Outlines of Universal History, Designed as a Text-book and for Private Reading

by George Park Fisher

PARTIES AFTER MONROE.—At the expiration of Monroe's second term, there being no choice for president by the people, John Quincy Adams, who had long been in public life in various important stations, was chosen by the House of Representatives. His supporters combined with the adherents of Henry Clay, who became secretary of state. This alliance was loudly denounced by their opponents as a "bargain." From the close of the last war with Great Britain, a party called by their adversaries "loose constructionists" of the Constitution, of which Clay was a leader,—a party who were in favor of measures like a protective tariff, a national bank, and internal improvements,—as the making of canals,—to be undertaken by Congress,—had been growing up. It now took the name of National Republicans, which was afterwards exchanged for that of Whigs. On the other side were the "strict constructionists," who, however, differed among themselves respecting certain measures,—for example, the tariff. In their ranks Andrew Jackson belonged. Of this political tendency, John C. Calhoun of South Carolina became a leading promoter. Andrew Jackson was a favorite candidate for the presidency, and the name of Democrats was applied to his followers.

PRESIDENCY OF JACKSON.—Jackson was elevated to the presidency in 1829. He was a fearless man, an ardent patriot, with a choleric temper and an imperious will. He carried to an unexampled extent a custom, which had begun with Jefferson, of supplanting office-holders of the opposite political party by supporters of the administration. This came to be called the "spoils system," from the maxim once quoted in defense of it, that "to the victors belong the spoils."

NULLIFICATION.—During Jackson's administration, there occurred the "nullification" crisis. In 1828 a new protective tariff had been passed, which was regarded in the South, especially in South Carolina, as extremely unjust and injurious. The New England States had been averse to protection; and in 1816 Daniel Webster opposed the tariff measure as specially hurtful to the Eastern States, whose capital was so largely invested in commerce. After the protective policy had been adopted, and when, under its shield, manufacturing had been extensively established in the North, the former adversaries of protection, with Webster, as well as Clay, who had been a protectionist before, thought it unfair and destructive to do away with the tariff. Its adversaries denounced it as unconstitutional. Calhoun and his followers, moreover, contended that nullification is legal and admissible; in other words, that a law of Congress may be set aside by a State within its own limits, provided it is considered by that State a gross infraction of the Constitution. There was a memorable debate on this subject in 1830, in the United States Senate, when the State-rights theory was advocated by Robert Y. Hayne of South Carolina, and the opposite doctrine defended by Webster. In 1832 South Carolina passed an ordinance declaring that the tariff laws of 1828 and 1832 were null and void, and not binding in that State. President Jackson issued a spirited proclamation in which the nullification doctrine was repudiated, and the opposite, or national, theory was affirmed, and the President's resolute intention to execute the laws of the United States was announced. The difficulty was ended by the compromise tariff introduced by Henry Clay, providing for the gradual reduction of duties (1833).

REMOVAL OF THE DEPOSITS.—The President was hostile to the National Bank, which he considered dangerous, as liable to be converted into a tool for partisan ends. Not being able to carry Congress with him, he assumed the responsibility, after his second election, of removing the deposits, or public funds, from its custody, or, rather, of an order for the cessation of these deposits. For this he was censured by the Senate, a majority of which regarded his act as arbitrary and unconstitutional.

ANTI-SLAVERY AGITATION.—From about this time, the agitation respecting slavery constantly increased. In the North a party arose, which, through lectures and in newspapers and pamphlets, denounced slavery as iniquitous, and called for immediate emancipation. The most prominent leader of this party was William Lloyd Garrison, and its most captivating orator was Wendell Phillips. This party advocated disunion, on account of the obligations imposed upon the North in reference to slavery by the Constitution. They were sometimes assailed by mobs in Northern cities. The major part of the people in the North desired some method of extinguishing slavery which should leave the Union intact. Meantime they were for obeying the Constitution, although the obligation to restore fugitive slaves was felt to be obnoxious, and there grew up a disposition to avoid compliance with it. The "colonizationists" diminished in number. There were various types and degrees of anti-slavery sentiment. The resolution to confine slavery, by political action, within the limits of the States where it was under the shield of local law, became more and more prevalent. In the South, on the contrary, the enmity to "abolitionism" was intense, and served to increase the popularity of the doctrine of State-rights. Slavery came to be defended as necessary under the circumstances, and as capable of justification on moral and Scriptural grounds. Occasions of reciprocal complaint between North and South, for illegal doings relating in one way or another to slavery, tended to multiply.

