: House Vote on Tariff Bill April 22, 1828]
The high hopes of the protectionists were only partially realized. In the following session of Congress, economic interests became badly tangled with political. The President and the greater part of his supporters were protectionists. Indeed, it was openly charged by the opposition that the Harrisburg Convention was a device of the Adams men to promote his reelection. The opposition, on the other hand, was far from united on the tariff question. The only affinity between Southern planters and their Northern allies in the Middle and Western States was hostility to the Administration. According to Calhoun, who in after years made a frank avowal of his part in the intrigue, the opposition determined to frame a tariff bill with a general high level of duties to satisfy the Middle and Western States, but to increase the duties on raw material which New England manufacturers needed. All the stanch Jackson men were to unite in forcing this bill to a passage without amendment. At the last moment, however, the Southern group were to part company with their allies and to vote against the bill. The Representatives from New England, and the supporters of the Administration generally, would of course vote against the bill also, and so compass its defeat. The odium would then fall upon the Adams men, while the Jackson men could pose as the only whole-hearted advocates of protection; and, finally, not the least factor in Calhoun's calculations, the South would escape the toils of high protection. There was only one hitch in this cleverly planned game. To the consternation of the plotters, enough New England Representatives swallowed the bitter dose to enact the bill.
The "tariff of abominations" deserves all the abuse which has been heaped upon it. Shapen in political iniquity, it bore upon its face the marks of its origin. High duties for which no one had asked were imposed on certain raw material like pig and bar iron, and hemp, the better quality of which was always in demand and never produced in the United States. Items like the increased duty on molasses and the heavy duty on sail-duck were added to make the bill distasteful to New England. But the woolen industry suffered the most grievous disappointment. Instead of the minimum principle advocated by the Harrisburg Convention, the Act of 1828 established a minimum of one dollar between the minimal points of fifty cents and two dollars and a half. Whereas the proposed rate would have fixed a prohibitory duty on woolens costing about a dollar a yard, the act allowed only a duty of forty-five per cent. "The dollar minimum," as one of the aggrieved manufacturers put it, "was planted in the very midst of the woolen trade."
Again the Middle States and the States of the Ohio Valley united in support of the protective principle. New England was divided against itself. Political considerations weighed heavily with those New Englanders who like Webster voted for the bill. John Randolph hardly exaggerated when he declared that "the bill referred to manufactures of no sort or kind, except the manufacture of a President of the United States."
To the bibliography at the close of the preceding chapter only a few titles need be added. The foreign policy of the Adams Administration is well described in F. E. Chadwick's The Relations of the United States and Spain (1909). The stages in the Indian controversy may be traced in U. B. Phillips's Georgia and State Rights (American Historical Association, Report, 1901), and in E. J. Hardin's Life of George M. Troup (1859). E. M. Shepard, Martin Van Buren (1888), and T. D. Jervey, Robert Y. Hayne and His Times (1909), are important biographies. Josiah Quincy's Figures of the Past (1883) contains some interesting sketches of Washington society, while N. Sargent's Public Men and Events (2 vols., 1875) supplies an abundance of political gossip.
THE RISE OF NATIONAL SOVEREIGNTY
Shortly after the Federal Convention of 1787, a friend remarked to Gouverneur Morris, "You have made a good constitution." "That," replied Morris laconically, "depends on how it is construed!" From Washington to Jackson the process of construing the Constitution had gone on, intermittently by the executive and legislative, steadily by the judiciary. "The judiciary of the United States," wrote Jefferson in 1820, "is the subtle corps of sappers and miners constantly working underground to undermine the foundations of our confederate fabric. They are constantly construing our constitution from a coordination of a general and a special government, to a general and supreme one alone. They will lay all things at their feet, and they are too well versed in the English law to forget the maxim, 'boni judicis est ampliare jurisdictionem.'"
Yet as late as 1800 the federal judiciary had pronounced none of those decisions which were to make it so powerful a factor in the assertion and maintenance of national sovereignty. In declining an appointment as Chief Justice, John Jay wrote to President Adams that he had "left the bench perfectly convinced that under a system so defective, it would not obtain the energy, weight, and dignity, which were essential to its affording due support to the National Government; nor acquire the public confidence and respect which, as the last resort of the justice of the Nation, it should possess."
The uncertainty of the law was in large part responsible for this lack of prestige. "Too great inattention," complained a Boston lawyer, in the Columbian Centinel in 1801, "has hitherto prevailed as to the preservation of the decisions of our courts of law. We have neither authorized nor voluntary reporters. Hence we are compelled to the loose and interested recollections of counsel, or to depend wholly on British decisions." The first systematic attempt to secure records of opinions was made by Connecticut in 1785. Four years later, Ephraim Kirby, a printer in Litchfield, issued "the first regular printed law reports in America." This example was followed in other States; and in 1798 the first volume of United States Supreme Court Reports was published by Dallas.
The great period in the history of the Supreme Court coincides with the thirty-four years during which John Marshall held the office of Chief Justice. President John Adams rendered no more lasting service to the Federalist cause than when he appointed this great Virginian to the bench, for Marshall, if not a Federalist of the strictest sect, was a thoroughgoing nationalist. Down to his appointment only six decisions involving constitutional questions of any moment had been handed down; between 1801 and 1835, sixty-two were rendered, of which Marshall wrote thirty-six. The decisions of the court during "the reign of Marshall" fill thirty volumes of the Reports. Seven hundred and fifty-three cases were taken on appeal to the Supreme Court from the lower federal courts, and in nearly one half of these cases the decisions were reversed.
An American constitutional law did not exist when Marshall took office. Few precedents were available. In some of his important cases Marshall did not cite a single judicial decision. He reached his conclusions by the light of reason. "There, Story," he would say to his associate, "is the law. Now you must find the authorities." In a peculiar sense it is true to say that Marshall both laid the foundations of constitutional law and reared the superstructure, as one of his biographers remarks. But Marshall was ably supported by his colleagues; and he owed much, as he freely admitted, to the arguments of a remarkable body of lawyers of the federal bar. Wirt, Pinkney, and Webster were as truly creators of American constitutional law as the learned justices.
The constitutional importance of the decision of the Supreme Court in Marbury v. Madison has already been pointed out. In the development of the idea of national sovereignty, the significance of the decision lies in the emphatic assertion that the Supreme Court is the tribunal of last resort in cases involving the constitutionality of acts of Congress.
The first open resistance of a State to federal authority, as asserted by the Supreme Court, occurred in 1809, when the legislature of Pennsylvania interposed its authority to prevent the payment of prize money which had been awarded by a federal district court to Gideon Olmstead and others for their capture of the sloop Active during the Revolution. All efforts to secure a peaceful settlement of this controversy having failed, the Attorney-General, in behalf of Olmstead, applied to the Supreme Court for a writ of mandamus, directing Judge Peters of the district court to enforce his judgment. In granting the writ, Chief Justice Marshall pointed out the gravity of the issue. "If the legislatures of the several States," said he, "may at will annul the judgment of the courts of the United States, and destroy the rights acquired under those judgments, the Constitution becomes a solemn mockery, and the nation is deprived of the means of enforcing its laws by the instrumentality of its own tribunals." Such a conclusion he emphatically repudiated. Reviewing the history of the case with all its details, he reached the uncompromising conclusion that "the State of Pennsylvania can possess no constitutional right to resist the legal process which may be directed in this cause.... A peremptory mandamus must be awarded."
