Part 54

_Proposed Mission to the Congress at Panama._--The president having been invited to send commissioners to the congress of Panama, which had for its object the cementing of the friendly relations of all the independent states of America, saw fit to accept the invitation. Having nominated Richard C. Anderson and John Sergeant, as ministers on the part of the United States, and William B. Rochester, of New York, as secretary, he presented these names to the senate for confirmation. This step awakened a spirit of animosity against the president, and a long and angry debate ensued; but the nominations were eventually confirmed, and the necessary appropriations voted. Measures were soon taken to carry this policy into effect, and directions were sent to Mr. Anderson, who was then in Columbia, to attend the congress, which was to be convened in the beginning of summer. But he was cut down by a malignant fever before he could reach the place. Mr. Sergeant was prevented from going, on account of the lateness of the period at which his appointment was made.

This failure of representation at the congress, on the part of the United States, was, by many, deemed auspicious, as the relations and interests of the country might otherwise have been compromitted; but others thought differently, and believed that a conference of the kind might issue in the adoption of a friendly and enlightened policy between the parties.

_Internal Improvements._--In 1826, a proposition was made in congress to expend a sum of money for repairing and extending the Cumberland road. An act had been passed long before, during Mr. Jefferson's second presidential term, for making a road from Cumberland, in the state of Maryland, or near that place, and on the north bank of the Potomac river, to the river Ohio. Hence the name of the road. After having been commenced, money was appropriated, at different periods, to finish and repair the road. It was considered of great national advantage and convenience, inasmuch as it furnished a commodious way from the Atlantic slope to the Ohio river and to the great valley of the Mississippi.

To the proposition above alluded to for an additional sum of money, opposition was made at the present time. The amount asked was eighty thousand dollars, for repairs and also for its continuance farther west; for it was considered as proper to extend it to a remoter point, as to have made it to the Ohio river. The sum was named in a general appropriation bill. Many were opposed, on account of their doubts respecting the authority of congress to expend money for such objects. Others, however, who were reluctant to vote money for internal improvements on general principles, were in favor of the appropriation in this instance, as it would be of great public utility, and as the road, in order to be used with facility, must be repaired.

"The vote, at this time, for an appropriation to repair the Cumberland road, indicated the views of members of congress on the subject of internal improvements; for it was long discussed, and several members went fully into the constitutionality of this and several measures. In the senate, the votes were twenty-three in favor and fifteen against the appropriation. And, in the house of representatives, they were ninety-two to sixty-three. And, at the same session, congress authorized the executive to subscribe, on the part of the government, for shares in the Dismal Swamp canal, so called, within the state of Virginia, to the amount of sixty thousand dollars; which was a direct recognition of the power of congress to construct works for the public convenience. An act was also passed for a survey in Florida, with a view to construct a canal across the peninsula, from the Atlantic to the Gulf of Mexico."[77]

_The Fiftieth Anniversary of American Independence._--This was a day long to be remembered in the annals of the nation. The exultation of feeling throughout the country, that we had reached in safety the fiftieth anniversary of our independence, was great. The day was every where celebrated with more than the usual demonstrations of joy. But the most striking feature of the occasion, was the simultaneous deaths of two ex-presidents of the United States, John Adams and Thomas Jefferson. The coincidence in their departure from life was certainly remarkable, more especially as having occurred at that particular juncture. It would seem to have been a providential dispensation, designed to answer some important purpose; perhaps to awaken the great principles of political freedom and equal rights, to the maintenance of which the lives of both were consecrated. They had both--and equally, perhaps--acted a most conspicuous part on the theatre of the world, and especially in the affairs of American independence. "Both had been presidents, both had lived to great age, both were early patriots, and both were distinguished and ever honored by their immediate agency in the act of independence. It cannot but seem striking and extraordinary, that these two should live to see the fiftieth year from the date of that act; that they should complete that year, and that then, on the day which had fast linked for ever their own fame with their country's glory, the heavens should open to receive them both at once. As their lives themselves were the gifts of Providence, who is not willing to recognize in their happy termination, as well as in their long continuance, proofs that our country and its benefactors are objects of his care?"

