CHAPTER II.

1820–1824.

MONROE’S ADMINISTRATION—EMINENT MEN IN CONGRESS—NOTICES OF WILLIAM LOWNDES AND JOHN RANDOLPH OF ROANOKE—JOHN SARGEANT—BUCHANAN BECOMES A LEADING DEBATER—BANKRUPT BILL—CUMBERLAND ROAD—THE TARIFF.

In the autumn of 1820, Mr. Buchanan was elected a Representative in Congress for a district composed of the counties of Lancaster, York, and Dauphin. He was nominated and elected as a Federalist. He took his seat on the 3d of December, 1821.

Of course a young man of nine-and-twenty, who had been for two terms a member of the Legislature of his native State, and had been somewhat active in that body, was already possessed of some powers as a debater. But his political principles, as a national statesman, were yet to be formed. The “Federalism” of the period in which Mr. Buchanan came into public life, and which was professed by those among whom he grew up, chiefly consisted in an opposition to the war of 1812 and to some of the measures of the Administration which conducted it. In the five years which followed the peace of 1815, the sharper lines which had separated the Federal and the Republican (or Democratic) parties, and their distinctive organizations, almost disappeared. Mr. Monroe, who succeeded Mr. Madison, was elected President, for the term commencing March 4, 1817, by a majority of 109 out of 217 electoral votes. At his second election, for the term commencing March 4, 1821, his majority was 118 out of 235. This near approach to unanimity evinces almost an obliteration of party distinctions. Mr. Monroe’s personal popularity and the general confidence that was reposed in him had a considerable influence in producing what was called “the era of good feeling.” which prevailed while he administered the government. The Federalists, who had been strongest in the North and the East, were conciliated by his first Inaugural, while his strength was not weakened among the Republicans (or Democrats) of the South. In truth, it was not until the war was over and some of the animosities which it caused had begun to fade, that the attention of men began to be directed to questions of internal administration, which would involve an exploration of the Federal powers and a discussion of policies applicable to a state of peace.

When Mr. Buchanan entered Congress there was no sectionalism to disturb the repose of the country. The Cabinet was a fair representation of the different sections, its members being from Massachusetts, New York, Georgia, South Carolina, Ohio, and Maryland. It remained the same, with one exception only, until Mr. Monroe went out of office in 1824.[6] It is not easy to trace among the public men of this period any fixed political doctrines such as afterwards came to distinguish the opposing parties. All that can be said is, that in the Middle States those who had been Republicans had a strong tendency to the Virginia principles of State Rights; but what these were, beyond a general tendency to watch and prevent undue expansion of the Federal powers, it would be difficult now to say. In Congress, most of the Eastern representatives were Free Traders, while those of the Middle States were in favor of moderate protection. Among the Southern members there was a disposition to follow a liberal policy in the administration of the government, which was aided by the ability and ambition of Mr. Calhoun, the Secretary of War. But among the members, chiefly confined to the Southwestern States, there was a compact knot of men who were called “Radicals,” in the political nomenclature of that period. It is hard to define them, but their distinctive policy appears to have been a steady resistance to all expenditures of public money, and a persistently strict construction of the Constitution. Thus there cannot be said to have been any well-defined parties at this period, such as the country has since been accustomed to. But they began to be formed on the questions relating to finance and the development of the internal resources of the country, which arose during Mr. Monroe’s Presidency, and continued to a later period. Men who had been Federalists and men who had been Republicans, during the previous administrations, passed into the one or the other of the subsequent parties, which assumed new designations, without much real historical connection with the old parties that had preceded them.

The personal composition of the two Houses of Congress at this time presents many interesting names. In the Senate, Rufus King, who had been a Senator during Washington’s Administration, and Nathaniel Macon, who had been a Representative at the same time, gave a flavor of the formative period of the Republic. John Galliard and William Smith (of South Carolina) and James Brown (of Louisiana) were also among the older members. A somewhat younger class of men numbered among them Martin Van Buren, who succeeded General Jackson as President.