Judge Peters issued the writ, but all efforts of the marshal to serve the writ were thwarted by the state militia. The marshal then summoned a posse comitatus of two thousand men. Bloodshed seemed imminent; but after an ineffectual appeal to the President, the Pennsylvania authorities gave way and paid over the money. Subsequently the officer commanding the militia and others were indicted, tried, convicted, and sentenced to fine and imprisonment, for resisting the writ of a federal court; but they were pardoned by the President because "they had acted under a mistaken sense of duty."
In this conflict of authority the National Government won at every point. Even the resolution which the legislature adopted in the heat of the controversy, calling for an amendment to the Constitution which should establish "an impartial tribunal to determine disputes between the General and State Governments," met with no approval from other States. Virginia, soon to be of a very different mind, responded that "a tribunal is already provided ... to wit: the Supreme Court, more eminently qualified from their habits and duties, from the mode of their selection, and from the tenure of their offices, to decide the disputes aforesaid in an enlightened and impartial manner, than any other tribunal which could be erected."
In two notable cases, the Supreme Court affirmed the constitutionality of the Judiciary Act of 1789 and asserted its authority to review and reverse decisions of the state courts when those decisions were adverse to alleged federal rights. The opinion in the first case, that of Martin v. Hunter's Lessee, in 1816, was written by Joseph Story, of Massachusetts, who had been appointed to a vacancy on the bench by President Madison. Story was reputed to be a Republican, but he disappointed all expectations by becoming a stanch supporter of nationalist doctrines and only second to Marshall in his influence upon the development of American constitutional law.
The case of Martin v. Hunter's Lessee grew out of the old Fairfax claims which Marshall had represented as counsel before his appointment to the bench. In 1815, the Supreme Court had reversed the decision of the Court of Appeals of Virginia, and ordered the state court to execute the judgment rendered in the lower state court. The judges of the Court of Appeals, headed by Judge Spencer Roane, a bitter opponent of Marshall, formally announced that they would not obey the mandamus, holding that the twenty-fifth section of the Judiciary Act of 1789—that extending the appellate jurisdiction of the Supreme Court over state tribunals—was unconstitutional. The state-rights elements in Virginia quickly rallied to the support of the judges, and the Supreme Court found itself face to face with an incensed public opinion in the Old Dominion. In no wise daunted by this opposition, the Supreme Court reviewed its position in 1816 and again ordered the execution of its judgment.
Five years later, Chief Justice Marshall rendered a similar decision in the case of Cohens v. Virginia. The counsel for the Commonwealth had argued that the appellate jurisdiction conferred by the Constitution on the Supreme Court was merely authority to revise the decisions of the inferior courts of the United States. "Congress," it was contended, "is not authorized to make the supreme court or any other court of a State an inferior court.... The inferior courts spoken of in the Constitution are manifestly to be held by federal judges." "It is the case, not the court, that gives jurisdiction," replied Marshall. "The courts of the United States can, without question, revise the proceedings of the executive and legislative authorities of the States, and if they are found to be contrary to the Constitution may declare them to be of no legal validity. Surely the exercise of the same right over judicial tribunals is not a higher or more dangerous act of sovereign power."
It was in the course of this decision that Marshall asserted in unmistakable language the sovereignty of the National Government. "The people made the Constitution and the people can unmake it.... But this supreme and irresistible power to make or to unmake resides only in the whole body of the people; not in any subdivision of them. The attempts of any of the parts to exercise it is usurpation, and ought to be repelled by those to whom the people have delegated the power of repelling it.... The framers of the Constitution were indeed unable to make any provisions which should protect that instrument against a general combination of the States, or of the people for its destruction; and conscious of this inability, they have not made the attempt. But they were able to provide against the operation of measures adopted in any one State, whose tendency might be to arrest the execution of the laws; and this it was the part of wisdom to attempt. We think they have attempted it."
Between these notable Virginia cases was decided, in 1819, the case of M'Culloch v. Maryland, in which the Chief Justice sustained the constitutionality of the act establishing the National Bank, and declared a state law imposing a tax on a branch of the Bank unconstitutional and void. In the course of his opinion, which followed much the same line of reasoning that Alexander Hamilton had employed, Marshall stated in classic phraseology the doctrine of liberal construction. Holding that the Constitution was not a code of law, but a document marking out in large characters the powers of government, he sought, among the enumerated powers, not the lesser, but the great substantive, powers necessary to the purposes of the Union. These substantive powers, however, carry with them many incidental (Hamilton said resulting) powers, among which a choice may freely be made to achieve the desired and legitimate end. "Let the end be legitimate," said Marshall, "let it be within the scope of the Constitution, and all means which are appropriate, which are plainly adapted to that end, which are not prohibited, but consist with the letter and spirit of the Constitution, are constitutional." In an earlier decision (United States v. Fisher, 1804), indeed, Marshall had refused to concede the force of the argument that the Federal Government was clothed only with the powers indispensably necessary to exercise powers expressly granted to it. "Congress must possess the choice of means which are in fact conducive to the exercise of a power granted by the Constitution."
The cumulative effect of these decisions was to provoke a violent reaction in Virginia. Under the pen-name "Algernon Sidney," Judge Roane renewed his attacks upon the Chief Justice in violent and at times offensive language. "The judgment before us," he declared, referring to the case of Cohens v. Virginia, "will not be less disastrous in its consequences, than any of these memorable judgments [of the time of Charles I]. It completely negatives the idea, that the American States have a real existence, or are to be considered, in any sense, as sovereign and independent States." It seemed to Jefferson that the powerful arguments of Roane completely "pulverized" every word which had been uttered by John Marshall. John Taylor of Caroline, however, was the philosophical exponent of this reactionary movement. In his Construction Construed (1820), Tyranny Unmasked (1822), and New Views of the Constitution (1823), he pointed out the manifest tendency of the decisions of the Supreme Court and suggested the "state veto" as the remedy against usurpation of power by the Supreme Court or by Congress. The legislature of Virginia indorsed an amendment to the Constitution drafted by Judge Roane which would have limited the jurisdiction of the federal courts, where the rights of the States were concerned, and which would have forbidden appeals from the courts of a State to any court of the United States. Beyond such remonstrances and protests, however, public opinion in Virginia was not prepared to go at this time.
The judges of the Supreme Court could not remain indifferent to these assaults. "If, indeed, the Judiciary is to be destroyed," wrote Story, "I should be glad to have the decisive blow now struck, while I am young, and can return to my profession and earn an honest livelihood." But he added, "For the Judges of the Supreme Court there is but one course to pursue. That is, to do their duty firmly and honestly, according to their best judgments."
It was in this spirit that the court rendered judgment in the case of Green v. Biddle (1823), which gave deep offense to the people of Kentucky by setting aside as unconstitutional the so-called "Occupying Claimant Laws." The remonstrance of the legislature was all the more bitter because the decision had been rendered by a bench of only four judges, one of whom dissented from the majority opinion. The resolutions of the legislature demanded a reorganization of the court in such wise that the concurrence of at least two thirds of the judges should be necessary in an opinion affecting the validity of state laws. And when Congress made no response, the lower House called upon the governor to express his opinion "whether it may be advisable to call forth the physical power of the State to resist the execution of the decisions of the court, or in what manner the mandates of said court should be met by disobedience." But Kentucky like Virginia kept well within the legal limits of petition and remonstrance.