ANNEXATION OF TEXAS.—In 1836 Texas declared its independence of Mexico. General Sam Houston, an emigrant from Tennessee, was the leader in the revolt. He defeated the Mexicans under Santa Ana, at the San Jacinto (1836). In 1845, largely by the agency of Mr. Calhoun, Texas, by an Act of Congress, was annexed to the United States. The motive which he avowed was the fear that it might fall into the hands of England, and become dangerous to the institution of slavery in the South. The measure was strenuously opposed in the North as a scheme by which it was intended to strengthen the influence of the slaveholding States in Congress. It was favored, for the same reason, by those who were inimical to abolitionism in whatever form.

WAR WITH MEXICO.—A consequence of the acquisition of Texas was a war with Mexico. The successes of Gen. Zachary Taylor at Palo Alto and Monterey (1846), and at Buena Vista (1847), and the campaign of Gen. Winfield Scott, who captured Vera Cruz, fought his way through the pass of Cerro Gordo, and at length entered the city of Mexico (Sept. 14, 1847), compelled the Mexicans to agree to the Treaty of Guadaloupe Hidalgo (1848). By this treaty all claim on Texas to the Rio Grande was relinquished, together with the provinces of Upper California and New Mexico.

THE "WILMOT PROVISO."—The Wilmot Proviso was proposed in Congress, excluding slavery from all territory to be acquired from Mexico. This demand for the prevention of the further extension of slavery in the territories subject to national jurisdiction, became a rallying-cry. On the nomination of General Taylor to the presidency by the Whigs (1848), a "Free-Soil" party was organized on this basis,—the precursor of the Republican party. The convention which nominated Taylor laid on the table a motion approving of the Wilmot Proviso. The Whigs succeeded in the election, but their party lost a portion of its adherents.

CLAY'S COMPROMISE.—The application of California for admission to the Union, which, on account of the rapid growth of that community through the discovery of gold, was soon made, brought the sectional difficulty to another crisis. President Taylor died (July 9, 1850), and was succeeded by Millard Fillmore, the vice-president. The contest in Congress was soon after adjusted by Clay's compromise, by which California was admitted as a free State, Utah and New Mexico were organized into Territories without any mention of slavery, the slave-trade was prohibited in the District of Columbia, and a new fugitive-slave law was enacted, that was framed in such a way as to give great offense at the North. Webster, in a celebrated speech in favor of the compromise (March 7), gave as a reason for not insisting on the Wilmot Proviso, that the physical character of the new Territories of itself excluded slavery from them.

THE KANSAS TROUBLES.—In 1854, during the administration of Franklin Pierce, the standing sectional controversy reached a new phase. Two Territories, Kansas and Nebraska, were knocking at the doors of Congress for admission as States. Kansas lay west of Missouri, and, like Nebraska on the north, was protected from slavery by the Missouri Compromise (p. 601). But the Democrats carried through Congress a bill introduced by Mr. Douglas of Illinois, practically repealing that compromise, and leaving the matter of the toleration of slavery to be determined by the actual settlers as they might see fit. This measure was extensively regarded in the North as a breach of faith. Companies of emigrants were organized in the Northern States, to form permanent settlements in Kansas; and in order to prevent that country from becoming a free State, marauders from Missouri crossed the line, to attack them, and to harass the newly planted colonies.