Mr. Buchanan always considered it one of the great advantages of his life that he had the benefit, at this early period, of the society of Mr. King and Mr. Macon, and he always spoke in the most grateful terms of their personal kindness to him. The members of the House of Representatives, with one exception, General Smith of Maryland, were younger men. They are spoken of in the following paper, which I find in Mr. Buchanan’s handwriting, and in which he has recorded his impressions of that beau-ideal of a statesman, William Lowndes, of South Carolina, by whose early death, in 1822, the country lost one of the ablest, most accomplished and purest men it has ever produced:[7]

“I entered the House of Representatives with George McDuffie and Joel R. Poinsett of South Carolina, Andrew Stevenson of Virginia, John Tod of Pennsylvania, John Nelson of Maryland, Reuben H. Walworth and Churchill C. Cambreleng of New York, and Benjamin Gorham of Massachusetts. They were all able and promising men, having already attained high distinction in their respective States.

“Among those who had served in former Congresses, Mr. William Lowndes of South Carolina was the foremost in ability and influence. Next to him stood Mr. Sergeant of Pennsylvania, Mr. McLane of Delaware, Mr. Philip P. Barbour of Virginia, Mr. Baldwin of Pennsylvania, Mr. Tracy of New York, and John Randolph of Roanoke. Neither Mr. Clay nor Mr. Webster was a member of Congress at this period. Mr. Lowndes did not take his seat until December 21st, nearly three weeks after the beginning of the session. In the meantime, the new members of the House awaited his arrival in Washington with much interest. He, with Mr. Calhoun and Mr. Cheves, had constituted what was termed the ‘Galaxy’ of young men whom South Carolina sent to the House to sustain the war of 1812 with Great Britain, and he ranked the first among them.

“Mr. Lowndes had been unanimously nominated in December, 1821, by the Legislature of South Carolina, as a candidate for the Presidency to succeed Mr. Monroe. To this he made no direct response. In a letter to a friend in Charleston, after stating that he had not taken and never would take a step to draw the public eye upon him for this high place, he uttered the memorable sentiment: ‘The Presidency of the United States is not, in my opinion, an office to be either solicited or declined.’ And such was the general conviction of his candor and sincerity that no man doubted this to be the genuine sentiment of his heart. Fortunate would it have been for the country had all future aspirants for this exalted station acted in accordance with this noble sentiment. At the time, as Mr. Benton truly observes, ‘he was strongly indicated for an early elevation to the Presidency—indicated by the public will and judgment, and not by any machinery of individual or party management, from the approach of which he shrank as from the touch of contamination.’[8]

“When Mr. Lowndes took his seat in the House, it was apparent to all that his frail and diseased frame betokened an early death, though he was then only in the forty-first year of his age. He was considerably above six feet in height, and was much stooped in person. There was nothing striking in his countenance to indicate great and varied intellectual powers. As a speaker he was persuasive and convincing. Though earnest and decided in the discussion of great questions, he never uttered a word which could give personal offence to his opponents or leave a sting behind. His eloquence partook of his own gentle and unpretending nature. His voice had become feeble and husky, and when he rose to speak, the members of the House, without distinction of party, clustered around him so that they might hear every word which fell from his lips. Towards his antagonists he was the fairest debater ever known in Congress. It was his custom to state their arguments so strongly and clearly that John Randolph, on one occasion, exclaimed: ‘He will never be able to answer himself.’ He possessed all the varied information necessary to the character of a great American statesman; and this, not merely in regard to general principles, but to minute practical details.

“On one occasion it became his duty, as Chairman of the Committee on Commerce, in the House, to present a history of the origin, progress and character of our trade with the East Indies. This he did with such fulness and precision that Mr. Silsbee, a well-informed and much-respected member of the House, and afterwards a Senator from Massachusetts, declared in his place, that although he had been engaged in that trade for many years, the gentleman from South Carolina had communicated to the House important information and shed new light on the subject which had never been known to him. On another occasion, two young members made a wager that Mr. Lowndes could not promptly state the process of manufacturing a common pin. On propounding the question to him, he at once stated the whole process in minute detail.

“Mr. Lowndes’ great influence,—for he was the undisputed leader in the House—arose in no small degree from the conviction of its members that he never had a sinister or selfish purpose in view, but always uttered the genuine sentiments of his heart. Mr. Lowndes had not the least jealousy in his nature. In his social intercourse with his fellow-members he was ever ready and willing to impart his stores of information on any subject, without feeling the least apprehension that these might be used to anticipate what he himself intended to say, or in debate against himself. His health continuing to decline, he resigned his seat in the House, and by the advice of his physicians, embarked in October, 1822, from Philadelphia in the ship Moss, with his wife and daughter, for London. He died on the passage, on the 27th of that month, and was buried at sea.