In Ohio, also, there was an ominous spirit of resistance to the force of precedent. Notwithstanding the decision of the court in the case of M'Culloch v. Maryland, the general assembly of that State not only enacted a law to tax the local branch of the National Bank, but actually seized the amount of the tax. Suit was thereupon brought against the state auditor; and in spite of the vigorous remonstrance of the legislature, the Supreme Court again sustained the constitutionality of the Bank and declared the state tax unconstitutional. The State was ultimately obliged to make restitution of the funds of the Bank.
[Map: Canals in the United States about 1825]
Meantime, the national judiciary had contributed to the expansion of the Constitution in notable ways; sometimes by affirming the constitutionality of powers exercised by the President or Congress, and at other times by narrowing the limits of state authority. In the case of the American Insurance Company v. Canter, twenty-five years after the acquisition of Louisiana, Marshall affirmed the constitutionality of the treaty which had so aroused Jefferson's misgivings. "The Constitution," said the Chief Justice, "confers absolutely on the Government of the Union the powers of making war and of making treaties; consequently, that Government possesses the power of acquiring territory, either by conquest or by treaty."
In two instances, on the other hand, the Supreme Court gave an interpretation of the "obligation of contracts" clause of the Constitution which seriously limited the powers of the States. In the case of Fletcher v. Peck (1810), the court declared unconstitutional an act of the legislature of Georgia which attempted to revoke the notorious Yazoo land grants of 1795. A grant was held to be a contract within the meaning of the Constitution; and the court found no adequate ground for exempting such contracts from the prohibition of the Constitution.
Far-reaching in its implication, also, was the second instance, when the Supreme Court held unconstitutional and void the acts of the New Hampshire legislature which amended the charter granted by the Crown to Dartmouth College in 1769. Arguing as counsel for the college, of which he was an honored graduate, Daniel Webster held that the charter of a private corporation was a contract which might not be impaired by an act of a state legislature. Chief Justice Marshall only restated and amplified Webster's argument, when he rendered the opinion of the court and declared that New Hampshire might not by law impair the charter of Dartmouth College. To the argument of the counsel for the Commonwealth, contending that the framers of the Constitution never contemplated such a broad use of the word "contract," Marshall replied that it was not enough to say this particular use of the word was not in the mind of the Convention when the article was adopted. "It is necessary to go farther, and to say that, had this particular case been suggested, the language would have been so varied as to exclude it, or it would have been made a special exception."
The immense significance of this decision was not immediately apparent. The peculiar immunity which it gave to private property could not be appreciated until the rise of corporations with concentrated capital. Not even the Chief Justice foresaw that the guaranty of inviolability which he had thrown about a private educational corporation would be demanded with equal right by the great business corporations of the succeeding era.
[Map: Highways of the United States about 1825]
In the famous case of Gibbons v. Ogden (1824), the Supreme Court gave an interpretation of the commerce clause of the Constitution which also had a profound effect upon subsequent history. In the course of its decision the court declared unconstitutional a law of the State of New York which had granted an exclusive right to operate steamboats in the waters of New York. The regulation of commerce, the court held, had been given exclusively to Congress, and "commerce" as used in the Constitution comprehended not merely traffic and intercourse but also navigation. The power to regulate was regarded as a unit. In regulating commerce with foreign nations, the power of Congress does not stop at the jurisdictional lines of the several States. "If a foreign voyage may commence or terminate at a port within a State, then the power of Congress may be exercised within a State." Similarly, the court reasoned that commerce "among the States" cannot stop at the external boundary of each State. "Commerce among the States must of necessity be commerce with the States." In short, while expressly disclaiming that Congress had the power to regulate the internal commerce of a State, the court asserted the complete control of Congress over inter-state commerce so far as navigation was concerned. The deeper significance of this interpretation of the commerce clause appeared only when railroads began to span the continent and the jurisdictional lines of States were crossed and re-crossed by an ever-increasing volume of trade.
Twenty-five years had wrought a vast change in the position of the national judiciary in the American constitutional system. "It is now seen on every hand," wrote Attorney-General Wirt, urging the appointment of Chancellor Kent to a vacancy on the Supreme Court bench, "that the functions to be performed by the Supreme Court of the United States are among the most difficult and perilous which are to be performed under the Constitution. They demand the loftiest range of talents and learning and a soul of Roman purity and firmness. The questions which come before them frequently involve the fate of the Constitution, the happiness of the whole Nation, and even its peace as it concerns other nations." In the light of the decisions reviewed, the nationalizing tendency of the federal judiciary is unmistakable. But a constitutional reaction had set in; and even while John Marshall was setting forth the doctrine of national sovereignty in its most uncompromising form, John C. Calhoun in the quiet of his estate in South Carolina was elaborating a defense of state rights on premises which the great Chief Justice had combated for a quarter of a century.
An adequate history of the Supreme Court has yet to be written. H. L. Carson, The History of the Supreme Court of the United States, with biographies of all the chief and associate justices (2 vols., 1902-04), and H. Flanders, The Lives and Times of the Chief-Justices of the Supreme Court (2 vols., 1855-58), are serviceable works. The best selection of cases on constitutional law is that by J. B. Thayer, Cases in Constitutional Law (2 vols., 1894-95). Some of the more important decisions may be found abridged in Allen Johnson's Readings in American Constitutional History (1912). W. W. Willoughby, The Supreme Court: its History and Influence in our Constitutional System (1890), and The American Constitutional System (1904), are interesting volumes by an authority on constitutional law. J. P. Kennedy, Memoirs of the Life of William Wirt (2 vols., 1850); G. J. McRee, Life and Correspondence of James Iredell (2 vols., 1857-58); W. W. Story, Life and Letters of Joseph Story (2 vols., 1851); and G. T. Curtis, Life of Daniel Webster (2 vols., 1870), contribute to an understanding of the relation of the federal bench and bar. Especially valuable is Charles Warren's History of the American Bar, Colonial and Federal, to 1860 (1911). The progress of American law is reviewed in Two Centuries' Growth of American Law, 1701-1901, by members of the faculty of the Yale Law School.
Adams, Abigail, 120, 121.
Adams, John, Minister to England, 7; demands Western posts, 17; on the adoption of the Constitution, 41; elected Vice-President, 48; on the President's address, 50; re-elected Vice-President, 67; candidate for the Presidency, 92; elected President, 93; his attitude toward France, 96; appoints commissioners, 96-97; urges preparations for war, 98; sends X Y Z letters to Congress, 98; appoints officers of army, 101-02; at odds with Hamilton faction, 103; resumes relations with France, 103-04; his title to fame, 104; pardons Fries, 113; candidate for Presidency (1800), 116; and federal judiciary, 121-22; presidential elector (1820), 280; on European entanglements, 289-90; offers Chief Justiceship to Jay, 331.