Although they belonged to different schools in politics, and were separated, for a time, by the party distinctions which prevailed soon after the constitution went into operation, yet they seemed to have coalesced very much in views and feelings in the latter portion of their lives. Friendly letters, of great interest, passed between them, which were given to the public at the time. But the coincidences or parallel circumstances attending these distinguished men are not yet exhausted. "They belonged to the same profession, and had pursued its studies and its practice, for unequal lengths of time indeed, but with diligence and effect. Both were learned and able lawyers. They were natives and inhabitants respectively of those two of the colonies, which, at the Revolution, were the largest and most powerful, and which, naturally, had a lead in the political affairs of the times. When the colonies became, in some degree, united, by the assembling of the general congress, they were brought to act together in its deliberations, not indeed at the same time, but both at early periods. Each had already manifested his attachment to the cause of the country, as well as his ability to maintain it, by pointed addresses, public speeches, extensive correspondence, and whatever other mode could be adopted for the purpose of exposing the encroachments of the British parliament, and animating the people to manly resistance. Both were not only decided, but early friends of independence. While others yet doubted, they were resolved; where others hesitated, they pressed forward. They were both members of the committee for preparing the Declaration of Independence; they constituted the sub-committee, appointed by the other members to make the draft. They left their seats in congress, being called to other public employments, at periods not remote from each other, although one of them returned to it, afterwards, for a short time. Neither of them was of the assembly of great men which formed the present constitution, and neither was at any time member of congress under its provisions. Both have been public ministers abroad, both vice-presidents, and both presidents." These coincidences were surprisingly completed, as already mentioned, by their simultaneous deaths, and that on the anniversary of liberty.

_Introduction of the "American System."_--The phrase "American System" was given to the policy advocated by many, of protecting, by impost duties, the manufactures of the country against foreign competition. It began to be employed during the administration of Mr. Adams. Additional duties were sought by the friends of manufactures on woolen goods, and a bill for that purpose passed both houses of congress, in the months of April and May, 1827. The measure, however, seemed not to be satisfactory to the country at large. "The president was in favor of affording protection to domestic manufactures generally, and of woolens particularly, which, at this time, was the leading question in political economy, so far as the federal government was believed to have authority to interfere. But he was also friendly to extensive enterprises in commerce and navigation, and expressed no opinion in support of the ultra doctrines of the manufacturers."

_Election of General Jackson._--The administration of Mr. Adams encountered strong and determined opposition. The circumstance of his rival, General Jackson, having had a larger popular vote than himself, and having, in congress, only a small majority, when elected to office, seemed, in the view of the democratic party, quite sufficient to justify a more than usual distrust of his administration, from its beginning. Mr. Adams was watched with singular vigilance, and every advantage taken to render his acts unpopular. It was early charged against him, that a corrupt bargain had been made with Mr. Clay, his secretary of state. The Panama mission was represented as a measure weak and injudicious. And, moreover, it was charged that his administration was wasteful and extravagant.

Of the falsity and injustice of these charges, it is now unnecessary to speak. They were a part of an organized system of opposition, and designed to prevent the rëelection of Mr. Adams, and secure that of General Jackson. In this design, the friends of the latter succeeded, the vote of the electors for president affording a victory to his supporters, as gratifying as the defeat of the friends of the former was mortifying.

Key: A. And'w. Jackson, of Tennessee. B. John Q. Adams, of Massa'tts. C. John C. Calhoun, of S. Carolina. D. Richard Rush, of Pennsylv'a. E. William Smith, of S. Carolina.

+-----------------+----------+----------------- No. of | |PRESIDENT.| VICE-PRESIDENT. Electors | STATES. |----------+----------------- from each| | A. | B. | C. | D. | E. State. | | | | | | ---------+-----------------+----+-----+-----+-----+----- 9 | Maine, | 1 | 8 | 1 | 8 | 8 | New Hampshire, | | 8 | | 8 | 15 | Massachusetts, | | 15 | | 15 | 4 | Rhode Island, | | 4 | | 4 | 8 | Connecticut, | | 8 | | 8 | 7 | Vermont, | | 7 | | 7 | 36 | New York, | 20 | 16 | 20 | 16 | 8 | New Jersey, | | 8 | | 8 | 28 | Pennsylvania, | 28 | | 28 | | 3 | Delaware, | | 3 | | 3 | 11 | Maryland, | 5 | 6 | 5 | 6 | 24 | Virginia, | 24 | | 24 | | 15 | North Carolina, | 15 | | 15 | | 11 | South Carolina, | 11 | | 11 | | 9 | Georgia, | 9 | | 2 | | 7 14 | Kentucky, | 14 | | 14 | | 11 | Tennessee, | 11 | | 11 | | 16 | Ohio, | 16 | | 16 | | 5 | Lousiana, | 5 | | 5 | | 3 | Mississippi, | 3 | | 3 | | 5 | Indiana, | 5 | | 5 | | 3 | Illinois, | 3 | | 3 | | 5 | Alabama, | 5 | | 5 | | 3 | Missouri, | 3 | | 3 | | ---------+-----------------+----+-----+-----+-----+----- 261 | Whole No. of | | | | | | electors, |178 | 83 | 171 | 83 | 7 | Majority, 131 | | | | |

FOOTNOTE:

[77] Bradford's History of the Federal Government.