“His death was announced in the House of Representatives on the 21st of January, 1823, by Mr. James Hamilton, his successor. This was the first occasion on which such honors had been paid to the memory of any one not a member of the House at the time of his decease. Among the eulogies pronounced was one by John W. Taylor, of New York, who had been the Speaker of the House during the session immediately preceding. He had been an active and able opponent of Mr. Lowndes throughout the debates and proceedings on the Missouri question, which had for two years convulsed the House and the country, until its settlement at the close of the last session. Coming from a political antagonist, it so graphically presents the true character of Mr. Lowndes, that I am tempted to copy a portion of it. After referring to his death, as ‘the greatest misfortune which had befallen the Union’ since he had held a seat in its councils, he proceeds: ‘The highest and best hopes of this country looked to William Lowndes for their fulfillment. The most honorable office in the civilized world—the Chief Magistracy of this free people—would have been illustrated by his virtues and talents. During nine years’ service in this House, it was my happiness to be associated with him on many of its most important committees. He never failed to shed new light on all subjects to which he applied his vigorous and discriminating mind. His industry in discharging the arduous and responsible duties constantly assigned him, was persevering and efficient. To manners the most unassuming, to patriotism the most disinterested, to morals the most pure, to attainments of the first rank in literature and science, he added the virtues of decision and prudence, so happily combined, so harmoniously united, that we knew not which most to admire, the firmness with which he pursued his purpose or the gentleness with which he disarmed opposition. His arguments were made not to enjoy the triumph of victory, but to convince the judgment of his hearers; and when the success of his efforts was most signal, his humility was most conspicuous. You, Mr. Speaker, will remember his zeal in sustaining the cause of our country in the darkest days of the late war.’

“The whole House, with one accord, responded to the truthfulness of these sentiments so happily expressed by Mr. Taylor. And yet, strange to say, the published debates of Congress contain but a meagre and imperfect sketch, and offer no report at all of the speeches of this great and good man. His fame as a parliamentary speaker, like that of the great commoner, Charles James Fox, must mainly rest upon tradition now fast fading away. The editors of the National Intelligencer truly remark that, ‘of all the distinguished men who have passed periods of their lives in either House of Congress, there is certainly no one of anything like equal ability who has left fewer traces on the page of history or on the records of Congress than William Lowndes, the eminent Representative in Congress for several years of the State of South Carolina.’ The reason which they assign why so few of his eloquent speeches are to be found on record is attributable, in part, to his unfeigned diffidence, which placed less than their true value upon his own exertions, and in part to an objection which he had, on principle, to the practice of writing out speeches for publication, either before or after the delivery. Little or no reliance could be placed on the reporters of that day. The art even of shorthand writing was almost unknown in this country, and the published sketches prepared by the so-called reporters, were calculated to injure rather than to elevate the character of the speaker.

“How much has been lost to the country by the scruples of Mr. Lowndes may be imagined from the ‘little gem’ of a speech written out by him at the personal request of Mr. Silsbee, then a member of the House, on the bill for the relief of the family of Commodore Perry, but never published until more than twenty years after his death. It does not appear in the annals of 1821 that he made any speech on this occasion. It may be added, to show the incapacity of the reporters of that day, that there is no other mention of his speech against the bankrupt bill, commenced on February 21st, and concluded on March 5th, 1822, though listened to with rapt attention by the House, except that he did speak on these two days. From physical exhaustion he was unable to say all he had intended on this important subject. His name does not even appear in the index as a speaker on this bill.