Adams, John Quincy, and the practice of law, 20; on the new Constitution, 41; special envoy to England, 87; secures amendment of Jay Treaty, 88; defends the embargo, 189; resigns from Senate, 193; commissioner at Ghent, 227-29; on Jackson's invasion of Florida, 262; his reply to Spain, 262-63; on recognition of South American Republics, 290-91; challenges British claims on Pacific, 292; on future of Cuba, 292-93; protests Russian claims on the Pacific Coast, 293; advises against joint declaration with England, 295; candidate for the Presidency (1824), 308; favors internal improvements, 310; favors Tariff of 1824, 312; his electoral vote (1824), 312; wins Clay's following, 313-14; elected President by the House, 314; appoints Clay Secretary of State, 315; his first message, 318-19; and the civil service, 318-19; on the Panama Congress, 320, 321; and the Creek Indians, 324-26; and the Cherokee Indians, 326-27.
Adet, French Minister to United States, interferes in the election of 1800, 92-93; on Jefferson as an American, 290.
Agriculture, American, 126-27.
Alabama, admitted as a State, 251.
Alien and Sedition Acts, 109; petitions for the repeal of, 112; expiration of, 135.
Allston, Washington, 286.
Ambrister, Robert C., 261-62.
Amelia Island, entrepot for neutral trade, 199; occupied by the United States, 204; evacuated, 219.
American character, disclosed by the war, 232-33.
American Insurance Company v. Canter, 341-42.
American literature, want of, 283; from 1815 to 1830, 284.
Ames, Fisher, on the heads of departments, 89-90; on the Republican opposition, 108; on democracy, 161-62.
Annapolis Trade Convention, 28.
Anthology and Boston Review, 283.
Anti-Federalists, and the Constitution, 39.
Appointments, by Washington, 54-55; by John Adams, 122; by Jefferson, 130-31; by John Q. Adams, 318-19.
Arbuthnot, Alexander, 261-62.
Army, at the establishment of Government, 55; provisional, in 1798, 101-03; at the beginning of the War of 1812, 212; after the War of 1812, 241.
Articles of Confederation, proposed amendments to, 6; inadequacy of, 16-17, 21-24, 25-27.
Assumption of state debts, 58-61.
Ballou, Hosea, 288.
Baltimore, and Western trade, 254, 256.
Bancroft, George, 287.
Bank of the United States, opposed by Jefferson, 62; advocated by Hamilton, 63; charter of, 63; speculation in the stock of, 63-64; Congress refuses to recharter, 239; charter of the second, 239-40; management of, 267; investigation of, 267; popular hostility to, 267-68; taxation of the branches of, 268.
Baptists, in New England, 247; in the West, 301-02.
Barbour, James, 271.
Baumeler, Joseph, 246, 302.
Bayard, James A., and the election of 1801, 118-19; commissioner at Ghent, 227.
Benton, Thomas H., on the election of 1825, 315-16.
Berlin Decree, of Napoleon, 187; its revocation, 200.
Bible Society of the United States, 301.
Bladensburg, battle of, 222.
Blennerhassett, Harman, and Burr, 172-73, 175-76.
Blockade of American ports by British cruisers, 181-82, 201, 218, 233.
Blount conspiracy, 97.
Bonus Bill, advocated by Calhoun, 257; vetoed by Madison, 257.
Boone, Daniel, 14.
Boston, as an intellectual and literary center, 287.
Bowdoin, Governor James, and Shays' Rebellion, 20-21; suggests convention of the States, 27.
Breckenridge, John, 110.
Brown, Jacob, 220.
Brown, Moses, 124.
Bryant, William Cullen, 284.
Burr, Aaron, candidate for the Vice-Presidency (1796), 92; on politics in Connecticut, 115; carries the city of New York (1800), 115-16; elected Vice-President (1800), 118; candidate for Governor of New York, 165; approached by Federalists, 165-66; his duel with Hamilton, 166; his intrigues, 172-73; his expedition, 173-76; his arrest and trial, 176-78.
Cabot, George, 164.
Calhoun, John C., repudiates peaceable coercion, 207; favors Tariff of 1816, 237; his nationalism, 241-42; on constitutional limitations, 242; his Bonus Bill, 257; Secretary of War, 258; candidate for the Presidency, 307; candidate for the Vice-Presidency, 308; elected Vice-President, 312; on the Tariff of 1828, 328-29; elaborates his defense of state rights, 345.
Campbell, Alexander, 288.
Canada, proposed conquest of, 203, 213.
Canals, constructed and projected, in 1825, 255-56.
Canning, George, and the Chesapeake affair, 186; on the embargo, 191; on British naval losses, 216; on intervention, 292; overtures to Rush, 294; on the new doctrine of President Monroe, 296.
Capital, location of the national, 60-61; removed from Philadelphia to Washington, 119-21.
Caucus, congressional (1800), 116; (1804), 167; (1808), 193-94; (1812), 216; (1816), 243; hostility to, 307, 308; (1824), 308. legislative, 305.
Channing, William E., 288.
Chase, Samuel, impeachment of, 139-41.
Cherokee Indians, in Georgia, 326-27.
Chesapeake Bay, navigation of, 27-28; British military operations in, 221-23.
Chesapeake, United States frigate, and the Leopard, 184-86; reparation offered for, 197; avenged, 202; captured, 218.
Chippewa, battle of, 220.
Cincinnati, Society of the, 24.
Civil service. See Appointments.
Claiborne, W. C. C., Governor of the Mississippi Territory, reports withdrawal of the right of deposit, 148; takes possession of West Florida, 204.
Clark, George Rogers, and Genet, 74-75.
Clay, Henry, his early career, 202-03; in the Senate, 203; Speaker of the House, 207; commissioner at Ghent, 227, 229; his nationalism, 241-42; on the National Bank Bill, 242; opposes the Florida Treaty, 264-65; on the extension of slavery, 270; on the admission of Missouri, 279; on the counting of the electoral vote (1820), 280; advocates an American system, 289; candidate for the Presidency (1824), 307-08; on internal improvements, 309-10; urges a protective tariff, 310; favors the Tariff of 1824, 312; his electoral vote (1824), 312; and Jackson, 313, 314, 315; and Crawford, 313; and Adams, 313-14; accepts Secretaryship of State, 314; denies corrupt-bargain charge, 313-15; favors Panama Congress, 320; on the status of Cuba, 321.
Clinton, De Witt, nominated for the Presidency (1812), 216; promotes the Erie Canal, 255-56.
Clinton, George, candidate for Vice-Presidency (1792), 67; elected Vice-President (1804), 167; candidate for the Presidency (1808), 194.
Cohens v. Virginia, 336-37.
Colonization Society, 272.
Commerce, foreign, during the Revolution, 2; restrictions upon, 3, 7; power to regulate, 34; revival of, 46-47; aggressions on, 76-77, 86-87; and Jay's Treaty, 85-87; Mississippi opened to, 87; during European wars, 124, 179-80; during the War of 1812, 233; after the Treaty of Ghent, 233-34. internal, between South and Northwest, 252-53; along the Mississippi, 253-54; between East and other sections, 254-56.
Commonwealth v. Caton, 19.
Compromises of the Constitution, 33-35.
Congress, of the Confederation, and finance, 5-6; peregrinations of, 6; and foreign commerce, 7-8; and the public domain, 8; organizes the Northwest Territory, 10-12; and the State of Franklin, 15; and Shays' Rebellion, 21-22; and the Annapolis Convention, 28-29; and the new Constitution, 38, 44. of the new Union, elections to, 44; assembles, 47; organizes, 48; attends the counting of the electoral vote, 48; hears the inaugural address, 48, 49; enters upon its duties, 50.