XII. ANDREW JACKSON, PRESIDENT.

INAUGURATED AT WASHINGTON, MARCH 4, 1829,

JOHN C. CALHOUN AND MARTIN VAN BUREN, _Vice-Presidents_.

HEADS OF THE DEPARTMENTS.

Martin Van Buren, New York, March 6, 1829,} Edward Livingston, Louisiana, January 12, 1832,} Secretaries Louis M'Lane, Delaware, May 29, 1833,} of State. John Forsyth, Georgia, June 27, 1834,}

Samuel D. Ingham, Pennsylvania, March 6, 1829,} Louis M'Lane, Delaware, January 13, 1832,} William J. Duane, Pennsylvania, May 29, 1833,} Roger B. Taney, Maryland, (appointed in } Secretaries the recess: } of Treasury. negatived by } the Senate,) } Levi Woodbury, New Hampshire, January 27, 1834,}

John H. Eaton, Tennessee, March 9, 1829,} Secretaries Lewis Cass, Ohio, December 30, 1831,} of War.

John Branch, North Carolina, March 9, 1829,} Secretaries Levi Woodbury, New Hampshire, December 27, 1831,} of the Navy. Mahlon Dickerson, New Jersey, June 30, 1834,}

William T. Barry, Kentucky, March 9, 1829,} Postmasters Amos Kendall, Kentucky, March 15, 1836,} General.

John M. Berrien, Georgia, March 9, 1829,} Attorneys Roger B. Taney, Maryland, December 27, 1831,} General. Benjamin F. Butler, New York, June 24, 1834,}

SPEAKERS OF THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES.

Andrew Stevenson, Virginia, Twenty-first Congress, 1829. Andrew Stevenson, Virginia, Twenty-second do. 1831. Andrew Stevenson, Virginia, Twenty-third do. 1833. John Bell, Tennessee, Twenty-fourth do. 1834. James K. Polk, Tennessee, Twenty-fifth do. 1835.

In his inaugural address, General Jackson exhibited, in comprehensive terms, his views in regard to the administration of the government. He spoke of the limitations and extent of executive power--the peace and friendship to be cultivated with foreign powers--the respect due to the rights of the separate states--the solicitude to be exercised in the management of the public revenue--the equal fostering care of the general government in respect to agriculture, commerce, and manufactures--the necessity of _reform_, and the correction of certain abuses--the attention to be given to internal improvement and the diffusion of knowledge--the policy to be observed towards the Indian tribes within our borders--and other similar topics.

He expressed, also, the diffidence he felt on assuming the high and responsible station to which he had been elevated, and the reverence with which he regarded the examples of public virtue left us by his illustrious predecessors; hoping at the same time to receive instruction and aid from the cöordinate branches of the government, and the indulgence and support of his fellow-citizens in general. It was a brief and terse address, and manifested the characteristic decision and fearlessness of the man.

A sketch of the more prominent measures and events of General Jackson's administration will require us to notice the following topics, viz:

Condition of the Country, Rëelection of Andrew Jackson, Georgia and the Cherokees, Removal of Deposites, Public Lands, Death of Lafayette, National Bank, Deposite Act, Internal Improvements, Seminole War, Indian Hostilities, Treasury Circular, Discontents in South Carolina, Election of Mr. Van Buren, Character of Jackson's Administration.

_Condition of the Country._--A high degree of prosperity was enjoyed in the United States at this era. The administration of General Jackson's predecessor had been crowned with signal success. Circumstances, however, connected with the election of Mr. Adams were seized upon as a ground of attack; and, in the eye of many, all that he afterwards did, as the executive of the nation, was unnaturally colored or distorted. But the results showed that his administration had been conducted with wisdom, integrity, and vigor. During the whole course of it, uninterrupted peace had been enjoyed; our commercial relations had been gradually extended; and, in many instances, the claims of American citizens upon foreign governments had been prosecuted with success. At home, the marks of an able administration were exhibited, in the increased activity imparted to the legitimate powers of the federal government for the development of the resources of the country, and the increase of its wealth and respectability.