“I have written much more than I should otherwise have done, to repair injustice done to the character of the ablest, purest, and most unselfish statesman of his day.”[9]

Of John Randolph and John Sergeant, Mr. Buchanan thus records his recollections:

John Randolph of Roanoke was the most conspicuous, though far from the most influential member of the House, when I first took my seat. He entered the House in 1799, and had continued there, with the exception of two terms, from that early period. His style of debate was in perfect contrast to that of Mr. Lowndes. He was severe and sarcastic, sparing neither friend nor foe, when the one or the other laid himself open to the shafts of his ridicule. He was a fine _belles-lettres_ scholar, and his classical allusions were abundant and happy. He had a shrill and penetrating voice, and could be heard distinctly in every portion of the House. He spoke with great deliberation, and often paused for an instant as if to select the most appropriate word. His manner was confident, proud, and imposing, and pointing, as he always did, his long forefinger at the object of attack, he gave peculiar emphasis to the severity of his language. He attracted a crowded gallery when it was known he would address the House, and always commanded the undivided attention of his whole audience, whether he spoke the words of wisdom, or, as he often did, of folly. For these reasons he was more feared than beloved, and his influence in the House bore no proportion to the brilliancy of his talents. He was powerful in pulling down an administration, but had no skill in building anything up. Hence he was almost always in the opposition, but was never what is called a business member. To me he was uniformly respectful, and sometimes complimentary in debate. I well remember Mr. Sergeant putting me on my guard against Mr. Randolph’s friendship.”

“Mr. Sergeant entered the House in December, 1815, and had continued to be a member since that day. As a lawyer, he stood in the front rank among the eminent members of the bar of Philadelphia, at a period when its members were greatly distinguished throughout the country for ability and learning. His personal character was above reproach. From his first appearance he maintained a high rank in the estimation of the House. As a debater, he was clear and logical, and never failed to impart information. His fault was that of almost every member of Congress who had become a member after a long and successful training at the bar. He was too exhaustive in his arguments, touching every point in the question before the House without discriminating between those which were vital and those which were subordinate. His manner was cold and didactic, and his prolixity sometimes fatigued the House. In his social intercourse with the members, he was cold but not repulsive. The high estimation in which he was held, arose from the just appreciation of his great abilities, and of his pure and spotless private character. There was nothing _ad captandum_ about him. He was regarded by his constituents in Philadelphia with pride and affection, who generally spoke of him as ‘our John Sergeant.’”

The first debate in which Mr. Buchanan took part related to a bill, introduced by General Smith of Maryland, making appropriations for the Military Establishment. This discussion, which took place on the 9th and 11th of January, 1822, was an excited one, from the inner motive of the opposition to the bill, which was aimed at the supposed aspirations of Mr. Calhoun, the Secretary of War. In reference to the Secretary Mr. Buchanan said: “I have no feeling of partiality for the Secretary of War, nor of prejudice against him. I view him merely as a public character, and, in that capacity, I conscientiously believe that he has done his duty.” After a sharp reply from Mr. Randolph, the bill was passed by a very large majority, the members of the so-called “Radical” party alone voting against it. There very soon occurred another debate which is of greater importance, since it marks the direction which Mr. Buchanan’s mind was beginning to take on the subject of Federal powers and State Rights. This was the occasion of the introduction of a Bankrupt bill.

Prior to this time, Congress had but once exercised the constitutional power “to establish uniform laws on the subject of bankruptcies throughout the United States.” This was in the Bankrupt law of 1800, which was repealed in 1804. Of the power of Congress to legislate on the subject of “bankruptcy” there can of course be no doubt, since it is expressly conferred. But there has always been a doubt respecting the true construction of the terms “bankruptcy” and “bankrupt.” Following the English system, the Act of 1800 rejected the idea that these terms include all “insolvents,” of all occupations, and confined the meaning to “traders,” or mercantile insolvents. Here, therefore, was one very serious question in interpretation to be encountered; for although the measure, of which some account is now to be given, contemplated, as it was first introduced, none but commercial insolvents, it finally turned upon an amendment which would have made it applicable to all classes of insolvent debtors. In either aspect, too, it brought into view the contrasted functions of the Federal and the State courts, in the enforcement and collection of private debts.