Connecticut, favors the open door, 8; ratifies the Constitution, 41; refuses call for militia, 213; and the Hartford Convention, 224; adopts a new Constitution, 304; suffrage in, 304; authorizes first law reports, 332.
Connecticut Wits, the, 123.
Constitution of the United States, drafting of, 30-35; publication of, 35-38; ratification of, 39-43; voting on, 43-44; first amendments to, 55; Twelfth Amendment to, 166-67; judicial interpretation of, 331-45.
Constitution, United States frigate, captures L'Insurgente, 101; captures the Guerriere, 215; captures the Java, 216.
Constitutions, of new States, 303-04; of the old States, 304-05.
Convention of 1787, origin, 28-29; choice of delegates to, 29; proceedings of, 30-38; journal of, 30; its work, 35-36.
Cooper, J. Fenimore, 285.
Corrupt-bargain cry, in 1825, 313-15.
Cotton gin, invention of, 127; effect of, 127-28.
Cotton-growing, spread of, 127, 249-51.
Cotton manufacturing, beginnings of, 124; after the embargo, 234-35; after the Peace of Ghent, 235-36.
Court reports, first published, 332.
Courts, federal. See Federal judiciary, Judiciary Act, etc.
Crawford, William H., candidate for presidential nomination (1816), 243-44; nominated for the Presidency (1824), 308; on internal improvements, 310; on the Tariff of 1824, 312; his electoral vote (1824), 312; his vote in the election by the House, 314.
Creek Indians, rising of, 219; capitulation of, 220; in East Florida, 260; lands in Georgia, 324-26.
Crisis of 1819, 266-67.
Cuba, interest of the United States in, 293, 321.
Cumberland Road. See National Road.
Currency, under the Confederation, 5; after the War of 1812, 238-39, 240-41.
Cushing, William, 54.
Cutler, Manasseh, 11-12.
Dallas, A. J., Secretary of the Treasury, and the tariff, 237-38; and the new National Bank, 241.
Dartmouth College Case, 342-43.
Davis, Jefferson, father of, 249.
Dearborn, Henry, Secretary of War, 130-31; in the War of 1812, 213, 218.
Decatur, Stephen, 145, 215.
Delaware, instructs delegates to the Federal Convention, 30; ratifies the Constitution, 41.
Democracy in the United States, 298-301, 303-07.
Democratic societies, founded, 75; condemned by Washington, 83-84.
Demos Krateo principle, 315-16.
Dennie, Joseph, 283.
Departments, executive, organized, 51-52; Fisher Ames on, 89-90.
Deposit, right of, at New Orleans, 87; withdrawn, 148.
Detroit, surrender of, 214.
Dorchester, Lord, Governor of Canada, 68, 78-79.
Duties on imports, proposed in 1781, 1783, 6.
Dwight, Timothy, his Conquest of Canaan, 123; on the back-country people, 247.
East Florida, revolution in, 204; occupied by United States, 204; rendezvous, 259-60; invaded by Jackson, 260-62.
Ellsworth, Oliver, 53-54.
Embargo Act, of 1794, 79; of 1807, 188-89; enforcement of, 190-91, 194-95; as a coercive weapon, 190, 192; effect of, 191-93; in New England, 193, 195; repeal of, 196; of 1812, 209.
Emerson, Ralph Waldo, 287.
Emigration, from New England, 247-48; from the Middle States, 248; from the South, 249.
Era of Good Feelings, 266.
Erie Canal, construction of, 255-56.
Erskine, D. M., British Minister to the United States, 197.
Essex, case of the, 180.
Essex Junto, 164, 193, 224.
Everett, Edward, 287.
Executive Departments, establishment of, 51-52.
Fallen Timber, battle of, 80-81.
Far West, 258-59.
Fauchet, J. A. J., succeeds Genet, 76; urges acquisition of Louisiana, 91.
Fearon, Henry B., 247, 248.
Federal Convention of 1787. See Convention of 1787.
Federalist, the, 43.
Federalist party, origin of, 39-40. See also Presidential elections.
Finances, of the Confederation, 5-6; of the new Government, 50-51, 56-64.
Fiscal administration, beginnings of national, 51.
Fisheries, discussed at Ghent, 229; in the Convention of 1818, 259.
Fletcher v. Peck, 170, 342.
Floridas, controversy over the boundaries of, 16, 68; northern boundary settled, 87; proposed purchase of, 148; and the province of Louisiana, 151, 158-59; sought by Jefferson, 170-71; acquisition of, 264.
Florida Treaty, 264-65.
Foreign-born in the United States, 245-46.
Foster, A. J., British Minister to the United States, 201.
France, concessions to American commerce, 46; covets Spanish colonies, 70-71; sends Genet to United States, 71-72; demands rights under treaties of 1778, 72-73; substitutes Fauchet for Genet, 76; opens colonies to neutral trade, 76-77; attempts to procure Louisiana, 91; offended at Jay's Treaty, 92-93; refuses to receive Pinckney, 95; the X Y Z affair, 98-99; involved in hostilities with United States, 101; convention of 1800, 104, 146; acquires Louisiana, 146; expedition against Santo Domingo, 146-47; cedes Louisiana to United States, 149, 150; continental system, 187-88; and the embargo, 191-92; sequesters American vessels, 199-200; withdraws decrees, 200.
Franklin, Benjamin, in the Convention of 1787, 30, 32.
Franklin, State of, 15.
French Revolution, influence on America, 72.
Freneau, Philip, 65-66, 123.
Fries Rebellion, 113.
Fulton, Robert, 232.
Gallatin, Albert, Representative, 89; on the treaty-making power, 90-91; Secretary of the Treasury, 130; his policy of retrenchment, 132-33; and the Mediterranean Fund, 144; urges enforcement of the embargo, 194; recommends war taxes, 208; commissioner at Ghent, 227, 229; and the Convention of 1818, 259; on equality in Pennsylvania, 300.
Gardoqui, Don Diego de, Spanish Minister to United States, 16.
Genet, E. C., French Minister to United States, 71-72; designs on Florida and Louisiana, 73; sets up prize courts, 73-74; revolutionary activities, 73-75; discredited, 76; recalled, 76.
Georgia, ratifies the Constitution, 41; and the Yazoo land grants, 168-70; and the Creek Indians, 324; protests against the Treaty of Washington, 325; and the Indian lands, 325-26; protests against the tariff, 327.
Gerry, Elbridge, commissioner to France, 96; and the X Y Z affair, 98-100; elected Vice-President (1812), 216.
Ghent, Treaty of, preliminary negotiations, 227-29; terms of, 229-30.
Gibbons v. Ogden, 343-45.
Giles, William, resolution censuring Hamilton, 66; on the reform of the judiciary, 134-35; on impeachment, 140.
Gray, Captain Robert, of the Columbia, 47.