_Georgia and the Cherokees._--The president, in his message on the 8th of December, 1829, had presented, at considerable length, his views in regard to the disposal of the Indian tribes within the limits of the United States. He recommended their removal beyond the boundary of the different states, but without compulsion, to such territory west of the Mississippi, as congress might set apart for their use. In this, he wished to avoid the difficulties arising from the treaties between the United States and these Indians, and the opposing claims of the states within whose limits the Indians resided. This was one of the most embarrassing subjects which demanded the attention of the new administration. It was especially applicable to the relation which the Cherokees, a powerful tribe within the limits of Georgia, sustained to the general government.

Treaties had been made with this tribe, from time to time, ever since the adoption of the federal constitution. In these treaties, the protection of the United States was promised them, and the territory they inhabited was acknowledged to be theirs. But the government had also acknowledged the limits of Georgia, and had agreed to extinguish the Indian title whenever it could be peaceably effected.

Georgia, in her anxiety to secure the Indian territory, had passed laws from time to time, with reference to that object, claiming exclusive civil and criminal jurisdiction over the Indians. In this state of things, the new administration came in, and the views of the president coinciding with those of the state of Georgia, a change was made in her mode of procedure. She was allowed, with the approbation of the general government, to extend her laws over the Cherokees, and to consider the treaties of the United States with them, guaranteeing their territory, as unconstitutional and void.

In conformity to the president's proposal of removing the Indians, as already alluded to, a bill was submitted to both houses of congress, in February, 1830, authorizing the president to set apart such portion as he should deem necessary of the public territory west of the Mississippi, to be divided into districts, for the permanent residence of the emigrating Indians. The bill underwent a thorough and spirited debate, and was finally passed by both houses, by a small majority.

The laws of Georgia had come into direct conflict with those of the United States, but this bill seemed to release the president from the duty of enforcing the acts of the latter, and observing the faith of treaties, as it was also in agreement with his determination not to regard either, in reference to a sovereign state. Encouraged by the acts of the government and the views of the president, Georgia proceeded to assert entire sovereignty over the Indians within its limits, issued writs of the state courts against the residents in the Indian territories, and tried the Cherokees before the tribunals of the state. At length, even the missionaries of the American board, residing and laboring among them, were arrested, tried, condemned and imprisoned, for refusing to obtain a permit from the government of Georgia to reside within the territory, or to take an oath of allegiance to the state. And, to consummate their high-handed proceedings, the decision of the supreme judicial tribunal of the United States, pronouncing the acts of the Georgia legislature null and void, being unconstitutional, was resisted by the state. What might have ensued from this condition of affairs, had the general government undertaken to enforce the decision of the supreme court of the nation, as it would have been its imperious duty, it is needless to say. The missionaries relieved Georgia from the dreaded calamity, by informing the governor that they had instructed their counsel to prosecute the case no further. Soon after this, the missionaries were set at liberty.

Notwithstanding all the stringent measures of Georgia, the Cherokees were determined to remain in the land of their fathers. But at length, in 1835, a few of their chiefs were induced to sign a treaty for the sale of their lands and a removal west of the Mississippi. Although this treaty was opposed by a majority of the Cherokees, and the terms afterwards decided upon at Washington rejected, yet, as the state of Georgia was determined in its hostility, and they could expect no protection, according to the new doctrine, from the general government, they finally decided upon a removal; but it was not until the close of the year 1838, that the task of emigration was completed.

_Public Lands._--Questions pertaining to the public lands were earnestly debated at this period. These lands form an immense domain, and lie on both sides of the Mississippi, though much the larger portion lies on the west of that river. Applying the Georgia doctrine, in reference to the sovereignty of the state over all land within its limits, some of the new states, formed out of the public domain, set up a claim to the property in the soil of all lands not owned by individuals, as an element of sovereignty. The mode of disposing of these lands, was complained of in other states, and attempts were made to throw doubt on the validity of the title of the general government to that portion within the limits of states.

A resolution of Mr. Foot, of Connecticut, on this subject, gave rise to animated discussion in the senate, on the 29th of December, 1829. In the course of the debate, Mr. Hayne, of South Carolina, introduced the subject of state rights, and contended that the several states within which the public lands were situated, should have the entire control and jurisdiction over them. Mr. Webster, of Massachusetts, replied to Mr. Hayne in one of the most eloquent and effective speeches ever delivered in congress, and contended that on subjects fully committed to the government by the constitution, its powers were absolute, exclusive, and unlimited; that no state, nor even a number of states, might justly interfere in such cases; and that the public lands not expressly ceded to a particular state, were solely and absolutely at the disposal of the United States' government. This speech destroyed, for a time, the hopes of the advocates of the novel doctrine of nullification; yet the views of Mr. Hayne, respecting state rights and powers, continued to be entertained by a large portion of the people of the Southern states. No particular law resulted from this able and prolonged discussion.