The close of the war, in 1815, was followed by extensive financial embarrassment among the commercial classes. The merchants of Philadelphia suffered severely during the five years which succeeded the peace, and it was by one of their Representatives, Mr. John Sergeant, that a bankrupt bill, retrospective as well as prospective in its operation, was introduced in the House, on the 11th of December, 1821. On the 22d of January, 1822, the debate was opened by Mr. Sergeant, as Chairman of the Judiciary Committee. His speech was exceedingly able, and even pathetic, for he spoke for a large class of ruined men. The discussion continued until the 12th of March, Mr. Sergeant standing almost alone in advocacy of the bill, in opposition to George Tucker and Philip P. Barbour of Virginia, and to Mr. Lowndes of South Carolina. The latter, although opposed to the bill, did not accord with the strict constructionists of Virginia. Thus far, the proposed measure included only commercial insolvents. But on the 12th of March, a member from Kentucky offered an amendment that included all insolvent debtors, which was adopted. This, of course, changed the aspect of the whole subject, and whether so intended or not, finally defeated the bill. Mr. Buchanan spoke in opposition to the bill on the day the amendment was adopted. He did not question the power of Congress to pass a bankrupt law. Nor did he contend that the “bankruptcy” referred to in the Constitution, necessarily included only commercial insolvents. But there is very perceptible in his speech on this occasion a tendency to that line of politics which he afterwards adopted and always adhered to, and which may be described as a forbearance from exercising Federal powers of acknowledged constitutional validity, in modes and upon occasions which may lead to an absorption of State jurisdictions. Thus he said: “The bill, as it stood before the amendment, went far enough. It would, even then, have brought the operation of the law and the jurisdiction of the Federal Courts into the bosom of every community. The bill as it now stands will entirely destroy the symmetry of our system, and make those courts the arbiters, in almost every case, of contracts to which any member of society who thinks proper to become a bankrupt may be a party. It will at once be, in a great degree, a judicial consolidation of the Union. This was never intended by the friends of the Constitution...... The jurisdiction of Federal Courts is now chiefly confined to controversies existing between the citizens of different States. This bill, if it should become a law, will amount to a judicial consolidation of the Union.”

Of the general tenor of this sweeping measure, Mr. Buchanan said:

“Let a bankrupt be presented to the view of society, who has become wealthy since his discharge, and who, after having ruined a number of his creditors, shields himself from the payment of his honest debts by his certificate, and what effects would such a spectacle be calculated to produce? Examples of this nature must at length demoralize any people. The contagion introduced by the laws of the country would, for that very reason, spread like a pestilence, until honesty, honor, and faith will at length be swept from the intercourse of society. Leave the agricultural interest pure and uncorrupted, and they will forever form the basis on which the Constitution and liberties of your country may safely repose. Do not, I beseech you, teach them to think lightly of the solemn obligation of contracts. No government on earth, however corrupt, has ever enacted a bankrupt law for farmers; it would be a perfect monster in this country, where our institutions depend altogether upon the virtue of the people. We have no constitutional power to pass the amendment proposed by the gentleman from Kentucky; and if we had, we never should do so, because such a provision would spread a moral taint through society which would corrupt it to its very core.”

The next important discussion in which Mr. Buchanan took part was on a bill relating to the Cumberland Road. Before he entered Congress, a national turnpike had been built by the Federal Government, extending from Cumberland in the State of Maryland to Wheeling in the State of Virginia. It crossed a narrow part of Maryland, passed through a corner of Pennsylvania, and touched but a small part of Virginia. The principal interest felt in this work was in the Western States. It encountered much opposition in Pennsylvania, where a turnpike road had been built, under State authority, from Philadelphia to Pittsburgh, which was kept in repair by tolls, and which paid a small dividend to its stockholders. A national road, supported by the Federal Government, and taking the travel from the Pennsylvania road was considered in that State as a grievance. Moreover, whenever the question of appropriating money for the continued support of this national road, or the alternative of imposing tolls, arose in Congress, the question of constitutional power to establish such means of communication necessarily arose at every stage of the legislation. That legislation is of interest now, inasmuch as the course taken by Mr. Buchanan illustrates the development of his opinions upon the constitutional question.