Great Britain, imposes restriction on American commerce, 3; refuses commercial treaty, 7; retains Western posts, 7; Nootka Sound affair, 69; policy in the Northwest, 68-70; and the Rule of 1756, 76-77; preys on neutral commerce, 77-78; and the Jay Treaty, 84-88; and the Blount conspiracy, 97; and the case of the Essex, 180; exercises right of search, 182; condones impressment, 182; evades reparation for the Chesapeake affair, 186; demands recall of proclamation, 186; retaliates for French decrees, 188; and the embargo, 191; repudiates Erskine Treaty, 197; recalls Jackson, 198; and the withdrawal of French decrees, 200; offers reparation for the Chesapeake affair, 201; blockades New York, 201; incurs American hostility, 208-10; withdraws orders in council, 210; and the War of 1812, 212-30; declines Russian mediation, 227; negotiates for peace, 227; concludes Treaty of Ghent, 228-29; concludes Convention of 1818, 259; aroused by Jackson's Florida campaign, 262; and the European congresses, 291; protests against intervention, 292; overtures to the United States, 292-94.
Green v. Biddle, 340.
Greenville, Treaty of, 87; disregarded by settlers, 205.
Grenville, Lord, negotiates with Jay, 79, 85.
Griswold, Roger, on the treaty-making power, 90; and the project of a New England confederacy, 164; on the office of Vice-President, 167.
Grundy, Felix, 207.
Guerriere, British frigate, 202, 215.
Hamilton, Alexander, defends Waddington, 4; drafts Annapolis report, 28; on the opposition to the Constitution, 41; contributes to the Federalist papers, 43; and the bill to establish the Treasury Department, 52; Secretary of the Treasury, 54; first Report on the Public Credit, 56-60; alleged deal with Jefferson, 61-62; second Report, 61-62; on the National Bank Bill, 62-63; on the French treaties, 73; defends Jay's Treaty, 86; retires from the Treasury, 89; and the Presidency, 92; advises recall of Monroe, 95; major-general, 102; urges enforcement of Alien Act, 113; hostility to John Adams, 116; opposes Federalist alliance with Burr, 165; duel with Burr, 166.
Hard times, under the Confederation, 2-3; in 1819-20, 268-69.
Harmar, Fort, seat of government in the Northwest, 14.
Harrisburg Convention, 327-28.
Harrison, William Henry, concludes Indian treaties, 205-06; wins battle of Tippecanoe, 200; in the War of 1812, 217-18.
Hartford Convention, origin of, 224-25; journal of, 225; report of, 225-27.
Harvard College, 287.
Hayne, Robert Y., on the Panama Mission, 322-23.
Henry of Prussia, Prince, and the regency of the United States, 24.
Hicks, Elias, 288.
Holy Alliance, designs of the so-called, 291.
Hopkinson, Joseph, 101.
Horseshoe Bend, battle of, 220.
Hudson's Bay Company, 259.
Hull, Captain Isaac, captures the Guerriere, 215.
Hull, General William, surrenders Detroit, 214.
Ildefonso, Treaty of, 146.
Illinois, settlement of, 248; admitted as a State, 251.
Immigration into the United States, 245.
Impeachment, of Senator Blount, 97; of Judge Pickering, 138-39; of Justice Chase, 139-41.
Impressment of American seamen, in 1793-94, 77-78; not mentioned in the Jay Treaty, 84-85; condoned by the British Admiralty, 182; deeply resented in United States in 1806, 183; abolition demanded by Monroe, 186; as a cause of the War of 1812, 209; in the negotiations at Ghent, 228 and the Treaty of Ghent, 229-30.
Imprisonment for debt, 269.
Indiana, settlement of, 245; admitted as a State, 251.
Indian Treaties in the Northwest, 205-06.
Industry, during the Revolution, 2; revival of, 47; protection of, in the tariff of 1789, 51; growth of, 124. See also special industries, and Tariff Acts.
Ingersoll, Jared, 216.
Internal improvements, popular demand for, 255; carried on by States, 255-56; proposed by Gallatin in 1806, 256; Calhoun's Bonus Bill, 257; Madison on, 257; Monroe on, 258; in Congress, 258, 309; Survey Bill, 309.
Intervention of the Great Powers, in Italy, 292; in Spain, 292.
Irving, Washington, 284, 285.
Jackson, Andrew, wins battle of Horseshoe Bend, 220; concludes treaty with the Creeks, 220; wins the battle of New Orleans, 227; invades East Florida, 261-62; on precedent, 268; on rotation in office, 304; candidate for the Presidency (1824), 307-08; favors Survey Bill, 310; favors protective policy, 312; his electoral vote (1824), 312; his vote in the House election, 314; and Clay, 315; significance of his popular vote, 316; candidate for the Presidency (1828), 318.
Jackson, F. J., British Minister to United States, 198.
Jacobinism, 107, 114, 161.
Jay, John, diplomatic agent of United States, 16; contributes to the Federalist papers, 43; appointed Chief justice, 54; envoy extraordinary to England, 79; drafts treaty, 84; declines appointment as Chief Justice, 331-32.
Jay Treaty, negotiated, 84; discussed in Senate, 84-85; evaluation of, 85-86; popular opinion of, 86; amended in Senate, 86-87; promulgated by President, 88; debated in the House, 90-91; gives offense to France, 92-93.
Jefferson, Thomas, Ordinance of 1784, 8; Secretary of State, 54; on speculation in government paper, 58; on assumption, 60-61; on the excise, 62; on the Bank Bill, 62-63; his distrust of Hamilton, 64; fears British designs on Louisiana, 69; on the French treaties, 73; proposes retaliatory legislation against England, 78; candidate for the Presidency (1796), 92; elected Vice-President, 93; on war message of Adams, 98; drafts Kentucky Resolutions, 110; candidate for the Presidency (1800), 110; directs political campaign of 1800, 112; elected President, 118; on the Revolution of 1800, 119; personal appearance, 128; on husbandry, 128; on commerce and coercion, 129; inaugural address, 129-30; on the work of the general Government, 130; and the patronage, 131-33; mastery of Congress, 132, 133-34; on retrenchment, 132-33; on the judiciary, 134-35, 141, 331; on impeachment, 141; on the navy, 143; on the retrocession of Louisiana, 147; instructions to Livingston, 148; his information about Louisiana, 152; authorizes Lewis and Clark expedition, 152; on the acquisition of Louisiana, 153-54; on New England Federalism, 162-63; reelected President (1804), 167; attempts to acquire the Floridas, 170-71; his proclamation against Burr, 175; sends Pinkney to England, 181; and the Chesapeake affair, 186; recommends embargo, 190; abdicates, 194; favors protection of manufactures, 236; on Canning's overtures, 294; on internal improvements, 319.
Johnson, R. M., 271.
Judicial review, power of, 4, 19, 137-38.
Judiciary Act, of 1789, passed, 53-54; tested, 335-37; of 1801, passed, 121-22; repealed, 134-35.
Judiciary, federal, organized, 53-54; reorganized, 121-22; and Republican reforms, 134-35; feared by Jefferson, 331; influence in 1800, 331-32; controversy with Pennsylvania, 333-35; controversy with Virginia, 336-37, 338-39; expands the Constitution, 341-45; nationalizing influence, 345.
Kent, James, on universal suffrage, 305; his appointment to the Supreme Court urged, 345.
Kentucky, separatist movement in, 16; admitted as a State, 55; intrigues in, 68; radical legislation in, 268; protests against the decision of court in Green v. Biddle, 340.
King, Rufus, candidate for the Vice-Presidency, 167, 194; elected Vice-President, 244; on slavery in Missouri, 277.
Kirby, Ephraim, 332.
Knox, Henry, refuses to serve in the provisional army, 10; Secretary of War, 22, 55; and Shays' Rebellion, 22.
Kremer, George, 314.
L'Ambuscade, French frigate, 74.
Land Act of 1820, 269.
Land Ordinance of 1785, 10.
Lands, disposal of the public, 10-12, 269-70.
Latrobe, Benjamin H., 123, 236.
Leander, British frigate, 181-82.
Leclerc, V. E., expedition against Santo Domingo, 146-47, 149.
Lee, Henry, and the Whiskey Insurrection, 83.
Leopard-Chesapeake affair, 184-86.
Lewis and Clark expedition, 152-53.
Lincoln, Abraham, father of, 249; education of, 303.
Lincoln, Levi, 130-31.
L'Insurgente, French frigate, 101.
Little Belt, British sloop-of-war, 202.
Little Sarah affair, 75.
Livingston, Robert, Minister to France, 148-49; negotiates for Louisiana, 150-51; on the bounds of Louisiana, 151, 158-59.
Louisiana, Spanish province, threatened by France, 71; retroceded to France, 146; acquired by the United States, 149-51; Senate opposition to, 155-56; provision for the government of, 156-58; transfer of, 157; bounds of, 158-59; western boundary settled, 264.
Lowndes, William, 307.
Lundy's Lane, battle of, 220.
Lyon, Matthew, prosecution of, 110.
M'Culloch v. Maryland, 268, 337-38.
Macdonough, Thomas, wins battle of Plattsburg, 221-22.
McHenry, James, Secretary of War, 101, 103.
Maclay, William, on the President's address, 50; on the Judiciary Act, 54.
Macon bills, 199.
Macon, Nathaniel, Speaker of the House, 133-34; on non-intercourse, 199.
Madison, James, on affairs in Georgia, 7; on state jealousies, 8; in the Federal Convention, 29-30; contributes to the Federalist papers, 43; proposes constitutional amendments, 55; on stock-jobbing, 63-64; on Hamilton's financial policy, 64; proposes retaliatory legislation (1793), 78; drafts Virginia Resolutions, 110-11; Secretary of State, 130; on the Yazoo commission, 169; favors peaceable coercion, 180-81; on impressments, 186; and George Rose, 187; elected President, 194; and Erskine, 197; and Jackson, 198; issues proclamation against England, 200; authorizes occupation of West Florida, 204; and the war party, 208-09; recommends an embargo, 209; his war message, 209-10; his proclamation of war, 210; reelected President (1812), 216-17; and New England, 223, 225; his estimate of the war, 231-32; favors mild protection of industries, 236; vetoes Bank Bill, 239; signs second Bank Bill, 239; message of 1815, 241; his farewell address, 243, 257; on Canning's overtures, 294.
Magazines as literature, 1815-30, 284.
Mahan, Admiral A. T., on the War of 1812, 231.
Maine, the admission of, 275-77; suffrage in, 304.
Malbone, Edward G., 286.
Manufactures, beginnings of, 46, 124. See special industries.
Marbury v. Madison, case of, 136-37; constitutional importance of, 333.
Marietta, founding of, 13.
Marshall, John, on the Constitution as the expression of the will of the people, 43; commissioner to France, 96; and the X Y Z affair, 98-100; appointed Chief Justice, 136; and Jefferson, 136; opinion in Marbury v. Madison, 136-37, 333; at the trial of Burr, 177-78; influence of, 332-33; opinion in United States v. Peters, 334; opinion in Cohens v. Virginia, 336-37; opinion in M'Culloch v. Maryland, 337-38; opinion in United States v. Fisher, 338; opinion in American Insurance Company v. Canter, 341-42; opinion in Fletcher v. Peck, 342; opinion in Dartmouth College Case, 342-43; opinion in Gibbons v. Ogden, 343-45.
Martin, Luther, 18, 177.
Martin v. Hunter's Lessee, 335-36.
Maryland, commercial differences with Virginia, 27-28; ratifies the Constitution, 41; taxes branch bank, 337.
Mason, George, 34.
Massachusetts, disorders in, 19-20; Shays' Rebellion, 20-22; ratifies the Constitution, 41; refuses call for militia, 213; calls Hartford Convention, 224; dispatches commissioners to Washington, 227; suffrage in, 305.
Mediterranean Fund, 144.
Methodism, in New England, 247; in the West, 301-02.
Metternich, Prince, and the Holy Alliance, 291-92.
Migration, inter-state, after the Revolution, 13-14; after the War of 1812, 246-47.
Milan Decree, issued by Napoleon, 188; withdrawn, 200.
Militia question, in Massachusetts, 213, 223.
Miranda, Francisco, 70.
Missionary enterprises, 288.
Mississippi, admitted as a State, 25; suffrage in, 303.
Mississippi River, navigation of, 16, 87, 229.
Missouri, admission as a State, 277, 279; electoral vote in 1820, 280.
Missouri Compromise, the, 277.
Missouri controversy, political aspects, 274-75; and public opinion, 275; constitutional aspects, 276-77; settlement, 277, 279.
Monroe, James, Minister to France, 94-95; recalled, 95; and the purchase of Louisiana, 149-50; Minister to England, 183-84; candidate for the Presidency (1808), 194; elected President (1816), 244; on internal improvements, 258; and General Jackson, 260-63; reelected President (1820), 280; on recognition of South American republics, 290; on Canning's overtures, 294; re-drafts message, 295; message of 1823, 295-96; vetoes Cumberland Road Bill, 309; pardons Pennsylvania militiamen, 334-35.
Monroe Doctrine, genesis of, 289-95; in the President's message, 295-96; Canning on, 296; implications of, 296-97, 322.
Moore, Thomas, on American letters, 123.
Morfontaine, Treaty of, 104, 146.
Mormonism, rise of, 302.
Morris, Gouverneur, in Federal Convention, 35-36; on the Constitution, 331.
Morris, Robert, Superintendent of Finance, 5.
Napoleon Bonaparte, concludes convention with United States, 146; acquires Louisiana, 146; sends Leclerc against Santo Domingo, 146; sells Louisiana to United States, 149-50; his Berlin Decree, 187; his Milan Decree, 188; sequesters American vessels, 189-200; and the embargo, 191-92; revokes decrees, 200.
National Gazette, Republican newspaper, 65.
National Road, construction of, 256; appropriations for, 258; bill for collection of tolls on, 309.
Naturalization Act, of 1798, 109; of 1801, 135-36.
Navigation laws, want of power in Congress to pass, 7; of the States, 8; passed by Congress (1789), 51; and shipping, 124.
Navy of the United States, in 1798-99, 101; under Jefferson, 133; in Tripolitan War, 144-45; in the War of 1812, 212-30, passim.
Navy Department, established, 101.
Neutrality, proclamation of, 72-73.
Neutral trade. See Commerce.
New England Confederacy, projected in 1804, 163-66.
New England Federalism, characteristics of, 161-63; and the embargo, 192-93, 195-96.
New Hampshire, ratifies the Constitution, 41; on assumption, 60; and the Hartford Convention, 224.