Of the last appropriation for continuing the Cumberland Road, there remained a balance in the Treasury of less than $10,000. In the General Appropriation Bill of this session (1822), provision was made for the repair of the road. A member from New Jersey moved to increase the amount. On this amendment there was an animated discussion, in which Mr. Buchanan appears to have considered that this public work was so beneficial to the general prosperity of the Union, that Congress might well appropriate the money needed for its support. “The truth is,” he said, “we are all so connected together by our interests, as to place us in a state of mutual dependence upon each other, and to make that which is for the interest of any one member of the Federal family beneficial, in most instances, to all the rest. We never can be divided without first being guilty of political suicide. The prosperity of all the States depends as much upon their Union, as human life depends upon that of the soul and body.” It is quite obvious that this kind of reasoning was, however true in the general, too broad and sweeping to justify the appropriation of money from the Federal Treasury for a public work which could claim no other than an incidental and remote relation to the prosperity of all the States. Every appropriation of money by Congress must rest upon some specific power of the Federal Constitution; and although Congress has a specific power “to regulate commerce among the several States,” and while it may be admitted that commerce includes intercourse, it has been from the first, and still is, a serious question whether this grant of the power of commercial regulation includes a power to establish and maintain the means by which commerce is carried on, and by which intercourse may be facilitated, unless such means fall within the designation of “post-roads,” and are established, primarily at least, for the transmission of mails. The appropriation proposed for the continued support of the Cumberland Road failed, and then came the question, in a separate bill, of imposing tolls for the support of the road. Mr. Buchanan voted for this bill, as did most of his colleagues from Pennsylvania, and it passed both Houses. But on the 4th of May (1822), the President, Mr. Monroe, returned the bill with a very long message, stating his objections to it. From this voluminous message, we may extract, although with some difficulty, two positions; first, that in Mr. Monroe’s opinion, Congress had no power to raise money by erecting toll-gates and collecting tolls, and that the States cannot individually grant such a power to Congress by their votes in Congress, or by any special compact with the United States; secondly, that Congress having an unlimited power to raise money by taxation general and uniform throughout the United States, its absolute discretion in the appropriation of the money so raised is restricted only by the duty of appropriating to the purposes of the common defence, and of general, not local, benefit. The first of these positions will be conceded by every one. The second admits of some doubt. Its soundness depends upon the true interpretation of the first of the enumerated powers of the Federal Constitution, that which contains the grant of the taxing power.[10] This is not the place to enter upon the discussion of controverted questions of constitutional interpretation. But all students of the Federal Constitution are aware that the grammatical construction of the clause to which Mr. Monroe referred, admits of, and has been claimed to admit of, two interpretations. Read by itself, and without reference to the other enumerated powers, this clause has been supposed by some persons to grant an unlimited power to tax for any purpose that in the judgment of Congress will promote the general welfare of the United States, provided only that the taxation is uniform. On the other hand, it has been contended that the clause is not a broad, independent, and specific power to tax for any object that will promote the general welfare of the United States, but that it is limited to the promotion of the general welfare through the exercise of some one or more of the other enumerated powers of the Constitution, each of which must receive its own scope from a just interpretation before the people of the United States can be taxed for the means of exercising that power. Viewed in the latter sense, the clause contains a grant of the power of taxation, general and universal in its nature, but limited as to its objects by the objects of each of the other enumerated powers. Viewed in the former sense, it becomes a separate and independent power to tax for any object that will promote the general welfare, without reference to the exercise of any of the specific powers of the Constitution which form the objects for which the Federal Government was created.

Mr. Monroe’s veto message on this occasion was sustained in the House by a vote of 68 to 72, and the bill consequently failed. The vote of the House, however, is to be considered as a concurrence in Mr. Monroe’s objection that Congress cannot establish toll-gates and collect tolls, and not as an affirmance of the general views which he expressed on the taxing power. But upon Mr. Buchanan this message produced a strong effect. It was the first time that his mind had been brought sharply to the consideration of the questions in what mode “Internal Improvements,” as they were called, can be effected by the General Government, and consequently he began to perceive the dividing line between the Federal and the State powers. Although he had voted for the bill imposing tolls upon the Cumberland Road, influenced probably by the desire to diminish its injurious competition with the Pennsylvania road, he took occasion at the next session to retract the error of which he had been convinced by Mr. Monroe’s message. When a bill was introduced at the next session, making an appropriation for the preservation and repair of the Cumberland Road, he moved as an amendment that the United States retrocede the road to the three States through which it passed, on condition that they would keep it in repair and collect no more tolls than such as would be necessary for that purpose. Being now convinced that Congress could not impose the tolls, he thought the only alternative was to cede the road to the States, since it could not be supported from the Federal Treasury without producing inequality and injustice. His amendment was rejected and the bill was passed.[11] A precedent was thus established for the support of the road by Congress. The subject will again recur in 1829 and 1836. In Mr. Buchanan’s speech in 1829 will be found the expression of his more matured constitutional views on the whole subject of Internal Improvements.[12]