New Jersey, and its neighbors under the Confederation, 8; ratifies the Constitution, 41.
New Orleans, battle of, 227.
Newspapers, character of, in 1800, 107, 110, 112; founding of, 112.
New York, treatment of the Tories in, 4; ratifies the Constitution, 42-43; settlement of western, 248; constitution of 1821, 304-05.
New York City, and Western trade, 255-56; as a literary center, 286.
Nicholson, Joseph, and the impeachment of Pickering, 139; on the nature of impeachable offenses, 140.
Nominating methods, changes in, 305, 307, 308.
Non-Importation Act of 1806, 181, 188.
Non-Intercourse Act of 1809, 196; evasions of, 198-99; enforcement of, 198-99; revived against England, 201.
Nootka Sound affair, 69.
North American Review, founded 283-84.
North Carolina, and the Watauga settlers, 14-15; rejects the Constitution, 44; ratifies the Constitution, 55.
Northwest, receives settlers from New England, 13-14, 247; from the Middle States, 248; from the South, 248-49; commerce of, 252-54.
Ohio Company, origin of, 10-11; concessions of Congress to, 11-12; begins colonization, 13.
Ohio, taxes branch Bank of the United States, 268; seizes funds, 340; forced to make restitution, 341.
Olmstead, Gideon, claimant in federal courts, 333-34.
Onis, Luis de, Spanish Minister to the United States, 262-64.
Orders in council, of 1783, 3; of 1793-94, 77-78; of 1807, 188; withdrawal in 1812, 210.
Ordinance of 1784, 9; of 1785, 10; of 1787, 12-13.
Oregon, joint occupation of, 259.
Otis, Harrison Gray, 225.
Palfrey, John G., 287.
Panama, Congress, invitation to, 320-21; opposition in Congress to, 322-23; fate of the mission, 323.
Paper money, continental, 5; state, 17-18.
Paris, Treaty of, aftermath of, 1-2.
Parsons, Samuel, 11.
Party, deprecated by Washington, 108; identified with faction, 108-09; rights of, in opposition, 114; place of, in popular government, 119.
Party organization, 107, 305, 307.
Pasha of Tripoli, 143, 145.
Paterson, William, in the Federal Convention, 31-32.
Patronage. See Appointments.
Pennsylvania, and the Federal judiciary, 333-35.
Perry, Oliver H., wins naval supremacy of Lake Erie, 217.
Philadelphia, as the seat of government, 119-20; as a literary center, 123; and Western trade, 254, 256.
Pickering, John, impeachment of, 138-39.
Pickering, Timothy, Secretary of State, 103, 113; on the Louisiana Treaty, 156; plots a New England confederacy, 164; opposes the embargo, 193; secessionist in 1814, 225.
Pike, Zebulon M., expeditions of, 153.
Pinckney, Charles, and the election of 1800, 117.
Pinckney, Charles C, Minister to France, 95; commissioner to France, 96; and the X Y Z affair, 98-99; appointed major-general, 102; candidate for the Vice-Presidency (1800), 116; candidate for the Presidency (1804), 167; candidate for the Presidency (1808), 194.
Pinckney, Thomas, concludes Treaty of San Lorenzo, 87; candidate for the Vice-Presidency (1800), 92-93.
Pinkney, William, Envoy to England, 181; negotiates treaty, 184; takes abrupt leave, 201; on the admission of Missouri, 276-77; influence at the federal bar, 333.
Pittsburg, distributing center in the West, 254.
Plattsburg, battle of, 221-22.
Port Folio, Dennie's, 283.
Postal service in 1800, 106.
Posts, retention of Western, 17, 68, 79, 84.
Potomac, navigation of, 16, 27-28; location of the capital on, 60-61.
Preble, Edward, and the Tripolitan War, 145.
Prescott, William H., 287.
Presidency, created in the Federal Convention, 34-35.
President, appointing and removing power of, 52.
President, American frigate, 202.
Presidential elections, of 1788, 48; of 1792, 66-67; of 1796, 92-94; of 1800, 115-17; of 1801, 118-19; of 1804, 167; of 1808, 193-94; of 1812, 216-17; of 1816, 243-44; of 1820, 280; of 1824, 312-13, 316; of 1825, 314.
Prevost, Sir George, 221-22.
Privateers, in the War of 1812, 218-19.
Prophet, the, 205.
Public domain, origin of, 8.
Quids, followers of Randolph, 170.
Rambouillet, decree of, 199-200.
Randolph, Edmund, in the Federal Convention, 30-31; Attorney-General, 55; on the French treaties of 1778, 73.
Randolph, John, position in the House, 134; in the Chase impeachment, 139-41; and the Yazoo controversy, 169-70; and the purchase of Florida, 171; and the indictment of Burr, 177; derides the Non-Importation Bill, 181; on the cause of the War of 1812, 213; on the Tariff of 1816, 237; on state rights, 243; on the Tariff of 1828, 330.
Rapp, George, 302.
Relief Act of 1821, 269.
Republican court at Philadelphia, 119-20.
Republican party, origin of, 64-67. See also Presidential elections.
Revivals in New England, 288.
Rhea letter to General Jackson, 261.
Rhode Island, opposes changes in the Articles of Confederation, 6; paper money craze, 18-19; out of the new Union, 44; ratifies the Constitution, 55; and the Hartford Convention, 224.
Right of deposit at New Orleans, 87; withdrawn, 148.
Roane, Spencer, resists judgment in the case of Martin v. Hunter's Lessee, 336; attacks the federal judiciary, 338-39.
Robertson, James, 14, 68.
Rodgers, John, 201, 202.
Rose, George, 186-87.
Rule of 1756, 76-77, 179-80.
Rush, Benjamin, Minister to England, 259; Canning's overtures to, 294.
Russell, Jonathan, commissioner at Ghent, 227.
Russia, offers to mediate in 1813, 227; and the Holy Alliance, 291; and intervention, 292; claims on the Pacific Coast, 293; concludes the Treaty of 1824, 296.
Rutgers v. Waddington, 4.
Rutledge, John, 54.
St. Clair, Arthur, Governor of Northwest Territory, 14; defeated by the Indians, 70.
San Lorenzo, Treaty of, 87.
Santo Domingo, negro republic, 146; resists French expedition, 146-47.
Scioto Company, land grants to, 11-12.
Scott, Winfield, 220.
Sedition Act, prosecutions under, 114.
Seminole War, 260-262.
Sevier, John, 15, 68.
Shaker Societies, 302.
Shays' Rebellion, 20-22.
Shipping, of the United States, during the European wars, 124, 126; after the Treaty of Ghent, 234.
Simcoe, J. G., 80.
Slater, Samuel, 124.
Slavery, debated in Congress, 270-271, 277; in Missouri, 270; extent in 1789, 271-272; decrease in North, 272; recognized by the Constitution, 272-73; congressional legislation on, 273-74; and the Missouri Compromise, 277.
Slave trade, acts relating to, 273; extent of, 273; forbidden by the Act of 1807, 273-74; extent of, after 1808, 274.
Smith, Joseph, 302.
Smith, Robert, 140, 198.
Smith, William, 105.
Somers, Richard, 145.
South, effect of cotton gin upon, 250; extention of cotton growing in, 251-52; becomes the market for Northwest, 252-53.