The 17th Congress, which commenced its session in December, 1822, and terminated in March, 1823, witnessed a protracted discussion on the doctrine of “protection,” which extended into the 18th Congress. The tariff of 1823–4 was the second measure of that kind after the war. At that period the prevalent doctrine in the New England States was Anti-protectionist. The city of Boston was represented by Mr. Benjamin Gorham, a lawyer of remarkable ability, the immediate predecessor of Mr. Webster. His speech against the new tariff was replied to by Mr. Buchanan; and if the reply is a fair indication of the speech against which it was directed, Mr. Gorham’s language must have been vehement.[13] Mr. Buchanan said:

“The gentleman from Massachusetts has declared this bill to be an attempt, by one portion of the Union for its own peculiar advantage, to impose ruinous taxes on another. He has represented it as an effort to compel the agriculturists of the South to pay tribute to the manufacturers of the North; he has proclaimed it to be a tyrannical measure. He has gone further, and boldly declared that the people of the South should resist such a law, and that they ought to resist it. The gentlemen from Massachusetts and Georgia (Mr. Tattnall) have proclaimed it tyranny, and tyranny which ought to be resisted. I confess I never expected to hear inflammatory speeches of this kind within these walls which ought to be sacred to union; I never expected to hear the East counselling the South to resistance, that we might thus be deterred from prosecuting a measure of policy, urged upon us by the necessities of the country. It was by a combination between the cotton-growers of the South and the manufacturers of the North, that the introduction of coarse cottons from abroad has been in effect prohibited by the high rates of duties. It is ungenerous, then, for the South and the East to sound the tocsin of alarm and resistance when we wish indirectly to benefit the agriculturists and manufacturers of the Middle and Western States by the imposition of necessary duties. If I know myself, I am a politician neither of the East nor of the West, of the North nor of the South; I, therefore, shall forever avoid any expressions, the direct tendency of which must be to create sectional jealousies, sectional divisions, and, at length, disunion—that worst and last of all political calamities. I will never consent to adopt a general restrictive system, because the agricultural class of the community would then be left at the mercy of the manufacturers. The interest of the many would thus be sacrificed to promote the wealth of the few. The farmer, in addition to the premium which he would be compelled to pay the manufacturer, would have also to sustain the expenses of the Government. If this bill proposed a system which leads to such abuses, it should not receive my support. If I could, for a single moment, believe in the language of the gentleman from Georgia—that this bill would compel the agricultural to bow down before the manufacturing interest—I should consider myself a traitor to my country in giving it any support.”

In the subsequent Congress, Mr. Buchanan spoke twice on the subject of the tariff, namely, March 23d and April 9th, 1824. But the foregoing extract from his speech in February, 1823, is sufficient to show how moderate and just his views were on the subject of protection.

When Mr. Buchanan entered Congress in December, 1821, his professional income was the largest that he ever received. He had then been eight years at the bar, and his emoluments from his profession, which were less than $1,000 for the first year, had become more than $11,000 for the year 1821–2. They then fell off somewhat rapidly, and in the year 1828 they amounted to only a little more than $2,000.

Footnote 6:

Mr. Thompson, Secretary of the Navy, was appointed to the Bench of the Supreme Court in December, 1823, and Mr. Southard, of New Jersey, took his place.

Footnote 7:

These notes were written by Mr. Buchanan in 1867.

Footnote 8:

Benton’s Thirty Years in the Senate, Vol. I, p. 19.

Footnote 9:

In the debate on Chilton’s Resolutions, in 1825, Mr. Sergeant said:

“At the head of the Committee of Ways and Means in 1816, was one who could not be remembered without feelings of deep regret at the public loss occasioned by his early death. He possessed, in an uncommon degree, the confidence of this House, and he well deserved it. With so much accurate knowledge, and with powers which enabled him to delight and instruct the House, there was united so much gentleness and kindness, and such real, unaffected modesty, that you were prepared to be subdued before he exerted his commanding powers of argument. I mean William Lowndes of South Carolina.”—_Benton’s Debates_, Vol. IX, 730.

Footnote 10:

Art. I., § 8.—“To lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts, and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the common defence and general welfare of the United States; but all duties, imposts, and excises shall be uniform throughout the United States.”

Footnote 11:

February 21, 1823.

Footnote 12:

_Post._

Footnote 13:

Mr. Gorham’s speech has not been preserved.